The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for adherence to recruitment rules, equality of opportunity, and the prohibition of irregular appointments in public employment, emphasizing the distinction between regularization and permanence in service jurisprudence.

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ or order or orders or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner for regularization of service as computer operators from the date of his original appointment with all attended benefits.)

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization of services as Computer Operator, from the date of his original appointment with all attendant benefits, as per the G.O.Ms.No.878, Rural Development Department, dated 15.05.1981.

2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that, the writ petitioner is fully qualified for appointment to the post of Computer operator in the 4th respondent Panchayat Union. The writ is petitioner engaged as computer operator on daily wage basis on 01.10.2003 and continuing as such for the past more than 15 years. On account of the length of the services rendered by the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner claims the benefits of regularization and permanent absorption, as per the Government orders.

3. It is contended that, the policy decision taken by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.878, Rural Development Department, dated 15.05.1981, that the persons who have rendered 10 years of service, shall be conferred with the benefit of regularization and permanent absorption. Relying on the Government orders, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that, the writ petitioner had already completed more than 10 years of service, and therefore the benefits of regularization and permanent absorption is to be granted to him. This apart, even a special time scale of pay granted to the other temporary employees as per the Government orders are not extended to the writ petitioner.

4. As far as the regularization is concerned, the same cannot be granted in violation to the recruitment rules in force. Regularization and permanent absorption are to be granted strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. In view of the legal principles settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, reported in 2006 [4] SCC 1 observes many such circumstances and it is relevant to state that the Honourable Supreme Court of India. It is useful to extract the following paragraphs:

“4. But, sometimes this process is not adhered to and the Constitutional scheme of public employment is by-passed. The Union, the States, their departments and instrumentalities have resorted to irregular appointments, especially in the lower rungs of the service, without reference to the duty to ensure a proper appointment procedure through the Public Service Commission or otherwise as per the rules adopted and to permit these irregular appointees or those appointed on contract or on daily wages, to continue year after year, thus, keeping out those who are qualified to apply for the post concerned and depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the post. It has also led to persons who get employed, without the following of a regular procedure or even through the backdoor or on daily wages, approaching Courts, seeking directions to make them permanent in their posts and to prevent regular recruitment to the concerned posts. Courts have not always kept the legal aspects in mind and have occasionally even stayed the regular process of employment being set in motion and in some cases, even directed that these illegal, irregular or improper entrants be absorbed into service. A class of employment which can only be called 'litigious employment', has risen like a phoenix seriously impairing the constitutional scheme. Such orders are passed apparently in exercise of the wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether the wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is inten