Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, in the instant writ application, has approached this Court with the prayer under the relief clause, which reads thus: - - "(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner in regular pay scale of Class IV servant and be further pleased to direct respondents to pay the petitioner the same salary and allowances as per paid to regular and permanent employees with effect from the date when he came to be appointed on daily wages basis with consequential benefits in service like pay, increment, seniority, promotion, fixation, bonus ect. (b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction pending disposal of the writ petition the respondents be directed not ti take any bad action against the petitioner and for abad action for not taking respondents be restrained. (c) any other appropriate writ order or direction deemed just and proper in the interest of justice may also kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner. The costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
(2.) SHORN off unnecessarily details, the indispensable skeletal materials facts necessary for adjudication on the controversy raised in the writ application needs to be first noticed. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Class -IV Employee by the respondent number 2 with effect from 6th August, 1990, on daily wages basis @ Rs.20/ - (Rupees : Twenty Only) per day and continued as such until termination of services with effect from 24th October, 1991, by a verbal order. The petitioner successfully challenged the verbal termination order by raising an industrial dispute, which culminated into an award dated 19th April, 2000, by the Labour Court Number 2, Jaipur (Rajasthan). The respondent number 2 aggrieved of the award dated 19th April, 2000, unsuccessfully challenged the same before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 3721 of 2000, which was dismissed vide order dated 18th August, 2000. The intra -court appeal against the order dated 18th August, 2000, was also dismissed vide order dated 10th July, 2001. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated in terms of the award dated 19th April, 2000. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondents in continuing him on daily wages basis is violative of the mandate of Article 14, 16, 21, 41 and 42 of the Constitution. Further, the practice of temporary/casual or ad -hoc appointment has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land. The petitioner having served for more than 15 years deserves to be regularized on the post of Class -IV Employee with all consequential benefits. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit raising preliminary objection as to the very maintainability of the writ application for the reason that the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the relevant statutory recruitment rules. Further, mere continuance of the petitioner on daily wages basis does not confer any right in his favour for regularization, without undergoing the regular mode of selection in accordance with the procedure laid down by the statutory recruitment rules. Referring to the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. : : (2006) 4 SCC 1; it is pleaded that justice is to be dispensed with according to law. By -passing the constitutional scheme and the scheme of regular appointment as contemplated under the statutory recruitment rules, cannot be lost sight of. The persons who secured employment without undergoing the regular procedure or even through the back -door or on daily wages basis, did not acquire any legally enforceable right.
(3.) I have carefully considered the pleadings of the parties and perused the materials available on record.;