JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1, namely, Habibur Rahman, was appointed, on temporary basis, as daily wage earner, at the rate of Rs. 30 per day, to work in the blood-bank, Guwahati Medical College Hospital ('GMCH') by order, dated 28.10.1995, issued by respondent No. 3, namely, Superintendent, GMCH. The petitioner No. 2, namely, Md. Alam Ali, came to be appointed as daily wage earner, at the rate of Rs. 30 per day, in the GMCH, on 16.5.1995, by respondent No. 3, namely, Superintendent, GMCH. Having been so appointed, the petitioners continued to perform their duties as wage earners. 2. On the ground that they had not been paid their salaries and also seeking regularization of their services, the present two petitioners and three others filed two writ petitions, namely, WP(C) Nos. 6493/2000 and 5970/2001. Both these writ petitions were disposed of, on 19.5.2004, by a learned Single Judge of this Court with the following directions: In view of the above, I dispose of both the writ petition by this common order issuing a direction to the respondents to release the admissible wages to the petitioners immediately, not later than two months from the date of furnishing the certified copy of this order. As regards the current wages, same shall be paid to the petitioners regularly without making them to wait at the end of each month. As per the question of regularizing the services of the petitioners is concerned, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners according to their need and availability of vacancy and taking into account the averments made in paragraph 6 of WP(C) No. 5970/2001. Such consideration shall be extended to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of furnishing the certified copy of this order. Till then the present status of the petitioners shall not be disturbed. 3. By two representations, made on 13.7.2009 and 29.7.2009, by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 addressed to the respondent No. 1, namely, Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health Department, the petitioners sought for regularization of their service. Their services were, however, not regularized; whereas the respondents/authorities concerned have made regular appointments in Grade-IV in the said hospital. 4. 1 and 2 addressed to the respondent No. 1, namely, Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health Department, the petitioners sought for regularization of their service. Their services were, however, not regularized; whereas the respondents/authorities concerned have made regular appointments in Grade-IV in the said hospital. 4. As the respondent No. 3, namely, Superintendent of Guwahati Medical College Hospital, Guwahati, has issued an advertisement on 19.3.2010, inviting applications for filling up of twelve numbers of posts (Ward boy), which fall under Grade IV of the said establishment, the petitioners, with the help of this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenged the said advertisement as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and have sought for appropriate directions to be issued to the respondents to regularize their services by making appropriate order(s) in this regard and implement thereby the directions, contained in the order, dated 19.5.2009, passed in WP(C) Nos. 6493/2000 and 5970/2001. 5. I have heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned Counsel, for the petitioners, and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. The basic submissions, made on behalf the petitioners, are: (i) The petitioners have been working, on the basis of daily wages, as Grade-IV employee, since 1995 and having, thus, realized from the petitioners work as Grade-IV employees, though on daily wage basis, the State is bound to regularize the services of the petitioners and (ii) the State had the obligation to regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of the directions, which were issued on 19.5.2004, in WP(C) Nos. 6093/2000 and 5970/2001. 7. While considering the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, it is necessary to bear in mind the factual background of the cases, wherein regularization of the services of casual employees engaged, with effect from 1.4.1993, has been discontinued. 8. By an office memorandum, dated 11.10.1995, the State Government issued strict instructions to all concerned not to engage any further muster roll/work charged employee after 1.4.1993. 8. By an office memorandum, dated 11.10.1995, the State Government issued strict instructions to all concerned not to engage any further muster roll/work charged employee after 1.4.1993. In Civil Rule No. 4411/1995, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that in the light of the cut off date, which had been stipulated by the Government in its office memorandum, dated 20.4.1995, aforementioned, no legally enforceable right can be held to have accrued in favour of those persons, who might have been engaged, on casual basts, as muster roll workers or otherwise, to get their services regularized. This decision was followed by various other judgments and orders passed not only by Single Bench, but by Division Bench giving rise to some conflicting directions as regards regularization of services of the daily wage workers, casual employees, muster roll workers, work charged employees, etc. The mater, therefore, came to be referred to a Full Bench. The question of regularization of such casual employees has accordingly been considered and decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Jitendra Kalita and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. 2006 (2) GLT 654 : (2006) 3 GLR 143. The court has held that there is no policy decision of the State Government, with regard to regularization of different categories of casual/contingent/ad hoc, employees, working in the different departments of the State Government. Such employees are, therefore, not entitled to claim any regularization either under the Office Memorandum, dated 20.4.1995, or under any other Office Memorandum in force. The court has further observed and held as follows: However, as a large number of regularizations of different categories of employees have already been effected in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 20.4.1995, considering the human factor involved, the court does not consider it necessary to pass orders setting aside any of the said regularizations. However, there will be no further regularization in terms of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, dated 20.4.1995, and/or such other judicial order(s) for regularization, passed, in this regard, but has not yet been implemented. (emphasis is supplied) 9. While rendering its decision in Jitendra Kalita (supra), the Full Bench also took note of the decision of the Constitution Bench, in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 . (emphasis is supplied) 9. While rendering its decision in Jitendra Kalita (supra), the Full Bench also took note of the decision of the Constitution Bench, in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Referring to the decision in Uma Devi (supra), the Full Bench of this Court held as follows: The need and, hence, the power to make appointments on casual, ad hoc and daily wage basis, though a necessary adjunct to the administrative power of the State, the Apex Court has laid down that such employment should not been allowed to become the order of the day. The State is duty bound to adhere to the Constitutional scheme of public employment and desist from long time actions giving rise to a separate class of employment termed as 'litigious employment". That apart, in Uma Devi (supra), the Constitution Bench also held that long continuance of employees on irregular basis will not entitle such employees to claim equal treatment with those regularly recruited and further that no legitimate expectation capable of being enforced in law can be understood in favour of such employees. These are some of the views expressed in Uma Devi (supra) which the State is obliged to take note of while exercising its powers and duties in the domain of public employment to ensure that a system guided by the Rule of law prevails. (emphasis is supplied) 10. Coupled with the above, it needs to be noted that when a person enters a temporary employment or gets engaged as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on an appropriate selection process as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of his appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post, when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection. The Supreme Court has, therefore, held, in Uma Devi (supra), thus: 47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post. 11. In the present case too, the petitioners knew on the date, when they had got engaged on daily wage basis, that their engagement was contractual and casual in nature and that their engagement was not based on any proper selection as is required in public employment. In fact, no selection process was, admittedly, held for the purpose of making appointments of the petitioners as daily workers. In such circumstances, engagement of the petitioners, as daily rated workers, does not satisfy the requirements of Articles 14 and 16, which do not permit arbitrary selection and appointment by the State. Such persons, as the petitioners are, cannot seek regularization of their services, when they came to be selected, or appointed or engaged, not through a proper selection process, but through the backdoor. Leaving none in doubt that a court, by invoking Article 226cannot direct regularization of the service of an employee, who had not been supported (sic) in terms of the relevant recruitment rules and who has not come to be appointed after having participated in a selection process, which permitted qualified or eligible persons to participate in tune with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. The Apex Court has held, in Uma Devi (supra), as follows: 43. The Apex Court has held, in Uma Devi (supra), as follows: 43. 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 14 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. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, 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 the 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. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the 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. * * * * * * 48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees, thus, appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. It is stated that the State has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the department concerned on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequal as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are, therefore, overruled. 49. It is contended that the State action in not regularising 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. 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 and16 of the Constitution. 12. 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 and16 of the Constitution. 12. In the light of the decision rendered in Uma Devi (supra), the directions, which might have been given by any court in a writ petition, but have not been carried out by the Government, cannot be enforced by this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This apart, even the directions, issued in WP(C) 5970/2001, cannot be construed as a direction for regularization of the services of the petitioners inasmuch as what the court had directed was that the State shall consider the petitioner's cases for regularization based on need and availability of vacancy. In an appropriate selection process, the petitioner may, therefore, be allowed to participate as candidates by condoning, if necessary, bar in their age; but beyond that, they cannot be given the benefit of their previous engagement and they would have to compete with other eligible candidates in order to succeed in receiving selection and appointment. 13. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, it becomes clear that the petitioners have not been able to make out any case for directions to be issued to the State Government to regularize the services of the petitioners or to set aside or quash the process of selection, which has been commenced pursuant to the impugned advertisement, dated 19.3.2010, nor can the petitioners be directed to be regularized against the vacancies, which have been so advertised. 14. Situated, thus, this Court is of the firm view that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the petitioner are not entitled to any relief. This writ petition, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed