Large number of cases are pending regarding regularization of service. Learned Advocate General was requested to address the Court.

2. On being asked, as to whether, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, [(2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1], State Govt. has enacted any Rule or formulated statutory scheme for the regularization of irregularly appointed temporary or casual wage worker who have worked continuously for ten years prior to the decision of the Court of Uma Devi (Supra) on 10.04.2006.

3. Mr. A.K. Sinha , learned Advocate General submits that since no Rule or statutory scheme has been enacted within six months, therefore, it shall be presumed that state has declined regularization of employees either considering them as back door entrant or thinking that they are no more required in the services.

4. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) in paragraphs no.43, 47, 53, 54 has held as under:-

"43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constellational scheme. Merely because, an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as litigious employment in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the by-passing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.

47 When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the e