WP(C) 6471/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK POTSANGBAM JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. R. Gogoi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent s. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, seven (7) in number, see king for regularization of their casual employment in the Forest Department unde r the Divisional Forest Officer (Social Forestry Division), Dhubri. The case of the petitioners, as focused in this writ petition, is that they have been employ ed as Casual workers, in different capacity, in the Social Forestry Sector of th e Divisional Forest Officer, Dhubri District for more than 10-15 years and as su ch they claimed for regularization of their services. This writ petition is the third round of litigation. The first writ petition being Civil Rule No.2212 of 1 995 was filed by the petitioners and the same was disposed of on 19.4.1999 by di recting the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the direction given in another writ petition namely, Civil Rule No.4411 of 1995. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the case of the pe titioners was considered by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhubri Social Forestr y Division, Gauripur and their claim for regularization was rejected vide order dated 24.11.1999. This rejection order was again challenged by the petitioners i n W.P.(C) No.994 of 2000 which was disposed of on 4.9.2000 by holding that the expression Muster Roll workers/Work charged employees appearing in government p olicy dated 20.4.1995, would also cover the workers engaged as contingent/daily and casual basis and accordingly, the respondents therein were directed to consi der the case of the petitioners in terms of the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid case. 4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Assam, considered the case of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the order dated 4.9.2000, as dis cussed above, and the prayer for regularization was rejected by issuing a speaki ng order dated 26.11.2001 and the same is being challenged in the instant writ p etition which is the third round of litigation between the petitioners and the r espondents. 5. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has fairly s ubmitted that one of the petitioners had already appeared in an interview conduc ted by the Forest Department for appointment against regular post but he was not recommended. By the instant petition, the petitioners are challenging the corre ctness or the legality of the aforesaid order dated 26.11.2001 (Annexure-G) and also with a prayer for directing the respondents to regularize their casual serv ices. In response to a quarry made by the Court as to whether the petitioners ar e still continuing in services as casual employees or not, Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he is not sure whether any o f the petitioners is still continuing thereby giving a presumption that many of the petitioners are not in service as on today. 6. Law relating to the public employment and regularization have been laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State o f Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. The c onstitutional scheme of employment as laid in the aforesaid case, requires to fi ll up a civil post after public advertisement and allowing all the eligible cand idates to compete in the selection process and only the candidates selected by t he Selection Committee can be accorded appointment. Only when the aforesaid cond itions are fulfilled the requirement of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India can be said to have been fulfilled and non-fulfillment of any the conditi ons enumerated herein above or any dilution thereto will not meet the requiremen t of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, in the case of Umarani Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies reported in (2004) 7 SCC 112, the A pex Court held that regularization of a person in service cannot be considered a s a mode of legal appointment unless the Service Rules framed Article 309 author izes the authority to do so. Again, in the case of Pinaki Chatterjee and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 5 SCC 193 , the Supreme Court f urther held that circular or O.M. issued by the Government long back before the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi(supra), did not take into consideration of the limitation of the power of the State to make appointme nt in total disregard of mandatory provision of the Recruitment Rules or the con stitutional provision and as such no person can claim any benefit of regularizat ion of service on such circular or OM which are contrary to the Recruitment Rule s/Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In the af oresaid Umadevi’s case(supra) , the Supreme Court has also laid down clearly in para 43 that If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an en d at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily w ages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. In other words, no person who has been engaged as Muster Roll, Casual or temporary basis can claim for regularization on continuance in services, unless the initia l appointment has been made in-accordance with the provision of the Recruitment Rules or the Service Rules and this proposition is strengthened by the recent ju dgment of the Apex Court reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 (State of Karnataka and ot hers Vs. M.L. Kesari and others). 7. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that vires or the l egality of OM Dated 20.4.1995 issued by the Government of Assam for regularizati on of Muster Roll/Work charged worker came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this High Court and Full Bench, in the case of Jitendra Kalita and othe rs Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2006 (2) GLT 654 (FB), held that th e said O.M. was not a valid policy decision of the Government and as such no Mus ter Roll or Worked charged employee could be entitled to claim for regularizatio n in terms of the OM dated 20.4.1995. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid tw o cases filed by the petitioners, as referred to above, was in the context and i nterpretation of the aforesaid OM dated 20.4.1995 and its extendibility in the c ase of the casual employees. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench dated 17. 5.2006, the aforesaid Office Memorandum has lost its significance. 8. In addition to what has been discussed hereinabove, the Apex Court in Um adevi’s Case (supra) has disabled this Court from passing any order for regulari zation of an ad-hoc/officiating Muster Roll/casual etc. unless the statutory rul es framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India authorizes the authorit y to do so. Admittedly, the Service Rules of the Grade-IV and Grade-III, Governm ent of Assam, do not contain any provision for regularization of ad-hoc or casua l employees. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not been able to make out any case for interference of this Court and as such the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. 8. No costs.