Judgment : The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to regularise his services in the cadre of skilled assistant with effect from the date of first appointment, namely, 11. 1985, by condoning the break if any with all consequential service benefits, such as fixation of time scale, sanction of increments, due placement in the seniority, by relaxing the rules, if necessary and disburse all the consequential service benefits, including the arrears with effect from the date of first appointment. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Casual Labourer on daily wages at Rs.10/- per day in the Tamil Nadu Film Division, Madras, on 11. 1985 by the Chief Producer of Tamil Nadu Films Divisions. He was terminated on 4. 1985 and once again, reappointed on 20.4.1985. The details of his employment as casual labour are as follows: “(1) 11. 185 to 4. 1985 (2) 14. 1985 to 17. 1985, (3) 17. 1985 to 110. 1985 (4) 110. 1985 to 110. 1986 (5) 21. 1985 to 4. 1986 (6) 24. 1986 to 27. 1986 (7) 8. 1986 to 210. 1986 (8) 11. 1986 to 11. 1987 and (9) 14. 1987 to 14. 1987 etc., till 1995” 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has passed the competitive Examination conducted by the Government board of Examiners for Cinema Operator at Madras and he has got rich experience in printing, developing, enlarging and also acted as Dark Room Assistant from 1. 1980 to 210. 1984 in a Private studio. Based on the letters, dated 22. 1990 and 112. 1992 of the third respondent, Chief Producer of the Tamil Nadu Film Division, the petitioner has submitted that he had continuously worked as Casual Labourer with short breaks in service. It is further submitted that considering his experience and skill, he was deputed to shoot video documentary on Agricultural seeds, 8th World Tamil Conference at Tanjore and other important matters of the Film Division According to him, he has rendered more than 10 years of service in Films Division, he is entitled to regularization. 4. The petitioner has further submitted that though the post of Skilled Assistant was vacant in the Tamil Nadu Film Division, his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the reasons not known to them. 4. The petitioner has further submitted that though the post of Skilled Assistant was vacant in the Tamil Nadu Film Division, his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the reasons not known to them. However, for extraneous reasons, one Thiru Sampath, who was working in Private Firm and enrolled subsequently in the Employment Exchange, was considered and appointed to the said post. The petitioner has further submitted that during 1990, two pests of skilled Assistant fell vacant, consequent to the promotion the incumbents in the Film Division. Tough the Employment Exchange had sponsored certain candidates, including the petitioner and one Thiru. S. Srinivasan, who was also working as casual Labourer in the Tamil Nadu Film Division, the respondents have appointed one Thiru. Dayalan, an unskilled worker, who had less experience. In yet another instance, during 1995, one post of Lab Attender fell vacant in the Film Institute. Though the second respondent sent a call letter to the petitioner to attend the interview on 1. 1995. The said communication reached his hands only on 1. 1995 after the interview and therefore, he could not attend the interview. The petitioner has contended that considering his long number of years of service as Casual Labourer, the respondents ought to have appointed and regularised him in terms of his employment seniority. 5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have submitted that the petitioner was not holding any regular post in the establishment of the Tamil Nadu Films Division. According to them, by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 52, dated 2. 1989, orders were issued permitting appointment of casual labourers on daily wages at the rates fixed by the Collector of Madras from time to time without any reference to the Employment Exchange for work less than three months duration or 90 working days, whether continuously or intermittently, since the production of News Reel Bulletin, Video and Documentary films are time bound works and there cannot be any postponement due to the non-availability of the necessary staff. 6. The respondents have further submitted that the petitioner worked as Casual Labourer in Tamil Nadu Film Division with a break once in 89 days and discharged when there was no adequate work and promotion for fund. 6. The respondents have further submitted that the petitioner worked as Casual Labourer in Tamil Nadu Film Division with a break once in 89 days and discharged when there was no adequate work and promotion for fund. The respondents have denied the contention that the petitioner had worked in a regular sanctioned post in the Tamil Nadu Films Division and submitted that the question of regularizing his service in the post of Skilled Assistant does not arise. Then have further submitted that no seniority list has been maintained for Casual Labourers. For the above reasons, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. G.O. Ms. No. 52, Information and Tourism (FT-1) Department, dated 2. 1989 reads as follows: “The Chief Producer, Tamil Nadu Film Division has stated that he was permitted by the Information and Tourism Department as per the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 1157, Labour and Employment, dated 17. 1979 to employ workers on daily wages without reference to Employment Exchange for words less than 3 months duration or 90 working days whether continuously or intermittently, since the production of News Reel Bulletins and Documentary films are time bound work and they cannot be either postponed or deferred due to the non-availability of required staff with us in this field. 2. The Pay and Accounts Officer (South) Madras requested for specific Government Order for appointing casual labourers on daily wages at the rates approved by the Collector of Madras as orders were issued by Government to abolish the contingent staff vide. G.O. Ms. No. 52, Finance, dated 111. 1977. The Pay and Accounts Officer (South) has also stated that the admittance of daily wages bills for appointment of Casual Labourer so far, cannot be admitted from 8. 1988 as the Government Orders referred to in the G.O. Ms. No. 1157, Labour and Employment, dated. 17. 1979 is only applicable to the departmental were NMR are appointed. The Chief Producer, Tamil Nadu Films Division has requested Government to issue specific orders for appointing casual labourers. 3. 1988 as the Government Orders referred to in the G.O. Ms. No. 1157, Labour and Employment, dated. 17. 1979 is only applicable to the departmental were NMR are appointed. The Chief Producer, Tamil Nadu Films Division has requested Government to issue specific orders for appointing casual labourers. 3. The Government have carefully examined and accept the proposal of the Chief Producer, Tamil Nadu Films Division for appointing casual labourers on daily wages at the rates fixed by the Collector of Madras for the Film/Video for News Reel and documentary production in Tamil Nadu Films Division like MMR in Public Works Department, as the appointment of Casual Labourers does not require any separate staff sanction but subject to the condition that the expenditure should be met within the Budget prevision and that the payment of wages may take effects from the date of issue of orders. 4. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance vide its U.O. No. 3528/T/EU89, dated 20.1.1989.” 8. Reading of the above Government Order, makes it clear that the Government has accorded permission to the Chief Producer, Tamil Nadu Films Division to employ Casual Labourers on daily wages for work less than three months or 90 working days, whether continuously or intermittently. The Government Order further shows that the work was not continuous, as claimed by the petitioner. Perusal of the details furnished by the petitioner would go to show that the engagement is not continuous and admittedly, there are gaps in between the spells of the employment. Apparently, between 110. 1986 and 21. 1986, there is gap of nearly 2 months and between 11. 1987 and 14. 1997, there is yet another long gap of more than three months. 9. The Government Order further makes it clear that the appointment as Casual Labourers did not require any separate staff sanction, but It was subject to the condition that the expenditure should be met within the Budget any provision. 1987 and 14. 1997, there is yet another long gap of more than three months. 9. The Government Order further makes it clear that the appointment as Casual Labourers did not require any separate staff sanction, but It was subject to the condition that the expenditure should be met within the Budget any provision. Though the petitioner has relied on certain decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his contention that his services should be regularised, in a recent decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi AIR 2006 SC 1806 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 : (2006) 2 MLJ 326: 2006-II-LLJ-722, the supreme Court after analyzing the entire case laws on the subject of absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage etc., at Paragraph 16, held as follows at p.338 of MLJ: “16. In B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka (1979) 4 SCC 507 , this court clearly held that the words “regular” or “regularization” do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. Then are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments. This Court emphasised that when rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are in force, no Government under Article 162 of the Constitution in contravention of the rules. These decisions and the principles, recognised therein have not been dissented to by this Court and on principle, we see no reasons not to accept the proposition as enunciated in the above decisions. We have, therefore, to keep this distinction in mind and proceed on the basis that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised and that it alone can be regularised and granting permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot be equated with regularization.” 10. It is evident from the G.O., the petitioner has not been appointed in any sanctioned post. He had been engaged by the Films division as and when, there was necessity. It is evident from the G.O., the petitioner has not been appointed in any sanctioned post. He had been engaged by the Films division as and when, there was necessity. Non-consideration of the petitioner, in respect of the sanctioned posts, such as Lab Assistant, Skilled Assistant are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this case, where the relief sought is to regularise his appointment as Skilled Assistant. If the petitioner was not selected to the above notified posts for any reason, he should have challenged the selection before the appropriate authority/forum. As the case of the petitioner does not fall within the purview of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court for regularisation’, as held in Secretary. State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (supra) case, the relief as prayed for, cannot be granted. As the matter of regularization is the prerogative of the employer, the relief sought for is misconceived. However, it is open to the petitioner to send representation to the concerned authority, if so advised, who shall deal with the same on merits. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.