R.B.MISRA. J.: Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, the learned coun­sel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. U.B. Saha, the learned, Sr. Government Advocate assisted by Mr. T. D. Majumder, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. In this writ petition prayer has been made for directing the respondent to regular­ize the services of the petitioners to the post/ grade commensurate to their educational qualification since the date of their initial join­ing to the service as Contingent Workers along with consequential service benefits by obtain­ing financial concurrence of the State Gov­ernment and also for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the appointment of 500 Lower Division Clerks/Panchayat Secretar­ies as illegal and arbitrary along with the prayer for declaring the Memorandum No. F. 10( 16)-Fin(G)/99 dated 22.3.2001 as unjustified and unreasonable. 3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that some of the petitioners being High School Pass, some being holding Senior Secondary Certificate and some being Graduate were deployed in the Panchayat Department as Contingent Workers (in Group-C category) in between October and November, 1990 as indicated in para 2 of the writ petition. Initially they along with 1666 persons were engaged at the rate of Rs. 24/- per day however, subse­quently they were deployed in different De­partments of the State Government at the enhance rate of Rs. 65/- per day from 1.1.2003 and for such purpose even budget­ary allocations were made from 1994-95 to 2003-2004. On 20.3.1992 the Director of Panchayats, Government of Tripura issued Memorandum No. F. 1(5-152)-Estt./PR/87/ 9645-12,333 specifying functions/duties of the Contingent/Daily Rated Workers at the Gaon Panchayat level accordingly, the ser­vices of the petitioners were to be utilized in different sphere including maintaining and running the Panchayat Libraries, wherever, ex­isting and in addition to their engagement in office work and subsequently by another Notification dated 11.10.1994 many functions of Rural Development, Food Department, Social Welfare & Social Welfare Department, I.F.C. & P.H.C. Department, Revenue De­partment, Animal Resources Development Department, Industries Department and For­est Department were entrusted to the Panchayat Department and as a result, these Contingent Workers of the Panchayat Depart­ment were deployed in these Departments. However, more than five hundred appoint­ments of Lower Division Clerks/Panchayat Secretaries/Bengali Typists-cum-L.D. Clerk were made on fixed pay basis in July, 2003 ignoring the claims of the petitioners despite their continuous deployment for about 14 years. However, more than five hundred appoint­ments of Lower Division Clerks/Panchayat Secretaries/Bengali Typists-cum-L.D. Clerk were made on fixed pay basis in July, 2003 ignoring the claims of the petitioners despite their continuous deployment for about 14 years. According to the petitioners 26 simi­larly situated Contingent Workers deployed prior to the year 1990 were given regular ap­pointments to the posts of Panchayat Secre­taries with regular pay scale of Rs. 930-24/-vide order dated 20.10.1992 without obtain­ing concurrence of Finance Department. On enquiry, it has been revealed that in reference to Memorandum No. F.10(16)-Fin (G)/99 dated 22.3.2001 the question of regulariza-tion of Daily Rated Workers/Contingent Workers (Group-D and Group-C) came up for consideration by the State Government where 10% of the total vacancies of Group-C and Group-D posts arising in a particular year for direct recruitment were to be filed up from amongst the existing Daily Rated Workers/Contingent Workers, like the peti­tioners. According to the .petitioners, the Memorandum dated 22.3.2001 is unreason­able and unjustified as the same has imposed arbitrary restrictions specifying only 10% of the vacancies for a particular year for direct recruitment and by limiting such percentage of recruitment. 4. The counter affidavit has been filed. It has been submitted by Mr. U.B. Saha, the learned Sr. Government Advocate for the respondents that the petitioners were engaged in the Panchayat Department illegally during 1990 along with large number of Contingent Workers without any approval of the Finance Department, Government of Tripura, without any vacancy or posts without calling names from employment exchange, without adver­tising or publishing to the public and both, without constituting selection committee to conduct selection, interview or to follow res­ervation policy and all these deployment was from backdoor in defiance of even norms of general recruitment, however, in contingency to cop up the work at the prevailing time. In reference to the assertions made in the counter affidavit these illegally appointed pe­titioners along with others were to be disen­gaged for financial constraints of State Gov­ernment, however, they are continuing at the courtesy of the State Government. In reference to the assertions made in the counter affidavit these illegally appointed pe­titioners along with others were to be disen­gaged for financial constraints of State Gov­ernment, however, they are continuing at the courtesy of the State Government. The wages, as prescribed by the State Government from time to time are also being paid to the peti­tioners also keeping in view the problem of large number of contingent workers even a scheme of regularization dated 22.3.2001 was promulgated and many of the similarly situ­ated contingent workers or daily rated work­ers engaged in the year 1990 were given sta­tus after being declared successful in the re­cruitment, however, it is not known whether the petitioners availed of the opportunities or not? 5. The scheme of regularization is ex­tracted here as below :- "Government of Tripura Department of Finance No.F. 10( 16)Fin(G)/99 Agartala, March 22,2001 MEMORANDUM Subject:- Introduction of special scheme forregularization of Daily Rated Workers, Contingent Work­ers etc. The question of regularization of Daily Rate/Con­tingent, etc. Workers (both Gr. Gr-D & C) has been under consideration of the Government for some­time. Keeping this in view and after considering all the aspects, the Governor of Tripura is pleased to order that henceforth 10 percent of the total vacan­cies of Gr. -C or Gr-D posts, as the case may be, arising in a particular year for direct recruitment may be filled up from amongst the existing eligible Daily Rated Workers/Contingent Workers etc. of the fol­lowing categories, who were engaged against the post created as well as continued upto date with the con­currence of the Finance Department. (a) Monthly Rated Contingent Workers (Gr-C & Gr-D) (b) Daily Rated Contingent Workers (Gr-C & Gr-D) (c) Contract Gr-D (d) Folk Artist 2. Such Daily Rated Contingent Workers may be­come eligible after putting in at least 5 years of con­tinuous and satisfactory service for consideration of their absorption in regular service. 3. While regularizing them the existing provision of SC/ST reservation shall be applicable. 4. This scheme ofregularization shall come into force with immediate effect. Sd/-N.C.Sen Joint Secretary Government of Tripura To All Departments/Heads of Departments/Special Sec­retary (Hone) Copy to :-The Accountant General Tripura." 6. The eligible Daily rated Workers/Con­tingent Workers etc. engaged against created posts with concurrence of the Finance De­partment were to be considered for regularization. 4. This scheme ofregularization shall come into force with immediate effect. Sd/-N.C.Sen Joint Secretary Government of Tripura To All Departments/Heads of Departments/Special Sec­retary (Hone) Copy to :-The Accountant General Tripura." 6. The eligible Daily rated Workers/Con­tingent Workers etc. engaged against created posts with concurrence of the Finance De­partment were to be considered for regularization. The policy so framed by the State Government are made in public interest and any exception to the recognized policy of the Government would invite chaotic situation in the administration. Enquity does not demand any deviation from the norms set out in the policy of the State. Therefore, the petitioners case would only be considered for regularization in the light of the policy of the Govern­ment. Remaining as contingent workers for long years do not confer upon the petitioners any right of consideration in violation of the policy of the Government. According to the petitioners it is the irregularities which could be regularized and not the illegalities and the petitioners initially ii legally deployed as con­tingent/daily worker as such have no right to the post or could legally claim for regularization in absence of the post and any rule framed for the purpose and thus may be disengaged. The petitioners never performed duties and responsibilities of regular employees. The case of the petitioners are not comparable to the case of regular employees of the Depart­ment. Doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' has no manner of application in the case in hand as according to the respondents none of the rights what to say any fundamental rights of petitioners are hit by the provisions of Ar­ticles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the petitioner had been engaged for such a long period and had been working satisfactorily then the respondents must be regularized even after creating sufficient number of vacancies or posts if need and that they could not be thrown on roads. In support, he has placed reliance upon JT1996 (8) SC 1, Central Welfare Board and Ors. Vs. Ms. Anjali Bepari and Ors. and (2001) 3 SCC 574 , Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar and Ors. To strengthen the cause while placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State ofHaryana Vs. Piara Singh, JT 1992 (5) SC 179, Khagesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. Vs. Ms. Anjali Bepari and Ors. and (2001) 3 SCC 574 , Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar and Ors. To strengthen the cause while placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State ofHaryana Vs. Piara Singh, JT 1992 (5) SC 179, Khagesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. I. G. Registration and Ors., JT 1995(7) SC 545 and State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Putti Lal (1998) 1 UPLBEC 313. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Khagesh Kumar (supra) the writ petitioners there were entitled to be consid­ered for regularization under the provisions of the U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Ap­pointments (On Posts outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 as amended upto date like this in present case petitioners may be directed for regularization and equal pay for equal work especially in. 8. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is an element of public interest created by the Government in mat­ters of appointment on daily wages for or in connection with the affairs of the State and Consequently the daily rated employees get an element of public interest in the perfor­mance of their duties. The element of public interest being so pronounced, it cannot be repudiated, set of rules to be framed in con­sonance with the imperatives of Articles 14, 16,38,39,41 and 43 of the Constitution and compatible with the reservation policy of the State in the matters governing appointment on daily wages for on in connection with the affairs of the State. The appointments of daily rated employees might be referable to con­tingent establishment but payments of wages would nonetheless by the payment charged in the public fund and the State or its author­ity cannot be allowed to have a Carte blanche of lending out favour or bestowing be nevolence on a chosen few on extraneous consideration and at the expenses of public exchequer. The daily rated employees en­gaged in Government Departments, do ac­quire in the course of time, a status and cer­tain rights and privileges lending justification to interference by the court in order to pro­tect such rights and privilege and the provi­sions contained in Articles 38,39,41 and 43 of the Constitution. The daily rated employees en­gaged in Government Departments, do ac­quire in the course of time, a status and cer­tain rights and privileges lending justification to interference by the court in order to pro­tect such rights and privilege and the provi­sions contained in Articles 38,39,41 and 43 of the Constitution. A constitutional duty/ob­ligation is cast upon this court to ensure that the laudable objectives sought to be achieved by the constitutional provisions afore-stated are not overreached by those duty it is to pro­mote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may, a so­cial order in which justice-social, economic and political-informs all the institutions of the National Life, to strive to minimize the inequal­ity in income and endeavour to eliminate in­equalities in status, facilities and opportuni­ties amongst individuals; to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work, health and strength of workers, and, within the limits of its economic capacity to make effective provisions for securing the right to work. The court can take judicial notice of the fact that the practice of appointment of daily rated employees that is in vogue in Gov­ernment departments, cannot be abandoned except or pains of imperiling the public inter­est. The daily rated employees if allowed to continue for a considerable length of time, acquire a status and regard being had to di­rective principles of state policy, enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution, the courts very often intervene in the matter with a view to doing justice to such employees and granting them full-fledged status of a Government ser­vant. It goes without saying that the daily rated/ casual employees constitute themselves a Class of Government servants. In Chief Con­servator of Forest Vs. Jagannath Maruti Kon Share, AIR 1996 SC 967, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Industrial Court holding that employment of casual/tem­porary basis for several years (5 to 6 years in that case) amounts to unfair labour practice. 9. The daily wagers may be regularized, provided vacancies, posts are existing and in consonance to rules, regulations, scheme or Government Order for the purpose compat­ible with the constitutional provisions particu­larly those embodied in Articles 14,16,38, 39,41 and 43 of the Constitution with par­ticular reference to the doctrine of Social Jus­tice which the Supreme Court as expatiated upon in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour Union (1997) 9 SCC 377 , as under: "Social justice, equality and dignity of persons are cornerstone of social democracy Social justice is a dynamic device to mitigate the suffering of the poor, weak, dalits, tribals and deprived sections of the so­ciety and to elevate them to the level of equality to live their lives with dignity of person.......Social se­curity, just and humane conditions of work and lei­sure of workman are part of his meaningful right to life and to achieve self-express or of his personality and to enjoy the life with dignity." 10. The learned counsel for the petition­ers in support of the aforementioned conten­tions has referred the decision of Surinder Singh Vs. the Engineer-in-Chief CPWD and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 584 ; Sushil Kumar Yadunath Jha Vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1636 ; Jacob M. Puthuparambil Vs. Kerala Water Authority and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 2228 and Karnataka State Pri­vate College Stop Gap Lecturers Associa­tion Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 677 as well as the decision of A.K. Jain Vs. Union of India 2 SCC Service Law Journal 203 (Sic) and Rajbinder Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., 2 SC Service Law Journal 521 (Sic). 11. The references were made on behalf of the petitioner on Daily rated Casual Labour through Bharatya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch Vs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2342 ; Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 (1) SC 361; Bharat Petroleum Management Vs. Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. 1990(2)SCC256, Dhirendra Chamoliand Anr. Vs. State of U.P., 1986(1) SCC 637 . 12. In view of three Judges Bench deci­sion of the Supreme Court in (1990) 1 SCC 351, Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Min­eral Development Corporation the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioners were having relevant edu­cational qualification and were serving for long period with artificial breaks in service, could be considered for regularization in phases in accordance with seniority. 13. Delhi State Min­eral Development Corporation the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioners were having relevant edu­cational qualification and were serving for long period with artificial breaks in service, could be considered for regularization in phases in accordance with seniority. 13. In Rathor Labhu Bechar (Supra) the Supreme Court has observed that daily rated labourers engaged dehors the rules as plumb­ers, carpenters, sweepes, pump operators, helpers and masons by fully State-aided Uni­versity were allowed to continue as such for a long period, therefore, non-regularizing the services of such daily wagers by University was held as an unfair labour practice and the daily rated labourers were indicated to be considered for absorption against existing vacant posts in accordance with the rules and if necessary by relaxing qualification and cre­ating necessary number of posts. 14. In (2000) 7 SCC 74, Hindustan Machines Tools and Ors. Vs. M. Rangareddy and Ors., the Supreme Court following the decisions of Piara Singh (su­pra); Raj Narayan Prasad Vs. State of U.P. (1998) 8 SCC 473 and Niadar Vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1992 4 SCC 112 , where the casual labourers deployed (3 to 10 years) in such multi-unit public sector un­dertaking of Central Government claiming regularization while undertaking was facing great financial difficulties, the direction of the High Court to prepare an absorption scheme to such undertaking in the light of the provi­sions of Articles 38, (1) 39 (e) and 43 of Constitution was not interferred with, how­ever, the liberty was granted to such under­taking, while framing the scheme, to assess the requirement of regular work force and necessity to alleviate the suffering of such workers and then to fix the strength offeree to enable the workers to get the benefit of regularization within a reasonable time and only those who were fulfilling the conditions of eli­gibility with relaxation of age in prevailing rules, were directed to be considered for regular­ization. Following submissions were also made for and on behalf of the respondents. 15. Unfortunately, however, in none of the aforementioned cases, the Supreme Court considered its earlier binding precedents on the question of manner of regularization, that is, State of Mysore Vs. S. V. Narayanappa (1967) 1 SCR128; AIR 1967 SC1071 and R.N.Nanjudappa Vs. T. Thimmiah (1972) 2 SCR 799 . 15. Unfortunately, however, in none of the aforementioned cases, the Supreme Court considered its earlier binding precedents on the question of manner of regularization, that is, State of Mysore Vs. S. V. Narayanappa (1967) 1 SCR128; AIR 1967 SC1071 and R.N.Nanjudappa Vs. T. Thimmiah (1972) 2 SCR 799 . The aforementioned judgments of the Supreme Court were followed by a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in B.N.Nagarajan and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1676 . 16. In R. N. Nanjudappa (suppra), the Supreme Court held that if an appointment is made in infraction of the rules or if it is in vio­lation of the provisions of the Constitution, such appointments being illegal, the same can­not be regularized. It was further held that ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. It held "Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be in introduce a new head appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting of naught the rules". The Supreme Court in that case negatived the con­tention that regularization in employment is possible by taking recourse of Article 162 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court held that Article 162 does not confer power to regularize nor does it confer power on the Government to make rules for recruitment or conditions of service. 17. In B.N.Nagarjan and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1676 , it was held: "It was argued that the regularization of the promo­tion gave it the colour of permanence and the appointments of the promotes as Assistant Engineers must, therefore, be deemed to have been made sub-stantively right from the 1st of November, 1956. The argument, however, is unacceptable to us for two reasons. Firstly the words 'regular' or 'regular­ization' do not connote permanence. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to care only such defects as are attrib­utable to the methodology followed in making the appointments. They cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of Lenore of the ap­pointment." 18. Firstly the words 'regular' or 'regular­ization' do not connote permanence. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to care only such defects as are attrib­utable to the methodology followed in making the appointments. They cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of Lenore of the ap­pointment." 18. Articles 16 of the Constitution of In­dia provides that all citizens of India are en­titled to get equal opportunity for the purpose of obtaining employment in State Service. 19. In order to fulfill such a condition, it is necessary to consider the case of all citizens who are eligible to be appointment. For that purpose, it is not only necessary to call for the names from the Employment Exchange, but the same is some cases also required due advertisement of posts in Newspapers by notifying the vacancies and the requisite quali­fications therefore so that all eligible candi­dates may apply for their appointments in the said posts. 20. Right to work is not a fundamental right but as right to be considered for appointment is as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 21. In Delhi Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors. JT1992 (1) SC 394 : (1992) 4 SCC 99 , it was observed :- "We may take note of the pernicious consequences to which the direction of regularization of workmen on the only ground that they have put in works for 240 or more days, has been leading. Although there is Employment Exchange Act which requires recruit­ment on the basis of registration in Employment Exchange, it has become a common practice to ignore the Employment Exchange and the person registered in the Employment Exchange, and to employ and get employed directly those who are either not regis­tered or are lower in the long waiting list in the em­ployment register. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal consideration including money. The employment is given for temporary periods with technical breaks to circumvent the rel­evant rules, and it continued for 240 or more days with a view to give the benefit of regularization know­ing the judicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatically regularized. The employment is given for temporary periods with technical breaks to circumvent the rel­evant rules, and it continued for 240 or more days with a view to give the benefit of regularization know­ing the judicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatically regularized. A good deal of illegal employment mar­ket has developed resulting in a new source of cor­ruption and frustration of those who are waiting at the Employment Exchange for years. Not all. those who gain such back door entry in the employment are in need of the particular jobs. Though entry in the employment are in need of the particular jobs. Though already employed elsewhere. They join the job for better and secured prospects. That is why most of the cases which come to the Courts are of employment in Government Departments, Public Undertaking or Agencies. Ultimately it is the people who bear the heavy burden of the surplus labour. The other equally injurious effect to indiscriminate regularization has been that many of the agencies have stopped undertaking casual or temporary works though they are urgent and essential for fear that those who are employed on such works are required to be continued for 240 more days have to be ab­sorbed as regular employee although the works are time bound and there is no need of the workmen beyond the completion of the works undertaken. The public interests thus jeopardized on both Courts". 22. In Karnataka State Private Colleges Stop Gap Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1992 (2) SCC 29 , the Supreme Court again held :- "Ad-hoc appointments, a convenient way of entry usually from backdoor, at times even in disregard of rules and regulations, are comparatively, recent in­novation to the service jurisprudence. They are indi­vidual problems to begin with, become a family prob­lem in Court of Law. It is unjust and unfair to those who are lesser fortunate in society with little or no approach even though better qualified more merito­rious and well deserving. The infection is widespread in Government or semi-Government departments or State financed institutions. It arises either because the appointing authority resorts to it deliberately as a favour or to accommodate someone or for any ex­traneous reason ignoring the regular procedure pro­vided for recruitment as a pretext under emergency measure or to avoid loss of work etc. The infection is widespread in Government or semi-Government departments or State financed institutions. It arises either because the appointing authority resorts to it deliberately as a favour or to accommodate someone or for any ex­traneous reason ignoring the regular procedure pro­vided for recruitment as a pretext under emergency measure or to avoid loss of work etc. or the Rules or circulars issued by the department itself empower the authority to do so as a stop-gap arrangement. The former is an abuse of power. It is unpardonable. Even if it is found to have been resorted to as a genuine emergency measure the Courts should be reluctant to grant indulgence. Latter gives rise to equalities which have bothered Courts every now and then". 23. In State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors., 1992 (1) SCC 489 AIR 1992 SC1593, it has been held: "There is still another reason why the High Court cannot be equated with this Court. The Constitution has, by Article 142, empowered the Supreme Court to make such orders as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending be­fore it', which authority the High Court does not enjoy. The jurisdiction of the High Court, while deal­ing with a writ petition, is circumscribed by the limi­tations discussed and declared by the judicial deci­sions, and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective sense of justice varying from Judge to Judge ". 24. In Sandeep Kumar Vs. State ofU.P, AIR 1992 SC 713 , the Supreme Court held: "From the facts placed before us, it appears that the scheme under which the petitioners are working is of a very specific nature. There is no permanent need for the work and since it is a project for a particular purpose, it will not be possible to direct that the petitioner maybe regularized in service". 25. The Supreme Court again reiterated aforementioned view in Karnataka State Pri­vate College Stop-gap Lectures (supra). 26. The Supreme Court J. K. Public Ser­vice Commission etc. Vs. D. Narinder Mohan and Ors. etc., 1993 (4) SCC 597, it was held :- "Existence of Statutory Rules is not a condition pre­cedent to appoint a eligible and fit person to a post. 25. The Supreme Court again reiterated aforementioned view in Karnataka State Pri­vate College Stop-gap Lectures (supra). 26. The Supreme Court J. K. Public Ser­vice Commission etc. Vs. D. Narinder Mohan and Ors. etc., 1993 (4) SCC 597, it was held :- "Existence of Statutory Rules is not a condition pre­cedent to appoint a eligible and fit person to a post. The executive power is co-extensive with legislative power of the State and under Article 162, the State can create civil posts and fill them up according to executive instructions consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is settled law that once statutory rules have been made, the appointment shall be only in accordance with the rules. The ex­ecutive power could be exercised only to fill in the gaps but the instructions cannot and should not sup­plant the law, but would only supplement the law". 27. In State ofHaryana Vs. Piara Singh JT1995 (5) SC179 : AIR 1992 SC 2130 , the question regarding regularization of ad-hoc appointees came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. It was held that normal rule would be regular appointment through the prescribed agency but exigency of administration may sometime call for an ad-hoc and/or temporary appointment to be made. Such ad-hoc or temporary appointee, the Supreme Court held, if allowed to con­tinue for a fairly a long span, the authorities must consider his case for regularization pro­vided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and service record and appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State. Direction given by the High Court in that case for regularization of every ad-hoc or temporary employee who had been con­tinued for one year was held to be totally 'un­tenable' and 'unsustainable'. In the case of Piara Singh (supra) the court noted that the normal rule is recruitment through the pre­scribed agency but due to administrative exi­gencies, an ad hoc or temporary appointment maybe made. In such a situation, this Court held that efforts should always be made to replace such ad-hoc or temporary appoint­ment by regularly selected employees, as early as possible. The temporary employees also would get liberty to complete along with others for regular selection but if he is not selected, he must give way to the regularly se­lected candidates. In such a situation, this Court held that efforts should always be made to replace such ad-hoc or temporary appoint­ment by regularly selected employees, as early as possible. The temporary employees also would get liberty to complete along with others for regular selection but if he is not selected, he must give way to the regularly se­lected candidates. Appointment of the regu­larly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad-hoc or temporary employee. Ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee, he mast be replaced by only regularly se­lected employee. The ad-hoc appointment should not be a device to circumvent the rule of reservation. 28. In Sreenivasa Reddy Vs. Govern­ment of A. P. JT 1994 (6) (SC) 461, the Supreme Court indicated as below " It is now well settled law that the appointment/ promotion must be in accordance with the Rules, direct recruitee takes his seniority from the date on which he starts discharging the duty of the post borne on the cadre while a temporary appointee appointed dehors the rules or on ad-hoc basis or to a fortuitous vacancy gets seniority from the date of regular ap­pointment." "In A. K. Bhatnagar Vs. Union of In­dia, (1991) 1SCC 54, Supreme Court dep­recated the practice of the Government giv­ing a go-by to the statutory rules or regula­tions, framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution while making large scale de­parture, and indicated that by acting in a man­ner contrary to the rules does create problem and dislocation. 29. In the Dharwad District (supra), it was observed by the Supreme Court that it would unfair on the part of the State to keep an employee on daily wages for indefinite pe­riod and such a treatment is violative of equality clause of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitu­tion. 30. In 1999 (82) FLR 76, Channey Lal and Ors. Vs. Director, Malaria Research Centre, New Delhi and Anr., where the pe­titioners deployed on daily wages were orally asked not to come to they were entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitu­tion, High Court, Allahabad following the decision of in Manshu Kumar Vidarthi Vs. 30. In 1999 (82) FLR 76, Channey Lal and Ors. Vs. Director, Malaria Research Centre, New Delhi and Anr., where the pe­titioners deployed on daily wages were orally asked not to come to they were entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitu­tion, High Court, Allahabad following the decision of in Manshu Kumar Vidarthi Vs. State of Bihar, 1997(76) FIR 237, has held that the daily wagers working as a workman deployed in a project does not hold civil post under the State and have no right to the post, these daily wagers can not be said to work on temporary or permanent basis and are not entitled to the protection of provisions of Ar­ticle 311 of the Constitution, and since the daily wagers have no right to the post as such the concept of retrenchment can not be ex­tended to such daily wage employee and dis­engagement of such daily wager can not be said to be arbitrary in view of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi (supra). The disengagement of deployment of daily wager, who is engaged for a day, is not a termination of service. Since the daily wage labour is engaged only on the basis of a contract lasting for a day and each engagement is a fresh, non-engagement or disengagement is not held to be arbitrary. In view of Pushpd Agarwal Vs. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Meemt, 1995 (70) FIR 20, the principle of retrenchment as provided under Central Industrial Disputes Act and Rules framed thereunder is also at­tracted in respect of a workman governed under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 31. In AIR 1967SC884, State of Assam and Ors. Vs. Kanak Chandra Dutta, the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) has also held that casual labourer is not holder of civil post. 32. The High (DB) Allahabad in 1992 (2) ACJ1366, Zakir Hussain Vs. 31. In AIR 1967SC884, State of Assam and Ors. Vs. Kanak Chandra Dutta, the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) has also held that casual labourer is not holder of civil post. 32. The High (DB) Allahabad in 1992 (2) ACJ1366, Zakir Hussain Vs. Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department; U.P., Lucknow, has held that daily wager has no right to the post and there must be regular or permanent post and funds must be available for payment of salary and the daily wagers are to be qualified for appointment to the post and by virtue of only having worked for three years they can not claim regularization as a matter of right and the regularization cannot be made as a thumb of rule, and this Court relegated the matter for adjudication and avail alternative remedy for claiming the relief in reference to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 33. In State of U.P. Vs. Labour Court, Haldwani and Ors., 1999 (81) FLR 319 , it was held that the engagement of daily wager in the Irrigation Department comes to an end every evening. Refusal to employ him from a particular day, his disengagement was not under the provision of Section 25-F of In­dustrial Disputes Act. It was observed in Para 6 of the above case as below :- "Employment to Government service in the Irriga­tion Department is regulated by statutory rules. Pres­ently, the respondent No. 2 was not employed in accordance with the rules. For engaging a person ca­sually on day to day basis the statutory rules are not required to be followed under which the posts have to be advertised and only the best from the market have to be picked up keeping in view reservation provided from certain classes. Thus, every eligible person has an opportunity to participate in the re­cruitment process. This is not so in the case of daily wager in whose case even regularization regarding age, medical fitness, character roll etc. are not ob­served. Therefore, daily and casual workers who are engaged in disregard of all rules cannot be allowed to enter Government service through the back door and the Labour Court cannot be allowed to be used as a legal means for such back door entry. The anomalous situation that the impugned award creates can be seen from the fact that till before his alleged retrench­ment the respondent No. 2 was on engagement from day today. The anomalous situation that the impugned award creates can be seen from the fact that till before his alleged retrench­ment the respondent No. 2 was on engagement from day today. The impugned award makes him a per­manent employee with the necessary consequence that he would have to be paid salary for all the 365 days as regular employee and the other benefits of regular employment can also not be denied to him. Thus, the award put him, in as much better position that he was before the alleged retrenchment. Such a result is not conceived." 34. Non-renewal of contractual employ­ment and dispensation of engagement at any stage without any reason in terms of appoint­ment does not amount to retrenchment under Section 2 (00) of Industrial Disputes Act as held by the Supreme Court in (1997) 11SCC 521, Escorts Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer and Anr., while following an earlier decision of Supreme Court in (1994) 2 SCC 323 , M. Venugopal Vs. Divisional Manager, LIC. Later on it was considered and followed when simi­lar view was taken by the Supreme Court in (1996) 1 SCC 595 , State ofRajasthan and Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Lal Gahlot, where ter­mination of appointment after expiry of speci­fied period held valid and not attracting Sec­tion 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 unless the termination was found to be malafide or in colourable exercise of powers. Similar view was also taken by the Supreme Court in 2002 (9) SCC 622 , Executive En­gineer, CPWD, Indore Vs. Madhukar Purshottam Kolharkar and Anr. 35. The daily wagers have no right to the post in view of' 1997 (4) SCC 391 , Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi Vs. State of Biharand 1993(1) AWC172, Bipin Bihari Srivastava Vs. District Judge, Basti, be­cause appointment of daily wagers are made by not complying or observing the procedural formalities in consonance to any rules, regu­lations or by observing the procedures pre­scribed for the recruitment. The engagement of daily wager commences in the morning and comes to an end in the evening of every day. There is a contractual deployment for every day. It is upto the employer to allow to con­tinue the employment or disengage the daily wager at any time in absence of work. The daily wager has no right or protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, AIR 1967 SC 884 , State of Assam Vs. There is a contractual deployment for every day. It is upto the employer to allow to con­tinue the employment or disengage the daily wager at any time in absence of work. The daily wager has no right or protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, AIR 1967 SC 884 , State of Assam Vs. Kanak Chandra Dutta; 1998 LIC 1088 (A.P.) (Para 16); Jagdev Vs. State of U.P. and 1999 (82) FLR 76 (Paras 8 and 10), Channey Lal Vs. Director Malaria Re­search Centre, New Delhi. 36. The daily wagers engaged without any written appointment order could be termi­nated without any written order also in view of Magarsen Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2002 (2) AWC 1712 (Paras 3 and 7). 37. The daily wagers/ muster roll employ­ees can not be regularized unless the posts are in existence or the vacancies are avail­able. To entertain the claim for regularization means to provide appointment to a post after regularizing the service of an employee. The position of daily wager is entirely different in­asmuch the daily wager holds no post in view of 2003 AIR SCW 3382, State ofHaryana and Anr. Vs. Tilak Raj and Ors.; AIR 1994 SC 1638 , Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra (Paras 4 and 6); 1996 (9) SCC 34, State of U.P. Vs. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh and Ors. (Para 3 and 4); as well as 7995 (Supp) (4) SCC 49, State ofOrissa Vs. Dipti Mahapatra (Para-4). 38. The daily wagers are deployed on tem­porary assignment only and not on sanctioned post and completion of 240 days work by daily wager can not attribute status of a ca­sual workman under Industrial Disputes Act and as such does not create a right to regularization in view of AIR 1994 SC 1638 , Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra and Ors. 39. In AIR 1997 SC 1628 , Ashwini Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, it was observed by the Supreme Court that if initial entry is itself unauthorized and not against any sanc­tioned vacancy, the question of regularizing the incumbent on such anon-existent vacancy does not arise and even if such purported regularization or confirmation is given, it would be an exercise in futility. 40. In 1993 (2) SCC486, State of Orissa and Ors. Vs. 40. In 1993 (2) SCC486, State of Orissa and Ors. Vs. Sukanti Mohapatra and Ors, the Supreme Court held that services of the candidates appointed irregularly in total dis­regard of the rules, cannot be regularized in exercise of such powers under the depart­mental rules. 41. Similarly in case of Dr. Narinder Mohan (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that having made the rules, the executive can­not fall back upon its general power under Article 162 to regularize the ad-hoc appoint­ments under the rules. 42. In JT1996 (6) SC 725, Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwal and Anr. Vs. State of Jaramu and Kashmir and Ors., the Supreme Court has held that the ad-hoc appointments made dehors the rules without following proper pro­cedure of recruitment, would not confer any right or regularization merely on the basis of the length of the service. 43. In 1997 (1) SCC 350 , P. Ravindran and Ors. Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry and Ors., the Supreme Court held that regularization of ad-hoc appointees bypassing the process of recruitment through open competition to be held by the Public Service Commission, is not permissible. 44. In 1997 (2) SCC 713 , Santosh Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs. State ofBihar through Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government ofBihar and Ors., the Supreme Court held that the post tempo­rarily filled in contravention of law, cannot be regularized. 45. In case of JT 1992 (1) SC 394, Delhi Development Authority Horticulture Employ­ees Union (supra), the Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that a good deal of illegal appointment market has developed resulting in a new source of corruption and frustration of those who are waiting registered in the Employment Exchange for the years. 46. In (1995) 1 UPLBEC 93, Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ann, the Supreme Court has held that the post was one, which was to be filled up through Public Service Commis­sioner, therefore, the claim of regularization was not worth accepting. 47. In 1997 (4) SCC 88 , State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ajay Kumar, it has been held by the Supreme Court that there must exist a post and there must be Statutory Rules or administrative instructions for appointment to the post and the High Court was in error in directing regularization of service of the respondents. 48. In 1997 (11) SCC 228 , Union of In­dia Vs. Ajay Kumar, it has been held by the Supreme Court that there must exist a post and there must be Statutory Rules or administrative instructions for appointment to the post and the High Court was in error in directing regularization of service of the respondents. 48. In 1997 (11) SCC 228 , Union of In­dia Vs. Uma Maheshwari, the Supreme Court has held that the claim of regularization by a daily wager is not sustainable if no regu­lar work or regularization scheme in opera­tion. 49. The Supreme Court in 2003 (3) AISLJ 147, Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Vikas Adhikari and Ann, where the services of the petitioner engaged for a short duration under a scheme known as Rulal Employment Programme were terminated, the Supreme Court has held that"when the scheme itself was over and it was known to him that his requirement was only during the currency of the scheme, then no relief could be granted". The Supreme Court while deciding the afore­said Surendra Kumar Sharma's case (supra) has the occasion to deal with the following rulings of the Supreme Court on the subject: Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union (supra) and JT2003 (3) SC 436 : (2003) 4 SCC27, S.M. Nilajkar and Ors. Vs. Telecom, District Manager, Karnataka. 50. In (1999) 2 SCC 317 Rajendra and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., where the termination of the employment had been caused by abolition of posts consequent upon the schemes having been abolished for non ­availability of funds. 51. In (1998) 3 SCC 354, Jaipaland Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, where also the em­ployees of the project of adult and non-for­mal education, a temporary project, which was a time bound project to last till 1990, were held not entitled for regularizing of their services. 52. The High Court of Allahabad in (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1554, Chandra Prakash Gupta Vs. Additional District Magistrate (Project), Hamirpur and Anr, has observed that when the writ petitioner initially appointed as a typist on daily wages in integrated rural development programme has served 34 months with short breaks on the strength of the interim order of this Court, was not said to be holder of appointment letter by virtue of interim order of the Court and the deploy­ment of such daily wager could be terminated as his initial deployment was made without following the procedure and was by way of back-door entry. In Chandra Prakash Gupta (supra), this Court has observed as below :- "6 The question of regularization of daily wages employees has been subject matter of judicial scru­tiny for a long time. In a developing country various schemes are implemented. These schemes are sup­ported by limited financial allocation. The employees appointed on daily wages in such schemes are fully aware of its temporary nature, and also the nature and terms of their appointment. In Daily Rated Casual labour Employed under P&T department Vs. Union of India, 1988(1)SCC 122, the Supreme Court considered the rights of the daily rated casual labour and directed for submission of a scheme to extend permanent status of the workmen. State of Haryana and Ors. V. Piara Singh and Ors., 1992 (4) SCC 118 , was a case of ad-hoc temporary Government em­ployees and consider the validity of the orders of regularization made by State of Haryana, in which Supreme Court held that eligible and qualified con­tinue in service satisfactorily for a long periods raises presumption of need of regular posts. Later on there has been a marked changed in law relating to regular­ization of daily rated employees. In Ghaziabad De­velopment Authority and Ors. Vs. Vikram Chaudhary, 1995 (5) SCC 210 , It was held that in the absence of availability of posts for regular ap­pointment, regularization cannot be directed and that the daily rated employees should be given minimum wages under the Statute, if any, or the prevailing wages in the locality. In, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nodha Ram, JT 1996 (1) SC 220, it has been held that where a project is completed and closed due to non-availability of funds, the employees have to go along with its closure. No vested right is cre­ated in temporary employments. Directions can not be given to regularize their services in the absence of any existing vacancies, nor can directions be given to the State to create posts in a non-existing establish­ment. In this case Supreme Court found that the directions, issued by Court for regularization were illegal warranting interference." 53. In JT 1996 (1) SC 220, State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary, Agriculture to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Vs. In this case Supreme Court found that the directions, issued by Court for regularization were illegal warranting interference." 53. In JT 1996 (1) SC 220, State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary, Agriculture to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Vs. Nodha Ram and Ors., the Supreme Court has held as under :- "It is seen 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 regularize them or to continue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employment. Directions cannot be given to regularize their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor can directions be given to the State to create posts in a non-exis­tent establishment. The Court would adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions. The directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them despite non-availability of the work. We are of the considered view that the directions issued by the High Court are ab­solutely illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is, therefore, set aside. 54. In Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 1628 , the Supreme Court held that the question of confirmation or regularization of an irregularly appointed candidate could arise if the candidate con­cerned is appointed in an irregular manner or an ad-hoc basis against a possible vacancy which is already sanctioned but if initial entry is itself unauthorized and is not against any sanctioned vacancy, the question of regular­izing the incumbent on such non-existent va­cancy could never survive for consideration and even if such purported regularization or confirmation is given, it would be exercise in futility. The Supreme Court held that regular­ization of such appointment would amount to decorating a still-born baby. 55. In State of U.P. Vs. Ajay Kumar, (1997) 1 SCC 88, it has been held that there must exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory rules must also be in operation to appoint a person to the post. Daily wage appointment, it was further held, would obviously be in relation to the contin­gent establishment in which there cannot ex­ist any post and it continues so long as the work exists. 56. Daily wage appointment, it was further held, would obviously be in relation to the contin­gent establishment in which there cannot ex­ist any post and it continues so long as the work exists. 56. The issue of regularization has been considered by the Supreme Court from time and again and the law has been laid down in very clear terms in the cases i.e. State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Piara Singh and Ors. (supra); Jacob M. Puthuparambil and Ors. Vs. Kerala Water Authority and Ors., 1991 (1) SCC 28 ,J&K Public Service Com­mission etc. Vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan and Ors., JT 1993 (6) SC 593; Dr. A.K. Jain Vs. Union of India, 1988 (1) SCR 335 ; E.K. Ramakrishnan and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., 1996 (10) SCC 565 and Ashwani Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., JT 1997 (1) SC 243; and the ratio of all those judgments can be sum­marized to the extent that the question as to whether the services of certain employees appointed on ad-hoc basis should be regu­larized relates to the conditions of service. The power to prescribe the conditions of service can be exercised either by making Rules un­der the proviso to Article 309 of the Consti­tution of India or any analogous provision and in the absence of such Rules, under the in­structions issued in exercise of its executive power. The court comes into the picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights and statutory provisions, Rules and other in­structions, if any, governing the conditions of service. The main concern of the Court in such matters is to ensure the Rules of Law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. It also means that the State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advan­tage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this rea­son, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the Di­rective Principles of the Constitution. It is for this very reason it is held that a person should not be kept in a temporary or adhoc status for long. It is for this rea­son, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the Di­rective Principles of the Constitution. It is for this very reason it is held that a person should not be kept in a temporary or adhoc status for long. A perusal of the authorities would show that appointments are as a rule to be made in accordance with statutory rules, giv­ing equal opportunity to all the aspirants to apply for the posts and following the preva­lent policy of reservation in favour of Sched­uled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Whenever the employ­ees are appointed on ad-hoc basis to meet an emergent situation, every effort should be made to replace them by the employees ap­pointed on regular basis in accordance with the relevant rules as expeditiously as possible. Where the appointment on ad-hoc basis has continued for a long and the State has made rules for regularization, regularisation has to be considered in accordance with the rules. Where, however, no rules are operative, it is open to the employees to show that they have been dealt with arbitrarily and their work po­sition has been exploited by keeping them on ad-hoc for one spell of time. However, it is a question of act whether in the given situation, they were treated arbitrarily. In Khagesh Kumar, Vs. Inspector General of Registra­tion, U.P. and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 417 , The Supreme Court did not issue direction for regularization of those employees, who had been appointed on ad-hoc basis or on daily wages after the cut-off date, i.e. 1.10.1986 as was mandatorily required by the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appoint­ment (On posts outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 and those who were not eligible under the said Rules were not given regularization. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Inspector General of Registration and Anr. Vs. Awadhesh Kumar and Ors., 1966 (9) SCC 217. Moreover, the above referred cases further laid down that for the purpose of regularization, various pre-requisite con­ditions are to be fulfilled i.e. the temporary/ ad-hoc appointment of the employee should be in consonance with the statutory rules, it should not be a back door entry. Vs. Awadhesh Kumar and Ors., 1966 (9) SCC 217. Moreover, the above referred cases further laid down that for the purpose of regularization, various pre-requisite con­ditions are to be fulfilled i.e. the temporary/ ad-hoc appointment of the employee should be in consonance with the statutory rules, it should not be a back door entry. The service record of the petitioner should be satisfac­tory; the employee should be eligible and/or qualified for the post at the time of his initial appointment. There must be a sanctioned post against which the employee seeks regularization and on the said sanctioned post, there must be a vacancy. Moreover, regularization is to be made according to seniority of the temporary/ad-hoc employees. The regular­ization should not be in contravention to the State policy regarding reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled tribes and others Backward Classes and other catego­ries for which state has enacted any Act or framed rules or issued any Government Or­der etc. 57. Similar view has been taken in Union of India Vs. Vishamber Dutta 1996 (11) SCC 341 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. U.P. Madhyam Parishad Kshramik Sangh, AIR 1966 SC 708. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ashwani Kumar, 1996 (1) SCC 773 , the Supreme Court has held that if an employment is under a particu­lar Scheme of the employee is being paid out of the funds of a Scheme, in case the Scheme comes to closure or the funds are not avail­able, the Court has no right to issue direction to regularize the service of such an employee or to continue him on some other project, for the reason that "no vested right is created in a temporary employment''. 58. If the workmen appointed without fol­lowing any procedure prescribed under the Act or the Rules by such authority, who had no competence to appoint them, and their appointment was not in accordance with law the provisions of the Act, 1947 are attracted for the reason that provisions of Section 25-J of the Act have over-riding effect on other laws because the Legislature, in its wisdom, thought that the rights and liabilities arising out of the law and retrenchment should be uni­form throughout wherever the Act was in force and every State should have its own law in consonance with the Central Law. This view stand fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Virudhachalam and Ors. Vs. Management of Lotus Mills and Am., (1998) 1 SCC 650 , Krishna District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. V.N. V. Puranchandra Rao and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 99 and Vikramaditya Pandey Vs. Industrial Tribunal and Anr., 2001 AIR SCW 310. 59. In Prabhu Dayal Jat Vs. Alwar Sakhari Bhumi Vikash Bank, 1991 Lab and 1C 944, the Court considered the case of an employee, whose services stood terminated on the ground that he had been appointed without any authorization of law. This Court held that even in that case the provisions of the Act were attracted. 60. On the contrary, in Sita Ram Mali Vs. State of Rajasthan 1994(2) WLC 177, Rajasthan High Court held as under :- "Making appointment on daily wages without the availability of the post and without following the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 suffers from patent illegality. Apparently for the reasons which are only extraneous, the Officers of the Department have given appointments on daily wages to few favoured. Those who have waited in queue at the Employment Ex­change have been altogether ignored. In fact, while the length of the queue continuously increase, the back door entrants got the entry in service as daily wages employee and got the order of appointment on salary in the regular pay scale and ultimately the order of regularization of the service." The Court deprecated the practice of making appointments on daily wages and held that even the appointment on daily wages without advertising the vacancy or calling the names from Employment Exchange violates the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and hence it is violative of the fundamental rights of other eligible persons and, thus, the relief of regularization cannot be claimed. 61. The question of appointment dehors the Rule has been considered by the Supreme Court from time and again and the Court held that such appointments are unenforceable and in executable. It is settled legal proposition that, any appointment made dehors the Rules vio­lates the Public Policy enshrined in the rules and, thus, being void, cannot be enforced. (Vide Stmt. Ravinder Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1995) 1 SCC 138 'Smt. Harpal Kaur Chahal Vs. Direc­tor, Punjab Instructions, 1995 (Suppl.) 4 SCC 706, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. (Vide Stmt. Ravinder Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1995) 1 SCC 138 'Smt. Harpal Kaur Chahal Vs. Direc­tor, Punjab Instructions, 1995 (Suppl.) 4 SCC 706, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shyama Pardhi (1996) 7 SCC 118 ; State of Rajas than Vs. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt, (1997) 6 SCC574; Madhya Pradesh Elec­tricity Board Vs. S.S. Modh and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3464 ; Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1999) 9 SCC 57 3 and Chancellor Vs. Shankar Rao and Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 255 ). 62. Appointment dehors the Rules violates the mandate of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as held by the Su­preme Court in Delhi Development Horticul­ture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Adminis­tration (supra) and Piara Singh (supra), hi Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court recognized the public employ­ment as public property and held that all per­sons similarly situated have a right to share in it thought its enjoyment is subject to the re­cruitment rules which must be in consonance with the Scheme of the Constitution of India. 63. In Dr. M.A. Haque and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 213 , the Supreme Court observed as under :- "We cannot lose sight of the fact that the recruitment rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution have to be followed strictly and not in breach. If a desregard of the rules and by passing of the Public Service Commissions are permitted, it will open a back-door for illegal recruitment without limit. In fact this Court has, of late, been witnessing a con­stant violation of the recruitment to the services through the Public Service Commission. It appears that since this Court has in some cases permitted regularization of the irregularly recruited employ­ees, some Governments and authorities have been increasingly resorted to irregular recruitments. The result had been that the recruitment rules and the Public Service Commissions have been kept in cold storage and candidate dictated by various consider­ations are being recruited as a matter of course." 64. Deprecating the practice of making appointment dehors the Rules by the State or other State instrumentalities in Dr. Arundhati A. Paragaonkar Vs. The result had been that the recruitment rules and the Public Service Commissions have been kept in cold storage and candidate dictated by various consider­ations are being recruited as a matter of course." 64. Deprecating the practice of making appointment dehors the Rules by the State or other State instrumentalities in Dr. Arundhati A. Paragaonkar Vs. State of Maharshtra, AIR 1995 SC 962 , the Court rejected the claim of the petitioner therein for regulariza­tion on the ground of long continuous service observing as under :- "Nor the claim of the appellant, that she having worked as Lecturer without break for 9 years' on the date the advertisement was issued, she should be deemed to have regularized appears to be well founded. Eligibility and continuous working for how­soever long period should not be permitted to over­reach the law. Requirement of rules of Section can­not be substituted by human considerations. Law must take its course." 65. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. U.P. State Law Officers As­sociation and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1654 , has observed as under :- "This being so those who come to be appointed by such arbitrary procedure can hardly complain if the termination of the appointment is equally arbitrary. Those who come by the backdoor have to go bv the same door. The fact that they are made by public bodies cannot best them with additional sanctity. Every appointment made to a public office, howso­ever made, is not. There is, therefore, no public in­terest involved in saving all appointments irrespec­tive of their mode. From the inception some engage­ments and contracts may be the product of the op­eration of the spoils system. There need be no legal anxiety to save them." 66. Even if, there are no Statutory Rules or Bye-laws of the society providing a mode of appointment, the Executive Instructions/ Policy adopted by the respondent-Society must be there providing for a mode of ap­pointment. Even if no such Executive Instructions/Policy/Guidelines/Circular etc. is in ex­istence then a fair procedure for appointment has to be adopted in consonance with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Con­stitution (Vide Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Yadaorao Jagannath Kumbhare, (1998)8 SCC 99) 67. In Ramesh Kumar Sharma and Anr. Vs. Even if no such Executive Instructions/Policy/Guidelines/Circular etc. is in ex­istence then a fair procedure for appointment has to be adopted in consonance with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Con­stitution (Vide Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Yadaorao Jagannath Kumbhare, (1998)8 SCC 99) 67. In Ramesh Kumar Sharma and Anr. Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tri­bunal and Ors., 2000 AIR SCW4206, the Supreme Court held that "expression 'Ser­vice Rules' cannot be given a restrictive mean­ing in the absence of the definition of the said terms and, therefore, it would include within its sweep, the necessary Government Order providing the method recruitment." 68. A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in B.R. Kapoor Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 7 SCC 231 (Jayalalitha case), observed that it is the duty of the Court to examine whether the incumbent possesses qualification for appointment and the manner in which the appointment came to be made or the procedure adopted was fair, just and reasonable and if not, appointment should be struck down. 69. The Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) in Ajit Singh (II) Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 209, has held that Articles 14 and 16 (1) are basic features of the Constitution. The same view has been reiterated in Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 201 and Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of 'India and ors. (2000) 1 SCC 168 . Thus, strict adherence is required thereto. 70. In Kumari Srilekha Vidhyarthi etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1991 SC 537 and A.P. Agarwal Vs. Government (NCT) of Delhi and Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 600 , the Supreme Court held that every State ac­tion, in order to survive, must not be suscep­tible to vice the arbitrariness which is a crus of Article 14 of the Constitution and the very basis of the Rule of Law. 71. Invalidity of an appointment may arise not only from want of qualification, but also from the violation of such legal conditions or procedure for appointment as mandatory and as a result of which the appointment becomes void. (Vide M. Pantiah and Ors., Vs. Muddala Veeramallappa and Ors., AIR 1961 SC 1107 , University of Mysore Vs. CD. Govindaj Rap. AIR 1965 SC491 and P.N. Lakhanpal Vs. A. N. Roy, AIR 1975 Del. 66 . 72. The Supreme Court in Factory Man­ager, Cimmco Wagon Factory Vs. (Vide M. Pantiah and Ors., Vs. Muddala Veeramallappa and Ors., AIR 1961 SC 1107 , University of Mysore Vs. CD. Govindaj Rap. AIR 1965 SC491 and P.N. Lakhanpal Vs. A. N. Roy, AIR 1975 Del. 66 . 72. The Supreme Court in Factory Man­ager, Cimmco Wagon Factory Vs. Virendra Kumar Sharma and Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 554 , while deciding the similar case, has ob­served as under:- "Assuming that the respondent was asked to work in a factory in anticipation of securing appointment, that too by an officer who was not competent to give appointment, that did not make the respondent a workman or regular employee of the appellant com­pany." 73. The High Court of Allahabad in (2003) 2 ESC (All 1007) State ofU.P. Vs. Presid­ing Officer, Labour Court, Meerut, has held that the appointment should be made at initial stage in accordance with rules. Incumbent must possess the requisite qualification for the post on the date of appointment and if ap­pointment had been made on temporary ad-hockworkman basis, the workman should not be permitted to continue for long rather the vacancies should be filled up on permanent basis in accordance with law only if the statu­tory provision or executive instruction pro­vides for regularization after completing a particular period only then regularization is permissible. In special circumstances, Court may give direction to consider the case for regularization provided continuation on ad-hoc basis is so long that it amounts to arbi­trariness and provisions of Article 14 are at­tracted. The must be sanctioned post against which regularization is sought. At the same time policy of the State enforcing the reser­vation for particular classes like SC, ST, OBC etc. and further for women handicapped and ex-servicemen cannot be ignored. 74. Following (1995) 5 SCC 653 , Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ram Kishan, the Supreme Court in Anil Bapurao Kanase Vs. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ann, (1997) 10 SCC 599 observed that the termination/dis­engagement of seasonal worker deployed in Chemistry Section of Sugar Factory when the work was over could not be treated as re­trenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (00) of Industrial Disputes Act irrespective of the claim that such employee had rendered more than 180 days' service, in such situa­tion Section 25F of said 'Act' was not at­tracted. 75. While referring decision of!994Supp. (2) SCC 316, Mool Raj Upadhaya Vs. 75. While referring decision of!994Supp. (2) SCC 316, Mool Raj Upadhaya Vs. State of H.R, the Supreme Court in (1997)1 SCC 269 , H. P. Housing Board Vs. Om Pal and Ors., had held that the Administrative Tribnal without holding termination of re­trenched daily wage workers as invalid and holding them to be continuing in service, could not direct their regularization and payment of enhanced wages to them. 76. After considering its own judgment in, Piara Singh (supra) and decision in Satyanarayan Sharma Vs. National Min­eral Development Corporation Ltd., (1990) 4 SCC 163 , the Supreme Court has observed in (1998) 9 SCC 258 , Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur and Anr. Vs. Veer Singh Raj pur and Ors., that the direction of High Court to regularize the service of casual labourer was unwarranted, being contrary to the administrative directions, instructions, circulars and orders of Government when the Municipal Corporation found that the Admin­istrator had made deployment of daily rated/ muster roll/casual labour irregularly arid on extra-political consideration and municipal corporation intended to reduce the establish­ment expenditure and the Government has prohibited to fill up the vacant posts and cre­ation of new posts including regularization, however, the Supreme Court acknowledged the liberty for the municipal corporation, in case, it was making further appointment of casual or daily rated workers and to consider the said retrenched persons, on daily wages in preference by waiving age bar if necessary, provided they were otherwise qualified and eligible to the post. 77. The Supreme Court (1998) 9 SCC 709 , State of Punjab and Ors Vs. Sardara Singh, held that the High Court could not di­rect regularization of daily wager, however, a direction could be given to the State Govern­ment to frame scheme of regularization and if the scheme is already framed, a direction may be given to the State for considering the mat­ter of regularization in accordance with the scheme. 78. Following its own decision in M.M.R. Khan Vs. Union of India, 1990 (Suppl.) SCC 191 and Reserve Bank of India Vs. Workmen (1996) 3 SCC 267 and in refer­ence to decision ofParimal Chnadra Raha Vs. L.I.C., 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 611 the Supreme Court in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. 78. Following its own decision in M.M.R. Khan Vs. Union of India, 1990 (Suppl.) SCC 191 and Reserve Bank of India Vs. Workmen (1996) 3 SCC 267 and in refer­ence to decision ofParimal Chnadra Raha Vs. L.I.C., 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 611 the Supreme Court in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Shramik Sena and Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 439 has held that relation of workmen of statutory canteen managed by contractor with the establishment maintaining such canteen are question of fact on the basis of material on record and such persons were said to be workmen of the es­tablishment for the purpose of Factory Act only and not ipso facto workmen of the es­tablishment for the other purposes, like, re­cruitment, seniority, promotion, retirement benefits etc., however, on their claims direc­tion of High Court granting relief of regular­ization was held to be justifiable in the light of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Con­stitution in that undertaking was not as a mat­ter of statutory right of the workmen but to eradicate unfair labour practice and to undo social injustice and as a measure of labour welfare and imposition of certain conditions as to eligibility for the benefit of the relief. 79. The Supreme Court in (1997) 5 SCC 434 , Executive Engineer, State of Karnataka V. K. SomasettyandOrs., rely­ing on its earlier decisions in Union of India Vs. JaiNarain Singh, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 672; State of H.P. Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma (supra) has held that State while discharging public welfare function can not be said to be an industry and the decision of the Labour Court made in reference to Section 10 of In­dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 reinstating the daily wagers discharged from the project was said to have been no right to the post and the reinstatement of such daily wagers was held unjustifiable. 80. The Supreme Court in (2002) 5 SCC 654 , Haryana State F.C.C.W. Store Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Ram Niwas and Anr., while following its earlier decisions in Uptron In­dia Ltd. Vs. Shammi Bhan, (1998) 6 SCC 538 and Harmohinder Singh Vs. Kharga Canteen Ambala Cantt. 80. The Supreme Court in (2002) 5 SCC 654 , Haryana State F.C.C.W. Store Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Ram Niwas and Anr., while following its earlier decisions in Uptron In­dia Ltd. Vs. Shammi Bhan, (1998) 6 SCC 538 and Harmohinder Singh Vs. Kharga Canteen Ambala Cantt. P; (2001)5 SCC 540 , has observed that disengagement of works deployed on a particular project in terms of contract of service when the work and procurement and supply of wheat in the said project was over, then the deployment of such daily wager as Watchman/Chaukidar on contractual basis, could not be said to be retrenchment within the meaning of Sections 2 (00) (bb) and 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. 81. Following its own decision in (2002) 9 SCC 693, SufalJha Vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court in Anr. decision of lrcon International Ltd. Vs. Daya Shankar and Anr, (2002) 9 SCC 691 , has observed that the work-charge employee appointed on a particular Railway Ballast Project as a Khalasi for the duration of continuation of project could not automatically continue in deploy­ment thereafter when the project is over and the work-charge employee became surplus and was retrenched after being paid compen­sation under Industrial Disputes Act and the direction of High Court to consider such re­trenched employee as permanent employee was said to be erroneous, however, in pecu­liar facts and circumstances the said re­trenched employee could be considered in accordance with the seniority against the va­cancy arising in future. 82. The Supreme Court in (2002) 9 SCC 739 , A.P.S.R.T.C. Cuddapah V.K. Bajjanna, observed that the workman un­der the same employer at the time of rein­statement at the direction of the Labour Court are to be treated harmoniously in respect of payment of back-wages and the burden shall be on workman to show that he was not gain­fully deployed during the period of non-em­ployment. 83. The Supreme Court further in (2002) 9 SCC 749 , Employer in Relation to the Management of G.C. of BCCL Vs. Work­men represented by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, has observed that disability of work­man/employee being underage at the time of appointments does not stand subsequently removed and regularization based on such appointment could not be upheld, more so, when there was specific provision barring underage persons from working in mines. 84. The Supreme Court relying on its ear­lier decisions of Gammon India Ltd. Vs. 84. The Supreme Court relying on its ear­lier decisions of Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1947) 1 SCC 596; B.H.E.L. Worker s Assn. Vs. Union of In­dia, (1985) 1 SCC 630 ; Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Indian Oil Corpora­tion Ltd. (1991) 2 SCC 176 , and Dena Nath Vs. National Fertilisers Ltd., (1992) 1 SCC 695 , in (1994) 5 SCC 304 , R.K. Panda and Ors. Vs. Steel Authority of In­dia and Ors., has indicated that regulariza­tion of contract labour engaged at Rourkela Plant of Steel Authority ofIndia on the ground that they continued for long periods (10 to 20 years) through contractor shall involve question of fact, therefore, normally assess­ment of period could be determined by the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal on evi­dence and not by the High Court or Supreme Court in writ jurisdiction or under Article 136 of the Constitution respectively, however, on the basis of the interim orders of Supreme Court many contract labourer had continued in employment for several years, were di­rected to be considered for absorption or for voluntary retirement by the management un­der a guideline. 85. The Supreme Court in 1996 (4) SCC 195 , Union of India and Ors. Vs. Dharma Pal and Ors., directed for enforcement of a scheme for regularization in absence of any existing rules of casual/daily wagers/ workcharge employees engaged in construc­tion/execution of maintenance work under Chandigarh Administration, whereas, the Su­preme Court way back in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 338, V.B. Rao Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited andAnr., had indicated that reinstatement of an employee can not be in­sisted upon where the employer had lost con­fidence in the employee owing to his involve­ment in criminal cases his connection with appropriation of certain funds, however, the High Court was said not to be incorrect in substituting reinstatement by compensation to cover both backwages and entitlement for loss of future services. 86. S.M. Nilakkar (supra) in special facts and circumstances when the burden of de­ployment was on the employer to show that the deployment of workman in Government project or scheme was under a stipulated contractual manner and the workman/em­ployee was the Section 2 (00) Industrial Dis­putes Act and the termination was said to be retrenchment. 87. Following Union of India Vs. K. V. Baby, (1998) 9 SCC 252 ; Silver Jubilee Tailoring House Vs. 87. Following Union of India Vs. K. V. Baby, (1998) 9 SCC 252 ; Silver Jubilee Tailoring House Vs. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments, (1974) 3 SCC 498 and Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1957 SC 264 , the Supreme Court in (2001) 3 SCC 36 , India Banks Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and Ors., has held that commission agents/deposit collectors of banks though not regular employees none­theless were having relationship of master and servant between the bank and such work­men, could be deployed on commission ba­sis and not entitled to absorption as regular workmen and not entitled to pay scale, allowances and service conditions of regular bank employees. 88. In State of Haryana Vs. Tilak Raj and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 123 : 2003 AIR SCW3382, the Supreme Court pointed out that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not always easy to apply. There are inher­ent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organisations or even in the same organiza­tion. In State of Haryana Vs. Tilak Raj (su­pra), the Supreme Court observed that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds no post, hence he cannot be compared with the regu­lar and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay for equal al­lowances. Equal pay for equal work is a con­cept which requires for its applicability com­plete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scale and the other group of employees who have al­ready earned such pay scales. 89. To enforce his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed credence on a decision in the Dharwad District P. W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees' Associa­tion and Ors. Vs. State ofKarnataka and Ann, 1990 (2) SLR 43 and State of U.P. Vs. PuttiLal, (2002) 2 UPLBEC1595 (SC). In, Putti Lal's case, the Supreme Court has directed to consider the case of regulariza-tion according to the relevant prevailing rules and for payment of minimum of the pay scale as applicable to their counterpart in the Gov­ernment until services of such daily wage employees are regularized. The other deci­sions relied upon by the learned Counsel are Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Tahod Labhu Bechar, AIR 2001 SC 706 ; Jayanta Biswas Vs. The other deci­sions relied upon by the learned Counsel are Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Tahod Labhu Bechar, AIR 2001 SC 706 ; Jayanta Biswas Vs. University of Calcutta and Ors, (2001) 1 UPLBEC 74 and Daily Rated Casual Labour Employees' under PandT Department through Bharatiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch Vs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2342 , to hammer home the submissions aforestated. 90. In (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1755, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology and Anr. Vs. Manoj K. Mohanty, the Su­preme Court relying on the decisions in Jasmer Singh (supra), M.R. Ganesh Babu (supra) and Pradip Kumar Dey (supra) has held that the writ petitioner employed in the University on temporary basis as a typist con­tinued for more than five years with an artifi­cial break while working as Junior Assistant was not entitled for regularization by apply­ing principle of equal pay for equal work. 91. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and Anr. Vs. Dharambir (1988) 6 SCC, 165 has held that ad-hoc appointment which continuing for about a decade were said to be continued as ad-hoc and their nature of appointment does not change with long passage of time and there cannot be a substitute for the educational qualification prescribed for statutory recruit­ment rules for making appointment. 92. In case of Dr. Chanchal Goyal (Mrs.) vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2003)3 SCC 485 it has been observed by the Su­preme Court that unless initial recruitment is regularized through a prescribed agency, writ petitioners therein cannot be granted regular­ization, as they were petitioners appointed for a specified period (six months) or till the availability of the candidate selected by the Public Service Commission, as such were not given any right to hold the post till the joining of the selected candidate and mere continuance of the writ petitioners in service by virtue of suc­cessive extension, then in reference to the service rules applicable prohibiting the writ petitioners appointments beyond one year period without the concurrence of the Com­mission could not have been waived and the legitimate expectations could not said to be applicable in case of termination of such writ petitioners. 93. The Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Gupta and Ors. etc. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. 93. The Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Gupta and Ors. etc. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. in 2004 AIR SCW 5334 has observed that the writ peti­tioners having been appointed illegally with­out following the procedure prescribed by law, were not entitled to be continued in service, however, were allowed to participate in the regular appointments. 94. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of A. Umarani Vs. Regis­trar, Co-operative Societies and Ors. (2004) AIR SCW 4462 that appointment made without notifying vacancies to Employ­ment Exchange and in violation to the man­datory provisions of "Act" and Rules ignor­ing minimum qualifications cannot be taken for regularization despite the issuance of Gov­ernment order giving directions for regular­ization. In A. Umarani (supra) the Supreme Court held that once the employees are em­ployed for the purpose of the scheme, they do not acquire any vested a right to continue after the project is over. 95. In 2004 AIR SCW6569 in the case ofMahendra L. Jain and Ors. Vs. Indore Development Authority and Ors. it has been held that the writ petitioners deployed as Sub-Engineers initially as Sub-Engineer by Devel­opment Authority without intimating to the Employment Exchange about existing vacan­cies or without advertising the post or with­out following rules applicable and the appoint­ment was thus void ab initio. Such writ peti­tioners held not to be regularized as irregu­larity could be considered for absorption and not the illegality. According to Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right as the Constitutional Scheme which the country has adopted does not contemplate any backdoor appointment. 96. In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao & Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 499 , a of the Supreme Court has ob­served the process of regularization involves regular appointment which can be done only in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 97. In (2004) 3 UPLBEC 2470 (Suresh Chnadra Vs. Vice Chairman Gaziabad Development Authority), the High Court of Allahabad after following large number of cases of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court has observed that daily wager/contin­gent worker cannot be regularized in absence of vacancy in contravention to the rule. Also in case of 2004 ESC (Alld) 2098 (Chunkoo Singh Vs. In (2004) 3 UPLBEC 2470 (Suresh Chnadra Vs. Vice Chairman Gaziabad Development Authority), the High Court of Allahabad after following large number of cases of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court has observed that daily wager/contin­gent worker cannot be regularized in absence of vacancy in contravention to the rule. Also in case of 2004 ESC (Alld) 2098 (Chunkoo Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) the High Court (Allahabad) has held that in case of regularization of daily wager/Muster roll em­ployees in the post deployed as daily wages in the construction division of P.W.D., Allahabad despite having completed 240 days in calendar year and having served for sev­eral years their contractual deployment was not continued or extended as they have no right to work or to the post as the deploy­ment of daily wager commenced in the morn­ing and came to end in the evening and non-renewal of contractual deployment does not amount to retrenchment or fatal or illegal and there was no violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and even to show cause notice was required to them at the time of non-deployment. Such daily wagers were not to be given any opportunity of hearing in view of the fact that their engagement was purely of a daily wager depending on the availability of the work and fund and when the work was completed and fund was not available a their disengagement cannot be said to be illegal and as such the writ petitioners were not entitled to get any relief of regularization. 98. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether the peti­tioners could make valid claim for regulariza­tion of their services. The answer thereto must be rendered in negative. Regularization can­not be claimed as a matter of right. An illegal appointment cannot be legalized by taking recourse to regularization. What can be regu­larized is an irregularity and not an illegality. The Constitutional Scheme which the coun­try has adopted does not contemplate any backdoor appointment. The petitioners were deployed initially not against any created va­cancies or posts without notifying or intimat­ing employment exchange or advertisement, without conducting Selection by Constituting Committee or interview and without observing norms of reservation. A State before of­fering public service to a person must comply with the constitutional requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution along with res­ervation policy. A State before of­fering public service to a person must comply with the constitutional requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution along with res­ervation policy. All actions of the State must conform to the constitutional requirements. The Contingent Workers are not holder of civil post and in absence of post or vacancy of a statutory provision or rule or specific Scheme they would not be entitled to regu-larization or to be paid equal salary to that of regular employees of the State. No material has been brought for and on behalf of the petitioners where by the Scheme dated 22.3.2001 could be said to be unreasonable as the same is for the benefit of contingent workers themselves and any regular recruit­ment cannot be held to be illegal unless it is shown to be contrary to the relevant provi­sions of Act or Rules are in derogation to spirit of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 99. In view of the above observation, writ petition is being dismissed. However, keep­ing in view the peculiar facts and circumstances and considering the long experience and ser­vices rendered by the petitioners, the State Government may sympathetically think of not disengaging the petitioners and they could be considered for giving them regular status in the light of the Scheme dated 22.3.2001 or any subsequent norms or rule framed by the State Government under its policy measure.