Judgment : The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying to direct the Respondents herein to regularize the Petitioner herein as full time scavenger with all benefits of a full time employee from 01.11.1987 the date on which the petitioner completed 10 years of service, on the basis of the Petitioner's representation, dated 04.10.2012. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Part Time Scavenger in P.P.M.Higher Secondary School in an Aided Minority Educational Institution on a monthly salary of Rs.1,065/-. She made a representation to regularize her service based on G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006. The respondents did not pass any order on the representation. Now, she has completed 35 years of service and she is aged about 57 years. She has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to regularize the petitioner as a full time scavenger with all benefits of the full time employee from 01.11.1987, on completion of 10 years of service based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.10.2012. 3. The fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006, is applicable only to daily wages employees working in various Government Department. The petitioner is working in the aided minority school on consolidated pay. Therefore, the said G.O. is not applicable and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavit. It is stated that in W.P.(MD)No.8077 of 2012, dated 15.06.2012, the services of similarly placed persons were directed to be regularised. Secondly, the Government is paying the petitioner's salary. Therefore, there is no difference between the Government School employee and others working in a sanctioned post in a aided School. 5. Heard Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents reiterated the averments made in the affidavit, counter affidavit and reply affidavit. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the judgment passed in W.P.No.8077 of 2012 relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal (MD)No.762 of 2008, dated 09.07.2009 and contended that based on those judgments, the petitioner is entitled for regularization. 8. The issue of regularisation of employees is no more res integra. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the judgment passed in W.P.No.8077 of 2012 relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal (MD)No.762 of 2008, dated 09.07.2009 and contended that based on those judgments, the petitioner is entitled for regularization. 8. The issue of regularisation of employees is no more res integra. This issue had already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 (State of Karnataka & Ors v. Umadevi & Ors.), wherein in paragraphs 43 & 46, it has been held as follows: "43. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they approach the Court, is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr.Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [1962 Supp 2 SCR 144]. That case arose out of a refusal to promote the writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a college. This Court held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the Government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent. 46. In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that are being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in Government service, from the date of judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that Courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularization or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in C.A.Nos.3595-3612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them." 9. The issue was again considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2014(4) SCC 769 (Secretary to Government, School Education Department vs. Thiru.R.Govindasamy and others), wherein it has been held that part time Sweepers were not entitled to regularisation even when they had put in long service, because they are not working against the sanctioned posts. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered the earlier Judgment on this issue, especially, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & ors. ( AIR 2011 SC 1193 ), wherein in paragraph 8, it has been held as follows: "8. We may at the outset refer to the following well settled principles relating to regularization and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals: (i) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While 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 regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized. While 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 regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized. ii) Mere continuation of service by an temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be 'litigious employment'. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularization in the absence of a legal right. iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates. iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees. v) Part-time temporary employees in Government run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full-time, seek party in salary with Government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute." 10. Further a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 2014(4) LW 657 (State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai, Vs. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute." 10. Further a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 2014(4) LW 657 (State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai, Vs. M.Seeniammal and others), in which, I was a party, rejected the claim of part time employees for regularisation and held that G.O.Ms.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006 applies only to daily rated employees in Government Department and it is not applicable to part time scavenger on consolidated pay. 11. It is well settled that the Courts cannot direct regularisation of employees even when they have put in long years of service and sympathy and sentiment cannot be valid grounds for regularisation of service in the absence of any right. 12. In view of the judgments referred to above, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation based on G.O.Ms.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.