CMP(T) No. 7 of 2013 in CWP(T) No.14380 of 2008 7.3.2013 Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Addl. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 3. CMP(T) No. 7 of 2013 This is an application for passing an appropriate order. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that in COPC No.329 of 2011 in CWP(T) No.6702/2008, Dharam Pal vs. Shri Kant Baldi an interim order has been passed on 1.12.2011 which reads as follows:- “There shall be no relaxation in the case of any person either for employment or for promotion or for regularization either in terms of the age or in terms of the qualification or in terms of the eligibility until further orders”. 2. It has been submitted by learned Addl. Advocate General that judgment dated 23.8.2011 in CWP(T) No.14380 of 2008 could not be implemented in view of aforesaid interim order dated 1.12.2011. There is nothing on record to show what further order has been passed in COPC No.329 of 2011 in CWP(T) No.6702/2008 after 1.12.2011. This Court on 23.8.2011 has passed the specific order as under:- “As per Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Class- IV employees, a copy of which is available on record as Annexure R-4, minimum educational qualification for a regular class-IV employee is primary pass. These Rules have been in force since 1997 or say much before the regularization of the services of some of daily waged workers, juniors to the petitioner. Since the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite educational qualification, she cannot claim regularization as a mater of right. However, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.1 to 3, to consider petitioner’s request for regularization by relaxing the condition regarding educational qualification.” 3. The Court has directed the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the request of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the order dated 23.8.2011. In view of specific directions in the judgment dated 23.8.2011, the respondents No.1 to 3 are bound to implement the judgment dated 23.8.2011. It is not the case of the respondents No.1 to 3 that the judgment dated 23.8.2011 in any way has been modified in appeal. There is no merit in the application, hence dismissed. March 7, 2013 ( Kuldip Singh ), (sks) Judge.