S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) -THIS application is directed against the judgment and order dated 3. 9. 98 passed by the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal whereby and whereunder the application filed by the respondent herein was allowed directing :"in the above view of the matter, the application succeeds and the impugned order dated 7. 11. 1997 (annexure "c") is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicants for absorption in the regular establishment on a permanent basis under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal within two months from the date of this order. As the petitioners have at long last been successful in their attempts to get a chance for absorption in the posts as stated above after ventilating their legitimate grievances for a number of years, it is just and desirable that they should not be debarred from being considered for appointment solely on the ground that they have crossed the age limit prescribed under the rules. The respondents are further directed to give appointment to the applicants and other eligible DDT Spray workers according to their seniority under the rules against the existing vacancies subject to, medical examination report and police verification report and in the event the vacancies are not existing at the present, the applicant, it they are not given the appointment now, shall be given appointment under the rules as and when the vacancies will arise and no outsiders will be appointed until all the applicants and other DDT Spray Workers have been given appointment. The application is, thus disposed of without any order as to costs. "this application is directed against the judgment and order dated 3. 9. 98 passed by the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal whereby and whereunder the application filed by the respondent herein was allowed directing :"in the above view of the matter, the application succeeds and the impugned order dated 7. 11. 1997 (annexure "c") is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicants for absorption in the regular establishment on a permanent basis under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal within two months from the date of this order. 11. 1997 (annexure "c") is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicants for absorption in the regular establishment on a permanent basis under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal within two months from the date of this order. As the petitioners have at long last been successful in their attempts to get a chance for absorption in the posts as stated above after ventilating their legitimate grievances for a number of years, it is just and desirable that they should not be debarred from being considered for appointment solely on the ground that they have crossed the age limit prescribed under the rules. The respondents are further directed to give appointment to the applicants and other eligible DDT Spray workers according to their seniority under the rules against the existing vacancies subject to, medical examination report and police verification report and in the event the vacancies are not existing at the present, the applicant, it they are not given the appointment now, shall be given appointment under the rules as and when the vacancies will arise and no outsiders will be appointed until all the applicants and other DDT Spray Workers have been given appointment. The application is, thus disposed of without any order as to costs. " ( 2 ) MR. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the judgment of the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained having regard to the fact that same is based upon mis-interpretation of the Circular letter issued by the State and in particular the Memo No. 1700-EMP dated 3rd August, 1979, the relevant clauses wherefore read thus:"4. Notwithstanding any thing contained in the recruitment policy circulars issued by the State Government from time to time, 5% of vacancies against the quota of 70% earmarked for recruitment through Employment Exchanges shall be kept reserved for absorption of those casual and such other categories of workers who are already engaged in perennial type of work and have rendered at least 240 days' service in a year but have not completed three years service as yet. 5. While filling up vacancies in the regular establishments duly qualified seasonal workers who have worked for five years or more in consecutive seasons shall be considered for appointment by the respective Employing Authorities along with the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges". 5. While filling up vacancies in the regular establishments duly qualified seasonal workers who have worked for five years or more in consecutive seasons shall be considered for appointment by the respective Employing Authorities along with the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges". ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, whereas paragraph 4 of the said circular has no application in the instand case, paragraph 5 mandates that the case of the petitioner would be considered for appointment by the respective Employing Authorities along with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The learned counsel would urge that having regard to the various decisions of the Apex Court the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. Reliance in this connection has been placed on AIR 1976 SC 1766 (The Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey), 1996 (7) SCC 134 , AIR 1972 SC 1767 , AIR 1992 SC 2130 and AIR 1995 SC 962 (Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra ). ( 4 ) MR. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand submits that the State of West Bengal has come out with another policy decision being dated 13. 3. 1996 wherein provisions have been made for absorption of the seasonal workers. The learned counsel submits that having record to the aforementioned policy decision as also a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in WPST No. 260/98 delivered on 13th May, 1999, the learned Tribunal had no other option but to allow the application. It was pointed out that the Apex Court dismissed the special leave application filed by the State of West Bengal against the aforementioned judgment dated 13th May, 1999 being Special Leave Application No. 5666/99 by an order dated 1. 11. 1999. The case at hand is squarely covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in WPST No. 362/99 with WPST No. 452/99 and WPST No. 453/99 (Ranjit Kumar Chandra and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) wherein this Court upon taking into consideration large number of decisions has held that the DDT Spray workers cannot be said to have any legal right to be absorbed in the service pursuant to or in furtherance of the aforementioned Circular letter. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) wherein this Court upon taking into consideration large number of decisions has held that the DDT Spray workers cannot be said to have any legal right to be absorbed in the service pursuant to or in furtherance of the aforementioned Circular letter. In the said decision this Court distinguished the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Prasanta Kumar Saha and Ors. (WPST No. 260/98) and pointed out that another Division Bench of this Court presided over by the same Hon'ble Judges had taken a different view in the case of West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Md. Sarif reported in 2000 (1) CHN 240 . This Court has further taken into consideration the decisions reported in AIR 1979 SC 1676 (B. N. Nagarjan v. State of Karnataka), 1998 (6) SCC 165 (State of M. P. v. Dharam Bir), 1998 (2) CHN 241 (Director of Public Instructions of W. B. and Ors. v. Dr. Ashish Pal and Ors.) 1999 (2) CHN 387 (State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Ashoke Ranjan Chandra and Ors.), 1999 (1) CHN 513 (The Calcutta Tramways Company (1978) Limited and Ors. v. Ramesh and 17 Ors.), 1999 (1) CLT (HC), 509 (Ziaul Islam with 202 Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.), a Full Bench decision of this Court in Debasish Dutta v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 1998 (2) CLJ 1 : 1998 (2) Cal LT 398, State of U. P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 2173 , 2000 (1) SLR 803 (Sairinohri Dolui v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) as also amongst of the decisions reported in 2000 (2) SLR 445 (Tarak Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors. ). Reliance has also been placed on the decisions reported in 2000 (1) All India Service Law Journal, 119 and Rama Dutta and Anr. v. State of West Bengal reported in 2000 CWN 671 as also a number of other decisions. 6. ). Reliance has also been placed on the decisions reported in 2000 (1) All India Service Law Journal, 119 and Rama Dutta and Anr. v. State of West Bengal reported in 2000 CWN 671 as also a number of other decisions. 6. This Court, inter alia, observed;"we have also to bear in mind having record to the provision of section of section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act that but for the last few years, Maleria was said to have been completely eradicated in the State of West Bengal as was also observed by World Health Organisation. Thus, upon eradication of Maleria, the question of appointment of the applicants respondents for the purpose of spraying of D. D. T. did not arise. The applicants themselves have stated that their work was identical to the works allotted to Group D staff. The word 'appointment' is of wide amplitude but it is immaterial in service jurisprudence whether a person engaged for a particular purpose is in law appointed or not. Service jurisprudence envisages an appointment by the State to be one which is done upon complying with the statutory rules or executive instructions having force of law laid down therefore. The circular letter issued by State is not a statutory rule and the same has to be construed in the light of the provision contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Back door appointment is not encouraged. Recruitment upon compliance of the provisions of the statutory rules would be in conformity with the underlying objects of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Clause (2) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India in no uncertain terms states that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. Only in relation to certain matters like appointment on compassionate ground granted in favour of the widow, son or unmarried daughter has been held to be an exception to the aforementioned provision on the ground that the State being a Welfare State should protect those who had become destitute by reason of sudden death of the bread-winners of the family. Only in relation to certain matters like appointment on compassionate ground granted in favour of the widow, son or unmarried daughter has been held to be an exception to the aforementioned provision on the ground that the State being a Welfare State should protect those who had become destitute by reason of sudden death of the bread-winners of the family. Furthermore, when a recruitment rule is framed in terms of the provision under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the same must strictly be complied with. Any appointment made in a violation of such a statutory duty rule would be void. See Dr. Meera Massey v. Dr. S. R. Mehrotra reported in 1998 (3) SCC 88 . If a person is engaged by an Officer of the State through back door without following the procedure laid down for a recruitment in a Government service, the same cannot be encouraged. This aspect of the matter has been considered in State of U. P. and Ors. v. U. P. State Law Officers' Association and Ors. reported in 1994 (2) SCC 204 when the Apex Court held that those who come by back door must go by that door. The Courts of law dispensing justice cannot also shut its eyes as regard growing unemployment in the Country. Those who are favoured fews can get an entry in service through the hand work of some officers either as an ad hoc employee or daily rated employee and after sometime claim themselves to be entitled to a regular appointment. It is now well recognised that recruitment to unwanted persons are given by some officers of the State an irrelevant and extraneous considerations including money consideration. The resolution of the State should be viewed having regard to the aforementioned question". 7. Keeping in view the fact that the instant case is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ranjit Kumar Chandra and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. disposed of on 29. 9. 2000, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. This application is, therefore, allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed