IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.4470 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 DILBAGH SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr.RK Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. PC Goyal, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 2.3.2010 (Annexure P-14). 2. A perusal of order (Annexure P-14) indicates that petitioner- Dilbagh Singh had joined as a Vehicle Driver on daily wage basis and served as such from May, 1996 till October, 1996. The petitioner, thereafter, joined as Driver on daily wage basis in November, 1996 and served the respondents till September, 1997. The petitioner, thereafter, joined as Fitter Helper in October, 1997 and served the respondents till 3.11.2004 on daily wage basis. Civil Writ Petition No.4470 of 2010 2 3. It seems that by way of backdoor entry, the petitioner got appointed in regular cadre as a Vehicle Driver vide order dated 3.11.2004 (Annexure P-4). The appointment was in violation of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order has been passed, after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has been reverted to the post of Fitter Helper viz. the post on which the petitioner has served the respondents for the maximum length of time. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that the seniority of the petitioner as Fitter Helper would be considered so as to regularise the service of the petitioner, in terms of policy framed by the respondent-State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be satisfied if his claim for regularisation of service is considered in terms of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondent-State. 6. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. September 16, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?