the petitioner, while it has ultimately come on record that the petitioner was appointed on 01.10.1993 as a daily wager, the respondents have pointed out that he had worked at various places and different zones for a period of 50 days and 30 days as has been mentioned in a table which is part of an affidavit dated 19.11.2018. The respondents have thus contested that the petitioner had not worked continuously with them for a period of two years and therefore was not entitled for regularization. It has also come on record that the petitioner had submitted his joining report on 04.05.2000 in terms of an interim order passed by this Court dated 27.04.2000 whereby he was directed to be taken back on duty, however the joining report was not accepted by the then Assistant Engineer and when the Court had asked a specific query in this regard an affidavit has been filed by the Officer In-charge on the basis of the information received from the then Assistant Engineer, Pipli that the petitioner had never submitted his joining report. On being confronted that the copy of the joining report, the department has accepted his mistake and stated to have taken departmental action against the concerned Assistant Engineer for submitting wrong information before this Court. 3. It has also come on record that persons who were appointed subsequent to the persons on daily wages were allowed to continue and subsequently regularized. The regularization was made in the year 1997 as per the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner. However this Court finds that there is no such averment in the main writ petition and the aforesaid fact that regularization of persons appointed subsequent to the petitioner, has come for the first time only now in the year 2018 by filing an affidavit.
