JUDGMENT: 1. THIS Appeal is directed against the Order /judgment dated 24. 7. 2003 passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in w. P. No. 7482 (W) of 2002 whereby and where under the prayer of the Appellants for regularisation and/or absorption against permanent vacancies, was rejected. 2. THE facts as could be gathered from the Writ petition is that the 3 (three) Appellants herein (Kalyan Biswas, Pradip Sharma and Sudipta Roy) along with one Debasish Naskar had filed the aforementioned w. P. No. 7482 (W) of 2002 wherein they had prayed for an Order commanding upon the Respondents to regularise their services after taking into consideration their long and dedicated service with them and also taking into consideration that they were stated to have been appointed in accordance with law against permanent vacancies. The Petitioners had also made a prayer for arrears of salary. Let it be recorded, before proceeding any further that at Page 112 of the Paper Book, a letter has been attached and which is shown to have been written by Debasish Naskar (who was the Petitioner No. 3 in the Writ Petition) and which is addressed to the learned Counsel Sudipta bhattacherjee wherein, he has requested, during the pendency of MAT No. 2633 of 2003 which gave rise to this Appeal, that he does not want to proceed with the appeal and as such, requested for the deletion of his name. The said letter is dated 19. 2. 2004. 3. LET it further be recorded that this case was heard on various dates indicated as above and on 26. 3. 2008 we had reserved judgments after hearing was concluded but at the time of considering the case for purposes of delivery of Judgment, it was noticed that neither in the Writ petition nor in the Memorandum of Appeal, the Father's name or the postal addresses of the Petitioners/appellants were given/mentioned and therefore, we directed this case to be listed under the heading "to be mentioned" on 16. 4. 2008. On the said day, Mr. Saptangsu Basu, prayed that an opportunity be given to him to cure the defects and therefore, in the interests of justice and after taking note of the no objection of Mr. Suprakash Banerjee, we accordingly granted leave to Mr. Saptangsu Basu to file an Amendment Application. 4. AFTER granting leave to Mr. 4. 2008. On the said day, Mr. Saptangsu Basu, prayed that an opportunity be given to him to cure the defects and therefore, in the interests of justice and after taking note of the no objection of Mr. Suprakash Banerjee, we accordingly granted leave to Mr. Saptangsu Basu to file an Amendment Application. 4. AFTER granting leave to Mr. Basu, as stated above, we directed the matter to be listed under the same Heading after one week. Thereafter, on 30. 4. 2008, the matter was listed along with an Interlocutory application being CAN 3564 of 2008 in which a Schedule was given at running page 6 thereof giving the details of the three remaining Petitioners relating to their parentage and address with a prayer that the same be allowed to be incorporated. We accordingly allowed the said Application and directed the learned Counsel for the Appellants to carry out the necessary amendments which now appear to have been done thereby curing the defects. We then directed the matter to appear on 6. 5. 2008 for further hearing. Consequently, the case was heard again on 6. 5. 2008 and thereafter the Judgment was reserved once again. It would therefore be necessary to quote the orders dated 16. 4. 2008, 30. 4. 2008 and 6. 5. 2008 which read as follows:-16. 4. 2008 F. M. A. 759 Of 2005 mr. Saptangsu Basu """ for the Appellant. Mr. Suprakash Banerjee, mr. Saibal Acharya""". for the Respondent. This case has been listed at our instance. Let it be recorded that this case was reserved for Judgment on 26. 3. 2008 but at the time of considering the case for purposes of dictating the Judgment at our residence, it was noticed that neither in the Writ petition nor in the Memorandum of Appeal, the postal addressed or the fathers" name have been mentioned contrary to Chapter 5 of the Appellate Side's Rules of this Court. This Court does not understand as to how, in the absence of such crucial details, the department had placed the matter for consideration. Mr. Saptangsu Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, begs apology and prays that an opportunity be given to him to cure the defects. In the interests of justice, and having taken note of the submission of Mr. Mr. Saptangsu Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, begs apology and prays that an opportunity be given to him to cure the defects. In the interests of justice, and having taken note of the submission of Mr. Suprakash Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents to the effect that he has no objection to such an opportunity being granted, we grant leave to Mr. Saptangsu Basu to file an Application/amendment Petition for making necessary corrections. At the same time, we call upon the Department to explain as to why and how did they place the case for consideration in the absence of such details rendering the case defective. Mr. Saptangsu Basu prays for and is granted leave to file the Application/amendment Petition within one week from today. The matter shall appear again under same heading after one week. (Tapen Sen, J.) (Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.)30. 4. 2008 c. A. N. 3564 of 2008 in f. M. A. 759 of 2005 ms. Ananya Das"". for the Appellants. Mr. Suprakash Banerjee, mr. Saibal Acharya "". for the State. Pursuant to the Order dated 16. 4. 2008, an application for amendment of the cause title has been filed after notice to Mr. Suprakash Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. Upon a perusal of the schedule of amendment to be carried out which has been incorporated in page "6" of the Application, we notice that there is no indication in respect of any proposed amendment relating to the Appellant No. 3, Debasish Naskar, but ms. Ananya Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, draws attention of this Court to page 112 of the paper books and submits that said Debasish naskar had already made a request for deletion of his name and therefore that Letter has been incorporated in the paper book itself. Having heard the Parties and having considered the statements made in the Application, we allow the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants to carry out the necessary amendments in the Memorandum of Appeal as well as in the paper book. She is further directed to make necessary corrections in the paper book that has been served upon Mr. Suprakash banerjee also during the course of the day itself. The matter shall appear for further hearing on 6. 5. 2008. The Application for amendment stands disposed of. (Tapen Sen, J.) (Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.)9. 6. 5. She is further directed to make necessary corrections in the paper book that has been served upon Mr. Suprakash banerjee also during the course of the day itself. The matter shall appear for further hearing on 6. 5. 2008. The Application for amendment stands disposed of. (Tapen Sen, J.) (Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.)9. 6. 5. 08 f. M. A 759 of 2005 mr. Saptansu Basu ms. Ananya Das "". for the Appellants. Mr. Suprakash Banerjee, mr. Saibal Acharya"". for the State. Matter taken up for further hearing. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Arguments concluded. Judgment is reserved. (Tapen Sen. J.) (Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.)" (Quoted Verbatim) 5. HAVING noticed, the aforementioned preliminary details which, according to me, were necessary to be noticed, we now revert to the facts of the case. 6. ACCORDING to the Petitioners, they were all working for gain as Instructors under the Industrial Training Institute and were selected as such by the District Level Selection Committee (being a statutory body). After selection, they were initially appointed for a period of 6 months on adhoc basis and in support thereof, the Petitioners have relied upon Annexurep1 series. Annexure- P1 at Page 23 is an Order issued from the Office of the government of West Bengal, Directorate of Industrial Training, Department of technical Education and Training whereby and whereunder in terms of G. O. No. 261-TET (TRG)/ 2e-37/2000 dated 2. 6. 2000 issued by the Department of technical Education and Training, Government of West Bengal. Kalyan Biswas (Appellant/petitioner No. 1) was appointed on the post of an Instructor (Moulder)in the Industrial Training Institute, Kalyani on adhoc basis and the said Order also indicated that the solution was made by the concerned selection Committee but for a period of 6 months. By reason of an Order dated 3. 12. 1999 being G. O. No. 324-TET (Trg)/ 2e-148/1999 dated 24. 11. 1999 issued by department of Technical Education and Training, Government of West Bengal, pradip Sharma (Appellant/petitioner No. 2) was appointed on the post of an instructor (Mechanic Diesel) in the Industrial Training Institute, Kalyani on adhoc basis and the said Order was indicated that the solution was made by the concerned selection Committee but for a period of 6 months. 7. BY yet another Order G. O. 25-TET (TRG)/ 2e-17/1999 dated 10. 2. 7. BY yet another Order G. O. 25-TET (TRG)/ 2e-17/1999 dated 10. 2. 1999 the Petitioner No. 3 (Sudipta Roy) was appointed on the post of an Instructor (Surveyor) in the Office of the Principal, Industrial training Institute, Kalyani on adhoc basis and the said Order also indicated that the solution was made by the concerned selection Committee but for a period of 6 months. 8. BASED on the aforementioned facts, the petitioners stated in the Writ Petition that their adhoc appointments were then extended from time to time but in the process further extensions, the respondents suddenly used a new terminology describing their appointment as "engagement" in place of "appointment". After expiry of the last such extension, the payment of their salary were not made in a regular manner for about 6 months which made the Petitioners send representations to various authorities. The Petitioners stated that the Respondents did not consider their case although they were entitled to be regularised and since they were not so regularised, the petitioners therefore filed the present Writ Petition. By a Judgment dated 24. 7. 2003 the learned Single Judge took into consideration the fact that the petitioners/appellants were all appointed on adhoc basis and were engaged and disengaged on various dates as follows:- 1) Appellant No. 1 (Kalyan Biswas) was engaged on 6th June, 2000 and disengaged on 6th December, 2000; 2) Appellant No. 2 (Pradip Sharma) was engaged on 3rd december, 1999 and disengaged on 8th December, 2000; 3) Appellant No. 3 (Sudipta Roy) was engaged on 15th february, 1999 and disengaged on 12th March, 2001. On the basis of the aforementioned set of facts, the learned Single Judge observed that the Petitioners/appellants were not appointed following any Recruitment Rules. He also observed that the Petitioners did not apply in response any employment Notification published by a competent authority and their names had not been sponsored by the employment exchange. The learned Single Judge also observed that the Appellants had simply applied for being engaged as Instructors on adhoc basis in the said Institute and after receiving their Applications, the then Principal had sent the proposal to the "sabhadipati" of Nadia Zilla Parisad for approval of the said proposal for appointment of the Appellants. 9. The learned Single Judge also observed that the Appellants had simply applied for being engaged as Instructors on adhoc basis in the said Institute and after receiving their Applications, the then Principal had sent the proposal to the "sabhadipati" of Nadia Zilla Parisad for approval of the said proposal for appointment of the Appellants. 9. THE learned Single Judge also observed that being the Chairman of the Advisory Committee and of the District level Selection committee, the "sabhadipati" had approved appointments on adhoc basis but after their engagements were terminated, they joined in the Writ Petition praying for regularisation and/or absorption. After having considered and heard the parties, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that no relief could be granted to the Petitioners/appellants as they did not have any legal right nor were the Respondents obliged to permanently absorb them against any vacancies. The learned Single Judge did observe that the Petitioners were engaged but that was purely on adhoc basis and it was not made consequent upon any selection having been made under the relevant Recruitment Rules. The learned Single Judge therefore came to the conclusion that no one has the right to public employment through a backdoor and if one wished to serve a public office, it was necessary that his selection was made in strict compliance of the recruitment Rules. Consequently, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly, dismissed the same. 10. MR. Saptangsu Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/appellants submitted that the observations of the learned Single Judge were erroneous inasmuch as it proceeded on the assumption that the Petitioners/appellants were not validly appointed. According to him, such an assumption was uncalled for and mechanical as the learned single Judge did not give any credence to Annexure- P1 series as well as to the various other documents that the Petitioners/appellants had brought on record and specially, the letter of the Government of West Bengal dated 7. 11. 2001 which clearly stated that the appointment of the Petitioners/appellants were channelised through a proper procedure. In reply to the aforementioned submission made by Mr. 11. 2001 which clearly stated that the appointment of the Petitioners/appellants were channelised through a proper procedure. In reply to the aforementioned submission made by Mr. Basu, the learned Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioners/appellants were all adhoc appointees and in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the Case of Uma Devi (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , no right accrued upon the Petitioner/appellants. In Paragraph 4 of the Affidavit-in-opposition, the Respondents have stated that the Director of industrial Training (Respondent No. 4) is under the Department of Technical education and Training and that the Selection for recruitment on regular basis was first made as per Resolution dated 19. 3. 1993 whereafter a guideline was issued on 11. 12. 1996 by which the Governor was empowered to decide that selection for recruitment to the different categories of non-P. S. C. posts namely the posts of Instructors etc. under the aforementioned Directorate of Industrial training would henceforth be made by a selection Committee at the Institute level instead of the said level selection committee. They have further stated that the Writ Petitioners applied for the post of Instructors and after receiving their applications, the Principal sent the proposal before the Sabhadipati for approval as he was the Chairman of the advisory Committee and the said Sabhadipati approved the proposal. Thereafter the Principal forwarded the names to the director to issue appointment letters to the Petitioners whereafter they were issued. These facts would be evident from reading Paragraph 3 of the Affidavit-inopposition filed by the State Respondents. In the said paragraph, the dates of joining of the Petitioners have been given and it has been stated as follows:-a) Petitioner No. 1 (Kalyan Biswas) was appointed on 6. 6. 2000 for 6 months. He joined on 7. 6. 2000 and his services were terminated on 6. 12. 2000. b) Petitioner No. 2 (Pradip Sharma) was appointed on 3. 12. 1999 for 6 months and he joined on 8. 12. 1999 and his services were terminated on 7. 6. 2000. Thereafter he was given a second extension with effect from 9. 6. 2000 but that extension also came to an end on 8. 12. 2000. c) Petitioner No. 3 (Sudipta Roy) was appointed on 15. 2. 1999 for 6 months and his services were terminated on 31. 8. 1999. 12. 1999 and his services were terminated on 7. 6. 2000. Thereafter he was given a second extension with effect from 9. 6. 2000 but that extension also came to an end on 8. 12. 2000. c) Petitioner No. 3 (Sudipta Roy) was appointed on 15. 2. 1999 for 6 months and his services were terminated on 31. 8. 1999. Thereafter he was given a second extension up to 2. 3. 2000; a third extension up to 9. 9. 2000 and the 4th and final extension up to 12. 3. 2001. Learned Counsel submits that after adhoc extensions and final conclusion thereof on 2000 and 2001 respectively, the Writ Petition in 2002 cannot be entertained with a prayer for regularisation of service. 11. THE fact relating to the termination of services of the Petitioners on the aforementioned dates has been given in paragraph 3 (m) of the Affidavit-in-opposition and in reply thereto, the Petitioners have given a vague reply in paragraphs 8 and 9 in which they have stated as follows:- "8. The statements made in sub-paragraph-M are denied and disputed. Though our service were not discontinued on and from the date as mentioned in this Paragraph would be evident from the notification issued on 7. 11. 2001 which is last annexure of Writ Petition. 9. I state further that the statements made in Sub-Paragraph-N are denied and disputed. It is specifically denied that service of us have not been extended after the date mentioned in paragraph M. I state that by the notification No. 253tet/ trg dt. 18. 7. 01 the Governor has been pleased to extend our service upto 30. 06. 2001 and such extension was granted with concurrence of the Finance Department. So it is wholly incorrect to allege that our services have not been extended. " (Quoted as it appears in the Paper Book but emphasis by underlining is by this Court) 12. THUS from a perusal of the aforementioned statements, it is evident that the only reply that the Petitioners have, is that even the Governor of West Bengal extended their services with the concurrence of the finance Department but up to 30. 6. 2001. In Paragraph 11 of their reply, the petitioners/appellants have also admitted the fact that after 31. 7. 2001, they were not allowed to sign their Attendance Register. Paragraph 11 of their affidavit-in-reply reads as follows:- "11. 6. 2001. In Paragraph 11 of their reply, the petitioners/appellants have also admitted the fact that after 31. 7. 2001, they were not allowed to sign their Attendance Register. Paragraph 11 of their affidavit-in-reply reads as follows:- "11. I state that from the Attendance Registar upto the month of July, 2001 and from the Attendance Register of the students it would appear that we very much attended our duty. I state that after 31st July, 2001 we have not been allowed to sign the Attendance Register even though by the 7th notification dated November, 2001 our services were retained upto 31st July, 2002. I state further that the stipend that is allowed to the students were drawn with the signature of us and if the official records are produced it would appear that we worked upto till date, 2003. " (Quoted as it appears in the Paper Book) From the foregoing facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the Petitioners were all adhoc appointees for specific periods and their appointments ultimately came to an end whereafter they were never extended. We are therefore of the view that the observation of the learned Single Judge are not at all erroneous. The Petitioners/appellants, cannot claim regularisation of their services after their terms of appointment had come to an end but in view of Para-11 of their Affidavit-in-opposition, if the respondents took work from them, then they were entitled to salary. If the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners which are based on Para-9 of the Writ Petition read with their submission made in Para 13 to 15, are correct, then in that event, the Respondents cannot be allowed to withhold payment of salary to them. Paragraphs 9 and 13 to 15 of the Writ Petition read as follows:- "9. Your petitioners state that after expiry of the period fixed under Memo dated 18th July, 2001, the payment of salary of the petitioners were not made in regular manner and for about 6 months salaries were not paid to the petitioners during the persistance of such Government Memo. 13. Your petitioners state that in the said Memo dated 7. 11. 2001, no correction was made in connection the Word "engagement" inspite of several assurance. 13. Your petitioners state that in the said Memo dated 7. 11. 2001, no correction was made in connection the Word "engagement" inspite of several assurance. Furthermore, inspite of continuous service in the said Institution no payment on account of salary was paid to the petitioners furing the last 18 (eighteen) months. 14. Having no other alternative, your petitioners state that they were compelled to make representations to the competent authority with a prayer to regularise the services of the petitioners and release the arrear salary for about 18 months but in this occasion the concerned respondents are sitting idle over the matter without taking any steps. 15. It would not be out of place to mention here that the petitioners met personally with the Heard of the Department as well the Minister-in-Charge and upon hearing the sufferance of the petitioners both of them assured the petitioners that they will take appropriate steps for regularisation of their services as well release the arrear salary due and payable to the petitioners pending for last 18 months. " (Quoted as it appears in the Paper Book) 13. FOR the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is dismissed insofar as the prayer for regularisation/absorption is concerned but so far as their prayer for payment of salary is concerned and as has been submitted in the aforementioned Paragraphs quoted above, the Respondents cannot be allowed to withhold the lawful dues of the Appellants. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed to that extent only by directing the authorities to release the withheld salaries of the Petitioners. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this Writ Petition is allowed in part. Upon appropriate Application (s) being made, urgent Certified copy of this Judgment, duly photocopied, may be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.