IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- C. W.P. No. 8504 of 1989. Date of Decision:- 17.4.2009. Bant Singh and Another .... Petitioner Versus Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board and Ors. .... Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. Present:- Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for the respondents. Hemant Gupta, J. C.M.No. 6817 of 2009 Notice of the civil miscellaneous application. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, application is allowed. Additional documents are permitted to be taken on record subject to all just exceptions. R.A.No. 307 of 2008 In view of the averments made in the application and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the order dated 9.7.2008 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number and taken up today for arguments at the request of the parties. C.W.P. No. 8509 of 1989 The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to frame a rational policy in view of the periodic pronouncements and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgments referred to by the C. W.P. No. 8504 of 1989 -2- petitioners are U.P. Income Tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association Vs. Union of India & Ors AIR 1988 SC 517 , Gainda Ram & others Vs. M.C.D and Ors. 1988(1) SLR 327 and The General Secretary, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna & Ors., 1988 (1) SLR 349. The petitioners have also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Piara Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1989 (1) PLR 396 decided on 26.9.1988. In reply, it has been pointed out that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis, as posts of Pump Operators & Sewerage men were not sanctioned. The appointment of the petitioners on daily wage bases was subject to the approval of the Punjab Mandi Board, which was not granted. The posts of the petitioners have been shown on daily wages in the Budget of the Market Committee Khamano for the year 1987-88, 1988-89 and these posts do not exist in the Market Committee Service Rules, 1989. It has been further pointed out that the posts of the petitioners neither exist in the service Rules nor are these regular posts in the Budget of Market Committee. On 23.6.1989, a Division Bench passed an order granting status- quo regarding service of the petitioners. The said order was made absolute on September 11, 1989. It was on the strength of this order, the petitioners continue to be in service. The judgment in Piara Singh case (supra) was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others, etc. etc. Vs. Piara Singh and others etc. etc., AIR 1992, Supreme Court 2130. In C. W.P. No. 8504 of 1989 -3- Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC Page 1, the policy of regularisation framed by the State governments was not approved after considering all the previous judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was held that the public posts are required to be filled up by the public advertisements and providing an opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and compete for the post(s). Petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1989. They have continued on the jobs on daily wages in terms of interim orders passed by this Court. Therefore, no right accrues to the petitioners for regularisation in service. In view of the afore-said circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed. April 17, 2009 (Hemant Gupta) tripti Judge