Regularization can be claimed while in service, not after termination. Long continuance in service without following rules for public advertisement does not confer the right to regularization.

1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners against the vacant and sanctioned post on which some of them are working continuously without any breakage in service in between the year 2000-2017. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order contained in letter No. 471 dated 04.04.2018 (Annexure-13) issued under the signature of Dy. General Manager (Personnel) by which the petitioners have been disengaged from the services.

2. The short facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioners had been working as skilled and unskilled daily wages employees on ad hoc basis since long in different Districts of State of Jharkhand. Despite the continuous service being rendered by the petitioners, without any breakage though, being appointed on the sanctioned and vacant post, their services were not regularized by the respondents even after their best pursuance and the representation made from time to time before the respondents. It is specific case of the petitioners that for regularization of the services of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, an agreement was entered between the President of Labour Union and Deputy General Manager (Personnel) and a declaration was announced on 26.08.2014 whereunder, it was declared that after formulation of Appointment Rules within interval of fortnight the process of regular appointment be finalized. In spite of the aforesaid declaration, the services of the petitioners could not be regularized. Thereafter, vide office order 113 dated 19.01.2016 issued under the signature of DGM (Personnel), the number of sanctioned post of Mandays (skilled) was approved for 470 posts and for unskilled was 1391. Thus from the aforesaid order it is beyond dispute that the sanctioned post is existing on which the respondents are taking the services of the petitioners by subjecting their case to discrimination with similarly situated persons, who had been working on Contractual basis.

It is further the case of the petitioners that as the services of the petitioners were not regularized, the petitioners made several representations through the Union before the Chief General Manager on 14.09.2015 and 29.12.2015, wherein it was requested to the respondents to find out the solution for adjustment of the mandays workers unless and until, the mandays workers are not being adjusted the vacant post may not be advertised for regular appointment, but the respondents are sitting tight over the matter. It is specific case of the petitioners that services of the similarly situated persons have been regularized and the respondents have adopted pick and choose method and have not considered the case of the petitioners by discriminating the petitioners, who have working continuously since long without any breakage in service. Ignoring the pending the respondents have come out with an advertisement for inviting online application from eligible candidates for appointment on technical post. Hence, the petitioners have been constrained to move before this Court for redressal of their grievances. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioners have also been disengaged from the services.

3. Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urges that the case of the petitioners ought to have been considered for regularization as the petitioners were working on the sanctioned and vacant post and continuously working since long without any break in service. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents have illegally and arbitrary floated an advertisement for appointment on skill/unskilled Labourer without showing any consideration for regularization of the services of the petitioners that the period of contract of the services of the petitioners were being extended for the period of 90 days and the petitioner had been continuously working without any official break in service. It is f