Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer of issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as sweeper in the office of the third respondent and to regularise the services of the petitioner with all consequential service and monetary benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as part time Sanitary worker in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 20.10.1996. The petitioner has the qualification of 8th standard, and also registered with the District Employment Exchange. 3. The submission of the petitioner is, that she is fully eligible to hold the post of Sweeper. On 25.1.2001, i.e. after four years of service, she submitted a representation to the head of Department to regularise her service, but instead of regularising her services, she was orally terminated on 29.5.2001. 4. The petitioner submitted a representation for posting order, but no order was passed on the said representation. 5. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that 19.6.2001, she was informed that there was no provision in the Rules to regularise her service. 6. The submission of petitioner is that her services were terminated without assigning any reason, and in view of the termination, she was compelled to vacate the house which was allotted to her. 7. Though the claim of regularisation has been declined, no order has been passed regarding termination of service. The petitioner has approached this Court with a direction to appoint her and regularise her service. 8. The petitioner has not placed on record any rules, regularisation or Government instruction under which the petitioner could claim regularistion of service, after having worked for four years on part payment basis. 9. The petitioner has also not placed on record the letter of appointment to show whether the termination was in violation of order of appointment. The writ petition as framed does not disclose any enforceable legal right to claim regularisation or appointment as Sweeper in a particular office. 10. On consideration, I find that the writ petition is devoid of any merits, as in the absence of rules, regularisation or Government instructions, an employee cannot claim regularisation after putting in four years of service as part time basis. 10. On consideration, I find that the writ petition is devoid of any merits, as in the absence of rules, regularisation or Government instructions, an employee cannot claim regularisation after putting in four years of service as part time basis. The petitioner has not placed on record any letter of termination, not has made out any case to challenge the alleged termination by placing on record the letters of appointment, which may have been violated by the respondent. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner has not placed on record any rules to claim regularisation nor has placed on record any material showing that the alleged termination is in violation of terms of appointment. On the pleading no relief as prayed for can be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. No costs.