S. P. SRIVASTAVA J. The 77 petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2235 of 1997 claim to be working as Works Supervisors, Work Mates and Chaukidars in Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad having to their credit continuous service for the period of more than 12 years. It is not dis puted that the aforesaid petitioners had been engaged on daily wage basis but sub sequent to 8-7-1991, they were being paid in the time scale of pay admissible to the employees appointed on regular basis as against the sanctioned posts carrying the designation of the post held by the different petitioners. The chart annexed with the writ petition indicates that these petitioners had been engaged during the period elapsing between the year 1983 to the year 1987 on daily wage basis. It is asserted that the aforesaid petitioners have been functioning continuously up to 4-9-19%. However, the Chief Engineer of Ghaziabad Development Authority issued a direction that those work charged employees who had not taken part in the strike may be paid their salary. 2. The petitioners claim that they had not taken part in the strike but still they were not being paid their salary. It has been asserted that in the year 1989, the State Government had taken a decision that all the employees working in the development authorities on daily wage basis who had to their credit three years continuous service with 240 actual working days up to llth Oc tober, 1989 be paid salary in the regular time scale of pay requiring all the develop ment authorities to send proposals for the creation of additional posts. 3. The petitioners in the aforesaid Writ Petition have prayed for a direction requiring the respondent authorities to regularise their services as against the posts held by them and have further prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioners for the months of October and onwards regularly. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent development authority in opposition to the writ petition asserting that the petitioner had been engaged in work charge establishment due to necessity of work and they were only casual employees who were employed on daily wage basis to look after various construc tion of work undertaken by the respondent development authority who were to be dis engaged on the completion of the project. In the counter affidavit it has further been as serted that the petitioners were not working against any permanent vacancy or against any regular post and since at present there was no project or work in the office of the answering respondent where the petitioners could be engaged, their services have been dispensed with. The contesting respondents further assert that the petitioners have got no right to claim any appointment from the respondent employer nor they are entitled to seek con tinuance in the service. The allegations that the petitioners were disengaged on account of strike, have been denied. The reason for their disengagement disclosed in the counter affidavit is that there was no work available in any project. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court dated 14th July, 1995 rendered in Civil Ap peal No. 6481 of 1995 arising out of the S. L. P. (CC-2786/95) Ghaziabad Develop ment Authority and others v. Sri Vikram Chaudhary and others indicating that if there is no project available or there is no work, the employer authority is under no obligation to pay daily wages or to engage the daily wages. On the strength of the ob servation made in the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it has been asserted that the petitioners are entitled for the maintenance of a seniority list and offer of engagement on daily wage basis as and when work is avail able to the. senior most person in order of seniority and according to the requirement of work. The answering employer asserts that the petitioners have got no right to claim any regular appointment. 5. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder affidavit wherein, it has been pointed out that at present there were many project, works or schemes either in full swing or in offing such as the project/scheme such as Vaishali Scheme, Govindpur Scheme, Prit Vihar Colony, Ananad Vihar Colony. Transport Nagar Bus Stand Scheme etc. requiring engagement of atleast 20,000 workers/employees. Recently it is claimed that Hapur-Pilkhuwa Scheme had been launched with an estimated cost of Rs. 176 crores It is also asserted that even the work charge employees who have been appointed in the year 1988-90 are being continued even though they have much less period of sen/ice to their credit as compared to the petitioners. Recently it is claimed that Hapur-Pilkhuwa Scheme had been launched with an estimated cost of Rs. 176 crores It is also asserted that even the work charge employees who have been appointed in the year 1988-90 are being continued even though they have much less period of sen/ice to their credit as compared to the petitioners. Details of 108 persons have been furnished in the rejoinder af fidavit who are claimed to be junior to the petitioners but their services had not been dispensed with although they stand at par with them. 6. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1886 of 1997 filed by Ghaziabad Vikas Prad-hikaran Employees Union through its Exe-x cutive Member which is claimed to be the registered union of class IV employees of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad, it is claimed that the petitioners union had submitted a demand before the respondent employer that the muster role employees be paid salary according to the scheduled rate of Lok Nirman Vibhag and the services of all these employees be regularised who had completed three years service till 11-10-1989 with 240 days of ac tual working days in each year and several other demands. When no action was taken, the petitioners union resorted to a strike with effect from 19th August, 1996 and al though the respondent employer had as sured the petitioners that the demands will be accepted on the basis of the Government Orders and there will be no harassment of the employees in future the services of 700 employees were terminated. Although the strike was called off and the employees resumed their duties on 4th September, 1996 and respondent employer had assured that they will follow the Government Order relating to the work charged employees engaged on daily wage basis yet adopting a pick and choose method, without affording any opportunity to the employees, the ser vices of 700 employees were dispensed with even though they had been duly discharging their duties after the strike had been called of. These petitioners have prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to pay the wages/salary to the work charged employees working in the Ghaziabad Development Authority for the months of October, November and December and in future whenever the same fall due. 7. These petitioners have prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to pay the wages/salary to the work charged employees working in the Ghaziabad Development Authority for the months of October, November and December and in future whenever the same fall due. 7. The parties have exchanged their affidavits in the case pleas naised by the respondent authority is virtually to the same effect as in the other writ petitions. In the supplementary rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have filed a chart indicating the details of the members of the petitioner society who were effected by the impugned action. This chart indicates that the persons referred to in paragraph 9 of the sup plementary rejoinder affidavit had been engaged during the period 1987 to 1989. 8. The writ petition No. 6467 of 1997 has been filed by the petitioners who claimed to have been appointed on the post of Work Supervisor and Work Mate on daily wage basis. The date of the engagement of petitioners No. 1,2 and 3 who were engaged as Work Supervisor is indicated to be 24-11- 1988, 1-1-89 and 25-10- 1984 respectively. The petitioners No. 4, 5 and 6 claimed to have been engaged as Work Mate on 21-11-1989,18-12-1989 and 26- 7-1989 respective ly. It is asserted that various projects are still available having not been completed. There does not exist any impediment in continuing the petitioners engagement. It has further been indicated that the State Government had already taken a decision as evident from the letter dated 1st February, 1992 that all in the service. The aforesaid petitioners claimed the benefit arising under the direc tion of the Apex Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority and others v. Sri Vikram Chaudhary and others (supra) wherein it has been clarified that in completion of the existing projects if the Ghaziabad Development Authority under takes any such projects instead of taking service of fresh hands at the place of new-project it should take the service of the existing temporary daily wage employees and in case there is no project on hand the obligation to pay daily wage will not arise, making it clear that the Ghaziabad Development Authority shall maintain the order of seniority of the daily wage employees and shall take the service of the senior most persons in the order of seniority according to the requirement of the work. It was further made clear that temporary daily wage employees so long as there is no regular post available for appointment will not be entitled for payment at par with regular employees but were only entitled to the minimum wage prescribed under the statute, if any or the prevailing wages as available in the locality. It has been alleged that there was a strike in the month of Sep tember but the matter was amicably settled and the employer-respondent had assured that abiding by the directions of the State Government the petitioners will not be vic timised and their continuance in service will not be disturbed but adopting a pick and chose method the respondent employer made payment of salary etc. , granting con tinuity in service to various employees whose names had figured in the notice indi cated above. The petitioners were denied the payment of salary etc. , in an arbitrary manner. It is claimed that the petitioners are continuing to discharge the duties at tached to the office held by them but without any justification and acting in an arbitrary manner they are treated to be strikers and were harassed and victimised and meted out with a discriminatory treat ment. It has been asserted that the Chief Engineer had issued a direction providing that payment of salary will be made only to those employees who were not on strike but while some person who were actually on strike are being paid the salary the others who were never on strike, like the petitioners are being denied the benefits of the service without any justifiable reason the persons who were continuing to be employed and working on 19-10-1989 who had by that date to their credit three years continuous service with 240 actual working days in a year should be regularised. Pur suant to the aforesaid decision all the development authorities had been required to submit proposals in regard to creation of additional posts indicating clearly the work load and the justification for such creation so that appropriate action may be taken in this regard. 9. These petitioners have prayed for a direction requiring the respondent employer to continue the petitioners in employment as Work Supervisor and Work Mates and to assign work to them regularly until the petitioners are considered for regularisation in service. 9. These petitioners have prayed for a direction requiring the respondent employer to continue the petitioners in employment as Work Supervisor and Work Mates and to assign work to them regularly until the petitioners are considered for regularisation in service. They have further prayed for a direction requiring the respon dents to pay to them their wages for the month of October and on wards without any break for the period they had worked. They have further prayed that the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioners salary in the regular time scale of pay as admissible to regularly appointed Work Supervisors and Work Mates. 10. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2002 of 1997 has been filed by 78 petitioners who claim to be in the employment of Ghaziabad Development Authority holding Class IV posts on daily wage basis as workmate, work-supervisors and work-Chowkidar. A chart annexed with the writ petition indi cates that the petitioners had been ap pointed during the period elapsing between the year 1986 to 1990. It is asserted by the petitioners that they had been continuously working as against the aforesaid posts on daily wage basis. These petitioners have prayed for a direction for the quashing of the notice dated 3-9- 96 as amended on 4-9-96 whereunder the Ghaziabad Develop ment Authority had published a general in formation indicating that the persons whose names appeared in the list appended with the notice who had been in the employment of the Ghaziabad Development Authority as against work charge projects had ceased to be its employees. The aforesaid list con tained the names of 852 persons which in cluded the petitioners also. They have fur ther prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to pay the entire wages to the petitioners and to treat them as continuing and without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to establish that in fact they were never on strike and in any case after the settlement there could be no occasion to deprive the petitioners of the benefits at tached to the post held by them. This writ petition has been opposed by the respon dents asserting that the petitioners had been engaged by the employer-respondent to work charge establishment due to necessity of work of casual daily wage employees to look after various constructions or works undertaken by the Ghaziabad Development Authority after the completion whereof the work charge daily wage employees were dis engaged. It has been further asserted that neither any vacancy of permanent nature is available nor any regular post is available against which the petitioners can be accom modated. It has been further stated that there was no project or work in the office of the answering respondent against which the petitioners could be engaged. The respon dent employer has categorically asserted that the petitioners had not been dis engaged due to strike but they had been disengaged as there was no work available in any project. It has been claimed that the direction of the Apex Court relied upon by the petitioners has been duly complied with. 11. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners in all the above four writ petitions as well as the learned Counsel rep resenting the respondents Ghaziabad Development Authority and have carefully perused the records. 12. Taking into consideration the na ture of the controversy raised in these writ petitions and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of finally by a common order. 13. As has already been indicated hereinabove the Ghaziabad Development Authority had issued a public notice giving the information that 852 employees had ceased to be in service. In the counter- af fidavit filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, it has been specifically asserted that none of the petitioners in any of the writ petitions had been disengaged on the basis of his alleged participation in any strike. What has been asserted is that these petitioners had been disengaged on account of the non-availability of the work as there is no project in hand wherein the services of the petitioners could be utilised but as noticed hereinabove, it has been claimed by the petitioners that a large number of projects are still available and some are in the offing and further that the requirement which necessitated the continuance of the engagements of the petitioner still con tinues to exist. It has further been brought on record that the State Government had taken a policy decision to grant regularisa-tion to the employees of the category of these petitioners who had put in three years continuous service with 240 actual working days in each year on or before 11-10-89 and had sought for the requisite information for the creation of additional posts if necessary. 14. It may be noticed that in its decision in the case of R. N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thim-malah and another, reported in AI. R. 1972 S. C. 1767, the Apex Court had an occasion to consider in detail the implications arising under the concept of regularisation. It was clarified in the aforesaid decision that regularisation cannot be said to be a form of appointment. It was observed that if the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, the illegality cannot be regularised. The Apex Court went on to observe that ratification or regularisation is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. It was further clarified that the regularisation cannot be said to be made of recruitment and to accede to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules and it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules. The Apex Court was quite emphatic when it observed in its decision in the case of State of Orissa v. Sukanti, reported in J. T. 1993 (2) S. C. 579 that regularisation de hors the rules is not per missible. As indicated above, regularisation is nothing else except ratification and such ratification of appointment which is other wise irregular is permissible only when the initial appointment is such, the irregularity whereof is curable. 15. Again in another decision of the Apex Court in the case of J & K Public Service Commission etc. , v. Dr. Narendra Mohan and others etc. 15. Again in another decision of the Apex Court in the case of J & K Public Service Commission etc. , v. Dr. Narendra Mohan and others etc. , reported in 1993 (6) J. T. SC 593, it was clarified that existences of statutory rules is not a condition precedent to appoint an eligible and a fit person to a post emphasising that it is settled law that once statutory rules have been made, the appointment shall be only in accordance with the Rules and the executive power could be exercised only to fill in the gaps but the instructions cannot and should not sup plant the law but would only supplement law. A little leeway to make ad hoc appoint ment due to emergent exigencies does not clothe the executive/government with power to relax the recruitment or to regularise such appointment not to claim such appointment to be regular or in ac cordance with the rules, pointing out that back door appointments at the behest of power source or otherwise and recruitment according to the rules are mutually an tagonistic and strange bed partners. They cannot co-exist in the same sheeth. The former is in negation of fair play. The latter are the product of order and regularity. 16. A Division Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of Subedar Singh and others v. The District Judge, Mirzapur and another, (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17907 of 1996 decided on 24-2-97) after considering various decisions of the Apex Court had indicated that appointments are as a rule to be made in accordance with the statutory rules giving equal opportunity to all the aspirants to apply for the post, fol lowing the policy of reservation etc. It has further indicated that whenever the employees are appointed on ad hoc basis to meet an emergent situation every effort should be made to replace them by the employees appointed on regular basis in accordance with the relevant rules as ex-peditiously as possible. Where the appoint ment on ad hoc basis is continued for long and the State has made rules for regularisa-tion, the regularisation has to be considered in accordance with the rules. Where the appoint ment on ad hoc basis is continued for long and the State has made rules for regularisa-tion, the regularisation has to be considered in accordance with the rules. Where, how ever, no rules are operative it is open to the employees to show that they have been dealt with arbitrarily and their weak position has been exploited by keeping them on ad hoc basis for long spell of time. The Division Bench, however, emphasised that it is a question of fact whether in the given situa tion they were treated arbitrarily. 17. The petitioners had been engaged on daily wage basis. As pointed out by the Division Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of State of U. P v. Class IV Employees Association High Court of Judica ture at Allahabad, reported in 1993 (3) UPLBEC 2083, the inter se seniority of such person has to be determined taking into consideration the total period of service which they have to their credit and not the initial date of appointment. 18. Considering the facts and cir cumstances brought on record it seems to me that the question as to whether the necessity to continue the retention of the petitioners in service in the projects already in hand with the respondent-employer as claimed by the petitioners and whether the method of pick and chose had been adopted in the matter in regard to dispensing with the service of the petitioners as asserted and further whether the government order in dicating the policy decision of the State in regard to the regularisation of daily wage employees or their continuance in service has been ignored while dispensing with the service of the petitioners can appropriately be decided by the Vice-Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, after examining the relevant records and examin ing the fact relied upon by the petitioners in their writ petitions. I am not inclined to enquire into the correctness or otherwise of the disputed questions of fact referred to hereinabove in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. I am not inclined to enquire into the correctness or otherwise of the disputed questions of fact referred to hereinabove in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. Considering the totality of the cir cumstances and pleadings of the parties, these writ petitions are finally disposed of requiring the Vice-Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority to ex amine the claim of the petitioners in the lignt of the observations made hereinabove and pass an appropriate speaking order within a period not later than three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the said authority. 20. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for the parties within a week on payment of urgent charges. Order accordingly. .