S. S. JHA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER State has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the M. P. State administrative Tribunal, Bench Gwalior in o. A. No. 1225/1998. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS are the employees of the state Government. Their services were terminated. They approached the Tribunal. Tribunal vide order dated July 29, 1995 set aside the order of termination on the ground that services have been terminated without issuing show cause notice and respondents were given liberty to initiate action in accordance with law. Case went up to the Apex court and leave to file appeal was not granted and Special leave petition was dismissed by the apex Court. Notices to show cause were issued to the respondents under Rule 10 (8) of M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1966 and services of respondents were terminated vide order dated august 25, 1998. It has been argued that major penalty has been imposed without following the procedure laid down in Rule 14 whereas, petitioner-State submitted before the Tribunal that the order of termination is termination simpliciter and it would not mean that the order of termination is by way of punishment. Tribunal, therefore, allowed the petition and set aside the order of termination. ( 3 ) IDENTICAL orders were passed earlier by the Tribunal and the dispute came up before this court in Writ Petition No. 1982/2001. Learned additional Advocate General, appearing for the State contended that previous orders were passed on the basis of circular issued by the state Government. In an appeal filed by the state Government order of reinstatement passed by the Tribunal was modified with a direction that under the circular dated december 31, 1990 case of each daily wage employee who were engaged prior to december 31, 1988 are entitled to be regularised if found suitable in the screening. Entire exercise was required to be completed within four months in the light of the circular issued by the State Government dated december 31, 1990. Counsel for the State submitted that that circular has now been withdrawn by the State Government therefore, previous orders of this Court on the basis of the circular will not be applicable in this case. Entire exercise was required to be completed within four months in the light of the circular issued by the State Government dated december 31, 1990. Counsel for the State submitted that that circular has now been withdrawn by the State Government therefore, previous orders of this Court on the basis of the circular will not be applicable in this case. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the respondents submitted that the State Government has issued orders on august 22, 2001 that the employees engaged on daily wages in the hostels of Tribal Welfare department will not be retrenched. Therefore, the respondents who have been engaged prior to December 31, 1988 are entitled to continue on daily wages. ( 5 ) QUESTION involved in the case is whether the respondents were permanent employees or since they had continued in service for a long time, whether their services can be terminated under Rule 10 (8) of M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules. ( 6 ) RESPONDENTS-EMPLOYEES claimed that the General Administration Department, government of Madhya Pradesh had issued a circular dated January 17, 1993 and directions were issued to fill up available posts of reserved quota meant for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and in terms of the specific directions to fill-up the posts from the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes. Welfare Department of State of M. P. had started the process for appointment by constituting a selection committee. Said selection committee considered the cases and appointed persons. Proceedings of the selection committee is filed as Annexure A/2 with the original application filed by the respondents before the Tribunal. The committee consisted of Additional Collector, Morena as the president, and District Organiser, Morena, principal, High School, Occha Pura, and regional Coordinator Sahariya Vikas abhikaran, Morena as its members. It was also recommended that the persons engaged on part time basis or as labours, shall be continued on daily wages fixed by the Collector of the district. Later on, orders were passed about the daily wagers and part time labours to be continued on daily wages on the rate fixed by the Collector for working against the posts of cook, Waterman and Chowkidar. Thus, no orders for appointment were issued. Later on, orders were passed about the daily wagers and part time labours to be continued on daily wages on the rate fixed by the Collector for working against the posts of cook, Waterman and Chowkidar. Thus, no orders for appointment were issued. Vide order annexure A/6 notices were issued that the respondents are daily wagers and as per government Circular they cannot be continued on daily wages and their services were terminated. Said order of the State Government was challenged before the Tribunal and the tribunal held that the termination is bad in law since the order of termination was passed without following due process of law. It is further held that the appointment may be illegal but before terminating their services, opportunity to show cause be issued to them. ( 7 ) AFTER orders were passed in O. A. NO. 917 of 1994, show cause notice under Rule 10 (8) of M. P. Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules was given to the respondents and thereafter, they were discontinued. ( 8 ) NOW the question is whether the tribunal was justified in holding that without holding departmental enquiry whether the respondents could be discontinued from service. Tribunal has not considered whether any appointment orders were given to the respondents. Respondents were engaged on the rate fixed by the Collector and they were not appointed on regular post according to the recruitment rules. As such, whether they have right of regularisation. ( 9 ) COUNSEL for the respondents submitted that the State Government has issued a circular and under the circular, daily wagers are entitled for regularisation, said circular was issued on january 9, 1990. counsel for the petitioner State submitted that the said circular has been withdrawn by the State Government. ( 10 ) QUESTION involved in the case is whether the respondents employees had acquired any right under the circular for regularisation and whether withdrawal of the circular by subsequent notification will adversely affect the rights of daily wagers. ( 11 ) AS regards circular is concerned, this circular came up for consideration before the division Bench of this Court in the case of suresh Chandra v. State of M. P. 1993 (1)MPJR 147 . ( 11 ) AS regards circular is concerned, this circular came up for consideration before the division Bench of this Court in the case of suresh Chandra v. State of M. P. 1993 (1)MPJR 147 . Division Bench of this Court declared the circular dated May 15, 1987 as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and held that the known and recognised modes of appointment to services are (i) direct recruitment, (ii) by promotion and (iii) by transfer. Appointment by regularisation is unknown to service regulations. Any regularisation tantamounting to appointment of a person is permissible only under the rules framed under Articles 309 of the Constitution. Any circular or executive instructions against the recruitment rules will not override the rules framed under Articles 309 of the Constitution. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench no right has accrued to the respondents employees under the circulars dated May 15, 1987 and january 13, 1989. Circular dated January 13, 1989 is to be read in continuation of the earlier circular dated May 15, 1987. Therefore, no right was conferred upon the daily wagers for regularisation. As such, the Tribunal could not direct regularisation of the respondents and the directions of the Tribunal are contrary to law. ( 12 ) AS regards applicability of M. P. Standard Standing Orders Act, 1960 is concerned, this question came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development authority AIR 2005 SC 1252 : 2005 (1) SCC 639 : 2005-I-LLJ-578 Apex Court has considered the provisions of M. P. Industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 and held that 1961 Act was enacted to provide for rules defining with sufficient precision in certain matters the conditions of employment of employees in undertakings in the State of madhya Pradesh. It is held in para 26 as under at p. 583 of LLJ:"26. The 1961 Act was enacted to provide for rules defining with sufficient precision in certain matters the conditions of employment of employees in undertakings in the State of Madhya Pradesh. By reason of the provisions of the said Act, application of Standard Standing Orders to undertakings has been provided in terms whereof the matters to be provided in the standard Standing Orders have been specified. By reason of the provisions of the said Act, application of Standard Standing Orders to undertakings has been provided in terms whereof the matters to be provided in the standard Standing Orders have been specified. Under sub-section (1) of Section 6, the State Government may, by notification, apply Standard Standing orders to such class of undertakings and from such date as may be specified therein. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 reads as under: 6 (2) Where immediately before the commencement of this Act Standing Orders are in force in respect of any undertaking, such Standing Orders, shall, until Standard standard Orders are applied to such undertaking under sub-section (1) continue in force as if they were made under this Act. " ( 13 ) NOW the question requires to be determined is whether the engagement was in an undertaking and what will be the meaning of "undertaking". In para 29 of the judgment, the Apex Court has considered the effect of 1961 Act, M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh adhiniyam, 1973 and M. P. Development authority Services (Officers and Servants)Recruitment Rules, 1987 and held that the subsequent rules are not in derogation of the provisions contained in the schedule appended to M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1961. It is further held that the standing Orders governing the terms and conditions of service must be read subject to the constitutional limitations wherever applicable. Constitution being the suprema lax, shall prevail over all other statutes. In the absence of any specific directions contained in the Schedule appended to the Standing Orders, the statute and the statutory rules applicable to the employees of the respondent shall prevail. Thus, it has been laid down that the statute and the statutory rules applicable for recruitment rules shall prevail over Standard Standing orders Act. ( 14 ) NEXT question involved in the case is whether any regularisation could be made against the recruitment rules framed under article 309 of the Constitution of India. ( 15 ) IN the case of Madhyamik Shiksha parishad, U. P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra AIR 1994 SC 1638 : 1994-II-LLJ-977 which relates to ad hoc appointees/temporary employees it is held that status of workmen cannot be envisaged for ad hoc appointees on analogy with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ( 15 ) IN the case of Madhyamik Shiksha parishad, U. P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra AIR 1994 SC 1638 : 1994-II-LLJ-977 which relates to ad hoc appointees/temporary employees it is held that status of workmen cannot be envisaged for ad hoc appointees on analogy with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Completion of said period of work does not import the right to regularisation, but it merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the service. ( 16 ) DIVISION Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra (supra) has considered the circular dated January 9, 1990 issued by the madhya Pradesh State Karmik Prashashanik sudhar Evam Prasikshan Vibhag and has considered the question whether employees engaged prior to December 31, 1988 on daily wages or on ad hoc basis in Class III and Class iv posts in employment as on December 31, 1988 are liable to be absorbed on contingency establishment and if the daily rated workers and ad hoc employees were working against such posts on work charged and contingency establishment, they would be regularised on those posts and if need be, additional posts would be created and where work charged and contingency establishment posts are not available, such employees would be appointed in regular establishment, if need be by creating additional posts. By this circular, guidelines have been issued for regularisation of daily rated workers. ( 17 ) THIS circular dated January 9, 1990 and earlier circulars issued from time to time have been declared ultra vires by this judgment. Thus no right is conferred upon the respondents/employees for regularisation under the circular dated January 9, 1990 issued by the State of M. P. Therefore, withdrawal of this circular vide order dated April 12, 2005 will have no effect as the said circular has not conferred any right upon the daily ' rated or ad hoc employees for regularisation. Any circular directing regularisation de hors of recruitment rules will be a nullity and the said circular, if not consistent with the recruitment rules, will have no force of law. ( 18 ) IN the circumstances, respondents employees cannot acquire any right for regularisation. Even otherwise, Division bench of this Court in the case of Bherusingh v. State, 1986 MPLJ 617 has held that recruitment should be strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules. ( 18 ) IN the circumstances, respondents employees cannot acquire any right for regularisation. Even otherwise, Division bench of this Court in the case of Bherusingh v. State, 1986 MPLJ 617 has held that recruitment should be strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules. Any appointment against the recruitment rules will not confer any right upon the employee. ( 19 ) AS discussed above, order of the administrative Tribunal directing regularisation of daily wagers and casual labours is set aside and original applications are dismissed with a direction that in case the State Government is still engaging persons on causal or daily rated basis, then case of respondents- employees for their engagement or reengagement on daily rated basis on the basis of circular and the rules in force be considered. ( 20 ) THESE petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are allowed with directions to the respondents as indicated above and impugned orders passed by the M. P. State administrative Tribunal are set aside. .