5.This Court is of an opinion that though the writ petitioner was appointed in the year 1999, the order of appointment had not been implemented. Contrarily, the order of appointment issued in favour of the writ petitioner had been kept in abeyance. However, the writ petitioner was permitted to join duty as Pharmacist only on 30.12.2007. The writ petitioner also had not challenged the order keeping the appointment in abeyance. Thus, now she cannot seek any such retrospective regularization of the service for the period when the petitioner had not served in the Department. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner has joined as Pharmacist only as 30.12.2007 and her services were already regularized with effect from her date of joining on 30.12.2007. Thus, the relief as such sought for with retrospective regularization cannot be granted. As the writ petitioner had not even served as pharmacist in the Department from the year 1999 and she was permitted to joint duty only with effect from 30.12.2007 and her services were regularized from the date of joining her duty. Such being the factum of the case, the writ petitioner has not established any permissible ground for the purpose of considering the relief as such sought for in this writ petition.
