JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The grievance of the petitioners is that they were engaged as daily wage employees on various dates in 1988 and 1989 but have not been considered for regularisation till date and in this regard they have made several representations to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Allahabad but the same has also not been considered. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on U.P. Regularization of Daily Wage Appointment on Group-D Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “2001 Rules”) and submits that since the petitioners were appointed before 29.6.1991 and, therefore, they are covered by the aforesaid Rules and entitled to be considered for regularisation. 3. However, in my view, the submission has no merit. Rule 4(1)(b) of 2001 Rules clearly provides as under : “. . . . . . shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in Group ‘’D’ post, on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders.” 4. Neither in any of the alleged representations of the petitioners nor in the writ petition there is any averment that any permanent or temporary vacancy in the cadre was available on the date of commencement of the 2001 Rules, i.e., 21.12.2001 whereagainst the petitioners could have been considered for regularisation. In the absence of any vacancy available on that day, regularisation of daily wage employees cannot be considered even if they were engaged before 29.6.1991. Since regularisation of such persons who were not appointed in accordance with the compliance of Article 16(1) of the Constitution is an exception, unless it is covered strictly under the statutory Rules applicable for regularisation, no such right is available as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh, JT 2009(4) SC 577 where the Apex Court has said that violation of Article 16(1) goes to the very root of the matter and cannot be ignored. The Apex Court has gone to the extent that the High Courts should not issue directions to the authorities to consider for regularisation merely because they have worked for long time. 5. In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition dismissed. ————