JUDGMENT J.B. Koshy, J. 1. Petitioners were engaged as helpers on a daily rated casual basis in the Kerala State Handicrafts Apex Cooperative Society Limited, 1st respondent. According to the averments in the original petition, they were continuously working as helpers from 23.8.1993, 11.10.1993 and 4.5.1995 respectively and they have completed 240 days of work in an year. Now steps are being taken to terminate their services and Ext. P2 was issued. It is contended that even though they were engaged by the 1st respondent Cooperative Society, provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are applicable and they cannot be terminated without complying with the provisions under S.25F and they are also entitled to S.25H and G. These claims were disputed by the society. It is submitted that their appointments were irregular and illegal. In cooperative societies, appointments cannot be made against the Circulars issued from time to time and therefore these appointments are ab initio void and they are not workers for claiming protection under S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Termination of illegally engaged persons will not come within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act and it is also submitted that appointments in the respondent corporation can be made only through Public Service Commission and after 25.4.1995 persons who were illegally appointed should be terminated. It is submitted that petitioners were engaged without giving an opportunity to all unemployed persons and the appointments themselves were in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. But, it is submitted that termination of these petitioners will not take place replacement by similarly appointed temporary employees and they will be appointed only through Public Service Commission. 2. In KSRTC Reserve Conductors' Rank Holders Association and others v. State ( 1996 (2) KLT 306 ) a Division Bench of this Court held that when properly appointed candidates are available through PSC. provisional employees and other empanelled conductors have to vacate their posts and they cannot claim permanency. Those persons who have not appointed through proper channel have to vacate their posts when regular PSC hands are appointed. In J & K Public Service Commission v. Narinder Mohan ( AIR 1994 SC 1808 ) it was held that executive power is co-extensive with the legislative power of the State. Once statutory rules have been made for appointments, appointments shall only be in accordance with the rules. In J & K Public Service Commission v. Narinder Mohan ( AIR 1994 SC 1808 ) it was held that executive power is co-extensive with the legislative power of the State. Once statutory rules have been made for appointments, appointments shall only be in accordance with the rules. As per the statutory rules appointments can be made only through PSC. All the appointments or engagements of petitioners are against the rules. Of course, to tide over unforeseen exigencies, they could have resorted to such provisional appointments. But, that power cannot be used to defeat the statutory provision and to make the adhoc appointments as a rule. Their Lordships held as follows: "Back door adhoc appointments at the behest of power source or otherwise and recruitment according to rules are mutually antagonistic and strange bed partners. They cannot co-exist in the same sheath. The former is in negation of fair play. The latter are the products of order and regularity." Their Lordships further held as follows: "When the rules prescribe direct recruitment, every eligible candidate is entitled to be considered and recruitment by open advertisement which is one of the well accepted modes of recruitment. Inviting applications for recruitment to fill in notified vacancies is consistent with the right to apply for by qualified and eligible persons and consideration of their claim to an office or post under the State is a guaranteed right given under Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution." If regular vacancies are available, vacancies should be filled up by proper channel. In Surendra Kumar Gyani v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1993 SC 115 ) the Supreme Court has categorically taken the view that services of the provisional employees are to be terminated on the availability of properly recruited persons. In Dr. M. A. Hague v. Union of India ( 1993 (2) SCC 213 ) Supreme Court held that provisional employees and other casual employees have to vacate their posts when regular hands are appointed. The Supreme Court in the above case held as follows: "We are also conscious of the fact that candidates in service have a disadvantage as against the fresh candidates in the tests particularly when they face the tests after a long lapse of time. The Supreme Court in the above case held as follows: "We are also conscious of the fact that candidates in service have a disadvantage as against the fresh candidates in the tests particularly when they face the tests after a long lapse of time. As against this, however, we cannot lose sight the rules framed in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso the Art.309 of the Constitution are solemn rules having binding effect. Acting in a manner contrary to the rules does not create problem and dislocation. Very often government themselves get trapped on account of their own mistakes or actions in excess of what is provided in the rules. We take serious view of these lapses and hope and trust that the government both at the Centre and in the States would take note of this position and refrain from acting in a manner not contemplated by their own rules." It was pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that in Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P & T Department v. Union of India ( AIR 1987 SC 2342 ) It was held by the Supreme Court that casual employees should be paid minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen and employment of casual labourers for years together amounts to exploitation of labour. Supreme Court also directed the authorities to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the casual labourers. In that case, no contention was taken by the management that casual workers were employed against rules or that the initial appointment was not correct. In fact, daily rated casual workers were appointed as per the rules prevailing in the P & T Department. 3. Much emphasis is placed by the petitioners to the decision reported in State of Haryana & others v. Piara Singh & others ( 1992 (4) SCC 118 ). There it was held by the Supreme Court that these eligible and qualified candidates and continuing in service satisfactorily for a long number of years have a right to be considered for regularisation. Long continuance in service gives rise to a presumption about the need for a regular post. But, mere continuance for one year or so, does not in every case raise such presumption. Government should consider feasibility of regularisation. Long continuance in service gives rise to a presumption about the need for a regular post. But, mere continuance for one year or so, does not in every case raise such presumption. Government should consider feasibility of regularisation. However, the Supreme Court held that direction of the High Court for regularisation of those falling within the definition of 'workman' under S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act on completion of 4 or 5 years' is not sustainable. It was further held that direction under Art.226 of the Constitution can invoked only for issuance of rule of law by observance of statutory provisions, rules and instructions etc. Piara Singh's case referred to earlier is not an authority for the proposition that all temporary employees are entitled to be regularised. 4. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & others v. State of Bihar and others ( 1997 (4) SCC 391 ) it was held that petitioners who were appointed on daily wages for necessity in violation of the rules cannot contend that they were retrenched from service as they have no right to be posted. Therefore disengagement is not unjust. In Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration 1992 II KLJ 452), the Supreme Court held that regularisation of employees shall not be done lightly. It was observed: "A good deal of illegal employment market had developed resulting in a new source of corruption and frustration of those who are waiting at the employment exchange for years." Petitioner was appointed only on ad hoc basis. He has no right to get regularisation. In this connection, I also note the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Committee of Management v. Tribhuvan Nath Thripathi (1997 (2) SCC 500). Supreme Court also accepted the Division Bench decision of this Court in Reserve Conductors' case (1996 (2) KLT 206) referred to earlier. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Koodaranji Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Lissy ( 1993 (2) KLT 706 ) had the occasion to consider as to whether the termination of the service of appointment made by a cooperative society against the statutory roles, on the basis of instructions issued by higher authorities can be considered as retrenchment under S.2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The facts of that case are similar to those of the present case. The facts of that case are similar to those of the present case. In that case, one Smt. Lissy was appointed in the services of Cooperative Bank as a Clerk on daily wages from 2.3.1983. She continued to serve the bank in the capacity upto 1.4.1989. But her services were terminated on the basis of the instructions issued by higher authorities under the Act. Termination of her services gave rise to an industrial dispute. The Labour Court by Award dated 21.1.1992 directed the Bank to reinstate her as a Clerk with backwages and continuity of service. The Cooperative Bank challenged that Award in O.P.No. 10304 of 1992. The learned single Judge dismissed that Original petition by taking the view that the termination of service of Smt. Lissy is retrenchment as contemplated in the Industrial Disputes Act. The Bank preferred an appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge. After considering all the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, it was held as follows: "All retrenchments will result in termination of service of a workman by the employer. But all terminations of service of a workman by the employer will not fall within the definition of retrenchment. A retrenched workman is entitled to re-employment in preference to others when the employer proposes to take into his employ any other person, as per the provisions contained in S.25F of the Act. This shows that the termination of service of the workman should have been from a post to which he could have been continued. If the post is such that its continuance is not possible, then the termination of service of the workman from that post cannot amount to retrenchment as defined under the Act. In the instant case, the appointment of Smt. Lissy was against statutory rules. As a result of that engagement, there was no legal relationship of master and servant between the Bank and Smt. Lissy. Consequent on the coercive action and orders passed by the authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act. Smt. Lissy could not be continued in the employment of the Bank. So, her services had to be terminated. It was in fact so terminated not as a result of any voluntary act of the Bank. Consequent on the coercive action and orders passed by the authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act. Smt. Lissy could not be continued in the employment of the Bank. So, her services had to be terminated. It was in fact so terminated not as a result of any voluntary act of the Bank. It was the result of the directives given by the authorities of the Cooperative Department, over which the Bank had no control." In Eramalloor Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Labour Court and others ( 1986 KLT 801 ), this Court had taken the same view earlier in the context of the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. In that case also, it was found that the appointment of the aggrieved employee was invalid and void. 6. Admittedly, in this case, initial appointments of the petitioners were against the rules. Therefore, they have no right to contend that they are entitled for regularisation of their services or benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act. They cannot be substituted by another set of illegally appointed persons. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners that they will be replaced if necessary only by persons appointed through Public Service Commission. Even though temporary employees like the petitioners have no right for regularisation, if work is available they can continue in service till PSC hands are appointed or regular hands are appointed as per Rules. In other words, they who have completed two to four years of work cannot be replaced by other temporary or provisional hands but only by regularly appointed persons in accordance with law. If there is no work available, there is no obligation to engage them. With the above directions, the original petition is disposed of.