Civil Writ Petition No.7062 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 6.11.2008 Roshni Devi ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondents. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 28.11.2005 (Annexure P6) whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization was declined inter-alia on the ground that she has not been engaged through Employment Exchange. The petitioner was engaged for one hour a day on working days at the rate of Rs.50/- per month in February, 1988. She continued to work on part time basis but her wages were increased from time to time. She sought regularization in view of the circular dated 1.2.1999 issued by the State Government in respect of employees, who had completed five years of continuous service. The claim of the petitioner for regularization was declined on the ground that she has not been engaged through Employment Exchange nor any non-availability certificate had been issued by the Employment Civil Writ Petition No.7062 of 2008 2 Exchange. Subsequently, another circular was issued by the State Government on 17.10.2002 to the effect that the cases of those employees be considered for regularization who had not been engaged through Employment Exchange or after obtaining non- availability certificate from the Employment Exchange but had completed at least 10 years continuous part time service on the date of the issuance of instructions. There was stipulation therein that regularization of the part time employees should be considered only if there was available a regular post. It has been found in the order impugned that no post became available in the department after 17.10.2002 against which the claim of the petitioner could be considered for regularization. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 9.8.2005 found that the claim of the petitioner is covered in view of the earlier Division Bench judgment in 2000 (2) RSJ 160 Badlu Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others. Therefore, the respondents are bound to regularize the services of the petitioner. However, a perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the respondents were directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the judgment in Badlu Ram's case (supra). In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, the claim of the petitioner has been considered and it has been found that the services of the petitioner cannot be regularized in view of the non-availability of the post. After the aforesaid order has been passed, Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2006) 4 SCC 1 State of Karnataka and others Civil Writ Petition No.7062 of 2008 3 Vs. Uma Devi and others has held that circular of the State Government in respect of the regularization of service does not satisfy the requirements of filing of public posts as contemplated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of above fact, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (NAWAB SINGH) 6.11.2008 JUDGE AS