ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:- “(i) Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other similar writ directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner into regular services.

(ii) Pass any other writ or direction as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in favour of the Petitioner.”

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that he was appointed as daily wager and is working for last 10 years and in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the respondents have failed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization. It is further submitted that he was appointed in the year 2013 and it is clear from the experience certificate (Annexure P/1) that petitioner is working since 25.03.2013.

3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) has held as under:- “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”

5. The question with regard to cut of date was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 in which it has been held that the departments are required to consider the case of irregularly appointed persons who have completed 10 years of service on 10.04.2006 (the date on which the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) was passed) and has held as under:- “9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.

10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation proc