The need for appointments to be made in a constitutional manner and preventing irregular or illegal appointments, and the requirement for respondent-authorities to pass a speaking order assigning concrete and valid reasons for consideration/non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services.

JUDGMENT

S.N.Pathak, J. - Heard the parties.

2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as she has completed more than 10 years of service.

3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner is working as a Computer Operator as daily wager since 31.03.2004 in the office of respondents and discharging her duties sincerely and to the satisfaction of the respondent-authorities. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she had also been sent for training as required for the post and she is being paid salary from the concerned department. Thereafter, through several letters, the District Transport Officers has also requested/ recommended the name of the petitioner for her regularization before the higher authorities but till date no decision has been taken by the respondents for her regularization/ absorption inspite of the fact that she has been discharging his duties since 2004 i.e. for more than 10 years without any complain from any corner. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Hon''ble Court for redressal of her grievances.

4. It appears that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1513 of 2016 and this Court, after hearing the Counsel for the parties at length and upon consideration of several judgments of this Court and that of Hon''ble Apex Court, has disposed of the said writ petition on 21.08.2018, with the following observations:-

"6. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records and upon consideration of several judgments passed by this Court as well as by the Hon''ble Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case which needs consideration for regularization. Though earlier, the Hon''ble Apex Court, while considering the cases of regularization, had given a guideline in view of the Constitutional Bench Judgment in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi and other, reported in , (2006) 4 SCC 1, another Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court, taking in view the several aspects of regularization, came out with a judgment in case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesri & Ors., reported in , (2010) 9 SCC 247.

7. The Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Raj Balam Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in , (2018) 1 Supreme 12 was of the view that regularization can be claimed while in service, not after termination. Appointment for a temporary period comes to an end at the end of that period. Grant of extension to work for some more period cannot make an employee permanent. Such employee cannot claim regularization.

Relevant paras of the judgment passed in case of Raj Balam Prasad is reproduced herein below:-

"17) This is what the Division Bench held for allowing the appeal and dismissing the appellants'' writ petition: "We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in law. The order passed in LPA No.434 of 2001 dated 28th of July, 2008 was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. It is further contended that even if the order dated 10.10.2006 was not set aside, the fact remains that such order of regularization could not have been passed since the services of the Muharrir have come to an end in 1991 itself. The permanent status could be conferred to those who were in service and not to those whose service had come to an end many years ago. Such an order could not be made basis of permanent status through the writ court. Such order dated 10.10.2006 is not enforceable in law. The representation having been declined in the light of the circular dated 16.04.2008, we do not find that the writ petitioners were entitled to any direction to treat them as regular employees."

20) One cannot dispute that the State has the