By the Court.—Heard Sri P.N. Saxena. Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Avanish Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners-appellants, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri K.M. Asthana, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and perused the record.

This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.9.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48395 of 2012, Tulsi Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and another.

2. Learned Single Judge under the impugned order has recorded that the petitioner-appellants were offered appointment on the post of drivers in the year 1999 with reference to advertisement which mentions that the appointment to be offered was temporary in nature. The said aspect of the matter is not in dispute. Learned Single Judge has found that the initial appointment of the petitioner-appellants was for a period of 89 days and was to meet the contingency due to permanent drivers having gone on strike. Their appointment was extended from time to time. They filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5067 of 2008 challenging the advertisement, which was published by the Nagar Nigam for making permanent appointment against the existing vacancies of drivers. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioners vide order dated 18th August, 2010. The claim of the petitioners came to be considered under the order dated 1st April, 2011 of the Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas. In the order dated 28th April, 2011 of the Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar, the petitioner-appellants have not been found entitled for regular appointment or for regularization on the posts in question.

3. The order of the learned Single Judge reflects that the orders dated 1st April, 2011 and 28th April, 2011 were not subject to challenge by the petitioners, instead they filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43464 of 2012 making a prayer to consider the recommendation dated 8th May, 2009 and to regularize their services. The third prayer made in the petition was to make payment of the salary to the petitioners on month to month basis as and when it falls due. Before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that he would not like to press prayer Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the prayer for regularization and for consideration of the recommendation dated 8th May, 2009 and to that extent the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed.

4. So far as the prayer for payment of the salary to the petitioner-appellants is concerned, the Court directed the petitioners to approach the competent authorities.

5. The petitioners filed third Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48395 of 2012, wherein for the first time, they challenged the orders dated 1st April, 2011 and 28th April, 2011.

6. Learned Single Judge after considering the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1, as well as the judgement in the case of State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, 2010-LAWS (SC)-8-29, has recorded a categorical finding of fact that since the petitioners were appointed temporarily for a period of 89 days at the first instance, in 1999, their claim for regularization cannot be considered in view of the said judgements.

7. The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka (supra) after considering the judgement in the case of Uma Devi (supra) has directed that one time exercise for regularization can be undertaken for employees, who have completed ten years of service on the date of the judgement of the Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case i.e. 10.4.2006. Learned Single Judge has, therefore, held that since the petitioner-appellants had not completed 10 years of service as on 10.4.2006, there cannot be any consideration of regularization of their services. The Court has found no error in the order dated 1st April, 2011 of the Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas and