JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is an ex - employee of the Government Arts College, Alwar, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds inter alia that he was initially appointed on the post of Class IV servant w.e.f. 1-9-1988 by an oral order of the Principal, Government Arts College, Alwar (respondent No. 3). The appointment of the petitioner was made as a daily wager Class IV employee. The petitioner has claimed parity in pay scales admissible to other class employees who are being paid salary in the regular pay scale on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" which has been denied to him by the respondents. 2. In support of his above contention the petitioner has contended that on 1.9.1992 the petitioner and other Class IV employees serving under the control of the Principal of Government Arts College, Alwar made a combined representation with a request to regularise their services as Class IV employees and to pay them the benefit of regular pay scale vide Annexure 1. Failing to hear anything in this regard, one Surendra Singh and seven others rendering their services under respondent No. 3 as Class IV employees,filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1481 of 1993 which was allowed by learned single Judge of this court vide his order dated 11.1.1994. The petitioner on becoming aware about this fact, made a representation to the respondents on 5.2.1994 and placed reliance upon the order, dated 11.1.1994 passed by this court in the above writ petition, but in spite of that the respondents failed to give any relief to the petitioner vide Annexure 2. Finally the petitioner sent a notice of demand for justice through his counsel on 5.2.1994 bye registered post vide Annexure 3. Failing to hear anything in this regard the petitioner finally filed the instant writ petition in this court on 8.3.1994 seeking the relief of parity in the pay scales as admissible to the similarly placed Class IV employees rendering the: services under the control of respondent No. 3) on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". 3. Failing to hear anything in this regard the petitioner finally filed the instant writ petition in this court on 8.3.1994 seeking the relief of parity in the pay scales as admissible to the similarly placed Class IV employees rendering the: services under the control of respondent No. 3) on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". 3. The respondents on being noticed by this court have filed their reply to show cause notice in which they have contended that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee as a daily wager by respondent No. 3 by an oral order initially for three months: w.e.f. 1.7.1988 to 30.9.1988. The respondents have disputed the contentions of the petitioner regarding his discharging duties as Class IV employee and have rather stated that the petitioner was engaged for urgent temporary work of the college and he is continuing in the same capacity. The petitioner was asked to do different duties in different departments of the college as and when exigencies of the work would require. In paras 6 and 7 of their reply, the respondents have contended that since there is no vacant post of Class IV employee under the control and service of respondent No. 3, the question of regularising the services of the petitioner would not arise since he was engaged to meet out the urgent exigencies of the work of temporary nature and respondent No. 3 is not competent to regularise the services of Class IV employees under the rules. 4. With regard to the judgment of the learned single Judge of this court in the matter of Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, as referred to above, it has been contended by the respondents that against the said judgment an appeal was preferred before learned Division Bench of this court vide D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 564 of 1994, (State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh) which is pending hearing and final disposal before this court. The respondents have stated in this regard that since the petitioner was not a party to the aforesaid writ petition, the question of his being given any relief in terms of the said order, does not arise. The respondents have stated in this regard that since the petitioner was not a party to the aforesaid writ petition, the question of his being given any relief in terms of the said order, does not arise. However, he had submitted a representation dated 5.2.1994 but he is not entitled to claim any benefit of the said judgment and since the D.B. Special Appeal is still pending before this court, the matter is sub judice and question of giving any relief to the petitioner does not arise. The respondents themselves have further contended that since there is no vacant post of Class IV servant under the control of respondent No. 3, hence the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for regular appointment under the provisions of Rajasthan Class IV Servants Rules, 1963. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also examined their rival claims and contentions, hence with regard to the legal position on the subject, prima facie I aim of the considered opinion that since the appointment of the petitioner was by a verbal order of respondent No. 3, his appointment is ex facie illegal, since respondent No. 3 was neither competent nor authorised to appoint the petitioner as a Class IV employee by an oral order. I am further of the opinion that since the appointment of the petitioner as a daily wager was not against any clear-cut vacancy and the petitioner accepted appointment on verbal order without any protest or demur, the question of regularisation of his service as Class IV employee does not arise. With regard to the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge of this court which has been relied upon by the petitioner in the matter of Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief on the ratio of the aforesaid decision, since the impugned order of the learned single Judge of this court dated 11.1.1994 is itself a subject matter of D.B. Special Appeal as referred to above and the matter is subjudice. 6. 6. I am fortified in my observations from the judgment of the apex court in the matter of Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (1997) JT 1 (SC) 243:(1997 AIR SCW 509) wherein the recruitment and confirmation of Class III and Class IV employees which were made by the respondents in excess of sanctioned posts without following proper procedure and without any authority or jurisdiction by a selection committee were challenged before the apex court on the grounds that the petitioners were entitled to claim regularisation of their services on the respective posts by the Director-in-charge of the Health Services, Bihar. It was held by the apex court that since the appointment of the employees in the Tuber-Culosis Eradication Scheme was ex facie illegal and contrary to all recognised recruitment procedures and were highly arbitrary and hence not binding on the State of Bihar, they were not entitled to claim any benefit of regularisation. It was held that the planned expenditure is to be incurred only under budgetary sanction but since the scheme was treated as private property by the employer and since in absence of vacancies against which the appellants have been regularised, there could not be an exercise for regularising their appointments when initially their entries were itself illegal and vitiated. It was further held by the apex court that even training imparted to the employees by the respondents, cannot improve the position of the appellants. 7. In my opinion the raio of the aforesaid decision of the apex court is fully attracted to this case, since the initial appointment of the petitioner by a verbal order of respondent No. 3 being itself illegal and contrary to Rajasthan Class IV (Recruitment and other Service Condition) Rules, 1963 which do not permit any appointment of a Class IV employee by a verbal order in absence of any vacancy, the question of regularising the services of the incumbent on such nonexistent vacancy, does not arise. Even if benefit of purported regularisation or confirmation is extended to such an employee, the very confirmation and regularisation would be ex facie illegal and would be an exercise in futility. 8. In view of my aforesaid observations, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed to claim the benefit of regularisation of his service as Class IV employee under the control and service of respondent No. 3. 8. In view of my aforesaid observations, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed to claim the benefit of regularisation of his service as Class IV employee under the control and service of respondent No. 3. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******