JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA J.:---These petitions raise common questions and, as such, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by common judgment. 2.The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 345/95 are working as Lower Division Clerks in Margao Municipal Council since 6th February, 1989 and were confirmed in the said posts on 23rd November, 1993. Prior to that the petitioners were working as Supervisors and were regularized against the said posts vide Order dated 30th March, 1983. According to them they possess and hold the necessary qualification for being promoted and appointed to the posts of Municipal Inspectors for which the feeder cadre is the post of Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.). 3.The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 346/95 were initially appointed as Lower Division Clerks in Margao Municipal Council on 17th July, 1981 and 27th December, 1982, respectively. The petitioner No. 1 was regularized against the said post of L.D.C. on 16th January, 1983 and petitioner No. 2 was confirmed against the said post on 6th May, 1985. Petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Market Inspector vide Order dated 6th February, 1989 and was confirmed in the said post vide Order dated 23rd November, 1993. Petitioner No. 2 was promoted to the post of Market Inspector on probation vide Order dated 6th February, 1989. Petitioner No. 2 had made a representation to the Margao Municipality on 3rd April, 1990, wherein she had requested that she may be posted as Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) in the office on the ground that she hails from orthodox Muslim family due to which she did not wish to work as Market Inspector. She had also requested in the said representation that in case she could not be posted as U.D.C., she may be posted back as L.D.C. by maintaining her seniority in the cadre. Vide Order dated 3rd April, 1990, itself, the President of the Margao Municipal Council reverted the petitioner No. 2 to her original post with immediate effect. On 5th April, 1990, petitioner No. 2 made a representation that one Rosario Furtado was ready to go on mutual transfer as Market Inspector and she could be posted against the post of U.D.C. held by Rosario Furtado. On 5th April, 1990, petitioner No. 2 made a representation that one Rosario Furtado was ready to go on mutual transfer as Market Inspector and she could be posted against the post of U.D.C. held by Rosario Furtado. However, by letter dated 8th May, 1990, petitioner No. 2 was informed by the Chief Officer of the Margao Municipal Council that the Recruitment Rules did not permit inter-change and hence her request could not be considered. By Order dated 26th August, 1992, on the recommendation of the D.P.C., the petitioner No. 2 was once again promoted as Market Inspector on ad-hoc basis, which was subsequently regularized vide Order dated 1st June, 1993. 4.Respondent No. 4 was appointed on 19th January, 1972 as Supervisor on daily wages and was regularized against the said post in the year 1976. In the year 1978, respondent No. 4 was promoted as Senior Supervisor. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 was promoted as Market Inspector on ad-hoc basis on 29th October, 1983, although he did not satisfy qualifications required for the post of Market Inspector under the Recruitment Rules in force. Respondent No. 5 was appointed as Garden Supervisor and was promoted as Supervisor in the year 1974. Thereafter, in the year 1983, he was promoted as Senior Supervisor. Respondent No. 5 was reverted twice to the post of Supervisor from the post of Senior Supervisor and ultimately, in the year 1983, he was promoted to the post of Market Inspector on ad-hoc basis although he was not qualified for being promoted to the said post as he lacked basic necessary qualification. By Order dated 16th November, 1988, the Municipal Council reverted respondents No. 4 and 5 to the post of Senior Supervisor, pursuant to Resolution dated 29th March, 1988, since their appointments were not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and the said respondents No. 4 and 5 did not possess the basic essential qualification for the post of Market Inspector. The requests of respondents No. 4 and 5 to regularize them as Market Inspectors was turned down. Respondents No. 4 and 5 challenged their reversion by filing Writ Petitions No. 39/89 and 50/89. However, both the writ petitions were withdrawn with leave to file fresh petitions. Respondent No. 5, Vasant Budolkar, filed fresh Writ Petition No. 344/89 in which petitioners in Writ Petition No. 346/95 were respondents No. 4 and 3 respectively. Respondents No. 4 and 5 challenged their reversion by filing Writ Petitions No. 39/89 and 50/89. However, both the writ petitions were withdrawn with leave to file fresh petitions. Respondent No. 5, Vasant Budolkar, filed fresh Writ Petition No. 344/89 in which petitioners in Writ Petition No. 346/95 were respondents No. 4 and 3 respectively. The said Writ Petition filed by Vasant Budolkar was summarily rejected on the ground that he had not passed S.S.C. and was, therefore, obviously not qualified. After reversion respondents No. 4 and 5 continued to work as Senior Supervisors in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 and thereafter, as Site Supervisors with effect from 2nd June, 1989 in the scale of Rs. 950-1500. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 346/95 continued in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 as Market Inspectors, except that petitioner No. 2 was inbetween reverted on her own request and was subsequently promoted once again to the post of Market Inspector. 5. By letter dated 22nd May, 1995, of Under Secretary to the Government of Goa, Director of Municipal Administration was directed to regularize the services of respondents No. 4 and 5 as Market Inspectors from 1984 onwards. By Order dated 22nd June, 1995, Margao Municipal Council promoted respondents No. 4 and 5, who were working as Site Supervisors, to the posts of Municipal Inspectors by reverting the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 346/95 as Site Supervisors in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. By Order dated 22nd August, 1995, the services of respondents No. 4 and 5 were regularized with effect from 6th June, 1984. By the same Order dated 22nd August, 1995, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 346/95 were restored to the posts of Municipal Inspectors against supernumerary posts. The said petitioners claim that they are entitled to regular posts of Market Inspectors. 6.The petitioners thus challenge the legality of Order dated 22nd May, 1995, as being arbitrary, capricious and passed due to peddling influence without there being any proceedings before the Government and without there being any power in the Government or under the Recruitment Rules. The said petitioners claim that they are entitled to regular posts of Market Inspectors. 6.The petitioners thus challenge the legality of Order dated 22nd May, 1995, as being arbitrary, capricious and passed due to peddling influence without there being any proceedings before the Government and without there being any power in the Government or under the Recruitment Rules. The said respondents 4 and 5 did not possess basic essential educational qualifications for the post of Market Inspectors due to which they were reverted with effect from 16th November, 1988; that they had never worked against the posts of Market Inspectors from the time of reversion on 16th November, 1988 till they were regularized vide Order dated 22nd June, 1995, under which they were regularized with effect from 1984; there was no power of relaxation whatsoever to relax the minimum educational qualifications required which relaxation for the first time was introduced in the year 1994, but the power to relax was vested in the Director of Municipal Administration who had refused to relax the same in favour of the respondents No. 4 and 5. Admittedly, respondents No. 4 and 5 were paid against the posts of Market Supervisor during the period they had not even worked against the said posts, that is to say with effect from 16th November, 1988, till 22nd June, 1995. According to the petitioners, the exercise of power by the Government and the Municipal Council is not only arbitrary and capricious, but mala fide and shows total abuse of power and non-application of mind. The petitioners have thus sought quashing of the said Orders dated 22nd May, 1995, the Council Resolution dated 26th June, 1995 and consequent Order thereto as well as the Order dated 22nd August, 1995. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 345/95 had further sought direction to consider them for the posts of Market Inspector. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 346/95 have prayed for further direction to restrain the Municipal Council from displacing the petitioners from regular posts of Municipal Inspectors and to restore the services of the petitioners as Municipal Inspectors on regular basis as against supernumerary posts given to them vide Order dated 22nd August, 1995. 7.No returns were filed by respondents No. 1 to 5. 7.No returns were filed by respondents No. 1 to 5. When the matter came up for hearing on merits learned Government Advocate conceded that the Minister concerned had absolutely no power to revoke the reversion orders of the respondents No. 4 and 5 since they did not fulfil the educational qualifications for the purposes of promotion to the post of Municipal Inspectors. Learned Government Advocate further pointed out that the Revenue Department and the Law Department had given opinion that the same could not be done, but inspite of that, the order was passed by the Minister concerned. It was found that respondents No. 4 and 5 were reverted in 1988 and the reversion order was revoked in 1995. During this period respondents No. 4 and 5 did not work against the posts of Market Inspector, but it appears that in view of the revocation orders they were paid in the said posts of Market Inspector for the said period and thereafter. It was also noticed that respondents No. 4 and 5 admittedly did not fulfil educational qualifications for the said post and the Director of Municipal Administration who had power to relax the qualifications had refused to relax the same. It was also noticed that the Minister could not, prima facie, exercise power under section 303 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Municipalities Act, 1968, and, at any rate, the same could not be pressed into service beyond one year. It was further noticed that the Chief Minister of Goa had already rejected the request for regularization of respondent No. 4, Alvaro Vaz, after examining his case, as could be seen from D.O. letter dated 29th August, 1994 at page C-71 of the record of Urban Development Department. In view of all this, it was considered necessary that before any final decision is taken in the matter, the concerned Ex-Minister, Shri Dayanand Narvenkar (who is now the Dy. Chief Minister), be joined as a party to the petitions and notice be issued to him. The Ex-Minister has filed return. In the return it was stated that on perusal of the record and proceedings, there is noting signed by him dated 19th May, 1995 in which he had opined that reversions of respondents No. 4 and 5 should be revoked and they should be regularized in the posts of Market Inspectors with effect from 6th June, 1984. In the return it was stated that on perusal of the record and proceedings, there is noting signed by him dated 19th May, 1995 in which he had opined that reversions of respondents No. 4 and 5 should be revoked and they should be regularized in the posts of Market Inspectors with effect from 6th June, 1984. According to him, a similar opinion had been expressed by Dr. Carmo Pegado, while he was the Minister for Urban Development which had been recorded under his signature in the file on 8th April, 1992, but the said noting was not given effect to since the Revenue Department and the Law Department were of the opinion that the powers under section 303 of the Municipalities Act could not be exercised by the Government after the expiry of the period of one year, though at one stage the Law Department expressed the view that the order could be revoked even after the expiry of the period of one year since the order was a nullity, having been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice. In the said return, it is stated that while putting noting dated 19th May, 1995, he was guided by the notings of his predecessor, Dr. Carmo Pegado dated 8th April, 1992 and other relevant facts, especially the fact that on 6th June, 1984, the Municipal Council had decided to appoint respondents No. 4 and 5 on temporary basis, but however had not subsequently implemented the said decision. According to him, he was of the bona fide opinion that the revocation order having been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice and the fact that the respondents No. 4 and 5 possess the necessary educational qualifications, or not, had to be considered at the time of promotion and not subsequently after they had put in nearly five years of service in the promotional post. It is further stated that neither he expressed any opinion, nor issued any directions to the effect that the respondents No. 4 and 5 should be paid salary for the period during which they had not worked as Market Inspectors; that it was open to the Municipal Council not to implement the opinion expressed by him or the decision of the Government, if the Council was of the opinion that it was not in accordance with law and that the respondents No. 4 and 5 were appointed to the posts of Municipal Inspectors vide Order dated 22nd June, 1995, issued by the Chief Officer of the Margao Municipal Council on the basis of the recommendation of the D.P.C., which was approved by the Municipal Administrator on 9th June, 1995. It was, therefore submitted that the decision taken and reflected in the noting dated 19th May, 1995, was an honest opinion reached after perusal of the entire records and there was nothing arbitrary or mala fide in the said decision. 8.Learned Advocate Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni took us through the Goa, Daman and Diu Municipalities Class III and Class IV (Ministerial and Non-ministerial and Non-Gazetted) Posts Recruitment Rules, 1975, Goa, Daman and Diu Groups 'C' and 'D' (Ministerial and Non-Ministerial Non-Gazetted) Posts Recruitment Rules, 1986 and the Goa, Daman and Diu Municipalities Group 'C' and 'D' (Ministerial and Non-Ministerial, Non-Gazetted) Posts Recruitment Rules, 1994 (Eight Amendment) dated 20th January, 1994. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, respondents No. 4 and 5 do not possess the minimum basic essential educational requirement, which is S.S.C. for promotion to the posts of Market Inspector and the Director of Municipal Administration, who has power to relax the educational qualifications in view of the 1994 Amendment, vide letter dated 7th June, 1994 had refused to grant relaxation. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the Minister could not have exercised such power and the direction of the Minister was directly in contravention of the Recruitment Rules which prescribe basic minimum educational qualification for promotional post of Market Inspector. He, therefore, contends that the orders in question are required to be set aside and the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 345/95 are entitled to be considered against the said posts. He, therefore, contends that the orders in question are required to be set aside and the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 345/95 are entitled to be considered against the said posts. He also urged that the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 346/95 are entitled to continue as Market Inspectors against regular posts inspite of supernumerary posts against which they were posted. 9.Learned Advocate Shri Lobo, appearing on behalf of the Margao Municipal Council, urged before us that he cannot support the Government Order of revoking the reversion orders of respondents No. 4 and 5 as well as regularization with effect from 6th June, 1984. He pointed out that the respondents No. 4 and 5 did not possess the required basic minimum educational qualification either under the 1975 Recruitment Rules, or under the 1986 Rules and there was no power of relaxation of educational qualifications under the said rules. The power to relax the rules was conferred on the Director of Municipal Administration under the 1994 Amendment with effect from 24th January, 1994 and that power of relaxation which is vested in the statutory authority, namely the Director of Municipal Administration, cannot be exercised by any higher authority. In this connection reliance has been placed on (Yogender Pal Singh others v. Union of India others)1, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1015. According to him what has been done by the Government is somehow or the other to regularize the illegal appointments which cannot be justified in law and the entire action of the Government is in utter defiance of the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. Reliance has been placed on (R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmaiah another)2, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1767 and (State of Orissa others v. Sukanti Mohapatra others)3, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1650. Learned Counsel Shri Lobo, placed before us the difference of arrears paid to the respondents No. 4 and 5 from 16th November, 1988 to 21st June, 1995 the period during which they had not worked as Market Inspectors, but were paid against the said posts by way of arrears for the said period. 10.Shri Thali, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3, submitted that the Minister concerned could not have exercised powers under section 303 of the Municipalities Act after lapse of so many years since the power could be exercised only within a period of one year. 10.Shri Thali, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3, submitted that the Minister concerned could not have exercised powers under section 303 of the Municipalities Act after lapse of so many years since the power could be exercised only within a period of one year. It was also urged that respondents No. 4 and 5 did not have the basic minimum educational qualifications for the posts of Market Inspector and the Minister had no power to grant relaxation of educational qualifications. 11.Learned Advocate Shri Sonak, argued on behalf of respondent No. 4, that the Director of Municipal Administration had power to relax the educational qualifications and reliance has been placed on (Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation)4, 1990(1) S.C.C. 361 and that in fact in the year 1984 the Council had already decided to regularize respondent No. 4. 12.Shri Kantak, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 urged that respondent No. 5 has already retired with effect from 31st December, 1997 and, as such, the recovery may not be ordered. 13.Learned Advocate Shri S.D. Lotlikar, appearing on behalf of the Ex-Minister, respondent No. 6, stated that the Ex-Minister had exercised revisional powers under section 303 of the Municipalities Act and he was not bound by the opinion of the Law Department though he preferred the earlier opinion given by the Law Department that the order in question was a nullity on account of the violation of the principles of natural justice; that in 1984 the Municipality had decided to regularize the appointments of respondents No. 4 and 5; that the Ex-Minister had not issued any directions to pay for the period during which the respondents No. 4 and 5 did not work and naturally respondents 4 and 5 would not be entitled to salary as Market Inspectors during the period they had not worked. According to the learned Advocate for respondent No. 6, one year limitation would not apply as there was no inter-party dispute and the Ex-minister acted with bona fide. It is further urged that respondents No. 4 and 5 have been promoted after their appointments were approved by duly constituted Selection Committee. According to the learned Advocate for respondent No. 6, one year limitation would not apply as there was no inter-party dispute and the Ex-minister acted with bona fide. It is further urged that respondents No. 4 and 5 have been promoted after their appointments were approved by duly constituted Selection Committee. 14.Learned Advocate for the petitioners urged that the Ex-Minister had neither power of relaxation, nor relaxation could be done with retrospective effect to regularize respondents No. 4 and 5, who did not possess basic minimum educational qualifications for the posts of Market Inspector and the payment made to them as against the posts of Market Inspector during the period they had not worked against the said posts has to be recovered. In this connection reliance was placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in (Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra another)5, J.T. 1994(5) S.C. 378. 15.We have already pointed out that the respondents No. 1 to 5 did not file any return. The Margao Municipal Council, Director of Municipal Administration and the Department of Urban Development, Government of Goa, had placed before us the concerned records of the matter. Respondents No. 4 and 5 admittedly did not possess the basic qualification for the post of Market Inspector either in terms of the 1975 Rules or in terms of the 1986 Rules. As per the 1975 Rules, the educational qualification for promotees to the posts of Market/Municipal Inspector was Intermediate/Senior Cambridge or any other equivalent qualification. Senior Supervisor with five years standing in the grade was qualified to the promotional post. In terms of the 1986 Rules minimum educational qualification required for the posts of Market/Municipal Inspector is S.S.C. Thus, the respondents No. 4 and 5 did not possess minimum educational qualification for promotion to the posts of Market Inspector. There was no power to relax the educational qualification and, as such, the promotion of respondents No. 4 and 5 to the posts of Market Inspector in the year 1983 on ad-hoc basis was contrary to the Recruitment Rules. Taking this factor into consideration, respondents 4 and 5 were rightly reverted to the posts of Market Inspector vide Order dated 16th October, 1988 as they lacked the basic essential educational qualification for promotion to the said post. Taking this factor into consideration, respondents 4 and 5 were rightly reverted to the posts of Market Inspector vide Order dated 16th October, 1988 as they lacked the basic essential educational qualification for promotion to the said post. Respondents No. 4 and 5 challenged the order of reversion by filing Writ Petitions No. 39/89 and 50/89, but the said writ petitions were withdrawn with leave to file fresh petitions. Subsequently, respondent No. 5 Vasant Budolkar had filed fresh Writ Petition No. 344/89 which was summarily dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15th November, 1989, on the ground that the petitioner had not passed S.S.C. and therefore, obviously did not qualify. Respondents No. 4 and 5 continued making representations even after the summary dismissal of the writ petition filed by respondent No. 4, Vasant Budolkar. Respondent No. 4 Alvaro Vaz had also raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner regarding his reversion, but he could not succeed there as well. At one stage, vide Confidential Note dated 8th April, 1992, the then Minister for Urban Development revoked the order of revocation made by the Council and ordered regularization of respondents No. 4 and 5 with effect from 6th June, 1984. However, it is to be noted that the D.P.C. on 3rd August, 1992, observed that Alvaro Vaz and others did not satisfy the requisite educational qualifications and, as such, their cases could not be considered (vide page 51/N of the Margao Municipal Council file No. 1/21/83-ADMN). The note at page 54/N of the said file of the Margao Municipal Council shows that the cases of respondents No. 4 and 5 have been scrutinized by the Government in terms of the relevant rules and the same have not been accepted as they were not eligible to hold the posts of Market Inspectors in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. The matter was closed on 18th July, 1994 and the Confidential Note of the then Minister dated 8th April, 1992, and the Confidential Note dated 28th April, 1993 were not implemented in the above circumstances. In the meantime, the matter was again re-opened on a letter of the Central Minister to the Chief Minister of Goa. The matter was closed on 18th July, 1994 and the Confidential Note of the then Minister dated 8th April, 1992, and the Confidential Note dated 28th April, 1993 were not implemented in the above circumstances. In the meantime, the matter was again re-opened on a letter of the Central Minister to the Chief Minister of Goa. However, vide D.O. letter dated 29th August, 1994, the then Chief Minister of Goa informed the concerned Central Minister that he had perused the matter of reinstatement of Alvaro Vaz to the post of Market Inspector who had been appointed on ad-hoc basis and he did not fulfil the conditions of the Recruitment Rules. He was reverted since he could not be regularized in view of the Recruitment Rules for the post and it was not possible to take any steps in regard to his regularization. The relevant papers in this respect are at pages 19 to 21/N and C/69 to C/71 of the file No. 3/13-16-84 LAWD (I) of Urban Development Department of Government of Goa. The matter was once again called by the then Minister for Urban Development and Note dated 19th May, 1995, was recorded which is at pages 23/N to 25/N. If we compare this note with the Confidential Note of the previous Urban Development Minister dated 8th April, 1992, it is verbatim the same except for the last two lines of the note. After the Confidential Note dated 8th April, 1992, of the then Minister for Urban Development, the matter was threadbare examined at various levels and it was ultimately found that respondents No. 4 and 5 were not entitled to be reinstated as they did not fulfil the basic educational requirement for the post of Market Inspector. There was no provision for relaxation of educational qualification either under the 1975 Rules or under the 1986 Rules, but the provision relating to relaxation of educational qualifications was introduced for the first time by the 1994 Amendment which came into force from 20th January, 1994. The power under the said amendment to relax the educational qualification vests in the Director of Municipal Administration. The relevant rule reads that the power of giving relaxation to any provisions of the existing rules shall vest in the Director, if in his opinion it is found necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing. The power under the said amendment to relax the educational qualification vests in the Director of Municipal Administration. The relevant rule reads that the power of giving relaxation to any provisions of the existing rules shall vest in the Director, if in his opinion it is found necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing. We have already pointed out that the Director of Municipal Administration had refused to relax the said provision relating to educational qualification in respect of respondents No. 4 and 5. The matter after being closed had been again examined by the Chief Minister of Goa as stated above, but it was noted by him that there was no case for reinstatement as respondent Alvaro Vaz did not possess the minimum educational qualification required for the post of Market Inspector. It is in this background that the note put by the respondent No. 6 has to be viewed. The Apex Court in Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra another (supra) held that eligibility and continuous working for howsoever long period should not be permitted to over-reach the law. Requirement of rules of selection cannot be substituted by humane considerations and law must take its course. The Apex Court had placed reliance on the judgment in (Dr. M.A Haque v. Union of India)6, J.T 1993(2) S.C. 265 and has quoted the following paragraph from there:- "........... we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Recruitment Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution have to be followed strictly and not in breach. If a disregard of the rules and the by passing of the Public Service Commissions are permitted, it will open a back-door for illegal recruitment without limit. In fact this Court has, of late, been witnessing a constant violation of the recruitment rules and a scant respect for the constitutional provisions requiring recruitment to the services through the Public Service Commission. It appears that since this Court has in some cases permitted regularisation of the irregularly recruited employees, some Governments and authorities have been increasingly resorting to irregular recruitment. It appears that since this Court has in some cases permitted regularisation of the irregularly recruited employees, some Governments and authorities have been increasingly resorting to irregular recruitment. The result has been that the recruitment rules and the Public Service Commissions have been kept in cold storage and candidate dictated by various considerations are being recruited as a matter of course." 16.In the above background, the respondent No. 6 was not at all justified in passing Orders dated 19th May, 1995, revoking reversion orders dated 16th November, 1988 and directing regularization of respondents No. 4 and 5 with effect from 6th June, 1984. In the circumstances, we are not able to accept the contention of respondent No. 6 that the exercise was done bona fide. The action is totally arbitrary, illegal, in utter defiance of Recruitment Rules and abuse of power. 17.In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the decision dated 22nd May, 1995 of the Government, the Council Resolution No. 2588 dated 26th June, 1995 and the consequent order dated 22nd August, 1995 insofar as they pertain to the respondents No. 4 and 5 alone, are required to be set aside. The same are accordingly set aside. Consequently, the revocation of reversion order dated 16th November, 1988 and regularization of respondents No. 4 and 5 with effect from 6th June, 1984 cannot be upheld. In so far as the question of recovery is concerned, it is now well-settled that if a person has not worked against a particular post, he would not be entitled to salary of that post. The Apex Court in (State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta others)7, 1996(7) S.C.C. 533 has laid down that a promotee is not entitled to arrears of pay from the deemed date of posting in the promotional post as he had not worked during that period on the principle of "no pay for no work". For this proposition the Apex Court has relied upon earlier judgments in (Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India)8, 1989(2) S.C.C. 541 and (Virender Kumar G.M., N. Rlys. v. Avinash Chandra Chadha)9, 1990(3) S.C.C. 472 . The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to salary of the posts of Market Inspector for the period from 16th November, 1988 to 21st June, 1995, during which they had not worked against the said posts. v. Avinash Chandra Chadha)9, 1990(3) S.C.C. 472 . The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to salary of the posts of Market Inspector for the period from 16th November, 1988 to 21st June, 1995, during which they had not worked against the said posts. Learned Advocate for the Margao Municipality has informed us that the respondents No. 4 and 5 were paid arrears of Rs. 21,493/- each as difference of salary against the posts of Market Inspector. Respondents No. 4 and 5 had not worked against the said posts from 16th November, 1988 to 21st June, 1995, and, as such, they are not entitled to the salary of the said posts of Market Inspector. The difference of arrears paid to them amounting to Rs. 21,493/- shall be recovered from them. However, during the period they worked as Market Inspectors no recoveries shall be made from them. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 346/95 shall be placed against regular posts of Market Inspectors. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 345/95 shall be considered for promotion to the post of Market Inspectors in case they are eligible and fall within the zone of consideration and fulfil the other requirements under the Recruitment Rules. 18.The writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Costs shall be borne by the respondents No. 1 to 3. Writ petition allowed according to terms. -----