Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in letter No. 331 dated 26-5-2000, Annexure-8, whereby the services of the members of the petitioner have been terminated and for issuance of a direction to the respondents to regularise their services. 2. The petitioner is union of non-gazetted employees. The claim of the petitioner is that members of the union were engaged on daily wages by the respondent-Municipality in the year 1973. They were working on daily wages continuously. The Special Officer of the Municipality had been writing letters to respondent No. 2 from time to time stating therein that population within the jurisdiction of Municipality has increased, consequently the work has also increased and as such requested for sanction of more posts for smooth functioning of the Municipality. The Government issued letter that engagement on daily wages after 1-8-1985 is illegal and it should not be allowed to continue. The Special Officer, thereafter wrote letters to the Government/Department for guidance stating therein that if daily wagers are not allowed to work on daily wages, the work of Municipality will hamper and accordingly requested to sanction the post. However, in view of the Government letter, members of the petitioner were disengaged vide letter dated 26-5-2000, Annexure-8. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Contended that the members of the petitioner were engaged mainly for cleaning the city. Adequate posts have not been sanctioned by the Government. Because of disengagement of the members of the petitioner the work of the Municipality i.e. cleaning, etc. has hampered causing difficulty to the citizens and as such the order, Annexure-8 is bad in law. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-State and its authorities contended that engagement on daily wages was banned after 1-8-1985 and accordingly, the letter was issued to remove the persons who were engaged on daily wages after 1-8-1985. Pursuant to the said letter order, Annexure-8, has been issued. The engagement on daily wages was against the Government decision. In such a situation, members of the petitioner cannot claim any legal right for their regularisation. Furthermore, regularisation is not mode of appointment. Moreover, the Joint Secretary of the Department had written letter to the Special Officer, Annexure-6, to send proposal for sanction of the post and as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 4. In such a situation, members of the petitioner cannot claim any legal right for their regularisation. Furthermore, regularisation is not mode of appointment. Moreover, the Joint Secretary of the Department had written letter to the Special Officer, Annexure-6, to send proposal for sanction of the post and as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 4. It is evident from the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and the material available on the record that members of the petitioner were engaged on daily wages. It has been claimed by the petitioner that its members were engaged on daily wages in the year 1973 but no date of engagement has been mentioned nor any document has been annexed with the writ petition. From the order, Annexure-8, it appears that persons who were engaged on daily wages after 1-8-1985 have been disengaged. In the writ petition, only bald statement has been made that the members of the petitioner had been engaged on daily wages before 1-8-1985 but no details have been given nor any document has been annexed with the writ petition. However, it is evident that order, Annexure-8, has been issued on 26-5-2000 and as such there would be no question of regularisation unless the order, Annexure-8, is quashed. Moreover, regularisation is not mode of appointment. Art. 16 of the Constitution of India deals with equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment and it says that there shall be equality of opportunity to all citizens in the matter of employment/appointment in any office of the Government which includes office of the establishment which has instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. For compliance of the mandate of Art. 16 of the Constitution of India, it is necessary to advertise the post and invite applications allowing opportunity to all eligible candidates for appointment and thereafter to follow the process of selection for appointment of efficient persons so that work entrusted to them be done smoothly and efficiently. 5. In this context in the case of Suhedar Singh and Ors. V/s. District Judge, Mirzapur and Anr. -- , the Apex Court has held that appointment made to post not in consonance with the statutory rules is illegal, irregular and appointees even if continued for long period are not entitled to be regularised. 5. In this context in the case of Suhedar Singh and Ors. V/s. District Judge, Mirzapur and Anr. -- , the Apex Court has held that appointment made to post not in consonance with the statutory rules is illegal, irregular and appointees even if continued for long period are not entitled to be regularised. Similarly in the case of Ashwini Kumar and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. -- , the Apex Court has held that if on any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointments are made on ad hoc basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if it is found that the incumbents concerned have continued to be employed for a long period of time with or without any artificial breaks, and their services are otherwise required by the institution which employees them, a time may come in the service career of such employees who are continued on ad hoc basis for a given substantial length of time to regularise them so that the employees concerned can give their best by being assured security of tenure. But, this would require one pre-condition that the initial entry of such an employee must be made against an available sanctioned vacancy by following the rules and regulations governing such entry. 6. in the case of State of M.P. and Anr. V/s. Dharam Sir. -- , the Apex Court has held that the plea that the Court should have a "human approach" and should not disturb a person who has already been working on a post for more than a decade cannot be accepted as the Courts are hardly swayed by emotional appeals in dispensing the justice to the litigating parties, the Courts not only go into the merits of the respective cases, they also try to balance equities so as to do complete justice between them. In the instant case, it is evident that members of the petitioner were engaged on daily wages but no date of engagement has been mentioned or any document in support thereof has been annexed. There is nothing on the record to show that members of the petitioner were engaged on sanctioned post or engaged following the process of selection, 7. However, it has been claimed that respondent-Municipality has also written letter for sanction of the post. There is nothing on the record to show that members of the petitioner were engaged on sanctioned post or engaged following the process of selection, 7. However, it has been claimed that respondent-Municipality has also written letter for sanction of the post. The Joint Secretary of the Department has also asked to submit proposal for sanction of the post, Annexure-6. Thus in the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Municipality and its authorities to calculate the required number of posts and send proposal to the Government for sanction of post. If such proposal is sent by the Municipality, the Government/Department would consider the proposal for sanction of the post taking into consideration the need of the Municipality for its smooth functioning and in public interest and pass necessary order with regard to sanction of the posts. In case, the required number of posts is sanctioned the respondent-Municipality will proceed for appointment/engagement on such sanctioned post following the mandate of the Constitution and process of selection. In case members of the petitioner file application for appointment/engagement the respondent-Municipality and its authorities shall consider that the members of the petitioner were working earlier and also, in case they are found to be over-aged, they shall consider for relaxation of age. In case the Municipality requires the engagement on daily wages for achieving the object of Municipality/Municipal Act it shall consider the case of the members of the petitioner on the basis of seniority of engagement.