1. The orders of rejection dated 19.5.2017, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners, both for regularization and for permanent absorption in the sanctioned post in the time scale of pay, are under challenge in these writ petitions.

2. The claim of the writ petitioners were rejected on the ground that the writ petitioners were not appointed in accordance the Recruitment Rules in force as well as the fact that the writ petitioners were not appointed in the sanctioned posts.

3. Thus, the benefit of regularization cannot be granted to the writ petitioners as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2726-2729/2014 [SLP (Civil) No.5687 of 2014] dated 21.2.2014.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners states that the writ petitioners were initially appointed as daily rated employees/NMRs and they continued in service fore more than 10 years. Therefore, the writ petitioners are eligible for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.334, Public Works Department, dated 19.10.2007.

5. It is further contended that the claim of the similarly placed persons were considered by the Government and the benefit of regularization and permanent absorption was extended to those employees, who were also appointed as daily rated employees/NMRs. It is stated that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.6.2013 and the said Government Order was also confirmed by the Court. Applying the said Government Order, the case of the writ petitioners are to be considered.

6. This Court is of an opinion that regularization or permanent absorption cannot be granted contrary to the Recruitment Rules in force. All appointments are to be made only under the constitutional scheme by following the Recruitment Rules in force. Thus, equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate and the authorities competent must ensure that all eligible persons are provided with an opportunity to participate in the process of selection for securing public employment.

7. This apart, the employees who were engaged on daily rated basis or on casual basis, cannot claim the benefit of regularization or permanent absorption. In view of the fact that their initial appointments were not in accordance with the Service Rules as well as their appointments itself were irregular or illegal.

8. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners made a submission that it is the duty mandatory on the part of the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioners for regularisation in the existing vacancies since the writ petitioners have put in more than 10 years of their services as daily wage employees and their names are registered under the Nominal Muster Roll maintained by the respondents. It is not the case of appointment of the writ petitioners but the case of their regularisation is the contention of the writ petitioners. When the employees have completed 10 years of their services, without the intervention of any Court order then their services to be regularised as per paragraph 53 of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], laid down the legal principles in the matter of regularisation, permanent absorption. The relevant Paragraph 53 of the judgment, cited supra, is extracted hereunder:-

“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered