JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Smt. Manju Rani Chauhan, counsel for petitioners and Sri V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Hem Pratap Singh for the University. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the advertisement published by the Banaras Hindu University (hereinafter referred to as ‘University’) for making appointment by direct recruitment on the post of Laboratory Attendant vide advertisement No. 1/2006-07 (Code No. 71) and have further sought a writ of mandamus commanding the University to regularize/absorb the petitioners on the post of Laboratory Attendant in the faculty of Science of the University. 3. The facts in brief as pleaded in the writ petition are that most of the petitioners had worked as casual or daily wage unskilled or skilled, Laboratory Attendant, Skilled Librarian, Lab Attendant etc. The Deputy Registrar, Administration-II informed Dean, Faculty of Science vide letter dated 28.9.2004 that the Vice-Chancellor has approved to appoint Laboratory Attendant (9 posts) on contractual basis subject to the condition that action for regular appointment be taken at the earliest. One post of Lab Attendant was sanctioned in the department of Bio-chemistry, two in the department of Botany and six in the department of Chemistry. Consequently, advertisements were published on 1.10.2004 and 3.12.2004 in various news papers inviting applications for making appointment on contractual basis on the post of Laboratory Attendant on fixed pay. Petitioners applied, faced selection committee and were ultimately appointed as Laboratory Attendant on contractual basis in different departments in the faculty of Science and since then are continuously working. The facility like bonus, leaves and others etc. have been provided to the petitioners. It is said that some Office Assistants who were also appointed in similar fashion on contract basis were later on absorbed by the University on the post of Junior Clerk. During the course of argument, Smt. Manju Rani Chauhan, Advocate admitted that the rules, which she has filed have been superseded by later provisions and the present case would be governed by the rules framed by the University on 29/30.3.1996, a copy where has been filed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. It is said that the University proceeded to make regular selection/appointment on the post of Lab Assistants whereagainst the petitioners were working and with this intention the impugned advertisement was published in December 2006. It is said that the University proceeded to make regular selection/appointment on the post of Lab Assistants whereagainst the petitioners were working and with this intention the impugned advertisement was published in December 2006. Challenging thereto, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition and it is contended that the vacancies on which the petitioners are working should not be allowed to be filled in by any further recruitment and instead the petitioners should be regularized on the said post. It is said that the decision of the University to fill in the said vacancies by direct recruitment amounts to policy of hire and fire and further in one case of Office Assistants, when they have already absorbed the persons as Junior Clerk, similar benefit ought to be extended to the petitioners. It is also said that since petitioners were appointed after advertisement and,therefore, they are not illegal appointees and, hence, they are entitled to be considered for regularization. 4. On behalf of the University, though counter affidavit is quite bulky but the defence is very brief inasmuch their case is that the appointment of the petitioners is on contractual basis for a limited period with clear stipulation that it is to continue till regular selection is made. The petitioners cannot seek regularization under any provision applicable for recruitment to the post of Laboratory Attendant in the University and, therefore, the petitioners have no legal right to claim regularization. 5. Having heard counsel for parties and perusing the record, the short question up for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for absorption or the University is justified in proceeding to make direct recruitment on the post of Laboratory Attendant pursuant to the impugned advertisement. 6. The appointment of the petitioners, admittedly, was made pursuant to the letter dated 28.9.2004, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and therefrom it is evident that Vice-Chancellor conveyed his approval for contractual appointment on the post of Laboratory Attendant with a specific stipulation that it would be subject to the condition that action for regular appointment be taken at the earliest. It would be appropriate to reproduce the following extract of the above letter : “I am directed to convey approval of the Vice-Chancellor to take up the matter of Advertisement on contractual basis for the following vacant posts of Lab. It would be appropriate to reproduce the following extract of the above letter : “I am directed to convey approval of the Vice-Chancellor to take up the matter of Advertisement on contractual basis for the following vacant posts of Lab. Attendant (priority requirement) in consultation with the Dy. Registrar (Development) and Secretary, Advertisement Committee subject to the condition that action for regular appointment be taken at the earliest.” 7. In the light of the above, the University advertised the vacancies clearly mentioning that the appointment is on contractual basis and at fix salary of Rs. 2725/- per month. The appointment letters of the petitioners contain following conditions : “1. The engagement is purely a job contract for the above specified period. It does not confer any right, claim implicit or explicit for continuation/regularization/absorption against any post/position in the University. 2. The contract may be terminated by the University at any time without assigning any reason thereof. 3. In the event of any dispute arising out of this contract, the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, BHU shall be final and binding on engaged person. 4. The engagement is for above job only and is not transferable.” 8. It is true that the Dean, Faculty of Science, and the respective heads of the department, after the appointment of the petitioners made certain recommendation appreciating their work and recommended for their regular appointment but the question is where the appointment is to be made in accordance with statutory provision, could the University be compelled to violate the same and make appointments as per its whims and executive decision without having any alternation in the statute. The contention of the petitioners that they are being given bonus, leave and other facilities has been specifically denied in para 18 of the counter affidavit and it is said that the said facilities are available only to regular and permanent employees of the University. It is said that for the purpose of recruitment on the post of Lab Attendant, the executive council passed resolution No. 131 (1-73) published vide notification dated 23/24.4.1996 and decision taken by the council with respect to the Lab Attendants is as under : “The provision of reservation under promotion quota for Group-D employees for all cadres (Group C & D) be raised to 25 per cent from 20 per cent and panel of in-service employees for promotion be prepared after taking Departmental Test. However, no relaxation in educational/ technical qualification as prescribed under the rules for promotion quota be given to in-service employees. 25 per cent higher positions of (Group B, C and D) of each cadre be kept reserved for promotion quota for in-service eligible employees so that employees having higher qualification could be given chance of career advancement through Departmental Test. The Central DPC Core Committee looking into the cases of career advancement opportunities of Group-D (Non technical) employees be requested to prepare modalities for organizing the departmental tests for the in-service employees for this purpose.” 9. From the perusal of the above resolution as also admitted by the learned counsel for the parties, it is not disputed that recruitment on the post of Lab Attendant is to be made from two sources, direct recruitment and promotion. The petitioners are not working in feeder cadre so as to claim promotion on the post of Lab. Attendant. The claim of the petitioners for regularisation/absorption on the post of Lab. Attendant does not mean promotion inasmuch they are already working as Laboratory Attendant though with different conditions and, therefore, the question of promotion does not arise in this case. If that being so, the only other source of recruitment available is direct recruitment to which University has now resorted to and it has been stated in para 23 that 25 per cent of the sanctioned vacancies of the post of Laboratory Attendant have been advertised by the University to be filled in by internal candidates vide advertisement No. 4/2005-06. The petitioners applied and took their chance before the Selection Committee but could not succeed. The said facts have not been disputed by the petitioners while giving reply in para 18 of their rejoinder affidavit. 10. Be that as the case may be, the counsel for petitioner having failed to place any provision whereunder the petitioners can claim right to be considered for regularisation/absorption on the post of Laboratory Attendant on contract basis, it is difficult for me to accept their claim for regularisation. Though it is true that initial appointment of the petitioner has been made after advertisement of the vacancy and after their selection by a Committee constituted at departmental level, but the real distinction lies in the fact that the advertisement provided for a different kind of appointment and not in a regular pay scale but on a fix salary. Though it is true that initial appointment of the petitioner has been made after advertisement of the vacancy and after their selection by a Committee constituted at departmental level, but the real distinction lies in the fact that the advertisement provided for a different kind of appointment and not in a regular pay scale but on a fix salary. That cannot equate with an advertisement for regular appointment in a regular pay scale prescribed under the rules. In State of West Bengal and others v. Banibrata Ghosh and others, (2009) 3 SCC 250 , the Apex Court considered where the advertisement is for a leave vacancy, level of competition would have been different had it been advertised as a regular vacancy since the nature of advertisement may not have attracted substantial number of applications and, therefore, two cannot be equated. Besides, the appointees knew the nature of their appointment, it does not lie in their mouth to contend that they should be treated to be validly appointed against the regular post. In para 19 of the judgment, the Court observed as under : “The appointment of the respondent was merely on the basis of an advertisement for filling up the leave vacancy. The respondent very well knew that it was for the leave vacancy that he was competing with others. Under such circumstances, we fail to know as to what right was there in the respondents to insist on regularisation of his appointment.” 11. Again in para 20, it said- “Again, it must be pointed out that if the advertisement was for a leave vacancy, it would not have attracted substantial number of applications, which would not be the case, if the advertisement was for a permanent vacancy.” 12. In the case of regularisation in public employment, now the law is well settled that it is not permissible unless provided under the statute and in absence of any statutory provision entitling the petitioners to claim regularisation/absorption on the post of Laboratory Attendant. No such mandamus can be issued particularly when this Court does not find any error in the advertisement published by the respondents inviting applications for appointment on the post of Laboratory Attendant by direct recruitment. 13. There is another angle to consider the sanctity of the claim of the petitioners. No such mandamus can be issued particularly when this Court does not find any error in the advertisement published by the respondents inviting applications for appointment on the post of Laboratory Attendant by direct recruitment. 13. There is another angle to consider the sanctity of the claim of the petitioners. The very first condition in the appointment letters of the petitioners makes it clear that the appointment on contract basis shall not confer any right, claim, explicit or implicit for continuance/regularisation/absorption against any post/position in the University. A person appointed on contract basis is bound by the terms of his contract and cannot claim something contrary thereto. At this stage, the counsel for petitioners submit that they having no capacity of bargaining with respondents had to accept whatever was provided on account of unemployment. It would be useful to refer the observations of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, JT 2006 (4) SC 420 wherein in para 36 held as under : “It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain-not at arms length-since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the Court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the Court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succour to them. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succour to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term.” 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage submitted that the law laid down in Uma Devi (supra) would be applicable more appropriately in those cases where engagement/appointment is without following the procedure prescribed for recruitment and is not consistent with Article 16 of the Constitution but here is not a case where the appointment has been made in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. On the contrary, she pointed out that the vacancies were advertised, applications were invited, selection was made and only thereafter, the petitioners were appointed. Therefore, appointment of the petitioner is not contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution and cannot be said to be illegal. That being so, the petitioners have a right of legitimate expectation to be considered for renewal particularly in view of the fact that such a stipulation was part of their contract and respondents were bound to adhere to such condition. This argument needs some serious consideration for ex-facie, it is true that in the case of the petitioners, vacancies were advertised, selection was made and thereafter the petitioners were appointed. However, I find difficult to help the petitioners. It would be appropriate to consider the matter from three different angles. 15. Here is not a case where the respondents have terminated the petitioners for reason of any illegality in the procedure of their recruitment. However, I find difficult to help the petitioners. It would be appropriate to consider the matter from three different angles. 15. Here is not a case where the respondents have terminated the petitioners for reason of any illegality in the procedure of their recruitment. It is nobody’s case that the petitioners’ appointment was illegal or without following the procedure prescribed in the scheme and inconsistent with Article 16 of the Constitution. In accordance with the conditions of the scheme, vacancies were advertised, selection was made and thereafter the petitioners were appointed. The appointment thus made after due selection, apparently cannot be said to be illegal. However, the scheme specifically provides for engagement of the persons only on contract basis and that too for a fixed tenure i.e. one year at a time which can be renewed for a period of six months or one year based upon their performance. Where an appointment is legal and valid, but if lays certain terms and conditions thereof, the parties are bound to adhere to those conditions and cannot travel beyond that. Once appointment was made for fixed tenure, as already observed, it would come to an end automatically on the expiry of the period for which the appointment was made. The termination is automatic by efflux of time on the expiry of the said period. The continuance of the petitioners thereafter could not be on the basis of the said agreement for appointment letter since it has already come to an end. 16. Secondly, when the right to continue is not based either on the statute or the Constitution or otherwise in law; then a writ of mandamus compelling the authorities to continue the petitioners in employment cannot be issued since for issuance of writ of mandamus, condition precedent is the existence of a legal right upon the aggrieved person and a legal obligation corresponding upon the authorities concerned. In Uma Devi (supra) the Apex Court considering the question as to when a writ of mandamus can be issued by the Court directing employer either to absorb the employee in permanent service or to allow him to continue has held as under : “In order to that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it.” 17. Lastly, as I have already observed, the appointment was made subject to regular selection, and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that this part of conditions of their appointment should be ignored and their appointment be deemed to be converted into regular appointment. Therefore what has been held by in Uma Devi (supra) cannot be said to be inapplicable inasmuch the Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) has held in effect that the statute has to be adhered to strictly and cannot be observed in its breach whether it is for the nature of appointment or right to continue and for similar other reasons. 18. In view of the above discussion and in absence of any legal right established by the petitioners before the Court entitling the petitioners for absorption/regularisation on the post of Laboratory Attendant in the University, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Dismissed. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. ————