M. Ramakrishna, C.J.- Farayaz Uddin Sheikh, who is the writ petitioner in Civil Rule No. 133 of 1997 sought for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider his case for absorbing in his service as a regular Govt. servant-Junior Engineer, since he had been working as such from 1991, for the reasons set out in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, by an order dated 20th January, 1997 dismissed the writ petition for the reasons set out in the order. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant-petitioner is seeking to set aside the said order for the grounds taken in the appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the grounds of appeal as well as the documentary evidence - Annexures 1 to 7 produced along with the writ petition. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the orders of appointment dated 5th February, 1991 appointing the writ petitioner as Junior Engineer, and again as per Annexure 6 dated-5.1.96 appointing him as Junior Engineer under certain conditions. The argument advanced by Mr. A.S. Choudhury in support of the appeal is that although the appellant had served from 5.2.91 as Junior Engineer by virtue of the order referred to above, for a period of 6 years, the appellant was interviewed by the Assam Public Service Commission, for short, the APSC, but he was not selected. 3. The legal argument advanced by Mr. Choudhury. learned counsel for the appellant is in regard to the provisions of the Assam Recruitment Rules of Executive Business, 1968. for short, the Rules, which are applicable to the facts of the present case. He submits that in a case where a candidate has been disqualified and not appointed by the APSC it was open to the respondents to place such records of selection before the Cabinet of the Govt. of Assam to consider and accept his case and to give relief. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that in similar circumstance in Writ Appeal No. 194 of 1997 which came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court, though the Division Bench agreed with the Hon'ble Single Judge, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal with certain observations made in favour of the appellant. Mr. Choudhury. therefore, submits that the observations of the Division Bench may be perused. Mr. Choudhury. therefore, submits that the observations of the Division Bench may be perused. We extract the said observations made by the Division Bench which are as follows: ''We have carefully consider the aforesaid submission of Mr. Choudhury and we have perused the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the civil rule. On the reading of the impugned judgment and order we find that the learned Single Judge dismissed the civil rule holding that the area in which intervention is sought for from the Court belongs to the executive domain and not to the Court and that there was no infirmity which could be interferred with in the writ petition. We fully agree with the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, as in our opinion, it is not for the Court to direct the State Govt to consider the case of the appellant for regularisation without the advice of the APSC and it is for the State Govt to consider the representation of the appellant for being regularised in service in accordance with Rules 14 and 15 read with Clause 22 of the Second Schedule to the Assam Rules of Executive Business, 1968, without the advice of the APSC." 4. It is pertinent to note that though the above observations were made by the Division Bench in the above appeal, the following observation made therein also requires consideration by us: "For the foregoing discussion we dismiss the writ appeal. However, we make it clear that dismissal of the writ petition as well as this appeal will not be a bar for the State Govt and in particular the Chief Minister before whom the representation dated 10.1.97 is pending to consider the appellant's regularisation in service in accordance with law." 5. Mr. Choudhury wants us to repeat the similar observation in this case so as to enable the appellant to get the benefit of the same. 6. On careful consideration of the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, it is further seen that at the out set the writ petitioner though had served as Junior Engineers, it is seen on perusal of Annexure 3 dated 5.2.91 that the Project Director. District Rural Development, Dhubri. 6. On careful consideration of the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, it is further seen that at the out set the writ petitioner though had served as Junior Engineers, it is seen on perusal of Annexure 3 dated 5.2.91 that the Project Director. District Rural Development, Dhubri. appointed the appellant- petitioner as Junior Engineer with the following conditions: "He is hereby engaged temporarily as Junior Engineer in view of the existing work load for implementing JEY etc Schemes on daily wage basis. He will not get any wage for the day on which he will not work. This engagement of Junior Engineer is terminable immediately of expiry of specific period or on posting of Junior Engineer on regular basis by the Directorate whichever is earlier." 7. It is necessary for us to understand the intendment of the above condition incorporated in the order of appointment of the appellant-petitioner. On perusal of the same, it is made clear that the conditions of the appointment of the petitioner being on daily wage basis, his services were terminable immediately on expiry of the specific period, for which he had been appointed, and lastly if there was appointment of Junior Engineer on regular basis by the Directorate, the services of the writ petitioner would be terminated automatically. 8. Considering the above conditions it is further made clear that the appointment of the writ petitioner was on daily basis, terminable without any notice which goes to show that there was not protection of service as provided under the statute. 9. Considering all these circumstances, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the writ petitioner had no case made out in the writ petition and accordingly, it was dismissed. 10. Further argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that when the appellant was interviewed with a view to consider his case for the purpose of absorbing him in services on regular basis, but unfortunately the appellant has been disqualified. The other candidates who had been successfully selected had been appointed. In such a case it is contended that this Court may direct the APSC which is the competent authority to consider the case of the appellant for absorption or, in the alternative, the same may be referred to the State Govt. The other candidates who had been successfully selected had been appointed. In such a case it is contended that this Court may direct the APSC which is the competent authority to consider the case of the appellant for absorption or, in the alternative, the same may be referred to the State Govt. for consideration under the Rules 14 and 15 read with clause 22 of the Second Schedule to the Assam Rules of Executive Business, 1968. 11. We have considered the provisions of the aforesaid rules with a view to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. On perusal of these rules it is clear that those are Executive Rules and they do not constitute statutory rules. Since the Executive Rules have no force of law, a citizen cannot seek for a writ of Mandamus with a view to have these rules enforced as of right. In other words a citizen does not have such right to ask the Court to enforce such rights since the Executive Rules are meant only for temporary exigencies. They do not stand on par-with the statute. Therefore, we do not incline to issue a direction to the State Govt. as prayed for. 12. Since the appellant-petitioner was found to be disqualified and he having not been selected by the competent authority, namely, APSC, during the appropriate selection, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to recommend the case of such person like the appellant-petitioner to the Govt. to consider his case under the above Rules. 13. We are also of the view that the observations made by the Division Bench extracted above in Writ Appeal No. 194 of 1997 does not deserve repetition. Hence, we respectfully differ from the view expressed by the Division Bench in that writ appeal. 14. In the result, we do not see merit in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. Parties to bear their costs. ------------------