RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 19. 11. 2003 passed by respondent No. 2 and for regularisation of his services as Supervisor in allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a Supervisor on daily wages on 1. 2. 1990. He filed Writ petition No. 28211 of 1995 in which an interim order was granted on 29. 9. 1995 which was operative till 30. 10. 1995. The Writ Petition No. 2x21 1 of 1995 was disposed of vide judgment dated 23. 2. 2000 with the direction to the respondents to consider regularisation of services of the petitioner in accordance, with law. It appears that in the mean time some daily wage employees who had been appointed subsequent to the petitioner had been regularised ignoring the petitioner. After the judgment in the Writ Petition the case of the petitioner for regularisation was considered by the respondent and rejected. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the rejection, the petitioner again filed a Writ Petition No. 41216 of 2000, In the mean time during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition the State Government issued G. O. dated 7. 3. 2001 to the effect that those employees who were appointed up-to 29. 6. 1991 may be considered for regularisation in service. ( 5 ) IT is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the ease of the petitioner was even then not considered compelling the petitioner to submit a representation to the Vide-Chairman of allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad which too remained unactioned though in the meantime many persons junior to the petitioner were regularised in pursuance of the aforesaid g. O. dated 7. 3. 2001. ( 6 ) THE petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 38195 of 2002, Mahendra Singh Yadav v. State and ors. , which again was disposed of by judgment dated 18. 9. 2002 with direction to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 9,5. 2002 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. , which again was disposed of by judgment dated 18. 9. 2002 with direction to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 9,5. 2002 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Since the representation of the petitioner was not decided the petitioner tiled Contempt Application No. 390 of 2003, Mahendra Singh Yadav v. Naresh kumar, Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad in accordance with G. Q. dated 7. 3. 200. The claim of the petitioner was thereafter rejected for the second time by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 17. 2. 2003. The order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ petition No. 15689 of 2003, Mahendra Singh Yadav v. Secretary, Government of U. P. and Ors. , which is said to be still pending with following relief: (i) issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17. 2. 2003 passed by Vice Chairman Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (Annexure no. IX to this writ petition ). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to serve the copy of termination order (if any) to the petitioner. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30. 9. 1995 (termination of service of petitioner ). (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of petitioner on the post of supervisor in Allahabad Development authority and pay his salary and others benefits continuously in accordance with law. (v) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case (vi) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of petitioner and against respondents. ( 7 ) IT appears that in the mean time Writ Petition No. 41216 of 2000 was filed by Dilip Kumar tewari. Shiv Adhar and Shitala Prasad and Writ Petition No. 49538 of 2000 was filed by Dilip kumar Srivastava and 5 others which were disposed of by judgment dated 20. 7. 2005 with direction to the Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority to consider the claim of the petitioner (s) in accordance with G. O. dated 7. 3. 2001 and resolution of Board meeting dated 24. 8. 2002 of the Allahabad Development Authority. 7. 2005 with direction to the Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority to consider the claim of the petitioner (s) in accordance with G. O. dated 7. 3. 2001 and resolution of Board meeting dated 24. 8. 2002 of the Allahabad Development Authority. The claim of these employees was, however, rejected by respondent No. 2 by order dated l9. 11. 2005, hence this writ petition. ( 8 ) THE claim of the petitioner as well as some other employees for regularisation has been rejected time and over again. The petitioner has now again conic up in this writ petition with the prayer for quashing the order dated 19. 11. 2005 passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting his representation for regularisation. He further prays for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise his services in pursuance of G. O. dated 7. 3. 2001 and resolution of board meeting of Allahabad Development Authority dated 24. 8. 2002 as well as for payment of minimum pay scale accordingly. ( 9 ) FURTHER in view of the decision rendered in R. N. Nanjuddapa v. T. Thimmiah air1972 SC 1767 , (1972) I LLJ565 SC , (1972) 1 SCC409 , [1972 ]2 scr799 , if an appointment is made by infraction of the rules or if it is-in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, such appointment being illegal, cannot be regularised, as there has been non-compliance with the procedure of appointment, which goes to the root. ( 10 ) IN Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar A. I. R. 1997 S. C. 1627, it has been held that if the initial entry in service is itself unauthorised and is not against any sanctioned vacancy the question of regularising the incumbent on such non-existent vacancy does not arise and even if such purported regularisation or confirmation is given it would he an exercise in futility. Admittedly the petitioner was a daily wager. A daily wager has no right to a sanctioned post. The claim for regularisation of the petitioner cannot be feinted by the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution in view of the apex court decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Sardara Singh (1998) 9 S. C. C. 709. ( 11 ) THE matter has been considered in details by a Division Bench of this Court in State of U. P. and Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad and Ors. ( 11 ) THE matter has been considered in details by a Division Bench of this Court in State of U. P. and Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad and Ors. 2004 (1) U. P. L. B. E. C. 60, Relying upon Khagesh Kumar and Ors. v. I. G. Registration and Ors. ;, 1996 VI AD (SC) 780 , JT1996 (7) SC 545 1990 Lablc 1490 , 1996 (6) SCALE 323 , (1996) 10 SCC 100 , [1996] Supp 5 SCR 352 , (1997) 1 UPLBEC505 ; State of U. P. and Ors. v. Putti Lal (1996) 1 U. P. L. B. E. C. 313; and dharvad District P. W. D. Literate Daily Employees Association and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1990) 3 U. P. L. B. E. C. 2151; the Court held in paragraph 7 as under: -It is well settled that all public posts have to he filled in after advertising the same in well known newspapers and thereafter holding a selection so as to comply with Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. ( 12 ) THE Court thereafter dismissed the petition holding that the High Court cannot issue direction for regularisation of such employees who are appointed by infraction of rules or not by competent authority or those not appointed in accordance with law. ( 13 ) ALL employees whether causal, daily wager, temporary ad hoc etc. can be appointed only against available sanctioned post by following recruitment process in accordance with Rules. The posts have to be advertised in well known news papers having wide circulation in the area as well as at least in a national level paper, otherwise the appointment process would not be transparent and there would be scope for arbitrariness illegality and back door entry and denial of equal opportunity in the matter of employment. Even if a person has worked for long period he cannot be regularised in service if his appointment was not in accordance with law. He has to come through recruitment process but may be granted benefit of relaxation in age and preference for his services. ( 14 ) AS regard to the payment of minimum pay scale the same can be grained to an employee who is appointed against a sanctioned post. He has to come through recruitment process but may be granted benefit of relaxation in age and preference for his services. ( 14 ) AS regard to the payment of minimum pay scale the same can be grained to an employee who is appointed against a sanctioned post. The petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned post and in view of the fact that he was a daily wager the Court cannot direct for payment of minimum wages. ( 15 ) THE petitioner himself claims that he has come up in the writ petition claiming the mere relief of regularisation of his services and his representation has been rejected on the ground that he was not eligible for regularisation. ( 16 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner had worked under an interim order of this Court till 30. 10:1995 though the claim of the petitioner is that he had worked under the interim order till 1997. His case has further been considered in the light of G. O. dated 7. 3. 2001 and the Boards meeting dated 24. 8. 2002 in pursuance of the direction of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 41216 of 2000, 4953s of 2000 and 38195 of 2002, Mahendra Singh Yadav v. State and Ors. . ( 17 ) THE petitioner has come up in this writ petition for the same relief of regularisation of his services. As stated earlier no such relief can be granted to the petitioner as the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy before the Industrial Tribunal against the order of his termination. liven otherwise he is not now in service for the last about 8 years. ( 18 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition ass well as the connected Writ Petition No. 15689 of 2003. Mahendra Singh Yadav v. Secretary Government of U. P. and Ors. , is dismissed. No outer as to costs. . .