of Uma Devi and others (supra) has looked down upon the policies of regularization, which have been framed by the State and have been given effect to, which has ceased to have force of law. This plea in the case of the petitioner would not be sustainable in the light of the fact that the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of the petitioner stands finalized as the said order was not challenged by the respondents and as a matter of fact, the claim has been considered and accepted except for the creation of the posts. Nothing has come on record which would suggest that the process of creation of posts has been initiated or the said process has ended in non-creation of the said posts. Claim of the petitioner is fortified for regularization of her services in the light of the information dated 06.07.2007 (Annexure P-5) supplied by the respondents themselves, wherein they have admitted that after passing of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) on 10.04.2006, 16 persons stand regularized. It is not disputed that these persons, as mentioned in the said information, are all junior to the petitioner. It is also stated in the said information that the said persons have been regularized under the 2003 Policy. In such facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the claim of the petitioner, who is senior to the persons, as mentioned in Annexure P-5, has a prior right of consideration and regularization. Because the claim of the petitioner has been declined by the respondents but similarly placed persons, who are junior to the petitioner, stand regularized, this amounts to
