regularization, therefore, his claim for regularization has been rejected. It is further submitted that the instant petition also suffers from delay and laches, as the impugned order has been passed on 17.02.2016, whereas the order impugned has been challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition on on 26.02.2018 ie after delay of almost two years without making any proper explanation in this regard, therefore, on this count alone the instant petition is liable to be dismissed, as the delay has not been explained. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it is submitted that as per the circular dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure-P/7), a scrutiny committee was constituted, which has examined the case of the petitioner and decided the case of the petitioner in accordance with the order dated 05.03.2015 passed by this Court in WP (S) No.714/2015. The case of the petitioner has been considered in the light of the circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government and it was found that the petitioner has not worked continuously for 10 years, therefore, his case for regularization has not been considered. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the respondents and the instant petition is devoid of merits and deserve to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs Uma Devi (3) and others , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
