JUDGMENT Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. 1. One appeal and one writ petition are specially assigned before this Bench. The appeal arises out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the employment notice issued by the High Court administration for recruitment of Group-D staff was under challenge. 2. The Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, however, by judgment and order dated June 9, 2011 rejected the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners have come up with this appeal. 3. In the writ petition, the said employment notice is, also, under challenge. 4. Therefore, similar questions of law and facts are involved in both writ petition and the appeal. Accordingly, by consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, we take up both the matters together to avoid conflicting judicial opinions. 5. Unfortunately, for last 150 years of this Court, there was no prescribed procedure for recruitment of Group-D staff. Some persons are purportedly empanelled as Badli workers and from such panel, from time to time, they were absorbed, against permanent vacancies. There was no open advertisement; there was no selection; there was no test, but some of the empanelled Badli workers were absorbed. 6. Unfortunately, before us, there was no material or even a scrap of paper to show that any prescribed standard was followed by the High Court administration ever in empanelling such Badli workers. There was no minimum qualification maintained in empanelling them as Badli workers. Some of them are even not Class-VIII pass. 7. Since this practice, or the bad practice, was continuing for a considerable period of time, a Division Bench of this Court, by judgment and order dated October 5, 1998, passed in Appeal No. 925 of 1988 in Matter No. 860 of 1988 (The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice and another vs. Ram Pukar Rai III and others), directed that the Badli workers, who were, already, in the panel should be absorbed, and so long as the said panel was not exhausted, no direct recruitment in Group-D category should be made. 8. It is an admitted position that all those empanelled Badli workers have been absorbed against permanent vacancies by 2003. 9. An application for clarification of the said judgment and order dated October 5, 1988 was filed on behalf of the High Court administration in the said appeal. 8. It is an admitted position that all those empanelled Badli workers have been absorbed against permanent vacancies by 2003. 9. An application for clarification of the said judgment and order dated October 5, 1988 was filed on behalf of the High Court administration in the said appeal. The application was disposed of by order dated September 9, 2003 by directing that in case of future vacancies arising for appointment from the said panel of Badli workers, orders for appointment/absorption would be made by the High Court administration by following the directions given in the said order of the Division Bench keeping in view the provisions contained in the West Bengal Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act of 1976. However, it was made clear that this Court did not feel it expedient to grant any permission to the High Court administration to prepare any panel of Badli workers since the existing panel of Badli workers created sufficient complications in High Court administration. It was, further, held that creation of such a panel of Badli workers was not, also, in consonance with the constitutional principle, which an authority like the High Court should not promote. 10. Unfortunately, the orders of the Division Benches were ignored by the High Court administration and yet another panel of Badli workers was prepared. About 434 (Four hundred thirty-four) persons were empanelled as Badli workers. Some of them have been absorbed. 11. At long last, the High Court administration realised that the bad practice must be stopped. Pursuant to a deliberation in a Special Committee, constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, it was decided to advertise the available vacant posts of Group-D staff for direct recruitment. The copy of the advertisement is at Page-78 of the Writ Petition being Annexure P/9. There are altogether 99 (ninety-nine) vacancies indicated in the advertisement. 12. The Calcutta High Court Service Rules, 1960 was amended from time to time. Presently, the upper age limit for entry in service is fixed at 32 years. 13. For the Group-D staff, the minimum qualification prescribed in the advertisement is that the applicant must have passed Class-VIII with knowledge of reading and writing Bengali and English. The upper age limit is fixed at 32 years in view of the said Rules of 1960. 14. 13. For the Group-D staff, the minimum qualification prescribed in the advertisement is that the applicant must have passed Class-VIII with knowledge of reading and writing Bengali and English. The upper age limit is fixed at 32 years in view of the said Rules of 1960. 14. Since the Badli workers, who are empanelled, are aggrieved, they have challenged the advertisement by filing the writ petitions. 15. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Badli workers is that the High Court administration, by their actions, had generated some expectations in the minds of the Badli workers for their regular absorption. Our attention was drawn to a note dated August 9, 2006, where the then Hon'ble Chief Justice approved the purported newly prepared panel of 434 (Four hundred thirty four) Badli workers. 16. These Badli workers were not empanelled against any permanent vacancy. The pallet was prepared at the whims of somebody in the administration. Those persons are engaged intermittently against casual vacancies in Group-D post. The panel was of 434 (Four hundred thirty four) Badli workers. Assuming on a particular day 10 (Ten) regular Group-D staff are absent and all those 434 (Four hundred thirty-four) persons report for engagement, there was no prescribed standard to select the incumbents for engagement on a particular day. Everything was at the whims of somebody in the High Court administration. 17. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, Mr. Lakshmi Kumar Gupta and Mr. Saptantsu Basu, learned senior advocates appearing on behalf of Badli workers, drew our attention to the decision in Vitarelli vs. Seaton reported in (1959) 359 US 535 and relied upon the following observations of Frankfurter, J.: An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged.... Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed.... This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword. 18. Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed.... This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword. 18. Our attention is also, drawn that the said views expressed by Frankfurter, J., was approved by the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Sukhdev Singh and others vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and another reported in AIR 1975 SC 1331 , Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority of India and others reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 , Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 2386 and Netai Bag and others vs. State of West Bengal and others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 262 . 19. It is submitted that the High Court administration is estopped from initiating recruitment process by way of direct recruitment as it have generated some expectancy in the minds of Badli workers that they would be ultimately absorbed as regular employees. The High Court administration cannot, now, deprive them. 20. It is clear that these Badli workers were empanelled illegally without following any procedure. We do not know the source of such empanelment. Why some persons are empanelled and why some other eligible persons were not empanelled is not clear to us. We are of the opinion that this practice must be stopped. 21. In 1988 a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Pukar Rai III (supra) suggested that this procedure must be stopped after exhaustion of the panel already in existence. 22. Another Division Bench in 2003 strongly deprecated the preparation of the panel of Badli workers holding that the system had created sufficient complications in the administration. It was clearly suggested that creation of such a panel of Badli workers was not in consonance with the Constitutional principle, which an authority like the High Court should not promote. 23. Still, in complete deviation of the judicial pronouncements, another panel was prepared. 24. We are of the considered opinion that principles of promissory estoppel have no application in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch no promise was ever made. Moreover, it cannot negate the operation of the Constitutional scheme of public employment. 25. 23. Still, in complete deviation of the judicial pronouncements, another panel was prepared. 24. We are of the considered opinion that principles of promissory estoppel have no application in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch no promise was ever made. Moreover, it cannot negate the operation of the Constitutional scheme of public employment. 25. The Supreme Court of India in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1979 SC 621 held that where the government owed a duty to the public to act in a particular manner-and here obviously duty means a course of conduct enjoined by law-the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked for preventing the government from acting in discharge of its duty under the law. The doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be applied in teeth of an obligation or liability imposed by law. The principles of promissory estoppel could not be invoked to compel the government or even a private party to do an act prohibited by law. 26. It a matter of regret that even after clear observations of the Division Bench dated September 9, 2003 that preparation of panel of Badli workers crated sufficient complications in the High Court administration and such creation of panel was not in consonance with the Constitutional principle, a panel was prepared. 27. A Division Bench of this Court on March 31, 2011 directed the High Court administration to allow each and every person from the said panel of Badli Workers to participate in the selection process initiated by the High Court by condoning age bar along with other participants, who would be responding to the notification for recruitment. Their screening and performance would, however, be assessed and kept separately in a sealed cover. We record that none of the empanelled Badli Worker has applied for his selection in spite of such opportunity granted by the Division Bench, except one of the writ petitioners, namely, Bishnu Sarkar. However, ultimately he did not participate in the selection process. 28. A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others reported in s 2006(4) SCC 1 held that the State should not depart from the normal procedure and to indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts. However, ultimately he did not participate in the selection process. 28. A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others reported in s 2006(4) SCC 1 held that the State should not depart from the normal procedure and to indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts. Absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees appointed and continued for long in public employment was de hors the Constitutional scheme of public employment. However, the Supreme Court of India observed that there might be cases where irregular appointments, not illegal appointments, of duly qualified persons against the duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the incumbents might have continued to work for ten years or more, but without intervention of orders of the Courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees might have to be considered on merits in the light of the principle settled by the Apex Court. It was categorically held that there should be no further bypassing of Constitutional requirement and regularisation or making permanent those not duly appointed as per the Constitutional scheme. 29. Here, the Badli Workers were illegally empanelled. They, therefore, have no vested right for absorption or regularisation. They were never appointed against any permanent vacancy. They have not discharged duties continuously. They were engaged intermittently. The action of the High Court administration in issuing notice for recruitment of Group D staff is neither arbitrary nor illegal. 30. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the challenge against such action of the High Court administration. We are of the opinion that the Hon'ble Single Judge was right in dismissing, the writ petition. We, therefore, affirm the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge passed in the writ petition. 31. The writ petition and the appeal are, therefore, dismissed. 32. We, however, make no order as to costs. 33. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. I agree. Petition dismissed