Judgment : In all these writ petitions, the common question arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the petitioners who were appointed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission either as section writers or as Fair copyists on daily rate basis are entitled to seek for absorption and regularization of their services. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions are one and the same, all the writ petitions are dealt with by a common order. 2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions were appointed as section writers or as fair copyists from the year 1991 onwards by the respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission hereinafter called as “The Commission” after their names were sponsored by the employment exchanges and after the interview. The petitioners are working from the respective date of the appointment continuously till date barring some artificial breaks in their services. The petitioners services are continuous, meritorious without any blemish. The nature of the work of the petitioners are the same to that of the regular employees and the responsibilities and duties are also equal to that of the regular employees and the petitioners were asked to work in various sensitive posts and that being so, the respondent-Commission without assigning any reasons discontinued the services of some of the petitioners by placing a notice in the notice board and in respect of some other petitioners by oral orders. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been filed challenging either the order of ouster in writing or in oral and for a consequential direction to regularize the services of the petitioners with the consequential benefits from the date of absorption in the respondent-Commission. 3. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners would contend that the petitioners were appointed through employment exchange on merits and after an interview to the post of section writers. The petitioners are in possession of graduate degrees in various discipline and they are fully qualified to be absorbed in the respondent- Commission. The learned counsel would submit that the ouster of these petitioners are arbitrary and unreasonable being violative of Arts.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is taking steps to appoint daily rated employees to the same posts where the petitioners were appointed by replacing the petitioners. The learned counsel would submit that the ouster of these petitioners are arbitrary and unreasonable being violative of Arts.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is taking steps to appoint daily rated employees to the same posts where the petitioners were appointed by replacing the petitioners. It is the fundamental principle of law that a daily rate employee cannot be replaced by another daily rate employee. The learned counsel submitted that even though the petitioners are called daily rated employees, there as no difference between the petitioners and the permanent employees in the matter of work as well as the responsibilities. The learned counsel submitted that such of the daily rated employees who worked between 1991 and 1992 in Census Department for the period of six months only have also been absorbed in a phased manner by giving age relaxation and other benefits in the various departments of Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are working continuously for more than four years and therefore their services should be regularized. The learned counsel in this regard would rely upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (1) Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990)1 S.C.C. 361 ; (2) Rattanlal and others, etc. v. State of Haryana and others Rattanlal and others, etc. v. State of Haryana and others Rattanlal and others, etc. v. State of Haryana and others A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 478; (3) Union of India and others v. Debika Guha and others Union of India and others v. Debika Guha and others Union of India and others v. Debika Guha and others A.I.R. 2000 S.C.W. 3586; (4) Hindustan Machine Tools and others v. M.Rangareddy and others Hindustan Machine Tools and others v. M.Rangareddy and others Hindustan Machine Tools and others v. M.Rangareddy and others A.I.R. 2000 S.C.W. 3586 and (5) Jaccob Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority Jaccob Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority Jaccob Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority (1991)1 S.C.C. 28 ”. Relying upon the above judgments, the learned counsel would submit that even a daily rated employee is entitled for absorption and regularization of services. 4. Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners would raise more or less similar grounds seeking for absorption and regularization of the services of the petitioners. Relying upon the above judgments, the learned counsel would submit that even a daily rated employee is entitled for absorption and regularization of services. 4. Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners would raise more or less similar grounds seeking for absorption and regularization of the services of the petitioners. He would also contend that the petitioners were appointed as section writers on daily wages through employment exchanges and most of the employees are having under graduate degree qualification and some of the petitioners are having post graduate degrees and they are working for more than two years continuously. The learned counsel would submit that large number of retrenched employees of the Commission were absorbed in the Government. From the year 1991 onwards more than 250 employees are continuously engaged on daily rate basis. The petitioners are almost over aged and further the names are deleted from the rolls of the employment exchange and they missed their chances for other employments during this period. The learned counsel would rely upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (1) The Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and others v. State of Karnataka and another The Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and others v. State of Karnataka and another The Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and others v. State of Karnataka and another (1983)3 S.L.R. 516; (2) The General Secretary, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna and others The General Secretary, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna and others The General Secretary, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna and others (1988)1 S.L.R. 349, and (3) Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 645 to contend that the petitioners are entitled to be absorbed on the basis of a scheme that may be framed by the Court. 5. Ms.K.Suguna, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners would contend that most of the petitioners who were appointed during 1991 either as section writers or as fair copyists and are working from 1991 and very few of them are working from 1993 and 1995. Till date they are continuously working. 5. Ms.K.Suguna, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners would contend that most of the petitioners who were appointed during 1991 either as section writers or as fair copyists and are working from 1991 and very few of them are working from 1993 and 1995. Till date they are continuously working. Apart from the submissions made by the other learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.K.Suguna, learned counsel also submitted that it is the policy of the Government of Tamil Nadu to bring all the daily rate employees into regular establishment on completion of five years of service. She also drew my attention to G.O.Ms.No.292, P & AR Department, dated 31.3.1982, G.O.Ms.No.528, P & AR Department, dated 10.10.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.107, P & AR Department, dated 5.7.1987, wherein the Government directed the absorption of daily rated employees in a phased manner in regular vacancies that arose later without their names being sponsored by employment exchange once again subject to their fulfillment of qualification for such posts at the time of initial appointment on daily wages. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent- Commission being a wing of the government cannot adopt a different procedure and keep the petitioners on daily wages even after a period of 11 years. The learned counsel would further contend that section writers in Education Department who were appointed on daily rate basis approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6048 of 1992 and the same was allowed by order dated 18.6.1993 and the same was implemented by the Government by issuing G.O.Ms.No.758, Education Department, dated 7.3.1994 by creating 75 posts of Record Clerks to absorb the section writers of the Government examinations. Similarly, daily wage employees of the Education Department were also absorbed on regular time scale basing on the orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5129 of 1996. Similarly, section writers who were working in Survey Department and also the Draughtsman cum Surveyors working on consolidated scale of pay were absorbed in various departments as record clerks and Junior Assistants basing on the orders of the Government. Even in the Municipalities, Town Panchayats and Corporations, daily wage employees who were in service from the year 1996 were brought under regular pay scale as per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.125 during 1999. Even in the Municipalities, Town Panchayats and Corporations, daily wage employees who were in service from the year 1996 were brought under regular pay scale as per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.125 during 1999. The learned counsel also would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (1) Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation 1990 S.C.C. (L&S) 174 and (2) Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation 2000 S.C.C. (L&S) 1039. 6. Mrs.Nalini Chidamabaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.6991 of 2000 would contend that the respondent has restricted the relief only in respect of 67 vacancies notified in advertisement Nos.20/98 and 32/98 for applications to fill up those posts. She also would contend that the petitioners were appointed through employment exchanges and they are eligible and qualified to hold the posts. She also would contend that in G.O.Ms.No.93, P & AR (P)) Department, dated 11.4.1997 some employees of the Survey Department who were appointed onc onsolidate pay were absorbed on regular basis. She would refer to a similar order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.144, P & AR (P) Department, dated 11.8.1999 relating to the retrenched employees of Census Organisation of Tamil Nadu. The learned senior counsel submitted that in view of the age factor, the petitioners cannot go to any other post basing the reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation 2000 S.C.C. (Lab.) 1039. The learned senior cousel would contend that the petitioners could be absorbed in any suitable posts depending upon the educational qualifications. The learned senior counsel would also rely upon a judgment in Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rainod Labhu Bechar 2001 Sol. Case No.036 and submitted that based upon the said judgment the petitioners also should be absorbed and their services should be regularized. 7. Mr.K.Sakthivel andMr.Thiruvengadam, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners would adopt the arguments of the other counsel. 8. Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Solicitor General appearing for the respondent- Commission would submit that it is true that the petitioners were appointed either as section writers or as fair copyist and their names were sponsored through employment exchanges. However, for the appointment to any sanctioned posts, the respondent-Commission has to follow the rules with regard to each post and such appointments are made subject to the educational and other qualifications. However, for the appointment to any sanctioned posts, the respondent-Commission has to follow the rules with regard to each post and such appointments are made subject to the educational and other qualifications. The appointments of all these petitioners were not made in conformity with the rules. Further those appointments were not as against any sanctioned posts. The appointments were made depending upon the demand for such appointments by the Commission from time to time and these appointments can be utmost be called as seasonal and to meet out certain contingencies in the work. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any right to ask for regularization of services more particularly when there are no such posts as section writers or fair copyists in the respondent-Commission and therefore the question of absorption and regularization of the services of the petitioners in the posts which are not available with the respondent-Commission, and the petitioners cannot seek a direction for absorption and regularization. In this context, the learned Additional Solicitor General would rely upon the following judgments reported in (1) Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers Union, Thanjavur represented by its General Secretary Mr.S.Chandrakumar v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Madras and three others Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers Union, Thanjavur represented by its General Secretary Mr.S.Chandrakumar v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Madras and three others Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers Union, Thanjavur represented by its General Secretary Mr.S.Chandrakumar v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Madras and three others (1997)3 C.T.C. 535; (2) State of U.P. and others v. Ajay Kumar State of U.P. and others v. Ajay Kumar State of U.P. and others v. Ajay Kumar (1997)4 S.C.C. 88 ; (3) Himanashu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v. State of Bihar and others Himanashu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v. State of Bihar and others Himanashu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v. State of Bihar and others (1997)4 S.C.C. 391 and (4) Subedar Singh and others v. District Judge, Mirzapur and another Subedar Singh and others v. District Judge, Mirzapur and another Subedar Singh and others v. District Judge, Mirzapur and another A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 201. 9. 9. In view of the rival submissions and on the basis of the admitted factual position, let me now consider the judgments relied upon by the respective counsel on the point as to whether the petitioners who were appointed on daily rate basis are entitled to absorption and regularization of their service. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990)1 S.C.C. 361 had an occasion to consider the case of daily rated workers of Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation. In that case the petitioners were appointed on daily wages between 1983 and 1986 and they have been working ever since except for certain artificial breaks. The Supreme Court on a petition under Art.32, directed the Industrial Tribunal at Delhi to examine the contentions of the petitioners and the stand taken by the respondent on all issues after providing full opportunity to the parties including leading of evidence oral and documentary and to make a report. The Industrial Tribunal submitted its report by observing that the petitioners were performing same or similar duties as are performed by the incumbents of Group ‘D’ posts of the Corporation and consequently found that principles of equal pay for equal work enshrined in Art.39(d) read with Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, all the petitioners are entitled to equal pay for equal work in relation to the regular employees and in so far as the nature of work being discharged by the petitioners therein being equal to those of the regular employees, the Tribunal suggested that the petitioners may also be equated with incumbents of Group ‘D’ posts. On the basis of the same, the Supreme Court held “once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in respect of posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualification”. With the above finding, the Supreme Court directed the regularization of the services of the petitioners therein who have put in more than 3 years of service. That was a case where admittedly all those petitioners were appointed as against the posts which were in existence as per rules in the Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation. With the above finding, the Supreme Court directed the regularization of the services of the petitioners therein who have put in more than 3 years of service. That was a case where admittedly all those petitioners were appointed as against the posts which were in existence as per rules in the Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation. When the posts are available, the Court took a view that keeping the petitioners on daily rated basis continuously for more number of years especially when the petitioners are performing the same duties as that of the regular employees directed the regularization of the services of the petitioners in the pots that were available. 10. In Rattanlal v. State of Haryana A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 478 the Supreme Court was considering a question as to whether it was open to the State Government to appoint teachers on ad hoc basis at the commencement of the academic year and terminate their services before the commencement of the next summer vacation or earlier to appoint them again on an ad hoc basis at the commencement of next academic year and to terminate their services before the commencement of the succeeding summer vacation or earlier and to continue to do so year after year. Considering such appointments, the Supreme Court further held those ad hoc teachers are unnecessarily subjected to an arbitrary ‘hiring and firing’ policy. Those teachers who constitute the bulk of the educated unemployed are compelled to accept those jobs on and ad hoc basis with miserable conditions of service. The Supreme Court also held that the policy of ad hocism followed by the State Government for a long period has led to breach of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution and such a situation cannot be permitted to last any longer. In that view of the matter, the Supreme Court directed the State Government to take immediate steps to fill up the vacant posts in accordance with the relevant rules in which the teachers are appointed on ad hoc basis and allowed those teachers who are holding those posts on ad hoc basis to remain in those posts till the vacancies are duly filled up. In this case, as pointed out the Supreme Court was considering the ad hoc appointments as against the existing posts. In this case, as pointed out the Supreme Court was considering the ad hoc appointments as against the existing posts. The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of the State Government in appointing teachers on ad hoc basis as against the existing posts and consequently directed the State to fill up the vacancies as per the rules and allowed the teachers also to hold the posts till such time the posts are filled up as per Rules. 11. In the judgment reported in Union of India v. Debika Guha A.I.R. 2000 S.C.W. 3186 the Supreme Court was again considering the grievance of extra departmental agents of postal department who have worked for 180 days or more in one calendar year continuously for regularization of their services. However, in that case the Supreme Court did not accept the contention of the petitioners therein and held that when the Court had already decided that there cannot be a legal claim on the basis that “they have worked for 180 days continuously, it may not be necessary for us to consider that aspect of the matter. Indeed, if it is shown that they have worked for long periods continuously, it will be for the department to consider the same whether that was a proper case for absorption or not and pass appropriate orders.” After making the above observation, the Supreme Court however only directed the Union of India who was the appellant therein to examine the case of the workers for regular appointments. 12. In the judgments reported in The Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka The Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka The Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka (1983)3 S.L.R. 516 and The General Secretary, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna (1988)1 S.L.R. 349 in similar circumstances the Supreme Court framed schemes and directed the employer to implement the same. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rainod Labhu Bechar, 2001 Sol. Case No.036 was considering the question of employees who were engaged due to exigencies of work, without considering the relevant requirements for the purpose of regular appointment under the recruitment rules on daily rate basis, and directed the employer to absorb these employees in a phased manner. Case No.036 was considering the question of employees who were engaged due to exigencies of work, without considering the relevant requirements for the purpose of regular appointment under the recruitment rules on daily rate basis, and directed the employer to absorb these employees in a phased manner. That was a case where at the instance of the employees, the Industrial Tribunal went into the question of nature of work performed by the employees and finally directed the regularization of services of all such daily rated labourers who have completed 10 years of service as on 1.1.93 and pay all other allowances along with other benefits of permanent Class IV employees. The said award of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court and the writ petitioner was partly allowed setting aside the award with a direction that the appellant- University to make appointment to the workmen on the minimum of pay scale and also framed a scheme for regularization of such daily rated labourers. Pursuant to the said direction, a scheme was framed and the said scheme was also challenged by the employees before the Supreme Court. While considering the scheme, the Supreme Court approved the said scheme with some modification. The Supreme Court while approving the scheme had taken note of the fact with regard to the posts for which those persons were appointed, the recruitment rules did have these posts in its ambit, and yet not posts were created. The Supreme Court observed, “the Court does exercise its restrain where facts are such where extent of creation of post creates financial disability. But at this juncture we would like to express our note of caution, that this does not give larger to an institution to engage large number of daily age workers for long number of years without absorbing them or creating posts which constitutes an unfair labour practice. If finances are short engagement of such daily wage workers could only be for a short limited period and if continuous work is required it could only do so by creating permanent post. If finances are not available, rake such work which is within financial mean. Why take advantage out of it at the cost of workers.” 13. If finances are short engagement of such daily wage workers could only be for a short limited period and if continuous work is required it could only do so by creating permanent post. If finances are not available, rake such work which is within financial mean. Why take advantage out of it at the cost of workers.” 13. On consideration of the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is clear when the appointments are made on daily rated basis and the appointments are made as per the rules, those daily ratted employees are entitled to regularization in he respective posts. When an appointment is made on daily rated basis not in accordance with the rules as against the posts which are not existent as per the rules, and in the absence of any administrative instructions or statutory Rule enabling the Commission to appoint, those employees cannot have any right to claim regularization of services. However, in the interest of both the categories of employees, the Supreme Court has either framed a scheme or approved the scheme already framed for absorption and regularization in a phased manner. In this context, the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of U.P. v. Ajay Kumar State of U.P. v. Ajay Kumar State of U.P. v. Ajay Kumar (1997)4 S.C.C. 88 is relevant. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the case of appointments which were made against the posts not in existence and there were no statutory rules under which the employees could be regularized. While considering the same, the Supreme Court observed “it is no. settled legal position that there should exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory rules must be in operation to appoint a person to the post. Daily wage appointment will obviously be in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post and it continues so long as the work exists”. In that view of the matter, the Supreme Court did not accept the contention of the employees for regularization of the services. 14. Daily wage appointment will obviously be in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post and it continues so long as the work exists”. In that view of the matter, the Supreme Court did not accept the contention of the employees for regularization of the services. 14. Inthe judgment reported in Himanashu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar Himanashu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar Himanashu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar (1997)4 S.C.C. 391 the Supreme Court was considering a challenge to the retrenchment of the daily wage employees on the ground that the termination of their services was in violation of Sec.25(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Considering the said submission, the Supreme Court held ‘when the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of industry to that extend stands excluded. Admittedly, they were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work. They are temporary employees working on daily wages. Their disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act… since they were only daily wage employees and have no right to the posts, their disengagement is not arbitrary”. 15. Inthe judgment reported in Subedar Singh v. District Judge, Mirzapur A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 201 while considering a similar question of appointments made on ad hoc basis, the Supreme Court held that when the appointment to the post in question is governed by set of statutory rules, the employees appointed without reference to these rules cannot have a right for regularization. Inthe judgment reported in Subedar Singh v. District Judge, Mirzapur A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 201 while considering a similar question of appointments made on ad hoc basis, the Supreme Court held that when the appointment to the post in question is governed by set of statutory rules, the employees appointed without reference to these rules cannot have a right for regularization. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers Union, Thanjavur represented by its General Secretary Mr.S.Chandrakumar v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Madras and three others Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers Union, Thanjavur represented by its General Secretary Mr.S.Chandrakumar v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Madras and three others Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers Union, Thanjavur represented by its General Secretary Mr.S.Chandrakumar v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Madras and three others (1997)3 C.T.C. 535 rejected the request for regularization of seasonal employees by further holding that the term of appointments stipulated on seasonal employees are liable to be ousted without any notice. 16. Based upon the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, it is to be now considered as to whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization of their services. When the petitioners were appointed, they were made known that the appointments were purely on the basis of daily rate and the job is purely temporary and the petitioners will not be made permanent. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the sole purpose of engaging section writers or fair copyists is to assist the Commission staff in attending to various items of examination works. In order to conduct various examinations, the Commission sanctions additional staff to cope up with the increased volume of work from three to six months or up to a period as may be necessary. The works allotted to section writers, fair copyists are simple in nature such as scrutiny of applications, comparing of nominal list, checking of check list, despatch of hall tickets, typing of memos to the candidates etc. As soon as the examination works are completed, their services would be terminated as they are no longer required in the office. The works allotted to section writers, fair copyists are simple in nature such as scrutiny of applications, comparing of nominal list, checking of check list, despatch of hall tickets, typing of memos to the candidates etc. As soon as the examination works are completed, their services would be terminated as they are no longer required in the office. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that the examination work are seasonal and time bound in nature and their services cannot be continued in the Commission office continuously once the examination works are over. It is the further stand of the respondent that there is no post under the rules as section writers or fair copyists and the appointment of these petitioners were not made as per the rules as against any post much less any sanctioned post. It is the further contention of the respondent that even at the time when they were interviewed, they were specifically asked to submit a declaration that they will not claim regularization of their services since their employment as section writers and fair copyists were seasonal and time bound in nature and only to attend the examination work. However, the fact that most of the petitioners were engaged from the year 1990 onwards continuously. The work that the petitioners were assigned are of recurrence and continuous in nature though it may not be called as permanent nature. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that the works performed by the petitioners are seasonal cannot be accepted. However, the next question to be considered is as to whether the petitioners were appointed as against the existing posts and as per rules. The petitioners have not shown any materials to contend that the posts to which they were appointed namely section writers and fair copylists are the posts in existence as per th rules. Except saying that the names of the petitioners were sponsored by employment exchange, there is nothing to indicate that the appointment of the petitioners were made as per the rules to be followed for such appointments. The learned counsel for the petitioners also did not bring to my notice any statutory rule or regulation of the respondent-Commission enabling the Commission to either appoint or absorb and regularize the petitioners to the posts to which they are now holding. The learned counsel for the petitioners also did not bring to my notice any statutory rule or regulation of the respondent-Commission enabling the Commission to either appoint or absorb and regularize the petitioners to the posts to which they are now holding. In the absence of the appointment as per the rules and as against the posts which were in existence as per the rules as well as in the absence of any sanction to those posts and also in the absence of any instruction or statutory rule enabling the respondent-Commission to either appoint or absorb and regularize the services of the petitioners, I am not able to accept the contention of the petitioners that by virtue of their continuous service, they are eligible to be absorbed and their services should be regularized. The question of direction for absorption and regularization will arise only when there are sanctioned posts available and the petitioners were employed in such categories of posts as daily rated employees and have worked continuously for quite number of years, especially when the work as claimed by the respondent is only seasonal and to meet certain contingencies. As held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in State of U.P. v. Ajay Kumar State of U.P. v. Ajay Kumar State of U.P. v. Ajay Kumar (1997)4 S.C.C. 88 and Himantha Kumar v. State of Bihar Himantha Kumar v. State of Bihar Himantha Kumar v. State of Bihar (1997)4 S.C.C. 391 to seek for absorption and regularization, there must exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory rules must be in operation to appoint a person to such post. In the absence of any post in the category of section writers and fair copyists, this Court cannot direct the respondent to absorb the petitioners and regularize their services in the posts. An analysis of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners would indicate that wherever the appointments are made as against the category of posts existing under the rules, the Supreme Court had directed the absorption and regularization of services. However, when no such posts are available, the Supreme Court has refused to direct the absorption and regularization of services. However, when no such posts are available, the Supreme Court has refused to direct the absorption and regularization of services. It is also to be noted that the appointments were made contrary to rules, the order of termination or retrenchment cannot be questioned on the ground of violation of Arts.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the respective counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of the continuous service from the year 1990 onwards except for certain artificial break, the petitioners are entitled to be absorbed and their services are to be regularized and the order of terminations is bad. Accordingly, I reject these contentions. 17. Coming to the next question as to whether the petitioners should be left with no remedy in view of my above findings. It is not in dispute that most of the petitioners were working from the year 1990 on daily rate basis. The fact that they have been continuously engaged from the year 1990 would indicate the recurrence and continuous nature of the work for which these petitioners were appointed on daily rate basis and their names were also sponsored through employment exchange and they were interviewed and thereafter only they were appointed and most of he petitioners are either under graduates or post graduates. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be left with no remedy. As has been held by the Supreme Court, once the appointments have been made on daily rate wages, when consideration of absorption and regularization the age factor cannot weight with the employer and appropriate age relaxation has to be given to those employees in the event the employees are considered for absorption and regularization. As could be seen from the averments made in the affidavits, most of the petitioners have crossed their minimum age for applying to any post either in Government Departments or in other quasi Government bodies. While these aspect are taken into consideration, this Court cannot shut its eyes in entirety to the legitimate grievance of the petitioners for their claim for permanency in the respondent-Commission. In the absence of the post of section writers and fair copyists as contended by the respondent, these petitioners cannot be also considered for absorption. While these aspect are taken into consideration, this Court cannot shut its eyes in entirety to the legitimate grievance of the petitioners for their claim for permanency in the respondent-Commission. In the absence of the post of section writers and fair copyists as contended by the respondent, these petitioners cannot be also considered for absorption. However, as per the advertisement, petitioners have called for applications for preliminary examination for direct recruitments to as many as 13 category of posts each in Advt.No.20 of 1998 and in Advt.No.32 of 1998. The qualifications which are prescribed under the advertisements are only degree in under graduate. In similar circumstances, the Government of Tamil Nadu in order to accommodate similarly placed persons employed in Survey Department, Education Department and Revenue Department directed the employees to be absorbed in a phased manner. On a perusal of the Government Orders, it is clear that the policy of the Government of Tamil Nadu is to absorb such of those employees who have put in continuous service and regularize their services whenever the vacancies arise in the different departments of the Government. In this context, I take note of the observations of the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Daily Rated Causal Labour Employed Under P. & T. Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and others Daily Rated Causal Labour Employed Under P. & T. Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and others Daily Rated Causal Labour Employed Under P. & T. Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and others (1988)1 S.C.C. 122 which is extracted as follows: “India is a socialist republic. It implies the existence of certain important obligation which the State has to discharge. It implies the existence of certain important obligation which the State has to discharge. The right to work, the right to free choice of employment, the right to just and favourable conditions of work, the right to protection against unemployment, the right of everyone who works to juts and favourable remuneration ensuring a decent living for himself and his family, the right of everyone without discrimination of any kind to equal pay for equal work, the right to rest, leisure, reasonable limitation on working hours and periodic holidays with pay, the right to form trade unions and the right to join trade unions of ones choice and the right to security of work are some of the rights which have to be ensured by appropriate legislative and executive measures. It is true that all these rights cannot be extended simultaneously. But they do indicate the socialist goal. The degree of achievement in this direction depends upon the economic resources, willingness of the people to produce and more than all the existence of industrial peace throughout the country. Of those rights the question of security of work is of utmost importance. If a person does not have the feeling that he belongs to an organisation engaged in production he will not put forward his best effort to produce more. That sense of belonging arises only when he feels that he will not be turned out of employment the next day at the whim of the management. It is for this reason it is being repeatedly observed by those who are in charge of economic affairs of the countries in different parts of the world that as far as possible security of work should be assured to the employees so that they may contribute to the maximization of production. It is again for this reason that managements and the government agencies in particular should no allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for an unreasonable long period of time.” 18. It is again for this reason that managements and the government agencies in particular should no allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for an unreasonable long period of time.” 18. Keeping the above in mind, the respondent- Commission is directed to evolve a comprehensive scheme to provide appointments to the petitioners by adopting the following measures: • (i) By considering creation of permanent posts of section writers and fair copyists depending upon the financial implications and accommodating the petitioners according to the eligibility norms as may be fixed by the respondent for such posts as per rules and procedure for selection by giving relaxation of age. • (ii) By giving preference and considering such of those qualified persons for the sanctioned posts which have already arisen and would arise in future and appointing them subject to their satisfying the eligibility norms and successful in the selection process. • (iii) By recommending to the Government for the petitioners being considered for permanent appointments in suitable posts in the various departments of the Government. 19. It is made clear that if such recommendations are received, it is open to the Government to issue such orders as may be required for appointment of the petitioners to the posts to which they are eligible in various departments in tune with the policy of the Government. It is also made clear that the respondent shall not make appointments on daily rate basis for the posts of section writers and fair copyists from outsiders by replacing the petitioners from the said posts. 20. With the above observations, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, all the concerned W.M.Ps. are closed.