Judgment S.B. Sinha and Narayan Roy, JJ. This application is directed against an order dated 6.4.1993 passed by the Respondent no. 2 as contained in Annexure-16 to the writ application. 2. The petitioners admittedly were employed by the Respondent-Corporation on a daily rated basis. The grievance of the petitioners is that, although, they have been working for a long time, their services have no been regularised despite the fact that services of other employees similarly situated have been regularised. 3. The petitioners approached this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. Nos. 126/93 (R) and 127/93 (R) and a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 25.1.1993 as contained in Annexuure-15 to the writ application disposed of the said writ applications by directing the Managing Director, Respondent no. 2 to dispose of the representations of the petitioners which were pending before him for consideration. 4. The petitioners' aforementioned representations have been disposed of by the Managing Director, Respondent no. 2 by reason of his impugned order dated 6.4.1993 as contained in Annexure-16 to the writ application. In his order, the Managing Director, Respondent no. 2 has held as follows : "Most of the daily rate workers including the petitioners were engaged in the various Regional offices of the Corporation which have since been abolished and these daily rate workers are being carried over by the respective Branches. It is further clarified on behalf of the Corporation that any further recruitment and promotion in the Corporation is stopped at the moment on account of observation made by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. no. 13348 vide its order dt. 16.4.91 the Corporation appears to have agreed before the State Govt. that any further appointment shall be done with the consent of the State Govt. Having gone through the entire facts and circumstances I make the following observations/direction :- (i) It is not possible to regularise the services of the petitioners because it tantamounts to condoning irregularities of the appointment committed in the past. According to Supreme Court's rulings also no irregularities can be regularised with the lapse of time. (ii) The petitioners should have been given wages at a rate not less than the rates prevailing in the State Govt. which are usually fixed on the basis of the norms of minimum wage rates fixed by the Labour Department. According to Supreme Court's rulings also no irregularities can be regularised with the lapse of time. (ii) The petitioners should have been given wages at a rate not less than the rates prevailing in the State Govt. which are usually fixed on the basis of the norms of minimum wage rates fixed by the Labour Department. O.S.D. (P & A) shall immediately collect information about the rate prevailing in the Govt. and if they arc found to be less, shall get the rates revised w.e.f. the date on which Govt. has imp1cmcnted the same. (iii) OSD (P&A) may also put up an agenda note which may be considered by the Board of Directors for granting wages to those daily rate workers in proportion to the basic pay of the employees doing similar work. (iv) whenever any appointment in the Corporation takes place in future the petitioners shall be entitled for weightage on the basis of length or functioning in the Corporation vis-a-vis the outsiders on account of the experience of the functioning in the Corporation. This order has been dictated in the presence of the petitioners and they are hereby regretfully advised to make effects to take alternative jobs as the Corporation's financial position does not permit further recruitment. Till they get another job, the Corporation in view of its compassion with them may not like to disengage them from their present status of daily rated workers." 5. Mr. Tapen Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner’s inter-alia submitted that the reasons assigned by the Respondent no. 2 (Managing Director) are non-existent in as much as front a perusal of Annexure-18 series to the writ application it would appear that services of other employees were regularised. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that from a perusal or Annexure-19 to the writ application it would appear that in similar situation a Division Bench of this court by an order dated 12.2.1991 passed in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1911 and 2026 of 1990 (R) gave similar directions. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that in this case the directions of the Respondent no. 2 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application can not be said to have any application in as much as the said directions apply only to those employees who were appointed after October, 1987. The petitioner nos. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that in this case the directions of the Respondent no. 2 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application can not be said to have any application in as much as the said directions apply only to those employees who were appointed after October, 1987. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were appointed on 18.6.1987 and 22.6.1987 respectively and thus they were not entitled to be regularised in their services. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as daily rate employees. They, therefore, never became permanent employees of the Respondent-Corporation. It is also not the case of the petitioners that they were appointed upon following the procedures laid down in the Recruitment Rules as also up observing the provision of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. From a perusal of Annexure-18 series the supplementary affidavit to the writ application upon which strong reliance has be placed by the learned counsel appearing behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the said orders have been passed in the year 1987. 10. The Respondent no. 2 in his order as contained in Annexure-16 to the writ application has clearly spelt out the difficulties in absorbing the petitioners. 11. The order dated 6.4.1993 as contained in Annexure-16 to the writ application, in our opinion, can neither be said to be arbitrary nor unreasonable. 12. So far as the order of this Court dated 12.2.1991 passed in C.W.J.C. Nos. 191 and 2026 of 1990 (R) is concerned, in that case it was noticed that no reason has bee assigned as to why the Managing Director approved the regularisation of six persons and did not approve the regularisation of the petitioners. 13. In that situation, the Division Bench of this Court held that since no ground has been assigned as to why the petitioners have not been regularised, we arc of the opinion that the petitioners have been discriminated. The aforementioned decision of this Court can not have any application in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. So far as the submission of Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Annexure-6 to the writ application is concerned, the same has also no relevance. 15. By reason of an order dated 1.5.4.1988 passed by Respondent no. 14. So far as the submission of Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Annexure-6 to the writ application is concerned, the same has also no relevance. 15. By reason of an order dated 1.5.4.1988 passed by Respondent no. 2, all the Regional Managers and Branch Managers were directed to disengage those persons who were engaged after October, 1987. 16. From the said order itself it is evident that the Regional Managers and Branch have been making illegal appointment. 17. Further, Anncxure-6 to the writ application had not been given effect in the case the petitioners as admittedly the petitioners are working despite issuance of Annexure-6 the writ application. 18. Reference to Annexure-6 to the writ application by Mr. Sen was therefore, absolutely misplaced. 19. In any event as noticed hereinbefore, the petitioners were not appointed upon following the procedures laid down under the Recruitment Rules or non-compliance of the revision of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, they have not derived any legal right to appointed and thus a writ in the nature of mandamus can not be issued in their favour in the matter. 20. This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by a Division Bench of this part in Sitaram Thakur vs. State of Bihar of others reported in 1993 (2) PLJR, 140 and in Vijay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar reported in 1993 (1) PLJR, 99. 21. For the reasons aforementioned, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 22. This application is, therefore, dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.