IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1099 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated04.04.2007 in W.P.No.17499 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court) Between: Mangalesh Kumar, S/o. Sri Arjun Singh, Aged 36 years, R/o. Plot Nos.4 & 5, Satyasai Nagar, Brindavan Colony, Balapur X Road, Vaishalinagar, Hyderabad. ... APPELLANT AND 1. Govt. of India, rep. By its Secretary, Defence, New Delhi, 2. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd., (A Govt. of India Enterprise) Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad. 3. The Senior Manager (P&A) Super Alloys Plant, Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd., Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad. 4. The Senior Manager (OCL), Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd., Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderbad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. PVL BHANU PRAKASH for Dr. P.B. VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for Respondents: MR. K. SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per HC, J) Being aggrieved by an order dated 14-04-2007 passed in W.P.No.17499 of 1996, this appeal has been filed. The appellant-original petitioner was working as a daily-wager and he has prayed for regularization of his services in the afore-stated petition. The case of the appellant was that his services ought to have been regularized as the services of four daily wagers who were junior to him and similarly situated had been regularized. It was his speciﬁc case that he had worked for 240 days and, therefore, he had a right to seek for regularization of his services. Counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the respondent- employer stating that the services of the appellant could not be regularized, as he did not possess the requisite qualification to be appointed to the post in question. Upon perusal of the counter aﬃdavit, it is very clear that the Chief Vigilance Oﬃcer of the respondent-company had found that the appellant was a non-matriculate and his name was also not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. In the circumstances, it was found that he was not eligible to be given regular appointment. It may be noted that it is not correct to say that services of similarly situated persons had been regularized. It is true that persons who were juniors to the appellant were regularised in service but they belonged to reserved category and they satisﬁed the eligibility criterion for being appointed on regular basis. The case of the appellant is thus not similar to that of other persons as he does not belong to any of the reserved classes. Moreover, in our opinion, no employee has a right to be regularized in the service for the reason that regularization of services of an employee depends upon various factors and the foremost being the fulﬁllment of the eligibility criterion. Further, as rightly observed by the learned single Judge that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka V. Umadevi [1], the appellant had no right to be regularised in service. The learned Advocate for the appellant-petitioner has made a prayer to the eﬀect that at least as a daily-wager the appellant should be continued if his services cannot be regularized. In our opinion, it is also not possible to accept the said prayer for the reason that according to the additional counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondent- employer, the appellant did not meet the eligibility criterion either for the post of Steel-Melting Hand or Artisan (A) as claimed by him. In the circumstances, it is not even possible for the respondent-employer to continue the appellant in service as a daily-wager. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not ﬁnd any substance in the appeal and therefore the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. October 14, 2008 MRR [1] (2006) 1 SCC 1