JUDGMENT By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.12.2005 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 335 of 2003 which had been filed by the petitioner-applicant for a direction upon the respondents to appoint him on a clear vacancy of group D’ employee and regularise his services from the date of his initial appointment. The Tribunal dismissed the application as being bereft of merits. The petitioner-applicant had earlier filed Original Application No. 425 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 11.11.2002 with a direction to the applicant to make a fresh representation to the respondents which was to be decided by a detailed reasoned order within three months. The applicant submitted the representation on 7.12.2002, which was rejected by the respondents by the order dated 4.2.2003 mentioning that the applicant had been engaged on daily wages by the Principal of the School during 1995 to do the work of Mali. This engagement was purely of casual nature and continued up to 1998. It has also been stated that such engagement on casual basis did not confer a right upon the applicant to claim regular appointment and that by the order dated 10.12.1999 the Kendriya Vidyalaya had decided to privatise certain services pertaining to group ‘D’ employee including that of Mali. In such circumstances the Tribunal clearly held that it could not issue any direction for regularisation of service, as that would be in violation of the statutory Rules and the policy decision. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant raised the same issues which were pressed before the Tribunal. 3. The Supreme Court in A. Umarani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others, 2004 AIR SCW 4462 clearly held : “......regularisation in our considered opinion is not and cannot be the mode of recruitment by any “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or any body or authority governed by a Statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder........." 4. In State of M.P. and another v. Dharam Bir, (1998) 6 SCC 165 , it was observed that the Government services are essentially a matter of status rather a contract and in that context it was observed : “Whether a person holds a particular post in a substantive capacity or is only temporary or ad hoc is a question which directly relates to his status. It all depends upon the terms of appointment. It is not open to any Government employee to claim automatic alteration of status unless that result is specifically envisaged by some provision in the statutory rules. Unless, therefore, there is a provision in the statutory rules for alteration of status in a particular situation it is not open to any Government employee to claim a status different than that which was conferred upon him at the initial or any subsequent stage of service. Applying these principles to the instant case, since the respondent, admittedly, was appointed in an ad hoc capacity, he would continue to hold the post in question in that capacity.........” 5. In Dr. Chanchal Goyal (Mrs.) v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 3 SCC 485 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that there was no scope of regularisation unless the appointment was made on a regular basis. 6. In State of Haryana and another v. Tilak Raj and others, (2003) 6 SCC 123 , the Supreme Court held that a person appointed as daily wager holds no post and thus, not entitled to claim the benefit of work. In this connection reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology and another v. Manoj K. Mohanty, (2003) 5 SCC 188 . 7. In Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University v. T. Sumanlatha (Smt.) and others, (2003) 10 SCC 405 , the Supreme Court rejected a similar contention stating : “.........The learned Counsel, therefore, contends that there is every justification for absorbing the respondents concerned on regular basis in recognition of their long satisfactory service. The learned Counsel further contends that the ad hoc arrangement to employ them on consolidated pay should not go on forever. The contention of the learned Counsel cannot be sustained for more than one reason and we find no valid grounds to grant the relief of regularisation. The learned Counsel further contends that the ad hoc arrangement to employ them on consolidated pay should not go on forever. The contention of the learned Counsel cannot be sustained for more than one reason and we find no valid grounds to grant the relief of regularisation. There is nothing on record to show that the employees concerned were appointed after following due procedure for selection. Apparently, they were picked and chosen by the University authorities to cater to the exigencies of work in the Nodal Centre.” 8. In Ramakrishna Kamat and others v. State of Karnataka and others, JT 2003 (2) SC 88, the Supreme Court rejected the plea for regularisation of services stating : "............We repeatedly asked the learned Counsel for the appellants on what basis or foundation in law the appellants made their claim for regularisation and under what rules their recruitment was made so as to govern their service conditions. They were not in a position to answer except saying that the appellants have been working for quite some time in various schools started pursuant to resolutions passed by Zilla Parishads in view of the Government Orders and that their cases need to be considered sympathetically. It is clear from the order of the learned single Judge and looking to the very directions given a very sympathetic view was taken. We do not find it either just or proper to show any further sympathy in the given facts and circumstances of the case. While being sympathetic to the persons who come before the Court, the Courts cannot at the same time be unsympathetic to the large number of eligible persons waiting for a long time in a long queue seeking employment.........” 9. It is in the light of the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court that we must examine the legality or otherwise of the judgment of the Tribunal. 10. In the present case, we find that the appellant had been engaged on merely casual basis as a ‘Mali’ on daily basis and such engagement was discontinued when the decision was taken to take such work from private agencies. Such casual engagement on daily basis cannot, in our considered opinion, confer any right on the appellant to claim regularisation. 11. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal, which may call for any interference. Such casual engagement on daily basis cannot, in our considered opinion, confer any right on the appellant to claim regularisation. 11. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal, which may call for any interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ———