CWP No. 306 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 306 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.01.2010 Rakesh Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. NP Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioners have challenged order dated 3.9.2009 holding that they have been working as contingent employees. Their initial appointment was made neither through employment exchange nor through any other legally acceptable mode consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They have claimed before the Tribunal regularisation on the strength that they have worked for about 10 years. The Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Having heard learned counsel, we do not find any ground to interfere in the well-reasoned order of the Tribunal. The judgment of CWP No. 306 of 2010 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) clearly lays down that if an employee is inducted in service by an illegal mode then such an employee cannot seek regularisation. In para 53 of the judgment, it has been observed that a scheme could be floated for only such employees who have been appointed on account of some irregularity in the method of appointment but not in respect of those employees who have been appointed by adopting a wholly illegal mode in respect of their appointment. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. Dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE 12.01.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE