ORDER : Sujata V. Manohar, J. - The respondent was engaged as Volunteer Ticket Collector with effect from 3-3-1984. He worked for 222 days. His services were terminated. He made an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench being OA No. 228 of 1992 for his re-engagement and thereafter for his regularisation. The Tribunal has directed the appellants to frame a scheme to re-engage and then regularise the respondent in accordance with the terms of that scheme. 2. On the date when the respondent was engaged as a Volunteer Ticket Collector and when he ceased to be in service there was already an existing scheme for regularisation and absorption of Volunteer Ticket Collectors in force. This scheme ceased to operate only on 17-11-1986. Under the said scheme, it is provided that Volunteer Ticket Collectors could be considered for absorption in regular employment after they complete three years of service. The respondent was not eligible for absorption under the said scheme since he had not completed three years of service when he was disengaged. In view thereof, he was not entitled either for being re-engaged or for being regularised after re-engagement. 3. Our attention is drawn to a decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mukesh Srivastava, (1997) 11 SCC 554 , where this Court has observed that when an employee was not eligible for regularisation under an existing scheme the Tribunal ought not to have given a direction for his regularisation. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to a decision of this Court dated 27-7-1995 in CAs Nos. ... of 1995 arising from SLPs (C) Nos. 17971-71A of 1993, 4995, 2737, 2440-42, 2969-72 and 4626 of 1994. These petitions were from an order of the Tribunal under which the Tribunal had directed that the employees who had moved the Tribunal would continue to work as volunteers on payment of out-of-pocket allowance; but as and when a vacancy arises in Group 'D' posts, they should be considered for absorption in accordance with inter se seniority between the volunteers. In the present case there was an existing scheme for regularisation of volunteers which was applicable to Volunteer Ticket Checking Staff. The respondent did not qualify for regularisation. He was not even in service when he moved the Tribunal. In the present case there was an existing scheme for regularisation of volunteers which was applicable to Volunteer Ticket Checking Staff. The respondent did not qualify for regularisation. He was not even in service when he moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal was, therefore, not right in directing another scheme of regularisation being framed for the purpose of regularisation of the respondent. 5. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the OA filed by the respondent is dismissed. Appeal allowed.