MAHESH SHARMA & OTHERS Vs. STATE & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been engaged as daily rated workers and assigned the work of Pump Operators In para-3 of the petition it has been stated that petitioners were engaged as daily rated workers within the period ranging from May 1994 to March 1996 and have been continuously working since then They have approached the court seeking regularisation of their service against the posts of Pump Operators/class-IV and to restrain the respondents from terminating their services They also seek that they are working against clear vacancies and respondents be restrained from filling up the said vacancies

(2.) Admittedly the petitioners have not been engaged prior to promulgation of SRO 64 of 1994, Rule-7 whereof imposes a restriction to such engagement of daily rated workers which is extracted below and reads thus :-

(3.) The record reveals that the petitioners have been engaged by the Executive Engineer who is a field/Subordinate officer and in terms of Rule-7 of said SRO was not competent to engage the petitioners as daily rated workers In terms of proviso to Rule-7, the Government has also not specified by the notification the Department of Public Health Engineering or specified the competent authority to engage a casual labour, that too on muster roll The proviso further provides that no engagement or appointment order shall be issued The engagement of the petitioners being de-hors the rules cannot be maintained The petitioners, therefore, are not entitled to seek regularisation on the basis of their illegal appointment which does not create any right much less enforceable in the court of law