Appointments must adhere to relevant rules and be made after proper competition among qualified persons. Temporary employees cannot claim absorption in regular service or permanent status without following due process of selection as per the relevant rules.

J. M. MALIK, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Sweeper on 18. 10. 1999 on daily wage basis. He was being paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 2500/- per month and at the time of filing of the instant writ petition, he was drawing consolidated salary of Rs. 3000/- per month. However, no appointment letter was issued to the petitioner.

( 2 ) ON 27. 10. 2004, the petitioner received the following memorandum:"since the Finance Department, Government of NCT of Delhi has concurred to your appointment in the Delhi Commission for Women on contract basis only up to March 31, 2004 as per the terms and conditions of your appointment, 15 days' notice of termination of service is hereby given with effect from 3rd November, 2004 This issues with the approval of Member Secretary, DCW. Sd/- ( P C Jain ) Deputy Secretary"

( 3 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that appropriate writ be issued, the impugned order dated 27. 10. 2004 be quashed, the respondent be directed to consider to regularize the petitioner in the post of Sweeper and the petitioner be put in appropriate pay scale as drawn by the equally placed persons in other Government departments/agencies etc. Vide order of this Court passed on 09. 11. 2004, the respondent was directed not to terminate the services of the petitioner till further orders.

( 4 ) AT the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the latest Constitution Bench case reported in Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC Page 1, rather supports the case of the petitioner. He has drawn my attention towards para 44 of the said judgment, which is reproduced as follows:"44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S. V. Narayanappa (supra), R. N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B. N. Nagarajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that required to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. "

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that appointment of petitioner is irregular and there is necessity for such like workers. In order to buttress his submission, he has cited a judgment of this Court reported in Satya Narayana Chaudhary versus M. C. D. and others 2002 II AD (Delhi) 552, wherein it was held,"the petitioner has continued to work as a Welder for about 11 years. When he is retained for the last 11 years, it cannot be said that the petitioner does not possess the criteria and necessary qualification to hold such a post. Although his initial appointment was de hors the rules yet by long passage of time and he having worked for 11 years in the said post he should not be directed to again go through the process of selection after lapse of such a l