1. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records in pursuance of the third respondent's order in Na.Ka. No. /2006 dated 31.07.2006 and quash the same as devoid of merits and directing the respondents to regularise the petitioner's service from the completion of three years of consolidated pay service and to confer all the benefits with retrospective effect.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as Sweeper in the second respondent municipality on daily wage basis. The petitioner is allowed to continue in service for a considerable length of time and therefore the service of the petitioner ought to have been regularized by the respondent on completion of 10 years of service.

3. At the outset, the learned counsel is of an opinion that the Government issued various orders granting the benefit of regularization to the similarly placed persons on completion of 10 years of service and therefore the same benefit has to be extended to the petitioner also. This apart, the petitioner states that large number of similarly placed last grade servants, who served on daily wage basis for years together were already regularized and on this ground, the writ petitioner alone cannot be discriminated and the same benefit has to be granted to the petitioner also. However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is unable to substantiate that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was in accordance with the regular recruitment rules in force.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was irregular and not in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. The writ petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and therefore, the writ petitioner cannot claim any of the benefit of regularization or permanent absorption merely on the ground of length of service rendered. The daily wage employees are liable to be terminated at any point of time without any notice. Thus, the permanent absorption earlier granted, cannot be granted by the Government in view of the subsequent development and the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard.

5. This Court is of an opinion that all appointments to the public post are to be done only through open competitive process and by adhering to the recruitment rules in force. Equal opportunity for public employment is a Constitutional mandate. The equality clause enshrined in the Constitution cannot be violated by the competent authorities while undertaking the process of selection. It is not as if engaging a person on daily wage basis and holding such a person in continuous service for a considerable time and therefore grant regularization or permanent absorption. Such a practice was absolutely condemned by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India. Such a practice will lead to deprivation of the meritorious candidates to secure public employment through open competitive process. Such appointments made in violation of Rules are to be treated as back door entries into the public service. The persons who had entered into Government service through back door should go out through the door by which he/she got into such service. There cannot be any leniency or misplaced sympathy by the Constitutional Courts, which shows that the Courts are bound to consider that such misplaced sympathy will result in violation of the constitutional rights of the teeming millions of people, who are waiting for public employment through open competitive process.

6. After all, teeming millions of youth of this great nation are burning their midnight lamp and working hard to secure public employment. The plight of such young minds will be in trouble and thus young people will get frustration from and out of the system of back door entries. Thus the Courts can never encourage such entries into public servic