Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in challenge to Award dated 12.7.2005 (Annexure P- 10). Under the impugned Award, the respondent Roshan Lal son of Shri Niranjan Singh has been directed to be reinstated along with all consequential service benefits including continuity of service and full back wages. 2. The case set up by the respondent before the Labour Court was that he was appointed as Beldar on daily-wages on 22.3.1979 in the Soil Consultancy Wing of Civil Engineering Deptt. of Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra. He worked till 31.3.1987. Thereafter also he was called for job off and on. Two other persons Surta Ram and Chander Bhan who were also working for the Deptt. filed CWP No. 2940 of 1989 which was decided in their favour on 9.12.1992. Pursuant thereto their services were regularized but this benefit was not advanced to the respondent-workman. He made number of representations which yielded no result. Finally, in the year 1997, the petitioner also filed C.W.P. No. 14712. At the time of admission of writ vide the Order dated 30.9.1997, the Deptt. was directed not to dispense with the services of the petitioner till further orders. However, an ante dated order of termination of service was passed on 28.9.1997 so as to render the writ petition infructuous. Consequently, the writ petition was withdrawn. The utter, under the circumstances, was agitated before the Labour Court. 3. The claim was contested by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the reply filed to the demand notice reads as under : "That beginning para of the demand notice is correct to this extent that petitioner was engaged as Beldar on 22.3.1979 in the Soil Consultancy Department, Regional Engg. College, Kurukshetra. It is relevant to mention here that the consultancy assignments are undertaken by the teaching staff of the REC as per consultancy rules and regulations laid down by the Board of Governors from time to time which are undertaken after taking prior permission of the Principal. As per consultancy rules, the Principal Investigator may make contractual engagements to assist him in consultancy work with the approval of the Principal for the tenure of the Project. However, such engagements cannot continue beyond the Project in any case. The expenses including the wages of such staff is made from out of the fees received for such consultancy job. As per consultancy rules, the Principal Investigator may make contractual engagements to assist him in consultancy work with the approval of the Principal for the tenure of the Project. However, such engagements cannot continue beyond the Project in any case. The expenses including the wages of such staff is made from out of the fees received for such consultancy job. In fact the petitioner was being engaged from time to time by different Principal investigators for different consultancy jobs, which are independent to each other during the period 22.3.1979 to 31.3.1987. However, after 1987 till 19.4.1996 the petitioner was not even engaged by the Principal Investigatory for any of the consultancy job, when on 19.4.1996 the petitioner was engaged by Prof. V.K. Arora in consuitancy job likewise he continued to worth upto 28.9.1997 when the services of the petitioner were finally dispensed with. Detail of period after 31.3.1987 is given below : Sh. Roshan Lal 19.4.96 to 18.5.96 30 VKA/95-96/49 -do- 21.5.96 to 20.6.96 30 VKA/96-97/05 -do- 21.6.96 to 20.7.96 30 VKA/96-97/03 -do- 23.12.96 to 22.1.97 30 VKA/96-97/28 -do- 7.2.97 to 6.3.97 30 -do- -do- 11.3.97 to 10.4.97 30 VKA/96-97/19 -do- 11.4.97 to 10.5.97 30 -do- -do- 4.8.97 to 3.9.97 30 VKA/97-98/17 -do- 4.9.97 to 28.9.97 25 -do- 4. Having taken note of the pleadings and arguments, the Labour Court held that the order of termination of service of the petitioner is illegal and liable to be set aside. One of the reasons given is that the case of the petitioner is on the same pedestal as of Surta Ram and Chander Bhan i.e. two other workmen who had approached this Court and whose services had been ordered to be regularized. The other ground taken is the contradiction in pleadings on the issue whether the workman was appointed as a Beldar on daily-wages or not. 5. We need not delve on the issues of Surta Ram and Chander Bhan as the entire law on the issue has undergone a sea-change. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a State and is required to give employment only in accordance with the statutory provisions and rules framed thereunder. Entry in the public service can only be in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. If it is not so, the appointment is rendered illegal. Any such appointment can only be on a sanctioned post. 7. Entry in the public service can only be in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. If it is not so, the appointment is rendered illegal. Any such appointment can only be on a sanctioned post. 7. It is not in dispute that the respondent was a workman on daily-wages, was however, being paid after conclusion of a month, as per the case argued on behalf of the respondent. It was never the pleaded case of the respondent that his entry in service was against a sanctioned post in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The rights of a person such as the respondent have been considered by the Honble Supreme Court of India in various judgments. 8. The rights of persons, such as the respondent-workman have been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Tek Chand v. The Presiding Officer and others, (CWP 18587 of 2004 decided on 20.7.2007) while relying on Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, (2006)3 SCC 81 (Paras 8-16) and Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma, (2006)6 SCC 221 (Para 27) and it has been held that even if the workman had completed 240 days of service, the nature of employment being on daily wages, Section 25-F of the Act will not be attracted. Rather Sub Section (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act will be attracted to the case of a daily wager when employer is governed by statutory provisions. 9. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 3657 while considering the claim of daily wage employees in public employment who called in question their termination, it has been held that every department of the Government cannot be treated to be "industry". When the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of "industry" to that extent stands excluded. Once it is found that such employees are not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work, they are employees working on daily wages. Under these circumstances, their dis-engagement from service cannot be construed to be retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of "retrenchment" cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees. 10. Under these circumstances, their dis-engagement from service cannot be construed to be retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of "retrenchment" cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees. 10. In Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd., (2007)1 SCC 533 (Para 28), the Honble Supreme Court held that on completion of 240 days of continuous service for a year, the employee cannot be held to be entitled for regularization of his services and/or a permanent status. 11. In State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007)1 SCC 575 (Paras 12, 13 and 17), the distinction between irregular appointment and illegal appointment has been defined. It has been held that in the event the appointment is made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment would be an illegal one. 12. In State of M.P. and others v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey and others, (2006)8 SCC 67 (Para 9), it has been held that once a person is appointed without there being a sanctioned post or notification of vacancies, in disregard to statutory rules, regularization cannot follow as it would tantamount to appointment and would result in back door appointment which does not have legal sanction. 13. In M.P. Housing Board and another v. Manoj Shrivastava, (2006)2 SCC 702 (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 17), it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court that a person with a view to obtain status of "permanent employee" must be employed in terms of statutory rules. It is one thing to say that a person was appointed on ad hoc basis or as a daily wager but another thing to say that he was appointed against a sanctioned post lying vacant, upon following the due procedure prescribed therefore. A daily wager does not hold the post unless he is appointed in terms of the Act and rules framed thereunder and therefore, does not derive any legal right. Such an appointment is clearly illegal. 14. A daily wager does not hold the post unless he is appointed in terms of the Act and rules framed thereunder and therefore, does not derive any legal right. Such an appointment is clearly illegal. 14. In M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and anothers v. S.C. Pandey, (2006)2 SCC Cases 716, after framing the issues in Para 7, hereof, in paras 17 and 18, it has been held that : "(1) When the conditions of service are governed by two statutes, one relating to selection and appointment, and the other relating to the terms and conditions of service, an endeavour should be made to give effect to both the statutes; (2) A daily wager does not hold a post as he is not appointed in terms of the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder and in that view of the matter he does not derive any legal right; (3) Only because an employee had been working for more than 240 days, that by itself would not confer any legal right upon him to be reguiarized in service, and (4) If an appointment has been made contrary to the provisions of statute, the same would be void and the effect thereof would be that no legal right would be drived by the employees by reason thereof." 15. In view of nature of appointment of the respondent-workman, as noticed hereinabove, we find that the respondent-workman cannot be directed to be reinstated. No such person can be taken in service, or his services regularized when public employment is involved. 16. Any parity with Surta Ram and Chander Bhan would mean perpetuating an illegality. By way of reinstatement of the petitioner, employment cannot be allowed by way of back door entry. The counsel for the respondent has relied on Sayeed Yakob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, AIR 1964 SC 477, B.R. Spinners Private Limited v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ludhiana and another (2003)2 RSJ 252 and Ramesh Kumar v. Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited and another, (2001)4 RSJ 466, wherein the scope of writ of certiorari has been enumerated. The contention is that no fault can be found with the findings returned by the Labour Court and therefore writ of certiorari cannot be issued so as to set aside the award passed by the Labour Court. 17. The contention is that no fault can be found with the findings returned by the Labour Court and therefore writ of certiorari cannot be issued so as to set aside the award passed by the Labour Court. 17. We have considered the judgments, however, find that the same would not apply to the facts of this case. The stand of the petitioner employer taken in the written statement has not been disproved. The stand is very specific, reflecting the engagement of the respondent by various teachers/Professors working in the petitioner-College, the engagement at the most contractual so as to assist the Professors during the tenure/currency of the project. The case therefore would clearly fall within the scope of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. It is in this view of the matter that the respondent worked for specified periods. This aspect has not been given any weightage by the Labour Court. Other than the above, we find that the rights of the respondent to continue in service or for the purposes of reinstatement have not been considered at all. We cannot lose sight of the law as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the judgments referred to above. 18. In view of the facts and circumstances given above and law as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in various judgments referred to above, we allow the writ petition and accordingly set aside the impugned award dated 12.7.2005. We, however, direct the petitioner to pay the wages to respondent No. 2 as are required and permissible under Section 17- B of the Act within two months from today.