ORDER :

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents herein to regularize the service of the writ petitioner in the post of Helper in line with the similarly situated persons regularized under various Government orders and to retain the petitioner in service, until the petitioner reaches the age of superannuation.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Mazdoor on daily wage basis. However, the appointment of the writ petitioner as a Mazdoor on daily wage basis can be allowed based on need basis and the authorities are at liberty to allow the writ petitioner to continue in service on daily wage basis.

3. However, the regularization or permanent absorption cannot be granted in violation of the recruitment rules in force. The writ petitioner was appointed during the year 1979 on daily wage basis as a Sweeper.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the petitioner has served more than 3 decades and by virtue of his length of service in the department, his service is to be regularized in a sanctioned post in regular time scale of pay.

5. It is contended that the cases of the similarly placed persons were already considered and thus, the employees are already regularized in a sanctioned post and the writ petitioner is also fully qualified and eligible as per the Government Orders to regularize his services. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the Government itself took a policy decision to regularize the services of the daily wage employees pursuant to the policy decision in G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006. Large number of persons were regularized in the permanent post and those aspects are not disputed. This apart, the name of the writ petitioner was considered by the authorities and a proposal is also pending for regularization. Under these circumstances, the petitioner must be granted with the benefit of regularization.

6. Certain Government Orders, passed which all are running contrary to the legal principles settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, can never be followed as a precedent. All such orders passed by the State, which all are running contrary to the legal principles cannot be cited nor be followed by the Constitutional Courts. In Paragraph No.54 of the Constitutional Bench Judgment itself says that any judgment running contrary to the principles settled by the Constitution Bench stands denuded to be followed as a legal precedent and the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench alone is to be followed as a Law.

7. In view of the fact that the State Government has not issued any consolidated instructions / circular in the matter of grant of regularization and permanent absorptions, various departments are adopting their own procedures which are contrary to the legal principles settled.

8. It is pertinent to note that regularization either on explanations, considerations or presumptions, the concerned authorities are empowered to grant such regularization. Now the grant of regularization and permanent absorptions are settled by the Supreme Court of India and the same cannot be granted contrary to the Recruitment Rules in force which is bound on all the Courts as well as the authorities of the States under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The law laid down by the Constitution of India becomes the Law of the Land. The Courts, Authorities and States are bound to follow the same. Thus, all these orders passed by the States summoning regularization and permanent absorption contrary to the legality in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 is to be declared and denuded to be lost its status as a precedent. Thus, by citing those Government Orders, the present writ petition cannot be considered at all.

9. In respect of the Public Works department, large number of Mazdoors are engaged on daily wage basis and on contract basis. Earlier the benefit of regularization was