ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioners are seeking issuance of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioners for regularization and further to grant them pay-scale of the Junior Chemist regularly appointed in the department; petitioners further seeking direction to grant relaxation in the age for their regular appointment pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2004. 3. A chart (Annexure1 to the writ petition) shows that except the petitioner no. 8, all other petitioners have joined as Junior Chemist in 1999 and 2003 on purely temporary basis on the fixed monthly amount to be paid to the petitioners. Petitioner-Kedar Nath Choudhary alleged to have joined in 1993. 4. The constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has ruled that employees who have joined temporarily cannot seek regularization in the absence of any Rules or Regulations permitting the regularization. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the practice of giving temporary or adhoc appointment without following the established norms to give wide publicity of the posts should not be encouraged. 5. In the present petition, it is not made clear as to whether posts were even advertised or names of the petitioners were ever forwarded by employment exchange. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have fairly stated that present petition was filed in the year 2004 prior to Uma Devi judgment and there is no Rule or Regulation permitting the regularization. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents Mr. Rohit Roy has stated that petitioners were never given appointment rather a contract was given to a contractor and petitioners were working under the contractor. Therefore, there is no question of any regularization. 8. Be as the case may be, however, facts remain that in the absence of any Rules or Regulations, no writ can be issued directing/commanding the department to consider the petitioners for regularization. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents have fairly stated that advertisement issued in 2004 calling applications for the regular appointment has already been withdrawn and new advertisement has been issued in 2012. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents have fairly stated that advertisement issued in 2004 calling applications for the regular appointment has already been withdrawn and new advertisement has been issued in 2012. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly stated if petitioners have already applied pursuant to latest advertisement, their case for relaxation in the age can be considered sympathetically, in accordance with the law. 11. Since petitioners were never appointed rather given appointment against the fixed monthly amount, therefore, there is no question of issuing direction for equal pay. 12. The writ petition is misconceived, therefore, is dismissed. However, it is expected that if Rules permit, relaxation in the age may be considered sympathetically, if petitioners have already applied within stipulated time pursuant to latest advertisement. Petition dismissed.