ORDER

1. THE CHALLENGE IN THIS APPEAL IS TO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT WHEREBY THE APPELLANT CORPORATION WAS H DIRECTED, HAVING REGARD TO THE FINANCIAL SOUNDNESS AND LENGTH OF SERVICE OF THE EMPLOYEES, TO REGULARISE 1/6TH OF THE REMAINING NOMINAL MUSTER ROLL EMPLOYEES WHOSE NAMES WERE PLACED ON THE LIST MADE IN TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE CORPORATION, IN THE CYCLE OF NINE MONTHS. THE HIGH COURT FURTHER DIRECTED THAT WHILE REGULARISING, THE LENGTH OF SERVICE OF THE EMPLOYEES UNDER THE APPELLANT CORPORATION SHALL BE TAKEN AS A GUIDING FACTOR, THAT IS, THOSE WHO JOINED EARLIER SHALL BE REGULARISED EARLIER. THE FIRST REGULARISATION, IT WAS DIRECTED, SHALL TAKE PLACE BY 31-3-1993 AND SECOND AFTER A GAP OF NINE MONTHS AND SO ON TILL THE REMAINING WRIT PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT ARE REGULARISED.

2. IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL, MR S.B. SANYAL, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SOUGHT TO PUT FORTH THE PLEA OF BACKDOOR ENTRY, NON-EXISTENCE OF VACANCY OR BAN ON CREATION OF THE POSTS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA IN THE YEAR 2001. THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO PUT FORTH ANY OF THESE PLEAS. NO PLEA WAS RAISED B