JUDGMENT K. Sreedharan, J. 1. Issues raised in these appeals and O.P. are one and the same. So we consider it advantageous to dispose of these matters by a common judgment. 2. State is the appellant in W.A. 1337/94. They challenge the decision rendered by a learned single Judge in O.P. 6959/89. Appellant in W.A. 80/89 are challenging the decision rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in O.P. 509/84. They were not parties to that O.P. With the leave of this court, they have preferred this appeal. This Court's order allowing them to question the decision in O.P. 509/84 was challenged before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 14530/89. During the pendency of that appeal, the interim stay of operation of the judgment in O.P. 509/84 passed by the Division Bench of this Court was stayed by the Supreme Court. Later Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4-5-95. W.A. 629/91 is against the decision in O.P. 6576/84. Appellants were not parties to O. P.6576/84. After obtaining leave of this court, they challenge the decision rendered by the learned single Judge in O.P. 6576/84. State is the appellant in W.A. 749/91. Judgment rendered by a learned single Judge in O.P. 8612/88 is under attack in that appeal. 3. State Government appointed petitioners in me O.Ps. which give rise to the appeals as Assistant Engineers in the Department in the Public Works under R.9(a) (i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules hereinafter referred to as the General Rules. While they were holding the post on temporary basis, they were selected by the Public Service Commission for filling up the post of Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department. On the basis of the rank obtained by them in the ranked list published by the Commission, they were advised and appointed as Assistant Engineers. They wanted regularisation in service and fixation of rank with effect from the date of their entry in service under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules. In other words, they want seniority and regularisation on the basis of the date of the order of their first appointment to the service under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules. Government did not concede this request. Hence the O.Ps. were filed for the above relief. 4. In other words, they want seniority and regularisation on the basis of the date of the order of their first appointment to the service under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules. Government did not concede this request. Hence the O.Ps. were filed for the above relief. 4. 23 Assistant Engineers who were appointed under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules and who had put in long years of service on temporary basis approached the Government for regularisation of their provisional appointments. Their case was taken up by the Government with the Public Service Commission. On concurrence given by the P. S. C., Government regularised their services as Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department as per G.O. Ms/86/81 PW & E dated 11-5-1981. Eventhough they had put in long years of temporary service as on the dale of that Government Order, their services were regularised only with effect from the date of the Government order namely ... 11-5-1981. 5. Four other provisional Assistant Engineers who were similarly situated like the 23 provisional hands covered by G.O. dated 11-5-1981 were also regularised in service with effect from 12-5-1981 as per G.O.M.S. 91/81/PW & E dated 12-5-81. First person named in that Government Order is one K. K. Narayanan. His case was separately considered by the Government in G.O.M.S.32/83/PW & E dated 21-2-83. Sri K. K. Narayanan entered service on provisional basis on 25-1-71 and continued as such till his services were regularised on 12-5-81. In his case Government took note of the fact that he did not avail of the selection under the Special Employment Programme because of his provisional service in the Department. That was taken as a special circumstance for invoking the provisions contained in R.39 of the General Rules for giving him regularisation with effect from the date of his joining duty on provisional basis namely 25-1-71. The power exercised by Government under R.39 cannot be questioned. Supreme Court in the decision in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. D. Janardhana Rao, AIR 1977 SC 451 took the view that in the interest of justice and equity the power of relaxation of provisions contained in the Service Rules can be exercised by the Stale Government. Such a power has been conferred on the Government under R.39 of the General Rules. In exercise of that powers K.K. Narayanan's services were regularised with effect from 25-1-1971. Such a power has been conferred on the Government under R.39 of the General Rules. In exercise of that powers K.K. Narayanan's services were regularised with effect from 25-1-1971. The order passed by the Government regularising his service with effect from 25-1-71 has not been challenged by an other Engineer. Petitioners in these original petitions want similar treatment like that given to Narayanan. In other words, petitioners want regularisation in service with effect from the date of their entry in service on provisional basis. .. 6. An appointee under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules has no claim for any right for continuance in service. He has no right to the post except for the salary for the work he has done. He has no right to claim regularisation in service in view of the specific provision contained in clause (iv) of R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules. R.9(e) of the General Rules inter alia provide that a temporary appointee who has put in two years of continuous service on 22-12-1973 in one category of post in the same department may be regularised in service by an order passed by the Government in that regard. As per this provision, a provisional employee who has put in provisional employment of two years as on 22-12-1973 can get regularisation in the service with effect from the date of order of regularisation. Invoking this provision 23 persons mentioned in G.O.M.S. 86/ 81/PW & E were regularised in service with effect from the date of the order namely 11-4-1981. Similarly 4 others, who satisfied R.9(e) of the General Rules, were given regularisation with effect from 12-5-1981, the date on which G.O.M.S. 91/81/PW & E was issued. It is worthwhile to note that the Engineers who were regularised as per the orders dated 11-5-81 and 12-5-81 were not given regularisation with effect from the date of their entry in service. They were given regularisation in service only with effect from the date on which their services were regularised. Government considered the case of Sri K.K. Narayanan as a special one and by invoking the provisions contained in R.39 of the General Rules regularised his services with effect from the date of his entry in service. The benefit that is so extended to Narayanan by invoking the powers under R.39 of the General Rules cannot be as matter of right claimed by other provisional employees. The benefit that is so extended to Narayanan by invoking the powers under R.39 of the General Rules cannot be as matter of right claimed by other provisional employees. No one has got a right to compel the Government to exercise the power under R.39 of the General Rules and to confer them the benefit of retrospective regularisation in service. 7. Petitioner in O.P. 509/84 who is the first respondent in W.A. 80/89 joined service as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department on provisional basis under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules on 26-5-1971. When Public Service Commission invited applications for selection to the post of Junior Engineer in Public Works Department, he along with others applied for the post. After a due process of selection, P. S. C. prepared a ranked list. On the basis of the rank obtained by petitioner inO.P. 509/ 84 he was advised. On the basis of that advice, he was appointed on a regular basis and he joined the service in the Department on 1-1-73. With effect from 1-1-73 he was working as an Assistant Engineer on regular basis. He wanted regularisation with effect from the date of entry in service as a temporary hand, i.e. he wanted his service from 26-5-71 regularised in the Cadre of Assistant Engineer and rank among the Assistant Engineers are fixed. Since this request was not conceded by the Government, he approached this court by filing O.P. 131/81. That O.P. was dismissed by a learned single Judge by judgment dated 22-12-82. In that judgment, the law governing the aspect has been suited in the following manner: "R.18 of the K. S. & S. S. R. are, read with R.27, makes it abundantly clear that when a person appointed provisionally under R.9 is subsequently appointed in a regular manner to a post, his seniority could normally count only from the dale of such regular appointment." After suiting the law thus learned single Judge dismissed the O.P. without prejudice to the petitioner's right to approach this court if and when it comes to his notice that Sri K.K. Narayanan has been treated in more favourable fashion. Since K. K. Narayanan was given a favourable decision invoking R.39 of the General Rules, petitioner moved O.P. 509/84 claiming regularisation with effect from 26-5-1971. 8. Since K. K. Narayanan was given a favourable decision invoking R.39 of the General Rules, petitioner moved O.P. 509/84 claiming regularisation with effect from 26-5-1971. 8. The legal position that a temporary appointee under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules has no right to the post and he cannot claim regularisation in service is beyond controversy. That legal position has been consistently taken by this court is seen from in Dr. Santhosh Babu v. State of Kerala, ILR 1990 (2) Ker. 484, Rajan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 1992 (1) KLT 98 , RejiJoseph v. K.S.E.B., 1993 (1) KLT 393 , C. Latha v. State and others 1993 (2) KLJ 497 and unreported decision in W.As. 1056/92 and 55/95. 9. As suited earlier, petitioner in O.P. 509/84 got provisional appointment on 26-5-71. On the basis of the advice of the P. S. C. he was regularly absorbed in service on 1-1-73. With effect from that date, he ceased to be a provisional appointee. Therefore R.9(e) of the General Rules cannot in any way be pressed into service in his case. We are clear in our mind that he cannot claim any benefit based on R.9(e) of the General Rules. During the period between 26-5-71 and 1-1-72 he was only an appointee under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules. That appointment will not and has not conferred on him any right whatsoever for the regularisation. His claim that he must be treated on a par with K.K. Narayanan cannot also any assistance Sri. K. K. Narayanan had provisional employment for more than two years as on 31-12-1973. Further he was given regularisation with effect from the dale of his entry in service on provisional basis by invoking R.39 of the General Rules. As stated earlier, petitioner cannot approach this court invoking jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution and ask for a direction to the Government to invoke jurisdiction under R.39 of the General Rules to give him regularisation with effect from 26-5-71. 10. Decision in O.P. 509/84 was challenged in W.A. 80/89 by persons who were not parties to the O.P. after obtaining leave from this court. This court stayed the operation of the judgment in O.P. 509/84. The operation of the order of stay passed by the Division Bench was got stayed by moving SLP (Civil) 14530/89. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court dismissed that petition on 4-5-95. This court stayed the operation of the judgment in O.P. 509/84. The operation of the order of stay passed by the Division Bench was got stayed by moving SLP (Civil) 14530/89. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court dismissed that petition on 4-5-95. In between certain developments took place. The principle stated by the learned Judge in O.P. 509/84 was questioned before a Division Bench of this Court in Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, 1992 (2) K.L.T. 583 . Bench overruled the judgment in O.P. 509/84.. The Bench also overruled the judgment in O.P. 6576/84 as well. Inspite of the decision of the Bench overruling the decisions in O.Ps. 509/84 and 6576/84, Government passed G.O.M.S. 3/90/PW & E dated 1-1-90 extending the benefit granted by the learned single Judge to the petitioners in the above mentioned O.Ps. namely O.P. 509/84 and 6576/84. The said Government Order cannot stand in view of the decision of this Court in 1992 (2) KLT 583 and in this appeal. 11. Learned counsel representing the first respondent in W.A. 80/89 who was the petitioner in O.P. 509/84 raised an argument that when his client joined Engineering College, he executed a bond to serve the Government for five years. In accordance with that bond, Government were bound to give him appointment on a regular basis. Instead of giving that regular appointment, Government appointed him under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules. That appointment was improper. He ought to have been regularised in service with effect from the date on which he joined the service. This argument is quite attractive. But we are not in a position to accept the same. In case the petitioner had a case that the appointment offered to him under R.9(a)(i) in 1971 was not in compliance with the terms of the bond, petitioner should have taken appropriate steps to compel the Government to comply with the bond. Such bond was not a peculiar one in the case of petitioner in O.P. 509/84. All the students who got admission in the various Engineering Colleges in Kerala executed the bond. But no such argument has been advanced by any other Engineer. Whatever be the terms of bond, they cannot in any manner alter or vary the statutory rules issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the Government by proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution. But no such argument has been advanced by any other Engineer. Whatever be the terms of bond, they cannot in any manner alter or vary the statutory rules issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the Government by proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution. It is also worthwhile to note that petitioner did not raise any such contention on the basis of the bond in this O.P. either. So we overrule that contention. 12. R.18 of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules specifically states that a person who has been appointed temporarily under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules to any post will not be a probationer on account of the said temporary appointment. R.9(a)(i) also states that the appointment under that Rule is only to tide over the undue delay that may be caused in making regular appointment in accordance with the Rules. Since he is not a regular appointee and he is not on probation, his service which can count for seniority shall commence only from the date of regular appointment. R.27 of the General Rules states that seniority of a person in a service, class or category shall be determined by the order of first appointment to such service, class or category. That provision has got an explanation which states that appointment made mention of in R.27 shall not include appointment under R.9 or appointment by promotion under R.31 of the General Rules. Therefore on the basis of the temporary, provisional appointment obtained by the petitioners, they cannot claim regularisation in the service. Nor can they claim seniority in the service depending on the date of entry in service on provisional basis. 13. As suited earlier, regularisation of an employee provisionally appointed under R.9(a)(i) can be with effect from the dale of order of regularisation issued under R.9(e). Government took steps to regularise the services of 27 Assistant Engineers by issuing order in accordance with Rules. The two Government Orders referred to above, gave 27 officers regularisation with effect from the date of the order only. 14. Learned counsel representing the petitioner in O.P. 3098/95 brought to our notice G.O.(P)No. 126/75/PD dated 18-6-75. Government took steps to regularise the services of 27 Assistant Engineers by issuing order in accordance with Rules. The two Government Orders referred to above, gave 27 officers regularisation with effect from the date of the order only. 14. Learned counsel representing the petitioner in O.P. 3098/95 brought to our notice G.O.(P)No. 126/75/PD dated 18-6-75. As per that order, service of provisional (temporary) employees who were appointed by direct recruitment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules and who had two years continuous service on 22-12-73 in one category of post in the same department and who are in service will be regularised with effect from 17-1-1974. This provision in the Government Order, according to counsel, has not been applied to 27 officers who were given regularisation. We are not dealing with this aspect because the Government have not applied its mind to the date of regularisation of these 27 officers on the basis of G.O..(P) 126/75/PD dated 18-6-75. State in Ground B of the Memorandum of Appeal in W.A. 1337/94 look up the stand that R.9 do not provide for regularisation of service from the date of their initial appointment and that petitioner in the O.P. 6959/89 has no legal right to gel his services regularised on any day prior to 17-1-74. From this stand taken by the Government, it is clear that the provisional appointees are entitled to be regularised on and after 17-1-74. This aspect we direct the Government to consider and pass appropriate orders. In view of what has been staled above, we allow WA. 80/89 and 629/91 and reverse the judgments in O.P. 509/84 and O.P. 6576/84. We dismiss the said Original Petitions. W.A. 1337/94 is allowed and the Government are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in O.P. 6959/89 for regularisation in service with effect from 17-1-74 as per G.O.(P) 126/75/PD dated 18-6-75. O.P. 3098/95 is disposed of by directing the Government to consider the claim for regularisation in service of the petitioner therein in view of G.O.(P) 126/75/PD dated 18-6-75. W.A. 749/91 is allowed subject to the condition that the Government will examine whether petitioner in O.P. 8612/88 is entitled to regularisation in service in the light of G.O.(P) 126/75/PD dated 18-6-75. Write Appeals and O.P. are disposed of as indicated above. we make no order as to costs.