Judgment N. Pandey, J. In these writ petitions, petitioners, who are Class III and IV employees have come up before this Court with a grievance that although they have been working till this day on different posts from 1978 to 1984, but their services have not been regularised nor they are being paid equal scale and emoluments at par to the scales available to other employees of different cadres discharging same nature of work under the same agency called, "Gandak Command Area and Development Agency" (for short, Agency). By means of an amendment petition, a prayer has also been made to restrain the respondents from terminating petitioners' services. 2. Short facts of these cases are stated hereunder. The Agency in question was established under section 3 of the Bihar Agricultural & Rural Area Development Agency Act, 1978, since last several years for various developmental and irrigational work in the area. The State Government, vide its order no. 349/CAD, dated 30th September, 1975, had empowered the respondent Agency to appoint and create posts carrying scale of the respective employees upto Rs.1600/- per month. The PWD Code and other service regulations of the Government of Bihar were adopted by the respondent Agency for its employees working under it. Since at the relevant time, the State Government had put restrictions against regular appointment, even on sanctioned posts, the petitioners were appointed as daily-rated workmen, but against sanctioned posts. 3. Further case of the petitioners is that at the time of appointment, their eligibility, suitability and fitness were also examined along with other candidates after advertisement of vacancies on the notice board, as well as newspaper. The petitioners, therefore, having worked continously for several years, made representations before various authorities for regularisation of their services. The Chairman-cum-Development Commissioner of the Agency, also having regard to the demand of the petitioners as also the request of the Government vide letter dated 12th November, 1987, communicated a copy of the resolutions of the Board, dated 27.2.1987, contained in Annexures 8, 9 and 10 and the subsequent decision dated 13.3.1989, giving details of sanctioned posts and employees working against such posts on daily wages. It was also requested that having regard to continuous service of daily wage employees, working against sanctioned posts, necessary guidelines be issued for their regularisation. 4. It was also requested that having regard to continuous service of daily wage employees, working against sanctioned posts, necessary guidelines be issued for their regularisation. 4. In the instant case; petitioners were appointed on various date commencing from the year 1978-79 to 198384, which would also be evident from the letter of the State Government dated 12th November, 1987, contained in Annexure 7. Further claim of the petitioners is that undisputedly, the Chairman of the Agency was vested with the powers to make appointment of Class III and IV employees. Therefore, the petitioners' initial appointments by the Superintending Engineer or the Executive Engineer were later affirmed by the order of Chairman as would be evident from the communication of the Secretary of the Agency vide letter dated 27th April, 1988. 5. Mr. Ojha contended that a bare reference to the facts noticed above, it can be safely inferred that appointment of the petitioners was made on due selection by a recognised committee after advertisement of the posts as also calling the names from the Employment Exchange. This is not a case where one can allege that such appointments were made on backdoor basis without observing the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He contended that different other employees of the Sane Command Authority appointed in similar manner were regularised since they had also put considerable length of service. He stated that a bare reference to the minutes of the proceeding of the respondent Agency, copies of which are Annexures 8, 9, 10 and 11, would reveal that most of the petitioners are working against sanctioned posts and there are several other sanctioned posts still lying vacent. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Kamlapati Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Agency, taking aid from the statements made in the counter affidavit, contended that appointment of the petitioners was wholly illegal and/or irregular, having not been made by the competent authority. He contended that the Superintending Engineers or the Executive Engineers were not empowered to make appointments against class III and IV posts. That apart, all such appointments took place at a time when State Government had instructed all its department including different Agencies not to create any post or to take step& for appointments against vacant posts. He contended that the Superintending Engineers or the Executive Engineers were not empowered to make appointments against class III and IV posts. That apart, all such appointments took place at a time when State Government had instructed all its department including different Agencies not to create any post or to take step& for appointments against vacant posts. In this regard he referred to a copy of the letter of the State Government sent to the Accountant General on 19th February, 1986. 7. He next contended that admittedly, the petitioners were initially engaged on daily wages by the Superintending Engineer or the Executive Engineer. There is no doubt that as per the provisions of the PWD Code, Executive Engineers were authorised to appoint employees on daily wages. But as would appear from the letter, contained in Annexure-A, that such provisions were made applicable to the employees of the Agency only from 11th October, 1985. Therefore, all appointments made by the Executive Engineer, prior to that date are illegal and irregular. 8. Mr. Ojha, contended that the controversy whether at the relevant time, Executive Engineers of the Respondent agency were authorised to make appointment on daily wages has already been resolved by this Court in the case of Sumeshwar Prasad Verma & others vs. The State of Bihar and others, 1991 (1) PLJR 718 . In that case, some of the daily wage employees of the same Agency had approached this Court for regularisation of their service and payment of equal pay for equal work. The Court held that having regard to the provisions of the PWD Code, Superintending Engineer & Executive Engineer were vested with power of appointment of daily rated employees. Therefore, having taken note of continuous service rendered by such daily rated employees, as well as some of the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court, this Court directed the respondent Agency to regularise their services provided they were appointed against sanctioned posts and suitably performing duties. 9. Learned Counsel also relied upon different decisions of the apex Court and of this court, namely, the case of Surender Singh and another vs. The Engineer in Chief, CPWD and others, AIR 1986 SC 584 , Daily Rated Casual labour Employed Under P & T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1987 SC 2342 , State of Haryana and others etc. etc. etc. vs. Piara Singh and ors., AIR 1992 SC 2130 , Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam ltd. vs. Devendra Kumar Jain and ors., (1995)1 SCC 638 , The Bihar State Audit & Non-Formal Education Employees Association & others vs. The State of Bihar & ors., 1996(2) PLJR 394 , Chief Conservator of Forests and anr. vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and ors., (1996) 2 SCC 293 , N.S.K. Nayar and ors. vs. Union of India and ors., 1993(2) PLJR 109(SC), Balo Rai and others vs. The State of Bihar & others, 1996(2) PLJR 139 , Abadh Singh vs. Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited & ors., 1995(2) PLJR 835 . 10. On the other hand, Mr. Singh also in support of his contention placed reliance on some of the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court in the case of. Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargoaonkar vs. State, of Maharashtra and others., AIR 1995 SC 962 , Smt. Madhuri Kumari vs. State of Bihar and ors., 1993(2) PLJR 330, Pramod Kumar & ors. vs. Bihar University & ors., 1993(2) PLJR 618 , Sunder Das and ors. vs. The State of Bihar & ors., 1994(2) PLJR 449 , Hirday Rai and ors. vs. Rajendra Agricultural University & ors., 1994(2) PLJR 471 and a recent decision in the case of Chandrashekhar Prasad and ors. vs. State of Bihar and ors., 1996(2) All PLR 1146 : 1996(2) PLJR 840 . 11. In view of aforesaid judgments, particularly, as held in the case of State of Haryana and ors. Vs. Piara Singh (supra), no one, as a matter of right can claim for regularisation simply on a plea that he had continued to serve on daily wages or ad hoc basic for several years. Such claims have to be examined with reference to facts of each case. It can neither be mechanical nor arbitrary. In this regard, a passage from the aforesaid report can be usefully noticed hereunder:- "17. ...Further, there can be no 'rule of thumb' in such matters. Conditions and circumstances of one unit may not be the same as of the other. It can neither be mechanical nor arbitrary. In this regard, a passage from the aforesaid report can be usefully noticed hereunder:- "17. ...Further, there can be no 'rule of thumb' in such matters. Conditions and circumstances of one unit may not be the same as of the other. Just because in one case, a direction was given to regularise employees who have• put in one year's service as far as possible and subject to fulfilling the qualifications, it cannot be held that in each and every case such a direction must follow irrespective of and without taking into account the other relevant circumstances and considerations. The relief must be moulded in each case having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances of that case. It cannot be a mechanical act but a judicious one ....." 12. There is no dispute that in the case of Surinder Singh and ors. Vs. The Engineer in Chief C.P.W.D. (supra) Daily Rated Casual labour Employed in P & T Dept. Vs. Union of India and ors. (supra), as also in the case of Balo Rai and ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & ors. (supra), and The Bihar State Adult & Non-Formal Education Employees Association & ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & ors. (supra), direction was issued for payment of equal pay for equal work at par to other permanent employees of the concerned department, doing same or similar nature of job or in some cases directions were also issued to consider for regularisation. But I have already noticed that a direction to an authority on such a plea would always depend upon consideration of various factors. It cannot be a mere formality simply because the claimant was allowed to continue on daily wage or ad hoc basis for a longer period. The apex court, as back in the year 1979, itself, while dealing with the case of B.N. Nagarjan and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors. (AIR 1979 SC 1976) had clarified that regularisation in a service cannot be a mode of recruitment. To act upon on such a proposition will amount to introduce a new head of appointment, in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules Similar was the position in the case of State of Punjab & ors. Vs. To act upon on such a proposition will amount to introduce a new head of appointment, in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules Similar was the position in the case of State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Surinder Kumar and others, (1992)1 SCC 489 or in the case of M.L. Gupta and ors. Vs. Instrumentation Ltd. and ors 1992(1) PLJR 137 : 1992(1) BLJ 304 , Sunder Das and ors. vs. State of Bihar & ors (supra) and Hirday Rai and ors. Vs. Rajendra Agricultural University & ors. (supra) and Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargoankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. (supra) J. & K. Public Service Commission & ors. Vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan and ors., (1994) 2 SCC 630 or in the case of Chandrashekhar Pd and ors. vs. State of Bihar & ors. (supra). 13. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid decisions, one can safely hold that in a case where appointments are made ignoring the requirement of the statutory provisions, such appointees are not entitled for regularisation. Similar would be the position, if vacancies are not properly advertised to meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 or appointments are made by a person not having been vested with such a power, nor an order for payment of equal pay for equal work should be recorded. Continuance of irregular appointees, although worked for a long years, cannot be a legitimate ground to constitute a public or individual interest. The regularisation in such cases would mean condonation of the procedural irregularities to cure such defects. I can usefully notice a recent decision of the apex court in the case of The State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Suresh Kumar Verma and another ( AIR 1996 SC 1565 ) where it was held that regularisation of an employee does not mean to cure the inherent irregularity, if made at the time of initial appointment. Because such acts of the State authorities are opposed to the principles enunciated under Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, while examining such issue, the Court is always required to ensure observance of fundamental rules, statutory provisions, rules and other instructions, if any, governing condition of service, as set by the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and ors. vs. Piara Singh and ors. (supra). 14. Therefore, while examining such issue, the Court is always required to ensure observance of fundamental rules, statutory provisions, rules and other instructions, if any, governing condition of service, as set by the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and ors. vs. Piara Singh and ors. (supra). 14. The main concern of the Court in such matters is to ensure the rule of law and see that the executive acts fairly to give a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. On the other hand, this also includes that State authorities should not exploit its employees nor take advantage of helplessness and misery of the unemployed persons. It was held that State being a model employer, must act in a fair and reasonable manner. If initial appointments of such employees are made after due observance of the statutory requirements or in absence of any rule procedures prescribed through executive instructions, in other words, vacancies were notified, to the knowledge of intending and qualified candidates, due selection processes were followed, appointments were made by competent authorities duly vested with such powers and posts are sanctioned and vacant, certainly such an employee although employed on daily wages, would be entitled to lodge a claim for regularisation and equal pay for equal work at par to those doing same or similar nature of job. 15. In the instant case, as I have noticed, the claim of the petitioners is that they were appointed by the competent authorities after following due selection process against vacant and sanctioned posts and continued to work uninterruptedly for several years to the satisfaction of the authority. Whereas, as per the stand of the respondent-authorities, sufficient number of posts are neither available nor initial appointments of these employees were made by the competent authority, therefore, their cases were not considered for regularisation. 16. From the facts brought on the record, there is no dispute that posts to which the petitioners are engaged were properly advertised. It has also been noticed that at the relevant time, respondent Agency having regard to the long service rendered by the daily wage or ad hoc employees against vacant and sanctioned post had taken a decision to regularise their services. It has also been noticed that at the relevant time, respondent Agency having regard to the long service rendered by the daily wage or ad hoc employees against vacant and sanctioned post had taken a decision to regularise their services. This has also been brought to our notice that initial appointment of the petitioners was later approved by the Chairman, who was vested with such powers as per the Government's order no. 309/CAD dated 30th September, 1975. It has also been brought to our notice that from different proceedings of the respondent Agency, contained in Annexures 8, 9, 10 and 11, it would reveal that the authorities had proposed for regularisation of daily wages employees who were working against sanctioned and vacant posts. The decision of the Government dated 19th February, 1986, contained in Annexure J to the counter affidavit, imposing ban on the Agency to create posts or to take steps for appointment, may not be relevant for those appointments which were made prior to such a decision and appointments made by the competent authority. The ban so imposed by executive instruction cannot have any retrospective effect. Any such ban can only apply to appointments to be made and cannot undo appointments already made. 17. There is no allegation in this case that the petitioners obtained their appointments by any dubious means or by playing fraud on any of the authorities. Nor is there any complaint against the petitioners or any grievance about their efficiency or integrity. The petitioners after serving for so many years are entitled to a fair treatment. Since it cannot be said, in the facts of this case, that the appointments of the petitioners are inherently bad and at the most there are certain irregularities, this Court is of view that denying regularisation of the petitioners' services in the facts of this case, will be an unfair action on the part of the respondents. 18. In that view of the matter, respondent no.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of services against sanctioned and vacant posts in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order. Respondent no.3 is, therefore, to pass a speaking order on the question. Till such consideration is made, interim order dated 24.5.1996 will continue. 19. Respondent no.3 is, therefore, to pass a speaking order on the question. Till such consideration is made, interim order dated 24.5.1996 will continue. 19. In the result, both these applications are allowed to the extent indicated above. But in the facts and circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.