S.S. Nijjar, J. - (1.) THE claim of the petitioner is for regularisation on a Class -III post after being regularised on a Class -IV post. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Superintending Engineer of the department has already recommended the case of the petitioner for regularisation on a Class -III post. The learned counsel also relies on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in CWP 17987 of 1997 decided on 11.3.1998 in support of his submissions.
(2.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are of the considered opinion that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in CWP 17987 of 1997 has been given in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. This is the view expressed by the Supreme Court also. When the mailer was carried to the Supreme Court by way of SLP by the State of Haryana, the Supreme Court had clearly observed : - "In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order under appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed." In view of the above, the aforesaid decision cannot be of any assistance to the case put forward by the petitioner. On the other hand, a Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar v. HUDA and Anr.,, 2000(2) SCT 715 (P&H) :, 2000(3) RSJ 74 after considering all the policies of the Government has held as follows : - "We are further of the opinion that by issuing a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot perpetuate the illegal actions of the executive authorities and direct regularisation of ad hoc, work -charged, casual and daily rated employees, irrespective of the fact that the petitioner does not satisfy the conditions stipulated in the policy of regularisation. In its very nature, the policy framed by the State Government for regularising the services of ad hoc, temporary, work -charged, causal and daily rated employees is a recognition of the stark reality that its officers have made appointments without following the provisions of the Act and the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which, as already mentioned above, envisages appointments to the public services by open competition. Now, we shall deal with the decisions relied upon by Shri Arora. A careful perusal of the orders passed in the cases of Navneet Kumar (Annexure P. 17). Sushil Kumar and Mohan Shyam (Annexure P. 17/A) and Ashok Kumar and four others (Annexure P. 21) shows that in none of them attention of the Court was not drawn to the instructions issued by the State Government for regularising the services of Class -II employees and, therefore, without adverting to the same, the Court granted relief to the petitioners on the premise that they were discharging the duties as Class -III employees on the cut -off date. In none of those cases, the Court was called upon to consider the conditions embodied in the notification dated 11.5.1994 and the circular letter dated 7.3.1996. Therefore, those decisions cannot be treated as laying down a proposition that a work -charged/casual/daily rated employee is entitled to be regularised de hors, the conditions laid down by the Government." In our considered opinion, the controversy raised in the present petition is squarely covered by the ratio in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra). Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.;