JUDGMENT : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. Heard Mr.K.B. Pujara, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein seeks direction qua the respondent – authority to grant status and benefits of permanent employee to the petitioner as has been granted by the respondent – authority to the employees, as per the list of the employees, which is duly produced at Annexures-E and F collectively, the petitioner having completed 5 years and 900 days of service as daily-wager under the respondent for the years from 1996 to 2003, placing reliance on the list produced at Annexures-D and K collectively, with consequential benefits. The petitioner also prayed for the following reliefs:- “13. YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:- (a) to direct the respondent to give the status and benefits of permanent employee to the petitioner as has been granted by the respondent to the employees stated in Annexures-E and F Colly., as the petitioner has also completed 5 years and 900 days of service as daily-wager under the respondent during the years from 1996 to 2003 as admitted in Annexure-D Colly. and Annexure-K Colly., with all the consequential benefits; (b) to direct the Municipal Commissioner to take appropriate disciplinary action against Mr.Harshadrai J. Solanki, Director, Solid Waste Management Department, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation who provided false information to the National Commission for Safai Karmacharis in the letter dtd. 24.9.2014 at Annexure-N that the petitioner is working as daily wager in fixed pay, so the applicant is not eligible to get regular/permanent job in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation as per standing committee resolution no.447 Dt.13/08/2004, though as per the record of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation at Annexure-D Colly. 24.9.2014 at Annexure-N that the petitioner is working as daily wager in fixed pay, so the applicant is not eligible to get regular/permanent job in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation as per standing committee resolution no.447 Dt.13/08/2004, though as per the record of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation at Annexure-D Colly. and others the petitioner has discharged duties as full time daily-wager for more than 5 years and for more than 900 days; (c) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to direct the respondent, its agents and servants, to immediately engage the petitioner in its employment with the status and benefits of permanent employee as they have employed the petitioner’s co-employees referred to in Annexures-E and F Colly., subject to further orders that may be passed in the present petition; (d) to allow this petition with exemplary costs and to grant any other appropriate and just relief/s;.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent – authority in the month of March, 1996 as full time daily-wager truck labourer in the Health Department, Paldi Ward, West Zone of the respondent – corporation. The services of the petitioner came to be relieved abruptly in April, 2003 without any order in writing on the ground that there was no approval for continuing the petitioner and there was a staff cut to be implemented. Reliance is placed on the duties discharged by the petitioner herein as daily wager for a period from 1996 to 2003 being total period of 918 days. The respondent passed the resolution no.447 on 13.08.2004 in the standing committee and resolution no.264 on 31.08.2004 in the general board for giving status and benefits as permanent employees to all those dailywagers, who had completed more than 5 years of service and who had discharged the duties for 900 or more days. Reliance is placed on the aforesaid resolutions for granting the benefits of permanent employee to the petitioner herein. 4. Mr.K.B. Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on the chart, which is duly produced at page 7 of the petition. Placing reliance on the same, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner was included in the list of the employees. 4. Mr.K.B. Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on the chart, which is duly produced at page 7 of the petition. Placing reliance on the same, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner was included in the list of the employees. It is submitted that the respondent granted benefits to the similarly placed employees like the petitioner i.e. one Jashodaben Hirabhai by government resolution G.D. Est.No.H/8287 dated 19.11.2011 under the signature of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Administration) but, the petitioner is denied the benefit of appointment as a permanent employee. The petitioner approached the National Commission for Safai Karmcharis, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India by several letters between the years 2013 and 2014. It is submitted that by letter dated 24.09.2014, the Commission has given false information that the petitioner is working as a daily wager on fixed pay so he is not eligible for permanent job in the respondent – corporation as per the standing committee resolution no.447 dated 13.08.2004. It is submitted that the petitioner has always discharged the duties at par with the 4 employees, as referred in paragraph 4 and there is nothing like fixed pay for a daily wager because, all the daily wagers are being paid the amount of daily wage as decided by the respondent from time to time. It is submitted that such falsehood about fixed pay has been stated in the said letter dated 24.09.2014 only with a view to hoodwink the National Commission for Safai Karmacharis and to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate right and benefits. It is submitted that the appropriate action is required to be taken against the concerned employee for committing the illegality. It is submitted that it is for the first time in 10 years from 2004 to 2014, that such false and lame excuse about the fixed pay has been invented by the employee of the respondent. 4.1. It is submitted that the appropriate action is required to be taken against the concerned employee for committing the illegality. It is submitted that it is for the first time in 10 years from 2004 to 2014, that such false and lame excuse about the fixed pay has been invented by the employee of the respondent. 4.1. Summing up the submissions, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the status and benefits of permanent employee with effect from the year 2004 at par with the said 4 employees, referred to in paragraph 4 and others as the petitioner has completed more than 5 years and 900 days of service as full time daily wager under the respondent, with all the consequential benefits as if the petitioner was granted the benefit with the said employees. 5. Mr.H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the respondent – authority relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent – authority, which is duly produced at page 78 and submitted that the petitioner herein is not entitled to claim the benefits, as prayed for, in the present petition. It is submitted that the respondent engages the daily wagers for providing civic services as and when required on temporary and ad-hoc basis. It is submitted that there is no recruitment procedure followed for engaging the daily wagers or even the names are also not called for from the employment exchange. It is submitted that such arrangement is made to meet the administrative exigencies. It is submitted that the respondent – corporation issued order no.334 to the effect that the daily wagers, who have worked at-least for 180 days per year for 5 years, should be given the benefit of permanency and the benefits available to the permanent employees, which is duly produced at Annexure-A. Reliance is placed on the table, which is produced in the petition and also in the reply and it is submitted that the petitioner has worked as a daily wager for a period between 1996 to 2003 i.e. for 8 years and 906 days. It is submitted that the resolution no.447 has been passed in the meeting dated 13.08.2004 to the effect that the daily wagers, who have continuously worked for 5 years as on 15.08.2004 and worked for 900 days and are in service, should be considered for permanency on receipt of their applications. It is submitted that the resolution no.447 has been passed in the meeting dated 13.08.2004 to the effect that the daily wagers, who have continuously worked for 5 years as on 15.08.2004 and worked for 900 days and are in service, should be considered for permanency on receipt of their applications. It is submitted that the Municipal Commissioner of the respondent – corporation issued a communication on 10.08.2004 with respect to the aforesaid, which is duly produced at Annexure-C. It is submitted that the petitioner herein admittedly, was not in employment since April, 2003. 5.1. Reliance is placed on the application, which is duly produced at Annexure-D and it is submitted that the planning officer examined the application of the petitioner and upon scrutiny, it was found that the petitioner had worked between 1996 and 2003 for 906 days and was not satisfying the requirement of the resolution no.447 passed by the standing committee on 13.08.2004 as well as the resolution no.264 passed by the general board in its meeting on 31.08.2004, having not worked for 5 years and 900 days. It is submitted that as per the record of the respondent – corporation as well as the admission of the petitioner, the petitioner has completed 900 days between 1996 and 2003. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner had hardly worked for few days between 1996 and 2003. It is submitted that the present petition is filed after a delay of 10 years, praying that the benefits are wrongly denied to the petitioner herein. It is denied that 47 daily wagers have been considered for the benefit of the permanent employee by the respondent – corporation. Reliance is placed on page 104 to the petition and it is submitted that on a meeting held on 29.04.2016, it was resolved to grant benefits of permanency to 37 full time daily wagers of solid waste management pursuant to the approval dated 07.09.2009 by the Municipal Corporation and the copy of the resolution is relied upon, which is duly produced at Annexure-F. It is submitted that the resolution was passed pursuant to the policy framed through resolution no.1505 passed by the standing committee of the respondent – corporation in its meeting dated 23.03.2016, which is duly produced at Annexures-G and H respectively. It is submitted that the petitioner was again offered the work by the order dated 18.05.2007 by the Conservancy Establishment no.118 for part time work along with 280 workmen on temporary and ad-hoc basis. It is submitted that the petitioner and others were not only irregular in service but, were remaining unauthorizedly absent for a long period and in view thereof, by order dated 07.06.2012, their names were deleted, copy of which is duly produced at Annexure-J. 5.2. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the petitioner herein is not complying with the requirement of the resolution no.447 dated 13.08.2004 and in view thereof, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of permanent employee, as prayed for, in the present petition. 6. Mr.Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised earlier and submitted that the prayers, as prayed for, may be granted. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 8. This Court has perused the order, which is duly produced at Annexure-A. It emerges that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent in the month of March, 1996 as a full time daily-wager truck labourer in the Health Department, Paldi Ward, West Zone of the respondent – corporation. 9. Upon perusal of the record, it emerges that paragraph 2 of the petition recites that the resolution no.447 dated 13.08.2004 by the standing committee and the resolution no.264 dated 31.08.2004 of the general board issued for giving status and benefits as permanent employees to those daily-wagers, who had completed more than 5 years of service and who had discharged the duties for 900 or more days. This Court has perused the said resolution dated 13.08.2004 placed on record at page 89. Upon perusal of the same, it emerges that the services of those employees, who have completed 5 years and 900 days, were to be considered as permanent employees. This Court has also perused the table produced on record of the petition at page 7 wherein, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed 906 days in 8 years, which is more than 5 years. This Court has also perused the table produced on record of the petition at page 7 wherein, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed 906 days in 8 years, which is more than 5 years. In the course of hearing, this Court has also perused the order, which is duly produced at page 112, granting temporary and ad-hoc work to the petitioner however, it appears that the petitioner was not vigilant in the work entrusted and in view thereof, by order dated 07.06.2012, the names of the petitioner and other similarly placed employees were deleted from the list, which is duly produced at Annexure-J at page 121. it emerges that there is erroneous interpretation of the office order and the resolution no.447 dated 13.08.2004. 10. The petitioner herein has sought for the reliefs in accordance with the resolution No.447 dated 13.08.2004 and resolution no.264 dated 31.08.2004. 11. Upon harmonious reading of the table, which is produced on record and the said resolutions, in the opinion of this Court, admittedly, the petitioner has completed 906 days in 8 years and is not entitled to the benefits of the said resolutions. On the aforesaid ground alone, this Court is not inclined to sit in appeal over the decision of the respondent – authority. No interference is called for to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the aforesaid facts of the present case, it is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarvepalli Ramaiah (Dead) As per Legal Representatives and others vs. District Collector, Chittoor District and others, reported in (2019)4 SCC 500 . Paragraphs 40 to 43 of the said judgment, read as under:- “40. Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, only on grounds of perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity. Except on these grounds administrative decisions are not interfered with, in exercise of the extraordinary power of judicial review. 41. In this case, the impugned decision, taken pursuant to orders of Court, was based on some materials. It cannot be said to be perverse, to warrant interference in exercise of the High Court's extraordinary power of judicial review. Except on these grounds administrative decisions are not interfered with, in exercise of the extraordinary power of judicial review. 41. In this case, the impugned decision, taken pursuant to orders of Court, was based on some materials. It cannot be said to be perverse, to warrant interference in exercise of the High Court's extraordinary power of judicial review. A decision is vitiated by irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have taken the decision, having regard to the materials on record. The decision in this case is not irrational. 42. A decision may sometimes be set aside and quashed under Article 226 on the ground of illegality. This is when there is an apparent error of law on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision and/or in other words an apparent error, but for which the decision would have been otherwise. 43. Judicial review under Article 226 is directed, not against the decision, but the decision-making process. Of course, a patent illegality and/or error apparent on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision, may vitiate the decision-making process. In this case there is no such patent illegality or apparent error. In exercise of power under Article 226, the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision impugned, nor does it adjudicate hotly disputed questions of fact.” 13. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.