infrastructure. Nobody can contend that those who became fortuitous to have obtained registration earlier could alone continue as such, denying similar rights to the others . Under such circumstances, it is always for the statutory authorities to regulate the extent of work available among the eligible hands by appropriate means/measures, either by way of rotation or otherwise and it is not by promoting only one lot and pushing down the other lot for ever. As such, eventhough the already existing registered unattached workers could be said as persons aggrieved on granting registration to more persons in the area and hence are eligible to prefer an appeal in terms of Rule 26C, it is for the appellate authority to consider all these aspects to an appropriate extent, giving effect to the scheme of the statute, without compromising the fundamental principle of equality before law and such other relevant provisions. In the instant case, since the registration sought for by the writ petitioners was in respect of 'attached workers' of the establishment and since the appellants are admittedly the registered unattached workers in the area, they could never have objected to such registration under any circumstance. No law or binding precedent is brought to the notice of this Court, to the contrary, so as to entertain the claim mooted by the appellants. The statutory authorities, particularly the registering authority and the appellate authority failed miserably in this regard, which has been rightly intercepted by the learned single Judge by setting aside the orders concerned. We hold that the verdict passed by the learned
