Regularization claims and objections must be decided by reasoned order before the process is finalized.

The applicants, appointed as Contingent Paid Workers in 2001 and 2002, claimed that they had passed the Middle examination and sought regularization, relying on their seniority and length of service.

Verification of their educational certificates was reportedly impossible because the relevant school records had been destroyed in fires.

They also relied on their placement in seniority lists and alleged that similarly situated employees had been regularized.

After objecting to a proposed regularization process, they filed this application seeking consideration of their claims before that process was finalized.

During the hearing, they limited their prayer to having the application treated as a representation and their claims and objections considered.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicants’ claims and objections before finalizing the proposed regularization process.

2. Whether the Tribunal should decide the applicants’ entitlement to regularization, seniority, or consequential benefits on the merits.

The Tribunal did not apply or interpret a specific statutory provision, precedent, or substantive rule governing regularization.

The applicants invoked SRO-308 of 2008, but the Tribunal made no finding on its applicability or effect.

It directed the competent authority to consider the claims under the applicable rules and law, while expressly leaving all questions of fact and law open.

In view of the applicants’ limited prayer and the respondents’ submission that the matter could be disposed of by appropriate directions, the Tribunal considered that keeping the application pending would serve no useful purpose.

It therefore directed the respondents to consider the applicants’ claims concerning regularization, seniority, length of service, certificate verification, and alleged regularization of junior candidates, along with the supporting documents and objections.

The direction required a reasoned decision under the applicable rules and law, without prejudging the merits.

Before finalizing regularization pursuant to the public notice, the respondents must treat the application as a representation, consider the identified claims, objections, and supporting material, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within ten days of receiving a certified copy of the order.

All questions concerning entitlement to regularization, seniority, and consequential benefits were left open; there was no order as to costs.