(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent in vide Letter No.Ka.En.673/NiVu2/2018/Ko.Driver/dated 6.7.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners on completion of 10 years of service with all other monetary benefits.)

1. The order of rejection issued by the third respondent dated 6.7.2018, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners for regularising the services of the writ petitioners in the regular time scale of pay, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners states that the writ petitioners are working in the Public Works Department as daily wage employees. The writ petitioners are working as Drivers on daily wage basis for a considerable length of time and they have to submit representations to regularise their services in the sanctioned post in the regular time scale of pay.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners states that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.2.2016, granting the benefit of regularisation in respect of the temporary employees, who served for more than 10 years. The said benefits are not extended to the writ petitioners.

4. A revised Government Order has been issued in G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 27.6.2013 issuing certain terms and conditions. However, the case of the writ petitioners are not considered. The similarly placed daily wage employees were brought under the regular establishment based on the Government Orders passed during the year 2006. Similarly placed other employees were also regularised based on the Court orders. Thus, the cases of the writ petitioners are also to be considered on par with the other similarly placed employees, whose services were regularised in the sanctioned post.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the earlier orders passed by the Government, granting the benefit of regularisation can never be followed as a precedent in view of the legal principles settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. This apart, certain benefits extended to a group of people, cannot be cited as a precedent. If such benefits were extended, it would be contrary to the constitutional principles and the precedents laid down by the Constitutional Courts. Thus, the practice of following the similarity has been examined with reference to the facts and circumstances as well as the legal principles settled in the matter.

6. Law being a developing field, certain precedents are changed on account of social changes and other aspects. Thus, it is not as if the High Courts can issue orders based on the certain orders passed by the Government or by the Courts on earlier occasions. Now the grant of regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be issued in violation of the Recruitment Rules in force.

7. All appointments to the public posts are made only under the Constitutional Schemes and by following the Service Rules in force. Equal opportunity in public employment is the Constitutional mandate. But persons, who were appointed contrary to the Recruitment Rules cannot seek the benefit of regularisation or permanent absorption, which is in violation of the equality clause enunciated under the Constitution. Thus, this Court is bound to follow the legal principles settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and such principles are reiterated and re-emphasised in the subsequent judgments also. Now the High Court cannot issue directions granting the benefit of regularisation contrary to the Recruitment Rules and therefore, the relief, as such, sought for in the present writ petition for the grant of regularisation and permanent absorption in the sanctioned post cannot be granted.

8. The learned counsel for