CHHOTE LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance made by the petitioner is that his prayer for regularisation of his service as Upholster has been illegally declined by the impugned order dated 5.4.2006 (Annexure P.9). THE afore-mentioned order has been passed in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 986 of 2005 decided on 18.10.2005. THE relief claimed by the petitioner for regularisation of his services cannot be granted for the simple reason that the initial appointment of the petitioner has not been made by following due principles of law i.e. issuance of an advertisement, consideration of selection and follow up of selection process consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. THErefore, we do not find any merit in the writ petition especially in view of the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka v. Umadevi JT(2006) 4 SCC 420. Dismissed.