1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.1374/2008 Gajanand Sharma V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. 10.9.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr.S.P.Sharma for the appellant. Heard Mr.S.P.Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. This appeal is directed against order dated 5th January, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution whereby and whereunder the writ application was dismissed. The writ petitioner-appellant initially filed writ application with the prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to regularize his services in the light of order of regularization so far as respondent no.4 was concerned. The writ-petitioner was terminated with effect from 5.8.1992. The order of termination, however, was not brought on record by making an amendment application, rather a reference of termination order was made in the second stay application filed on behalf of the appellant. The learned Single Judge of this Court declined to give relief to the writ-petitioner on the ground that he was not a regular employee nor his appointment was made in consonance with law and procedure laid down under the Rules. It further held that since engagement of the writ-petitioner was on temporary basis on a daily wages of Rs.22/- per day, he had no right to ask for regularization of his services. It further held 2 that in absence of any pleadings as to grant of promotion and allowing respondent no.4 to continue in services, no relief could have been granted to the writ-petitioner on the basis of equity. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ-petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no.4 were appointed as LDC-clerk on temporary basis on payment of wages of Rs.22/- per day. The case of respondent no.4 however was considered for regularization and he was retained in service, but the writ-petitioner was not regularized and he was terminated from services. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that on principles of equity, same relief could have been granted to this writ-petitioner by the authorities and in that view of the matter, writ application could not have been dismissed. It is not in dispute that the writ-petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on a daily wages of Rs.22/- per day and after eight months of his engagement, he was terminated. Owing to his status and nature of engagement, no right had accrued to him to ask for regularization. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the plea of writ-petitioner that he could have been equated with respondent no.4 has no substance. A wrong committed by the State-authorities cannot be allowed to perpetuate in future. This Court, therefore, refused to grant relief to writ-petitioner on this premise. An aggrieved person may come up before this Court for regularization in case he was appointed after following procedure of law. But, no right would accrue to a person, who was engaged on temporary basis on 3 daily wages. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, cannot be faulted either on law or on facts. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar