IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6968 of 2009 Between: M. Anjiyya S/o. M. Nageswara Rao R/o. S.C. Colony, Pedavegi (Post & Mandal) West Godavari District - 534 450. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Co-operative Oil Seeds Grower's Federation Limited, 9th Floor, Parishrama Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500 004. 2 The A.P. Co-operative Oil Seeds Grower's Federation Limited, Oil Palm Processing Unit, Pedavegi, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.V.SRINIVASAN Counsel for the Respondents:MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Operator notified to be filled up vide notification, dated 24.02.2009 issued by it. Heard Sri Y.V.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner claims to have been working in respondent No.2 organisation, on daily wage basis since 1996. According to the petitioner, he possesses all the qualifications, which are required for and notified in the above-mentioned notification for appointment as Operator. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint him instead of considering others, which the respondents propose to do under the notification referred to above. In my considered opinion, the plea of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. By the mere fact that he has been working on daily wages, the petitioner cannot claim exclusive right for appointment in a post on permanent basis. As held by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi [1] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others[2], a daily wage worker or temporary employee is not entitled to claim regularization as of right in the absence of a scheme framed by the employer. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that any such scheme has been framed by the respondents. Therefore, while he is not entitled to the relief claimed in this writ petition, he is only entitled to be considered along with all other eligible persons, if he applies to the post of Operator in pursuance of the notification issued by respondent No.1. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.9117 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd APRIL, 2009. kvni [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [2] (2008) 10 SCC 1