the case of Manju Rani (Smt.) And 3 Others v. State of U.P. And 3 Others in Writ- A No.-5774 of 2016 decided on 1st March, 2017 holding that the claim for absorption was open for a period of 3 years in terms of the policy of Government Order dated 21st August, 2007. It appears that neither the order passed in the contempt case arising out of the judgement in the case of Sanjay Kumar Pandey dated 17th January, 2007 was brought to the notice of the Court, nor the Government Order dated 9th October, 2007 was brought to the notice of the Court and, therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court the judgement having not considered the above two points, is distinguishable. The controversy with regard to the absorption in terms of the Government order dated 9th October, 2007 the said judgement of the learned Single Judge has come to be upheld by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.233 of 2007. The Division Bench has noticed the law on the point of regularization as emanating from the Constitution Bench judgement in the case of State of Karnatka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. Even before the Division Bench the Government Order dated 09th October, 2007 was not placed. There is no quarrel about the principle laid down in the case of Uma Devi ( supra ) that in public employment Article 14 and 16 cannot be overlooked, but the rules of absorption and regularization of retrenched employee are one time measure. The Supreme Court has held in the past that such regularization rules/absorption rules cannot be held to be ultra vires the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Very recently a Division Bench of this Court, of which I myself was a member, in Writ – A No. 22209 of 2018,
