/r\MO . \/ Petitioners : arment, Vall abh ‘ 7 Higher Education DeP through Secretary (at) State of M.P. LEihavan. 2) Commissioner Bhopal. of collegiate Education stapuaa Bhavan. Bhopal. (3) Princiyal Govt. Degree Sellege Pathalgaan.’ Jashpur Xagar. . (1) Shri Rajni Bhushan Mishra 40 years, Asstt. Profeessor Sarangarh; Distt. Raigarh M.P. (2} 'Ihe Madhya Pradesh Adminis g/o Shri Jagannath Mishra aged‘gbout Gbvt. Gollege Tribunal; Jabalpur (mm). trative 1 22 6/2 2 7 ci ‘IHE COn stitxrt ion " W w ,¢ ”M _ mu; gmw£bn , mama Ams. ‘ W £ 0? INDIA : g V. x x... F” XI-HC—22 m m wP..V4 111 zooo W W " - rm hu>\.\.u,m1 n imam.) XI-HC-22 .—— 3’ am m WW K ‘81 2000 9 ma ‘ mm mm ’ WWW %Q°IW mmmw a: am 311%?! mm 5. We have perused 1'he impugned order passed by The Tribunal. The Tribunal has held in fhe impugned order That The respondem No.1 herein quife apparently posses d The said qualification and Therefore, was‘quiTe clearly enTi ed To be considered for regular in Terms of The Rules 1986. The peTiTioners'herein have appoinTmenT clearly made a misTake in noT onsidering his ms? for regular in view The ificaTions required for TherposT as appoinTmenT keeping qu per The un-amended recruiTmenT les. When un-amended rules were in force, aT ThaT.Time The respon enT No.1 herein was eligible for regularizaTion as has been held b The learned Tribunal. Even if we Take The case oTherwise, even afTe amendmenT of The Rules, There is noThing on record, which shows aT The respondenT No.1-was noT g/i eligible for regularizaTion. 6. In view of above we do noT find any illegaliTy or infirmiTy in The xi impugned order. Therefore, we oral of The opinion ThaT This peTiTion has no force and The same is liable To be dismissed. Accordingly, The viz, is dismissed. peTiTion Sd/~ L..C.BHADOO Ml I l ‘ Judge Sdl- ' ‘,f/ JKK Chief Justice . ”x ‘ \ ‘ ' [new s9