I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Whether a High Court can issue a writ, in the nature of mandamus, commanding a State or an instrumentality of the State to regularize the service of an employee, who was appointed without following any selection process or as a daily wage earner, on the ground that the services of some others, similarly situated, have been regularized and that the refusal to regularize the service of the writ Petitioner is an act of discrimination and this discrimination must be removed by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226? This is the moot question, which, in essence, the present two appeals have raised. While Writ Appeal No. 18 (K)/2007 has arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 03.11.2006, passed in WP(C) No. 152 (K)/2006, Writ Appeal No. 17(K)/2007 has arisen out of judgment and order, dated 10.11.2006, passed in WP (C) No. 153 (K)/2006. By the judgments and orders impugned in the two writ appeals, a learned Single Judge of this Court has directed the Appellants, who were Respondents in the said two writ petitions, to regularize the services of the writ Petitioners.

2. As both the present writ appeals are closely inter-linked and the disposal of one of these writ appeals would have a bearing on the out-come of the other writ appeal, both the appeals have been, on the request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The material facts giving rise to the present appeals may, in brief, be set out as follows:

(i) Following various orders issued from time to time by the Supreme Court and High Courts commanding the Government of India to regularize the daily rated workers and casual employees working under different Ministries and Departments of the Govt. of India, the Government framed, for regularization of the services of those employees of the Central Government, who had been working as daily wage earners or casual labourers, a Scheme called Casual Employees (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme 1989 (in short, 'the Scheme of 1989'). This Scheme was brought into force with effect from 01.10.89, the Scheme being applicable to casual labourers in the employment of the Ministries and Departments of the Government of India. In terms of this Scheme, a casual labourer, who had been engaged before 30.03.85, became, on completion of 10 years of service, eligible for regularization of his service. The Scheme, so brought into force, became, in course of time, applicable to the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (in short, 'the BSNL') too. This Scheme had two facets. It contained provisions for conferring of temporary status on casual labourers or daily rated workers. The temporary status, under the said Scheme, was conferrable on all those casual labourers, who had rendered continuous service of, at least, one year out of which they must have been engaged for work for a period of 240 days (and 206 days in the case of offices observing five days a week). A casual labourer, covered by this Scheme, was to be designated as temporary mazdoor. Though conferment of such status and designation of temporary mazdoor on a casual labourer did not make any change in his duties and responsibilities as a casual labourer and though his engagement was to remain on daily rates of pay on need basis, it gave him certain monetary benefits and also entitled him to avail leave. This apart, a casual labourer with temporary status, who had completed 10 years of service, became eligible for regularization under the Scheme of 1989.

(ii) By a letter, dated 12.02.99, issued by the Department of Tele-Communication, Govt. of India, it was decided to create posts of Mazdoor by regularizing the casual labourers under the Scheme of 1989, who had completed 10 years of service as on 31.03.97. Thus, the Scheme of 1989 came to be extended till 31.03.1997. As a fall-out of this extension, a person, who came to be engaged after 31.03.97, was neither e