JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.—Heard Sri V C Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M A Qadeer, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 2.7.2005, passed by respondent No. 1, whereby his name has been removed from the list of daily wagers, maintained by the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad. 3. The petitioner claims to have been working as a daily wager at U.P. Public Service Commission (for short the “Commission”), Allahabad, since 1995. This Court on 20.2.2002 in Writ Petition No. 48738 of 1999 (Krishna Kumar Kushwaha and others v. State of U.P. and another), had directed the Commission to frame a scheme for engagement and absorption of daily wagers in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court and in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wagers Appointment on Group “D” Posts Rules 2001 (for short the Rules of 2001), within 6 weeks and to submit a scheme to this Court alongwith an affidavit of the Secretary for consideration. A list of daily wagers, working in the Commission was prepared in compliance to orders passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32059 of 2004 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48738 of 1999 and other petitions on 1.11.2004, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 99, and the date of his engagement from 16.2.1995. 4. A show-cause dated 26.5.2005 was issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Commission to the petitioner, alleging certain dereliction and insubordination of duty and a reply was called for within 10 days’, in compliance to the observations made in Writ Petition No. 48738 of 1999 as to why the services of the petitioner be not disengaged and the name be removed from the panel of daily wagers. The petitioner submitted a reply on 3.6.2005. In response to the reply submitted by the petitioner, a report was also called from the Joint Secretary (Law). 5. The Secretary of the Commission, after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, directed vide order dated 2.7.2005 that his name be removed from the list of daily wagers and he be not engaged in future. 6. In response to the reply submitted by the petitioner, a report was also called from the Joint Secretary (Law). 5. The Secretary of the Commission, after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, directed vide order dated 2.7.2005 that his name be removed from the list of daily wagers and he be not engaged in future. 6. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the name of the petitioner was included in the list of daily wagers dated 1.11.2004, prepared in compliance to the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 48738 of 1999 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32057 of 2004, services of the petitioner could not have been disengaged without any justifiable reason. He would further submit that the allegations as regards absence from duty on 5.5.2005 and 6.5.2005 were on account of an accident which he met on 4.5.2005 while he was on his way to attend his duties and that the disengagement of the services of the petitioner for absence of 2 days’ is too harsh, especially when the petitioner was working in the Commission since 16.2.1995. 7. Sri M A Qadeer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Commission, would submit that the petitioner being a daily wager holds no right to a post. Further his services have been disengaged after considering the reply/explanation submitted by the petitioner and no arbitrariness can be alleged, and therefore, no interference is called for. 8. The petitioner was engaged as a daily wager on 16.2.1995. It appears that a dispute with regard to engagement of the daily wagers came to this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48738 of 1999. This Court on 20.2.2002 was pleased to pass the following order : This writ petition has been filed by daily wagers of U.P. Public Service-commission, Allahabad for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to work on the post on which they were working and to pay salary in minimum pay scale from 1.1.1996. This Court required the Commission to file a counter-affidavit. This Court required the Commission to file a counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit of Sri K K Upadhyaya, Secretary in the office of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad filed on 27.1.2000, it has been stated in paragraph 8 that the daily wagers are engaged in the office of Uttar Pradesh Public Service-commission at times, as and when they are required according to the quantum of suddenly increased work-load and are removed thereafter. As a system of identification, they have deposited declaration cards which does not given them any claim of being an employee of the Commission or being seniors to other daily wagers. It has been denied that the petitioners have completed three years continuous service as daily wagers. They were engaged at times and were removed when the requirement was over. It is further stated that at times when the process of recruitment is in progress or an examination is to be conducted, the work-load suddenly increases and to meet the requirement of man-power, the daily wage workers are engaged because the regular strength of the staff of the Commission becomes insufficient. It is the constitutional duty of the Commission to hold selection process for appointment to the posts required to be filled through the Commission. This activity is neither temporary nor is confirmed to any short period. It is a regular activity and, as admitted by the Commission, the work-load increases every year for the purposes of engagement of daily wage. The constitutional policy provides for engagement of daily wager. It has been held in the various decisions of the Apex Court that the Government cannot pick and choose to give employment of daily wage in arbitrary manner. A list of daily wagers, according to their seniority, with reference to the minimum number of days in which they have worked, have to be maintained, and that these daily wagers must be engaged in accordance with their seniority as and when work increases. The vacancies arising on permanent posts must be filled from these daily wagers after satisfying with their qualification, suitability and after relaxing the age limit subject to the reservation of the policy of the State Government. The Commission by now should have framed a scheme for engagement and absorption of daily wagers. The vacancies arising on permanent posts must be filled from these daily wagers after satisfying with their qualification, suitability and after relaxing the age limit subject to the reservation of the policy of the State Government. The Commission by now should have framed a scheme for engagement and absorption of daily wagers. Sri B N Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Commission submits that directions may be issued by this Court to the Commission to frame such scheme. Let U.P. Public Service Commission frame a scheme in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, and in this order, as well as in accordance with the policy of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group “D” Posts Rules, 2001, within 6 weeks from today and submit the same scheme to this Court alongwith the affidavit of Secretary for consideration. 9. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an office memo dated 31.3.2005 was issued (Annexure-5 to the petition) displaying a list of approved daily wagers prepared pursuant to the orders of this Court. The office memo provided that mere inclusion of the name in the list of daily wagers would neither ipso facto confer regularization nor any temporary/permanent status on the incumbent. It further specified that vacancies arising under Rules of 2001, shall be filled from amongst the empanelled daily wagers. Further, it provided that daily wagers found committing misconduct, will find their names deleted, as provided in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32057 of 2004. 10. Again this Court on 20.8.2004 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48738 of 1999, was pleased to pass the following order : A second supplementary counter-affidavit of Sri Radhey Lal, Section Officer in the office of Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad, have been filed to day after serving copy on counsel for petitioner. Sri P S Baghel states that out of the list of 91 daily wagers engaged between 1.7.1981 to 16.5.1991, 22 have been regularized under U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wage Appointment on Group “D” Post Rules, 2001. According to him, the Commission has prepared the list of other daily wagers engaged after 16.5.1991 and that the process will be completed very soon. According to him, the Commission has prepared the list of other daily wagers engaged after 16.5.1991 and that the process will be completed very soon. According to him, U.P. Public Service-commission is complying with the order of this Court dated 8.2.2002 in latter and spirit and that as and when work increases due to examination the daily wage employment is offered strictly in accordance with seniority. He submits that the petitioners have been offered work on daily wages and that as soon as the complete list is drawn, the work will be offered strictly in accordance with the seniority. Sri P S Baghel points out that some of the daily wagers have committed acts of misconduct inasmuch as they had assembled in the office and misbehaved with the officers of the Commission. It is made clear that in case there is any complaint of misconduct against any of the daily wagers on the list, it will be open to the Secretary of the Commission to delete his name from the list after giving show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing. 11. However, as provided in the order dated 20.8.2004 of this Court, liberty was given to the respondents that in case of complaint/misconduct against a daily wager, his name was liable to be removed from the list, after a show-cause and opportunity of hearing. 12. A perusal of the show-cause notice dated 26.5.2005 would reflect that the petitioner was assigned duties in the office of Joint Secretary (Law) in the Commission since 1.5.2005. It appears that the Joint Secretary (Law) was not satisfied with the services of the petitioner. The show-cause further recites that the petitioner submitted an application before the said Officer on 5.5.2005 that as he had sprained his leg, he was unable to attend the duties from 5.5.2005 to 6.5.2005 and accordingly he be granted leave. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner brought to the notice of the Commission on 13.5.2005 a reference of Writ Petition Nos. 1666/1993 and 36176/2003 to contend that his services have been illegally dispensed w.e.f. 4.5.2005, whereas persons junior him were still working. Thus, the show-cause finally alleged that there was a diametrical contradiction between the stand taken on 5.5.2005 and the one taken in representation dated 13.5.2005 and therefore, the conduct of the petitioner displayed not only dereliction of duty and insubordination but also disinclination towards the same. 13. Thus, the show-cause finally alleged that there was a diametrical contradiction between the stand taken on 5.5.2005 and the one taken in representation dated 13.5.2005 and therefore, the conduct of the petitioner displayed not only dereliction of duty and insubordination but also disinclination towards the same. 13. The reply of the petitioner was essentially to the effect that as he sprained his leg on 4.5.2005, hence an application was submitted, for granting leave on 5.5.2005 and 6.5.2005 but he was prevented from joining his duties on 7.5.2005. 14. The impugned order indicates that the Joint Secretary (Law) had indicated that he was not satisfied with the services of the petitioner, inasmuch as he does not attend office on time and that he is absent without assigning any reason/intimation. The report called from the Joint Secretary (Law) also indicates that the petitioner was displaying insubordination and does not behave like a disciplined daily wager. The order further recites that the complaints had been received from the other section also regarding unsatisfactory services of the petitioner, which suggests that the petitioner is not interested in carrying out his duty sincerely and diligently. 15. Petitioner was only an empanelled daily wager, who was awaiting his regularisation in accordance with Rules of 2001, which in turn was dependent on the availability of a vacancy. It is not the case of petitioner that his services stood regularized. A daily wager has no right to a post. The mere fact that his name was included in the panel pursuant to the orders of the Court, cannot enhance his status. Directions for empanelment of daily wagers were made keeping in view the constitutional scheme, so as to ensure certain transparency in the mode of engagement of daily wagers. Disengagement of his service has been brought about after show-cause and the consideration of his explanation. No illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to such order. No relief can be granted to him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ——————