SCA/3848/1988 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3848 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= THAKKAR S MAGANLAL & 10 - Petitioners Versus DIST. DEVLOP. OFFICER & 2 - Respondents ========================================================= Appearance : MR RN SHAH for Petitioners MR MC BHATT for Respondents : 1 - 2. MR KRUNAL D PANDYA, AGP, for Respondent : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date : 13/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioners herein were working with the respondents No.1 & 2 as drivers/cleaners in the drought-relief-work at Santalur, Taluka : Deesa SCA/3848/1988 2/4 JUDGMENT District : Banaskantha. According to them, petitioner No.1 was working as a driver since 1969, whereas some of the petitioners were working since 1984, petitioner No.9 since 1985 and some since March, 1986. 2. They sought regularisation of their services and appointment on permanent basis by preferring the present petition. This Court, while admitting the petition, granted ad-interim relief restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners only on the ground that they are daily- wagers. By order dated 21st March, 1991 it was ordered by the Court that interim relief granted earlier to continue, and the matter has since then been pending for final hearing. 3. Learned advocate Mr.R.N.Shah appears for the petitioners. Learned advocate Mr.M.C.Barot appearing for respondents No.1 & 2, is not present when the matter is called out. Learned A.G.P. Mr.K.D.Pandya appears for respondent No.3. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioners were appointed for SCA/3848/1988 3/4 JUDGMENT a particular project of drought-relief-work in Banaskantha District. Their appointments were not made by following the requisite regular procedure and, therefore, in light of the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors, (2006)4 SCC 1, reliefs sought in the petition cannot be granted. The Supreme Court took a view that temporary, contractual, casual, ad hoc or daily-wage public employment must be deemed to be accepted by the employee concerned fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. The Court also observed that wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are not intended to be used for the purpose of perpetuating illegalities, irregularities or improprieties. Here, when the appointments were for a particular project as daily-wagers, there is no question of regularising the services of the petitioners. The petition, therefore, must fail. Stands dismissed. Interim relief is vacated. Rule is discharged. No costs. [A.L.DAVE,J.] SCA/3848/1988 4/4 JUDGMENT (patel)