JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order No.PEC/Estt./E3/PF/7248 dated 27.9.2007, of the first respondent and the order No.PEC/Estt./E3/PF/2004/No.2964 dated 14.7.2004, of the third respondent, with consequential directions to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment, i.e., 27.10.1986, on the post of Group 'D' Driver, and therefore to promote him as Group 'C' Driver with effect from 27.6.1990 by giving consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment. 2. The petitioner joined the services at Pondicherry Engineering College on 27.10.1986, as daily rated employee and was assigned the job of driving the College Bus. The petitioner was paid daily wages at the rate of Rs.37.50 + Rs.4 per day, for performing the duties of the driver. The petitioner continued to perform the duties on daily wages till 26.6.1990. 3. The petitioner was thereafter, absorbed as Group 'D' employee, i.e., Helper, in the time scale of pay of Rs.750-12-870-EB-14-940 + allowances with effect from 27.6.1990. Along with him, 12 other daily rated employees were also absorbed. The petitioner was placed at Serial No.2 in the list of absorbed employees. 4. The petitioner after being appointed as Helper, was again assigned the duties of the Driver, for which he was paid Rs.4 per day for performing the duties of higher responsibility, but was not regularized as a Driver in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500. 5. It is the case of the petitioner, that he was not treated similarly with the employees of the State Government while regularizing his services. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner made repeated representations, and consequently promoted as Driver in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500, vide order dated 20.5.1994. Whereas the petitioner was confirmed as Helper with effect from 9.8.1992. 7. It is pleaded that three persons who were placed below the petitioner in the seniority list, were promoted as Group 'C', Drivers with effect from 25.6.1993 by overlooking his seniority. However, no notice of this averment can be taken as the petitioner had not impleaded the alleged juniors as parties to this writ nor has challenged their promotion. 8. 7. It is pleaded that three persons who were placed below the petitioner in the seniority list, were promoted as Group 'C', Drivers with effect from 25.6.1993 by overlooking his seniority. However, no notice of this averment can be taken as the petitioner had not impleaded the alleged juniors as parties to this writ nor has challenged their promotion. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that in the seniority list issued on 8.7.1996, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.8 and was in possession of the requisite qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for appointment as Driver, at the time of absorption in service as Helper, as he has passed IX Standard and is in possession of Heavy Vehicle (Passenger) Driving Licence and Light Motor Vehicle Licence. 9. The petitioner submits that he made representation against the injustice done to him, in denial of promotion as Group 'C' Driver while promoting his juniors. 10. At the sake of repetition, it may be observed that the alleged juniors to the petitioner are not parties to this writ petition, and no explanation is forthcoming for not impleading them as parties and as to why their promotion was not challenged. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no response to the representation filed by the petitioner, therefore he filed appeal before the Chairman of the Governing Body of the College/Chief Secretary to Government, making out a strong case for absorption in service. 12. It is pleaded that the appellate authority held that it was not feasible to regularize the petitioner as Driver with retrospective effect. However, no reason has been given for coming to this conclusion. 13. A review petition was filed by the petitioner to which, there was no response from the first respondent, which forced the petitioner to file writ petition No.25896/2007. This Court disposed of the writ petition, and directed the respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 2.7.2007, and pass orders thereon on merits. 14. On receipt of the order of this Court, respondent No.1 rejected the claim of the petitioner, for regularization of his services as Driver from the date of initial appointment. 15. In the order itself, it has been pointed out that the petitioner was initially engaged as NMR on daily wage basis, with effect from 27.10.1986, and performed the duties of Helper, Group 'D' post. 15. In the order itself, it has been pointed out that the petitioner was initially engaged as NMR on daily wage basis, with effect from 27.10.1986, and performed the duties of Helper, Group 'D' post. The petitioner was not appointed against the regular post. It is noticed that the petitioner was regularized on the post of Helper, Group 'D' and not as Driver and was promoted to the post of Driver, when the posts were available/created. It has also been pointed out, that as per the Recruitment Rules then in force for the post of Driver, Grade-I, a Group 'D' Driver was required to have minimum experience of five years which the petitioner did not fulfill. 16. The action of the respondents in declining the right of regularization of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment, is challenged, by the learned Counsel for the petitioner by contending that since the date of appointment, the petitioner was assigned the duties of Driver, for which he was paid special pay with daily wages at higher rate than the normal NMR employees. 17. It is also contended that the respondents have not taken note of the fact that the petitioner was performing the duties of the Driver regularly from the date of his initial appointment, therefore, could not be denied the right of regularization as Group 'C' Driver, from the date of initial appointment. 18. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that as per the Recruitment Rules, then in force, Group 'D' employees having five years of total service, including NMR service, was entitled for promotion, therefore, the petitioner should have been regularized as Group 'D' Driver with effect from 27.10.1991, on completion of five years of combined service as NMR and Group 'D'. It is also contended that the petitioner has been discriminated viz a viz his juniors. 19. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 1527, wherein it has been laid down that the employee can be regularized in service from the date of his initial appointment. The impugned order is also challenged being arbitrary. 20. On consideration, I find no merit in the writ petition. The impugned order is also challenged being arbitrary. 20. On consideration, I find no merit in the writ petition. The petitioner has not placed on record, any Rules or instructions, which entitles regularization of service of NMR employee, appointed by way of back door entry as NMR employees. The petitioner has been regularized, though it has not been pleaded in the affidavit, that the initial appointment of the petitioner was by following the due procedure for recruitment. 21. The submission of the petitioner that certain juniors were given the benefit, which has been denied to the petitioner, also deserves to be noticed to be rejected, as the petitioner has not impleaded juniors as parties/respondents to this writ petition nor challenged their promotion/regularization. The petitioner cannot claim regularization from the date of initial appointment, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATKA VS. UMADEVI AND OTHERS ((2006) 2 SCT 462); and in UNION OF INDIA VS. VARTAK LABOUR UNION ( (2011) 4 SCC 200 ). 22. No merit. Dismissed. No costs.