CWP No.12819 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12819 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: March 15, 2011 RAM BILASH ...PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA ETC. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. S.S. DALAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. S.S. GORIPURIA, DAG, HARYANA. MR. C.B. GOEL, ADVOCATE AND MR. NITIN JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner claims regularization of his services w.e.f. 6.1.1988, the date when he joined his service with respondent No.2 as Plumber and challenges the order of termination. 2. The contention is that several other persons who had been engaged on temporary basis had been regularized, but a discrimination had been practised against the petitioner alone. The petitioner would contend that such a resolution of regularization of some ad hoc employees had been passed, but he was unable to lay his hands on the said resolution. The respondent denies that there was any such regularization for such persons similarly situated. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition for the same relief in CWP No.6876 of 1989 CWP No.12819 of 1989 -2- and it was dismissed in limine. Respondent No.2 contends that without disclosing the fact of dismissal he had given a fresh application for appointment and since his services were required for a brief period, he was engaged. This was used by the petitioner as giving him a cause of action for a fresh writ petition as though it was a fresh engagement. If there are any rules which provide for manner of engagement or if there are any recruitment rules that provide for regularization then it would have been possible for the petitioner to make such a plea. If the argument is only that there is violation of Article 14 and some other persons have been engaged, it cannot give such a ground for engagement. A view so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pooran Chandra Pandey vs. U.P.S.E.B. reported as (2007) 11 SCC 92 was found to be not stating a correct law in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1. 3. The petitioner cannot, therefore, obtain any benefit through this writ petition and the same is dismissed. March 15, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE