A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) SINCE the question of law involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in all the writ petitions were working as Attenders, Drivers and Fishermen in Fish Farmers Development Agency and Brackish Water Fish Farmers Development Agency (for short "ffda" and "bfda") for the development of fish activities in the State. The above said agencies are fully owned and controlled by the Government. The Government by its G. O. Ms. No. 20 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Fish. II) Department dated 25-2-1997 decided to discontinue the said agencies. Questioning the same, some writ petitions are filed. On such discontinuance of the said agencies, the Director of Fisheries issued proceedings in Memo No. 23825/b1/ 96 dated 21-2-1997 directing the Regional Deputy Directors of Fisheries to approach the District Collectors for absorption of the employees appointed by the FFDAs and BFDAs in any other District Level Agencies. The first petitioner in WP No. 6167 of 1997 filed WP No. 17031 of 1993 before this Court for regularisation of his services. The same was allowed by this Court by order dated 16-1-1996. Following the said judgment some writ petitions are filed. ( 3 ) WHEN the above writ petitions are pending, Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 45 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Fish. II) Department dated 13-5-1997 removing the employees who were directly recruited by FFDAs and BFDAs by giving financial package on line with erstwhile employees of HAL under the provisions of ID Act. Questioning the same, WP Nos. 17885 of 1997 and 21908 of 1997, 21818 of 1997 are filed. It is stated by the petitioners therein that on the recommendations of the Committee for setting up FFDAs and BFDAs in the selected Districts of the State to achieve high yields of production and develop techniques of fish culture and to create rural employment, FFDAs and BFDAs were constituted. The said agencies were registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and the recruitment was made in the said agencies from the candidates those who were sponsored from the Employment Exchanges. The said agencies were registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and the recruitment was made in the said agencies from the candidates those who were sponsored from the Employment Exchanges. Many of the petitioners who were working as drivers, watchmen and fishermen on daily wage basis moved earlier this Court for payment of regular pay scale on par with the Government employees and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, they were being paid on par with the Government employees. ( 4 ) MANY of the petitioners who were recruited in the year 1986 and are continuing in service since last 10 or 11 years and when their services were abruptly terminated filed the present writ petitions questioning G. O. Ms. No. 20 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Fish. II) Department dated 25-2-1997 and consequential order issued in Memo dated 28-2-1997 relieving the petitioners from FFDAs, and for consequential direction to accommodate or absorb the petitioners in District Level agencies or in the Fisheries Department wherever vacancies are available as per the directions issued by the Director of Fisheries dated 21-2-1997. ( 5 ) IN all the cases, the respondents filed a counter stating that the Government of India recommended for setting up FFDAs and BFDAs in selected districts in the year 1979 with a view to promote intensive pisciculture of high yielding varieties of fish which will co-ordinate the role of State and Central Government, Commercial Banks and fish farmers and to promote economic viability of the farmers. The agencies will select suitable farms and arrange institutional training in pond culture and provide financial assistance to the farmers to take up intensive pisciculture by the farmers and bring more water spread area under pisciculture. The said agencies will have a Managing Committee under the Chairmanship of District Collector and an Executive wing headed the Chief Executive Officer. The FFDAs and BFDAs have been organized and registered under A. P. Public Societies Registration Act, 1860 by the District Registrar of the concerned district. The Managing Committee consisting of members as per the Articles of Association to implement the programmes effectively. Under this scheme the total payment of subsidy under various programmes will be met by Government of India and State Government on 50:50 basis. In respect of salaries to the staff, the entire expenditure has to be met from State funds only. The Managing Committee consisting of members as per the Articles of Association to implement the programmes effectively. Under this scheme the total payment of subsidy under various programmes will be met by Government of India and State Government on 50:50 basis. In respect of salaries to the staff, the entire expenditure has to be met from State funds only. In order to achieve objectives of FFDAs and BFDAs, it was necessitated to appoint the required staff as per the pattern as stated in the counter. Pursuant to the communication sent by Government of India in its letter dated 29-11-1973 staff were taken on deputation wherever possible and some CEOs have appointed locally the staff like typist-cum-clerk, driver, attender after obtaining the approval of the Managing Committee on temporary basis. The scheme of FFDAs and BFDAs was sponsored to be dispensed with in IX Five Year Plan for the following reasons:1. Non-achievement of targets by FFDAs of State as assigned by GOI. 2. On evaluation, it was noticed that expenditure on development is less and expenditure on staff and contingencies more comparatively. 3. Due to limitation of funds allotted to Fisheries Department in IX Plan. 4. Development of pisciculture in private sector making Government sponsored FFDAs redundant. ( 6 ) THE department has submitted proposals giving details of the plan schemes under implementation and requested for orders regarding continuation vide DFs Lr. No. 57/bl/97 dated 15-1-1997. After examining the proposals Government have issued orders in G. O. Ms. No. 20 dated 25-2-1997 ordering to discontinue the schemes such as FFDAs, BFDAs, and subsidy for exemption of central excise duty on HSD oil supplied to the fishing boats. Consequent upon issue of above GO, the Government has repatriated all the employees sent on deputation to the agencies and adjusted them in the vacant posts and creating supernumerary posts to avoid retrenchment. But it was noticed that 34 employees were recruited directly by the Agencies were also available in the Agencies who could noc be absorbed as they were not Government employees. Some of the employees approached this Court and obtained orders for their regularization/ continuation of services. In obedience to the orders passed by this Court, employees directly appointed by Agencies at Kurnool, Sangareddy, Karimnagar etc. , have been regularized by the Agencies indicating that their services will be restricted to the agency only. Some of the employees approached this Court and obtained orders for their regularization/ continuation of services. In obedience to the orders passed by this Court, employees directly appointed by Agencies at Kurnool, Sangareddy, Karimnagar etc. , have been regularized by the Agencies indicating that their services will be restricted to the agency only. In order to rehabilitate them, the instructions were issued to all the RDDFs to approach the District Collectors and adjust them in other similar agencies at district level. Except at Nalgonda District, the District Collectors have not adjusted them for the reason that there are no vacancies in other similar agencies at District Level Agencies. Act 14 of 1997 prohibits appointment of agency employees in Government Departments. In view of the fact that it is not possible to rehabilitate the agency employees, the Government issued orders providing financial package on line with erstwhile employees of HAL and removing them under the provisions of ID Act. Though ID Act will not apply in letter and spirit as the agency staff were appointed by the Agencies directly which was registered under A. P. Public Societies Registration Act, 1860. But with a view to remove the hardship financial package has been proposed to rehabilitate them. In view of the same, the claim of the petitioners for absorption into Government service is not tenable. As the petitioners services are no longer required since the agencies in which they worked have already been discontinued with effect from 1-3-1997, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for absorption as claimed. ( 7 ) IT is argued by Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP Nos. 6176 of 1997 and 12664 of 1997 that the petitioner No. 1 in WP No. 6176 of 1997 was appointed as watchman and petitioners 2 and 4 were drivers and petitioners 3 and 5 were fishermen and they were working since last 10 to 14 years. Petitioner No. 1 in WP No. 12664 of 1997 was appointed as Watchman in the year 1986 and his services were regularized. Whereas the services of all other petitioners were not regularized. When the Director of Fisheries issued a memo dated 21-2-1997 directing the Regional Deputy Directors of Fisheries to approach the District Collector for absorption of the employees recruited by FFDAs and BFDAs in any other District Level Agencies, the Government issued G. O. Ms. Whereas the services of all other petitioners were not regularized. When the Director of Fisheries issued a memo dated 21-2-1997 directing the Regional Deputy Directors of Fisheries to approach the District Collector for absorption of the employees recruited by FFDAs and BFDAs in any other District Level Agencies, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 20, dated 25-2-1997 discontinuing the schemes like FFDAs and BFDAs. This Court while admitting the writ petitions, issued interim directions directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the Memo dated 21-2-1997 issued by the Director of Fisheries. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioners 1 to 5 were continued in the Office of Assistant Director of Fisheries. In view of the same, Act 14 of 1997 will not come in their way for absorption. Learned Counsel further contends that a scheme has to be formulated for re-habilitation as per Section 4 of the Act and the petitioners are entitled to the absorption in terms of the Memo issued by the Director of Fisheries dated 21-2-1997. ( 8 ) SRI V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in some of the writ petitions i. e. , WP Nos. 8959 of 1997, 9864 of 1997, 11867 of 1997, 17885 of 1997 and 21908 of 1997 while sailing with Sri M. Vijay Kumar brought to my notice about the proposal submitted to Government of India to revive BFDA scheme which was renamed as Integrated Coastal Aquaculture and orders of the Government are awaited and due to closure of BFDAs and FFDAs there is no equal organisations to absorb them as per Court directions and if Government relaxes the existing rules, they may be considered to absord in the vacancies to the extent available in the department keeping in view of the service rendered in relaxation of the conditions laid down in Act. 2 of 1994 as fresh candidates by the Commissioner offisheries in his letter No. 3330/a4/1997 dated 24-11-1999. The Commissioner further through his letter dated 24-2-2000 requested the Government to consider the representation of the petitioners as a special case and relax rules in their favour and accord permission for their absorption in the vacancies available in the department as requested by him through letter dated 24-11-1999. The Commissioner further through his letter dated 24-2-2000 requested the Government to consider the representation of the petitioners as a special case and relax rules in their favour and accord permission for their absorption in the vacancies available in the department as requested by him through letter dated 24-11-1999. Though the Commissioner specifically requested for absorption the Government is under an obligation to pass appropriate orders taking into the recommendations suggested by the Commissioner in their letters referred to above, so far no orders were passed by the Government in view of pendency of writ petitions. Therefore, he requests that Government may be directed to pass appropriate orders on the recommendations sent by the Commissioner of Fisheries for absorption of the petitioners in the existing vacancies of Fisheries Department or any other department wherever vacancies are available. ( 9 ) SRI M. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel representing Sri B. Nageswara Rao contends that the petitioners in WP No. 9294 of 1997 and 9300 of 1997 that the petitioners who were appointed as driver and typists in the year 1993 and 1992, their services were discontinued and this Court has not granted interim order and they are entitled to be considered for absorption in any of the Government Departments on par with the Government employees. In some of the District employees who were appointed by the Agencies were absorbed in Government Departments, therefore, he argues that the petitioners may be absorbed on the same lines in the District Level Agencies and a direction may be given to that effect. ( 10 ) SRI D. Govardhana Chary, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP Nos. 8629 of 1997, 16815 of 1997 and 21110 of 1997 argued on similar lines for regularisation of service and for implementation of the memo issued by the Director of Fisheries dated 21-2-1997. He further contended that Act 14 of 1997 will not be applicable to the petitioners as the said Act was prohibited absorption of employees who are working in Industrial public Sector Undertakings but it does not prohibit the absorption of the employees in the above agencies. He further contended that Act 14 of 1997 will not be applicable to the petitioners as the said Act was prohibited absorption of employees who are working in Industrial public Sector Undertakings but it does not prohibit the absorption of the employees in the above agencies. ( 11 ) IN nut-shell, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions is that the some of the petitioners, whose services were terminated, were continued in service by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court, the remaining petitioners are entitled to be absorbed in the District Level Agencies or in the Government Departments wherever vacancies are available, but they cannot be thrown out at this stage on the closure of the above agencies. Once the Commissioner of Fisheries recommended for absorption of the petitioners, the Government is bound to consider the same and absorb the petitioners in Government Department by relaxing the rules in their favour. ( 12 ) SRI D. Prakash Reddy, learned Additional Advocate-General for the respondents has argued that no direction can be given by the High Court for formulation of a scheme as Section 4 of Act 14 of 1997 applies only in case where there is a scheme of rehabilitation and the bar envisaged under it would not disentitle the employees the benefits of any scheme of rehabilitation under the Government Orders issued from time to time. In the absence of any scheme which is issued by the Government for rehabilitation, no mandamus can be issued to formulate a scheme as contended by the petitioners. He further submits that Commissioner s letter dated 21-2-1997 and subsequent letters do not create any right on the petitioner for their absorption or for relaxation of rules for absorption in the Government Departments and relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right as no such equivalent posts are available in the concerned departments. In view of the said circumstances, Government by G. O. Ms. No. 45 dated, 13-5-1997 provided financial package benefit of (a) 45 days pay DA for each completed year of service; (b) gratuity admissible 15/26 days for each completed year of service and other statutory payments and the entire amount proposed under (a) and (b) will not be less than Rs. 30,000/ -. No. 45 dated, 13-5-1997 provided financial package benefit of (a) 45 days pay DA for each completed year of service; (b) gratuity admissible 15/26 days for each completed year of service and other statutory payments and the entire amount proposed under (a) and (b) will not be less than Rs. 30,000/ -. In view of the legal impediment under Act 14 of 1997, it is not possible to absorb any one of the petitioners. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, MP v. Bal Kishnan Soni and others, (1997) 5 SCC 86 , learned Additional Advocate-General argued that no mandamus could be issued for regularization or absorption in the absence of clear vacancies available. He lastly contended that the petitioners couldn t claim plea of discrimination by invoking Article 14 of the Constitution as the same will be applicable only to the persons similarly situated but not because some of the persons who were absorbed in Fisheries Department pursuant to the interim orders granted by this Court as the interim orders are subject to the final result of the writ petition. When rules do not permit for absorption by way of transfer, no mandamus can be issued to violate the rules for such absorption on the ground of equality that some of the employees were absorbed, which will amount to perpetuating illegality through judicial process by placing reliance on the following judgments. 1. State of Punjab v. Tara Singh Shahi, (1996) 8 SCC 448 . 2. State of Orissa v. Sukanti Mohapatra, (1993) 2 SCC 486 . ( 13 ) IT is not in dispute that all the petitioners who were appointed under FFDAs and BFDAs are the societies registered under A. P. Public Societies Registration Act to promote intensive pisciculture of high yielding varieties of fish and the main object of the above agencies is to promote economic viability of the farmers and also to select suitable farmers and arrange institutional training in pond culture and provide financial assistance to the farmers to take up intensive pisciculture and bring more water spread area under pisciculture. The schemes were abolished by G. O. Ms. No. 20 as funding agency i. e. , Central Government stopped allocation of funds to the said agencies. The schemes were abolished by G. O. Ms. No. 20 as funding agency i. e. , Central Government stopped allocation of funds to the said agencies. ( 14 ) THE Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nodha Ram, AIR 1997 SC 1445 , considered the effect of closure of project and vis-a-vis the temporary employees employed in such project and held that when the project is completed and closed due to non-availability of funds, the employees have to go along with its closure. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them or to continue in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employment. In such cases, direction cannot be given to regularise their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor can direction be given to State to create posts in a non-existent establishment. ( 15 ) THE petitioners who are all appointed on temporary basis after approval of the respective Managing Committees cannot claim regularization as a matter of right basing upon the memo issued by the Commissioner of Fisheries dated 21-2-1997 wherein he directed the Regional Deputy Directors of Fisheries to approach the District Collector concerned for absorption in District Level Agencies. Merely because some of the petitioners who obtained interim orders and who were absorbed in the Fisheries Department, the same cannot be treated as a precedent to claim absorption on par with them in the Government Department. Moreover, rules do not permit such absorption. ( 16 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners have not placed any rule or regulation which permits absorption of the petitioners who are working under specific projects in Government Departments. In the absence of the same, a mandamus cannot be issued for absorption of the petitioners in Government Departments de hors the rules. It is well settled principle of law that for issuance of a mandamus there should be an existing legal right under the relevant statute or rules or regulations which confer a right on the petitioners to claim absorption. Infact Act 14 of 1997 puts an embargo for such absorption of the employees into Government Departments. In view of the said bar envisaged in the Act 14 of 1997, a mandamus cannot be issued for absorption of the petitioner into Government Departments, which amounts to directing the authorities to violate the law which prohibits such absorption. Infact Act 14 of 1997 puts an embargo for such absorption of the employees into Government Departments. In view of the said bar envisaged in the Act 14 of 1997, a mandamus cannot be issued for absorption of the petitioner into Government Departments, which amounts to directing the authorities to violate the law which prohibits such absorption. Even assuming that if the petitioners are entitled to absorption in Government Departments, further difficulty which may arise in the present writ petitions is that all the petitioners are claiming absorption in Government Department i. e. , Fisheries Department only. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125 , the petitioners have to approach the A. P. Administrative Tribunal as a first forum and this Court cannot entertain such writ petitions and issue direction for absorption of the petitioners in Government Departments. It is also well settled that even if some persons were absorbed pursuant to the interim orders granted by this Court or otherwise, the same cannot be a precedent to claim the same benefit on the ground of equality as that would amount to perpetuate the illegality through judicial process, which Courts cannot do in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the petitioners establish that they have enforceable right to claim such absorption under any rules. ( 17 ) IT is represented by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that some of the petitioners who worked for more than 10 or 14 years in various capacities are seeking absorption in Government Departments will become age barred and they are required to be considered sympathetically. The submission made by the learned Counsel for absorption of writ petitioners on humanitarian grounds cannot be countenanced. In this connection it is worth noting the observation made by Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy in Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Roochira Ceramics, (1996) 6 SCC 584 , that "there is no room for any benevolence under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the Courts depart from law and entering the arena of benevolence, the perils and pitfalls are too many to recount. If the Courts depart from law and entering the arena of benevolence, the perils and pitfalls are too many to recount. " In view of the above, it is not possible for this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioners in the Fisheries Department as per the legal constraints envisaged in Chandra Kumar s case (supra ). In view of the fact that a proposal was already submitted to Government of India to revive the BFDA scheme which was renamed as Integrated Coastal Aquaculture, it is open for the Government to make some effort to salvage the situation if possible, including relaxing the existing service rules for absorbing them in the vacancies to the extent available in the department keeping in view of their long service rendered. If it is not possible to accommodate them (the writ petitioners) it is open for the respondents to implement the financial package benefits provided in G. O. Ms. No. 45 dated 13-5-1997. ( 18 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of absorption in Government Departments wherever vacancies are available. I do not find any merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. ( 19 ) THE writ petitions are Appeal dismissed. No costs.