Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 836 (DEL)

ARJUN SINGH v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

2007-04-23

KAILASH GAMBHIR

body2007
JUDGMENT Kailash Gambhir, J.- These batch of writ petitions bearing WP (C) No. 22715-24/05, 17104-88/06, 18236-49/06, 18250-60/06, 18326-54/06, 18531-662/ 06, 19189-205/06, 12421-35/06, 16464-86/06, 12136-75/06, 17805-31/06, 18507-15/06 involves common question of law and which are based on identical facts. The common question of law which is involved in the present batch matters is as to whether the petitioners who have been working with the respondent/MCD as domestic breeding checkers/health workers for time periods ranging from 4-8 months in respective years from 1996-97 to 2005 can claim regularisation of their service through the writ of mandamus to the respondent. 2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the respondent/MCD in the year 1997 came out with an advertisement to appoint candidates on the post of domestic breeding checkers/health workers and as per the eligibility criteria the candidates were required to be 10th Standard pass and duly registered with the employment exchange. As per the case of the petitioners, the respondent/MCD from time-to time employed these petitioners pursuant to the advertisement issued in this regard for each year. The petitioners were initially appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs.2000/- per month and their police verification and medical was also done. The petitioners were again engaged vide Office Order dated 8.9.2005 on contract basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month and they have been working as domestic breeding checkers/health workers to the complete satisfaction of the respondent/MCD. The respondent had also prepared a seniority list of all these domestic breeding checkers/health workers in the year 2004 and without following the seniority list of 2004, yet again prepared another seniority list in the year 2005. 3. The petitioners have claimed that their nature of job is such that the same is necessarily required throughout the year and they are not only involved in checking mosquito breeding but also in taking care of other dangerous diseases like cholera, gastroenteritis, jaundice, distribution of chlorine tablets and taking water samples, etc. It is also the case of the petitioners that earlier some of the employees other than the petitioners had approached the High Court seeking direction that there names should be included in the list prepared by the respondent/MCD for domestic breeding checkers/health workers w.e.f. October, 1996 and this Court in W.P.(C). It is also the case of the petitioners that earlier some of the employees other than the petitioners had approached the High Court seeking direction that there names should be included in the list prepared by the respondent/MCD for domestic breeding checkers/health workers w.e.f. October, 1996 and this Court in W.P.(C). No. 476-97/2006, vide order dated 13.1.2006 had given directions to the respondent/MCD to take into consideration all the relevant materials and the period of service put in by them w.e.f. 19/20th October, 1996 for the purposes of preparing final seniority list and, thereafter, to place the candidates at the appropriate place. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court, the respondentlMCD brought out a public notice dated 4.5.2006 inviting applications from such candidates who had been working as domestic breeding checkers health workers in 1996 and, thereafter, who fulfilled the eligibility criteria laid down by the respondent/MCD at the time of their first appointment. After said public notice dated 4.5.2006, the respondent/MCD took out another public notice which was published in Dainik Jagran dated 13.5.2006 and through this advertisement right to appointment for the said post was restricted to those candidates who had worked from October to December, 1996. Against the said advertisement the present petitioners preferred C.M. No. 7097/2006 and vide order dated 1.6.2006, this Court had given directions to the respondent/MCD to accept the applications of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 13.1.2006 passed in W.P.(C). No. 476-97/2006 and consider the applications of the petitioners in accordance with the policy of the respondent/MCD. 4. The petitioners have placed on record the seniority list prepared in the year 2005 and 2006. In the circular dated 13.1.2006, Health Department of the MCD had notified that the provisional list of domestic breeding checkers/health workers will be displayed on the notice boards of all Zonal DHO Offices and Dy MHO (Mal & OVBD) from 4.1.2006 to 11.1.2006 and objections were invited from the candidates in case of any discrepancy in the notified list. In the said circular it was also stated that in future if any engagement of domestic breeding checkers/health workers is to be done the same shall be done only on the basis of the seniority list. In the said circular it was also stated that in future if any engagement of domestic breeding checkers/health workers is to be done the same shall be done only on the basis of the seniority list. The period for inviting objections was fixed from 1.6.2006 to 8.6.2006 and vide public notice dated 13.5.2006, the right was restricted only to those candidates who had worked from October 1996 to December 1996. The said public notice dated 13.5.2006 came under challenge vide C.M. No. 7097/2006, as already stated above. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/MCD, it is stated that the appointment of the petitioners is seasonal and purely temporary and the period of employment of these petitioners is dependant upon the severity of outbreak of any epidemic in a particular year. As per the respondent the employment of the petitioners is purely on contractual basis on fixed monthly emoluments and they have no right to seek any kind of regular is at ion on the basis of their such transitory and intermittent employment for short periods. vide order dated 6.11.2006, direction was given by this Court in W.P.(C). No. 16464-86/2006 that petitioners be not removed from the service till the next date. The respondent/MCD had filed C.M. No. 15993/2006 seeking vacation of the stay order. In the said application the respondent/MCD took a categorical stand that there are no sanctioned posts for domestic breeding checkers/health checkers and the employment of the petitioners was purely on temporary basis, terminable on the expiry of the period for which they were engaged to combat the seasonal outbreaks of dengue/malaria epidemics. In the said application the respondent/MCD had placed reliance on the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by my brother Judge J.M. Malik, J. in W.P.(C) No. 16464/2006 whereby the stay earlier granted by the Court was vacated. 6. In the said order dated 11.12.2006, Justice J.M. Malik has placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, III (2006) SLT 539=2006 (4) SCC I. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at great length. 6. In the said order dated 11.12.2006, Justice J.M. Malik has placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, III (2006) SLT 539=2006 (4) SCC I. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at great length. The main thrust of the argument of the Counsels appearing for the petitioners is that these petitioners have been continuously working as domestic breeding checkers/health workers for the past more than 10 years and although MCD appoints them for short intervals but looking into the nature of job performed by them, their requirement and need is for the entire year. It is also contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that all these petitioners duly fulfil the eligibility criteria as laid down by MCD and once they have undergone the process as per the laid down criteria, their appointment is required to be treated as regular appointment not temporary/ad hoc appointment. It is also contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that most of the petitioners have become over aged and if their services are not regularised, they will be rendered jobless that too at a time when they cannot find any other employment. Counsel for the petitioners contended that once these petitioners are being employed continuously year after year then this act of the MCD in itself is sufficient to show the need of the MCD for regular appointment of the candidates on the post of domestic breeding checkers/health workers. 8. The Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the seniority list prepared by MCD in the year 2006, indicating the names of all these petitioners and others from the date of their initial joining with their date of birth, qualification, category, etc., including the place of their posting in respective municipal zones. Counsel for the petitioners has also drawn my attention to the order dated 13.1.2006 passed by my brother Judge Ravindra Bhat, J. whereby the writ petition filed by similar candidates was disposed of with the directions to the MCD to prepare the final seniority list after taking into consideration the names of all those candidates who had put in service as domestic breeding checkers/health workers w.e.f. 19/20th October, 1996. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Resolution No. 664 of the MCD, whereby the MCD has created 1100 posts of Malaria Beldars in regular pay scales pursuant to the order passed by this Court. Counsel for the petitioners has also contended that appointment of the petitioners is not illegal and in support of his contention, Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees Union v. Mineral Exploration Corpn. Ltd. & Anr.; III (2006) SLT 539= 2006 (6) SCC 310 . In the said judgment., the Supreme Court has also taken note of the observations of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in See)., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (supra). The Supreme Court in Mineral Exploration Corporations case (supra) has held as under: "At the time of hearing, our attention was drawn to the judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in See)., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi. The said case deals with public employment, absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoe employees appointed/recruited and continued for long in public employment de hors the constitutional scheme of public employment. Our attention was specifically drawn to para 53 of the said judgment authored by Honble P.K. Balasubramanyam, J. for the Bench, which reads thus (SCC p.42) 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.Y. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a onetime measure, the services of such irregularly (emphasis in original) appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." It is seen from the above paragraph that this Court directed the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed workmen, who have worked for ten years or more in the duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed." 9. Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the order dated 9.) .2005 passed by my Brother Judge Vikramajit Sen, J. in W.P.(C). No. 1929/98. In the said petition the Court was dealing with T.B. health visitors who had been working with the Health Department of the MCD from 1996 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the order dated 9.) .2005 passed by my Brother Judge Vikramajit Sen, J. in W.P.(C). No. 1929/98. In the said petition the Court was dealing with T.B. health visitors who had been working with the Health Department of the MCD from 1996 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. Justice Sen after taking into consideration the regular appointment of similarly situated candidates and after finding the existence of 14 vacant posts, gave directions to the MCD for regularisation of the services of the petitioners therein with seniority from the date they had joined their services w.e.f. 1996 as was done in the case of other candidates. 10. On the other hand Counsel for the respondent/MCD has contended that services of these petitioners were seasonal in nature and their employment in any particular year was dependant upon the gravity of the epidemic in that particular year as some times these petitioners were appointed for a short duration of 4 to 6 months while some times even for more months. Counsel for the respondent/MCD has also contended that although office orders and the public notices issued by the respondent/MCD clearly showed that appointment of the petitioners was on contractual basis on a consolidated monthly salary and in terms of their appointment issued through various office orders it was made clear that the post of domestic breeding checkers/health workers was purely temporary in nature and their services were terminable after expiry of the specified period. In the office order it was also stipulated that termination could take place even before the expiry of the specified period without assigning any reason. It would be relevant to reproduce office order dated 24.6.1999. "Sh/Ku Madan Pal S/O-D/O Sh. Vir Singh is hereby appointed/engaged as health Worker for a period of89 days i.e. upto 19.9.99 at a fixed salary of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. on contract basis to assist staff of the Health Dept. on the following terms and conditions: 1. the post of Health Worker is purely temporary and the services of the appointee automatically stand terminated on 19.9.99 without assigning any further notice. 2. The appointee will get their medical fitness from Govt. Hospital/ Dispensaries. 3. The appointee should bear a good moral character and no police case be registered against him. 4. the post of Health Worker is purely temporary and the services of the appointee automatically stand terminated on 19.9.99 without assigning any further notice. 2. The appointee will get their medical fitness from Govt. Hospital/ Dispensaries. 3. The appointee should bear a good moral character and no police case be registered against him. 4. The appointee will work for six days i.e. Monday to Saturday w.ef 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. with one hour lunch break. 5. The appointee will have a rest on Sundays and National Holidays. 6. the appointee will not be entitled for/Claim any Mpl. Conveyance. 7. The appointee shall submit his/her daily work report along with any other information if any to the concerned officer/official. The appointee will not claim any benefit for further appointment/ engagement in M.C.D. During the contract period the services of the appointee can be terminated without assigning any reason/notice and the appointee will not claim any emoluments/relief. This issue with the approval of the Commissioner (M.C.D.) He/She is directed to report to D.H.O. Shah (South) Zone for further duties." 11. In another Office Order dated 8.9.2005 same terms and conditions were notified. Some of the salient features of the said order are reproduced below: "1. The post of DSC is purely temporary and services of the appointee shall be terminated after the expiry of five months from the date of his/her joining or up to 30.11.2005, whichever is earlier. However, , his/her engagement can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason and in the event of such termination the appointee shall not claim any emoluments for the remaining period of services as per contract. 2. The payment of salary will be subject to medical fitness and verification of character and antecedents by the respective authorities. 3. The appointee should not have more than one living wife/husband. 4. The appointee shall be entitled for one day rest after every six working days in addition to national holidays. 5. The appointee shall not be entitled for conveyance allowance for performing his/her duty. 6. The appointee shall submit daily report of completion of work allotted to him. The appointee shall be entitled for the fee of the day after satisfactory completion of the allotted work certified by the supervisor. 7. 5. The appointee shall not be entitled for conveyance allowance for performing his/her duty. 6. The appointee shall submit daily report of completion of work allotted to him. The appointee shall be entitled for the fee of the day after satisfactory completion of the allotted work certified by the supervisor. 7. The appointee shall have to fill the prescribed performa for the work performed by him/her of the day and will have to submit the same to his/her supervisor daily. 8. In case of failure of completion of allotted work for the day upto the satisfaction of the supervisor, the fee for the day shall be cut of and nothing will be paid. 9. The duty time shall be from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. with one hour lunch break from I p.m. to 1.30 p.m. or as per orders of the DHO of the Zone in this regard." Similar language is also used in other office orders dated 22.9.2004 and 30.6.2005. 12. Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the order dated 11.12.2006 passed by my brother Judge J.M. Malik, J. in W.P.(C). No. 16464-861 2006 while vacating the stay order. In para 2 of the order dated 11.12.2006 the Court observed as under: "2. This Court vide writ petition titled Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. MCD and Ors. in WP (C) No. 476-97 of 2006 issued certain directions for preparation of seniority list. The respondent published seniority list dated 4.5.2006. However, the seniority list does not mention about the post of health workers. There is no sanctioned post for Domestic Breeding Checker but the post of Health Worker is a sanctioned post on which the respondent had been recruiting regular employees. The petitioners have been working at the post of Health Workers since 1996." 13. It is a settled law that regularisation cannot be a mode of recruitment for appointment and any appointment which itself is in infraction of the recruitment rules or in violation of the provisions of Constitution or any Statute or enactment cannot be conferred with legal status. The precise question to be answered in the present batch of writ petitions is whether the petitioners were appointed de hors the rules or were appointed in conformity with the rules. With this, the other question attached is whether the appointment of the petitioners can be considered to be irregular or illegal appointment. The precise question to be answered in the present batch of writ petitions is whether the petitioners were appointed de hors the rules or were appointed in conformity with the rules. With this, the other question attached is whether the appointment of the petitioners can be considered to be irregular or illegal appointment. Also another equally important question is as to whether the services of the petitioners, who were appointed on casual/temporary seasonal basis can be directed to be regularised. 14. Going by the language of various appointment letters there is no iota of doubt that the engagement of these petitioners was purely seasonal, temporary and on contractual basis. The use of language in these appointment letters, stating that "this engagement is totally seasonal and in any situation regular employment or any claim regarding the same, will not be entertained", "all these appointments will be temporary and on contract basis for 4-5 months and the claim for the continuation of the appointment will not be acceptable", "the post of DSC (Domestic Breeding Checker) is purely temporary and service of the appointee shall be terminated after the expiry of 5 months from the date of his/her joining or up to 30.11.2005, whichever is earlier", necessarily lead to irresistible conclusion that these appointments were not on regular basis but the same were purely, casual and seasonal in nature. Although these appointments were purely temporary or casual but these cannot be treated as either illegal appointments or irregular appointments. This is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/MCD wherein it is stated ~ that the recruitment of these petitioners was being done as per the rules on temporary basis depending upon the current position in any particular season. It would be relevant to reproduce para 3 of the counter .affidavit of the MCD as under: "In reply to para No.3 of the Counter Affidavit, it is submitted that the recruitment is being done as per the rules on temporary basis as the h current position is required only for seasonal period during the Monsoon for period ranging upto four to five months on contractual basis every year also depending upon the outbreak of any epidemic if any in that year." 15. Further in para Nos. Further in para Nos. 8 and 9 of the CM No.13459/2006 filed by the respondent/MCD the stand of the MCD is that there is no sanctioned post for Domestic Breeding Checker and these Domestic Breeding Checkers were solely appointed on contractual basis and their engagement is only for the purposes of anti-malaria/dengue programmes, which normally comes to an end at the expiry of the monsoon period or beginning of the winter. All these contentions of the respondent/MCD evidently show that the appointment of the petitioners were although contractual and seasonal in nature but the same cannot be treated as irregular or illegal appointments. The respondent MCD has on its strength regular health workers and other staff on regular basis dealing with the menace of various diseases such as cholera, malaria, gastroenteritis, etc. and this additional force, on temporary and contractual basis, is pressed into service for short intervals depending upon seriousness of the outbreak and its longevity. The case of the present petitioners, therefore, cannot be treated at par with the health workers or other Malaria Beldars appointed by the MCD on regular basis against sanctioned posts. The appointment of workers on seasonal or contractual basis is in the administrative domain of the MCD and while discharging their administrative duties the MCD does take recourse to such temporary appointments so as to meet various exigencies in the public interest. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in making such seasonal appointments for such short intervals. The appointment of the petitioners, therefore, cannot be considered to be irregular or illegal appointment. 16. The next question which is required to be answered is whether these petitioners appointed on seasonal and contractual basis can claim conferment of any right so as to grant them the status of regular service or regular appointment. Counsel for the respondent has strongly placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (supra), and contended that after the said decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, no relief can be granted as prayed by the petitioners. There cannot be any doubt that recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevis case (supra) has dispelled many doubts concerning such cases and in depth has dealt with divergent situations. There cannot be any doubt that recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevis case (supra) has dispelled many doubts concerning such cases and in depth has dealt with divergent situations. The continuous appointment of the petitioners, right from 1996 to 2005, although intermittently for short periods, no doubt, depicts the necessity of employment of these petitioners on the post of domestic breeding checkers/health workers every year. In recent past it is a matter of common knowledge that many deaths have taken place due to outbreak of dengue, malaria and other deadly diseases such as chicken guinea, etc. which were earlier unheard of. The High Court while dealing with the Public Interest Litigation has passed various directions to deal with these deadly diseases after passing severe strictures against inefficiency and ineffectiveness of municipal authorities for their total apathy and callousness, however, the need and necessity of continuous employment of domestic breeding checkers/health workers has to be decided by the respondent/MCD and this Court while discharging powers of judicial review would not prefer to give any such directions to MCD to appoint these petitioners on the post of domestic breeding checkers/health workers on regular basis. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have put in continuous work of more than 240 days and they are under threat of being illegally removed from service by the employer MCD without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the present batch matters, the petitioners are claiming regularisation, firstly, on the ground that for the past about 10 years they are in continuous employment although for short periods and such continuous employment gives them a right to get appointed on the said post on regular basis. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on para 44 of the Umadevi s case (supra). The same is reproduced below: "44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S. V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B.N. Nagarajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of Courts or of Tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that contest, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of Courts or of Tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme," 17. Counsel for the petitioner says that the Supreme Court has come to the rescue of all those workers who have been in service for 10 years or more without the intervention of the Courts order and, therefore, such observation of the Supreme Court squarely covers the case of all the petitioners as well. 18. The reference of aforementioned paragraph of Umadevis case (supra) can be of no help to the petitioners as it mandates appointment of duly qualified persons against duly sanctioned vacant post and the concerned employees having been in employment for 10 years or more continuously. Admittedly, none of the petitioners of these writ petitions have worked continuously except for short periods ranging from 4 to 10 months in a particular year. The appointment of these petitioners are also not against any sanctioned posts and, therefore, it would be difficult to give any directions to the respondent/MCD to consider regularisation of these petitioners as a one-time measure. Umadevi s judgment (supra) with all its force goes against the petitioners. Reference is invited to following paragraphs of the said judgment: "36. The appointment of these petitioners are also not against any sanctioned posts and, therefore, it would be difficult to give any directions to the respondent/MCD to consider regularisation of these petitioners as a one-time measure. Umadevi s judgment (supra) with all its force goes against the petitioners. Reference is invited to following paragraphs of the said judgment: "36. This Court also quoted with approval (at SCC P. 131, para 69) the observations of this Court in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh to the effect - (SCC p. 144, para 36) 36. We have no doubt in our mind that sympathy or sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto the appellants miserably fail to establish a legal right. It is further trite that despite an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court ordinarily would not pass an order which would be in contravention of a statutory provision. This decision kept in mind the distinction between regularisation and "permanency" and laid down that regularisation is not and cannot be the mode of recruitment by any State. It also held that regularisation cannot give permanence to any employee whose services are ad hoc in nature. 38. In Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela this Court answered the question, who was a government servant and stated (SCC p. 490, para 12) 12. Article 16 which finds place in Part III of the Constitution relating to fundamental rights provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The main object of Article 16 is to create a constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in public offices. The words employment or appointment cover not merely the initial appointment but also other attributes or service like promotion and age of superannuation, etc. The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made. A regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered. Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution. ................Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since of rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the Court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the Court, which we have described as "litigious employment" in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The Courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or land themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates." 19. The reliance placed by the Counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees case (supra) may also be of no help to the case of the petitioners as in that case the directions were given by the Supreme Court to the Labour Tribunal to pass appropriate orders after scrutinizing all the records placed by the trade union and also by the management and thereafter to consider the genuineness and authenticity of each and every claim therein for regularisation. The case of the workmen in that case was that they had worked for minimum 8 years and maximum 20 years of service but their services were neither regularised nor they were paid regular wages as per the revision of pay scale and based on these facts an industrial dispute was raised by the union against the management. The facts of the present case are totally dissimilar to the facts of the case in Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees Unions case and, therefore, the ratio of said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case like Euclids theorem. The facts of the present case are totally dissimilar to the facts of the case in Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees Unions case and, therefore, the ratio of said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case like Euclids theorem. The judgment of Justice Vikramajit Sen may also be of no help to the petitioners as the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Umadevis case has held it otherwise. The Supreme Court in yet another recent, judgment reported in 2007 (1) SLR 388 titled as Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., after an exhaustive discussion on its earlier pronouncements including Umadevi s judgment has held that the Tribunal cannot direct regular appointment of temporary employees de hors rules nor can direct continuation of their services. 20. In Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwal v. State of J&K, (1996) 9 SCC 6 I 9 it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give any right for regularisation as the regularisation is governed by the statutory rules. 21. The same dictum of law has also been laid down in another judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur v. Om Prakash Dubey, 2007 AIR SCW 589. Para 9 of the said judgment is reproduced below: "9. Referring to a large number of decisions which have been rendered by different Benches of this Court from time to time, the Constitution Bench categorically opined: "While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularised or made permanent, the Courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain - not at arms length - since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the Court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the Court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment the person concerned knows the nature of his (employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making regular appointment to available post in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not (sic) one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution." 22. Since the services of the present petitioners were engaged by the respondent/MCD as additional force to prevent and also to deal with the menace of these seasonal outbreak of various fatal and deadly diseases, therefore, it would be appropriate to refer to various directions given by the Division Bench of our own High Court by taking suo motu notice after the first outbreak of dengue fever in Delhi in the year 1996. The Division Bench of this Court in the case Court on its own Motion v. Muncipal Corporation of Delhi, 75 (1998) DLT 327 has given following directions: "We deem it imperative to direct the high level coordinating committee already set up by the Government of India. (I) to examine efficacy, adequacy and comprehensiveness of the MCD, the NDMC and of the UOIs action programme and to suggest some definite measures to make the Dengue Control Programme meaningful, efficacious, comprehensive and adequate. A report in this regard be sent to this Court within two months by the committee; (2) Looking to the population, at least 10 major hospitals in Delhi must be fully equipped to deal with the day-to-day patients and to deal with any outbreak of the epidemic; (3) The Union Government and the Government of NCT of Delhi are directed to prepare a National Dengue Control Programme and Dengue Control Programme for the NCT of Delhi by the Delhi Government with a regular budgetary provisions for taking effective control measures for its prevention; (4) The Government of NCT, Delhi is directed to provide necessary information to the public DOs and Donts at frequent intervals by the National Media, such as Television, Radio, National Newspapers, etc. The adequacy of such information must be determined by the said committee already set up including publication and distribution of pamphlets allover Delhi giving necessary information. (5) Unreliable water supply must be stopped forthwith and reliable and regular water supply be ensured; (6) Garbage and rubbish collection machinery be improved which is also an important source of breeding more mosquitoes; (7) Traditional water storage practices be suitably changed and water storage containers should be tightly covered to prevent mosquitoes laying eggs therein. (5) Unreliable water supply must be stopped forthwith and reliable and regular water supply be ensured; (6) Garbage and rubbish collection machinery be improved which is also an important source of breeding more mosquitoes; (7) Traditional water storage practices be suitably changed and water storage containers should be tightly covered to prevent mosquitoes laying eggs therein. (8) Covering and sealing of septic tanks and soak away pits to prevent mosquitoes breading; (9) Organizing of training sessions for volunteers and the health officers of the MCD and NDMC officials so that they can handle the day-to-day patients and be fully prepared to face the situation of sudden epidemic effectively; (10) Regular survey of all localities by the MCD and the NDMC." 23. Despite the aforesaid directions the municipal authorities have failed to take effective measures to deal with these seasonal outbreaks in an effective and efficient manner resulting into many casualties. Even in the year 2006 when again there was a widespread of dengue fever the Division Bench again took suo motu notice on account of thousands of cases of dengue fever and occurrence of many deaths in Delhi and gave various directions vide order dated 6th October, 2006. The following observations of the Division Bench given in W.P.(C). No. 3875/96 vide order dated 6th October, 2006 would show the apathy and insensitiveness of the municipal authorities in dealing with the said outbreak in the year 2006: "Every human life is precious. The State cannot remain insensitive to the human miseries. If 3000 cases and 40 odd or more deaths cannot wake up and cannot ring alarm, well, then we are in a sorry state. Whether on account of over-crow ding, over population, the day is not far off when the whole city will be engulfed today with dengue fever, tomorrow with chickengunia and day after with any other unknown disease. Therefore, we have to act with promptitude and effectiveness." 24. Based on the above discussions these batch of writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions. 25. The respondent/MCD to maintain the seniority list of domestic breeding chgeckers/health workers as already directed by this Court vide order dated 13.1.2006 (S. Ravindra Bhat, J.) and future appointments of these domestic breeding checkers/health workers shall be made strictly in terms of the seniority of the candidates. 26. 25. The respondent/MCD to maintain the seniority list of domestic breeding chgeckers/health workers as already directed by this Court vide order dated 13.1.2006 (S. Ravindra Bhat, J.) and future appointments of these domestic breeding checkers/health workers shall be made strictly in terms of the seniority of the candidates. 26. The respondent/MCD shall also take into consideration various directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid dengue mailer titled Court on its own Motion (supra) and then examine the need of regular appointments on the posts of Domestic Breeding Checkers so that the menace of these deadly diseases are effectively and efficiently handled with promptitude and the precious lives of the citizens are saved. The MCD indisputably, cannot remain oblivious to the fact of continuous recurrence of these diseases every year and, therefore, it will be in the fitness of things if the respondent/MCD examines the issue of deployment of regular man force to deal with the menace of such regular outbreaks of these fevers/diseases. In case the MCD takes such a decision of creating regular posts, then, in that event, the candidature of the present petitioners be also taken into consideration strictly in accordance with their seniority list after giving due consideration to the factor of age relaxation as well. The respondent/MCD shall take a decision in this regard with in a period not later than six months. Writ Petition disposed of.