ORDER
1. The petitioner is a registered trade union operating in the respondent bank, registered under Trade Union Act and the Secretary of the petitioner Union filed the present writ for mandamus declaring the action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary in not regularising the services of the daily wage attenders as per the settlement dated 12-5-1993, and for a consequential direction to regularise the services of thepetitioners with effect from May, 1997 with consequential benefits.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the Andhra State Co-operative Bank Limited, Vijayawada and Hyderabad Co-operative Apex Bank Limited, Hyderabad were amalgamated and A.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited was established by Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank (Formation) Act, 1963. The Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank was registered as Co-operative Society under Section 10 of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Co-operative Societies Act VI of 1932 and came into existence with effect from 4th August, 1963 and the bye-laws were framed and registered by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies vide certificate dated 19th July, 1963. Thus, it is submitted that the respondent bank is a society under the Co-operative Societies Act. It is further averred that 60 daily wage attenders were working in the bank prior to 1993 and the union has raised a demand for absorption of the daily wage attenders in the regular vacancies and a settlement was entered into under Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act with the respondent bank on 12-5-1993. It is further stated that the respondent bank is registered under A.P. Societies Act and is autonomous in character and that the employees salaries were being paid from its own funds and the Government is contributing in the shape of share capital which is nominal. It is further stated that the respondent bank follows the guidelines issued by the Government and Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is averred that the respondent bank comes under 'public services' namely under Section 2(6)(e) of the Act of 1994 and that Section 3 of the Act prohibits the regularisation of the temporary employees and that the said Act came into force from 25-11-1993. That the regularisation scheme was framed in G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994 with regard to the personsappointed on daily wage and are continuing on the date of commencement of the Act and fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein. The Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies has notified that the Co-operative Societies are also governed by Act 2 of 1994 and therefore prohibited the engagement of Daily Wage Attenders and also regularisation of their services except in accordance with G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994. It is stated that in view of the Act 2 of 1994 though the vacancies are available in the bank in the cadre of altenders, the regularisation was not affected inspite of the representation made and that the respondent bank addressed a letter dated 24-6-1997 to the Registrar to accord permission to the bank for regularization of the services of attenders who have completed five years of service. While the matter stood thus, the Government issued amendment to the Act 2 of 1994 by Act 27 of 1998 and the same was published in the Gazette on 19-8-1998 wherein Section 2 was amended duly incorporating the following amendment:
'Provided that the services in any such body or society as specified in sub-clause (e), which is not receiving any funds or grants towards salaries of its employees from the State Government shall not be deemed to be 'public service' for the purpose of this Act.'
3. Thus the bank has been excluded from the above proviso and need not seek approval from the Government for regularisation. It is stated that the Government vide letter No. 15032/Co-op.VI(9y94-4, dated 23-1-1996 clarified Act 2 of 1994 and the consequential orders issued from time to time are not applicable to the co-operative institutions and that the service matters of the employees of the Co-operative Institutions have to be dealt with under Section 116-C of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act and directed that the co-operative societies have to seek permission/ advise from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and thus (here is no fetter to regularization of the services in terms of the settlement dated 12-5-1993. It is further stated that as per Section 116-C of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, permission of the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies is required only with regard to the staffing pattern and as the cadre of attenders has been approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 116-C, the bank need not approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies whenever vacancies are sought to be filled up at later stage and since there is a binding settlement between the management and union for regularization and there is no necessity for obtaining permission from the Registrar. However, it is submitted that the bank has addressed a letter dated 4-1-1999 to the Registrar for regularization of the daily wage attenders working in the bank against the existing vacancies in attender cadre and that the Registrar vide letter dated 23-3-1999 advised the bank to take further action in terms of Act 27 of 1998.
4. It is further averred that by mistaken impression and misconstruing the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Act 2 of 1994, the first respondent bank has not regularized the daily wage attenders who have put in 5 years of service who are eligible for regularisation in terms of settlement dated 12-5-1993 and contended that the said daily wage altenders are entitled for scale of pay of Rs. 1600-3020 attached to the post, and it is alleged that they are being paid a sum of Rs.45/50 per day and were being deprived the benefit of equal pay for equal work.
5. The first respondent filed counter contending that the writ petition is not maintainable and for the relief of enforcement or implementation of thesettlement dated 12-5-1993 and the consequential relief of regularisation, the remedy is elsewhere and the constitutional Court cannot be converted as an Executing Court for settlement arrived at by the union and the management and thus prayed that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. It is further contended that the regularisation of services is an individual grievance and the union cannot espouse the cause and the writ petition is to be dismissed for non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary parties. It is averred that the regularisation has to be considered by the Government subject to the fulfilment of conditions laid down under the scheme and as regards the regularisation the bank has no power to regularise tlte services of temporary daily wage employees. It is stated that the settlement entered by the parties was not in dispute and that as per Section 3(2) of Act 2 of 1994 which clearly stipulate that no temporary appointment shall be made in any public service without prior permission of the competent authority and that Section 2(6) defines 'public service'. As far as the first respondent is concerned, Section 2(6)(d) attracts since bank is a creature of an Act passed by the State Legislature and that Section 9 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act categorically states that the first respondent is a body corporate as it was established and formed under law by the State Legislature under Andhra Pradcsh State Co-operative Bank (Formation) Act, 1963 by amalgamating two banks viz., Andhra State Co-operative Bank Limited, Vijayawada and Hyderabad Cooperative Apex Bank Limited, Hyderabad. It is further averred that the bank wads initially under a wrong impression that the bank falls within the ambit of Section 2(6)(e) but when the matter pertaining to regularization of services of attenders was placed before the Board, the nominee of the second respondent has clarified that the Bank falls within the ambit of Section 2(6)(d). It is stated that G.O. Ms. No.212, dated22-4-1994 stipulates that those persons who have completed five years of service as on 25-11-1993 are atone entitled to be considered for reguiarisation subject to fulfilment of other conditions stipulated therein. It is further stated that Section 7 of the principal Act was amended by Act 27 of 1998 stating that the services of those persons continuing as on 25-11-1993 having completed a continuous minimum period of five years of service on or before 25-11-1993 are alone eligible to be considered for reguiarisation. It is further submitted that the bank has recommended the cases of 36 attenders for reguiarisation by letter dated 4-1-1999 and keeping in view the provisions of the Act, the second respondent recommended the cases of only 2 altenders, who fulfilled the requirements, to the Government for reguiarisation and that the same is pending with the Government. The first respondent Bank has addressed the Government on 14-7-1999 and 25-11-1999 for reguiarisation of all the 36 attenders and that the same is pending with the Government. It is further stated that the respondent bank follows the guidelines issued by the Government and that Section 116-C is not attracted in the present case and that the persons who fulfil the requirements as per the provisions of the Act mentioned supra are alone entitled for reguiarisation and that the petitioners union having not fulfilled the said requirements, is not entitled for reguiarisation and pay scales.
6. The second respondent filed counter contending that the dispute is purely between the employer and employee and that the second respondent is no-way concerned with the dispute and is not a necessary party. It is stated that the A.P. State Co-op. Bank (for short APCOB) is a co-operative established by Law under the A.P. State Co-op. (Formation) Act 1963 by amalgamation of two banks i.e., Andhra State Co-operative Bank Limited,Vijayawada and Hyderabad Co-operative Apex Bank Limited, Hyderabad. It is further stated that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, A.P., Hyderabad vide his proceedings dated 19-7-1963 registered the A.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited, Hyderabad as a Co-operative Society and vide proceedings dated 24-7-1963 declared that the A.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited commenced its working from 4th August, 1963, It is further stated that the A.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited, Hyderabad is a co-operative society deemed to have been registered under the provisions of A.P.C.S. Act 7 of 1964 after enactment of the said Act. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P., Hyderabad has approved the A.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited, Hyderabad staff service regulations vide Re. N0.109987/72-C1 (a) dated 4-6-1975 and according to which staffing pattern as proposed by the Board of management of the Bank has been approved as provided under Section 116-C of the Act. It is further submitted that in the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Section 116-C has been incorporated with effect from 22-4-1985 which is to the following effect:
'A society shall have power to fix the staffing pattern, qualification, pay scales and other allowances for its employees with the prior approval of Registrar of Co-operative Societies.'
7. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 116-C were incorporated in the APCS Act, 1964, and the APCOB has submitted proposals for approval of 24 additional posts and approval was given by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by letter dated 22-5-1986 and that thereafter no proposals have been received from APCOB, Hyderabad. And as regards the settlement under I.D. Act is concerned, it is stated that the same is a matter between the employer and employee and has nobearing under the provisions of ARCS Act, 1964 and submitted that second respondent is not a necessary party.
8. The Govemment/Impleaded respondent filed counter stating that Section 2(6)(d) of Act 2 of 1994 applies to APCOB which is a co-operative society established by Law under the A.P. State Co-operative Bank (Formation) Act, 1963 and subsequently registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and that the financial assistance is given to it by the State Government by investment of share capital and giving Government guarantees to it for raising capital and therefore APCOB falls within the definition of Public Services as defined in Section 2(6) of Act 2 of 1994. That in furtherance of the provisions of the Act 2 of 1994 Government has issued G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994 wherein conditions were laid down for regularisation and that the intention of the G.O. is not to continue beyond the stipulated cut off date of 25-11-1993 and that subsequently Act 3 of 1998 came into force with effect from 3-1-1998 stating that services of persons serving continuously for a period of 5 years on the date of commencement of the Act shall be regularised in accordance with G.O. Ms. No.212. It is also stated that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is the competent authority under the APCS Act to fix the staffing pattern for the co-operatives. It is further submitted that the APCOB can fill the vacant posts according to sanctioned staffing pattern by following the service conditions relating to various categories of the employees regarding the mode of recruitment, eligibility and service conditions. It is further submitted that Act 2 of 1994 applies to the Banks, Co-operatives and the vacancies have to be filled up according to the service conditions, rules and regulations applicable.
9. In the revised counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated thatSection 3 of the A.P. (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 prohibits daily wage appointments and regulates temporary appointments to all posts in public services and Section provides for regutarisation of services of such persons appointed in public services. And it is further submitted that the proviso which was added to the sub-clause (e) as per Act 27 of 1998 provides that the services in any such body or society as specified in sub clause (e) which is not receiving any funds or grants towards salaries of its employees from the State Government shall not be deemed to be 'public service' for the purpose of this Act.
10. Notice was issued by this Court to learned Additional Advocate-General to assist the Court and learned Additional Advocate-General appeared in the matter and assisted the Court.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. G. Vidyasagar, vehemently contended that the first respondent is a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and it attracts the definition of Section 2(6)(e) as per Act 2 of 1994 which has been further amended by Act 27 of 1998 to the following effect:
'Provided that the services in any such body or society as specified in sub-clause (e), which is not receiving any funds or grants towards salaries of its employees from the State Government shall not be deemed to be 'public service' for the purposes of this Act.'
12. It is further submitted by Counsel for petitioner that the effect of this proviso has to be taken note of and since the bank is not receiving any funds or grants towards salaries of its employees, it shall not be deemed as 'public services' and that the Act is not attracted and drawn my attention tothe letter bearing No. 15032/co-op. VI (9)/ 94-4, dated 23-1-1996 which is to the effect that the Government has taken a view that Act 2 of 1994 and consequential orders issued thereon are not applicable to Cooperative Institutions and that the service matters of employees of Co-operative Institutions have to be dealt with under Section 116-C of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act. It is thus submitted that the Government has rightly clarified the matter stating that the Act is inapplicable, and contended that in view of the settlement arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the second respondent has to regularise the services of the daily wage attenders who have completed 5 years of service.
13. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General contended that the first respondent bank is established and formed by Act of Legislature amalgamating two banks i.e., Andhra State Co-operative Bank Limited, Vijayawada and Hyderabad Co-operative Apex Bank Limited, Hyderabad and contended that it comes within the ambit of Section 2(6)(d) of the Act since it is created and established by an Act of Legislature and that the regularisation has to be done in accordance with Act 2 of 1994 on fulfilment of conditions stipulated therein.
14. To resolve the controversy, it is necessary to refer the provisions of the A.P. State Co-operative Bank (Formation) Act, 1963 which is as follows:
Section 3: Formation of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Bank by Amalgamation of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Bank and the Hyderabad Co-operative Bank :--(1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the Registrar shall place separately before a meeting of the general body of the Andhra Co-operalive Bank and a meeting of the general body of the Hyderabad Co-operalive Bank, speciallyconvened by him, a scheme prepared by him which shall contain proposals by the Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited having for the amalgamation of those banks to form a single bank called as the Area of its operation the entire territory comprised in the state and for such other matters as are in his opinion connected with, are incidental to, the amalgamation.
(2) If the scheme prepared by the Registrar is approved by a resolution passed by a majority of the members present and voting at each of the said meetings either without modifications or with modifications to which the Registrar agrees, he shall certify the scheme. Upon such certification, the scheme shall be final and binding on the Andhra Co-operative Bank and the Hyderabad Co-operative Bank as well as the shareholders, creditors, offices and employees of those banks.
(3) After the certification of the scheme under sub-section (2), the Registrar shall register the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Bank and its bye-laws under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1932.
(4) Where the certified scheme of the Registrar provides for the transfer of services of officers and employees of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Bank and the Hyderabad Co-operative Bank to the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Bank, such transfer shall not entitle any such officer or employee to any compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or any other law for the time being in force and no claim in respect thereof shall be entertained by any Court, tribunal or other authority.
(5) After taking such action in terms of the certified scheme as may be necessary for the amalgamation of the Andhra Co-operative Bank and theHyderabad Co-operative Bank, the Registrar shall notify to those batiks the date on which the working of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Bank shall commence, which date shall be deemed to be the date of formation of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Bank.
(6) The scheme shall, as soon as may be after it is certified, be laid by the Government before each House of the State Legislature.
(7) If the scheme prepared by the Registrar is not approved in the manner indicated is sub-section (2), the Government shall, on an application from the Registrar, refer the scheme for settlement to a Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, nominated by the Chief Justice in this behalf. The scheme as settled by such Judge shall be final and shall be binding on the Andhra Cooperative Bank and the Hyderabad Co-operative Bank as well as the share holders, creditors, officers and employees of those banks in the same manner as if the scheme so settled were certified under sub-section (2) and the provisions of subsections (3) to (6) shall apply to such scheme.
Section 4 : Transfer of assets and liabilities to the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Bank from the date of formation:--With effect on and from the date of formation of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Bank,--
(i) the assets and liabilities of the Andhra Co-operative Bank and the Hyderabad Co-operative Bank shall stand transferred to the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Bank and guarantees in respect of any liabilities of the said Banks given by the Government and subsisting on that date shall be deemed to be the guarantees given in respect of the liabilities of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Bank;
(ii) the co-operative societies registered or deemed to have been registered under the Co-operative Societies Act of 1952 shall, for the purpose of membership of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Bank and in their transactions therewith, be deemed to have been registered under, and be governed by, the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act of 1932;
(iii) all contracts, deeds, bonds, agreements and other instruments of whatever nature subsisting on that date and relating to the assets and liabilities transferred to the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Bank, from the Andhra Cooperative Bank and the Hyderabad Co-operative Bank which have been parties thereto, shall have full force in favour of, or against, the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Bank and may be enforced as if the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Bank had been a party thereto.
Section 5 : Power to make rules ;--
(1) The Government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(2) Every rule made under this section shall, immediately after it is made, be laid before each House of the State Legislature if it is in session, and if is not in session, in the session immediately following, for a total period of fourteen days which may be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions, and if, before the expiration of the session in which it is so laid or the session immediaiely following, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or in the annulment of the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or shall stand, annulled as the case may be, so however that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.
Section 6 : Power to adapt :--For the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Government may, by order published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, make such adaptations and modifications of the Co-operative Societies Act of 1932 and the Cooperative Societies Act of 1952, and the rules made thereunder, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient.
Section 7: Overriding effect of the Act:--The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in the Co-operative Societies Act of 1932 and the Co-operative Societies Act of 1952.
15. A perusal of the above Act, clearly shows that the entire control and power io make the rules vests with the Government and it is also empowered to give effect to the provisions of the Act and adoptions and modifications thereto. The financial assistance is also given by the Government in the form of share capital as well as giving Government guarantees to raise capital and thus, the bank enjoys the monopoly status and was formed and created by the Act of Legislature by amalgamating two banks situate at Vijayawada and Hyderabad. Apart from this, the Registrar is also empowered to formulate and frame scheme and the same has to be placed before the State Legislature for approval, thus the above legal provisions amply suggest that the bank is a statutory body formed and created by an Act of Legislature and it attracts Section 2(6)(d) of Act 2 of 1994.
16. The objects of the Act 2 of 1994 areas follows:
The Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services andRationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act No.2 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force with effect from 25-11-1993 as per sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act. The Act replaced Ordinance No.8 of 1993 which was promulgated by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on 24-11-1993. In the Statement of objects and reasons it is stated, inter alia, as follows:
'The irregular appointments are adversely affecting the interest of several thousands of unemployed persons who have registered in the employment exchange and awaiting their turn for orders. It is also adversely affecting the interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes who have reservation in employment since the NMR appointments are not taking care of the reservation for these categories. ...... The Act will, therefore, protect the interests of candidates in Employment Exchanges, reserved categories, the existing employees who were _ recruited through proper channel and the legitimate functions of the recruiting agencies.'
Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act prohibits 'the appointment of any person in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade as a daily wage employee'. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act provides that 'no temporary appointment shall be made in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade without the prior permission of the competent authority and without the name of the concerned candidate being sponsored by the Employment Exchange'. Clause (vi) of Section 2 defines 'public service' and its meaning includes also services in any office or establishment of 'any other body established by the State Government or by a society registered under any lawrelating to the registration of societies for the time being in force, and receiving funds from the State Government either fully or partly for its maintenance or any educational institution whether registered or not but receiving aid from the Government.'
17. A perusal of the definition of 'public service' clearly demonstrate that the State Legislature having realised the effect and ambit of the scheme provides for rcgularisation amended the definition of 'public service' by Act 27 of 1998 adding a proviso restricting and limiting its applicability to those bodies and societies who are receiving funds or grants towards salaries.
18. The first respondent bank is formed and established by virtue of amalgamation affected by an Act of legislation by passing Act 2 of 1963 and thus the APCOB came into existence.
19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the first respondent is a statutory body formed and established by an Act of Legislature and it attracts the definition of 'public service' as contained in Section 2(6)(d), thus the contention of respondents is upheld and that of the petitioners is rejected.
20. As regards the second contention of the petitioner with regard to the settlement arrived at between the employer and employee under ID Act is concerned, it is needless to mention that the State Government has enacted. The Industrial Disputes (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1987 i.e.. Act No.32 of 1987 which came into force from 27-7-1987 and Section 11-B confers power on the Labour Court or Tribunal to execute its award and settlement as a decree of Civil Court.
21. Section 11-B reads as follows :
'A Labour Court or a Tribunal shall have the power of a Civil Court to execute its award or any settlement as a decree of a Civil Court.'
22. As regards the enforcement orexecution of settlement is concerned, the remedy is provided to the petitioners to approach the Labour Court, and in the circumstances, this Court decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As far as the regularisation of the petitioners who are 18 in number is concerned, they are governed by a scheme framed by the Government which was given a statutory character by passing Act 2 of 1994 which in turn was amended by Act No.3 of 1998 stipulating the necessary conditions for its fulfilment thereon and that was a one time measure. The amendment in Section 7 of the Principal Act is as follows:
'Provided that the services of a person, who worked on daily wage/NMR/ Consolidated pay/Contingent worker on full time basis continuously for a minimum period of five years and is continuing as such on the date of the commencement of the Act shall be regularised in accordance with the scheme formulated in G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994:
Provided further that the services of a person who worked on part-time basis continuously for a minimum period of ten years and is continuing as such on the date of the commencement of this Act shall be regularised in accordance with the scheme formulated in G.O. (P).112, dated 23-7-1997'.
23. In the instant case we are concerned with the first proviso, whereas the second proviso deals with the part time employees and it is the persons who fulfils the requirements enacted in the first proviso are alone entitled for regularisation and theGovernment has to pass orders pursuant to a proposal sent by the bank seeking regularisation.
24. The Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, : (1993)IILLJ937SC has elaborately considered the regularisation aspect, and held that the condition stipulated for regularization viz., prescribed period of service put in is not arbitrary and Court cannot regularize persons who have not fulfilled the conditions stipulated. The relevant paragraph is as follows:
'Now we shall proceed to examine whether the High Court was right in holding that the several conditions prescribed in the orders issued by the two Governments from the time to time are bad. In particular, whether the High Court was right in holding that prescribing a particular date by which the prescribed period of service should have been put in and the further condition that the candidate must have been sponsored by Employment Exchange, are arbitrary and unreasonable. These G.Os., were issued by the Government from time to time. These orders are not in the nature of a statute which is applicable to all existing and future situations. They were issued to meet a given situation facing that Government at a given point of time. In the circumstances, therefore, there was nothing wrong in prescribing a particular date by which the specified period of service (whether it is one year or two years) ought to have been put in. Take for example, the orders issued by the Haryana Government. The first order is dated 1st January, 1980. It says, a person must have completed two years of service as on 31st December, 1979, i.e., the day previous to the issuance of the order. How could it be said that fixing of such a date is arbitrary and unreasonable? Similarly, the order dated 3rd January, 1983 fixes 15th September, 1982 as the relevantdate. This notification/order does two things. Firstly, it excludes class III Posts of clerks from the purview of the SSSB in case of those who have completed a minimum of two years of service as on 15th September, 1982 and secondly, it provides for their regularisation subject to certain conditions. No particular attack was made as to this date in the High Court. Consequently the Government of Haryana had no opportunity of explaining as to why this particular date was fixed. Without giving such an opportunity, it cannot be held that the fixation of the said date is arbitrary. What is more relevant is that the High Court has not held that this particular date is arbitrary. According to it fixation of any date whatsoever is arbitrary, because in its opinion the order must say that any and every person who completes the prescribed period of service must be regularised on completion of such period of service, the next order dated 24th March, 1987 prescribes the date as 31-12-1986 i.e., the end of the previous year. In the circumstances, we see no basis for holding that the fixation of the date can be held to be arbitrary in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Dr. Sushma Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, : [1985]3SCR243 . The Government of Rajasthan had issued an ordinance stating that 'all temporary lecturers as were appointed as such on or before the 25th day of June, 1975 and are continuing as such at the commencement of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Ordinance, 1978 (Ordinance No.5 of 1978) shall be considered by the University concerned for their absorption and substantive appointment on the recommendation of the Screening Committee constituted under Section 4 subject to their fulfilling the conditionsof eligibility including minimum qualifications prescribed by the University concerned under the relevant law as applicable on the respective dates of their temporary appointments and subject also the availability of substantive vacancies of lecturers in the department concerned.'
The validity of the said ordinance was questioned on the ground that the fixation of the date, 25th day of June, 1975, was arbitrary and has been chosen only because that was the date on which internal emergency was proclaimed. It was also submitted that the further requirement that the lecturer appointed should be continuing as such on the date of commencement of the ordinance (12-6-1978) is an equally arbitrary and unreasonable condition. Both these contentions were rejected by this Court. The Court negatived the contention that the prescription of the said date and the further requirement of being in service on the date of ordinance have the effect of excluding persons who have put in long years of service but were not continuing on the date of ordinance, making the said conditions discriminatory. Such possibilities, it was held, were not enough to castigate the said condition as arbitrary. It was observed that there was no evidence to show any attempt on the part of the Government to separate or penalise pre-emergence appointees or for that matter any particular class of appointees. In this context, we must remember that what is in issue is not the wisdom of the executive in issuing a particular order or orders but the validity thereof. The Court may think it more desirable that the order should be in particular terms as indicated by it, but that is not enough.'
25. Considering the above aspects, the writ petition is disposed of directing thethird respondent Government to consider the cases of daily wage attenders who have fulfilled the criteria laid down under the Act by passing necessary orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.