Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to treat petitioner as having been appointed in substantive capacity with effect from 16.5.83 or in the alternative to consider him for regularisation w.e.f. 16.5.83 and give him seniority and other consequential benefits accordingly. (2). The factual gamut reveals that petitioner started working with the respondent Corporation as a Typist on daily wages from 1980. On 14.5.83, a test of Typists was held and his name appeared in the Select List and in pursuance of that he was issued appointment letter 16.5.83 (Annexure 4) which reads as under :– ``The following persons working on stipendary basis in the Corpora- tion are hereby appointed on the post of Typist in the pay scale.......with usual allowances on temporary basis till further orders. The services of these persons will be governed by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1958 and annual grade increments to these persons would be available only after qualifying in Stenography or passing a Graduate Examination....... (1) Shri Thomas Chandy, (2) Shri Sant Kumar Sharma, (3) Shri Rakesh Kumar. (3). Petitioner urged that he was given a notice of termination on 16.2.85 which was challenged by him before this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 473/1985 and subsequently, the notice dated 16.2.85 was withdrawn and as a consequence the said writ petition was, also, dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioner acquired the qualification of Madhyama Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag in December, 1985. The said qualification had been recognised as equiva- lent to Graduation and it was derecognised with effect from 21.4.86. The derecognition cannot be given effect with retrospective date. So he has acquired the qualification of Graduation. As the petitioner had been appointed after following the selection process, he should be declared, firstly to having been appointed in substantive capacity, or in the alternative, after possessing the qualification he would be deemed to have been regularised with effect from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. 16.5.83. (4). Heard Mr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Dave, learned counsel for the respondents. (5). Mr. (4). Heard Mr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Dave, learned counsel for the respondents. (5). Mr. Singhvi has submitted that as petitioner had been appointed after hol- ding a full-fledged selection, his appointment cannot be termed as temporary and he cannot be deprived of the benefit of annual grade increments and he is entitled to be considered to have been appointed in substantive capacity. (6). The petitioner was appointed on the post on temporary basis, thus, he cannot claim that he was having any right to the post, and he is to be treated as having been appointed in substantive capacity in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1), the Apex Court has categorically held as under :– ``Under the service jurisprudence a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated in accordance with the relevant service rules and the terms of contract of service. (7). In a case like the instant the Court has to be satisfied as what is the legally justiciable right of the petitioner which has been infringed and for which the petitioner can resort to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in Purshotam Lal Dingra vs. Union of India (2), has held that ``A person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier and further held that ``a Government servant holding a post temporarily does not have any right to hold the said post. In R.K. Mishra vs. U.P. State Handloom Corporation (3), the Apex Court has taken the same view. (8). A temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. Similarly, in Triveni Shanker Saxena vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (4); Commissioner of Food and Supply vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (5); Ram Chandra Tripathi vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal & Ors. (6); Madhya Pradesh Hasth Shilp Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Devendra Kumar Jain & Anr. Similarly, in Triveni Shanker Saxena vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (4); Commissioner of Food and Supply vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (5); Ram Chandra Tripathi vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal & Ors. (6); Madhya Pradesh Hasth Shilp Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Devendra Kumar Jain & Anr. (7); Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra), the Apex Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice, has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right. (9). In Ravi S. Naik vs. Union of India (8), the Honble Apex Court has placed reliance on the observations made in Malloch vs. Aberdden Corporation (9), wherein it has been observed as under:- ``A breach of procedure, whether called a failure of natural justice or an essential administrative fault cannot give him a remedy in the courts, unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by the failure. The Court does not act in vain. (10). In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Raghuvendra Sheshgiri Rao Kulkarni (10), the Apex Court explained the difference of a permanent employee and an employee holding the post on probation and held that the services of a probationer cannot be equated with that of a permanent employee who, on account of his status, is entitled to be retained in service and his services cannot be terminated abruptly without any notice or plausible cause. ``This is based on the principle that a substantive appointment to a permanent post in a public service confers substantive right to the post and the person appointed on that post becomes entitled to hold a lien on that post. However, interpreting/enforcing the terms of appointment, which provided for discharge of the said probationer from service at any time during the period of probation or extended period of probation, without any notice or without assigning any cause, the Court held that as his termination was in consonance with the terms and conditions of his appointment letter, he cannot be heard raising grievance. (11). (11). In State of Punjab vs. Surendra Singh (11), the Apex Court has held that the court must seek the adherence to the terms and conditions of the appointment and there is no reason why terms and conditions of appointments cannot be inforced in a contract of service. (12). In Hindustan Education Society & Anr. vs. K.P. Kalim S.K. Gulam Nabi (12), the Apex Court has held that where the rules specifically provide for permanent appointment on probation for a specific period and an employee is appointed without stipulating any condition regarding probation, the inference is to be drawn that he was not appointed in substantive capacity. In Avinash Nagra vs. Sarvodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti & Ors. (13), the Apex Court has held that a society can terminate the services not only of a temporary employee but also of a permanent employee by giving him one months notice or three moths pay and allowances in lieu thereof if the terms of appointment and rules so permit and such termination may be valid in a given cases even if the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. (13). In Patna University & Anr. vs. Dr. Amita Tiwari (14), it has been held that the appointment has to be made only in consonance with the recruitment rules. Similarly, in Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration & Anr. vs. Managing So- ciety, Goswami (15), it has been held that the terms of contract must be read and inforced in consonance with the statute and not otherwise even if the contract contains the terms contrary to the statutory provisions. Similarly, in A. Mahadaswaran & Ors. vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (16), it has been held that a person can have a legitimate expectation only in consonance with the statute and the rules framed thereunder and not in cotravention of the same. (14). In this respect, the judgments of this Court have been cited at the Bar, namely, Sayed Mansoor Ali vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (17); Bhanwar Lal Malwar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (18); and R.S. Rawat vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (19), wherein it has been held that if the appointment had been made after due process of selection, such an appointment is to be considered as substantive even if it provided for appointment on temporary basis. (17); Bhanwar Lal Malwar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (18); and R.S. Rawat vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (19), wherein it has been held that if the appointment had been made after due process of selection, such an appointment is to be considered as substantive even if it provided for appointment on temporary basis. While deciding those cases, reliance had been placed on various Supreme Court judgments, particularly, Baleshwar Das vs. State of U.P. (20) State of U.P. vs. M.J. Siddiqui (21); Ashok Gulati & Ors. vs. B.S. Jain & Ors. (22); and P.D. Agrawal & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (23). All the afore- aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, which have been referred to and relied-upon, are on the principle of determining the seniority and the issue involved therein had been : whether the period served by an employee on temporary/officiating basis, is to be reckoned for the purpose of determining the seniority ? (15). In M.J. Siddiqui (supra) the Honble Supreme Court had to adjudicate upon the issue of seniority. The issue of termination of services was to involved therein and while deciding the controversy, the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under:- ``One of the dominent question to be determined in this case is whe- ther the appellants were appointed purely on temporary basis or in a substantive capacity though against temporary posts. In our opinion, the High Court seems to have led undue stress on the fact that the appellants were appointed on a temporary basis while over-looking the surrounding circumstances and the terms of advertisement and the rules, referred to above, under which the appellants were appointed.......In order, therefore, to determine the nature of the appointment, we have to look to the heart and substance of the matter, the surrounding circumstances, the mode, the manner and the terms of the appointment and other relevant factors. In the instant case we cannot ignore the advertisement which forms the pivotal basis...... (16). Thus, even if we apply the ratio of this judgment to determine the controversy involved in the instant case and look to the main factors as stipulated above, it cannot be said that the petitioner had been appointed on permanent basis. (17). In Baleshwar Das (supra), the Apex Court has to decide the case of stru- ggle between various groups of Engineers for seniority. (17). In Baleshwar Das (supra), the Apex Court has to decide the case of stru- ggle between various groups of Engineers for seniority. The competitive claims of seniority had been mainly between three groups of Engineers belonging to Uttar Pradesh Services of the Engineers (Irrigation Branch), Graduate Engineers, directly recruitted by the Public Service Commission by competitive examination, graduate Engineers once appointed in numbers but later absorbed after consultation with the Public Service Commission and the Diploma Holders later promoted as Assistant Engineers. The Honble Apex Court has observed that ``order of appointment to the service is decisive. The Court further observed that if the appointments is for some indefinite duration and the appointments have been approved by the Public Service Commission, if the test prescribed have been taken and they passed it and ``if probation has been prescribed and has been approved it may be said that the post was held by the incumbent in a substantive capacity and the seniority list may be prepared in the light of the above principle. (18). The other two cases, i.e., Ashok Gulati (surpa) and P.D. Agrawal (supra), also, relate to seniority between direct recruits vis a vis promotees and the issue for adjudication before the Supreme Court had been whether the services rendered by the officers in temporary capacity would be taken into consideration while fixing their seniority. (19). The law laid down by the Honble Apex Court is binding on this Court and all other courts and authorities as per the mandate of Art. 141 of the Constitution of India. In Nand Kishore vs. State of Punjab (24), the Honble Apex Court has explained the scope of Art.141 of the Constitution of India and observed as under:- ``Their Lordships decisions declare the existing law but do not invoke any fresh law, is not in keeping with the plenary function of the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, for the Court is not merely the interpreter of law as existing but much beyond that. The Court, as a wing of the State, is, by itself, a source of law. The law is what the Court says it is. (20). But a decision cannot be relied upon in support of a proposition that it did not decide. (Vide Mittal Engineering Works (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise (25); and National Insurance Corporation vs. Santro Devi & Ors. The law is what the Court says it is. (20). But a decision cannot be relied upon in support of a proposition that it did not decide. (Vide Mittal Engineering Works (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise (25); and National Insurance Corporation vs. Santro Devi & Ors. (26). (21). In H.H. Maharaja Dhiraj Madhav Raj Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur & Ors. vs. Union of India (27), the Supreme Court observed as under :- ``It is difficult to regard a word, a clause or a sentence occurring in a judgment of this court, divorced from its context, as containing a full exposition of the law on a question when the question did not even fall to be answered in that judgment. (22). Similarly, in M/s. Amar Nath Om Prakash & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (28), the Supreme Court has observed that it is needless to repeat the often quoted truism of Lord Halsbury that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not for what may seem to follow locially from it. (23). It is a settled proposition of law that if an issue neither was raised nor argued, and a discussion by the Court after pondering over the issue in depth would not be a precedent binding on the Courts (Vide Rajpur Rauda Meha vs. State of Gujarat (29). (24). In Sarva Sharmik Sangh, Bombay vs. Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. & Anr. (30), the Apex Court has observed that the observations made in a judgment must be understood in the facts and circumstances of that case. It cannot be treated as having any binding force if a question raised now in a case where the earlier judgment is sought to be relied upon, has neither been in issue nor considered in that judgment. (25). Similarly, in C.I.T. vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (31), the Apex Court had made the following observations :- ``It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a work or a sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete ``law declared by this Court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the question which were before this Court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the question which were before this Court. A decision of this Court takes its colour from the question involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying the decision to a later case, the courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of this Court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by this Court, to support their reasonings. (26). In all the cases referred to above, the issue before the Honble Supreme Court was fixing the inter se seniority of various groups of officers and in none of these cases the issue of termination of the services of the temporary employees was involved. The aforesaid judgements have no applicability and cannot provide for any guideline while determining the nature of the appointment of the petitioner in the instant case. (27). On the contrary, in Prabhat Kumar Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (32), the Honble Supreme Court has observed that if the rules provide that even for mak- ing a temporary/ad hoc appointment a particular procedure is to be followed and it provides for inviting applications by advertisement then even the short- term/leave vacancies have to be filled-up by inviting applications. The Apex Court has approved the Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Ku. Radha Raizada vs. Committee of Management, Smt. Vidhyawati Darbari Inter College (33), wherein it has been held that even for filling-up the short-term/leave vacancies the procedure of selection is to be followed and the advertisement of vacancies should be made atleast in two local news papers having wide circulation in that area and the candidates should be selected after they face the selection committee. The Apex Court approved the law laid down therein as it was to ensure a fair selection and to avoid chances of nepotism and further to prevent the back-door entries. The Honble Supreme Court observed as under:- ``With a view to allow the institute to appoint teachers on ad hoc basis so as to avoid the hardship to the students.....Such ad hoc appointments should, also, be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed...... The Honble Supreme Court observed as under:- ``With a view to allow the institute to appoint teachers on ad hoc basis so as to avoid the hardship to the students.....Such ad hoc appointments should, also, be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed...... Any appointment made in transgration thereof is illegal appointment and is void and confers no right on the appointees. It is an in-built procedure to avoid manipulation and nepotism in selection and appointment of teachers by management..........Public interest demands that the teachers selection must be in accordance with the procedure prescribed....... and for cogent and valid reasons ``the High Court has held that the order will supplement the power to select and appoint ad hoc teachers as per the procedure prescribed. (28). The aforesaid quotations may give an impression that to follow the full- fledged procedure of selection for appointment even in case of temporary employment, is required only where the statutory rules provide for it. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3261 of 1994, Dr. Aruna Pandey vs. Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur, decided on 27.2.1998). It is not so. In fact it is the mandatory requirement of Article 16 of the Constitution of India that even for adhoc/temporary employment, the applications should be invited by the public notice. This aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Pyare Singh (34), wherein the concluding part runs as under :– ``(47). Thirdly, even where an adhoc or temporary employment is necessiated on account of the exigencies of administration, it should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly....... ``(49). If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long span, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation........ (29). Thus, if a person has been appointed even temporarily without following the procedure, his entry would be deemed to be by back-door and he cannot be considered for regularisation. ``(49). If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long span, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation........ (29). Thus, if a person has been appointed even temporarily without following the procedure, his entry would be deemed to be by back-door and he cannot be considered for regularisation. Same inference can be drawn from the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Raj Kishore Vishwakarma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (35). (30). In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the judgments of this Court in Sayed Mansoor Ali (supra), Bhanwar Lal Malwad (supra) and R.S. Rawat (supra) run counter to the judgment of the Honble Apex Court referred to above and there is no scope of giving any weightage to the said judgments, particu- larly after the decision in Pyara Singh (supra) and the said judgments should be considered to have impliedly been repelled by the aforesaid judgment. (31). Therefore, it cannot be held that as the petitioner was appointed after following the selection process and preparation of the select list, he can be treated to have been appointed on substantive basis. (32). The next issue urged is that the petitioner has been working continuously since 1980, thus, he is entitled to be considered for regularisation. (33). The issue of regularisation has been considered by the Honble Apex Court from time and again and the law has been laid down in very clear terms in the cases, i.e., State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Piara Singh & Ors. (supra); Jacob M. Puth- uparambil & Ors. vs. Kerala Water Authority & Ors. (36); J.& K Public Service Commission etc. vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors. (37); Dr. A.K. Jain vs. Union of India (38); E. Ramakrishnan & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (39); and Ashwani Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (40); and the ratio of all those judgments can be summarised to the extent that the question whether the services of certain employees appointed on ad hoc basis should or should not be regularised relates to the condition of service. vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (39); and Ashwani Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (40); and the ratio of all those judgments can be summarised to the extent that the question whether the services of certain employees appointed on ad hoc basis should or should not be regularised relates to the condition of service. This power to prescribe the conditions of service can be exercised either by making Rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in the absence of such Rules issuing Rules/Instructions in exercise of its executive power. The Court comes into the picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights, statutory provisions, Rules and other instructions, if any, governing the conditions of service. The main concern of the Court in such matters is to ensure the Rules of Law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. It also means that the State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the Directive Principles of the Constitution. It is for this very reason it is held that a person should not be kept in a temporary or adhoc status for long. A perusal of the authorities would show that appointments are as a rule to be made in accordance with statutory rules, giving equal opportunity to all the aspirants to apply for the posts and following the prevalent policy of reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. When- ever 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 expeditiously as possible. Where the appointment on adhoc basis has continued for long and the State has made rules for regularisation, a regularisation has to be considered in accordance with the rules. Where the appointment on adhoc basis has continued for long and the State has made rules for regularisation, a regularisation has to be considered in accordance with the rules. Where, however, 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 for long spell of time. However, it is a question of fact whether in the given situation, they were treated arbitrarily. In Khagesh Kumar vs. Inspector General of Registration, U.P. & Ors. (41), the Supreme Court did not issue direction for regularisation of those employees who had been appointed on ad hoc basis or on daily wages after the cut off date, i.e. 1.10.1986 as was mandatorily required by the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Adhoc Appointment (On posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 and those who were not eligible under the said Rules were not given regulari- sation. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Inspector General of Registration and & Anr. vs. Awadhesh Kumar & Ors. (42). Moreover, the above referred cases further laid down that for the purpose of regularisation, various pre-requisite conditions are to be fulfilled, i.e. the temporary/adhoc appointment of the employee should be in consonance with the statutory rules, it should not be a back-door entry. The service record of the petitioner should be satisfactory, the employee should be eligible and/or qualified for the post at the time of his initial appointment. There must be a sanctioned post against which the employee seeks regularisation and on the said sanctioned post, there must be a vacancy. Moreover, regularisation is to be made according to seniority of the temporary/ad-hoc emplo- yees. The regularisation should not be in contravention of the State Policy regarding reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes and other categories for which State has enacted any Act or framed Rules or issued any Government Order etc. (34). Similar view has been taken in Union of India vs. Vishamber Dutt (43); and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. U.P. Madhyamik Parishad Kshrimik Sangh (44). (34). Similar view has been taken in Union of India vs. Vishamber Dutt (43); and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. U.P. Madhyamik Parishad Kshrimik Sangh (44). In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ashwani Kumar (45), the Apex Court has held that if an employment is under a particular Scheme or the employee is being paid out of the funds of a Scheme, in case the Scheme comes to closure or the funds are not available, the Court has no right to issue direction to regularise the service of such an employee or to continue him on some other project, for the reason that ``no vested right is created in a temporary employment. (35). Therefore, the only question to be considered remains whether petitioner possessed the requisite qualification for the post of Typist ? Admittedly, the regulations applicable herein provide that the qualification for the post of Typist would be as under– ``(a) Graduate knowing typing English/Hindi with a speed of 40/30 w.p.m. in English or Hindi. (b) Secondary or equivalent knowing shorthand and typing at the speed of 80/40 w.p.m. in English and 60/30 w.p.m. in Hindi. (36). Shri Singhvi has placed reliance on the Certificate of Madhyma Visharad which the petitioner possessed and claimed that it is equivalent to Graduation. Reliance has been placed on the letter dated 21.4.86, contained in Annex. 18, which provides the equivalence of qualification. However, the attention of Mr. Singhvi was drawn by Mr. R.P. Dave to the contents of Annexure 21 which is a document issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag and it states that the qualification of Madhyama or other Certificate issued by the Sammelan would be equivalent to Graduation only for the purpose of certificates in Hindi level and it is not equivalent to Graduation etc. for all purposes. With this confrantation, Mr. Singhvi has fairly con- ceded that the petitioners qualification cannot be treated equivalent to Graduation. However, he submitted that the conditions imposed in the appointment letter dated 16.5.83 that annual grade increments will be available only after passing the Graduation Examination or after qualifying in Stenography, is bad and should be struck down. Mr. Dave has submitted that the Condition is perfectly valid and enfor- ceable and petitioner cannot raise this grievance. However, he submitted that the conditions imposed in the appointment letter dated 16.5.83 that annual grade increments will be available only after passing the Graduation Examination or after qualifying in Stenography, is bad and should be struck down. Mr. Dave has submitted that the Condition is perfectly valid and enfor- ceable and petitioner cannot raise this grievance. Moreover, this controversy has also been resolved by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3654/1989, Sant Kumar Sharma vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, decided on 6.2.91 wherein it has categorically been held that the condition that the annual grade increments shall be given to the employee only on the condition of passing graduation examination, cannot be considered bad. The petitioner therein had been appointed alongwith the petitioner, by the same appointment letter, therefore, no contrary view can be taken from that taken already by this Court in Sant Kumar (supra). (37). In view of the above, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.