THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25436 of 1996 DATED:06.02.2008 Between: D.Venkata Subbaiah. …Petitioner And District Collector/Chairman, Kadapa and another. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25436 of 1996 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks regularization of his services and to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting his claim for regularization as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.22417 of 1994 seeking regularization of his services and this Court, by its order in W.P.M.P.No.11688 of 1996 dated 26.06.1995, upon taking note of the fact that the Executive Engineer had recommended regularization of the services of the petitioner in the post of Work Inspector, directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the proposals with reference to the regularization of the services of the petitioner within two months. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent in his order dated 08.11.1996, observed that the petitioner had never been engaged against a sanctioned post, that there was no sanctioned posts of Work Inspectors as per the staffing pattern prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 12.09.1995, that while the maximum permissible strength of Work Inspectors, who could be engaged on an ad hoc basis, was 12, the Work Inspectors engaged were double the requirement i.e. 24, that the Corporation was running at a loss and was on the verge of bankruptcy, that the case of the petitioner was re-examined and that the services of the petitioner as NMR Work Inspector could not be regularized. It is well settled that no employee, engaged on daily wage/casual basis, is entitled to claim regularization of his services as of right, except in cases where there is a scheme for regularization of service in existence. It is no doubt true that G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 is a scheme for regularization of the services of casual/daily wage employees. However, regularization thereunder is subject to fulfillment of certain conditions, which includes existence of sanctioned posts. As is evident from the recitals in the impugned order dated 08.11.1996, there is no sanctioned post of Work Inspector. In any event, as against the permissible limit of 12 NMR Work Inspectors, the Corporation has 24 NMR Work Inspectors on its rolls. It is, in such circumstances, that the first respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner for regularization of his services. The action of the respondents in this regard cannot be faulted. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. __________ 06.02.2008 GJ