IMPORTANT POINT
Daily wage employees cannot claim regularization unless appointed against sanctioned posts and in compliance with recruitment rules, as per constitutional mandates.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 28.07.2017 passed in W.P.No.18681 of 2014.

The present intra-court appeal has been instituted challenging the order dated 28.07.2017 passed in W.P.No.18681 of 2014.

2. The respondent was engaged as Female Escort Warder on daily wage basis. Admittedly, the respondent was engaged on need basis and without break in service. The details of the services rendered by the respondent as daily wage Female Escort Warder is as under:

3. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking regularization and permanent absorption in the post of Female Escort Warder from the date of her initial appointment along with all attendant benefits. The writ court allowed the writ petition by granting the benefits of regularization and permanent absorption from the date of initial appointment. Thus, the State preferred the present writ appeal.

4. It is mainly contended by the appellants that the respondent was appointed as Female Escort Warder purely on daily wage basis and she was not appointed against a sanctioned post. The services of the respondent was utilised on need basis and wages are paid based on the duty attended. Even at the time of appointment, Rule relating to reservations was relaxed. Therefore, the claim of the respondent for regularization was rejected by the Government, in view of the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 27.06.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.710, Home (Prison-2) Department dated 17.08.2005.

5. Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants would mainly rely on the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 and the legal principles carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lal, reported in 2011 (2) SCC 429.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again reiterated that daily wage employees, who all are not appointed against the sanctioned post and not following the Service Rules cannot be absorbed on permanent basis. Equal opportunity in public employment being a constitutional mandate, appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with Recruitment Rules in force. Violations of Recruitment Rules would result in infringement of basic right of other eligible candidates, who all are longing to secure public employment through open competitive process. The principles carved out by the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi's case are binding precedent and the one-time measure to be undertaken, in view of para.53 of the Judgment cannot be followed in perpetuity, so as to regularise irregular, illegal and back door appointments.

7. In the present case, the respondent was not appointed against the sanctioned post. Services are utilised on need basis and wages are paid for duty attended. Rule relating to reservation was not followed at the time of appointment of the respondent. Therefore, the Government relying on the Policy rejected the claim for regularisation and permanent absorption. It is useful to extract the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:

“13) .... the Supreme Court of India Bench consisting of Justic