JUDGMENT (By Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.) Aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2005 passed by the Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad, the petitioner- appellant filed Writ -A No. 54062 of 2005, Suresh Chand Sonkar Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and another, which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 24.8.2012 of the writ court against which the petitioner-appellant has preferred this Special Appeal. We have heard Sri U.N. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sandeep Shukla holding brief of Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.A. Qadeer, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Waris, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that the learned writ court has dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:- "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. Petitioner was only an empanelled daily wager, who was awaiting his regularization 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. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs." Admittedly the petitioner- appellant was a daily wager. 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. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs." Admittedly the petitioner- appellant was a daily wager. The law with regard to status of a daily wager has been well established by the verdict of Constitution Bench of five Judges of Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 , wherein it has been held that a person engaged as a contractual or a casual worker and whose engagement is not based on a proper selection recognized by the relevant regulations or procedure has no right. He is aware of the consequences of the appointment and the State does not make any promise while engaging him either to continue him where he is or to make him permanent. Hence no right can be founded on an employment on daily wage to claim that such employee should be treated at par with the regularly recruited candidate. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the record shows that the petitioner- appellant was engaged on daily wage basis and during the course of his employment he was deputed to work with Joint Secretary (Law) of the Commission. The appellant did not report at the place of his duty, so he was treated absent and on the principle of no work no pay he was not paid the wages for the days he became absent. He was also found guilty of misconduct, insubordination and disobedience and due to these reasons he was disengaged and terminated. Clearly, the appellant has been found guilty not only for dereliction in duty but also of misconduct and insubordination. Being a daily wager he must have known the consequences of his misconduct. The facts also show that disengagement of his service has been brought after issuing show cause notice to him and after considering his explanation. He was a daily wager and not a permanent employee, as such there was no mandate to hold departmental enquiry. Hence there is no violation of natural justice and no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the order passed by his employer. He was a daily wager and not a permanent employee, as such there was no mandate to hold departmental enquiry. Hence there is no violation of natural justice and no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the order passed by his employer. Learned writ court, considering all these circumstances and keeping in view the legal proposition as settled by Uma Devi's case (supra) has expressed its disinclination to interfere in the writ jurisdiction and accordingly has dismissed the writ petition. Recently the Apex Court in the case of School Education Department, Chennai Vs. R. Govinda Swamy (2014) 4 SCC 769 has reiterated the law laid down in Umadevi's case by holding that temporary, adhoc or daily wager employees, if not working against a sanctioned post are not entitled for regularisation even when they had put in long service because they were not duly appointed. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be valid grounds for regularisation of service in absence of legal rights. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in wake of well settled legal position we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment of the writ court. The Special Appeal lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. ——————