Judgment : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20612 of 2000 dated 21. 2004, directing the Hostels and Canteens, who have put in more than seven years of service with effect from 1. 2004 with a further direction to comply with the order within two months. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are that the respondent-Sangam filed W.P.No.20612 of 2000 on behalf of its 119 members, claiming that they are working as Clerks, Attenders, Watchmen, Cooks, Servants, etc., in the Hostels and Canteen run by the appellant Madurai Kamaraj University. The contention was that they have completed nearly 20 to 25 years of continuous service and the respondent-Sangam was taking steps to get regularisation of their services and on 110. 1986, the Syndicate of the University also passed a resolution to regularise those persons, who have completed seven Years of service. In spite of the said alleged resolution the services of the employees having not been regularised, various representations were submitted based on which the Syndicate again resolved to take necessary action to regularise the members of the respondent-Sangam. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the Hostel Sub-Committee in its meeting held in September, 1999, recommended for such regularisation and the said recommendation was also approved by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 19. 1999 and subsequently the Vice Chancellor of the University/second appellant herein was authorised to take necessary action. No action being taken, the respondent Sangam filed the Writ Petition seeking direction to the appellant-University to implement the resolution of the Syndicate and regularise the services of the members of the respondent-Sangam within a time frame. .3. The Writ Petition was resisted by the appellant-University by filing counter affidavit contending that even though the members of the respondent-Sangam are working in various categories, all the members have not completed 20 to 25 years of service and only 40 out of 119 persons have completed 20 years of service. It is only the Hostel Committee and not the Syndicate recommended to regularise the Hostel Clerks and those who have completed seven years of service in the cadre of Gardener and watchmen, and the Syndicate on 210. It is only the Hostel Committee and not the Syndicate recommended to regularise the Hostel Clerks and those who have completed seven years of service in the cadre of Gardener and watchmen, and the Syndicate on 210. 1986 approved only the recommendations of the Hostel Committee only with regard to the revision of pay scales and authorised the Vice Chancellor to take necessary action. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Syndicate in its meeting held on 12. 1989, examined the recommendations of the Hostel Committee and resolved to consider their inclusion in the service of the University at a later date, according to the seniority as and when vacancy arises. The wardens of the Womens hostel and Mens Hostel sent the list of employees working in their respective hostels, according to the seniority and the members of the respondent-Sangam were allowed to subscribe to PF and ERWF from 1993. The Syndicate approved the recommendations of the Hostel Committee only with regard to the payment of Medical allowance, Surrender Salary, LTC to Hostel Employees, who have put in ten years of service were approved. As per the counter affidavit, the statute of the University provides for recognition of the hostel by the Syndicate and the hostel is run by the students on dividing the expenditure and salary is paid to the hostel employees only from the money received from the students staying in the Hostel and separate account is maintained by the warden of the hostel. The University has not issued any appointment order for hostel employees and no budgetary allocation is made by the University for payment of salary to the hostel employees. Pointing out all these things, the appellant-University prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 21. 2004 with a direction to the University to regularise the services of the employees of all the Hostels and Canteens of the University, who have put in more than seven years of continuous and regular service with effect from 1. 2004 and the said order was directed to be complied with, in two months. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the University and the Vice Chancellor preferred this Appeal on various grounds. 6. 2004 and the said order was directed to be complied with, in two months. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the University and the Vice Chancellor preferred this Appeal on various grounds. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant University submitted that the members of the respondent-Sangam were engaged in the hostel without any selection i.e., either by calling for Applications from the open market or from getting list from the Employment Exchange. Further, there is no sanctioned vacancy available for accommodating the members by way of regularisation. The salary having been paid from the fee collected from the students and no budgetary allocation is made by the University for making any payment and no appointment order was issued by the University, the members of the respondent-Sangam have no right to demand regularisation of its members, merely because they are engaged in the hostel service for some years. .7. The learned counsel for the respondent the other hand submitted that the appellant- University absorbed various other persons employed in various schemes/project and the members of the respondent-Sangam shall be treated equally and therefore the learned single Judge was right in ordering regularization to such of those persons, who have completed seven or more years of service in the hostel. 8. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-University as well as respondent-Sangam. 9. It is not the case of the respondent-Sangam that its members were appointed/engaged after Applications were called for either in the open market or that their names were sponsored through the Employment Exchange. Therefore the entry/engagement of the members of the writ petitioner, association in the hostel services is not in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Sangam that the hostel wardens were given powers to appoint under the University Statute, the same will not in any way justify the engagement of the members of the respondent-Sangam in Hostel services, particularly when the respective Hostel Wardens have admittedly not followed the procedure for selection viz., calling for Applications through advertisement or getting list from the Employment Exchange. Hence the engagement of the members of the respondent-Sangam in the services of the Hostels are in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as all the persons not given opportunity to apply and compete for selection. 10. It is also not the case of the respondent-Sangam that their members were engaged after undergoing proper selection process. Hence the engagement of the members of the respondent-Sangam in the Hostels/Canteens, cannot be treated as irregular appointment, but the same is to be treated as illegal appointments. Moreover, as per the counter affidavit filed by the appellants, there were no sanctioned vacancies for the posts in which members of the respondent-Sangam are seeking regularisation. In the absence of any sanctioned post, no one could seek for regularization. The question of regularisation will arise only if there is sanctioned vacancy, even assuming that the members of the respondent-Sangam were engaged irregularly and not illegally. 11. Similar issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. K Dhanasekaran and Others, W.A. Nos. 266 & 267 of 2007, in which one of us (S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.) was a party, and by judgment dated 8. 2007, this Court set aside the directions issued by the learned single Judge to appoint daily rated employees served in TNPSC in any one of the post in any Government Department or in the State Government Undertakings, subject to their fulfilling educational qualifications and to those who have completed 10 years of service as on 20.2.2001 within three months and those who have completed more than seven years but less than ten years of service were directed to be accommodated in a post within six months and those who have completed more than five years but less than seven years were directed to be accommodated within one year, etc. The Division Bench in paragraph 13 of the judgment, considered various decisions of the Supreme Court and set aside the direction issued by the learned single Judge, which reads as follows: "13. Whether daily wage employees can claim for regular appointment/absorption/regularisation, fell for consideration before the Supreme Court from time to time. The Division Bench in paragraph 13 of the judgment, considered various decisions of the Supreme Court and set aside the direction issued by the learned single Judge, which reads as follows: "13. Whether daily wage employees can claim for regular appointment/absorption/regularisation, fell for consideration before the Supreme Court from time to time. In the case of Union of India and Others v. Dinesh Kumar Saxena and Others, AIR 1995 SC 1565 : (1995) 3 SCC 401 : 1996-I-LLJ-14, the Supreme Court noticed that the retrenched employees perform duty during census work for about six years, but held that in absence of scheme, regularisation was not permissible. In another case of Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwal v. State of J & K and Others AIR 1996 SC 2775 : (1996) 9 SCC 619 : 1996-II-LLJ-795, having noticed the fact that ad hoc appointees were continuing for thirteen years, the Supreme Court held that still regularisation was not permissible. The case of Union of India and Others v. Mahender Singh and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 245 : 1997-II-LLJ-795, relate to regularisation of service. The Supreme Court observed that simply on the basis of length of service, regularisation cannot be directed. At best action could be taken in accordance with the rule/scheme. In another case of Ram Ganesh Tripathi and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1997 SC 1446 : (1997) 1 SCC 621 , the Supreme Court observed that by passing the process of selection, regularisation of ad hoc employees is not permissible. The question of regularisation, absorption or permanency of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees fell for consideration before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court recently in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), AIR 2006 SC 1806 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 : (2006) 2 MLJ 326 : 2006-II-LLJ-722. In the said case, the Supreme Court held that temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees appointed/recruited de hors the rule, even if continued for long, are not entitled for regularisation. What the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court directed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) (supra), is principle of regularisation in relation to such appointments, which were irregular in nature, but not illegal one. What the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court directed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) (supra), is principle of regularisation in relation to such appointments, which were irregular in nature, but not illegal one. The aforesaid judgment was also noticed by the Supreme Court in Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh, AIR 2007 SC 1082 : (2007) 2 SCC 491 : 2007-II-LLJ-1052. In the said case, the Supreme Court, while held that the State may have some control with regard to recruitment of employees to local bodies, but such control must be exercised by State strictly in terms of provisions of the Act. The statutory bodies are bound to apply the rules and regulation laid down under the statutory rule. Neither the statutory body could refuse to fulfil such conditional data nor could the State issue any direction contrary to or inconsistent with the constitutional principles adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Even a scheme issued under Article 162 of the Constitution would not prevail over statutory rules. In the aforesaid case of Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh (supra), the Supreme Court also noticed that the High Court did not issue a writ of mandamus on arriving at a finding that the respondent had a legal right in relation to their claim for regularisation, which it was not obligated to do. The Court proceeded to issue the direction only oh the basis of the purported policy decision and failed to notice that any departmental letter or executive instruction cannot prevail over the statutory rule and constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court held that any appointment, thus, made without following the procedure would be ultra vires." The facts in this case are also identical. 12. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-Sangam that the appellant-University has chosen to give temporary appointment to persons worked in various schemes/projects and similar treatment should be extended to the members of the respondent-Sangam, cannot be accepted in view of non-availability of facts and circumstances under which the said persons were appointed on the basis of inviting Applications or sponsorship through Employment Exchange; and even if they have been originally appointed illegally and temporarily absorbed, the same cannot be treated as an instance to seek the same relief. It is well settled in law that there cannot be any equality in illegality. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Kamini, (2007) 3 MLJ 885 : 2007 AIR SCW 2554, in paragraph 10 held as follows at p.888 of MLJ: "10.... It is well settled and needs no authority that misconstruction of a provision law in one case does not give rise to a similar misconstruction in other cases on the basis of doctrine of equality. An illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated under the so-called ‘equality doctrine. That is not the sweep of Article 14." Therefore the above said contention raised by the respondent-Sangam is also rejected. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Sangam cited a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in V. Radhakrishnan v. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, 2007 (3) CTC 672 . The said case arises under the Industrial Disputes Act regarding regularisation of the casual daily labourers and the same cannot be compared with the facts in this case. 14. In view of the conclusion arrived at by us, we are of the view that the impugned order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The writ appeal is allowed and consequently the writ petition filed by the respondent-Sangam is dismissed. No costs. Writ appeal allowed.