- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred for regularization of the services of the present petitioner with the respondents.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has worked with the respondents since long and therefore, as per the policy floated by the respondents State, the services of the petitioner should be regularized by the respondents as the similarly situated other persons have been regularized in their services.
(3.) Counsel for the respondents State submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and it has been stated in paragraph 8 thereof that the petitioner has served for much lesser period i.e. for 36 days from 1994 to 1995 and for 98 days in the year, 1997 and thereafter, he has not served with the State Government and therefore, the services of the petitioner cannot be regularized by the respondents. Counsel for the respondents State further submitted that there is no legal vested right with the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;