ORDER 1. THE CHALLENGE IN THIS APPEAL IS TO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT WHEREBY THE APPELLANT CORPORATION WAS H DIRECTED, HAVING REGARD TO THE FINANCIAL SOUNDNESS AND LENGTH OF SERVICE OF THE EMPLOYEES, TO REGULARISE 1/6TH OF THE REMAINING NOMINAL MUSTER ROLL EMPLOYEES WHOSE NAMES WERE PLACED ON THE LIST MADE IN TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE CORPORATION, IN THE CYCLE OF NINE MONTHS. THE HIGH COURT FURTHER DIRECTED THAT WHILE REGULARISING, THE LENGTH OF SERVICE OF THE EMPLOYEES UNDER THE APPELLANT CORPORATION SHALL BE TAKEN AS A GUIDING FACTOR, THAT IS, THOSE WHO JOINED EARLIER SHALL BE REGULARISED EARLIER. THE FIRST REGULARISATION, IT WAS DIRECTED, SHALL TAKE PLACE BY 31-3-1993 AND SECOND AFTER A GAP OF NINE MONTHS AND SO ON TILL THE REMAINING WRIT PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT ARE REGULARISED. 2. IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL, MR S.B. SANYAL, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SOUGHT TO PUT FORTH THE PLEA OF BACKDOOR ENTRY, NON-EXISTENCE OF VACANCY OR BAN ON CREATION OF THE POSTS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA IN THE YEAR 2001. THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO PUT FORTH ANY OF THESE PLEAS. NO PLEA WAS RAISED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT ABOUT ANY BACKDOOR ENTRY OR NON-EXISTENCE OF THE VACANCIES. IN FACT, BEFORE THE HIGH COURT THE APPELLANT WHO WAS RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION DID NOT CHOOSE TO FILE EVEN COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT. THE CORPORATION ONLY FILED A MEMO DATED 29-10-1992 ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF JOINT MANAGER (LAW) OF THE CORPORATION, INTER ALIA, GIVING THE DETAILS OF THE WRIT PETITIONERS WHOSE SERVICES HAD BEEN REGULARISED, FURTHER STATING THAT "OTHER PETITIONERS SHALL BE REGULARISED IN DUE COURSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SETTLEMENT". THE EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN IN THE SERVICE OF THE APPELLANT CORPORATION FROM 1981 TO 1986, EXCEPT SEVEN WHO JOINED THE CORPORATION IN 1987 AND 1988. IN RESPECT OF NONE OF THESE EMPLOYEES THE PLEA RAISED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WAS THAT THEY SECURED ENTRY INTO SERVICE BY BACKDOOR NOR WAS THERE ANY PLEA ABOUT NON-AVAILABILITY OF THE VACANCIES. REGARDING THE SO-CALLED BAN SAID TO HAVE BEEN IMPOSED IN THE YEAR 2001 THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD OF THIS APPEAL ABOUT ANY SUCH BAN. PRIMA FACIE, WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND ITS RELEVANCE WHILE CONSIDERING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE YEAR 1992. REGARDING THE SO-CALLED BAN SAID TO HAVE BEEN IMPOSED IN THE YEAR 2001 THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD OF THIS APPEAL ABOUT ANY SUCH BAN. PRIMA FACIE, WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND ITS RELEVANCE WHILE CONSIDERING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE YEAR 1992. NO AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FILED PLACING ON RECORD ANY SUCH BAN. WE CANNOT PERMIT, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ORAL SUBMISSION ACROSS THE BAR ON SUCH AN ISSUE. 3. AS ABOVE-NOTICED, THE APPELLANT CHOSE NOT TO FILE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT IN THE HIGH COURT. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT SHOWS THAT THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE CORPORATION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT TOOK TIME TO INFORM THE BENCH HEARING THE MATTER AS TO THE TIME THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REGULARISE THE SERVICES OF THE REMAINING EMPLOYEES SINCE MANY EMPLOYEES OUT OF 234 WRIT PETITIONERS HAD ALREADY BEEN REGULARISED. ON THE ADJOURNED DATE NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID MEMO DATED 29-10-1992 AND OPINING THAT THE SERVICES HAD TO BE REGULARISED IN A REASONABLE TIME, THE DIRECTIONS AS AFORESAID FOR REGULARISATION OF THE REMAINING EMPLOYEES WERE ISSUED. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF MINUTES OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STAFF AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION, THE NOTE FOR REGULARISATION OF SERVICES, THAT IS PLACED BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION OF THE YEARS 1988, 1990 AND 1993 WHILE THE CORPORATION CONSIDERED THE ASPECT OF REGULARISATION. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT OUT OF 487 EMPLOYEES SOME HAVE ALREADY LEFT OR HAVE DIED OR HAVE BEEN ABSORBED ELSEWHERE ON CONTRACT BASIS, ETC. AND REMAINING 116 HAVE NOT BEEN A REGULARISED. IT IS NOT IN ISSUE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WITH THE CORPORATION FOR MORE THAN NEARLY 18 YEARS. 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE DO NOT THINK IT TO BE A FIT CASE CALLING FOR OUR INTERFERENCE IN EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WITH THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT. THE OPERATION OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HIGH COURT HAVING BEEN STAYED, WE THINK THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME TO REGULARISE THE REMAINING EMPLOYEES I.E. THE REMAINING PERSONS WHO WERE WRIT PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WHO HAVE NOT BEEN REGULARISED UP TO NOW. FOR THIS PURPOSE, WE GRANT TO THE APPELLANT CORPORATION TIME TILL 31-12-2004. THE OPERATION OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HIGH COURT HAVING BEEN STAYED, WE THINK THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME TO REGULARISE THE REMAINING EMPLOYEES I.E. THE REMAINING PERSONS WHO WERE WRIT PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WHO HAVE NOT BEEN REGULARISED UP TO NOW. FOR THIS PURPOSE, WE GRANT TO THE APPELLANT CORPORATION TIME TILL 31-12-2004. THE APPEAL, SUBJECT TO THIS MODIFICATION, IS DISMISSED. THE PARTIES ARE LEFT TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS.