ORDER : 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that his services were not regularized as a watchman though there was a clear vacancy of the said post as on 25.11.1993. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has served on a temporary basis from 14.09.1987 without any break. The 2nd respondent addressed a letter dated 26.02.2002 to the 1st respondent for consideration, to regularize the services of the petitioner and the necessity for filing up the post for office watchman-cum-attender. In the said letter, it is stated that a regular vacancy of watchman-cum-attender is vacant for recruitment. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 23659 of 2004, before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents therein for regularization of the petitioner in the cadre of watchman-cum-attender. This Court vide order dated 21.12.2004 directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner, pursuant to the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent dated 26.02.2002. He further submits that the petitioner was continuously working from 14.09.1987 without any break and that the petitioner is still continuing as a watchman-cum-attender in the respondent-Corporation. The impugned proceedings dated 24.02.2005 are challenged in the present Writ Petition. 3. As seen from the impugned proceedings, it is stated that the petitioner is not eligible for regularization of his services in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994. The G.O.Ms. No. 212 mandates that the employee who is working for a minimum period of five years and continuing as on 25.11.1993 is eligible for regularization of services. It is also stated that the petitioner studied up to 9th class and he is not eligible for regularization of the service. As also seen from the impugned proceedings, the qualification for watchman is 10th class is a must. It is not mentioned as to whether the candidate has to pass or to study 10th class. It is also stated that absorption for any employee would be against the vacancy and that there is no vacancy as on the date for considering the case of the petitioner. 4. The respondents in their counter would submit that there are 45 NMR attenders/watchmen working in the entire state could not be regularized in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994. It is also submitted that the post of watchman is not a sanctioned post in the cadre strength of Corporation. 4. The respondents in their counter would submit that there are 45 NMR attenders/watchmen working in the entire state could not be regularized in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994. It is also submitted that the post of watchman is not a sanctioned post in the cadre strength of Corporation. The respondents in their counter also submitted that the petitioner has appeared for SCC examination in the year 1987 with Registration No. 1222304 and that he failed. It is again reiterated that for regularization of service of the watchman/attender, 10th class is a must. 5. Even considering the stand of the respondents, that it has to be construed that the petitioner has to pass 10th class for discharging the duty as a watchman. There is no explanation for the proceedings dated 26.02.2002 issued by the 2nd respondent wherein the 2nd respondent has informed the 1st respondent, the necessity for filing up the vacancy post of watchman and that the petitioner is eligible for appointment as a watchman-cum-attender according to G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 14.09.1987 whereby the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis on daily wages as a watchman, which did not stipulate educational qualifications for considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on a regular basis. 6. Considering the submissions made by both the parties, the respondents have not made out a case for substantiating the impugned proceedings. That apart it has not stated as to how the petitioner cannot be considered in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212. The G.O.Ms. No. 212 stipulates regularization of the employee, if the employee is in service without break for a period five years and continuing as on 25.11.1993. Nothing is placed on record by the respondents to disprove the claim of the petitioner, that he is continuously working since 14.09.1987 and that the petitioner was continuing as on 25.11.1993. 7. In these circumstances, it would be pertinent on part of the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as there are no qualifications prescribed for regularizing the watchman in the respondent-Corporation. 8. Considering these aspects and considering that the petitioner is still continuing on a temporary basis as the watchman in the respondent-Corporation. This Court is inclined to direct the respondents to issue necessary proceedings regularizing the services of the petitioner. The services of the petitioner shall be considered for notional purpose only. 9. 8. Considering these aspects and considering that the petitioner is still continuing on a temporary basis as the watchman in the respondent-Corporation. This Court is inclined to direct the respondents to issue necessary proceedings regularizing the services of the petitioner. The services of the petitioner shall be considered for notional purpose only. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed in part, directing the respondents to issue necessary proceedings regularizing the services of the petitioner within six (6) weeks from the date of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.