- (1.) In the impugned order dated 20.9.2001, passed in WP (S) No. 4575 of 2001, the learned single Judge has very clearly issued direction in favour of the writ petitioner- appellant with respect to his service being regularised and his case being considered for this purpose. It appears that in one of the paragraphs in the order under appeal, the learned single Judge has used the expression "the respondents are prohibited to continue with the ad hoc arrangement". It further appears that this expression has been used out of the context in so far as the appellant is concerned. While modifying and clarifying the aforesaid expression, we direct that if the writ petitioner- appellant has been working continuously on the daily wage basis, the respondents shall not discontinue with his service. It is also directed that the writ petitioner-appellant's case be considered for regular appointment along with the cases of other eligible and similarly placed persons. Other directions in the order under appeal shall be followed in letter and spirit.
(2.) With the aforesaid observation/direction, this appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of ;