As noted above, the petitioners have failed to establish that they were engaged on daily wage basis against Group -D posts. The submission addressed with respect to the 2016 Rules also cannot be sustained since the title of the rule itself indicates that it was meant for regularization of persons working on daily wages or on work charge or contractual basis in a government department on a Group -C or Group -D post. The submission therefore that in the absence of a specific exclusion of part time employees the claim of the petitioners was liable to be considered cannot be countenanced. The submission addressed on the strength of Balak Ram and the orders passed in Radheshyam Patel and Others Vs. State of U.P. And Others, Writ Petition No. 1634(S.S.) of 1999 decided on 4 November 2011, must necessarily be read in light of the binding decision of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka And Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 . Regularization cannot be claimed de hors a statutory rule or scheme that may be framed and be invoked. The only statutory scheme in terms of which regularization was claimed were the 2001 and 2006 Regularization Rules . The petitioners have been unable to establish that they stand governed by those Rules.
