The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of appointments being made in accordance with statutory rules, providing equal opportunity to all aspirants, and ensuring fair treatment for employees.

( 1 ) DELAY condoned.

( 2 ) HEARD Shri Udai Karan Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Shri H. R. Mishra, learned counsel for respondents

( 3 ) THIS special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19. 1. 2004 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant for regularisation.

( 4 ) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner-appellant had been appointed on daily wages on 12. 6. 1986 and his services had been extended from time to time and the same were terminated w. e. f. February, 1990. Petitioner-appellant filed Writ Petition No. 11004 of 1991 claiming the relief of allowing him to continue in service and regularise him. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 19. 1. 2004 on the ground that his appointment was on daily wage basis his employment commenced in the morning and ended in the evening every day; there was no condition in his appointment letter for renewal of the engagement, placing reliance upon the judgment of the honble Apex Court in Escorts Limited v. Presiding Officer and Anr. , (1997) 11 SCC 521.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner-appellant has submitted that as petitioner-appellant had worked for about 4 years, he could not be removed so unceremoniously and was entitled to regularisation, particularly in view of the statutory provisions of the Uttar Pradesh. Regularisation of ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Belonging to Co-operative Societies centralised Services) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1985 ). The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside, particularly, in view of the fact that in similar circumstances Writ Petition Nos. 21438 of 1989 etc. etc. filed by other persons had been allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 8. 10. 1991, and the said judgment of the learned Single Judge stood affirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 119 of 1991 dated 20th November, 1991. The said order of the special appeal further stood affirmed by the honble Supreme Court as the Honble Apex Court has rejected the Special Leave Petition No. 3796 of 1992 filed against that special appeal vide order dated 2. 9. 1992.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, Shri H. R. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents has submitted that the issues agitated in the appeal had not been raised before the learned Single Judge. The rules 1985 are not applicable in case of the petitioner-appellant as it apply only in respect of those persons who had been employed on or before 1st May, 1983 and were continuing in service on the date of commencement of the said Rules, i. e. 30th July, 1985 and had completed 3 years continuous service. As the petitioner-appellant was appointed in 1986 itself, the said Rules have no application. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner-appellant are also distinguishable on facts, more so, it cannot be followed as a binding precedent for the reason that the issue that a person who had been appointed de hors the Rules cannot seek regularisation, had not been agitated in those cases. Unless the issue is decided by the Court, it cannot have a binding force. If a person is appointed de hors the Rules, he cannot seek regularisation. Hence the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

( 7 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the Rules 1985 are not applicable in the case of the petitioner-appellant as they were applicable only in respect of those employees who had been appointed on ad hoc basis on or before 1st May, 1983 and had good service record and completed three years continuous service. Petitioner-appellant was appointed in 1986 and it is not pointed out by the learned counsel that Rules have further been amended,