Ritu Bahri, J. - (1.) Petitioner -Balbir Singh has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter/order dated 24.02.2012 (P -9) whereby the request of the petitioner for regularization of his service in Group C or D cadre w.e.f. 29.07.2011, in terms of the notification dated 29.07.2011 (P -7) issued by State of Haryana, was declined. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed on daily wager in the respondent -Department in April, 1996 by departmental selection committee. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was terminated by the respondent -Department in June, 1999 without following provisions of Sec. 25(F), (G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act and junior persons to the petitioners have been retained in services. The petitioner raised the Industrial Dispute and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government of Haryana for decision. The matter was subsequently compromised between the parties in the Lok Adalat on 02.11.2003 and it was agreed that the respondent -department will re -employ the petitioner by giving him the benefit of continuity of service but not the back -wages. Thereafter the petitioner resumed his duties on daily wages in the respondent -department on the terms and conditions mentioned above. Thereafter, the petitioner was assigned different duties i.e. Security Guard, Chowkidar, vide Annexure P -1 to P -6 respectively. Thereafter, the Haryana Government issued notification dated 29.07.2011 for regularization of the service of daily wages/ad -hoc/work charged/part time basis serving the Government as well Corporation with immediate effect who had completed 10 years of service on 10.04.2006 and were in service on 10.04.2006 (P -7). Thus, the petitioner made a request to the respondent -department to regularize his service, in terms of notification dated 29.07.2011 (P -8), which was rejected vide letter dated 24.02.2012 on the ground mat there is no sanctioned post vacant on regular basis in these cadres.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that once he had completed 10 years of service on 10.04.2006 and fulfills the educational qualification for the post and regular sanctioned posts are also still lying with the respondent -department, the service of the petitioner should have been regularized.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are number of posts lying vacant in the respondent -department in Group C and D cadre and the respondent -Corporation is not filling up these regular sanctioned posts and the respondent -Department is adopting the pick and choose policy. The action of the respondent -department is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.;