ORDER: The petitioners are admittedly temporary appointees and the respondents availed their service to copy down the entries in Birth and Death Register maintained by the respondents herein. 2. The derails of engagement and disengagement of the petitioner in W.P.No.14188 of 1996 are as follows. 14.05.1990 - Appointed 13.08.1990 - Disengaged 14.08.1990 to 01.04.1991 - Worked in Bahour Commune Panchayat without break 30.04.1991 - Appointed 11.10.1991 - Disengaged 23.10.1991 - Appointed 22.10.1991 - Disengaged 01.06.1993 - Appointed 19.09.1995 - Disengaged 06.10.1995 - Appointed 20.11.1995 - Disengaged 14.12.1995 - Appointed 29.04.1996 - Disengaged 21.05.1996 - Appointed 3. The details of engagement and disengagement of the petitioners in W.P.No.4376 of 1997 are as follows: Petitioners Date Period Date of Termination 1, 2 and 4 11.5.1990 90 days 11.8.1990 1 and 4 03.4.1991 (Interview on the basis of Employment Exchange recommendation) at Rs.27 per day 90 days 10.4.1991 1 15.7.1991 Extended for six months 11.10.1991 1 23.10.1991 1 year at the rate of Rs.32 per day 11.10.1992 1 and 2 7.5.1993 Again linterview on the basis of Employment Exchange recommendation 26.5.1993 total period of 90 days 29.9.1993 1 and 2 24.5.1996 (Interview thro' Employment Exchange) 9.6.1994 (Appointment for 90 days at Rs. 40 per day) 18.10.1994 1, 2 and 3 28.2.1995 Reappointment for 6 months at Rs.43 per day 19.5.1995 1, 2 and 3 13.12.1995 5.12.1995 Interview through Employment Exchange 2.5.1996 -do- 20.5.1996 45 days — -do- 18.9.1996 Engaged for 15 days — 4. From the above details, it is very clear that the appointment of the petitioners, by the respondents, are purely temporary. However, in W.P.No.14188 of 1996, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to regularise his services against the existing vacancy of Clerk-Etat-Civil with all consequential benefits and in W.P.No.4376 of 1997, the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-engage them in the post of Clerk-Etat-Civil. 5. Mr.K.Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in A.Ilango and others v. Union of India, 1996 W.L.R. 503, contends that the petitioners are entitled to regularisation of service, in view of their continuous service of more than 240 days. 5. Mr.K.Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in A.Ilango and others v. Union of India, 1996 W.L.R. 503, contends that the petitioners are entitled to regularisation of service, in view of their continuous service of more than 240 days. 6.Per contra, Mr.T.Murugesan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents relying on the decisions in (a) State of H.P. v. Ashwani Kumar, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 352; (b) Hafiq Ahmed and another v. State of Rajasthan and others, (1999)9 Supreme 221 and (c) Ramakrishna Kamat and others v. State of Karnataka and others, J.T. (2003)2 S.C. 88, contends that the petitioners, who are concedely temporary appointees, have no right to seek regularisation of their service and to re-engage them, as the very scheme of copying the entries in Birth and Death Register has already got exhausted and that they were appointed temporarily only to meet contingency. 7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 8. The details that the petitioners were employed by the respondents only as temporary is not disputed. 9. The daily rated casual labourers employed in the Department of Pondicherry Legislative Assembly, whose termination came up before this Court in A.Ilango and others v. Union of India, 1996 W.L.R. 503, this Court, taking into consideration the continuous need of the engagement of the daily rated casual labourers in that case, gave a direction to the respondent to regularise the service of the said petitioners. But, in the instant case, the petitioners were admittedly engaged to copy down the entries in the Birth and Death Register, which is purely a seasonal one and the service rendered by the petitioners are temporary, admittedly for the purpose of copying down the entries in Birth and Death Register. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the decision A. Ilango and others v. Union of India, 1996 W.L.R. 503, will not, in any way, help the petitioners. 10. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the decision A. Ilango and others v. Union of India, 1996 W.L.R. 503, will not, in any way, help the petitioners. 10. On the other hand, the law as to the rights of the temporary employees seeking regularisation is now well settled by the Apex Court in State of H.P. v. Ashwani Kumar, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 352, that the High Court was not right in giving direction to regularise the temporary employees who were engaged only for the project, which was completed and closed due to the non-availability of the funds, and that the directions of the High Court to regularise such temporary employees creating of posts and continuing them in spite of non availability of the funds and work is absolutely illegal. 11. Again, in Hafiq Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan, (1999)9 Supreme 221 , the Apex Court has held that when the posts are created temporarily for fulfilling the needs of a particular project of scheme limited in its duration come to an end on account of the need for the project itself having come to an end either because the project was fulfilled or had to be abandoned wholly or partially for want of funds, the employer cannot by a writ of mandamus be directed to continue employing such employees as have been dislodged because such a direction would amount to requisition for creating of posts though not required by the employer and funding such posts though the employer did not have the funds available for the purpose. 12. The Apex Court in a recent decision Ramakrishna Kamat v. State of Karnataka, J.T. (2003)2 S.C. 88, reiterating the views taken in State of H.P. v. Ashwani Kumar, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 352 and Hafiq Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan, (1999)9 Supreme 221 , held that it may not be proper to regularise the service of the temporary appointees. 13. The above decisions are directly on the point that temporary appointees are not entitled to regularisation of service and the same squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as prayed for as a matter of right. 14. Finding no merit, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No.7275 of 1997 is also dismissed.