Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Kshetresh Chandra Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Since the counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged, as requested by learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally under the Rules of the Court.

3. The writ petition has been filed against the Advertisement dated 21.7.2004 published by the Joint Director, Directorate of Technical Education. U.P., Kanpur inviting applications for recruitment and appointment on Class IV post in his office.

4. The facts in brief as stated in this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed in October 1991 against a vacant Class IV post on daily wage basis and since then he is continuously working on the said post. In the meantime some of the persons who were appointed on daily wage like the petitioner were regularized but the petitioner has not been considered. Since 180 Class IV posts exists under the respondents and a large number thereof are lying vacant, yet instead of considering the petitioner for regularization against one of these Class IV posts, respondents have a