JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (ORAL)

(2.) THE prayer made by the petitioner is that order dated July 3, 2003 (P-3) be quashed. THE aforementioned order is in fact reply to the representation- notice sent by the petitioner seeking regualrisation of his services as Water Pump Operator instead of Assistant Pump Operator. It is appropriate to mention that the services of the petitioners have been regularized on the post of Assistant Pump Operator w.e.f. February 1, 1996. However, he has claimed that he should not have been regularized against Class II post of Water Pump Operator instead of Class IV post. In that regard, a legal notice dated April 17, 2003 (P-2) was sent, which has been rejected by the impugned reply dated July 3, 2003 (P-3). Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the services of the petitioner on the post of Water Pump Operator Grade II could not be ordered to be regularized, as regularization has not been accepted as a mode of appointment by the Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and others, JT 2006 (4) SC 420. THEre is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has entered in service by following due process of law consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. THErefore, the regularization order on the post of Assistant Pump Operator would allure to the benefit of the petitioner but no direction could be issued to regularize the services on the post of Water Pump Operator. THEre is no merit in the petition. Dismissed.