Regularization or permanent absorption cannot be granted in violation of service rules in force, and the principles for grant of regularization as settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India must be followed.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the fourth respondent relating to his proceedings in Na. Ka. No.125/2009 dated 11.12.2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to regularise the service of the petitioner on time scale of pay in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.198 MA & WS Dept. dated 26.10.1998 with all attendant benefits.)

Common Order

1. The order passed by the respondent in proceedings dated 11.12.2009 appointing the writ petitioners in regular time scale of pay based on the order issued in G.O.Ms.No.242 by the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department on 10.12.2009 is under challenge in the present writ petitions.

2. The writ petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage employees. The petitioners were working continuously as daily wage employees. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.198, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 26.10.1998 stating that the employees, who all are serving for long years on temporary basis are eligible for regularization in the regular time scale of pay. However, the benefits of the said Government Order were not extended during the relevant point of time.

3. Subsequently, the case of the writ petitioners were considered for regular appointment and the Government passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.242, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 10.12.2009. Based on the said order, the service of the writ petitioner was brought under the regular establishment by fixing the time scale of pay. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.242 was issued granting the benefit of regular time scale of pay in respect of the daily wage employees, who all are serving more than 10 years. Thus, the case of the writ petitioners were also considered with reference to the G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 10.12.2009 and consequently, the petitioners were given appointment in the regular time scale of pay in proceedings Na.Ka.No.125/2009 dated 11.12.2009 and the said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. The G.O.Ms.No.198 relates to norms for constitution of post. Several conditions were also stipulated in the said Government Order. Therefore, it is not as if the Government has passed an order to grant the benefit to regularization of the employees, who all are engaged on daily wage basis. One of the conditions is that the employee should be engaged through District Employment Exchange and in respect of the employees, who have not registered their names in the Employment Exchange, also to be considered only after such registration, and based on the seniority.

5. Daily wage employees who have not registered their names in the Employment Exchange, shall be insisted to register their names in the Employment Exchange. The minimum prescribed qualification and the technical skills are also to be verified for such absorption. Therefore, the G.O.Ms.No.198 contemplates several restrictions for grant of benefit for regular time scale of pay and regularization of service. However, the fact remains that the service of the writ petitioners was not regularized based on G.O.Ms.No.198. The present writ petition was filed after granting the benefit of regularization in the year 2009 based on G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 10.12.2009.

6. Regularization or permanent absorption cannot be granted in violation of service rules in force. Appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the rules in force and through open competitive process. The principles for grant of regularization or permanent absorption has been settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi & Others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. The Constitution Bench in unequivocal terms held in paragraph 54 that any judgment running counter to the principles