JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. According to the petitioners, it was due to inaction on part of respondent-Corporation that they were not given appointment as Conductors (contract) from the waiting panel alongwith other incumbents at the relevant time. It was only after a writ petition preferred by them was allowed that the respondent- Corporation offered appointment to the petitioners. The petitioners now seek regularization from the date the other similarly situated incumbents were regularized. In essence, the petitioners have prayed for giving them deemed contractual appointment from the date given to the other similarly situated incumbents and consequent regularization of their service at par with these counterparts. 2. The Case Following facts are not in dispute:- 2(i) On 28.12.2019, an advertisement was issued by the erstwhile H.P. Staff Selection Commission (HPSSC) inviting applications for filling up 568 posts of Conductors in the respondent- Transport Corporation with post code-762. The last date for submission of application form was 31.01.2020. 2(ii) Petitioners alongwith others applied for the post of Conductors and participated in the selection process. The selection process comprised of written test (Part I) and evaluation of documents (Part II). 2(iii) On 30.09.2021, HPSSC issued a notification declaring final result for 565 posts of Conductors (contract). While issuing final result, HPSSC also declared the waiting panel. Names of the petitioners figured in the waiting panel. Out of total 565 recommended candidates, 47 did not join their duties/pre-service training. A further notification was issued by HPSSC on 11.03.2022 (Annexure P-2) recommending names of next 47 candidates from the waiting panel for appointment to the posts of Conductors. Names of petitioners were not recommended in the list of 47 candidates as they figured below 47 candidates in the waiting panel. 39 out of 47 recommended candidates joined their duties/ pre- service training, 08 candidates did not join. On 28.05.2022, HPSSC issued a notification recommending the names of next 08 candidates from the waiting panel for appointment as Conductors (contract). Names of petitioners being lower in rank in the waiting list panel were not recommended. 2(iv) In March, 2022 petitioner No.5 sought information from the respondent under the Right to Information Act (RTI) as to: (i) how many candidates had joined pursuant to the recommendations made by HPSSC on 18.11.2021; (ii) how many Conductors out of 565 appointed candidates left the job after joining; and iii) vacancies of Conductors existing as on date. 2(iv) In March, 2022 petitioner No.5 sought information from the respondent under the Right to Information Act (RTI) as to: (i) how many candidates had joined pursuant to the recommendations made by HPSSC on 18.11.2021; (ii) how many Conductors out of 565 appointed candidates left the job after joining; and iii) vacancies of Conductors existing as on date. Vide Annexure P-3 dated 10.03.2022 respondents supplied the information that out of total candidates recommended on 18.11.2021, 47 candidates did not join their duties; 32 candidates left the job after joining and there were total 439 posts of Conductors lying vacant as on date of supply of the information under the RTI Act i.e. on 10.03.2022. 2(v) HPSSC did not resort to filling up 32 vacant posts of Conductors from waiting panel, instead on 08.07.2022 the respondent-Corporation requested HPSSC to initiate fresh process for filling up 360 vacant posts of Conductors including 32 posts which had remained vacant due to non-joining of selected/recommended candidates on contract basis. Accordingly, on 24.09.2022, HPSSC issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up various posts in different departments including 360 posts of Conductors (contract) in respondent-corporation. 2(vi) At this stage, Laxmi Dutt and others versus H.R.T.C and another, CWP No.7103 of 2022 decided on 03.04.2024 was instituted. Some of the present petitioners were petitioners in Laxmi Dutt (supra). The writ petition was with the prayer for directing the respondent-Corporation to offer appointment to the petitioners against 32 vacant posts of Conductors on the ground that names of petitioners figured in the waiting panel and therefore, vacant posts were required to be filled from the waiting panel during its subsistence. The respondent- Corporation took up the stand that 32 vacant posts could not be filled up from the waiting panel as 32 candidates appointed against these posts had left the job after joining the service but during training. The contentions of respondent-Corporation did not find favour with by the Court in Laxmi Dutt, [CWP No.7103 of 2022 decided on 03.04.2024]. It was held that no appointment letter had been issued by the respondent-Corporation to 32 candidates as Conductor (contract). The factual finding was returned that 32 posts had remained vacant for the reason that incumbents had left the job during mandatory pre-service training, therefore, they cannot be said to have joined the posts. It was held that no appointment letter had been issued by the respondent-Corporation to 32 candidates as Conductor (contract). The factual finding was returned that 32 posts had remained vacant for the reason that incumbents had left the job during mandatory pre-service training, therefore, they cannot be said to have joined the posts. The writ petition was allowed and respondents were directed to consider the candidature of petitioners against 32 posts and in case they found place & then to issue appropriate order to enable them to join mandatory job training. Portion relevant to the contest from the judgment is as under:- “10. It is quite apparent from the perusal of aforesaid appointment letter that appointment letter against the post of Conductor could only be issued after completion of 15 days mandatory job training. If it is so, respondent/ Corporation is not justified in claiming that 32 candidates left their job after being appointed against the post in question. 32 persons could be said to have joined against the post in question, had they been offered appointment letter, which otherwise could not be issued without their having completed 15 days mandatory job training. Since 32 candidates failed to complete 15 days mandatory job training, they were not given any appointment letter. If it is so, it cannot be said that 32 candidates left job after being selected, as is being claimed by the respondent/ Corporation. Since, 32 candidates failed to complete job training and at no point of time appointment letters were issued in their favour, 32 posts, which remained unfilled ought to have been filled among st the candidates figuring in waiting panel. At this stage, Mr. Vikas Rajput, learned counsel representing respondent/ Corporation submitted that at present 32 posts, as detailed herein above, stand filled up and as such relief as prayed for otherwise cannot be granted. No doubt, the material placed on record reveals that respondent/ commission subsequently initiated fresh recruitment process vide advertisement dated 24.09.2022 (Annexure P12), thereby inviting appointment for 360 posts of Conductor and in the same advertisement 32 posts, which remained unfilled, were also included, but before aforesaid recruitment process could be taken to its logical end, petitioners approached this Court in the instant proceedings. It is not in dispute that as of today fresh recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 24.09.2022 has not been taken to its logical end, rather appointment letters, if any, are yet to be issued. Moreover, this Court finds from the reply filed by the respondent/ Corporation that information dated 10.03.2021 supplied under Right to Information Act by Divisional Commissioner A& E, Himachal Pradesh Road and Transport Corporation, Shimla clearly reveals that 439 posts of Conductor were lying vacant, meaning thereby, if 360 posts advertised vide subsequent advertisement dated 24.09.2022 are excluded, even then 79 posts are lying vacant. Since, petitioners had legitimate expectations to be appointed against the 32 posts, which remained unfilled in different categories, coupled with the fact that all the petitioners were in waiting panel, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for issuing direction to respondents to consider them for appointment against the unfilled seats deserves to be considered. Needless to say, candidate figuring in waiting list has a right to be considered against the post, which remained unfilled on account of non-joining of selected candidate. Since, in the case at hand, 32 candidates failed to join on account of their having not completed pre- service training, respondent Staff Selection Commission ought to have recommended the names of the candidates from the waiting panel for being appointed against 32 unfilled seats in different categories. Though, this Court is conscious and fully alive to the fact that waiting panel drawn pursuant to selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 28.12.2019 has lost its efficacy, but same time it cannot be ignored that despite there being availability of 32 vacancies respondent/corporation failed to take steps for filling up the same from candidates figuring in waiting panel. Moreover, there is another aspect of the matter, action of respondent/corporation in initiating fresh recruitment process during the subsistence of earlier selected panel, which was notified on 30.09.2021 and was to expire on 30.09.2022, is bad in law. By no means, fresh selection process to fill up the unfilled 32 posts could have been initiated by respondent/Corporation before expiry of waiting panel. 12. Consequently, in view of above, this Court finds merit in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. By no means, fresh selection process to fill up the unfilled 32 posts could have been initiated by respondent/Corporation before expiry of waiting panel. 12. Consequently, in view of above, this Court finds merit in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners against 32 unfilled posts in different categories and in case they are able to find out place, appropriate orders may be passed forthwith, enabling them to join mandatory job training of 15 days.” In view of directions issued in Laxmi Dutt (supra) respondent- Corporation offered appointment to the present petitioners as Conductor (contract) on 18.09.2024. The petitioners are continuing to serve as Conductors (contract). 2(vii) Present grievance. With the grievance that petitioners are entitled to be treated at par alongwith 47 Conductors who were appointed by the respondent-Corporation from the waiting list panel, the petitioners preferred representation to the respondent-Corporation on 12.12.2024 (Annexure P-8). Getting no response from the respondent, petitioners instituted this writ petition on 09.01.2025 for following substantive relief:- “i) That the respondent-Corporation may kindly be directed to regularize the contractual services of the petitioners as Conductors alongwith the similarly situated 47 incumbents, those who were offered appointments as such from the waiting panel and are going to be regularized as per policy, in near future in the month of March, 2025.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Consideration. 4(i) The facts noticed above are not in dispute. It is an admitted position that names of petitioners were not recommended for their appointment as Conductors (contract) alongwith 47 candidates whose names were recommended from the waiting panel on 11.03.2022. It is a fact born out from the record particularly Annexure P-3 dated 10.03.2022 – the information supplied to the petitioners by the respondent under the Right to Information Act that 32 posts were lying vacant with the respondent as 32 candidates appointed against the posts had left the job during mandatory pre- service training. Relevant portion of the information reads as under:- “To The Public Information Officer, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla-171003. Dated Shimla-171003, the 10.03.2022 Sub:- Application under Right to Information Act, 2005. Sir, Reference to your letter No. HP:PIO/RTI-2022 File No.- 9058 dated 08.03.2022 on the subject cited above. In this context the requisite information is as under:- Sr. Relevant portion of the information reads as under:- “To The Public Information Officer, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla-171003. Dated Shimla-171003, the 10.03.2022 Sub:- Application under Right to Information Act, 2005. Sir, Reference to your letter No. HP:PIO/RTI-2022 File No.- 9058 dated 08.03.2022 on the subject cited above. In this context the requisite information is as under:- Sr. No. Information Asked Reply 1 Recruitment of 565 conductors, How many conductors have not joined as conductors till date? 47 candidates have not joined 2 How many conductors out of 565 left the job after joining till date? 32 candidates left the job after joining 3 Total existing vacancy of conductors all over H.P. including 565 + other vacancies till date? 439 posts of conductors are lying vacant The applicant may kindly be informed accordingly. Encls: As above (M.K. Sharma) Divisional Manager * A&L) Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla-3” Thus 32 posts of Conductors(contract) were available with the respondent simultaneously alongwith 47 posts which were also available on account of non-joining of 47 candidates. Respondent-Corporation took action only for filling up those 47 posts where the candidates had not joined. No steps were taken by the respondent-Corporation for filling up 32 posts where the candidates had left the job during pre-service training. Had these 32 posts been filled up by the respondents from the subsisting waiting panel at the relevant time alongwith the other 47 posts, the petitioners would have been sailing in the same boat occupied by 47 candidates. Since respondent did not discharge its duties in accordance with law, the petitioners were compelled to prefer Laxmi Dutt (supra) in the year 2022. It is pursuant to the directions issued in the said case that petitioners were offered appointment as Conductors (contract) on 18.09.2024. Within three months of joining as Conductors (contract), petitioners preferred a representation to respondent seeking parity in matter of regularization vis-a-vis 47 Conductors whose names were recommended for appointment as Conductor (contract) on 11.03.2022. 4(ii) Significantly, as noticed earlier, out of 47 candidates recommended from the waiting panel on 11.03.2022, 08 had again not joined their duties. HPSSC had recommended names of next 08 candidates from the waiting panel on 28.05.2022. During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record an order dated 11.04.2025 whereby the respondent-Corporation regularized the contractual services of Conductors (contract) who had completed two years of contract service on 31.03.2025. HPSSC had recommended names of next 08 candidates from the waiting panel on 28.05.2022. During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record an order dated 11.04.2025 whereby the respondent-Corporation regularized the contractual services of Conductors (contract) who had completed two years of contract service on 31.03.2025. It is not in dispute that in this office letter, those 08 candidates also figure whose names were otherwise recommended from the waiting panel on 28.05.2022 alongwith 47 recommended on 11.03.2022. Contractual services of these 47 candidates were regularized under a common order dated 11.03.2025. Petitioners are also similarly situated vis-a-vis aforesaid 47 candidates. 4(iii). Facts of the instant case clearly point out that delay in appointment of the petitioners as Conductors (contract) was not attributable to them but caused due to inaction of the respondent in not recommending petitioners’ names alongwith 47 candidates whose names were recommended for appointment as Conductor (contract) on 11.03.2022 or alongwith 08 candidates where names were recommended on 28.05.2022. As it turned out 32 vacancies were available (in addition to & alongwith 47 vacancies at the same time). Petitioners were appointed against 32 vacancies only after directions were issued by the Court in Laxmi Dutt (supra). They are therefore entitled to regularization of their service w.e.f. the date the other 47 candidates were regularized in service. They are to be deemed to be notionally appointed from the date aforesaid 47 candidates were so appointed. 4(iv) Sanjay Dhar versus J&K Public Service Commission & another, (2000) 8 SCC 182 , holds when a candidate is deprived of appointment from due date, he deserves to be assigned at least notionally a place in seniority in consonance with the order of merit. Relevant paras from the decision are as under:- “14. ............As the appellant participated in the process of selection protected by the interim orders of the High Court and was also successful having secured third position in the select list, he could not have been denied appointment. The appellant is, therefore, fully entitled to the relief of his appointment being calculated w.e.f. the same date from which the candidates finding their place in the order of appointments issued pursuant to the select list prepared by the J&K PSC for 1992-93 were appointed and deserves to be assigned notionally a place in seniority consistently with the order of merit assigned by the J&K PSC. 16. 16. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be deemed to have been appointed along with other appointees under the appointment order dated 6- 3-1995 and assigned a place of seniority consistently with his placement in the order of the merit in the select list prepared by J&K PSC and later forwarded to the Law Department. During the course of hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellant made a statement at the Bar that the appellant was interested only in having his seniority reckoned notionally in terms of this order and was not claiming any monetary benefit by way of emoluments for the period for which he would have served in case he would have been appointed by order dated 6-3- 1995. We record that statement and direct that the appellant shall be entitled only to the benefit of notional seniority (and not monetary benefits) being given to him by implementing this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The contesting respondents shall pay the appellant costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.” In Balak Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh, Latest HLJ 2014(HP) Suppl. 231, it was held on facts that petitioner’s selection got delayed on account of arbitrariness of the interview Board and not due to any fault of the petitioner, therefore, he was entitled to be treated at part with the candidates who were selected in the same selection process under the same recruitment notice. Similar is the ratio of Chaman Lal versus The Secretary, HPPSC & another, CWP No.439 of 2022, decided on 2.5.2025, wherein the petitioner, who got appointed pursuant to directions issued in a writ petition, was held entitled to seniority on notional basis from due date:- “9. Similar is the ratio of Chaman Lal versus The Secretary, HPPSC & another, CWP No.439 of 2022, decided on 2.5.2025, wherein the petitioner, who got appointed pursuant to directions issued in a writ petition, was held entitled to seniority on notional basis from due date:- “9. Though learned counsel for the respondents attempted to argue that since petitioner herein came to be held entitled for appointment against the post in question after passing of judgment dated 15.3.2021, he cannot claim appointment from the back date but this court is not persuaded to agree with afore submission of learned counsel for the respondents for the reason that though petitioner was fully eligible to be given appointment against the post advertised in the year 2016, but yet for unjustifiable reasons and on account of omission on the part of the respondent- Commission, he was not given appointment in the year 2018. Had respondent-Commission considered the document furnished by the petitioner pursuant to communication dated 31.3.2018, he would have been selected in the year 2018 alongwith other eligible candidates, but on account of aforesaid omission on the part of the respondent-Commission, petitioner was compelled to approach this court by way of CWPOA No. 61 of 2019, which ultimately came to be decided vide judgment dated 15.3.2021. Coordinate Bench of this Court having found inaction on the part of the respondent commission not only directed the respondents to consider the documents furnished by the petitioner, but also gave specific direction to appoint him against vacant post under OBC category. Careful perusal of afore judgment dated 15.3.2021, clearly suggests that at the relevant time, Court was fully convinced and satisfied that petitioner was fully eligible to be considered against the post advertised in the year 2016. If it is so, petitioner is entitled to be given seniority from the date other similarly situate persons were given seniority. 10. Careful perusal of afore judgment dated 15.3.2021, clearly suggests that at the relevant time, Court was fully convinced and satisfied that petitioner was fully eligible to be considered against the post advertised in the year 2016. If it is so, petitioner is entitled to be given seniority from the date other similarly situate persons were given seniority. 10. True it is that petitioner cannot be held entitled to monetary benefits for period he did not work, but since there was no fault, if any, of the petitioner and he was wrongly denied appointment in the year 2018, he is very much entitled to seniority on notional basis from that date.” As against above legal position, an argument has been advanced for the respondent-Corporation that petitioners’ claim suffers from delay and that they have not completed probation period, hence, their services cannot be regularized at par with other incumbents. These are arguments of desperation, which are otherwise not even pleaded in the reply. Firstly on facts there has been no delay on part of petitioners in seeking the relief. They were appointed pursuant to directions issued in Laxmi Dutt (supra). Soon thereafter they represented to the respondents for treating them at par with the other incumbents. Failing to get response, petitioners were constrained to institute this writ petition. Further the appointment order of the petitioners does not spell out any probation period service. All it says is about 15 days pre-service training. Here it would also be appropriate to extract following paras from Sagar Sontakke and others versus Union of India and others, CWP No. 11873 of 2021, decided by Bombay High Court on 17.02.2025 :- 21. With respect, according to us, judgment of the division bench of Delhi and Haryana High Court in the matter of Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sh. Ramesh Benniwal (supra), authored by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (as his Lordship then was) meticulously culls down the principles by referring to several earlier decisions, some of which have been cited before us. The following observations encapsulates the whole gamut of the dispute in hand : “16. The appointment of the respondent/applicants took place 7 years after the examination was conducted. Their juniors were naturally eligible for promotion having completed the requisite qualifying period. However they- for no fault of their own-were retained in the same grade as a consequence of their late appointment. The appointment of the respondent/applicants took place 7 years after the examination was conducted. Their juniors were naturally eligible for promotion having completed the requisite qualifying period. However they- for no fault of their own-were retained in the same grade as a consequence of their late appointment. The right of equality before law spelt out by Article 14 of the Constitution of India dictates that all individuals must be treated equally before law. If the respondents are denied promotion on the ground that they are still serving their probation period as a consequence of their appointment in 2009, the same cannot be said to be fair treatment of all the employees by the petitioners. In the present case, the rule requiring fulfillment of qualifying service is not an immutable condition, incapable of being relieved. The Office Memoranda quoted by the Tribunal, and extracts reproduced above, disclose that promotions can given to seniors whose claims are unjustly ignored, to start with. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity with the direction to grant promotion to the applicant/ respondents. Point No (b). 19. The Supreme Court has deliberated upon the said FR and its implications in circumstances where an employee was kept away from working in a particular position in these terms in Union of India v. K.V. Janki Raman AIR 1991 SC 2010 : "We are not much impressed by the contention advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of 'no work no pay is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept (away) by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases." 23. The respondents have spent a majority of the 12 years waiting on results and the procedure of being appointed to Grade II (DASS), and have been endlessly litigating the issue. Instead of pursuing their employment and working for a livelihood in earnest, the respondents who were at the threshold of starting a new life are stuck in the middle still litigating for a promotion, when they have merely followed the instruction of the petitioners. The GNCTD cannot disregard the suffering endured by the respondents. Instead of pursuing their employment and working for a livelihood in earnest, the respondents who were at the threshold of starting a new life are stuck in the middle still litigating for a promotion, when they have merely followed the instruction of the petitioners. The GNCTD cannot disregard the suffering endured by the respondents. A perusal of matters surrounding disputes against the petitioners have unearthed a similar matter decided by this court in The Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Kuldeep Singh & Anr. [W/P. (C) No. 8910 of 2009 decided on 24.11.2011]. The stark delays in the processing of the application of the respondent by the same petitioners in the present writ has been evidently highlighted therein. This court held; "8. In this background, admittedly, the delay in offering the appointment to the respondent no. 1 rests squarely on the petitioner’s organization and the respondent no. 1 herein cannot be faulted for the same. In fact the appointment letter would not have been issued but for the fact that the respondent no.1 approached the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of a petition under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 resulting in the pronouncement dated 2 nd April, 2009. 15. Given the facts and circumstances noticed above, interests of justice merit that the respondent in any case would be entitled to the consequential financial benefits. 17. The respondent no.1 has been given due seniority. It is accordingly directed that the respondent no.1 would be entitled to increment from the same date w.e.f. 1 st April, 2009. In case the respondent no.1 is entitled to any other financial benefits as a result of this increment, the petitioner shall compute the same and effectuate the same as well." [emphasis added] 26. The delay in appointment and the consequential denial of benefits is the direct corollary of the inaction of the petitioners; consequently, they cannot take advantage of their own delays in declaring results and issuing appointment letters to deny promotion to the respondents. The Supreme Court has observed in this regard in the matter of Baij Nath Sharma vs. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, 1988 SCC (L&S) 1754. "But here the appellant has been deprived of his promotion without any fault of his. The Supreme Court has observed in this regard in the matter of Baij Nath Sharma vs. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, 1988 SCC (L&S) 1754. "But here the appellant has been deprived of his promotion without any fault of his. High Court said that it might be sad state of affairs that the name of the appellant was not considered for promotion till he retired. High Court may feel anguish but it gives no comfort to the appellant. At least for future such an unfortunate thing should not happen to any other officer similarly situated. This malaise which abysmally afflicts any service when there is recruitment from different sources when there is recruitment from different sources crops up in the one form or the other with great disadvantage of one or the other. But then service is not constituted merely for the benefit of the officers in the service but with a certain purpose in view and in the present case for dispensing justice to the public at large." [emphasis added] 27. The circumstances surrounding the present matter reflect a casual and indifferent attitude on part of the petitioners, which borders on being callous. The respondents have had to, in the interregnum, not only go through the ignominy of working under their juniors, but also, despite admittedly being senior to them, still continue to draw lesser pay. In the economic scenario prevailing in the country, where prices of even essential commodities have gone skyrocketing, not from year to year or month to month, but from day to day, the respondents have had to manage his affairs with a far lower pay packet than they might have got on the promotional post.” It is to be noted that the state Government had approached the High Court being aggrieved by the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 22. Though the facts are obviously peculiar and different, C. Jayachandran (supra) also lays down a similar principle and right of a candidate to seek deemed date of appointment. In view of such trite legal position, there is no escape from the conclusion that since admittedly the delay in petitioners’ appointments had occasioned without anything attributable to them, it would be violative of Article 14 to deprive them the benefit which has been derived by the candidates from the same recruitment process. 29. In view of such trite legal position, there is no escape from the conclusion that since admittedly the delay in petitioners’ appointments had occasioned without anything attributable to them, it would be violative of Article 14 to deprive them the benefit which has been derived by the candidates from the same recruitment process. 29. It is declared that all these petitioners from both the petitions are entitled to counting of their service treating them to have been appointed together with all the other candidates from the same selection process, maintaining their inter se seniority for counting of service for pensionary purposes and all other incidental benefits including for counting experience for appearing at the limited departmental competitive examination.” 5. The upshot of above discussion is that petitioners are similarly situated vis-a-vis not just those 08 candidates whose names were recommended for appointment as Conductors (contract) from waiting list panel on 28.05.2022 but also with 47 those candidates whose names were recommended for appointment to the posts of Conductors on 11.03.2022 as 32 vacancies against which the petitioners were appointed pursuant to directions issued in Laxmi Dutt (supra) were available with the respondent alongwith 47 vacancies as on 11.03.2022. The petitioners, therefore, are entitled for the benefit of regularization at par with their 47 counter parts whose services were regularized under common order dated 11.04.2025. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Petitioners shall be deemed to have been notionally appointed as Conductors (contract) with effect from 11.03.2022/28.05.2022 i.e. when the other 47 candidates were appointed on contract basis. Respondent is directed to regularize the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 11.04.2025 i.e. from the date the contractual services of 47 Conductors were regularized. Petitioners being in actual service as on 11.04.2025 shall also be entitled to monetary benefits flowing to them on account of the regularization of their contractual service. This entire exercise be carried out within six weeks. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.