- (1.)RULE. Mr.Maulik G.Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader, and Mr.Deepak P.Sanchela, learned advocate waive service of notice of RULE on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today.
(2.)THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:
(A) Admit and allow this Special Civil Application. (B) Allow this Special Civil Application and be pleased to hold action of respondent authority in not regularizing services of petitioners as bad, illegal and arbitrary and further be pleased to direct respondent authority to consider case of petitioner for selection on regular post and regularize service of petitioner and direct them to give all consequential benefits to petitioner.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition be pleased to grant interim relief in terms of para 10(B). (D) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition be pleased to direct respondent no.2 not change service condition of petitioner. (E) Be pleased to award the cost of this petition. (F) Grant such other and further relief as deemed fit and just in the interest of justice.

Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that she was appointed on 01.03.1990, as Safai Kamdar on daily wages in Mansa Municipality. She has been working as Safai Kamdar ever since her date of appointment and is still engaged as such. The grievance of the petitioner is that though work is available, respondent No.2 has not taken any steps to regularize her services. According to the petitioner, the respondent ? Municipality has a sanctioned set up and had initiated the procedure for appointment on several posts, by issuing an Advertisement dated 13.01.2008. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Safai Kamdar, and was called for the interview on 16.06.2008. However, as the petitioner did not possess the requisite educational qualification, she was not given appointment. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

Mr.Harnish V.Darji, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that in petitions filed by similarly situated persons, the Court had directed the respondents to consider the cases of daily wagers for regularization. The case of the petitioner has not been considered in proper perspective by the respondent-Municipality, though there is a regular sanctioned setup and posts are available. It is further submitted that the work that the petitioner is performing does not require any educational qualifications. Though, admittedly, the petitioner does not possess the necessary qualifications as mentioned in the advertisement, considering the fact that she has worked for about 21 years, the respondent-Municipality ought to have regularized her services, in view of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others ? (2006)4 SCC 1.

(3.)THE affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Chief Officer of the respondent-Municipality, wherein it is stated that if any appointment on regular post is to be made, the procedure prescribed in the sanctioned setup has to be followed and any appointment made should be in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.
Referring to the said affidavit-in-reply, Mr.Dipak P.Sanchela, learned advocate for respondent No.2, who is the main contesting respondent, has submitted that the petitioner had applied pursuant to the advertisement and could not be selected as she does not have the requisite educational qualifications as stipulated therein. The Municipality is bound to follow the criteria set by respondent No.1, Director of Municipalities, and the sanctioned posts have to be filled up in accordance with the said criteria. It is contended that in the present case, the minimum educational requirement for the post of Safai Kamdar as per advertisement dated 13.01.2008 is that the candidate should have passed the 4th Standard which, admittedly, the petitioner does not possess. Therefore, the petitioner could not be given appointment on regular basis.