Per Gandhi J; 1. This appeal has arisen out of an order dated March 30, 1987 whereby the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the SWP NO. 466/98. 2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was engaged as Sweeper for cleaning the School premises by Government Primary School, Arigam on 02-01-1991 on payment of Rs. 25/- per month to be paid out of contingent grants. She seeks regu-larisation on the ground that she is continuing in the said arrangement and the respondents are under an obligation to regularise the services and to pay the salary of the post of sweeper since her engagement. Learned Single Judge considering the claims of the petitioner and the grounds set out in the memorandum of the writ petition has come to the conclusion that the post of sweeper can be filled up only in accordance with the rules and the petitioner being paid out of contingent grants is not holding the post of sweeper, therefore, is not entitled for regulari-sation. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the memorandum of appeal and record. Learned counsel for the appellants has not made out that she was engaged and is working against the post. Mr. HI Qadri, Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in Government Primary School, there is no post of sweeper and the arrangement has been made for cleaning the school premises by engaging the appellant on contingent basis to be paid out of contingent funds, learned counsel for the appellant could not make out that there is a post against which she is working. Unless there is a post no such direction can be issued. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment delivered in SWP No. 502/92 titled Mst Khatija Begum Vs. State and others upheld by the Letters Patent Bench also with a view to persuade us to record a finding. The favour of the appellant for regularisation of her services. The facts of that case are quite different and distinguishable. The petitioner in SWP No. 502/92 was working against a post which is not the position in the present case. Therefore, the appellant cannot seek any support or analogy from the said judgment. The favour of the appellant for regularisation of her services. The facts of that case are quite different and distinguishable. The petitioner in SWP No. 502/92 was working against a post which is not the position in the present case. Therefore, the appellant cannot seek any support or analogy from the said judgment. The learned counsel for the appellant could not convince us to take a different view to that what has been taken by Learned Single judge warranting interference in the judgment under appeal. Resultantly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.