RATHORE, J. - (1.) THIS is the second round of litigation. Earlier also the petitioners preferred the writ petitions before this Court.
(2.) SINCE in all these writ petition similar questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that all the petitioners are working as IV class on part time basis in the Office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bharatpur and till date they are continuing as part time employees. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Rout and others vs. State of Bihar & others, decided on 20. 11. 97 and reported in AIR 1998 SC 1477, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that regularisation of service, subsequent termination on ground that initial appointments were irregular, appellants had served department initially even without getting any salary for a long time, they are not guilty of any fraud or sharp practice and did not lack in requisite qualification, they were in continuous service of the department for more than five years, appellants deserved sympathetic consideration even if they could not claim regularisation as a matter of course. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Radha Devi vs. State of Raj. & Anr. , decided on 27. 1. 2005 and reported in 2005 (2) WLC (Raj.) 220 = RLW 2005 (3) Raj. 1775, wherein it was held that regulation of part-time employees, scheme for the regularisation of part-time workers working in Social Welfare Department already framed, State directed to frame similar scheme for regularisation of part time sweepers like petitioner working for eight hours per day with no complaint against her. Learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5340/92, Babu Lal and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others, decided on 29. 1. 93.
(3.) IN all these cases referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court has directed to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically as they have rendered their services for pretty long time for the purpose of regularisation. Earlier also the petitioner filed a writ petition i. e. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1525/93, wherein this Court has observed as under vide order dated 28. 7. 93:- " It is expected of the departmental authorities that they would exercise the claim of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by this Court in the various writ petitions of which reference has been made herein above. If the petitioner is not found to be entitled to relief in terms of these orders, the Director, Medical & Health Services/chief Medical and Health Officer, Bharatpur should make a speaking order within two months of the submission of the certified copy of this order. If the petitioner is found entitled to get such relief, the same should be given to her without delay. Recently the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others vs. Uma Devi (3) & others, decided on 10. 4. 2006 and reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, has held that absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees appointed/recruited and continued for long in public employment dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment, issuance of directions for, and for stay of regular recruitment process for the posts concerned, impermissibility of, need for addressing concern of equity for all, and not of just the few before the court, by upholding of constitutional scheme of public employment, whose hallmark is equality of opportunity, held that Supreme Court and High Courts should not issue such directions unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. It is further observed that it is erroneous for Supreme Court to merely consider equity for the handful of people who have approached the court with a claim whilst ignoring equity for the teeming millions seeking employment and a fair opportunity for competing for employment. Further, courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic/financial arrangement of the affairs of the State of its instrumentalities. ;