JUDGMENT By means of these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have sought the following identical reliefs :- (i) a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.06.1999 by which the representation of the petitioners was rejected. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Junior Engineer under the Regulations of Adhoc Employees Rules, 1985 and not to make any fresh appointment till the petitioners are regularized under the rules. (iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay arrears of salary and other emoluments; (iv) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to make appointments in pursuance of the examination held on 14.05.1999. (v) Award the costs of the petitions to the petitioners. 2. In addition to abovementioned reliefs, the petitioners (Surendra Pal Singh & others) have also sought the following relief in Writ Petition No. 6152 of 2001 (S/S) by way of an amendment :- (1-a) declare the cut off date for regularization of Adhoc appointments specified in First Amendment Regulations, 1990 notified by respondent no. 5 on 26.07.1990 as ultra vires and unconstitutional. 3. Brief facts of the case of petitioners, namely Surendrapal Singh, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Krishnapal Singh and Anand Singh {W.P. 6152 (S/S) 2001} are that petitioner no. 1 – Surendra Pal Singh was appointed on the newly created post of Junior Engineer on 10.11.1995 as a Muster Roll on daily wage basis in the office of respondent no. 3; petitioner no. 2 & 3 (Mukesh Kumar Verma and Krishnapal Singh respectively) were appointed on the newly created post of Junior Engineer on 08.12.1995 as a Muster Roll on daily wage basis. No appointment letter has been issued to Petitioner No. 4 – Anand Singh and he has been enrolled on the Muster Roll and has been continuously working since December, 1995. The petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 3 Surendra Pal Singh, Mukesh Kumar Verma and Krishnapal Singh were appointed only for a period of 89 days and thereafter they were allowed to continue in the service. The certificates were also issued to the petitioner nos. The petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 3 Surendra Pal Singh, Mukesh Kumar Verma and Krishnapal Singh were appointed only for a period of 89 days and thereafter they were allowed to continue in the service. The certificates were also issued to the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 3 (Surendra Pal Singh, Kukesh Kumar Verma and Krishnapal Singh respectively) by the Executive Engineer in January 1999 that they are working continuously since the day of their appointment. Petitioners, namely Surendra Pal Singh, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Krishnapal Singh and Anand Singh have completed 3 years of service in the department on daily wage basis. 4. So far as brief facts of petitioner Arvind Kumar {WP No. 5219 (S/S) 2001} is concerned, on 27.12.1995 he was appointed on daily wage basis on the post of Junior Engineer on workcharge basis against the Muster Roll post. On 26.06.1997 petitioner Arvind Kumar was again appointed on adhoc basis. He was appointed only for a period of 89 days and thereafter he was allowed to continue in the service. The petitioner Arvind Kumar has also completed three years’ service in the department on daily wage basis. 5. In the year 1998 the Executive Engineer, Cooperative Processing & Cold Storage Federation Ltd. submitted a detailed chart relating to a number of persons working in the office of respondents’ department and the names of all the petitioners were also included in the said chart. All the petitioners made several representations for regularization of their services as Junior Engineer as well as for same salary as is prescribed for the post of Junior Engineer. 6. The State of U.P. has framed rules known as “U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board) Regulations, 1985”. According to the said Rules, an employee who had been directly appointed on adhoc basis in any co-operative society on or before 01st May 1983 and was continuing on the date when the regulations came into force and further possessed requisite qualification for the post in question and had completed three years continuous service, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy. Thereafter, the aforesaid Rules were interpreted by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Jai Kishun & others Vs. Thereafter, the aforesaid Rules were interpreted by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Jai Kishun & others Vs. U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lucknow & others reported in 1989 (2) UPLBEC 144 in which it has been observed that the fixation of cut off date in Regulation 4(1) of Regulations of 1985 is arbitrary and discriminatory and that part of the Regulation is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. It was further held without fixing any cut off date that those petitioners who were appointed at least on or before the date of notification i.e. 30.07.1985 are also entitled for consideration for regularization. 7. Thereafter, when in the month of January 1999 the respondents issued an advertisement for the appointment of Junior Engineers in the Co-operative Society the matter again came up before the High Court and the High Court in Special Appeal No. 653/1995 has held that the employees who worked or working for the last 3 to 20 years are entitled for regularization. Pursuant to the judgments passed by the High Court, a joint representation was made by the petitioners for regularization of their services. The respondents had rejected the representation vide impugned order dated 22.06.1999. 8. Pursuant to the advertisement, the process of filling the vacancies was taken up and the suitable candidates so selected were appointed in their respective place of posting. The services of the petitioners were not regularized and due to this their services were terminated. Consequently, at present the petitioners are not in service as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service (1st Amendment) Rules, 1990 came into force vide G.O. dated 3170/12C-2-600/159/89 and these Rules have been enacted under Section 122(1) of U.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1965 by which it was provided that the employee, who had been directly appointed on ad-hoc basis on or before 01st October, 1986, shall be considered for regularization. 9. The petitioners have prayed that their services should be regularized accordingly. Respondents have filed the counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioners are not entitled to get regularization and the petitioners were appointed as daily wager and they cannot be regularized in accordance with law. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The petitioners have prayed that their services should be regularized accordingly. Respondents have filed the counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioners are not entitled to get regularization and the petitioners were appointed as daily wager and they cannot be regularized in accordance with law. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have claimed their regularization under the U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board) Regulations, 1985. The cut off date provided under the Rule is prior to the dates of appointment of the petitioners. The petitioners have raised a plea in Ground F(3) of Writ Petition No. 6152 (S/S) 2001 that the Government has framed new Rules for regularization of adhoc appointees according to which every adhoc appointee is entitled for regularization after putting in continuous satisfactory service of three years, as such, there is no reason or jurisdiction whatsoever to deny similar treatment to the petitioner who are still under the control of Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. Admittedly, the appointment letters of the petitioners filed alongwith petitions indicate that the petitioners have been appointed in the construction division, New Tehri under the control of Executive Engineer and the appointment letters have been issued by the Managing Director. Perusal of the certificates issued by the Executive Engineers, by which it has been stated that the petitioners are working continuously since the day of their appointment, reveals that the petitions were working in the U.P. Cooperative Processing & Cold Storage Federation Ltd., New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal. 12. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners were admittedly appointed on daily wages in the year 1995 and the aforesaid Rules of 1990 framed u/s 122 (1) of the U.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1965 would not be attracted as the petitioners have been appointed after 01.10.1986, which is the cut off of date prescribed under the Rules or three years before commencement of the rules. It is provided under the Rules of 1990 that the employee, who had been directly appointed on ad-hoc basis on or before 01st October, 1986, shall be considered for regularization. Admittedly the petitioners have been appointed after the said Rules. 13. It is provided under the Rules of 1990 that the employee, who had been directly appointed on ad-hoc basis on or before 01st October, 1986, shall be considered for regularization. Admittedly the petitioners have been appointed after the said Rules. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had worked more than three years, as such, they are entitled to get the regularization. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contention. It is a settled position of law that if a person has not been appointed in accordance with rules and his appointment has been made in violation of the constitutional scheme provided under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, he has no legal right to be appointed as regular employee and a writ of mandamus is not maintainable in such cases. Even the petitioners would have worked for a long period, they cannot claim over the posts because they know very well from the initial stage of appointments that their appointments are against the rules and their services can be terminated at any time. The petitioners cannot claim parity with the persons who have been regularly appointed by the State Government. The petitioners’ claim that they had worked for three years, is not sustainable to get the writ of mandamus for the regularization. I am fortified with the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi 2006 AIR SCW p/1991. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there are two types of services under the U.P. Cooperative Societies; first service comes under Section 120 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and it empowers the Registrar to specify qualifications for appointment of Secretary, Manager, Accountant or any other officer to be paid or remunerated by the society and if any person, who does not possess the prescribed qualifications, is appointed, the Registrar can remove him from service. The State Government has the power under Section 122 to constitute an authority or authorities for recruitment training and disciplinary control of the employees of a cooperative society or a class of cooperative societies. The Regulations have been framed which are applicable to the employees of the cooperative society as defined under Regulation 2 (ix). The State Government has the power under Section 122 to constitute an authority or authorities for recruitment training and disciplinary control of the employees of a cooperative society or a class of cooperative societies. The Regulations have been framed which are applicable to the employees of the cooperative society as defined under Regulation 2 (ix). Regulation 2(ix) is as follows:- “2(ix) Cooperative Society means a Co-operative Society placed under the purview of the Board by Government Notification No. 366-C/XII-C-3-36-71, dated March 4, 1972, as amended from time to time by notification issued under Section 122 of the Act read with Rule 389 (a) of the Rules. 15. The second type of society is a primary society whose area of operation is limited and the society is not covered a cooperative society within the meaning contained in Regulation 2 (ix) and as such, their employees are not governed by the statutory rules or regulations. They will be governed by the general provisions of the Act. In the instant case, the services of the petitioners would not be governed by the statutory provisions contained in Section 120 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and Regulation 2(ix). As such, Rules 1990 are not applicable in the case of the petitioners. I am fortified with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Ram Singh Vs. Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Nehru Nagar, Naidu, District Meerut & another reported in 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1102 in which it has been held that the society of which the appellant (Ram Singh) was the Accountant is a Primary Society whose area of operation does not extend to more than one district or State; the said society is confined to a part of a district; that being the position, the society is not a cooperative society within the meaning contained in Regulation 2(ix) and, therefore, the Regulations cannot apply to it and its employees; the conditions of service of the appellant (Ram Singh) are, therefore, not governed by any statutory Rules and Regulation; and the society is neither the ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India nor is it an instrumentality of the Government. 16. In view of the above, I do not find any ground for interference. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.