1. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the names of more than 66 persons were already listed out for the purpose of sending proposals to the Government for regularization of the services of those daily rated/casual labourers.

2. The petitioners are also similarly placed casual labourers and their names were not included in the proposed list. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners state that when the petitioners are similarly placed, the respondents ought to have included the name of the petitioners in the proposed list for the purpose of granting regularization.

3. Regularization or permanent absorption can never be granted contrary to the recruitment rules in force. Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate. All the eligible persons are to be given opportunity to participate in the selection process in order to secure public employment. Engaging a person on daily rated basis and only by length of service, if regularization or permanent absorption are granted, then this Court is of an opinion that the teeming, millions of eligible and meritorious candidates are deprived of their right of opportunity even to parti