The judgment emphasizes the need to adhere to the constitutional scheme of public employment and the rule of law, and highlights the financial and economic impact of its directions. The court also underscores the importance of balancing the rights of the numerous against those of the few before the court, and the need to avoid perpetuating illegalities, irregularities, or improprieties.

1. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner submits that he is working as a Technical Assistant on daily rated basis and he joined the service on 11.09.1989 on a daily wages of Rs.30/-. He is fully qualified for the post of technical Assistant and he passed with a Diploma in Civil Engineering and so he is entitled to obtain regular appointment against the vacancy which is available in the 2nd respondent's authority.

2. The petitioner submits that the wages of Technical Assistant (Daily Rated) has been revised from time to time and now the daily rated Technical Assistant is paid Rs.180/- per day. He is the Senior most Technical Assistant (Daily rated) in the 2nd respondent Agency. In 1999 five regular vacancies arose in the 2nd respondent Agency in the post of Technical Assistant and the 2nd respondent has regularized the services of 4 daily rated Technical Assistant including the services of the 3rd respondent herein, even though he has joined service in the 2nd respondent Agency subsequent to him. The 2nd respondent ought to have considered for regularization against the vacancy in which the 3rd respondent has regularized.

3. The petitioner submits that even though there were five vacancies arising in 1999 and the 2nd respondent has filled only four vacancies and one post is kept vacant. It is reliably learnt that a proposal was sent by the 2nd respondent for regularizing his services against the available vacancy with File No.6774/BDO(o)/03-04. The 1st respondent has not taken any action on the said file. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has kept him on daily rated basis and even though from 01.01.2004 onwards wages were not paid to him till date. Being a daily rated employee, it becomes very difficult for him and to maintain his family and so he had made several representations to the authority to release his wages and for regularization. No action has been taken by the 2nd respondent for payment of his wages and for regularization. No action has been taken by the 2nd respondent for payment of his wages from 01.01.2004 and the petitioner submitted that since he has made several representations for payment of wages from 01.01.2004 and also for regularization of his services in view of regularization of his junior and the 2nd respondent has developed ill feeling towards him and the 2nd respondent has taken a decision to terminate his services. Without any reason at all. It is the fact that a number of Technical Assistants who have joined subsequent to his joining are still working in the 2nd respondent's Agency and so the decision to terminate his services, retaining his Juniors in service is most arbitrary and discriminatory. Hence, he is forced to approach this Court for redressal.

4. It is submitted that he was appointed as a Technical Assistant (Daily Rated Basis) on 11.09.1989 and he denied the averments in para No.3 of the Counter Affidavit wherein it is stated that he joined in 11/1989 which is highly objectionable and is unbecoming of a model employer. The last column in the table given in para No.3 shows only the year with some other figures without mentioning whether it is date or month. The third respondent who is his junior is shown as joined in 8/1989 which is also factually incorrect and the respondent is liable to be punished for making false information in the affidavit. The files regarding District Rural Development Agency shows that V.P. Dhanesh joined service on 18.12.1989 with the qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering and he joined in service on 11.09.1989 and so he is senior to the third respondent.

5. The averments in para No.4 are also factually incorrect, false and so denied. The averments that he is not a senior most Technical Assistant (Daily Rated basis) is wrong because he joined in his service on 11.09.1989 and the third respondent joined his service on 18.12.1989