JUDGMENT 1. - By way of filing this petition the petitioner sought relief for regularisation of his services, absorption and also to pay him the pay-scale of Class-IV employee from the date of his recruitment. 2. In brief, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Helper. which is a Class IV post. 3. Earlier Government of Rajasthan, introduced an education scheme for poor segment of the society w.e.f. the year 1997, specially for those who belong to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe and under the aforesaid scheme two schools under the Social Welfare Department were started at Atru (Baran) and Tonk and names of these schools were given as 'Residential Schools', Free education and hostel facilities were provided there up-to Sr. Secondary level. In the Govt. Maharana Pratap Residential School Education up-to the Sr. Secondary level is being imparted and it is also one feature of the school that all the students of school are hostlers and mostly staff of the school reside in the premises situated in the school campus. Earlier the above scheme of residential schools was introduced as an experiment which was supposed to be continued subject to success of the same. Therefore, in spite of the sanctioned strength of the different posts of Class IV employees, the petitioner and other similarly situated employees were not observed as permanent employees and their contract of employment was renewed every year for a period of one academic session only and in this way most of them were not paid salary of summer vacations. Subsequently, services of the petitioner were terminated by replacing them by employees of a contractor. The above termination order was challenged by the employees before the Division Bench of this Court by filing DB Civil Writ Petition No. 5909-5926/2001 and 1295/2002 (Banwari Lal v. State of Rajasthan and others). Initially interim order against the apprehended termination was issued but ultimately vide common order dated 15-3-02 all the writ petitions were disposed of with the directions to continue them in employment till the school exists with further direction to pay them salary of 12 months in a year in place of 10 months. The Hon'ble Division Bench also directed that this order will not come in the way of the respondents in not taking any action against the petitioners in accordance with law, if called for. The Hon'ble Division Bench also directed that this order will not come in the way of the respondents in not taking any action against the petitioners in accordance with law, if called for. Being aggrieved with the judgment of Division Bench dated 15-3-2002, the State preferred SLPs before Hon'ble Apex Court bearing No. 7434-7451/2002, titled as State of Rajasthan & another v. Banwari Lal & others. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLPs filed by the State Government vide common judgment dated 30-9-2002. The result of the aforesaid judgments was that the State Government decided to continue the above scheme of residential school with permanently considering the same successful and the result of the aforesaid schools has been 100%. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in SB CWP No. 3783/1997, Chet Ram Meena v. State of Rajasthan and others, this Court vide order dated 12-11-1998. , has directed as under: "The State of" Rajasthan shall prepare draft action plan/scheme to regularise the part lime employees appointed in the month of June 1995 and thereafter in the regular pay-scale No. 1. The new phase of the scheme shall be prepared in continuation of the earlier scheme placed before the Supreme Court. Three months' time is granted to the respondents to prepare the scheme. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not be victimised and his services shall not be terminated by the respondents. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly." 5. The petitioner is having requisite qualification for regular appointment on the aforesaid post but the respondents have not regularised the services of the petitioner. And also admitted all the facts which the petitioner has submitted. 6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid attitude of the respondents, the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents filed a detailed reply but failed to controvert the facts mentioned by the petitioner and also admitted all the facts which the petitioner has submitted. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me. 9. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents filed a detailed reply but failed to controvert the facts mentioned by the petitioner and also admitted all the facts which the petitioner has submitted. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance of the Judgment delivered in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) and others, 2006(2) SCT 462 : (2006)4 SCC 1 : ( AIR 2006 SC 1806 ) and submitted before this Court that the instant matter is squarely covered with the aforesaid Judgment. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that on the issue of regularization, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi in para No. 53 has considered the cases of irregularly appointed persons of more than a decade and then direction was issued to consider their cases. Para 53 of the Judgment reads as under : "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa, and B.N. Nagarajan, 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 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 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. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarity that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 11. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Desh Raj, 2007(1) SCT 631 : (2007) 1 SCC 257 : ( AIR 2007 SC 628 ) made distinction between illegality and irregularity by holding that an appointment which was made throwing all constitutional obligations and statutory rules to the winds would render the same illegal whereas irregularity presupposes substantial compliance with the rules. 12. In the instant case, no rule has been pointed out which has been violated by initially appointing the petitioner, therefore, the case of the petitioner is of irregular appointment and will be governed by the judgment in Secretary. State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) ( AIR 2006 SC 1806 ) (supra). 13. This Court has also considered the aforesaid judgment on the issue of daily wages/ad hoc employees in Shrawan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4314/2002 and other similar nine writ petitions decided on 6-4-2007 and Smt. Chanda v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4334/1999 decided on May 25, 2007). In the case of Smt. Chanda (supra), this Court after observing that no steps for framing the Scheme as one time measure has been taken by the State Government despite expiry of six months, as directed by the Supreme Court in para 53 of Uma Devi (3) (supra) which has resulted in denial of the regularisation of daily wager, working in the State of Rajasthan, issued the following directions : "Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The State Government is directed to frame the Scheme as one time measure as directed by the Supreme Court as expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate orders, who has been irregularly appointed as per Scheme, within a period of six months from today." 14. It appears that the respondents have also not framed the Scheme so far. Therefore, the only direction can be issued for framing of the Scheme for such employees and passing appropriate orders. 15. It appears that the respondents have also not framed the Scheme so far. Therefore, the only direction can be issued for framing of the Scheme for such employees and passing appropriate orders. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to frame the scheme as one time measure as directed by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others ( AIR 2006 SC 1806 ) (supra) as expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months from today.Order accordingly. *******