Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri G.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and Sri B.C. Nayak, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 17. The respondent Nos. 8 to 16 were issued notice. Considering the service report dated 14.11.2007 and 16.10.2009, service on the respondents is deemed sufficient. They have not put in appearance nor are represented by any counsel.

2. The short question involved in this case is whether petitioner was entitled to be considered for regularisation in preference to respondent Nos. 8 to 17 in view of the provisions contained in U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2001”) which came into force on 21.12.2001; as directed by the Apex Court in State of U.P. and others v. Putti Lal, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595.

3. The petitioner was denied regularisation on the ground that he did not work continuously from 1991 till 2001 hence cannot be considered for regularisation. It was challenged by petitioner in Writ Petition No. 46429 of 2004. vide judgment dated 7.9.2005 this Court held, since the pe