ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these writ petitions were heard together. ( 2 ) THE facts involved herein are that the petitioners are High Court employees and holding substantive posts of Upper Division Assistants in the High Court at Allahabad and all are functioning as Bench Secretary Grade II for the time being. ( 3 ) UNDER the office memorandum dated 1-6-1992 it was notified that written examination for recruitment of Bench Secretary Grade II would be held but no written examination was held. From time to time dates of examination were shifted. In view of large number of substantive vacancies in the post of Bench Secretary Grade II in the High Court, an office memorandum was issued by the Joint Registrar on 3-11-1993 whereby the willingness to work as Bench Secretary grade II was asked for from the ten senior most Upper Division Assistant working in the High court with the condition that they would not claim any salary attached to the Bench Secretary grade II. As none of the ten senior most Upper Division Assistants indicated their willingness to work under such terms, the present petitioners submitted their willingness to function as Bench secretary Grade II and they were allowed to function. Four Bench Secretaries filed Writ Petition no. 23393 of 1995. There was no complaint in respect of functioning of the petitioners after continuous functioning as Bench Secretary Grade II. the petitioners submitted joint representation to the Registrar, High Court with a prayer that the petitioners service as Bench secretary Grade II be regularised. A fresh representation dated 24-7-1995 followed. Honble the chief Justice rejected the representation of the petitioners and the decision was communicated. Challenging such decision the present writ petition was filed alleging discrimination in view of the fact that in the post two other similarly circumstanced Bench Secretaries Grade-II, namely, mr. S. K. Ratnakar and Mr. Abdul Rauf after working as Bench Secretary with similar condition for not claiming any salary in the post, were regularised by order dated 23-5-1989 on their representation. ( 4 ) THE respondents filed counter-affidavit and the petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit. At the time of hearing, the parties agreed to final disposal of the writ petitions at the stage of admission. Abdul Rauf after working as Bench Secretary with similar condition for not claiming any salary in the post, were regularised by order dated 23-5-1989 on their representation. ( 4 ) THE respondents filed counter-affidavit and the petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit. At the time of hearing, the parties agreed to final disposal of the writ petitions at the stage of admission. ( 5 ) THE only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are identically circumstanced as that of the said Sri S. K. Ratnakar and Sri Abdul Rauf and as such refusal of regularisation to the petitioners amounted to gross discrimination as the circumstances in both the cases are identical. The violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India has been argued. It has also been contended that the petitioners are required to be regularised in the post of Bench Secretary as there is no complaint against their service. It has further been contended that the only defence raised in the counter-affidavit is not an existent one as the amendment of the Rule 8 (e) of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Condition of service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 has no bearing there being no substantive amendment in the said Rule proposing to change the circumstance. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents contended that the said relevant Rule prescribed a procedure for filling up the post of Bench Secretary Grade II and in the facts of the case there should not be any deviation for implementation of the prescribed procedure for filing up the said post of Bench Secretary. The procedures are in the public interest as competent candidates can be found out if such procedures are followed. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials available on record i find that it is true that in the year 1992 the paid Mr. S. K. Ratnakar and Mr. Abdul Rauf were regularised in the post of Bench Secretary Grade II after working in the said post from October 1986 till August, 1987. I also find that after the said representations were made by the petitioners the matter was thoroughly considered. The relevant original records show that the claims of the present petitioners have been refused not on the ground of amendment in the said relevant Rules as stated in the counter-affidavit. I also find that after the said representations were made by the petitioners the matter was thoroughly considered. The relevant original records show that the claims of the present petitioners have been refused not on the ground of amendment in the said relevant Rules as stated in the counter-affidavit. The consideration appears to be standard of efficiency required from the Bench Secretary Grade II in giving a go-bye to the existing rules. The relevant consideration runs as follows : ". . . It maybe noticed that the posts in question are selection posts and considering the standard of efficiency required as contemplated under the direction dated 13-7-1992 issued under the Rules and standard of examination as fixed by the Honble the Chief Justice any regularisation as sought for will have adverse effect and to accede such request would. amount to introducing a new head of appointment in defiance of Rules. It will further have the effect of setting at naught the Rules now in force. No such regularisation denying the Rules is permissible. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid I find that The paramount consideration was quality of work expected in such selection post and for that competitive examinations as provided in the existing rules were found to be justified. ( 9 ) THE claim of the petitioner if allowed, will have the effect of Nullifying such a procedure which has been found to be justified while rejecting the representation of the petitioners. Further contention of the petitioners regarding discrimination with reference to case of Mr. S. K. Ratnakar and Mr. Abdul Rauf does not stand interview of the fact that their regularisation were done not in accordance with the ten existing Rules. The Rules today, admittedly have not undergone any change justifying elimination of competitive examination. There cannot be any claim on the ground of discrimination. When the instances cited were in the violation of the rules. Further, the matter, herein, has been considered in detail and the quality of the candidate to be assessed in the competitive recruitment procedure, as provided in the existing Rules, cannot be said to be an action resulting in discrimination. Looking into the materials available I am convinced that there is no arbitrary action in refusing the claim of the petitioners. Further, the matter, herein, has been considered in detail and the quality of the candidate to be assessed in the competitive recruitment procedure, as provided in the existing Rules, cannot be said to be an action resulting in discrimination. Looking into the materials available I am convinced that there is no arbitrary action in refusing the claim of the petitioners. ( 10 ) THE law referred to on behalf of the petitioners a contained in the judgment in the case of purshottam Das Tandon v. State of U. P. and Ors. , reported in (1986) 1 UPLBEC 565, dealt with the case wherein renewal of leases were refused to persons although renewal of leases were granted to other admittedly similarly circumstanced persons. In such refusal to some of the persons no reason has been assigned nor any justification is available. But, in the present case in hand refusal to petitioners is following the Rules admitteedly applicable. The case of Khalid ansar Haque v. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. , reported in 3986 ALJ 1313, also does not apply here as it dealt with different nature of facts wherein the authorities applied old rules to some of the candidates while applied new rules to other similarly circumstanced candidates. ( 11 ) THE case of D. B. Raja v. H. J. Kantharaj and Ors. , reported in (1930) 4 SCC 178, relating to election law and the effect of publication of the electoral list does not apply in the present case. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents referred to the case of State of U. P. and Ors. v. J. P. Chaurasia reported in AIR 1989 SC 19 and the case of Khagesh Kumar and Ors. v. Inspector general of Registration and Ors. , JT 1995 (7) SC 545 in support of the contention that in the present case no discrimination was effected. ( 13 ) MOREOVER, even when the present petitioners made representations before the Registrar of the high Court though regularisation was prayed for but main stress was on payment of salary for the posts of Bench Secretary. After claiming regularisation in the said representation it was said as follows : "in case, however, our request for regularisation is not acceded to we would like to go back to our substantive posts to save us from further heart burning and humilation. After claiming regularisation in the said representation it was said as follows : "in case, however, our request for regularisation is not acceded to we would like to go back to our substantive posts to save us from further heart burning and humilation. We are in fact always ready to go back to our substantive posts. " ( 14 ) LAW of regularisation has been dealt with and decided by the Apex Court in various cases in recent post. The law as explained in the in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 sc 2130 , Delhi Development Hoticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration,1992 (4), scc 99, Khagesh Kumar and Ors. v. Inspector General (Registration), JT 1995 (7) Supreme court 545 and various other cases does not permit the present petitioner to maintain their claim for regularisation in the facts or the present case as narrated here in above. ( 15 ) THERE is one more aspect in the present writ petition wherein the petitioners claim for payment at the same scale as are being to Bench Secretary Grade II in the High Court. With regard to this claim the respondents contend that the condition imposed at the time of appointment of the petitioners was that they shall not claim any salary attached with the post of bench Secretary Grade II. Respondents state that in view of such condition the petitioners ate not entitled to payment at the same scale even for the period they have worked as Bench Secretary grade II. On "he question claim by the petitioners applying the principles equal pay for equal work under Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India the law has been settled. Even in the case of State of U. P. v. J. P. Chaurasia, (supra) relied upon on behalf of the respondents it has been held as follows: "in the matters of employment the Government of a socialist state must protect the weaker section. It must be ensured that there is no exploitation of poor and ignorant. It is the duty of the state to see that the unprivileged or weaker sections get their dues. Even if they have voluntarily accepted the employment on unequal terms, the State should not deny their basic rights of equal treatment. It must be ensured that there is no exploitation of poor and ignorant. It is the duty of the state to see that the unprivileged or weaker sections get their dues. Even if they have voluntarily accepted the employment on unequal terms, the State should not deny their basic rights of equal treatment. " ( 16 ) THEREFORE, the respondents cannot contend that as the voluntarily accepted the employment without claim for salary for such post the petitioners are not entitled to salary at the scale payable to Bench Secretary Grade II for the period the petitioners discharged duties of Bench Secretary grade II. No dispute has been raised that the petitioners discharged same duties or not as are being discharged by other regularly appointed Bench Secretaries Grade II. No complain is also available as against petitioners in the matter of discharge of their duties. In the circumstances, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to be paid at the same scale payable to other regularly employed Bench Secretaries Grade II, for the period the petitioners discharge their duties. So long the respondents take service from anybody other than regularly appointed Bench Secretaries grade, II, the respondents also will take into consideration the claim of the petitioners to continue in view of the experience the petitioners have gathered in the meantime. ( 17 ) IN view of the findings as made here in above, the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation or employment without compliance of the prescribed Rules. ( 18 ) THE petitioners are entitled to payment of salary at the scale available to the Bench Secretary grade II for the period the petitioners discharge duties of Bench Secretaries Grade II. The claim of the petitioners to continue in the post in view of their experience are also to be considered so long the respondents take service from anybody other than regularly appointed Bench Secretaries grade II. ( 19 ) WITH the aforesaid the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. .