S. T. Singh, J. - (1.) The petitioner, a daily rate Class III employee working in the Kanpur Zone of Sales Tax Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize his services. He claims to be working as a daily wage earner on the basis of his appointment made vide order dated 2-7-1991 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) it is alleged that there are regular Class HI posts lying vacant in the Kanpur Zone of Sales Tax Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and that the respondent No. 4 has recommended the name of the petitioner for regularization to service vide letter dated 9-6-1993, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on a letter dated 31-5-1993 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition).
(2.) The question that arises for consideration is ; whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a writ can be issued directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner ?
(3.) The question of regularization of the service of a daily rated/casual employee is a question of complex intricacies of constitutional nature. Answer to the question one way or the other may affect not only the employee seeking regularization on the one hand and the employer on the other but it may also affect 3rd parties who may not be before the Court. For the employee it is very often argued, in support of his claim for regularization that providing security in service by regularizing daily rated/ casual employment within a reasonable period has been accepted by Apex Court as a constitutional goal of our socialistic polity. It is also argued on behalf of such employees that the right to claim regularization within a reasonable period, in fact, not only flows from the right to justice embodied in the Preamble of the Constitution, but it also reasonably emanates from their right to equality in the matter of employment enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 and their right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. In opposition to a claim for regularization it is generally argued, on behalf of the Employer, that creation of posts being within its exclusive domain, it may not be compelled to regularize the services of a daily rated employee, for that would unnecessarily result in creation of posts putting financial burden on the employer. And on behalf of third parties eligible for such employment it is argued that the regularization of daily rated/ casual employees results in negation of their rights to equality of opportunity in the matter of employment as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Courts have always tried, within constitutional campass, to maintain a reasonable balance between the aforesaid conflicting interests.;