M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 4. 8. 99 by which he allowed the writ petition and issued mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for regularisation in case retrenched employees of octroi department or local bodies or additional staff from Collectorate is not available for regularisation on the regular posts. ( 2 ) THE writ petition was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 challenging the termination of their services orally since June. 1997 and it was prayed that a mandamus be issued directing the respondents in the writ petition to permit the petitioners to work on the post held by them prior to their oral termination and pay them monthly salary and arrears from 1. 3. 97. It was also prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents not to fill up the vacancies existing by resorting to 100% reservation for retrenched employees. ( 3 ) IN paragraph 5 of the writ petition it was alleged that a Fax message was issued under the signatures of the Deputy Commissioner. State Election Commission, U. P. , fixing the strength and creating class III and class IV posts in the office of the District Election Officer and directing the authorities concerned to proceed and engage suitable candidates against the aforesaid posts. True copy of the letter dated 30. 8. 95 has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition it is alleged that the aforesaid Fax message was followed by a circular dated 30. 8. 95 fixing the strength of the employees attached to the District election Office in each district. Accordingly for district Sitapur. two posts of Senior Assistant, two posts of Junior Assistant and two posts of class IV employees were created. True copy of the said circular has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition. In paragraph 7 of the petition, it is alleged that in" pursuance of the aforesaid circular another letter was issued on 7. 9. 95 providing that against the aforesaid posts suitable candidates be engaged on ad hoc basis for a period of four months. True copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition. Subsequently another circular letter dated 14. 9. 9. 95 providing that against the aforesaid posts suitable candidates be engaged on ad hoc basis for a period of four months. True copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition. Subsequently another circular letter dated 14. 9. 95 was issued by which the District Election officer/district Magistrates were directed to make available information relating to the working strength of each category of officials and payment of regular salary. True copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the petition. By letter dated 7. 10. 95 some more information was sought and it was conveyed that the aforesaid posts have been created and sanctioned in each category in the office of the district Election Officer. Accordingly the authorities were directed to proceed and ensure compliance of the aforesaid direction and to make available information relating thereto, True copy of the said letter dated 7. 10. 95 is annexed as Annexure-5 to the petition. ( 4 ) IN paragraph 10 of the petition, it is alleged that vide letter dated 10. 10. 95 the wages of Senior assistant. Junior Assistant and class- IV employees were fixed at Rs. 45 per day for class-Ill and rs. 35 for class- IV employees. In paragraph 11 of the petition it is alleged that in order to make appointments against the aforesaid posts a Selection Committee headed by the Chief development Officer. Sitapur, was constituted which interviewed the candidates. Out of the three posts two were reserved for the Scheduled Caste. Backward class candidates. It is alleged in paragraph 13 that the Selection Committee recommended the names of the petitioners for being appointed as Junior Clerks and accordingly the petitioners were appointed vide Order dated 1. 12. 94. In paragraph 14 of the petition, It Is alleged that ever since their appointment the petitioners have been rendering excellent service which has been appreciated. A copy of one letter In this connection has been annexed as Ahnexure-6 to the petition. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the District Panchayat Raj Officer/assistant District Election officer (Panchayat) while relieving the petitioners vide order dated 27/28 December. 1996 directed the petitioners to submit their joining report in the office of the ADM/officer Incharge panchayat/local Bodies. Sitapur. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the District Panchayat Raj Officer/assistant District Election officer (Panchayat) while relieving the petitioners vide order dated 27/28 December. 1996 directed the petitioners to submit their joining report in the office of the ADM/officer Incharge panchayat/local Bodies. Sitapur. In paragraph 17 of the petition, it is alleged that petitioners performed their duties in the Pane hay at/local Bodies Elections to the satisfaction of the authorities. In paragraph 19 of the petition, it is alleged that they continued working till May, 1997 but since June, 1997 they have been stopped from marking their attendance in the Register and they were Informed that their services have been dispensed with. In paragraph 20 of the petition it is alleged that petitioners were not given any termination order. In paragraph 22 of the petition It is stated that petitioners worked for 2 years and 6 months satisfactorily. In paragraph 23 of the writ petition. It is alleged that petitioners have not been paid their salary from March to june 1997. In this connection copy of the representation filed by them is annexed as Annexure-8 to the petition. Another copy of the representation dated 5. 7. 97 has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the petition. In paragraph 26 of the petition it is alleged that the Secretary of the State Election commission vide letter dated 18. 3. 96 required certain information to be furnished to the commission In connection with the retrenched employees of Octroi/add), Staff and details in respect of the employees engaged during the Election. True copy of the said letter is annexed as annexure-10 to the petition. The reply of the District Magistrate/district Election Officer, sitapur dated 22. 4. 96 Is annexed as Annexure-11 to the petition. In paragraph 28 of the petition it Is alleged that the State Government vide letter dated 15. 2. 96 informed the District Magistrate that the posts created for election are to be filled up from amongst the retrenched employees of the octroi department. True copy of the said letter is annexed as Annexure-12 to the petition. In paragraph 31 of the petition it is alleged that the State Government has formulated certain Rules for absorption of retrenched employees. 96 informed the District Magistrate that the posts created for election are to be filled up from amongst the retrenched employees of the octroi department. True copy of the said letter is annexed as Annexure-12 to the petition. In paragraph 31 of the petition it is alleged that the State Government has formulated certain Rules for absorption of retrenched employees. Rule 67 provides that 50% post could be reserved for the retrenched employees, but it Is alleged In the present case that the respondents are trying to fill up all the posts from retrenched employees. In paragraph 33 of the petition it Is alleged that the petitioners were not permitted to appear in the selection proceedings. ( 5 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Election Commission. In paragraph 2 of the same, it is alleged that the Commission had written a letter dated 14. 10. 95 to the State government for sanction of staff to manage and hold elections of the Local Bodies. A meeting in this connection was held on 2. 6. 95 presided over by the Principal Secretary (Finance) U. P. Government. In this meeting It was decided that such staff was to be recruited from the additional staff of the office of the District Magistrate and from surplus/retrenched employees of local bodies, especially from the octroi department which was recently abolished. It was further indicated in this letter that such appointments should be made on ad hoc basis only for the period of 4 months. True copy of the letter of the State Government to the Election Commission dated 7. 9. 95 is annexed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit. Pursuant to this letter the Deputy election Commissioner of the State Election Commission issued a letter to the District magistrate who was ex-officio District Election Officer. True copy of the said letter is annexed as Annexure CA-2 to the affidavit. On 4. 9. 95 the Dy. Election Commissioner called for further information from the District Magistrates regarding the surplus staff of class III and class IV employees vide Annexure-CA-3. This was reiterated by letter dated 10. 10. 95 vide Annexure ca-4 to the affidavit. True copy of the said letter is annexed as Annexure CA-2 to the affidavit. On 4. 9. 95 the Dy. Election Commissioner called for further information from the District Magistrates regarding the surplus staff of class III and class IV employees vide Annexure-CA-3. This was reiterated by letter dated 10. 10. 95 vide Annexure ca-4 to the affidavit. ( 6 ) IN paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, it is alleged that elections to the local bodies were held in November, 1995 an scheduled, but a lot of remaining work was pending in most of the districts and also at the Headquarters of the Commission, hence the Commission after consulting with the Government decided to appoint regular staff which was sanctioned earlier for a period of 4 months to be recruited from surplus retrenched staff of the local bodies. It was also decided that the dally wage staff which was appointed earlier should be disengaged on recruitment of regular staff. A true copy of the said letter dated 23. 2. 96 is annexed as Annexure-CA-5 to the affidavit. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit it is alleged that there was no parity between the amount paid to the dally wagers and those recruited from surplus/retrenched employees of local bodies. Hence there was no discrimination in refusing to consider daily wagers for appointment on fixed salary basis. Hence it is alleged that dally wagers who were removed w. e. f. 28. 2. 97 in pursuance to the directives contained In the letters of the Secretary of the State Election commission to the District Magistrate dated 26. 10. 96 and 27. 1. 97 cannot claim any right to being retained any further and they cannot claim to be considered for appointment as they do not fulfil the criteria for being selected to such post as they were not surplus/retrenched employees of the local bodies. ( 7 ) IN paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners were engaged on daily wages on fixed salary of Rs. 45 per day to perform urgent election duties and their services were extended from time to time to complete the remainder work and other allied duties relating to the elections. The U. P. Government refused to sanction any post for engaging dally wagers after 28. 2. 45 per day to perform urgent election duties and their services were extended from time to time to complete the remainder work and other allied duties relating to the elections. The U. P. Government refused to sanction any post for engaging dally wagers after 28. 2. 97 and hence the petitioner and other dally wagers who were engaged to perform urgent election duties were disengaged by an oral order. The petitioners were engaged orally and hence their services could also be terminated orally. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, it Is stated that the U. P. Retrenched Employees Rules which were notified on 24. 10. 67 providing 50% post for retrenched employees were repealed and fresh Rules were framed in the year 1977 which was published on 6. 7. 1977. A true copy of J967 Rules and 1977 Rules have been annexed as annexures-CA6 and CA7 to the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 10 it is stated that petitioners have no right to any regular appointment. In paragraph 17 it is stated that petitioners do not fulfil the criteria and were not retrenched employees. ( 8 ) THE learned single Judge allowed the writ petition. We respectfully disagree with the learned single Judge and hence we are allowing the special appeal and are quashing the Judgment of the learned single Judge. Since the writ petitioned were only daily wage employees and were not retrenched employees of the local bodies hence, they have no right to get appointment or to be considered in service as they were purely temporary employees and hence they had no right to the post. It is settled law that a temporary employee has no right to the post, and petitioners have also no right under any relevant Rule or Government Order. There is no discrimination against the writ petitioners, as they are not surplus or retrenched employees of local bodies. ( 9 ) IN Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1999 SC 923 , the Supreme Court following Its own decision in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union u. Delhi Administration, Delhi, air 1992 SC 789 held that the right to livelihood was found not feasible to be Incorporated as a fundamental right in the Constitution and therefore, employment was also not guaranteed under the Constitutional Scheme. In Sandeep Kumar u. State of U. P. AIR 1992 SC 713 , the Supreme court observed that where there was no work in the project, the employees could not be regularised. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ashwani Kumar, 1996 (1) 214, the Supreme Court held that where a project had to be closed down for non-availability of funds a direction to regularise the displaced employees of the project could not be given because such direction would amount to creating posts and continuing them in spite of nonavailability of work. The same view was taken in State of U. P. u. U. P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh, air 1996 SC 708 . It follows from those directions that there is no legal right to get re-absorbtion. ( 10 ) IN our opinion. Article 41, which deals with the right to work, has been deliberately kept by the Founding Fathers of our Constitution in the Directive Principles (and is hence unenforceable in view of Article 37) and has not been made a fundamental right, because the Founding Fathers in their wisdom realised that however, appealing the Idea that everyone should be provided employment may seem economic realities cannot be overlooked. In Thomas Jaicab v. Union of india, 1991 AWC 1384, It was held by a Division Bench of this Court that there Is no fundamental right to get employment. In our opinion. Article 21 to the Constitution cannot be stretched so far as to mean that everyone in the country must be given a job, The numbers of available jobs are limited, and hence the Court must take a realistic view. ( 11 ) IN Union of India v. Uma Maheshwari, 1997 (II) SCO 228. the Supreme Court held that in absence of a Scheme of regularisation and regular berth, the Tribunal could not direct the reinstatement or regularisation of dally wagers whose services had been discontinued. ( 12 ) IT is not for this Court to create Jobs for the petitioners, as that is purely executive function. For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge dated 1-8. 1999 is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. .