No inherent right to regularization arises from temporary status or inclusion in casual labour registers.

The applicant was engaged as a seasonal Waterman in the North Eastern Railway between 1980 and 1990 and was granted "temporary status" on 12.05.1990

He was subsequently disengaged and remained out of service after 1990

Following a series of litigations ending in a direction by the Tribunal in 2010 to consider his representation, the respondents issued an impugned order dated 08.06.2010 rejecting his claim for regularization

The rejection was based on the grounds that his initial engagement was below the prescribed age, his service records were doubtful/unverified, and he did not apply for screening despite being out of rolls for two decades

The applicant challenged this via the present OA, claiming parity with juniors (e.g., Mohd. Yunus) who were regularized

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization in a Group 'D' post based on his prior temporary status and the principle of parity with allegedly junior employees

2. Whether the inclusion of a name in the Live Casual Labour Register confers an indefeasible right to regularization regardless of eligibility criteria and length of disengagement

The Tribunal applied the principles of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution regarding non-discrimination and equal opportunity in public employment

It relied on Para 2006(iii) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol-II and Master Circular No. 48 regarding age relaxation for casual labour

It distinguished the precedents of Ushaben Joshi v. Union of India and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., noting that judicial ratios cannot be applied mechanically without establishing a factual foundation of eligibility

The core rule derived is that regularization is not a vested right but is subject to the fulfillment of prescribed eligibility criteria and active participation in the screening process

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant was granted temporary status in 1990, he had not been on the rolls for over 20 years at the time of the impugned order

The court noted that the respondents' rejection was a "reasoned and speaking order" that correctly identified the applicant's failure to prove he had applied for or participated in a valid screening process

Regarding the claim of parity with Mohd. Yunus, the Tribunal held that relief granted in individual cases does not automatically create an enforceable right for others unless they are "identically situated" in terms of continuity, eligibility, and fulfillment of Railway Board circulars

The Tribunal further observed that mere inclusion in a Live Register does not override statutory eligibility requirements or the necessity of being within the "zone of consideration"

On Issue 2, it held that inclusion in labor registers does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment

The Tribunal found no arbitrariness or procedural illegality in the impugned order dated 08.06.2010. Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit with no order as to costs