11th February, 2025 (D/L No.130) Ct. No.4 (SKB) W.P.C.T. 111 of 2013 Ranjan Das and others Versus Union of India and others Sk. Mujibar Rahman, Mr. Shayak Mitra ….for the petitioners. Mr. Bhudeb Chatterjee … for the respondents. 1. When the matter was taken up last, the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a grievance that the advertisement dated 28.04.2012 was having some terms and conditions which were unsustainable. We, however, have noticed from the records that no specific terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 28.04.2012 have been assailed by the applicants/petitioners before the State Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’). 2. In fact, upon going through the prayers made by the petitioners before the Tribunal in O.A.728 of 2012, we noticed that all the prayers i.e. (a) to (e) are prayers claiming the relief of regularization, which plea of the present applicants/petitioners was earlier rejected by the Tribunal in O.A.1131 of 2004; and such rejection affirmed in the W.P.C.T.148 of 2012. 2 3. Since rejection of the claim for regularization raised in the present proceedings stood rejected by the Tribunal on the petitioners’ earlier Original Application and such rejection was affirmed by this court by dismissing the W.P.C.T.148 of 2012, the Tribunal has refused to entertain the plea of regularization again. 4. We find that the order of the Tribunal thus requires no interference. If at all the petitioners were aggrieved by any terms and conditions contained in the advertisement dated 28.04.2012, they were required to assail such terms and conditions in appropriate proceedings, which they have not done. The leave for regularization has, thus, rightly been rejected by the Tribunal, by its order dated 09.10.2012 passed in O.A. No.728 of 2012 and the same requires no interference. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)