Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In the first case the petitioners, who are class IV employees of the Patna Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority), have prayed for quashing of the appointment of respondents No.3 to 7 and 8 made vide D. O. No.590 and 591 dated 30th March, 1991, photo copies whereof have been annexed as annexures 2 and 3 respectively and, further, for a direction to the respondents to fill up the vacancies in Class III by promotion after considering their cases who claim to he duly qualified and eligible. In the second case the two petitioners, namely, Vijay Kumar and Gopal Singh, who have been working in the Authority since 1980 and 1981 continuously without any break, have sought for a direction to the respondents to regularise them on the posts in Class III over which they are working and not by promotion from amongst Class IV employees of the Authority. Thus, as directed at the time of admission, both the writ applications have been heard analogous and are being disposed of by this common judgment/order. 2. According to the petitioner of the first case, the Establishment committee of the Authority in its meeting held on 22-2-1988 considered their cases and recommended them for promotion to Class III posts. The matter was also referred to the Government (Bureau of Public Enterprises) for its approval. It is stated that the cases of respondents No.5 to 7 and 8, who were casual employees working against Class III posts, were also considered in the aforesaid meeting of the Establishment Committee for promotion against Class III vacancies. It is alleged that the Establishment Committee recommanded that the services of the said respondents should first be regularised against Class IV posts and then their cases be considered for promotion to Class III posts. While the matter was still pending in the Government, the then Managing Director of the Authority, Mrs. Padda, proceeded on long leave after handing, over charge of the post on 30th March, 1991. It is alleged that Mrs. While the matter was still pending in the Government, the then Managing Director of the Authority, Mrs. Padda, proceeded on long leave after handing, over charge of the post on 30th March, 1991. It is alleged that Mrs. Padda on the last day, i. e , 30th March, 1991, before she proceeded on long leave, passed orders appointing respondents No 5 to 8 ia class III on regular basis So far as respondent No.8 is concerned further it is alleged that respondent No.8, who was initially a regular Class IV employee, was given promotion to Class III post by the then Managing Director, mrs Padda, igaoring the claim of his seniors. A photo copy of the aforementioned recommendation of the Establishment Committee dated 22-2-1988 regarding consideration of the cases of respondents No.5 to 7 and 8 for appointment/promotion in Class III has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the first case. 3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Authority as well as respondents No.5 to 7 and 8 the replies thereto have also been filed on behalf of the petitioners in the first case. 4. In short, the facts of the second case are that petitioner No.1 was initially engaged as daily rated worker against Class IV post in the Authority on 4-2-1981. Later considering his efficiency in typing, he was attached to typing Section of the Authority, vide order doted 30-6-1982, a photo copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 2. The said petitioner No.1 was later called to appear at the typing test in which he was declared successful and consequently, vide order dated 28-9-1984 the Authority decided to pay wages of Class III post to the said petitioner with effect from 1-9-1984. A photo copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure 4. Later, the secretary of the Authority, vide order dated 11-4-1986, permitted the said petitioner No.1 to mark his attendance in the register of Class III employees of the Authority and he, accordingly, started doing so. It is claimed that occasionally he was also asked to perform the duty of Head Typist in the authority in addition to his own duties. Later, the secretary of the Authority, vide order dated 11-4-1986, permitted the said petitioner No.1 to mark his attendance in the register of Class III employees of the Authority and he, accordingly, started doing so. It is claimed that occasionally he was also asked to perform the duty of Head Typist in the authority in addition to his own duties. As regards petitioner No.2, it is stated that he was appointed on Class III post as casual worker, vide order dated 30-7-1980 issued under the signature of the Secretary of the Authority, s photo copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 6. Consequently, the said petitioner No.2 joined and since then he has been continuously working in the said capacity. On 12-8-1988, he was transferred from Fatuha to the headquarterters the Authority at Patna, vide order contained in Annexure 7. 5. It is claimed that on demand made by such employees, including the petitioners, the respondent authority, vide letter dated 7-5-1987, had asked them to furnish income certificate, caste certificate, certificate regarding educational qualifications and age certificate etc. within one week for regularisation of their services. It is stated that the petitioners furnished the required certificates within time: But when no decision was taken for their regularisation. they filed the prsent writ application. It is also stated that the Establishment Committee in its meeting held on 22-2-1988 had decided to regularise all the casual employees of the Authority in Class IV category but the said decision merely remained on the file However, vide letter dated 7-5-1990, the petitioners were awarded a consolidated salary. It is alleged that the respondents have regularised and absorbed three persons, namely, Kameshwar saran Kumar, Ambika Nath Choubey and Ram Nath Sah, whose appointments are under challenge in the first writ application and are party respondents No, 5 to 7 in the said petition. It is further alleged that the services of two more persons, namely, Bindeshwari Mahtar and Md. Irfan, who were juniors to the petitioners as casual worker, have also been regularised and absorbed on permanent basis but again the cases of the two petitioners have been ignored by the authority although vacancies of one Typist and eight Clerks in the Authority exist. 6. Irfan, who were juniors to the petitioners as casual worker, have also been regularised and absorbed on permanent basis but again the cases of the two petitioners have been ignored by the authority although vacancies of one Typist and eight Clerks in the Authority exist. 6. It is contended that non-regularisation of the service of the petitioners even though they have been in uninterrupted employment of the authority for the last over 13 years and have also crossed the age bar for employments in Government Service is highly unjustifiable and violates the fundamental rights contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for protection of life and personal property inasmuch as the action of the Authority, in the instant case, is also discriminatery and arbitrary. 7. A countar affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 in which the facts regarding uninterrupted continuous service of the petitioners for the last now over 13 years have not been denied. 8. In fact, from the statements made in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents authorities it appears that the claim of the petitioners in this regard is admitted. However, it is contended that the aforementioned three employees were senior to the petitioners and thus, the petitioners cannot have any legitimate grievance against theis regularisation. further, it is contended that Class IV employees are also representing and agitating that the available vacancies in class III posts should be filled up by promotion from the immediate subordinate cadre of Class IV employees so much so that some of them have also filed the first writ application (C. W. J. C. No.3724 of 1991) in this Court, for the same grievance. It is further contended that it is not possible for the Authority to regularise the services of all the daily and casual workers in Class III posts or to promote all Class iv employees to Class III posts at one and same point of time. The stand of the respondents is that there is no legal right for regularisation of irregular appointments, still the Authority has taken up such cases of regularisation in phases atrictly according to the seniority. The stand of the respondents is that there is no legal right for regularisation of irregular appointments, still the Authority has taken up such cases of regularisation in phases atrictly according to the seniority. It has also been contended in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their service against existing vacancies leaving no scope for any direct recruitment according to the prescribed procedure of advertisement and selection process and also completly blocking and freezing the promotional avenues of Class IV employees to Class III posts cannot be justified on any principle or rule of law. 9. The controversy in both the cases appears to be as to whether the action of the respondents authorities in appointing/regularising respondents 5 to 8 in Class III posts and in not considering the cases of the petitioners of the first case for promotion to Class HI and not regularising the services of the petitioners in the second case is justified and not arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. 10. The stand of the Authority appears to be peculiar and inconsistent. On the one band, the Authority in the counter affidavit filed in the first case have tried to justify their action in regularising the services of respondents no.5 to 8, whereas, on the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed in the second case it has been contended that there is no legal right for regularisation of irregular appointments and that it would lead to leaving no scope for any direct recruitment according to the prescribed procedure of advertisement and selection process and also completety blocking and freezing the promotional avenues of class IV employees to Class III and that the same cannot be justified on any principle or rule of law, such as, equality and equality of opportunity in public employment as also of the Administrative law which envisages promotional opportunities to persons working in the subordinate cadre. 11. Mr. Alakhraj Pande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authority, submitted that it is not in dispute that respondents No.5 to 7 were qualified and were initially appointed in Class III posts on casual basis, vide Annexures E, F and G/h respectively. There appointments of respondents No.5 to 7 were never challenged by the petitioners. However, Mr. 11. Mr. Alakhraj Pande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authority, submitted that it is not in dispute that respondents No.5 to 7 were qualified and were initially appointed in Class III posts on casual basis, vide Annexures E, F and G/h respectively. There appointments of respondents No.5 to 7 were never challenged by the petitioners. However, Mr. Pande submitted that the services of the said respondents No.5 to 7 were regularised on consideration of their long service and their seniority as well as the qualifications which they possessed. According to the learned counsel for the Authority, the services of respondents No.5 to 7 have been regularised and it is not a case of direct recruitment. The Authority by regularising their services has simply cured the defect in their initial appointment by following the principle laid by this Court in the case of Bihar Fruit and vegetable Development Corporation, Patna V/s. The State of Bihar and others, 1994 (1) PLJR 377. Thus, it was submitted that such action of the Authority cannot be held to be bad. In support of this fact, learned counsel placed reliance on paragraph 10 of the said decision which is as follows : "10. Further, the very word "regularisation" means "to make regular which implies that the action was irregular and the same is being cured. The words "regular" or "regularisation" are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure defects as are attributable to the methodology followed in making the appointments as was observed by the supreme Court in the case of B. N. Nagaranjan V/s. State of karnataka, AIR 1979 S. C.1676. Thus, in my opinion, by appointment the procedural irregularity of any nature including making appointment without advertisement is condoned on equitable reasons. " On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment is of no avail to the respondents. 12 In the instant case, the petitioners, who have also been in the long continuous employment of the Authority, have been denied either the right of consideration of their cases for promotion to Class III or their regularisation in Class III without any valid reason even though they fulfilled the requisite qualification. 12 In the instant case, the petitioners, who have also been in the long continuous employment of the Authority, have been denied either the right of consideration of their cases for promotion to Class III or their regularisation in Class III without any valid reason even though they fulfilled the requisite qualification. The principle laid down in the case of Bihar Fruit and Vegetable Development Corporation, Patna (Supra) equally applies to the case of the petitioners also and if the actions of the Authority in regularising the services of respondents No.5 to 7 and/or promoting respondent No.8 to Class III are discriminatory, then the same cannot be sustained or, in the eiternative, the respondents are obliged to treat the petitioners also equally and give them also the same similar treatmeet. It is true that none of the parties has brought to my notice the rule relating to filling up the vacancies in Class III in the Authority but at the same time, in my opinion, there appears to be some substance in the submission of the petitioners of both the writ applications. If the principle laid down in the case of Bihar Fruit and Vegetable development Corporation, Patna (Supra) following the decision of the Supreme court in the case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Piara Singh and ors. AIR 1988 S. C.2130 has been applied in the case of respondents No.5 to 7 and 8 and consequently they have been given appointment by regularising them in class III then there cannot be any justification to deny similar treatment to the petitioners of the second case. At the same that the claim of the petitioners of the first case for consideration of their cases for promotion cannot be overlooked specially when it is not disputed that they are duly qualified for Class III posts in the Authority and that the posts in Class III in the authority are available. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath Prasad Singh V/s. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and others, AIR 1988 SC 1033 ) depricated the absence of promotionel prospects in public service and held as follows : "reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. 14. Thus, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the petitioners, who are duly qualified for appointment/promotion/regularisation in Class III, by giving similar treatment as was given to the private respondents No.5 to 8 against the available vacancies in Class III strictly in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Haryana and others V/s. Piara Singh and others (Supra) and Raghunath Prasad Singh V/s. Secretary, Home (Police)Department, Government of Bihar and others, (Supra ). If necessary, the authority after giving notice to persons, who were though junior to the petitioners but were given promotion ignoring the preferential claims of the petitioners, may also revert such junior persons and consider the cases of the petitioners in the consequential vacancies strictly in accordance with the equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment/order. 15. Accordingly, these writ applications are disposed of with the aforementioned directions. However in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.