JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The Petitioners, fourteen in number, have filed this writ application with a prayer to direct the O.Ps. to regularise their services against the vacant posts, particularly Junior Stenographer & one Investigator & also other vacant posts available under the Puri Konark Development Authority (hereinafter called as "PKD Authority") from the date of their engagement, without filling up the same from outside & with all consequential service & financial benefits. 2.The facts, as delineated in the writ application, tend to reveal thus: Petitioner No. 1 having B.A. qualification with Stenography was appointed as DLR on 5.12.1990. Petitioner No. 2 having B.A., B.Ed., qualification was appointed on DLR basis to work as Clerk on 21.8.1990. Petitioner No. 3 having Matric qualification was appointed on DLR basis on 14.4 .1991. Petitioner No. 4 having Matric qualification was appointed as DLR on 22.3.1990. Petitioner No. 5 having I.A. qualification as DLR basis on 1.10.1994. Petitioner No. 6 having I.A. qualification was appointed as DLR basis on 22.10.1989. Petitioner No. 7 having B.A. qualification with Stenography was appointed as DLR basis on 29.10.1989. Petitioner No. 8 having Matric qualification was appointed as DLR on 10.4.1991. Petitioner No. 9 having Under Matric qualification was appointed as DL & Petitioner No. 10 having Under Matric qualification was appointed as DLR on 8.11.1991. Petitioner No. 11 having B.A. qualification with Stenography was appointed as DLR on 22.3.1990. Petitioner No. 12 having Matric qualification was appointed as DLR on 26.2.1988. Petitioner No. 13 having Under Matric qualification was appointed as DLR on 22.8.1988, Petitioner No. 14 having Matric qualification was appointed on 1.10.1994 as DLR, Since the date of their appointment, they have been discharging their duties sincerely, efficiently & to the utmost satisfaction of the authority. According to the Petitioners, since the date of establishment of the PKD Authority, a number of DLRs were engaged & some of them have been regularized on the basis of their seniority against different posts as per their qualification. In paragraph-7 of the writ application, the Petitioners have indicated the names of seven DLRs, who have been regularized without any interview or selection & such regularization was done solely on the basis of seniority, i.e., from the date of their engagement. In paragraph-7 of the writ application, the Petitioners have indicated the names of seven DLRs, who have been regularized without any interview or selection & such regularization was done solely on the basis of seniority, i.e., from the date of their engagement. On the basis of the aforesaid action of the O.Ps., the Petitioners claim for regularization of their services, as according to them, the PKD Authority in its 2nd meeting held on 27.6.1997 under Item No. 15/2 decided to absorb 16 number of DLRs in regular vacancies, taking into consideration their eligibility, qualification & experience & in consonance with the ORV Act & the Rules framed thereunder. According to the Petitioners, they had legitimate expectation that their services would be regularized very soon against the vacant posts, but the same was not done. According to them, at the time of filing of this writ application, two regular posts of Junior Stenographer & Investigator were lying vacant & apprehending that such posts would be filled up by outside candidates without regularizing their services, the Petitioners have filed the writ application for the relief indicated herein before. The Petitioners further claim that they are eligible to hold the posts,. as previously seven DLRs were regularized on the basis of seniority & qualification without any interview & the same method shpuld be adopted by the PKD Authority & they should also be regularized.. 3. O.P.2- the PKD Authority filed a counter affidavit stating therein that the Petitioners being DLRs, ware engaged as Mate/Night Watchman in different construction work site at different times. While engaging them, their educational qualifications were neither considered nor were they ever engaged against any sanctioned/recfular post. But two posts, i.e., one Junior Stenographer & one Investigator were lying vacant at the time of filing of the pounterr. affidavit, which is not. disputed. The O.Ps. have relied on Annexura-A/2 & Annexure-A/2 series, which indicate that Petitioner No. 1 on 5.12.1990 applied to the PKD Authority for his engagement as Night Watchman & he was engaged as such as per Annexure-A/2 series. Petitioner No. 2 was engaged as a Mate on 21.8.1990. Since the Petitioners were engaged in the post of Mate & Night Watchman, according to the PKD Authority, qualification was not criteria for their engagement. So according to the O.Ps., the question of appointment of the Petitioners as Junior Stenographer or Clerk are not correct. Petitioner No. 2 was engaged as a Mate on 21.8.1990. Since the Petitioners were engaged in the post of Mate & Night Watchman, according to the PKD Authority, qualification was not criteria for their engagement. So according to the O.Ps., the question of appointment of the Petitioners as Junior Stenographer or Clerk are not correct. It is further claimed that earlier there was no clear-cut guide Jines for the Government for absorption of the NMRs/DLRs. But at the present, Government has passed a resolution dated 15th May, 1997 formulating a scheme for absorption of NMR/DLR/Job Contract workers under regular establishment. 4. So the PKD Authority cannot regularise the Petitioners as such, if they do not come within the scope & ambit of the said Scheme. According to Mr. Padhi, Learned Counsel for the O.Ps., the decision to regularise the services of the DLRs was taken by the PKD Authority on 27.6.1997, i.e., before receipt of the aforesaid resolution dated 15.5.1997 was passed in Annexure-E/2. Hence, the PKD Authority cannot take a decision by overlooking the resolution of the Government in Annexure- E/2. 5. It is stoutly denied by the O.Ps. that the Petitioners were never appointed as Junior Stenographer, as claimed by them. That apart, Annexure-1 reveals that the Petitioners were working for execution of one SMHA Scheme. There is nothing to indicate that they were engaged in any vacant post but they were getting Rs. 35 per day. 6. In the counter affidavit, the further contention of the O.Ps. is that there is no right of the Petitioners to seek for a direction for regularization. During pendency of the writ application, Misc. Case No. 1006/2006 was filed by the PKD Authority with a prayer to permit it to dispense with the services of the DLRs on the ground that the PKD Authority does not have enough development/construction work since 1999, inasmuch as the aforesaid DLRs also do not have the ability & skill for their engagement in any other work. The sum & substance of the averments made in the aforesaid Misc. case is that there is no adequate work for the aforesaid DLRs. The PKD Authority is running with paucity of funds & is facing severe financial crunch even in paying their wages. The problem is of surplus manpower & less work, which is vitiating the office atmosphere & is seriously affecting the performance of the PKD Authority. case is that there is no adequate work for the aforesaid DLRs. The PKD Authority is running with paucity of funds & is facing severe financial crunch even in paying their wages. The problem is of surplus manpower & less work, which is vitiating the office atmosphere & is seriously affecting the performance of the PKD Authority. 7. This writ application is of the year 1999. While issuing notice to the O.Ps. on 1.7.1999, this Court in Misc. Case No. 7194/ 1999 passed the following orders: Notice as above. Till the next date services of the Petitioners shall not be terminated if they are continuing in service.... Thereafter, the matter was listed on 7.7.1999 & the interim order was allowed to continue till next date. The same order was passed on 15.7.1999. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 4.2.2000 but the interim order was not extended. Mr. S.K. Padhi, Learned Counsel for the PKD Authority, submits that now there is no interim order. When we have taken up the writ application for final disposal, this should be decided on merit. 8. Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, draws our attention to paragraph-9 of the decision of the Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey and Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 92 , which reads as follows: 9. The Writ Petitioners who were daily wagers in the service of the Society were appointed in the Society before 4.5.1990 & their services were taken over by the Electricity Board "in the same manner & position". In Our opinion, this would mean that their services in the Society cannot be ignored for considering them for the benefit of the Order Dated 28.11.1996. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, Mr. Mohanty submits that as the Petitioners have been working since long, it will not be reasonable if their claim for regularization is denied even after such a long period of service. 9. In this regard, Mr. Padhi, Learned Counsel for the PKD Authority, draws our attention to paragraphs-90 & 91 of the decision of the Apex Court in Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and Others wherein it was observed as follows: 90. We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. Dayanand and Others wherein it was observed as follows: 90. We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The Learned Single Judges & Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow & accept the verdict & law laid down by coordinate & even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos & breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution & encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability & certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this counter in the last six decades & increase in the frequency of conflicting Judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the Courts at the grassroots will not be able to decide as to which of the Judgments lay down the correct law & which one should be followed. 92. We may add that in our constitutional set-up every citizen is under a duty to abide by the Constitution & respect its ideals & institutions. Those who have been entrusted with the task of administering the system & operating various constituents of the State & who take oath to act in accordance with the constitution & uphold the same, have to set an example by exhibiting total commitment to the constitutional ideals. This principle is required to be observed with greater rigour by the members of judicial fraternity who have been bestowed with the power to adjudicate upon important constitutional & legal issues & protect & preserve rights of the individuals & society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for effective & efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution & rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law. Mr. Padhi also draws our attention to paragraph-52 of the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, which reads as follows: 52. Mr. Padhi also draws our attention to paragraph-52 of the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, which reads as follows: 52. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they approach the Court, is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College. That case arose out of a refusal to promote the Writ Petitioner therein as the Principal of a college. This Court held that in order 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 & the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues & a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent. 10. In the case at hand, the Petitioners are all irregular appointees & they have not been appointed by the PKD Authority against any. sanctioned/regular vacant post by resorting to due process of recruitment like getting sponsored names from the Employment Exchange & following the relevant reservation rules. Hence, they can be safely said that they have come through the backdoor method. Now they cannot claim for regularisation with the intervention of this Court. The Petitioners have neither any enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed nor has the PKD Authority any legal duty to absorb, them permanently. For the reasons indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ application is dismissed without any order as to cost. B.P. Ray, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed