NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. HARLEEN KAUR &amp; ORS
1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The High Court has furnished cogent reasons for declining to interfere with the order of the Tribunal directing the appellant to consider the cases of the respondents for regularization as Entomologists.4. The respondents were appointed after public advertisement and were selected on the basis of interviews. They have been working since 1997-8. Though the appointment was contractual for a period of six months, it has been extended. Subsequently, on 14 July 2008, posts were created by conversion of the existing posts of AMO, DMO, Entomologist and Asst. Entomologist. The Tribunal noted that the respondents are working against seven posts of Entomologists out of twelve sanctioned posts. The respondents were engaged with a view to counter the outbreak of dengue, a situation which continues to cause concern even at the present time. The Tribunal has duly considered the decision in State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 5. We are not inclined to entertain this appeal insofar as the grant of regularization is concerned.6. However, insofar as consequential monetary benefits are concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Municipal Corporation should not be saddled with the obligation of granting monetary benefits from 2008 as awarded by the High Court. On this aspect, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has fairly left it to the discretion of this Court.
1[ds]5. We are not inclined to entertain this appeal insofar as the grant of regularization is concerned.
### Instruction:
Make a prediction on the court's ruling (acceptance (1) or rejection (0) of the petition), and then dissect the proceeding to provide a detailed explanation using key textual passages.

### Input:
1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The High Court has furnished cogent reasons for declining to interfere with the order of the Tribunal directing the appellant to consider the cases of the respondents for regularization as Entomologists.4. The respondents were appointed after public advertisement and were selected on the basis of interviews. They have been working since 1997-8. Though the appointment was contractual for a period of six months, it has been extended. Subsequently, on 14 July 2008, posts were created by conversion of the existing posts of AMO, DMO, Entomologist and Asst. Entomologist. The Tribunal noted that the respondents are working against seven posts of Entomologists out of twelve sanctioned posts. The respondents were engaged with a view to counter the outbreak of dengue, a situation which continues to cause concern even at the present time. The Tribunal has duly considered the decision in State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 5. We are not inclined to entertain this appeal insofar as the grant of regularization is concerned.6. However, insofar as consequential monetary benefits are concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Municipal Corporation should not be saddled with the obligation of granting monetary benefits from 2008 as awarded by the High Court. On this aspect, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has fairly left it to the discretion of this Court.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
5. We are not inclined to entertain this appeal insofar as the grant of regularization is concerned.
