Honble PALSHIKAR, J. – By these petitions the petitioners seek a direction that they be fixed in pay scale of Junior Filter Attendant and be paid salary accordingly. This claim is disputed by the State. It is stated in the reply that the petitioners were not even eligible for appointment as Junior Filter Attendant and therefore, there is no question of the relief claimed by them being granted. It is also stated that there is no post of Junior Filter Attendant whether the petitioners are working. In view of this factual dispute, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to any regularisation as prayed for by them.

(2). Opposing the petition, Shri Manish Singhvi learned counsel contended that in fact what is being prayed for by the petitioners is regularisation in the cadre of Junior Filter Attendant from the post of Helper II. According to the learned counsel, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners are temporary employees and are claiming these rights of regularisation without leaving any foundation for their claim. The facts pleaded are grossly inadequate to come to a conclusive finding that the petitioners were factually working as Junior Filter Attendant. In such circu- mstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.

(3). Shri Singhvi relied on three decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his proposition that the petitioners are not entitled to any regularisation. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Suresh Kumar Verma & Anr. (1), it has been held by the Supreme Court that the State is statutorily bound to follow the rules of recruitment and an appointment only daily wages is obviously not an appointment to a post in accordance with the rules of recruitment. Consequently in my opinion, a person so appointed on daily wages or on ad-hoc basis or on temporary basis has no right of regularisation and must compete for such purpose with others desires of getting that public employment. In my opinion, every recruitment to a public post covered by Article 16 must be thrown open to all concerned as the Constitution guarantees of equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment. Payment of daily wages or temporary basis or ad-hoc basis is made to meet a particular contingency or to immediately deal with a particular project. It is an interim arrangement made for meaning certain vacancies which are required to fill up in accordance with the Rules and all the candidates who are eligible are entitled to apply for it. When recruitment is made therefore, a temporary employee is not entitled to any regularisation as claimed.

(4). Yet another judgment was relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents which also is to the same effect. It is reported in JT 1996 (10) S.C. 876. (2), Similar effect in State of Raj. vs. Kunji Raman (3). It has been held that a work charged employee and a regular form two different classes and a work charged employee is not entitled to be regularised. In my opinion, all these decisions of the Supreme Court are based on the reasons stated by me above and therefore, there is no reason to interfere.

(5). In the result, the petitions fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document