Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Sri Qamrul Hasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.5.2010 passed by the Director General (opposite party No. 2) whereby claim of the petitioner, who is a daily wager, has been rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not engaged against any sanctioned post of Chowkidar and as such his service cannot be regularized.

3. This case has very peculiar history and is a very hard case where the petitioner, admittedly, was engaged as a daily wager in the year 1990 is continuously fighting for his legitimate claim of regularization in view of the Regularization Rules and Government Orders issued in this behalf, which infact has been denied on one pretext or the other despite orders of this Court, which is highly unjust and arbitrary.

4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 2001(SS) of 2003 for a direction to respondents to consider his candidature for regularization in accordance with U.P. Regularization of Daily Wager Employees (Group D) Service Rules, 20