Judgment:
Rajendra Menon, J.
1. Shri Rajeev Raghuvanshi, Adv. counsel for the petitioner. Shri Tapan Trivedi, Adv. counsel for university.
2. Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by action of the University in not considering his case for regularisation. Petitioner contends that he was appointed as a daily wages employee in the class IV category on April 10, 1990. Since then he is working continuously in the University, persons who are less qualified than him and junior to him have been regularized and promoted to class III, his case has not been considered. The petitioner was initially appointed for a period of 89 days against the post of Chowkidar. It is the case of the petitioner that ever (sic) since appointment he is still working in the class III category. He is discharging clerical nature of duties and his pay fixed on Rs. 2550/- per month. Ignoring his claim persons who are juniors to him like Banwarilal appointed in 1993 and Shri Durjan Singh have been regularized but his claim for regularisation has not been considered and even now he is kept as daily rated. Inter alia contending that regularisation of the juniors without considering his case is illegal. Petitioner seeks relief in the matter, by bringing on record certain resolution passed by the screening committee of the University in the matter of regularisation of other employees like Banwarilal and Durjan Singh it is submitted that petitioner is also entitled to be regularized when his juniors have been regularized in service.
3. Shri Tapan Trivedi, learned Counsel for respondent refuted the aforesaid and it is stated by him that petitioner cannot compare his case with the other employees. It stated that they were appointed in class III post and are having requisite qualification, their cases were considered by screening committee and on the basis of recommendation they have been regularized in class III. Similarly Murarilal Kushwaha is appointed in Class III and he has been regularized on the Class II post on the basis of recommendation of the committee whereas petitioner is working as a Class IV employee and therefore he is not entitled to be regularized in a clerical post, accordingly it stated that no relief can be granted.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is clear that petitioner wants regularisation on the ground that he is working in the University since 1990. the orders of appointment produced by the petitioner which are available on record indicates that he has been appointed as a daily wages Chowkidar for a period of 89 days on various occasions. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on the post of Chowkidar after following any process known to law. In the matter of recruitment to public service, when a question was put to learned Counsel representing the petitioner as to in what manner petitioner was appointed, counsel for petitioner admitted that he was appointed without following any procedure. It is clear that for appointment of petitioner in the University no procedure was followed, no applications were invited, no selection procedure took, that being so question is can such a appointment be regularized merely on the ground that petitioner is working since 1990. Similar question for regularisation as claimed for by the petitioner has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of A. Umarani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Ors. 2004-III-LLJ-780 (SC) and it has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases that any appointment made in violation of mandatory provisions and by ignoring all procedure of appointment cannot be sustained by taking recourse to regularisation, it has been held by the Supreme Court that one who comes from the back door has to go through the same Erocess. Supreme Court in the aforesaid case as held that regularisation cannot be made a mode of recruitment by any state or body or authority governed by statutory Act or Rules, mere working for long time, it has been held by Supreme Court, does not give any right to a employee to claim regularisation. Following the aforesaid judgment it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra L. Jain and Ors. v. Indore Development Authority and Ors. 2005-I-LLJ-578 (SC) that regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and an illegal appointment cannot be regularised by taking recourse to the mode of regularisation. It has been held by Supreme Court that what can be regularized are only a irregularity, it has been held that in the absence of any statutory provision an employee will not be entitled to regularisation. Keeping in view the law laid down by Supreme Court in aforesaid two cases and taking note to the fact that appointment of the petitioner as daily wagers employee is not in accordance with law, this Court cannot issue any direction for regularisation of the petitioner only on the ground of his long working in the post.
5. As far as comparison of the petitioner with other employees are concerned, there is nothing available on record to indicate as to how the initial appointment of these employees were made. The fact remains that their appointment or regularisation is not challenged by the petitioner and they are not before this Court, merely because some benefit is granted to some other employees that cannot be a ground for regularisation of the service of petitioner when his claim is found to be unsustainable. Benefit granted to some other employees in an illegal manner will not give any right to the petitioner to claim the said benefit. It may give right to the petitioner only to challenge their appointment or regularisation. However the same is not prayed for in this petition and therefore, merely on the ground that some other employees have been regularized, relief cannot be granted.
6. Accordingly, finding no ground to grant relief in this matter, petition stands dismissed without any order as to cost.