Sudhir Agarwal,J.:- 1. Petitioners claim that admittedly, they were employed on ad hoc daily wage basis on 4.8.1999, as stated in para 2 of the of writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not place any statutory provision under which they have any right to seek regularization despite the fact that their initial engagement was not made after advertisement of vacancies and complying with the Constitutional requirement of equal opportunity of consideration to all eligible candidates as mandated under Article 16 of the Constitution. 2. It is said that authorities have made recommendation for regularization of petitioners. Obviously, when the authorities have engaged petitioners on daily wage basis without undergoing process of recruitment consistent with Article 16, they have shown their favour to petitioners and their recommendation is also the outcome of such favour. But the fact remains that under the law, neither the statute provide or confer any right upon the petitioners to claim regularization nor otherwise a person who has entered a Government service without compliance of procedure prescribed under rules and consistent with Article 16, he cannot claim regularization. 3. It is contended that petitioners have continued for more than ten years and, therefore, in view of observations made by Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 (para 53), the petitioners are entitled for regularization. 4. Regularization has never been held to be a valid mode of recruitment. In past, sometimes on account of large scale engagements continuing for long period, it has been taken a relevant consideration by the authorities for enacting statutory provisions for regularization of the persons engaged without following statutory procedure for recruitment. Besides, sometimes the Courts have also issued directions to the authorities to regularize such appointees depending upon the facts and circumstances of the individual cases. However, time and again on judicial review, the Courts have largely deprecated practice of engagement of some persons without following the recruitment procedure and, thereafter, continue them for considerable length of time and then confer permanence upon them by way of regularization since it has generated a different kind of litigation and a regular channel of such appointees. Fortunately, the diversion expressed in various judicial pronouncements drew attention of the Apex Court and the issue came to be considered before a Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (supra). Fortunately, the diversion expressed in various judicial pronouncements drew attention of the Apex Court and the issue came to be considered before a Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (supra). The Court reviewed the entire law on this aspect and after discussing the issue at great length, overruling all the earlier judgements taking a different view, has held that a sovereign Government or its instrumentality, considering economic situation in the Country and the work got to be done is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages, but whenever a regular vacancy occur, it has to be filled in as per Constitutional scheme by giving equal opportunity of employment to all concerned persons. The Court has rejected the approach of taking a lenient view and termed it as a misplaced equity against teeming millions of the country seeking employment and a fair opportunity for competing for employment. The Court categorically held that adherence to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a must in the process of public employment and also stressed that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our constitution. It held: "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 16 of the Constitution. ..........." 5. It further held that the High Courts, acting under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption/regularization or permanence unless the recruitment itself was made in a regular manner consistent with the Constitutional scheme. The Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) very categorically held: "The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, 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." 6. The Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) very categorically held: "The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, 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." 6. The Apex Court also cautioned the Courts that they must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of the affairs of the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves an instrument to facilitate the by passing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 7. Following Uma Devi (supra), in Surinder Prasad Tiwari Vs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & others, 2006 (7) SCC 684 , in paragraphs 35, 37 and 38, it was held : "35. Equal opportunity is the basic feature of our Constitution. Public employment is repository of the State power. Certain status and powers emanate from public employment." "37. Our constitutional scheme clearly envisages equality of opportunity in public employment. The Founding Fathers of the Constitution intended that no one should be denied opportunity of being considered for public employment on the ground of sex, caste, place of birth, residence and religion. This part of the constitutional scheme clearly reflects strong desire and constitutional philosophy to implement the principle of equality in the true sense in the matter of public employment. 38. In view of the clear and unambiguous constitutional scheme, the courts cannot countenance appointments to public office which have been made against the constitutional scheme. In the backdrop of constitutional philosophy. It would be improper for the courts to give directions for regularization of services of the person who is working either as daily-wager, ad employee, probationer, temporary or contractual employee, not appointed following the procedure laid down under Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution. In our constitutional scheme, there is no room for back door entry in the matter of public employment." 8. Elaborating the procedure of regular appointment, in Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela 2006 (2) SCC 482 , the Court observed that regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner, which would include inviting of applications from the employment exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela 2006 (2) SCC 482 , the Court observed that regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner, which would include inviting of applications from the employment exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered. Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution. This view has been referred and approved in Uma Devi (supra) and reiterated in National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Somvir Singh 2006 (5) SCC 493 observing that the "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is bound to comply with the constitutional mandate under Article 14 and 16. 9. Again a question cropped up as to whether by issuing executive orders, or certain guidelines, a regularization is permissible where recruitment is not consistent with Article 16. In Accounts Officer (A&I) APSRTC and others Vs. P Chandra Sekhara Rao & others 2006 (7) SCC 488 , it was held that no regularization is permissible even in exercise of powers conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution if the appointment has been made in contravention of the statutory rules or Article 16 of the Constitution. Earlier even in State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh & others AIR 1992 SC 2130 , the Apex Court declining to accept the contention that general directions can be issued by the Court for regularization observed as under : "The court cannot obviously help those who cannot get regularized under these details, for their failure to satisfy the conditions prescribed therein. Issuing general declaration of indulgence is no part of our jurisdiction. In case of such persons we can only observe that it is for the respective Governments to consider the feasibility of giving them appropriate relief, particularly in cases where persons have been continuing over a long number of years, and were eligible and qualified on the date of their ad hoc appointment and further whose record of service is satisfactory." 10. In view of the above discussed authoritative pronouncements, it is too late in the day to uphold the general direction for regularization i.e. to regularize the employees engaged on daily basis or on contract or temporary but without complying the requirement of Article 16 of the Constitution and the procedure for regular appointment. 11. It is contended that in some other authorities there is some deviation. Coming to the said authorities I find that in Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Vs. Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd., (2006) 3 SCC 297 the Tribunal gave an award observing that the casual workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery deserve the same benefit which was given to workmen of another Colliery and therefore they deserve regularization. The Management challenged the award by filing the writ petition, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. The management approached the Apex Court in appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court declined to interfere, observing that the main object of enacting industrial and labour law is to ensure peace and harmony between the employers and the employees in the larger interest of society, since the industrial growth leading to economic prosperity largely depends on happy and healthy relationship between employers and employees. The Apex Court did not lay down any principle of law in the said judgment that if a person has worked for long time even contrary to the statutory provisions, yet he would be entitled for regularization, therefore, the aforesaid judgment lends no support to the petitioner. 12. In Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar and others, (2001) 3 SCC 574 again the issue was raised in an industrial dispute, wherein the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot directed the Gujrat Agricultural University to regularize such daily wage employees, who have completed ten years of service as on 1.1.1993. The University filed a writ petition, which was partly allowed-modifying the award directing the University to make payment of salary at the minimum of the pay scale and also to frame a scheme for regularization of such daily rated labourers. The University filed a writ petition, which was partly allowed-modifying the award directing the University to make payment of salary at the minimum of the pay scale and also to frame a scheme for regularization of such daily rated labourers. The University filed appeal before the Apex Court but it appears that instead of contesting various issues, during the pendency of the appeal, it submitted a scheme for absorption of daily rated employees and the learned counsels for the respondents addressed the Apex Court with respect to objections raised pertaining to certain part of the scheme, which was considered as is evident from the following observation in para 9 and 10 of the judgment: "9. It seems instead of contesting various issues during pendency of these appeals in this interregnum, learned counsel for the appellant submitted a scheme framed by the University for the absorption of these employees with the approval of the State Government, which is also filed in this case. Learned counsel for the respondents desired to file objections to this scheme, which this Court permitted. The objections accordingly were filed by the respondents. "10. We heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the objections of the respondents with respect to the proposed scheme for the regularization of daily rated workers." 13. Therefore, in my view the judgment in Gujarat Agricultural University Vs Rathod Labhu Bechar and others (supra) is not a binding precedent on the issue whether a daily rated employee after rendering particular length of service is entitled for regularization though his engagement was contrary to the statutory provisions. Even otherwise, both the aforesaid judgments would not render any help to the petitioners for the reason that subsequently a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court considered the entire aspect pertaining to regularization in public employment in Uma Devi (supra) and has specifically declared that all earlier judgments laying down principles inconsistent to the law laid down therein stand overruled. In this view of the matter, this Court is bound by the law laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) which has already been discussed hereinabove showing that a person engaged without advertisement of the vacancies in an illegal manner cannot claim regularization. 14. In this view of the matter, this Court is bound by the law laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) which has already been discussed hereinabove showing that a person engaged without advertisement of the vacancies in an illegal manner cannot claim regularization. 14. Learned Counsel for petitioners at this stage sought to rely on para 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) and contended that the Apex Court has carved out an exception in respect to such employees who have continued to work for ten years more without the intervention of the courts and tribunal, and they are entitled to be considered for regularization. In support of the above he also placed reliance on the learned Single Judge of this Court in Ramveer Singh and others Vs Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) and others, 2007(1) ESC 483 (All) in which it was held: "However, the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (3) (supra) has carved out an exception. In paragraph-53 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that if the persons appointed on ad hoc, casual or contract basis were duly qualified and were working against a sanctioned post and continued to work for several years without any intervention of an order of the Court, in such an eventuality, the process of regularisation could be made and if it was ultimately found that the employee was entitled for the relief, it would be possible for the Court to accordingly mould the relief." 15. Having given my anxious consideration, I do not find any force there too. In para 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) the exception carved out by the Apex Court is confined to the cases where the appointments are 'irregular' and not 'illegal' as explained in State of Mysore Vs. S.V.Narayanappa A.I.R. 1967 SC 1071, R.N. Nanjundappa Vs. T. Thimmiah 1972 1 SCC 409 and B.N. Nagrajan Vs. State of Karnataka 1949 SCC 507. 16. The distinction between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments as referred to in para 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) has been dealt with in a subsequent decision in State of M.P. And others Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575 wherein para 12 it has been held: "12. The question which, thus, arises for consideration, would be: Is there any distinction between "irregular appointment" and "illegal appointment"? Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575 wherein para 12 it has been held: "12. The question which, thus, arises for consideration, would be: Is there any distinction between "irregular appointment" and "illegal appointment"? The distinction between the two terms is apparent. In the event the appointment is made in total disregard of the Constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment would be an illegal one; whereas there may be cases where, although, substantial compliance with the constitutional scheme as also the rules have been made, the appointment may be irregular in the sense that some provisions of some rules might not have been strictly adhered to." 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage submitted that in Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees' Union Vs. Mineral Exploration Corpn. Limited and another, (2006) 6 SCC 310 the Apex Court issued some direction for regularization of the workmen who were continuing for a long time, referring to para 53 in Uma Devi (supra), therefore, the petitioners is also entitled. However, it would be useful to notice that relying on Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees' Union Vs Mineral Exploration Corpn. Limited and another (supra), a similar argument was raised in State of M.P. Vs Lalit Kumar Verma (supra), but the same has been negatived by the Apex Court by referring to para 39 of Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees' (supra), and the observations of the Apex Court in paras 13 to 16 of the judgement of Lalit Kumar Verma (supra) are as under: "13. In National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh (supra) it has been held: (SCC pp.500-01) paras 23-25) "23. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the appointments were irregular and not illegal, cannot be accepted for more than one reason. They were appointed only on the basis of their applications. The Recruitment Rules were not followed. Even the Selection Committee had not been properly constituted. In view of the ban on employment, no recruitment was permissible in law. The reservation policy adopted by the appellant had not been maintained. Even cases of minority had not been given due consideration. 24. They were appointed only on the basis of their applications. The Recruitment Rules were not followed. Even the Selection Committee had not been properly constituted. In view of the ban on employment, no recruitment was permissible in law. The reservation policy adopted by the appellant had not been maintained. Even cases of minority had not been given due consideration. 24. The Constitution Bench thought of directing regularization of the services only of those employees whose appointments were irregular as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V.Narayanappa, R.N. Najundappa v. T.Thimmiah and B.N. Nagaranaj v. State of Karnataka wherein this Court observed: (Uma Devi (3) case, SCC p.24, para 16). "16. In B.N.Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, this Court clearly held that the words "regular" or "regularisation" do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments." 25. Judged by the standards laid down by this Court in the aforementioned decisions, the appointments of the respondents are illegal. They do not, thus, have any legal right to continue in service." 14. In R.S.Garg V. State of U.P. 2006(6 SCC 430 it has been held by this Court : (SCC p.448,para 24) "24. The original appointment of the 3rd respondent being illegal and not irregular, the case would not come within the exception carved out by the Constitution Bench. Furthermore, relaxation, if any, could have been accorded only in terms of Rule 28 of the Rules; Rule 28 would be attracted when undue hardship in any particular case is caused. Such relaxation of Rules shall be permissible only in consultation with the Commission. It is not a case where an undue hardship suffered by the 3rd respondent could legitimately be raised being belonging to a particular class of employee. No such case, in law could have been made out. It, in fact, caused hardship to other employees belonging to the same category, who were senior to him; and thus, there was absolutely no reason why an exception should have been made in his case." (See also State of Gujarat V. Karshanbhai K. Rabari (2006) 6 SCC 21 .) 15. No such case, in law could have been made out. It, in fact, caused hardship to other employees belonging to the same category, who were senior to him; and thus, there was absolutely no reason why an exception should have been made in his case." (See also State of Gujarat V. Karshanbhai K. Rabari (2006) 6 SCC 21 .) 15. Yet, recently, in Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic v. Anu Lamba (2006) 7 SCC 161 it was held: (SCC p.171, para 35) "35. The respondents did not have legal right to be absorbed in service. They were appointed purely on temporary basis. It has not been shown by them that prior to their appointments, the requirements of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution had been complied with. Admittedly, there did not exist any sanctioned post. The Project undertaken by the Union of India although continued for some time was initially intended to be a time bound one. It was not meant for generating employment. It was meant for providing technical education to the agriculturists. In the absence of any legal right in the respondents, the High Court, thus, in our considered view, could not have issued a writ of or in the nature of mandamus." 16. We may, however, notice that in Mineral Exploration the attention of this Court was not drawn to the earlier precedents including a three-judge Bench of this Court in B.N. Nagarajan V. State of Karnataka." 18. The same view has been reiterated in Municipal Corpn., Jabalpur vs. Om Prakash Dubey (2007) 1 SCC 373 (para 10 to 19 ) State of U.P. And others Vs. Deshraj (2007) 1 SCC 257 (para 9 to 12) and Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. K. Brahmanandam and others, (2008) 5 SCC 241. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that since various Government Orders were issued and the matter was also considered by the respondents, therefore, the petitioners have legitimate expectations of getting regularisation and it is not open to the respondents not to consider the petitioners for regularisation and instead dispense their services. 20. Here also I do not find any force in the submission particularly in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court rejecting a similar contention in Rajasthan Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, Bikaner Vs. 20. Here also I do not find any force in the submission particularly in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court rejecting a similar contention in Rajasthan Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, Bikaner Vs. Devi Singh, (2008) 3 SCC 505 where referring to the judgement of the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (supra) the Apex Court rejected a similar contention. It was held that a person enters into a temporary employment or engagement on contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as provided in the rules or procedure, cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectations on the post knowing it well that the appointment on the post can be made only by following a proper procedure for selection which is consistent with Article 16 of the Constitution. It was clearly observed that theory of legitimate expectations cannot be advanced on temporary, contractual or casual employees. To the same effect is the view taken in Accounts Officer (A & I) AP SRTC and others Vs. K.V. Ramana and others, 2007(2) SCC 324 , Management, The Assistant Salt Commissioner Vs. Secretary, Central Salt Mazdoor Union, JT 2008(2) SC 469 and State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs. Ravinder Singh, JT 2008 (4) SC 420. 21. All the above propositions and expositions of law have continuously been followed till date and it would be appropriate to refer some of the recent authorities being follow up of Constitution Bench judgement in Uma Devi (supra). 22. In State of Karnataka Vs. G.V. Chandrashekhar (2009) 4 SCC 342 , the Court referred to Para 53 of judgement in Uma Devi (Supra) as read in National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Somvir Singh (supra) and thereafter observed: "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. " 23. Same thing has been reiterated in Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. K. Brahmanandam and others (2008) 5 SCC 241, State of Punjab Vs. Bahadur Singh and others (2008) 15 SCC 737 , C. Balachandran and others Vs. State of Kerala and others (2009) 3 SCC 179 and Harminder Kaur and others Vs. Union of India and others (2009) 13 SCC 90 . 24. In Union of India & another Vs. K. Brahmanandam and others (2008) 5 SCC 241, State of Punjab Vs. Bahadur Singh and others (2008) 15 SCC 737 , C. Balachandran and others Vs. State of Kerala and others (2009) 3 SCC 179 and Harminder Kaur and others Vs. Union of India and others (2009) 13 SCC 90 . 24. In Union of India & another Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal & another (2010) 2 SCC 422 , the Court has gone to the extent that even if some other persons similarly placed have been absorbed, that cannot be a basis to grant a relief by the Court which is otherwise contrary to statute. In para 25 of judgment, the Court said: "Even assuming that the similarly placed persons were ordered to be absorbed, the same if done erroneously cannot become the foundation for perpetuating further illegality. If an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be the basis of further appointment. An erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to the detriment of the general welfare of the public or a considerable section. This has been the consistent approach of this Court. However, we intend to refer to a latest decision of this Court on this point in the case of State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 65 , the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinbelow: "67. By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order ..." 25. In State of Karnataka & others Vs. Gadilingappa & others (2010) 2 SCC 728 , the Court reiterated that it is well settled principal of law that even if a mistake is committed in an earlier case,the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. In that case the employees did not possess requisite qualifications, but continued to work as primary Schools Teachers for a long period and rendered service without any break. In that case the employees did not possess requisite qualifications, but continued to work as primary Schools Teachers for a long period and rendered service without any break. Hence, their claim for regularization/absorption was negatived by Government. High court, taking a passionate view directed for absorption. Reversring the judgment, the Apex Court in para 6 said: "Admittedly, the respondents herein were working as Primary School Teachers for a long period of time and they had rendered service as such continuously without any break. However, after perusing the relevant documents on record what comes to light is the fact that none of the respondents had undergone the T.C.H. course, which was the minimum prescribed qualification at the relevant time for being appointed to the post of a teacher. Since the respondents did not possess the minimum prescribed qualification and because of which their appointment was in contravention of the Cadre and recruitment Rules, we are of the considered view that their appointments were illegal appointments." 26. In State of Karnataka & others Vs. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak & others (2010) 3 SCC 115 , the Court observed that now law is well settled. In para 8, it says: "In view of the settled position of law in this regard which has been reiterated in a number of judgments of this Court, we hold that the claims of the respondents for regularization or absorption cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we allow the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the High Court as also the KAT." 27. In Mohd Ashif & others Vs. State of Bihar and others (2010) 5 SCC 475 , the Court referring to the earlier decisions said: "7. ... The legal position regarding the right of an employee to seek regularisation of his services stands settled by a long line of the decisions of this Court. .... It may arise firstly in situations where against an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on ad hoc or daily-wage basis by an authority competent to do so and such appointment is continued from time to time without any artificial break in service. Any such appointment may be regularized giving him security of tenure. The all important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such an employee must be made against a sanctioned vacancy and by following the rules and regulations governing such entry. 8. Any such appointment may be regularized giving him security of tenure. The all important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such an employee must be made against a sanctioned vacancy and by following the rules and regulations governing such entry. 8. The second situation in which regularization could be granted was where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. A need may then arise for regularization of the initial appointment by the competent authority with a view to curing the irregularity if any in the same and with a view to granting security of tenure to the incumbent. It is necessary in such situations that the initial entry of the employee is not totally illegal or in breach of the established rules and regulations governing such recruitment." 28. In Mohd Ashif (supra), Apex Court upheld termination of the employees working as Primary Health Worker after a decade and half observing that their appointments were not made in accordance with Rules and also by the competent authority, In para 13 and 14 of judgement, the Court said: "13. Applying the test laid down by this Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) and the cases referred to above, to the case at hand, there is no gainsaying that the appointments of the appellants as Primary Health Workers were totally illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution which guarantee equality of opportunity to all those who were otherwise eligible for such appointments. The Chief Medical Officer who had made the appointments was not vested with the power to do so nor were the claims of other candidates eligible for appointments against the posts to which the appellants were appointed, considered. Surprisingly, the appointments had come by way of absorption of the appellants who were working as Voluntary Health Workers on a monthly honorarium of Rs. 50/- only. 14. The High Court has, in our opinion, correctly held that there was no cadre of Voluntary Health Workers who were working on an honorarium in State run dispensaries. Surprisingly, the appointments had come by way of absorption of the appellants who were working as Voluntary Health Workers on a monthly honorarium of Rs. 50/- only. 14. The High Court has, in our opinion, correctly held that there was no cadre of Voluntary Health Workers who were working on an honorarium in State run dispensaries. The very nature of the appointment given to the appellants as Voluntary Health Workers was honorary in nature which entitled them to the payment of not more than Rs. 50/- per month. It is difficult to appreciate how the Chief Medical Officer could have regularized/absorbed such Voluntary Health Workers doing honorary service against the post of Primary Health Workers which carried a regular pay-scale and which could be filled only in accordance with the procedure prescribed for that purpose. The appointment of the appellants against the said posts was thus manifestly illegal and wholly undeserved to say the least. Inasmuch as these appointments came to be cancelled pursuant to the said directions no matter nearly a decade and a half later the termination could not be said to be illegal so as to warrant interference of a writ court for reinstatement of those illegally appointed. The High Court was, in that view of the matter, justified in declining interference with the order of cancellation and dismissing the writ petitions." 29. In Union of India & others Vs. A.S. Pillai & others JT 2010 (13) SC 7, the Apex Court referring to para 48 of judgement in Uma Devi (supra) expressed its full agreement thereto in para 18 and 19 of judgement as under: "18. In our opinion, this Court has rightly held in para 48 of the said case that: " ......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 unequals as equals. 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 unequals 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.....". 19. We are in respectful agreement with the aforestated judgment of this Court and in our opinion the aforestated judgment will not render any help to the petitioners because there is no separate cadre of civilian Bandsmen to which the petitioners can be absorbed. Moreover, they being part-timers, cannot be absorbed in another full time cadre. Therefore, no direction with regard to absorption of the petitioners in any cadre can be given. " 30. In Satya Prakash & others Vs. State of Bihar & others (2010) 4 SCC 179 , the Apex Court also explained para 53 of judgement in Uma Devi (supra) and in paras 8, 9, 12, 13 and 15 of the judgement said as under: "8. In Umadevi's case (supra) this Court held that the Courts are not expected to issue any direction for absorption/regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees. This Court held that such directions issued could not be said to be in consistent with the constitutional scheme of public employment. This Court held 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. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the directions sought for by the appellants cannot be granted. 9. Paragraph 53 of Umadevi's Judgment, deals with irregular appointments (not illegal appointments). The Constitution Bench specifically referred to the judgments in State of Mysore Vs S.V. Narayanappa AIR 1967 SC 1071 and R.N. Nanjudappa v. T. Thimmiah (1972) 1 SCC 409 . in paragraph 15 of Umadevi's judgment as well. Let us refer to paragraphs 15 and 16 of Umadevi's judgment in this context." "12. ... The Constitution Bench specifically referred to the judgments in State of Mysore Vs S.V. Narayanappa AIR 1967 SC 1071 and R.N. Nanjudappa v. T. Thimmiah (1972) 1 SCC 409 . in paragraph 15 of Umadevi's judgment as well. Let us refer to paragraphs 15 and 16 of Umadevi's judgment in this context." "12. ... The Constitution Bench has, therefore, clearly drawn a distinction between temporary employees, daily-wagers and those who were appointed irregularly in the sense that there was non-compliance of some procedure in the selection process which did not go to the root of the selection process. The appellants in our view will not fall in the category of the employees mentioned in paragraph 53 read with paras 15 and 16 of the Constitution Bench Judgment. 13. The above view is further reinforced when we read paragraphs 8 and 55 in Umadevi's case, wherein similar arguments were raised but rejected by the Constitution Bench." "15. In our view, the appellants herein would fall under the category of persons mentioned in paragraphs 8 and 55 of the judgment and not in paragraph 53 of judgment in Umadevi (supra)." 31. Recently, in State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Daya Lal & others (Civil Appeals No. 486-495 of 2011) decided on 13.1.2011, the Court has culled out certain principles from the decisions of Uma Devi (supra) and its follow up and held as under: "We may at the outset refer to the following well settled principles relating to regularization and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals: (i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized. (ii) Mere continuation of service by an temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be "litigious employment". Even temporary, ad hoc or daily- wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularization in the absence of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization with a cut off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut off dates. (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of part time temporary employees. (v) Part time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute. [See: Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1 , M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society, Pilani 2006 (12) SCC 636 , S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand 2007 (8) SCC 279 , Kurukshetra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Mehar Chand 2007 (15) SCC 680, and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand 2008 10 SCC 1 ]" 32. [See: Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1 , M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society, Pilani 2006 (12) SCC 636 , S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand 2007 (8) SCC 279 , Kurukshetra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Mehar Chand 2007 (15) SCC 680, and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand 2008 10 SCC 1 ]" 32. The exposition of law is very clear that a person, if not appointed/absorbed after following the procedure prescribed in Rules, which gives equal opportunity of employment to all eligible persons and thereby complying with Article 16 of Constitution, in absence of any statutory provision entitling such person to claim regularization, validity whereof though is doubtful, since the Apex Court has said that Article 16 constitute basic feature of Constitution and nothing can be validate which may violate Article 16, can be directed to be regularized or absorbed irrespective of length of time one has continued to work. Any other view will give a licence to some of the mischievous authorities and resourceful individuals to defeat the scheme of Constitution under Article 16 as also the process of recruitment under the Rules and thereby enter a service and grasp it for all times to come through back door. The earlier sympathy, which used to generate merely on the fact that somebody has worked for a long time has been overruled by concept that rule of law should not be allowed to be breached since only those who have some extra resources can dare to violate the law and, therefore, any consideration in their favour shall confer upon them a premium of their act of committing breach of law. This is the message handed down to us by Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (supra) and has been followed and reiterated in all the subsequent authorities. 33. In view of above discussion, basic contention of petitioners that they should be considered for regularization loses ground and falls. 34. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 35. No order as to costs.