JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner worked in the Excise Department on daily wages for a period of one year, 10 months and 23 days w.e.f., 6.4.1989 to 30.6.1991. 3. Vacancies for the post of 30 Routine Grade Clerks were advertised on 20.11.1992, in the newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was assured by the respondents that they will absorb/ appoint him in the forthcoming vacancies of Routine Grade Clerk in the Department, but when he approached the respondents to consider him for absorption in view of the vacancies published in the advertisement, dated 20.11.1992, as per their assurance, he was denied absorption. According to the petitioner, the denial to absorb him in service is arbitrary being against the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner and one Prem Chandra Patel filed a joint writ petition seeking relief of absorption/appointment on the ground of being retrenched employees of the Excise Department. This Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992, filed by them was disposed of by order, dated 27.11.1992, with a direction to the respondents to consider the grievances of the petitioners contained in their representation with regard to their absorption/appointment. The petitioner as well as Prem Chandra Patel applied for absorption/ appointment against the advertisement, dated 20.11.1992 but were not issued admit cards, as such this writ petition was filed by the petitioner, claiming himself to be a retrenched employee and seeking the following reliefs : “(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner in examination which is going to be held on 7th February, 1993 ; (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to appoint the petitioner on priority basis according to Section 6Q of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with fair intention ; (c) issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper ; (d) to award the cost of petition to the petitioner.” 5. By an interim order, dated 5.2.1993, passed in this writ petition, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination but his result was not to be declared till further orders of the Court. By an interim order, dated 5.2.1993, passed in this writ petition, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination but his result was not to be declared till further orders of the Court. It is averred that during the pendency of the writ petition, the representation of the petitioner was also rejected by order, dated 25.2.1993, which was challenged by him by means of an amendment application in the writ petition. 6. The reliefs sought by the petitioner in the amendment application are as under : “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to consider the amendment of the petitioner in terms of the order of this Hon’ble Court and be allowed for the sake of justice and the amendment be treated as a part of the petition.” 7. It is alleged by the petitioner that he is within the ambit of the retrenched employee as he was a daily wage employee working as a Routine Grade Clerk. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the controversy as to who is a retrenched employee has been settled by this Court in Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava and others v. State of U. P. and others, 1999 (3) AWC 1956 : 1999 (82) FLR 720 , in which it has been held that any termination of service would be retrenchment unless it is covered by one of the exceptions, i.e., punishment for the disciplinary action or voluntary retirement or superannuation. The petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is not covered by any of the exceptions, mentioned above, and as such, he is a retrenched employee. It is further submitted that non-issuance of the certificate of retrenchment by the employer is immaterial and irrelevant. He submitted that in Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava (supra), it has been further held that an employee should be absorbed if he is a retrenched employee and entitled to preference and priority in Government service under the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991. The petitioner reiterated his contention that his case is fully covered by the facts of the case of Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava (supra). On this basis he stated that the right of absorption of an employee of a Government Company cannot be curtailed by taking recourse to any technicality. The petitioner reiterated his contention that his case is fully covered by the facts of the case of Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava (supra). On this basis he stated that the right of absorption of an employee of a Government Company cannot be curtailed by taking recourse to any technicality. The requirement of producing a certificate from an appointing authority is a matter of procedure and cannot deprive a person of his basic right created by law for failure to comply with the procedure and, therefore, a retrenched employee is not only entitled to absorption in accordance with the Government orders but he is entitled to preference and priority in Government service for which he is qualified. 8. The second leg of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the merit list and the selection list submitted by the respondents with the supplementary-affidavit as Annexures-2 and 3 are contrary to each other inasmuch as the merit list contained names of 24 candidates while selection list contained the names of 28 candidates. Moreover, the names of selected candidates in the select list (Annexure-3 to the supplementary-affidavit) are not found in the merit list except Serial Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12, i.e., the names of 19 selected candidates are from outside the merit list. 9. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is not a retrenched employee according to the definition in Government order dated 18.10.1979 and, it is submitted that the claim of the petitioner for absorption or preferential appointment as mentioned in sub-clauses (3) and (4) of the Advertisement cannot be granted. The definition of retrenched employee in the Government order, dated 18.10.1979 reads as under : Retrenched Employee : “A retrenched employee is a person, who was engaged in any service or making rules under the control of the Governor...........” 10. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner’s application for appointment as Junior Clerk was placed before the Excise Commissioner for consideration on 10.9.1992. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner’s application for appointment as Junior Clerk was placed before the Excise Commissioner for consideration on 10.9.1992. It is also stated that the procedure for appointment as provided under Rule 23 (1) of the U. P. Subordinate Offices Clerical Cadre Service Rules, 1985, as amended in 1996, candidates 10 times the number of vacancies were called on 7.2.1992 for typing test and as the petitioner was very low in the merit in typing test, he was not called for further test and interview. It is further stated that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager only to meet the exigency of work and inspite of the fact that he was given an opportunity to qualify the test for clerical cadre, but could not qualify and as such, there is no question of appointing the petitioner. In the supplementary counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the definition of “retrenched employee” under the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991, is as under : ““ ““¿U˜UŸË ‡ÊÈŒÊ ?§?¸øÊ/UË”” ?§Ê ÃÊàÿ¸ Á?§‚Ë 8?‚? vÿÁÄà ‚? „ÒU ¡Ù •Ä˜ÍU’/U v, v~}{ ?§Ù ?Ê ß‚??§ Í?¸ Œ /U ÷Ã˸ ??§ Á‹ÿ? ŒË ªÿË ?Á??§ÿÊ ??§ •ŸÈ‚Ê/U ‚/U?§Ê/U ÿÊ Á?§‚Ë ‚Ê?¸¡ÁŸ?§ ÁŸª? ??§ •œËŸ Á?§‚Ë Œ /U ÁŸÿÈÄà Á?§ÿÊ ªÿÊ ÕÊ •i/U ÿÕÊÁSÕÁà ‚/U?§Ê/U ÿÊ ‚Ê?¸¡ÁŸ?§ ÁŸª? ??§ Á?§‚Ë •Áœc?UÊŸ ??¥ ?§?Ë Á?§ÿ? ¡ÊŸ? ÿÊ ©U‚?§Ê Á/U‚?ÊŸ Á?§ÿ? ¡ÊŸ? ??§ ?§Ê/UáÊ •ŸË ¿U˜UŸË ??§ ÁŒŸÊ¢?§ Ã?§ ‚/U?§Ê/U ??§ ÿÊ 8?‚? ÁŸª? ??§ •œËŸ Á?§‚Ë Œ /U ÁŸ/UãÃ/U ?§Êÿ¸ ?§/U /U„Ê ÕÊ •i/U Á¡‚??§ ‚¢’¢œ ??¥ ©U‚??§ ÁŸÿÈÁÄà ?ÊÁœ?§Ê/UË mÊ/Ê ¿U˜UŸË ‡ÊÈŒÊ ?§?¸øÊ/UË „ÙŸ? ?§Ê ??ÊáÊ òÊ ¡Ê/UË ?§/U ÁŒÿÊ ªÿÊ „UÙ–”” 11. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on daily wages for sometime in the exigency of work pending selection of Routine Grade Clerk. The petitioner failed to qualify the examination of Routine Grade Clerk as he could not even obtain the minimum speed of 25 words in typing, as such does not acquire any indefeasible right for absorption in service. It has been time and again settled by the Apex Court in catena of decisions that a temporary employee engaged on daily wage basis, has no right to the post. It has been time and again settled by the Apex Court in catena of decisions that a temporary employee engaged on daily wage basis, has no right to the post. The petitioner does not fall within the four corners of the definition of the word retrenched employee as defined in G. O. dated 18.10.1979 or within the ambit of the definition in Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporation in Government Service Rules, 1991. He has worked on daily wages for about 10 months and has not acquired any indefeasible right of absorption in service particularly after not being able to qualify with other meritorious candidates. 12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 13. No order as to costs.