Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. 1. Heard Mr.A.R.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was initially engaged on daily wages basis in the Canteen run by the respondents. He had filed O.A. No.223 of 2003 for direction to regularize his services with effect from 5. 1996 with all consequential monetary and service benefits. Thereafter, the Tribunal had passed an order on 3. 2003 directing the Department to consider the representation of the petitioner. The Tribunal also observed that the Department should maintain the status of the applicant till orders are passed on the representation. Subsequently, an order was passed on 19. 2003 indicating that the post of Cook which was being sought for by the petitioner comes under Group C and there cannot be any absorption directly in Group C cadre. At this stage, the petitioner had filed O.A.No.886 of 2003. The Tribunal, as per order dated 16. 2004, had passed the following direction:- "i) The respondents are directed to keep the seniority of the applicant in mind while regularizing the persons in Group D cadre in future. As and when the post fall vacant in the group D cadre in the canteen, the applicants case shall be considered in accordance with his seniority in the casual labour roster. ii) In view of the fact that we do not know as to when such vacancy will arise, we do not fix any time limit for this purpose." Subsequently, the petitioner was absorbed on regular, but, temporary basis as a Washboy which obviously comes within Group D category. Still being unsatisfied, the petitioner filed O.A.No.973 of 2006 claiming that he should have been regularized with effect from the date of his initial appointment that is to say 5. 1996. Such Original Application having been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that regularization should have been given effect with effect from 5. 1996. 4. We do not find any justification for such contention as there is no dispute that the initial appointment of the petitioner was not against any sanctioned post nor on the basis of any selection, but, only on daily wages basis. By no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can claim that he should be regularized with effect from the earlier date when such earlier appointment was not in accordance with any rules or regulations of the Department. By no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can claim that he should be regularized with effect from the earlier date when such earlier appointment was not in accordance with any rules or regulations of the Department. This position is very clear in view of the decision in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS ( 2006(4) SCC 1 ). 5. The other contention is to the effect that at any rate the petitioner should have been regularized as Cook and not as Washboy. The counsel for the petitioner has made such submission on the footing that from the date of initial engagement on daily wages, the petitioner has been working as Cook and therefore, he should have been regularized as Cook. 6. Whatever may be the justification in making such a submission, we do not think that such a submission can be countenanced in view of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal which has already been extracted. The said order dated 16. 2004 only makes it clear that the petitioner can be considered for regularization in any Group D cadre and since there is no dispute that the post of Cook comes under Group C cadre, obviously, the petitioner could not have been regularized in such post directly. Therefore, the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner are bound to fail. 7. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner in making appropriate representation to the authorities concerned for appointing him in Group C post including the post of Cook in future. In such event, the representation of the petitioner shall be disposed of on its own merits. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.