S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the oral order dated 20.12.1993, whereby his services are said to have been terminated and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Supervisor and to pay salary to him including arrears. Relief for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner has also been sought. Having heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that no case for interference by this Court is made out.
(2.) IT transpires from the record that earlier also the petitioner had approached this Court. The earlier writ petition was possibly, decided with a direction to the respondents to dispose of petitioner's representation. Copy of the earlier order of the High Court is not on the record. However, letter dated 3.2.1994 (Annexure -5 to the writ petition) indicates that for the purposes of disposing of his representation, the petitioner was required to produce a copy of the appointment order in that no appointment order in relation to him was available on the record of the respondents for verification of his claim. But instead of substantiating his claim before the Executive Engineer, the petitioner has been ill -advised to rush up to this court for the reliefs stated herein before. The matter has, however, been examined on merits. The averments made in paragraph 1 of the writ petition and the chart of dates given therein do not indicate that the petitioner was appointed for performing any regular type of work and duties, nor do they prove his claim of being in continuous service since 1.12.1991. It appears that the petitioner was engaged from time to time for specified number of days to perform certain duties either on muster roll basis or otherwise. However, assuming for the sake of discussion, that the petitioner had been working continuously ever since 1.12.1991 till the date of oral order of termination of his service, that by itself would not confer any right to be inducted into regular cadre of service.
(3.) IN Director, Institute of Management Development v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava : 1992 (65) FLR 571 (S.C.) - -a case which stood on better footing being case of adhoc appointee as distinguished from a daily wage earner - - the Supreme Court has held that where an adhoc appointment is to come to an end by efflux of time, the person holding such post can have no right to continue on the post even if he is continued from time to time, on adhoc basis, for more than a year. In Brij Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 1994 HVD (all) Vol. II P. 215 at P. 219 it has been held that no blanket direction can be issued by this Court for regularisation of petitioner's service and that "......the matter has to be examined with reference to the service Rules, if any, governing appointment on the post in question and many other factors including policy of reservation prevailing in the State have to be kept in mind." It may be observed that regularisation of a daily rated employee invariably tells upon the rights of third person who are eligible and qualified for the post. In such matters it is also to be kept in mind that creation or abolition of posts is the prerogative of the executive and the court should not ordinarily play that roll indirectly by directing regularisation irrespective of mere being a vacancy. It must also be not forgotten that even if there exists a vacancy, it has to be filled by adopting a procedure consistent with the rule of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. "In the matter of employment", it is true, "a Government of Socialistic State must protect the weaker section" and "it must be ensured that there is no exploitation of poor and innocent" as observed by Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia : 1989 (58) FLR 381 (S.C.) and thus the main concern of the court in a matter like the one in hand is to see that the poverty and unemployment are not exploited by Government. If for instance, it is established that there is a vacancy or that there being need of regular post and yet the Government authorities are continuing employment on daily wage/casual basis deliberately with a view to depriving the employee of his legitimate service benefits then in such a matter the court being impelled by sense of justice, shall not hesitate in issuing a direction for regularisation of daily rated employee who is continued for a long spell inasmuch as there is no dearth of power under Article 226 or the Constitution to secure justice to a person aggrieved by arbitrary or mala fide actions of State. The facts stated in the instant case however, do not necessitate a presumption as to exploitation of the petitioner at the ends of the respondents.;