JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.-Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner had submitted an application for the post of Assistant Librarian in the University on 30.10.1996. It appears that she had also made representation to the-then Chief Minister on 18.11.1996 regarding employment assistance on daily wage basis as Library Assistant in the respondent-University. The Chief Minister approved that the applicant may be appointed as Library Assistant on daily wage basis, as requested. Consequently, the Vice Chancellor of respondent-University was requested to take further necessary action accordingly under intimation to OSD-cum-Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. This U.O. is dated 28.12.1996. The Registrar of the respondent-university sent appointment letter to the petitioner on 6.1.1998. She joined her duties as daily paid Library Assistant on 7.1.1998. The respondent-university had issued general seniority list of Daily Paid Skilled Workers (Clerks, Drivers, Herbarium Assistant and Library Assistant) on 26.7.2008. The name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 1 in the seniority list of Library Assistant. The State Government had accorded approval to the respondent-university to regularize daily paid/contingent paid workers fourteen in numbers on 9.9.2008. The Assistant Registrar sent a communication to the Librarian on 22.9.2008 to supply him particulars of the petitioner for regularization. The petitioner submitted the necessary certificates/testimonials to the Librarian on 25.9.2008. She was not called for the interview. She approached this Court by way of present writ petition. The Court had directed the respondent-university on 11.11.2008 to interview the petitioner for regularization, however, her result was directed to be placed before the Court in a sealed cover on the next date. 2. Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner had completed eight years as daily paid Library Assistant and was liable to be regularized by the respondent-university. He has further contended that his client is fully eligible as per the norms prescribed for regularization and the respondent-university cannot find fault with her initial appointment as daily paid Library Assistant on 6.1.1998. 3. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate has vehemently argued that the appointment of the petitioner as Library Assistant on daily paid basis is on the basis of the recommendations made by the-then Chief Minister. He then contended that the petitioner cannot be regularized since her initial appointment was illegal and the matter is being looked into by the Police Department on the basis of FIR No. 1/2006. 4. He then contended that the petitioner cannot be regularized since her initial appointment was illegal and the matter is being looked into by the Police Department on the basis of FIR No. 1/2006. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. The appointment to various posts in the University is regulated by the University Statute framed under “The Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986”. There is a detailed procedure the manner in which the direct recruitment has to take place. The posts are required to be advertised by the Vice Chancellor and thereafter the applications are required to be placed before the Screening Committee appointed for the purpose by the Vice Chancellor. The Screening Committee after scrutinizing the qualifications of the candidates is required to prepare list of candidates to be called for the interview and place the same before the Vice Chancellor. The Selection Committee after conducting tests/examinations is required to place the recommendations before the Appointing Authority. 6. The petitioner had only submitted an application, as noticed above, on 30.10.1996 seeking appointment as Library Assistant in the respondent-university. She had also made representation to the then Chief Minister. He approved the appointment of the petitioner vide Annexure R-2. The Vice Chancellor was directed to do the needful. Consequently, the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 6.1.1998. She joined her duties on 7.1.1998. The manner in which the petitioner has been appointed is dehors the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986 and the Statute framed thereunder. The post in question was never advertised. She was the sole candidate who applied and was appointed. The procedure adopted by the university to appoint the petitioner was arbitrary. 7. Every citizen has a right to be considered for appointment as per the procedure established under law. The functionaries of the university were remiss in discharge of their statutory duties when only on the basis of the approval made by the Chief Minister, the petitioner was offered appointment. It was necessary for the university to get the post advertised and thereafter to call for the applications in accordance with the Statute and then to fill up the post. The public employment cannot be treated as largesse to be distributed at the absolute discretion of the functionaries of the university. 8. Mr. It was necessary for the university to get the post advertised and thereafter to call for the applications in accordance with the Statute and then to fill up the post. The public employment cannot be treated as largesse to be distributed at the absolute discretion of the functionaries of the university. 8. Mr. V.D. Khidtta has relied upon Annexures P-9 and P-10 to substantiate that the Vice Chancellor was the competent authority to appoint the petitioner. It is no doubt true that the Vice Chancellor has the power to appoint the persons mentioned in Annexures P-9 and P-10, however, he has to follow the norms prescribed under the law. He could not appoint a single candidate that too on the basis of approval accorded by the Chief Minister. 9. Mr. V.D. Khidtta has strenuously argued that the petitioner had completed eight years on daily wage basis and his client was entitled to be regularized as Library Assistant. He has assailed the decision of the university not to call the petitioner for interview. Mr. Onkar Jairath has argued that since the appointment of the petitioner on daily wage basis was dehors the rules, she is not entitled to be regularized. He also contended that the State had imposed ban on engaging daily wagers on 11.7.1995 and 11.12.1997. He also argued that the necessary codal formalities as laid down under statute 5.7(1) (3) of the University Statute and Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 have also not been followed by the university. According to him, the appointment of the petitioner was for six months as per Annexure P-1. 10. The petitioner undoubtedly had completed eight years of service as per the pleadings of the parties. However, she cannot seek regularization in case her initial appointment is bad in the eyes of law. She has been appointed in negation of the principle of rule of law. The university, as per the reply filed, has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Statute. The post was never advertised nor was any requisition sent to the Employment Exchanges throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh. The similarly situate persons have been left out by the university at the time of engagement of the petitioner in the year 1996. The Superintendent of Police had sought certain information from the Registrar of the respondent-university on 28.2.2007. The University has supplied the information to him on 12.4.2007. The similarly situate persons have been left out by the university at the time of engagement of the petitioner in the year 1996. The Superintendent of Police had sought certain information from the Registrar of the respondent-university on 28.2.2007. The University has supplied the information to him on 12.4.2007. It has been admitted by the university that the appointment of the petitioner as per Annexure R-4 was on the basis of U.O. note. The State has also registered an FIR No. 1/2006 to determine whether the appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with law or not. This Court will not embark upon this inquiry at this stage since the matter is under active investigation of the police. However, the fact of the matter is that the appointment of the petitioner on 6.1.1998 was against the law. She cannot seek regularization against the post of Library Assistant. The action of the respondent-university not to issue interview letter to the petitioner as per pleadings is justified. 11. The Constitutional Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 has laid down that the persons appointed on temporary/contractual/casual/ad hoc or daily wage basis have no legal right to regular or permanent public employment. Their Lordships have further held that absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees appointed/recruited and continued for long in public employment dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment amounts to another mode of recruitment in public employment which is not permissible. Their Lordships have further held that the persons who get employed, without following a regular procedure or even through the backdoor or on daily wages and have continued to work for ten years or more, they would not be entitled for regular or permanent employment. Their Lordships have held as under: “4. But, sometimes this process is not adhered to and the Constitutional scheme of public employment is by-passed. Their Lordships have held as under: “4. But, sometimes this process is not adhered to and the Constitutional scheme of public employment is by-passed. The Union, the States, their departments and instrumentalities have resorted to irregular appointments, especially in the lower rungs of the service, without reference to the duty to ensure a proper appointment procedure through the Public Service Commission or otherwise as per the rules adopted and to permit these irregular appointees or those appointed on contract or on daily wages, to continue year after year, thus, keeping out those who are qualified to apply for the post concerned and depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the post. It has also led to persons who get employed, without the following of a regular procedure or even through the backdoor or on daily wages, approaching Courts, seeking directions to make them permanent in their posts and to prevent regular recruitment to the concerned posts. Courts have not always kept the legal aspects in mind and have occasionally even stayed the regular process of employment being set in motion and in some cases, even directed that these illegal, irregular or improper entrants be absorbed into service. A class of employment which can only be called litigious employment, has risen like a phoenix seriously impairing the constitutional scheme. Such orders are passed apparently in exercise of the wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether the wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is intended to be used for a purpose certain to defeat the concept of social justice and equal opportunity for all, subject to affirmative action in the matter of public employment as recognized by our Constitution, has to be seriously pondered over. It is time, that Courts desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such persons and from issuing directions for continuance of those who have not secured regular appointments as per procedure established. The passing of orders for continuance, tends to defeat the very Constitutional scheme of public employment. It has to be emphasized that this is not the role envisaged for High Courts in the scheme of things and their wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not intended to be used for the purpose of perpetuating illegalities, irregularities or improprieties or for scuttling the whole scheme of public employment. It has to be emphasized that this is not the role envisaged for High Courts in the scheme of things and their wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not intended to be used for the purpose of perpetuating illegalities, irregularities or improprieties or for scuttling the whole scheme of public employment. Its role as the sentinel and as the guardian of equal rights protection should not be forgotten. 12. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this Court on this aspect. By and large what emerges is that regular recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a contingency an ad hoc appointment can be made in a permanent vacancy, but the same should soon be followed by a regular recruitment and that appointments to non-available posts should not be taken note of for regularization. The cases directing regularization have mainly proceeded on the basis that having permitted the employee to work for some period, he should be absorbed, without really laying down any law to that effect, after discussing the constitutional scheme for public employment. 13. There have been decisions which have taken the cue from the Dharwad (supra) case and given directions for regularization, absorption or making permanent, employees engaged or appointed without following the due process or the rules for appointment. The philosophy behind this approach is seen set out in the recent decision in The Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. The Management of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. (JT 2006 (2) SC 1), though the legality or validity of such an approach has not been independently examined. But on a survey of authorities, the predominant view is seen to be that such appointments did not confer any right on the appointees and that the Court cannot direct their absorption or regularization or re-engagement or making them permanent. 14. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as litigious employment in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 15. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. 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 succor 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. 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. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. It is contended that the State action in not regularizing the employees was not fair within the framework of the rule of law. The rule of law compels the State to make appointments as envisaged by the Constitution and in the manner we have indicated earlier. In most of these cases, no doubt, the employees had worked for some length of time but this has also been brought about by the pendency of proceedings in Tribunals and courts initiated at the instance of the employees. Moreover, accepting an argument of this nature would mean that the State would be permitted to perpetuate an illegality in the matter of public employment and that would be a negation of the constitutional scheme adopted by us, the people of India. It is therefore not possible to accept the argument that there must be a direction to make permanent all the persons employed on daily wages. When the court is approached for relief by way of a writ, the court has necessarily to ask itself whether the person before it had any legal right to be enforced. It is therefore not possible to accept the argument that there must be a direction to make permanent all the persons employed on daily wages. When the court is approached for relief by way of a writ, the court has necessarily to ask itself whether the person before it had any legal right to be enforced. Considered in the light of the very clear constitutional scheme, it cannot be said that the employees have been able to establish a legal right to be made permanent even though they have never been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 17. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.” 18. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have further held in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and others (supra) that the persons, whose appointments are irregular, may be regularized, if they have put in ten years, however, distinction has been drawn in irregular and illegal appointment. Their Lordships have held as under: “3. A sovereign government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. Going by a law newly enacted, The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the object is to give employment to at least one member of a family for hundred days in an year, on paying wages as fixed under that Act. But, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a particular point of time, are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations. Regular appointment must be the rule. 19. In addition to the equality clause represented by Article 14 of the Constitution, Article 16 has specifically provided for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Regular appointment must be the rule. 19. In addition to the equality clause represented by Article 14 of the Constitution, Article 16 has specifically provided for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Buttressing these fundamental rights, Article 309 provides that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Acts of the legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. In view of the interpretation placed on Article 12 of the Constitution by this Court, obviously, these principles also govern the instrumentalities that come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution. With a view to make the procedure for selection fair, the Constitution by Article 315 has also created a Public Service Commission for the Union and Public Service Commissions for the States. Article 320 deals with the functions of Public Service Commissions and mandates consultation with the Commission on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts and other related matters. As a part of the affirmative action recognized by Article 16 of the Constitution, Article 335 provides for special consideration in the matter of claims of the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes for employment. The States have made Acts, Rules or Regulations for implementing the above constitutional guarantees and any recruitment to the service in the State or in the Union is governed by such Acts, Rules and Regulations. The Constitution does not envisage any employment outside this constitutional scheme and without following the requirements set down therein. 20. In spite of this scheme, there may be occasions when the sovereign State or its instrumentalities will have to employ persons, in posts which are temporary, on daily wages, as additional hands or taking them in without following the required procedure, to discharge the duties in respect of the posts that are sanctioned and that are required to be filled in terms of the relevant procedure established by the Constitution or for work in temporary posts or projects that are not needed permanently. This right of the Union or of the State Government cannot but be recognized and there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits such engaging of persons temporarily or on daily wages, to meet the needs of the situation. This right of the Union or of the State Government cannot but be recognized and there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits such engaging of persons temporarily or on daily wages, to meet the needs of the situation. But the fact that such engagements are resorted to, cannot be used to defeat the very scheme of public employment. Nor can a court say that the Union or the State Governments do not have the right to engage persons in various capacities for a duration or until the work in a particular project is completed. Once this right of the Government is recognized and the mandate of the constitutional requirement for public employment is respected, there cannot be much difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it is ordinarily not proper for courts whether acting under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Article 32 of the Constitution, to direct absorption in permanent employment of those who have been engaged without following a due process of selection as envisaged by the constitutional scheme. 21. In the present case since the appointment of the petitioner was illegal, she cannot seek regularization. Their Lordships have further drawn distinction between expression ‘regularization’ and ‘permanency’ in service jurisprudence. Their Lordships have highlighted that though the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 does not oblige an employer to employ only those persons who have been sponsored by employment exchanges, but it places an obligation on the employer to notify the vacancies that may arise. Their Lordships have held as under: “6. The power of a State as an employer is more limited than that of a private employer inasmuch as it is subjected to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily (See Basus Shorter Constitution of India). Article 309 of the Constitution gives the Government the power to frame rules for the purpose of laying down the conditions of service and recruitment of persons to be appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any of the States. That Article contemplates the drawing up of a procedure and rules to regulate the recruitment and regulate the service conditions of appointees appointed to public posts. It is well acknowledged that because of this, the entire process of recruitment for services is controlled by detailed procedure which specify the necessary qualifications, the mode of appointment etc. That Article contemplates the drawing up of a procedure and rules to regulate the recruitment and regulate the service conditions of appointees appointed to public posts. It is well acknowledged that because of this, the entire process of recruitment for services is controlled by detailed procedure which specify the necessary qualifications, the mode of appointment etc. If rules have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution, then the Government can make appointments only in accordance with the rules. The State is meant to be a model employer. The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 was enacted to ensure equal opportunity for employment seekers. Though this Act may not oblige an employer to employ only those persons who have been sponsored by employment exchanges, it places an obligation on the employer to notify the vacancies that may arise in the various departments and for filling up of those vacancies, based on a procedure. Normally, statutory rules are framed under the authority of law governing employment. It is recognized that no government order, notification or circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed under the authority of law. This is because, following any other course could be disastrous inasmuch as it will deprive the security of tenure and the right of equality conferred on civil servants under the Constitutional scheme. It may even amount to negating the accepted service jurisprudence. Therefore, when statutory rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution which are exhaustive, the only fair means to adopt is to make appointments based on the rules so framed.” 22. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited versus Workmen, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, (2007) 1 SCC 408 have laid down that the Court cannot direct continuation in service of a non-regular appointee. A casual or temporary employment is not an appointment to the post. The Court cannot create a post where none exists, nor issue directions to absorb or regularize temporary employees. Their Lordships have held as under: “14. The distinction between a temporary employee and a permanent employee is well settled. Whereas a permanent employee has a right to the post, a temporary employee has no right to the post. The Court cannot create a post where none exists, nor issue directions to absorb or regularize temporary employees. Their Lordships have held as under: “14. The distinction between a temporary employee and a permanent employee is well settled. Whereas a permanent employee has a right to the post, a temporary employee has no right to the post. It is only a permanent employee who has a right to continue in service till the age of superannuation (unless he is dismissed or removed after an inquiry, or his service is terminated due to some other valid reason earlier). As regards a temporary employee, there is no age of superannuation because he has no right to the post at all. Hence, it follows that no direction can be passed in the case of any temporary employee that he should be continued till the age of superannuation. 15. Similarly, no direction can be given that a daily wage employee should be paid salary of a regular employee vide State of Haryana vs. Tilak Raj 2003 (6) SCC 123. 23. Admittedly, the employees in question in Court had not been appointed by following the regular procedure, and instead they had been appointed only due to the pressure and agitation of the union and on compassionate ground. There were not even vacancies on which they could be appointed. As held in A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors. 2004(7) SCC 112, such employees cannot be regularized as regularization is not a mode of recruitment. In Umaranis case the Supreme Court observed that the compassionate appointment of a woman whose husband deserted her would be illegal in view of the absence of any scheme providing for such appointment of deserted women. 24. In State of M.P. and others vs. Yogesh Chandra Dubey and others 2006 (8) SCC 67, this Court held that a post must be created and/or sanctioned before filling it up. If an employee is not appointed against a sanctioned post he is not entitled to any scale of pay. In our opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case also. 25. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily wager to seek regularization. Regularization can only be done in accordance with the rules and not de hors the rules. In our opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case also. 25. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily wager to seek regularization. Regularization can only be done in accordance with the rules and not de hors the rules. In the case of E. Ramakrishnan & others vs. State of Kerala & others 1996 (10) SCC 565 this Court held that there can be no regularization de hors the rules. The same view was taken in Dr. Kishore vs. State of Maharashtra 1997(3) SCC 209, Union of India & others vs. Bishambar Dutt 1996 (11) SCC 341. The direction issued by the services tribunal for regularizing the services of persons who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside although the petitioner had been working regularly for a long time. 26. Creation and abolition of posts and regularization are a purely executive function vide P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad & others 2003(2) SCC 632. Hence, the court cannot create a post where none exists. Also, we cannot issue any direction to absorb the respondents or continue them in service, or pay them salaries of regular employees, as these are purely executive functions. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers of the executive or legislature. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution, and the judiciary, too, must know its limits. 27. The respondents have not been able to point out any statutory rule on the basis of which their claim of continuation in service or payment of regular salary can be granted. It is well settled that unless there exists some rule no direction can be issued by the court for continuation in service or payment of regular salary to a casual, ad hoc, or daily rate employee. Such directions are executive functions, and it is not appropriate for the court to encroach into the functions of another organ of the State. The courts must exercise judicial restraint in this connection. The tendency in some courts/tribunals to legislate or perform executive functions cannot be appreciated. Judicial activism in some extreme and exceptional situation can be justified, but resorting to it readily and frequently, as has lately been happening, is not only unconstitutional, it is also fraught with grave peril for the judiciary. 28. The tendency in some courts/tribunals to legislate or perform executive functions cannot be appreciated. Judicial activism in some extreme and exceptional situation can be justified, but resorting to it readily and frequently, as has lately been happening, is not only unconstitutional, it is also fraught with grave peril for the judiciary. 28. In view of the above observations of this Court it has to be held that the rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the court/Tribunal cannot direct regularization of temporary appointees de hors the rules, nor can it direct continuation of service of a temporary employee (whether called a casual, ad hoc or daily rate employee) or payment of regular salaries to them. 29. It is well settled that regularization cannot be a mode of appointment vide Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs S. Mani & others, AIR 2005 SC 2179 (para 54).” The Apex Court in Official Liquidator versus Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1 has held that ruling of Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) case 2006 (4) SCC 1 is binding on all the Courts till the same is over ruled by a Larger Bench. Their Lordships have further held that the menace of illegal and backdoor appointments compelled the courts to rethink and in a large number of subsequent judgments the Apex Court declined to entertain the claims of ad hoc and temporary employees for regularization of services. Their Lordships have also observed that thousands of persons were employed/ engaged throughout the length and breadth of the country by backdoor methods. A huge illegal employment market developed in different parts of the country and rampant corruption afflicted the whole system. 30. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar versus Upendra Narayan Singh and others, 2009 (4) Scale 282 have held that equality clause enshrined in Article 16 mandates that every appointment to public posts or office should be made by open advertisement so as to enable all eligible persons to compete for selection on merit. Their Lordships have held as under: “13. Their Lordships have held as under: “13. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 mandates that every appointment to public posts or office should be made by open advertisement so as to enable all eligible persons to compete for selection on merit - Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others [(1994) 4 SCC 138], Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela [(2006) 2 SCC 482], State of Manipur and others v. Y. Token Singh and others [(2007) 5 SCC 65] and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and others v. P. Mary Manoranjani and another [(2008) 2 SCC 758]. Although, the Courts have carved out some exceptions to this rule, for example, compassionate appointment of the dependent of deceased employees, for the purpose of this case it is not necessary to elaborate that aspect.” 31. Their Lordships have further held that as per the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, every employer is duty bound to notify the vacancies to the concerned employment exchange so as to enable it to sponsor the names of eligible candidates and also advertise the same in the newspapers having wider circulation, employment news bulletins, get announcement made on radio and television and consider all eligible candidates whose names may be forwarded by the concerned employment exchange and/or who may apply pursuant to the advertisement published in the newspapers or announcements made on radio/television. The Apex Court has also held that since the initial appointments of the respondents were in gross violation of Articles 14 and 16 and the provisions of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, the learned Judge had erred by directing their reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Their Lordships have held as under: 32. The ratio of the above noted three judgments is that in terms of Section 4 of the 1959 Act, every public employer is duty bound to notify the vacancies to the concerned employment exchange so as to enable it to sponsor the names of eligible candidates and also advertise the same in the newspapers having wider circulation, employment news bulletins, get announcement made on radio and television and consider all eligible candidates whose names may be forwarded by the concerned employment exchange and/or who may apply pursuant to the advertisement published in the newspapers or announcements made on radio/television. 33. 33. Notwithstanding the basic mandate of Article 16 that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment for appointment to any office under the State, the spoil system which prevailed in America in 17th and 18th centuries has spread its tentacles in various segments of public employment apparatus and a huge illegal employment market has developed in the country adversely affecting the legal and constitutional rights of lakhs of meritorious members of younger generation of the country who are forced to seek intervention of the court and wait for justice for years together. 34. In 17th and 18th centuries a peculiar system of employment prevailed in America. Under that system, leaders of the political party which came to power considered it to be their prerogative to appoint their faithful followers to public offices and remove those who did not support the party. The system was developed in New York and Pennsylvania more than elsewhere, largely because of the existence in those States of a large body of apathetic non-English voters. In New York, the ill-devised council of appointment had much to do with the growth of this system. In the Federal Government, Jefferson implemented this system to a large extent. The prescription of a four year term for various offices considerably increased appointment of political faithfuls to public offices and positions. The politicians who surrounded Jackson brought this system to its full development as an engine of party warfare. Since then it became a regular feature in every administration. The phrase `spoil system was derived from the statement of Senator W L Marcy of New York, in a speech in the Senate in 1832. Speaking of the New York politicians, he said: `They see nothing wrong in the rule that to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy. By 1840, the spoil system was widely used in Local, State and Federal governments. As a result of this, America fell far behind other nations in civil service standards of ability and rectitude. When William Henry Harrison became President in 1841, the practice of appointing political followers reached its pinnacle. Between 30,000 and 40,000 office-seekers converged on the capital to scramble for 23,700 jobs which then comprised the federal service. Numerous persons hired through the spoil system were untrained for their work and indifferent to it. In the early days, government work was simple. Between 30,000 and 40,000 office-seekers converged on the capital to scramble for 23,700 jobs which then comprised the federal service. Numerous persons hired through the spoil system were untrained for their work and indifferent to it. In the early days, government work was simple. However, as government grew, a serious need for qualified workers developed. After Civil War, pressure started building up for reforms in recruitment to civil services. The gross scandals of President Ulysses S. Grants administration lent credence to the efforts of reformers George W. Curtis, Dorman B. Eaton and Carl Schurz. In 1871, Congress authorized the President to make regulations for appointment to public services and to constitute Civil Service Commission for that purpose. However, this merit system ended in 1875 because the Congress failed to provide funds for the same. Nevertheless, the experiment proved the merit system to be both functional and supportive. President Rutherford B. Hayes was enamored of reform and began to use competitive examinations as a basis for appointments. In 1881, a spurned office-seeker shot and killed President James A. Garfield. His death provoked further public outcry for civil service reform and paved way for passage of a bill introduced by Sen. George H. Pendleton of Ohio. His bill became the Civil Service Act of 1883 and re-established the Civil Service Commission. The Act rendered it unlawful to fill various federal offices by the spoil system. Since then, much has been done to avoid the evils of the system. Federal civil service legislation has been greatly expanded. Many municipalities and states have made training and experience as a condition precedent for appointment to public offices. In the territories of India ruled by Britishers also a large chunk of jobs went to the faithfuls of Britishers who were considered fit for serving British interest. 35. With a view to insulate the public employment apparatus in independent India from the virus of spoil system, the framers of the Constitution not only made equal opportunity in the matter of public employment as an integral part of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen but also enacted a separate part, i.e., Part XIV with the title "Services under the Union and the States". Article 309 which finds place in Chapter I of this part envisages enactment of laws by the Parliament and the State Legislatures for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State. Proviso to this Article empowers the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union and the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts and in connection with the affairs of State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts till the enactment of law by the appropriate legislature. Article 311 which also finds place in the same chapter gives protection to the holders of civil posts against dismissal, removal or reduction in rank by an authority subordinate to the one by which they are appointed. This Article also provides that an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank can be passed only after holding an inquiry and giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected person. The provisions contained in Chapter II of Part XIV relate to Public Service Commissions. Article 315 mandates that there shall be a Public Service Commission for the Union and a Public Service Commission for each State. Article 320(1) casts a duty on the Union and the State Public Service Commissions to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the Union and the State respectively. Article 315 mandates that there shall be a Public Service Commission for the Union and a Public Service Commission for each State. Article 320(1) casts a duty on the Union and the State Public Service Commissions to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the Union and the State respectively. Clause 3 of Article 320 makes consultation with Union Public Service Commission, or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be mandatory on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts, on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers, on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters, on any claim by or in respect of a person who is serving or has served under the Government of India or the Government of a State or under the Crown in India or under the Government of an Indian State, in a civil capacity, that any costs incurred by him in defending legal proceedings instituted against him in respect of acts done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India, or, as the case may be, out of the Consolidated Fund of the State, on any claim for the award of a pension in respect of injuries sustained by a person while serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State or under the Crown in India or under the Government of an Indian State, in a civil capacity, and any question as to the amount of any such award. This clause also casts a duty on the Public Service Commissions to advise on any matter referred to them by the President or the Governor. 36. This clause also casts a duty on the Public Service Commissions to advise on any matter referred to them by the President or the Governor. 36. However, the hope and expectation of the framers of the Constitution that after independence every citizen will get equal opportunity in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the State and members of civil services would remain committed to the Constitution and honestly serve the people of this country have been belied by what has actually happened in last four decades. The Public Service Commissions which have been given the status of Constitutional Authorities and which are supposed to be totally independent and impartial while discharging their function in terms of Article 320 have become victims of spoil system. In the beginning, people with the distinction in different fields of administration and social life were appointed as Chairman and members of the Public Service Commissions but with the passage of time appointment to these high offices became personal prerogatives of the political head of the Government and men with questionable background have been appointed to these coveted positions. Such appointees have, instead of making selections for appointment to higher echelons of services on merit, indulged in exhibition of faithfulness to their mentors totally unmindful of their Constitutional responsibility. This is one of several reasons why most meritorious in the academics opt for private employment and ventures. The scenario is worst when it comes to appointment to lower strata of the civil services. Those who have been bestowed with the power to make appointment on Class III and Class IV posts have by and large misused and abused the same by violating relevant rules and instructions and have indulged in favouritism and nepotism with impunity resulting in total negation of the equality clause enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution. Thousands of cases have been filed in the Courts by aggrieved persons with the complaints that appointment to Class III and Class IV posts have been made without issuing any advertisement or sending requisition to the employment exchange as per the requirement of the 1959 Act and those who have links with the party in power or political leaders or who could pull strings in the power corridors get the cake of employment. Cases have also been filed with the complaints that recruitment to the higher strata of civil services made by the Public Service Commissions have been affected by the virus of spoil system in different dimensions and selections have been made for considerations other than merit. 37. Unfortunately, some orders passed by the Courts have also contributed to the spread of spoil system in this country. The judgments of 1980s and early 1990s show that this Court gave expanded meaning to the equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 and issued directions for treating temporary/ad hoc/daily wage employees at par with regular employees in the matter of payment of salaries etc. The schemes framed by the Governments and public bodies for regularization of illegally appointed temporary/ad hoc/daily wage/casual employees got approval of the Courts. In some cases, the Courts also directed the State and its instrumentalities/agencies to frame schemes for regularization of the services of such employees. In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], this Court reiterated that appointment to the public posts should ordinarily be made by regular recruitment through the prescribed agency and that even where ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, the candidate should be drawn from the employment exchange and that if no candidate is available or sponsored by the employment exchange, some method consistent with the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution should be followed by publishing notice in appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly, but proceeded to observe that if an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities are duty bound to consider his case for regularization subject to his fulfilling the conditions of eligibility and the requirement of satisfactory service. The propositions laid down in Piara Singhs case (supra) were followed by almost all High Courts for directing the concerned State Governments and public authorities to regularize the services of ad hoc/temporary/daily wage employees only on the ground that they have continued for a particular length of time. In some cases, the schemes framed for regularization of the services of the backdoor entrants were also approved. In some cases, the schemes framed for regularization of the services of the backdoor entrants were also approved. As a result of this, beneficiaries of spoil system and corruption garnered substantial share of Class III and Class IV posts and thereby caused irreparable damage to the service structure at the lower levels. Those appointed by backdoor methods or as a result of favoritism, nepotism or corruption do not show any commitment to their duty as public servant. Not only this, majority of them are found to be totally incompetent or inefficient. 38. In view of the contradictory assertions made by the parties on the issue of legality of the respondents initial appointment, the minimum which the learned Single Judge should have done was to call upon the respondents to produce copies of the advertisement issued by the competent authority and/or requisition sent to the employment exchange and letters of interview, if any, issued to them to prove that they were appointed by following a fair procedure and after considering the claims of all eligible persons. However, without making any endeavour to find out whether the appointments of the respondents were made after following some procedure consistent with the doctrine of equality, the learned Single Judge quashed the termination of their services simply by relying upon the order passed in another case and by observing that the writ petitioners (respondents herein) had been appointed before the cut off date i.e. 28.10.1991 specified in letter dated 16.4.1996 and they had worked for almost 10 years. 39. In the Letters Patent Appeal filed by them, the appellants reiterated that the respondents had been appointed without following any procedure and without any selection. They also contended that even though vacant posts were not available, the then Regional Director, Gaya made large number of illegal appointments and this fact was established in the enquiry got conducted by the department. However, the Division Bench did not deal with the issues raised in the appeal and dismissed the same by making reference to the orders passed in LPA No.325/2000, Civil Review No.279/2000 and LPA No.47/2005 and observing that taking different view in the case of the respondents could lead to an anomalous position inasmuch as some persons would get back into service on the strength of the courts order while others will be thrown out. 40. 40. At the hearing of this appeal, we asked the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents to show that before appointing his clients on ad hoc basis, the then Regional Director, Gaya had issued an advertisement and/or sent requisition to the employment exchange and made selection after considering competing claims of the eligible candidates but he could not draw our attention to any document from which it could be inferred that the respondents were appointed after advertising the posts or by adopting some other method which could enable other eligible persons to at least apply for being considered for appointment. He, however, submitted that issue relating to legality of the initial appointments of the respondents has become purely academic and this Court need not go into the same because their services had been regularized by the competent authority in 1992. 41. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the initial appointments of the respondents were made in gross violation of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 and the provisions of the 1959 Act and the learned Single Judge gravely erred by directing their reinstatement with consequential benefits.” 42. In a recent judgment in State of Karnataka and others versus G.V. Chandrashekar, (2009) 4 SCC 342, the Apex Court has reiterated that ad hoc appointment even if it continues for long time cannot be ordered to be regularized. Their Lordships have held as under: “2. The short question which arises for consideration herein is as to whether the respondents herein having been appointed on an ad-hoc basis could be treated to have been regularized in their services. 43. The Bench in Dayanand case noticed several judgments/orders of different Benches taking a view contrary to Uma Devi (3) (supra) to opine that those cases were illustrative of nonadherence to the rule of judicial discipline which is sine qua non for sustaining the system. It was opined: "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 and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and 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 constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass root will not be able to decide as to which of the judgments lay down the correct law and which one should be followed. 91. We may add that in our constitutional set up every citizen is under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions. Those who have been entrusted with the task of administering the system and operating various constituents of the State and who take oath to act in accordance with the Constitution and 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 and legal issues and protect and preserve rights of the individuals and society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law. Discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law. In the light of what has been stated above, we deem it proper to clarify that the comments and observations made by the two-Judges Bench in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra) should be read as obiter and the same should neither be treated as binding by the High Courts, Tribunals and other judicial for as nor they should be relied upon or made basis for by passing the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench." We feel bound by the observations made therein. Initial recruitment of the respondents being wholly illegal and contrary to the constitutional scheme of this country, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be upheld. It is set aside accordingly.” 44. Accordingly, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. The Court cannot direct the respondent-university to regularize the petitioner whose initial appointment was not in accordance with law. The respondent-university cannot be oblivious to the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as noticed above. In future the respondent-university is restrained from regularizing the services of any person, including ad hoc/temporary/contractual/tenure etc. appointed without following the mandate under the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986 and the statutes framed thereunder. The statutory authorities like the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University cannot permit themselves to be dictated by the authorities, who have no role whatsoever to play in the running of the affairs of the University. In the present case, the Vice Chancellor has abdicated his statutory duties while appointing the petitioner on daily wage basis in the year 1996 without conforming to the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986 and the rules framed thereunder. 45. In the present case, the Vice Chancellor has abdicated his statutory duties while appointing the petitioner on daily wage basis in the year 1996 without conforming to the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986 and the rules framed thereunder. 45. Before parting with the judgment, it is clarified that the present lis has been decided on the basis of the general principles of service jurisprudence and the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Court is not influenced in any manner by the vigilance inquiry pending against the petitioner. The observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the pendency of the vigilance inquiry against the petitioner. No costs.