JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, sought for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 7-10.09.2007 passed by the respondent - Corporation and also seek a direction to the respondent – Corporation to reconsider the case of the petitioner for absorption on the permanent setup in Class-III and to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of service from the date of the initial appointment as Clerk/Typist and to provide information as asked by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 about all daily wage workers, who have been made permanent by the respondent – Corporation for the period from March 1991 to December 2006. 2. The facts of the case are that the present petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk/Typist with the respondent – Corporation vide order dated 15.03.1991. The petitioner was appointed as a daily wager. The appointment order of the petitioner was issued by the respondent No.3 – Deputy Forest Officer, Valsad (North). 3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner is in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has submitted that applications were invited by the respondent – Corporation for filling up the posts of Clerk/Typist pursuant to which the present petitioner had applied. He has submitted that it has also never been the case of the respondent – Corporation that the appointment of the petitioner is either illegal or irregular. 3.1 He has further submitted that as the petitioner was made to languish on daily wages for more than 10 years and she was made to suffer exploitation by not being granted any service benefit and by not applying Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 of the Roads and Buildings Department to her, the petitioner, alongwith three other employees, was constrained to institute a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.57 of 2005 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad on 16.04.2005. The petitioner prayed for a declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act that the plaintiffs be absorbed by the respondent – Corporation in its permanent setup. 3.2 He has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust Through President and Another Vs. The petitioner prayed for a declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act that the plaintiffs be absorbed by the respondent – Corporation in its permanent setup. 3.2 He has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust Through President and Another Vs. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 310 and has submitted even if it is presumed that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal, the respondents cannot be permitted to take benefit of their wrong. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Chudgar appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be made applicable to the petitioner since her initial appointment was illegal. 4.1 It is submitted that Regular Civil Suit No.57 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner along with other three persons in the Court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Valsad on 16.04.2005 which was subsequently withdrawn. However, the petitioner has maliciously concealed the fact that the Civil Judge (SD), Valsad had ordered recovery of costs from the petitioners which was very vital and was needed to be disclosed by the petitioner to decide the present petition in its proper perspective. Pursuant to the said order of Civil Judge (SD), Valsad the respondent – Corporation had recovered legal costs from the salary of the four petitioners including the present petitioner. 4.2 He has submitted that the respondent – Corporation has a practice of making permanent daily-wagers, who have put in long years of service. The said order dated 17.10.2006 was issued by GSFDC to give effect to the order dated 18.08.2006 passed by the Government of Gujarat to fill up the backlog quota of Other Backward Classes (OBC). 4.3 He has submitted that circular dated 21.01.1986 is not applicable to the GSFDC as GSFDC is a Company whereas, the said circular applies only to those offices of the Government Departments whose work is confined to the Districts only. For filling up regular vacant post seniority, backlog in reservation quota of posts are the main factors to be considered. It is also submitted that the respondent – Corporation, i.e., GSFDC being a State Government undertaking, it has also to follow Government Policy and Guidelines. 4.4 He has submitted that it is not true that the Corporation had invited applications for filling up the post of Clerk/Typist. It is also submitted that the respondent – Corporation, i.e., GSFDC being a State Government undertaking, it has also to follow Government Policy and Guidelines. 4.4 He has submitted that it is not true that the Corporation had invited applications for filling up the post of Clerk/Typist. The application of the petitioner did not bear reference of any newspaper advertisement inviting applications. On the other hand, the petitioner stated in her application that she had learnt that a post of Clerk-cum-Typist is vacant in Valsad (North) and (South) Divisions. This indicates that the petitioner had not applied in response to any advertisements but in pursuance of the information about vacant post in the Corporation that she had learnt. 4.5 Thus, he has submitted that the petitioner was not appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist by following the Recruitment Rules, which is mandatory to follow for filling up the post Clerk-cum-Typist. The petitioner has not applied in response to any advertisement. He has invited attention to the application made by the petitioner dated 09.02.1991 to the Managing Director and, thereafter, the petitioner was joined as Clerk-cum-Typist. The reference is given. By placing reliance on the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 , Mr. Chudgar has submitted that the petitioner has no right to claim regularisation only on the basis of her length of service. He has submitted an illegally appointed daily wager cannot claim regularisation only because he has worked for number of years. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Upendra Singh Vs State of Bihar and others, 2018 (3) SCC 680 . 5. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The documents as pointed out are also perused. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the post of clerk-cum-typist on daily-wager basis. It is not denied she was appointed by an application made by her. The recruitment rules which are required to be followed for the appointment on the post of clerk-cum-typist are not followed by the respondent – Corporation. She does not fulfill the qualification prescribed for such post since she was not having the degree of graudation. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. The recruitment rules which are required to be followed for the appointment on the post of clerk-cum-typist are not followed by the respondent – Corporation. She does not fulfill the qualification prescribed for such post since she was not having the degree of graudation. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad, 2008 (11) SC 540 has observed in para 12: “12. It is not in dispute that the Government of Bihar in its Administrative Reforms department had issued instructions for appointment to Class III posts in the Government office under its circular No. 16440 dated 03.12.1980. The said circular applies to Class III posts other than the posts which are filled in by appointment of candidates selected by Bihar Public Service Commission after a competitive examination and to the posts which are governed by the Government resolution dated 28.01.1976. The said circular sets out a detailed procedure for notifying the vacancies in Secretariat and its attached offices, District Magistrates and other Muffassil Offices and for calling for applications, preparation of a common merit list and appointment from the said common merit list in the order of merit. It also provides the procedure for constitution of selection committee, preparation of merit lists and wait list, duration of merit lists and wait list. A similar circular No. 16441 was also issued on 03.12.1980 for appointment to Class IV posts in the Muffassil Offices of the Government. These circulars had been issued to avoid discrimination in appointment to Class III and Class IV posts in the Government offices and provide for generalized procedure in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appointment of the writ petitioners have not been made in accordance with these circulars. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is that since the writ petitioners have served for more than 10 years and some of them have even completed 20 years of service, they ought to have been regularized in terms of the judgment in Umadevi (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra).” 8. The Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Otehrs Vs. Umadevi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 has also observed thus in paragraph No.53: “48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. The Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Otehrs Vs. Umadevi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 has also observed thus in paragraph No.53: “48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. It is stated that the State has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the concerned department on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 9. The Constitution Bench in the case of Umadevi (supra) has held that exception to the general principles against regularisation as a one-time measure, wherein, it is held that the employees, who are irregularly appointed and have worked for ten (10) years, the steps can be regularized as a one-time measure. In the instant case since the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification at the time of her appointment to the post of Clerk cum typist, her appointment cannot be termed as irregular but illegal. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Kirti Narayan Prasad (supra) referred to the Constitution Bench has observed thus in paragraph Nos.15 and 16: “15. In some of the LPAs the Division Bench appears to have followed paragraph 11 in M.L. Kesari (supra) for directing regularisation of service without considering the observations contained in paragraph 7 of the judgment. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Kirti Narayan Prasad (supra) referred to the Constitution Bench has observed thus in paragraph Nos.15 and 16: “15. In some of the LPAs the Division Bench appears to have followed paragraph 11 in M.L. Kesari (supra) for directing regularisation of service without considering the observations contained in paragraph 7 of the judgment. In paragraph 11, it was observed that "the true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3)] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) as a one-time measure …………". However, in paragraph 7 after considering Umadevi (supra) this Court has categorically held that for regularisation, the appointment of employee should not be illegal even if irregular. "7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against “regularisation” enunciated in Umadevi (3), if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular." (Emphasis supplied) 16. In State of Orissa and Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 , this Court has held that once an order of appointment itself had been bad at the time of initial appointment, it cannot be sanctified at a later stage. It was held thus: "68(i) The procedure prescribed under the 1974 Rules has not been followed in all the cases while making the appointment of the respondents/teachers at initial stage. It was held thus: "68(i) The procedure prescribed under the 1974 Rules has not been followed in all the cases while making the appointment of the respondents/teachers at initial stage. Some of the persons had admittedly been appointed merely by putting some note on the notice board of the College. Some of these teachers did not face the interview test before the Selection Board. Once an order of appointment itself had been bad at the time of initial appointment, it cannot be sanctified at a later stage". (Emphasis supplied)” 11. In the instant case, the appointment of the petitioner from the initial stage can be said to be de hors provision of the recruitment rules and she was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist without following necessary procedure. The Supreme Court has held that where the person appointed does not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments shall be considered to be illegaI. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification of Graduation which is mandatory for the post of Clerk-cum- Typist as she was only SSC pass. Hence, as per the exception as referred hereinabove by the Supreme Court, once an order of appointment itself has been bad at the time of initial appointment, it cannot be sanctioned at a later stage. The reliance placed on the judgment in case of Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust cannot apply in the facts of the case since in the case before the Apex Court, the teachers at the time of their appointment were fulfilling the requisite criteria prescribed for the post. 12. Under the circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner to regularize in service does not merit acceptance, however, it will be open for the respondent – Corporation to pass appropriate order treating her as a daily wager in light of the observations and directions issued by this Court in the judgment and order of the even date passed in Special Civil Application Nos.12518 and 2008 and 17055 of 2015. While considering her case sympathetically the respondents shall consider her educational qualification vis a vis her length of service and pass appropriate order. The writ petition is disposed of in afore-noted terms. Rule discharged.