JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The Petitioner is an under graduate and passed Intermediate (Class XII) examination. He applied for the post of Class IV in the District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Muzaffarnagar. On 16.3.89, he was called for an interview and was selected as a watch boy. An appointment letter dated 9.5.89 was issued to him, which is appended as Annexure-2 to this petition. He was employed for a period of 90 days. The Petitioner joined his duties on 2.6.89 as a watch-boy in the Bank at the rate of Rs. 30 per day. His services as a daily rated workman was terminated on 16.8.89, vide Annexure-4 to the petition. 3. The Petitioner was again appointed on 2.11.89 as a daily wage employee for a specified period of 90 days and his services came to an end on 29.1.90. 4. On 7.2.90, the Petitioner was appointed yet for another period of 90 days, for sweeping work at the head office vide letter dated 3.5.90. Thereafter, he was not given any appointment. Thus, in a span of one year, he was employed for 204 days. 5. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there are 86 sanctioned posts of the Class IV employees but only 66 persons are working against these sanctioned posts. The remaining 20 sanctioned posts are still lying vacant in the Bank. It is alleged that the work on these posts is being taken from the daily wage employees, like the Petitioner with artificial breaks in service. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has invited the attention of the Court relating to paragraphs 14 and 16 of the writ petition in which it has been stated that the opposite party has been making fresh appointments for few months and terminates the services of the daily wage employees, like the Petitioner. 7. It has been further submitted that a large number of writ petitions have been filed before this Court and the orders passed in one of the writ petition viz., Writ Petition No. 1673 of 1993 is being quoted hereunder: Issue notice. 7. It has been further submitted that a large number of writ petitions have been filed before this Court and the orders passed in one of the writ petition viz., Writ Petition No. 1673 of 1993 is being quoted hereunder: Issue notice. In case the posts are available and juniors to the Petitioners are working and the conduct of the Petitioners are alright, then the Petitioners will be allowed to continue on the post held by them and they shall be paid their salaries. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the appointment of the Petitioner from time to time was for a specific period according to the exigency of work. 9. The interim order as relied on by the Petitioner is of no help to him and the Court has clearly indicated while passing the order that the Petitioner may be allowed to continue on the following contingencies: (i) If posts are available, (ii) Juniors to the Petitioners are working, and (iii) Conduct of the Petitioners are alright. 10. It is the settled law that it is the employers' prerogative to fill-up the post which has fallen vacant. The employer has right to determine the strength of workforce in the establishments. If the employer makes appointment for a specific period due to exigency of work then the regularisation on the post cannot be claimed as a matter or right. 11. It appears from the record that the Petitioner was appointed thrice for different types of work for a specific period and did not approach the Court at the relevant time for relief. On the contrary he filed representations dated 1.1.91, 16.2.92, 13.7.92, 7.11.93, 11.5.94 and 5.1.95. It cannot be presumed that filing of the representation will extend the period of limitation, if the relief is not claimed within the reasonable time. 12. The stand taken by the Respondents is that the Petitioner has no right on the post of daily wage employees as all the appointments had been made under Regulation 5 (11) (b) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. 13. Regulation 5 (11) (b) provides that an ad hoc appointment can be made only for a maximum period of six months. The appointments have to be approved by the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board. The Petitioner's appointment has never been approved by the Board. 13. Regulation 5 (11) (b) provides that an ad hoc appointment can be made only for a maximum period of six months. The appointments have to be approved by the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board. The Petitioner's appointment has never been approved by the Board. It is stated on behalf of the Bank that there are no vacancy of Class IV employee in the Bank and all the employees are working against 86 vacancies, which was sanctioned for the Bank. 14. It has further been denied by the counsel appearing for the Bank that Petitioner has not completed 240 days of continuous service in a year and no fresh appointment has been made. A daily wage employee has no right to the post and if there is a vacancy, then that should be filled in accordance with law. 15. Reliance has been placed in the case in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1997 SC 3657 , in which it has been held : The Petitioners who were appointed on daily wages as Assistant Driver and Peon in Co-operative Training Institute under the State Government, were terminated from service. They contended that they were retrenched from service in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Rejecting this contention: Held.-Every department of the Government be treated to be industry. When the appointments are regulated by the Statutory rules, the concept of industry to that extent stands excluded. The Petitioners 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 retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of retrenchment therefore cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees. Since the Petitioners are only daily wage employees and have no right to the posts, their disengagement is not arbitrary. In these circumstances, it would be proper to frame a scheme for the regularisation/absorption of daily wage employees in the sense. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others etc. etc., AIR 1992 SC 2130 and Niadar and Ors. v. Delhi Administration and others, has held that scheme should be framed for regularisation of daily wage employees. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others etc. etc., AIR 1992 SC 2130 and Niadar and Ors. v. Delhi Administration and others, has held that scheme should be framed for regularisation of daily wage employees. These decisions aforesaid have been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools v. M. Ranga Reddy 2000 (4) AWC 3357. 16. I, therefore, dispose of the writ petition in view of the Articles 38(1), 19(e) and 43 of the Constitution with the following directions: (i) Respondents will prepare a list of all daily wages, ad hoc employees and casual employees, employed after 1.1.89, who are still in the employment on the date of this judgment. (ii) The list will also include those employees whose case regarding termination are pending before the High Court, Labour Court or Civil Court. (iii) The seniority list will be prepared from the initial date of appointment of the employees. (iv) No further daily wage, ad hoc or casual/temporary employee shall be appointed/engaged henceforth till the list is exhausted. (v) The list prepared as above will be sent to the Service Institutional Board for approval within three months from the date of this judgment. (vi) On approval of employees they shall be regularised against the existing sanctioned posts strictly according to seniority in existing vacancies and in future as and when vacancies arise. (vii) The employees shall be appointed keeping in view the eligibility criteria and medical fitness, and past conduct of the employees. 17. The Petitioner's service having not been approved by the Service Institutional Board, is not liable to be regularised in service. However, his case for appointment in the Bank may be considered according to the scheme given by this Court above or any other scheme of regularisation which has been adopted by the Board along with other daily wage employees. 18. In view of the aforesaid observations and reasons, the petition is dismissed. 19. No order as to costs.