1. - Aggrieved vide order dated 25-10-2002, whereby the Director Local Self Government had declared that the Screening Committee did not find the Junior Engineers, working in Municipal Boards eligible for regularisation, the petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had done his diploma in Civil Engineering from Polytechnic College, Ajmer. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in Municipal Board, Jahajpur (Bhilwara) on daily wages basis on 28-6-1994. He worked there till 31-5-1995. From 1-6-1995 till 31-8-1995, he worked in Municipal Board Shahpura, District Bhilwara. Subsequently, he was appointed on daily wages basis on 1-11-1995 in Municipal Board Puskar. Thereafter, his services have been extended, from time to time, by respondent No.2, the Municipal Board, Puskar. The post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Municipal Board, Puskar is a sanctioned post.

3. Considering the fact that a large number of Junior Engineers (Civil) were working in different Municipal Boards, throughout the state, vide Circular dated 25-1-1998, the Director Local Bodies invited applications from those Junior Engineers, who were working on daily wages basis and had completed more than two years of service as on 31-11-1997, and were still working. The applications were invited for the purpose of screening such Junior Engineers and for the regularisation of their services. Since, the petitioner was eligible, his name was sent to the Screening Committee. Subsequently, the Screening Committee called him for interview on 6-3-1998. After a lapse of four and a half years, vide order dated 25- 10-2002, the Screening Committee declared that out of 116 candidates, it found only three candidates eligible for regularisation. Since, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he has knocked on the doors of this Court.

4. Like the petitioner, other Junior Engineers had also challenged the same impugned order, through different writ petitions, before this Court. In the case of Dara Singh v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8316/2002, decided on 11.6.2004 , this court had quashed and set aside the order dated 25-10-2002 and directed that the petitioners, therein, should be regularised in the service. Since the State was aggrieved by the said order, the State had filed a Special Appeal before the Division Bench. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench.

5. Subsequently, another coordinate Bench of this Court has directed for regularisation of the service of the petitioner, in the case of Shiv Narain Pal v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1299/2003, decided on 18.5.2006 . The said order was challenged by filing Special Appeal No. 6310/2006, State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Narain Pal . But, the Division Bench dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 4-1-2007. The said orders were challenged before the Apex Court by filing a SLP. The Apex Court also dismissed the said Special Leave to Appeal vide order dated 24-9-2007.

6. Subsequently, other coordinate Benches of this Court allowed the writ petitions of Junior Engineers and directed the State to regularise their services.

7. Relying on the various orders of coordinate Benches of this Court, and of the Apex Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner is regularly working on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) since 1995, therefore, he deserves to be regularised. His other colleagues, who have been working on the same post, have been regularised. Therefore, similar benefits should be given to the petitioner.

8. On the other hand, Mr. N.A. Naqvi, the learned Additional Advocate General, has vehemently contended that judicial thinking, with regard to regularisation of those employees who have been appointed on daily wages basis/ adhoc posts has undergone a seachange in the recent past. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006