JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This appeal is presented against order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 8005 of 2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows: “1. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for directing to respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Assistant Grade – III. 2. After perusal of the records and the contention of the writ petition it would reveal that the petitioner does not have the minimum qualification which is required for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade III. This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition only on this ground. The claim for regularization can only be considered in respect of a person who otherwise has all the requisite qualification and eligibility criteria required for the post to which he is claiming regularization. The regularization can never be granted ignoring the minimum qualification eligibility prescribed under the Service Rules. 3. Given the facts, this Court does not find any case made out by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.” 3. The case of the appellant, as presented in the writ petition, is that he was appointed (no date mentioned) as a daily-wage employee for clerical works on ‘Collector Rate’ by the Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency (for short, DRDA) and he continued to work as such till 31.01.2000. By an order dated 31.01.2000, issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, his service was terminated and on a challenge being made in Original Application No.1724/2000 before the State Administrative Tribunal, the termination order was set aside and he was reinstated in service. After rendering 14 years of service, he filed Writ Petition (S) No. 4969 of 2009 and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 03.09.2009 providing that if the appellant makes a representation, such representation shall be decided in accordance with law. After rendering 14 years of service, he filed Writ Petition (S) No. 4969 of 2009 and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 03.09.2009 providing that if the appellant makes a representation, such representation shall be decided in accordance with law. Thereafter, he filed a representation dated 03.11.2009 before the respondent No. 2 for regularising his service on his post on and from 05.03.2008 in terms of a circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government to regularise the services of the daily-wage employees. On consideration of the said representation, the respondent No. 2 appointed him to the post of Assistant Grade III (for short, AG-III) by issuing an order dated 06.01.2010 and a condition, being condition No 6, was imposed to the effect that he shall have to pass examination in Hindi Typewriting @ 25 words per minute. Despite the completion of two years of probation, he had not been regularised and was also not granted increment on the ground that the appellant had not submitted a pass certificate of Data Entry Operator/Programming with speed of 5000 key depression per hour. It is pleaded that clause 3 of the circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the General Administration Department provided that if any employee had the requisite qualification prior to 31.12.1997 and fulfills the criteria of that post, he shall be regularised on that post. It is stated that he had fulfilled conditions of the post he was holding. It is pleaded that as the appellant crossed the age of more than 45 years, he is exempted from passing examination in Hindi Typewriting in view of notification dated 29.01.1983; that the appellant had submitted certificates regarding passing of Hindi and English Typewriting at the time of his appointment as daily wage employee; that the appellant had submitted certificate of experience as a Typist-cum-Clerk for the period from October, 1991 to January 1994 and from April 1994 to April 1995, from the office of the District Literacy Committee, Raigarh, dated 26.12.1996. 4. On the basis of the above factual matrix, the appellant had prayed for quashing of the letter dated 24.08.2015, by which the appellant was directed to submit pass certificate of DEO/Programming, and to issue appropriate directions to the respondent No. 2 to regularise his services on the post of AG-III and also to pay increments as per service rules of the State Government. 5. 5. It appears that the writ petition was dismissed on the first date of listing. 6. In appeal, the respondents have filed a return in which it is stated that for appointment to the post of AG-III, the qualification of one year diploma/certificate in DEO/Programming with a speed of 5000 key depression per hour from a recognized institute has been made mandatory qualification in terms of the circular dated 17.07.2008 issued by the General Administration Department, and the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Class III (Clerical Grade) Service Recruitment Rules, 2013. It is stated that though the appellant had submitted certificate of Hindi and English Typing, the DEO/Programming diploma/certificate was not produced, and since production of such document was one of the conditions in the appointment order, the letter dated 24.08.2015 was issued informing that until and unless he produces the DEO/Programming diploma/certificate, it would not be possible for the respondents to grant increment and to regularise the probation period and that he would be entitled to only the minimum pay of the pay-scale. It is also pointed out that aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.2015, the appellant had filed an appeal under Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 before the Division Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, who, after affording opportunity of hearing, by order dated 24.08.2018, dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and the same having not been challenged in any forum, has attained finality. 7. It is pleaded that the circular dated 29.01.1983 is not applicable to the appellant as before appointment of the appellant as AG-III, the qualification of one year diploma/certificate in DEO/Programming with a speed of 5000 key depression per hour from a recognized institute has been made mandatory qualification vide the circular dated 17.07.2008. Even otherwise, the circular dated 29.01.1983 provides exemption only from passing the Hindi Typewriting examination and not from the qualification of one year diploma/certificate in DEO/Programming. 8. In the return filed by the respondent No. 1, it is pleaded that the respondent No. 1 is only a formal party. 9. The learned counsel for the parties have furnished the translated version of the order dated 06.01.2010. 10. A perusal of the order dated 06.01.2010 goes to show that the appellant, who was working in the office of the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat (DRDA), Raigarh on daily-wages, had been appointed to the vacant post of AG-III, on certain terms and conditions. 10. A perusal of the order dated 06.01.2010 goes to show that the appellant, who was working in the office of the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat (DRDA), Raigarh on daily-wages, had been appointed to the vacant post of AG-III, on certain terms and conditions. Condition No. (1), (5) and (6) are relevant for the purpose of this case and therefore, they are quoted herein below: “1. The appointee will be on probation for a period of 2 years from the date of joining. xxx xxx xxx (5) During the period of probation, the appointed candidate shall have to produce one year diploma/certificate of data entry operator/ programming and a certificate of data entry with a speed of 5000 (KEY) depressions per hour from any recognized institution. Until the employee produces such certificate, he will get the minimum pay of the pay-scale. (6) He will have to pass Hindi Typing examination from any recognized Board/Institution with speed of 25 words per minute.” 11. Though the appellant had raised a contention that he is exempted from passing examination in Hindi Typewriting, the respondent No. 2 had, on the other hand, stated that the appellant had submitted certificate of Hindi and English Typewriting. It appears that the certificates of passing Hindi and English Typewriting submitted by the appellant at the time of his appointment as daily wage employee had been accepted, and therefore, this Court need not advert to clause ‘6’ of the order dated 06.01.2010 in detail. 12. Clause 5 of the order dated 06.01.2010 makes it explicit that during the period of probation, which is for a period of two years, the candidate shall have to produce one year diploma/certificate of DEO/Programming and a certificate of data entry with speed of 5000 key depression per hour from any recognized institution. Until the employee produces such certificate, it is indicated therein that he would get minimum pay of the pay-scale. Evidently, the appellant had not produced such certificate as required under clause 5 of the order dated 06.01.2010. 13. It appears from the reading of clauses 1 and 5 that the appellant continued to be on probation, and it is in that context, the letter dated 24.08.2015 was issued directing the petitioner to submit certificate in terms of clause 5 of the order dated 06.01.2010. 14. 13. It appears from the reading of clauses 1 and 5 that the appellant continued to be on probation, and it is in that context, the letter dated 24.08.2015 was issued directing the petitioner to submit certificate in terms of clause 5 of the order dated 06.01.2010. 14. The requirement as contained in clause 5 of the order dated 06.01.2010 is in terms of qualification prescribed by circular dated 17.07.2008 for the post of AG-III. 15. Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of clause 3 of the circular dated 05.03.2008, the appellant was entitled to be regularised as he had the requisite qualification prior to 31.12.1997 but he was, without any application of mind, appointed on probation with certain conditions which ought not to have been imposed. He also relies on a decision of this Court dated 10.12.2018 in WA No. 791 of 2018 Bishhat Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others. 16. Mr. Sudeep Verma prays for dismissal of the appeal on the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge. 17. In the circular dated 05.03.2008, for the purpose of regularisation, Class III and Class IV daily-wage and ad hoc employees were categorized into two categories i.e. (i) employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988 and (ii) employees appointed from 01.01.1089 to 31.12.1997. 18. The relevant portion of the circular dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure P/7) reads as follows: “Subject: Regularisation of Class III and Class IV employees appointed on daily-wages or ad hoc basis. (A) Regularisation of the daily-wage/ad hoc employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988. xxx xxx xxx (B) Regularisation of the daily-wage/ad hoc employees appointed from 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997. A general instruction has been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 10.04.2006 passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi & Another (2006) 4 SCC, that only for one time/chance, action should be taken for regularising the service of the (Irregular Appointments) daily-wages/ad hoc/temporary employees who are working on the posts sanctioned as per the rules for the last 10 years or more. 2. 2. In the context of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the process of regularization of daily wagers/employees appointed on ad-hoc basis is determined by the State Government after considering them sympathetically as under: (i) The person should have been posted against the vacant/sanctioned regular post and should possess the prescribed educational and other eligibility criteria prescribed in the departmental recruitment rules and only then he is entitled to be regularised. (ii) If the appointment was made on daily wages basis, ad hoc basis or at Collector’s rate (on daily wages) and the said post was required from the date on which appointment was made till date and the said post is also required for future, then against the said post, such person could be considered treating him to be posted. (iii) The person concerned should have worked as a daily wager (whether on Collector rate) or on ad hoc basis continuously upto 31.12.1997 on the same post or on the equivalent post. In this regard, it will be considered as continuous service only if in each year, the service break is not for more than one month. For the purpose of continuous service, the period of strike will not be considered as break in service. (iv) Regularization of class III and class IV daily wagers or ad hoc employees should be done who have worked till 31.12.1997. (v) If the person is working against the work charged post, then he should be regularised on the work charged post only. If he is working against a regular post, then he should be regularized on a regular post only. (vi) The Chhattisgarh Public Services (Reservation for Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 should be complied with which means that the category to which the person working on daily wages/ad hoc basis belongs, he should be regularized according to the roster against the same point. If the points of Schedule Caste, Schedule tribes and Other Backward Classes in the roster remain vacant due to lack of candidates, then the vacancies which would be arising in future, the same should be filled according to the reserved points on priority basis in the manner the backlogs are filled. (vii) Regularization will be done only on approved and vacant posts. For this purpose, definite number of posts will be created in the parts where it is necessary. (vii) Regularization will be done only on approved and vacant posts. For this purpose, definite number of posts will be created in the parts where it is necessary. If the post itself is approved at the Collector rate, then the sanctioned posts (on daily wages) will have to be converted (created) into a regular pay scale. (viii) After issuance of the circular, the day on which the administrative departments will issue the regularisation order, they will be considered as regular employee from that date only and not from any prior date. In the gradation list, their names shall be placed en bloc in the bottom as per their inter se seniority. (ix) The inter se seniority of the persons appointed on regular basis, as above, shall be determined on the basis of their date of joining as daily wages employee/Collector rate or ad hoc employee. At the time of determination of the seniority, if one or more persons have joined on the same date, then the person who is older in age shall be considered as senior.” “3. In the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is mentioned that the appointment should not be ‘illegal’ but should only be ‘irregular’, then only the same may be considered for regularisation. In this regard, those appointments would be considered as irregular in which the appointed person possesses all the requisite qualification, but the prescribed procedure for appointment has not been followed. Such persons would be eligible for regularisation. But if a person does not possess the requisite qualification and has been appointed, then such appointment would be considered as illegal. But if any person has acquired the qualification before 31.12.1997 and he fulfills the other conditions of that post then he shall also be considered for regularisation.” 19. While referring to clause 3 of the circular dated 05.03.2008, the petitioner had stated that he has fulfilled conditions of the post that he was holding. It is also stated in paragraph 9.3 that even after fulfilling all the conditions for appointment to the post of AG-III (wrongly stated as ‘AG-II’, which appears to be a typing error and should have been typed as AG-III), he has not been regularised. 20. In the return filed by the State, the respondents had not disputed the assertion of the appellant that he had the requisite qualification to the post prior to 31.12.1997. 20. In the return filed by the State, the respondents had not disputed the assertion of the appellant that he had the requisite qualification to the post prior to 31.12.1997. What is significant is to note that the appellant was held to be not possessing the requisite qualification at the time of regularisation in the post of AG-III as he did not have the qualification of one year diploma/certificate in DEO/Programming which was required for appointment to the post of AG-III as per the circular dated 17.07.2008. It is also not pleaded in the reply that the appellant did not fulfill the conditions laid down in the circular dated 05.03.2008 for regularization of his service. In these circumstances, it has to be accepted that the appellant had the requisite qualification of the post as well as fulfilled the conditions in terms of the circular dated 05.03.2008. Despite the aforesaid, the appellant was purportedly appointed with the terms and conditions attached as indicated in the appointment order dated 06.01.2010. 21. When an appointed person possesses all the requisite qualification but the prescribed procedure for appointment had not been followed, such appointment is termed as irregular appointment. On the other hand, if a person did not possess the requisite qualification but had been appointed nonetheless, then such appointment is considered as illegal appointment. In the affidavit of respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2, who had issued the order dated 24.08.2015, had termed the appointment of the appellant as an irregular appointment. Such assertion was made on the basis that the appellant did not have the requisite qualification in terms of the circular dated 17.07.2008. If it is considered as a fresh appointment, then it becomes an illegal appointment and not an irregular appointment. While regularisation was permitted to be considered in respect of irregular appointments, illegal appointees were not eligible to be considered for regularisation. 22. In Bishhat Ram Sahu (supra), the factual matrix, in short was that the appellant, who was working on daily wages from 1977 to 1986. On being a recommendation made by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Forest, many others and he came to be appointed as Forest Guard. 22. In Bishhat Ram Sahu (supra), the factual matrix, in short was that the appellant, who was working on daily wages from 1977 to 1986. On being a recommendation made by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Forest, many others and he came to be appointed as Forest Guard. After 22 years of service in substantive capacity, his service was terminated on the ground that he was only 5th class pass but in the service book, his qualification was shown as 8th class pass and thus, he had committed fraud. The writ petition was dismissed, but on an appeal, this Court held that it was a case of regularisation and not appointment for which may be the minimum qualification of 8th pass was required. The writ appellate Court also found on facts that no fraud was played by the appellant and accordingly, the writ appeal was allowed. 23. The order of appointment dated 06.01.2010 refers to circular dated 05.03.2008, which, as noted earlier, is on the subject of regularisation of daily-wage and ad-hoc Class III and Class IV employees. Clause 3 of the circular dated 05.03.2008 envisages regularisation and not appointment. The appellant, however, came to be appointed instead of being regularised. The circular dated 05.03.2008 did not authorise appointment, that too, in the manner as noticed in the order dated 06.01.2010 by incorporating some conditions though the appellant had no requisite qualification for being appointed on that date. 24. As the circular dated 05.03.2008 was issued on the subject of regularisation of Class III and Class IV employees appointed on daily-wage or ad hoc basis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant ought to have been regularised as AG-III and not ‘appointed’. 25. Argument is advanced by Mr. Verma that the appellant had not assailed the order dated 24.08.2018 and therefore, the same having attained finality, this writ petition merits dismissal. We find no substance in the argument. The appellant, in the writ petition, had stated about dismissal of the appeal by order dated 24.08.2018 and the copy of the said order was also annexed. True, in the prayer portion, the said order has not been put to challenge. But then, a litigant cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence or inadvertence. The appellant, in the writ petition, had stated about dismissal of the appeal by order dated 24.08.2018 and the copy of the said order was also annexed. True, in the prayer portion, the said order has not been put to challenge. But then, a litigant cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence or inadvertence. In the instant case, having brought on record all antecedent facts, in the prayer portion, prayer for setting aside the order dated 24.08.2018 was not made. It is a lapse, which cannot be attributed to the appellant. A writ court will not be tied-down by technicalities or rules of procedure, which are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. It is always open to the writ court to grant, mould or restrict the relief in a manner most appropriate to the situation before it in such a way as to advance the interest of justice. 26. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 06.01.2010 shall be deemed to be an order of regularisation of the appellant without any conditions attached and the appellant would be entitled to increment and all of the benefits as admissible in law. 27. No cost.