WA 302/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR MADAN B.LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. MERUNO The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 14-5-2010 passed by a learn ed Single Judge in WP(C) No.125/2010. The appellant was engaged as a night maintenance worker in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Rangia with the Assam State Electricity Board . The appellant worked as a daily wage earner from 1-1-1995 till some time in Oc tober, 2005 when his services were dispensed with. The appellant says that he made representations to the respondents for r egularizing his services taking into consideration the fact that he has put in a lmost 11 years of work with the respondents. Since no positive response was fort hcoming, the appellant had no option but to file a writ petition in this court. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition on two principal gro unds and we agree with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in respec t of both the grounds. Since there was some doubt whether there was a scheme for regularization of daily wage workers, we required the respondents to inform us whether there i s such a scheme. An affidavit dated 24th March 2011 has been filed in which it i s clearly stated that there is no scheme for regularization of daily wage worker s and that no such person has been regularized. Since there was no scheme for re gularization of daily wage workers the appellant had no right to claim regulariz ation. The learned Single Judge relied upon Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Um a Devi [(2006) 4SCC 1] in coming to this conclusion. That apart, it is found that the recruitment of the appellant was not as per the recruitment rules and for that reason also the appellant could not be r egularized. We find no merit in this appeal. We endorse the view of the learned Single Judge that in case any vacancy arises in Grade-IV/ Sahayak post and an advertisement is issued to fill up thos e vacancies the appellant may be allowed to participate in the selection process . The authorities will take into consideration the case of the appellant includi ng the fact that he has put in service for a considerable period of time.