Judgment N.K. Jain, J.-By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to be issued to the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner and in case any termination order is passed that may be quashed. It has been prayed that the services of the petitioners may be regularised with effect from the date of their initial appointment and the order dated December 28, 1992 (Anx. 5) passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Local Self Department, Rajasthan Jaipur may be quashed and set aside. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the cast as alleged by the petitioners are that due to increase in population of Nagour, the petitioners were appointed as ‘Safai Karamchari’ by the Chairman, Municipal Board, Nagour vide orders dated September 26, 1992 and October 9, 1992 (Anx. 2 & 3 respectively). It is alleged that after three months of service suddenly the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide letter Anx. 5 dated December 28, 1992 directed the Chairman, Municipal Board, Nagour that Class IV employees appointed may be terminated after giving the benefit of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act as there is irregularity in their appointment. The Executive Officer again recommended to the Respondent No. 1. Chairman, Municipal Board for terminating the services of the petitioners mentioning that they should not complete 240 days of their service period vide letter No. 108 dated April 16, 1993 (Anx. 6). Thereafter the Dy. Director, Directorate Local Bodies, Jaipur issued Anx. 7 dated May 22, 1993 stating that 21 Safai Haramchari & Ors. may be terminated from service after complying with Section 25-F and they shall not be paid salary. The petitioners have alleged that their services have not been terminated and most of them have completed their 240 days service period in a calendar year. Hence, the writ petition. 3. This writ petition has been filed on May 31, 1993. Notice to show cause was issued on June 4, 1993. Thereafter on June 18, 1993 while issuing fresh notices, meanwhile it has been ordered that the payment of salary shall not be stopped until their services are in fact lawfully terminated. In pursuance of the notice reply has been filed by the Respondent No. 3 and also filed documents Ex. Notice to show cause was issued on June 4, 1993. Thereafter on June 18, 1993 while issuing fresh notices, meanwhile it has been ordered that the payment of salary shall not be stopped until their services are in fact lawfully terminated. In pursuance of the notice reply has been filed by the Respondent No. 3 and also filed documents Ex. R 3/1 to R 3/5 raising a preliminary objection that joint writ petition is not maintainable as the Petitioners No. 1 to 10 were appointed by the Chairman on September 26, 1992 and Petitioners No. 11 to 16 were appointed vide order dated October 9, 1993 (Anx. 3) and as the petitioners were appointed on different dates and also joined duty on different dates this joint petition is not maintainable. It has been stated that since the petition has been tiled on behalf of 15 petitioners Court fee is also required on behalf of each petitioner without which it cannot be entertained. It has also been stated that the State Government vide its order dated December 17, 1992 directed to constitute a committee for selection on the post of Sweepers and it has been mentioned that while making appointments on the post of Sweeper the instructions given in the State Government order dated November 4, 1992 shall be followed but without constituting the committee all the appointments were made by the Chairman in violation of above circular. It has been further stated that according to the Section 68(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act all powers for signatures have been given to the Executive Officer and unless any licence or permission or order is authenticated by the Executive Officer it shall not be legal or valid. The Respondent No. 3 has stated that there were financial constraints against the Municipal Board but the appointments were made at the time of ban without there being any vacant post available with the Board. 4. As agreed by the Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 5. Mr. Trivedi, Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have completed two years of service and on the basis of decision of this Court rendered in Sunny vs. Municipal Board. Sirohi, WLR 1991 (S) Raj. 528, the petitioners have a right of regularisation in service. 6. On the other hand Mr. 5. Mr. Trivedi, Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have completed two years of service and on the basis of decision of this Court rendered in Sunny vs. Municipal Board. Sirohi, WLR 1991 (S) Raj. 528, the petitioners have a right of regularisation in service. 6. On the other hand Mr. Joshi has submitted I that the appointment of the petitioners is illegal and against the rules which was made without following the procedure during the ban period and that too when no vacancies were available. He has relied on Director, Institute of Management Development. U.P. vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava (1993-I-LLJ-190) (SC) and State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Piara Singh & Ors. (1993-II-LLJ-937) (SC), Mr. Bhim Arora has endorsed the arguments of Mr. Joshi. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited at Bar. 8. In Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava: (Supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that where the appointment is purely on ad hoc basis and is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the person holding such post can have no right to continue in, the post. This is so even if the person is continued from time to time on ad hoc basis for more than a year. He cannot claim regularisation in service on basis that he was appointed on ad hoc basis for more than a year. 9. In State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh (Supra), it has been observed as under at p. 947: “The Court must, while giving directions for regularisation of service act with due care and caution. It must first ascertain the relevant facts and must be cognizant of the several conditions and eventualities that may arise on account of such directions. A practical and pragmatic view has to be taken, inasmuch as every such direction not only tells upon the public exchequer but also has the effect of increasing the cadre strength of a particular service, class or category. The High Court in the instant case in directing wholesome regularisation of all such persons who have put in one year’s service, and that too unconditionally acted hastily. The direction that all those ad hoc temporary employees who have continued for more than an year should be regularised is unsustainable. The High Court in the instant case in directing wholesome regularisation of all such persons who have put in one year’s service, and that too unconditionally acted hastily. The direction that all those ad hoc temporary employees who have continued for more than an year should be regularised is unsustainable. The, direction has been given without reference to the existence of vacancy. The direction in effect means that every ad hoc/temporary employee who have been continued for one year should be regularised even though (a) no vacancy is available for him which means creation of a vacancy, (b) he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor was he appointed in pursuance of a notification calling for applications which means he had entered by a back-door, (c) he was not eligible and/or qualified for the post at the time of his appointment, (d) his record of service since his appointment is not satisfactory. Moreover, from the mere continuation of an ad hoc employee for one year, it cannot be presumed that there is need for a regular post.” 10. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have further laid down guidelines concerning the issue regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees Government service, which are as follows at p. 956: “The normal rule,of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may some times call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employees by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also complete along with others for such regular selectionlappointment. It he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hod temporary employee. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee, he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee, he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly.” 11. Admittedly in the Municipal Law there is a procedure for appointment of IV class employee and according to which before filling up the vacancies the concerned municipality is required to issue an advertisement for the vacant post and for granting appointment as per the procedure names of suitable persons shall be called from Employment Exchange at least 5 times the number of vacancies to be so tilled. In the instant case before appointing the petitioners neither any advertisement was issued nor names from the Employment Exchange were called. Further according to Section 68(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act unless any licence or permission or order is authenticated by the Executive Officer it shall not be legal or valid but in the case in hand no such authentication has been made by the Executive Officer. In view of this the petitioners have no right of regularisation and the case cited by Mr. Trivedi is not applicable to [he facts of present case. Therefore, no direction for regularisation can be issued. So far as the challenge to letter Ex. 5 dated December 28, 1992 passed by the Slate Government is concerned, it is merely a direction to the Chairman that the services of the petitioner may be terminated after following the provisions of Section 25-F of the l.D. Act. a copy of which was sent lo the Executive Officer, Respondent No. 2. Mr. Trivedi has not been able lo point out any illegality in the same. a copy of which was sent lo the Executive Officer, Respondent No. 2. Mr. Trivedi has not been able lo point out any illegality in the same. That apart it is not in dispute that till today no punitive order has been passed against the petitioners in compliance of the impugned letter. Under these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioners, and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the authorities to pass any order according lo law. Since the writ petition has been considered on merits and it is dismissed, it is not necessary lo deal with the preliminary objection. 12. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed without there being any force. No order as to costs.