Judgment Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Sri AK Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the respondents. They are heard on admission. 2. Petitioner Rajiv Sharma has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: 3. The petitioner, thus, in substance is seeking quashing of the impugned judgment dated 27-05-1999 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 63/11 1992. the petitioner, in addition, is claiming a direction to the respondents to regularise his services. 4. Petitioner Rajiv Sharma had filed the claim petitioner before the Public Services Tribunal for a direction to the respondents to regularise his services on the post of Jeep Driver and to pay him all the consequential benefits; and to pay him salary for his duty period from 01-01-1991 to 12-04-1991. 5. The petitioner claimed that he was appointed as Jeep Driver on 04-04-1990; he continued on the said post from 04-04-1990 to 08-01-1991 with Collector, Haridwar; thereafter, he was transferred as driver on jeep of Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, where he worked upto 12-04-1991. 6. On the above pleadings, the petitioner claimed a direction for his regularisation on the post of Jeep Driver and also claimed salary for the period from 01-01-1991 to 1'2-04-1991. 7. The respondents had filed their counter affidavit before the Tribunal, wherein it was categorically stated that as the petitioner was appointed on daily wages, he has no right to claim his regularisation on the post of Jeep Driver. 8. The Tribunal, on thorough analysis of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and following the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Yamuna Shankar Misra and another reported in 1997 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 903, did not find any case for petitioner's regularisation on the post of Jeep Driver and, therefore, dismissed the petitioner's claim petition vide impugned judgment dated 27-05-1999 wherein it was observed in paras 6 to 8: "6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager, hence he is entitled to get regular appointment on the post of Jeep Driver. He has also argued that the petitioner worked for more than 240 days, hence he is entitled to be reuglarised on the post of Jeep Driver. After going through the record of the case, I do not find any force in this contention. He has also argued that the petitioner worked for more than 240 days, hence he is entitled to be reuglarised on the post of Jeep Driver. After going through the record of the case, I do not find any force in this contention. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager to drive the jeep of Collector, Haridwar for some time and also to drive the jeep of Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Roorki. The petitioner alleged that he was getting Rs. 30/ - per day when he worked as Jeep Driver. The case of the opposite parties is that the petitioner was getting Rs. 20/- per day and later on he was getting Rs. 30/- per day. The petitioner has nowhere stated that any post of Jeep Driver was lying vacant under the Collector, Haridwar. If due to leave granted to the drivers or due to some need, the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager for some time, he cannot be said to have acquired any right to work on the post of Jeep Driver specially when there is noting on record to show that any post of Jeep Driver was lying vacant. Even, if it is held that the post of Jeep Driver is vacant, the petitioner has no right to get his services regularised because regular appointment is made after observing the formalities provided under the rules like advertising the post, inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding test interview. The appointment made after observing the aforesaid formalities could only be said to be legal and regular and in accordance with the provisions of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to get regular appointment on the post of Jeep Driver merely because he has worked on the post of Jeep Driver as a daily wager." 7. In similar case of 'State of U.P. Vs. Yamuna Shankar Misra and another 1997 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 903, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under: "The admitted position is that the respondent came to be appointed on daily wage basis on 14.2.1985 as Class IV employee, Nursing Orderly, in the Medical College by the Medical Superintendent. In similar case of 'State of U.P. Vs. Yamuna Shankar Misra and another 1997 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 903, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under: "The admitted position is that the respondent came to be appointed on daily wage basis on 14.2.1985 as Class IV employee, Nursing Orderly, in the Medical College by the Medical Superintendent. When the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court for his regularisation, the learned Single Judge pointed out that the respondent has not brought to the notice of the Court, any statutory rule under which the respondent could be regularised, on the basis of the service rendered by him as a daily wage earner. Even the method of recruitment adopted by the Superintendent was not proper inasmuch as he did not call for applications. The Division Bench reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge and had given directions. It is now settled legal position that there should exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory rules must be in operation to appoint a person to the post. Daily wage appointment will obviously be in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post and it continues so long as the work exists. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench was clearly in error in directing the appellant to regularize the service of the respondent to the post as and when the vacancy arises and to continue him until then. The direction in the backdrop of the above fact is, obviously illegal." 8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited above, I hold that no such direction, as prayed by the petitioner in the claim petition, can be given to the opposite parties to give him regular appointment on the post of Jeep Driver when he was engaged only as a daily wager Jeep Driver according to the temporary need of the department in stop-gap arrangement." 9. Sri A.K. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, could not dispute that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages. It further appears that the petitioner was appointed without following the prescribed procedure as the post was never advertised and the applications were not invited. Sri A.K. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, could not dispute that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages. It further appears that the petitioner was appointed without following the prescribed procedure as the post was never advertised and the applications were not invited. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot claim his regularisation on the post of Jeep Driver in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the Case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others reported in 2006 AIR sew 1991. 10. We therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, which may warrant interference in this writ petition. 11. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.