Judgment : 1. The Petitioners have preferred the instant Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the file of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board's Resolution dated 30.04.2012 and to quash the same. Further, they have sought for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents to reappoint and regularise their services as Technical Assistants in Housing Board. 2. According to the Petitioners, they were appointed as Technical Assistants on 29.11.1989 [sponsored through Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri] in the office of the 4th Respondent/Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, T.N.H.B. Hosur Division, Hosur, Krishnagiri District as NMRs on daily wages basis and they were threatened to be ousted. Thereupon, they filed W.P.Nos.42344, 42343, 42345 and 42347 of 2002, in which, orders were passed on 26.11.2002 observing that 'It is made clear that as and when any need arises for more employment, the petitioners may be given preference than other'. The Petitioners made several representations and lastly, they made representation on 16.05.2011. However, ignoring the said representations and the direction of this Court, the 1st Respondent/ Tamil Nadu Housing Board passed a Resolution on 30.04.2012 to fill up the vacancies of 15 Assistant Engineers, 15 Technical Assistants and one Land Surveyor. The 3rd Respondent issued call letter on 07.08.2012 to the candidates and the interview was fixed on 01.09.2012. As such, the Petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petitions. 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the Petitioners were appointed on 29.11.1989 as Technical Assistants on NMR basis through Employment Exchange by the 4th Respondent and they joined duty on various dates. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioners were ousted from service on 22.10.2003 and also that they continuously served on daily wages basis for more than 13 years. 5. The plea taken on behalf of the Petitioners is that they should have regularised as Permanent Technical Assistants but they were discharged from duties on 22.10.2003. 6. The stand of the Petitioners is that they made repeated requests for their absorption as Technical Assistant but there was no reply and indeed, they made last representation dated 16.05.2011 to the 2nd Respondent/Managing Director of T.N.H.B., Chennai. 7. 6. The stand of the Petitioners is that they made repeated requests for their absorption as Technical Assistant but there was no reply and indeed, they made last representation dated 16.05.2011 to the 2nd Respondent/Managing Director of T.N.H.B., Chennai. 7. Continuing further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in its Board Meeting dated 30.04.2012, accorded its approval to call for the list from the Employment Exchange and appoint 15 Assistant Engineers, 15 Technical Assistants and one Surveyor. Further, the Housing Board issued call letters to the candidates on 07.08.2012 fixing the date of interview on 01.09.2012. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners projects an argument that there are several housing schemes undertaken by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and there are several vacancies. In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.42347 of 2002 dated 26.11.2002 wherein it was mentioned that preference should have been given to the Petitioners as they were already sponsored by Employment Exchange. However, their names were deleted from the Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri, since there was no possibility for the Employment Exchange to sponsor their names. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that in similar facts situation, in W.P.No.17202 of 2012 [filed by one K.Pugazhendhee - Petitioner therein] on 01.08.2012, this Court granted an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent from filling up of one post of Technical Assistant, Surveyor, pending further orders and as such, the said direction of this Court is binding on the Respondents in the present Writ Petitions. 10. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners' last representation dated 16.05.2011 were not considered by the 2nd Respondent. 11. The Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4 submits that the Petitioners were interviewed by the then Superintending Engineer, Chengalpattu Circle sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri and appointed as Technical Assistants on temporary basis under daily wages vide CC1/2461/89 dated 25.11.1989 informing that their appointments are purely temporary for 89 days of continuous service and they had no right to claim permanent employment. 12. 12. The Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4 brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioners joined as Technical Assistants on 04.12.1989, 16.12.1989, 26.12.1989 and 06.12.1989 respectively to look after Hosur Housing Unit works and the payments were made based on PWD SR Rate for the period (under the head of petty supervision charges of 2 =% of respective works). Later, there was no work at Hosur Housing Unit and their services were terminated on 22.10.2003 afternoon. 13. The Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4 submits that the Petitioners filed W.P.Nos.42344, 42343, 42345 and 42347 of 2002 on the file of this Court seeking the relief of re-employment and this Court, on 09.08.2002 had directed the Petitioners to submit fresh representations to the 2nd Respondent/ Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, who has to dispose of the same, within a period of four weeks. 14. The Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4 contends that the subject matter in issue was placed before the Board Meeting and the Board, after a detailed discussion, in its Resolution No.7.05, dated 28.05.2003, had resolved as follows: "Considering that there was no construction activity at present in Tamil Nadu Housing Board and taking into consideration of reduction of staff, the request of the petitioners was examined in depth on the above analogy and accordingly their request was rejected." 15. Added further, the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4 submits that in terms of the Board's Resolution No.7.06 dated 30.04.2012, the Board had resolved to appoint 15 Assistant Engineers, 15 Technical Assistants and one Surveyor through Employment Exchange of Chennai, Tirchy, Madurai and Tirunelveli District to fill up the vacancies in the said respective Districts only. 16. Added further, the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4 submits that in terms of the Board's Resolution No.7.06 dated 30.04.2012, the Board had resolved to appoint 15 Assistant Engineers, 15 Technical Assistants and one Surveyor through Employment Exchange of Chennai, Tirchy, Madurai and Tirunelveli District to fill up the vacancies in the said respective Districts only. 16. The Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4 brings it to the knowledge of this Court that the Petitioners filed W.P.Nos.29212-29216 of 2002 on the file of this Court seeking to regularise their services from the date of their appointment on 02.12.1989, 06.12.1989, 04.12.1989 and 26.12.1989 respectively with all monetary benefits and this Court on 09.08.2002 directed the Petitioners to submit fresh representations to the 2nd Respondent, who has to dispose of the same, within a period of four weeks and when the matter was placed before the Board, the Board, through its Resolution No.7.05, dated 28.05.2003 resolved that there was no activity of construction in Tamil Nadu Housing Board and rejected their requests. 17. The Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4 contends that the Petitioners were discharged from duty on 22.10.2003 afternoon for reduction of staff and in fact, they served only for 89 days and there was break of service. Further, it is the plea of the Respondents 2 to 4 that the Petitioners were ousted from service since there was no work during the year 2003 and if any vacancy arises, then, the Board would call for the list of eligible persons for the post from the respective Employment Exchange and if the Petitioners' names were recommended by the Employment Exchange, they would be called for interviews. 18. Finally, it is the contention of the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4 that initially an interim order was granted by this Court on 01.08.2012 in M.P.No.2 of 2012 in W.P.No.17202 of 2012 and subsequently, the said Writ Petition was dismissed by merits on 17.09.2012 and as such, the Petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in the present Writ Petitions. 19. At this stage, this Court, on perusal of the Appointment Order, in Letter o.A5/481/88, dated 29.11.1989, issued by the 4th Respondent mentions the following: "Sir/Madam, Sub: HHU-stt-Engagement of Technical Assistant on Daily wages basis - orders issued -Reg. Ref: BE'a Memo RO 881/2461/89 Dt. 19. At this stage, this Court, on perusal of the Appointment Order, in Letter o.A5/481/88, dated 29.11.1989, issued by the 4th Respondent mentions the following: "Sir/Madam, Sub: HHU-stt-Engagement of Technical Assistant on Daily wages basis - orders issued -Reg. Ref: BE'a Memo RO 881/2461/89 Dt. 25/11/89 The following persons are informed that they are engaged on daily wages basis as Technical Assistant in Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur Housing Unit. 1. The engagement is purely on daily wages basis and it is neither regular nor temporary. Hence, they should not claim the continuances of permanent of the Job, as a matter of right. 2. They will be engaged for 89 days in the first instance. 3. The will be paid at the prevailing rate for Technical Assistant as per schedule of rates for Dharmapuri District. 4. They should report for duty within ten days from the date of receipt of this order failing which this order will be cancelled without any intimate. Sd/- Executive Engineer Hosur, Housing Unit, Srl.No. Name Address 1. Selvi.Geetha No.48, Kandasamy Vediar Street, Kallasam Nileyam, Dharmapuri. 2. Thiru.Jayasankar Kandakotta Post 3. Thiru. Sekar P.Thurinchipetti Post, 4. Thiru.Anumuthu Krishanagiri Taluk 5. S.Jayaraman Uthanakarai Taluk 20. It is to be noted that the 2nd Respondent/Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in Memo No.Personnel (T)-3/65116/ 2000, dated 22.10.2003 addressed to the 4th Respondent/Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Hosur Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur [with a copy being marked to the Superintending Engineer, Vellore Circle, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vellore -9] had consequent to the vacating of interim stay in W.P.M.P.No.1613 to 1616 of 2003 filed by the Board, on 29.08.2003, had instructed to discharge the services of five persons engaged and working in NMR basis at once and to send copy of discharge orders at once to the Board. 21. It comes to be known from the Letter No.A2/13256/97 dated 22.10.2003 addressed by the 4th Respondent to one A.Mathialagan (Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.23834 of 2012), Technical Assistant, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur Housing Unit, Hosur indicates that he has been discharged from the services of the Board under NMR basis at once and he was relieved from the services of the Board today on the afternoon of 22.10.2003. 22. 22. It transpires from the representation dated 16.05.2011 of the Petitioners that they were terminated from service on 22.10.2003 and for 13 years they were in service and in fact, their services should have been confirmed and made permanent, but instead they were terminated from service on 22.10.2003. Further, they had given petitions on various occasions seeking employment as Technical Assistants. 23. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Ed. Vol. III 1692, the meaning of 'Regularisation' is 'to make regular'. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word 'Regular' means: "Conformable to law. Steady or uniform in course, practice, or occurrence; not subject to unexplained or irrational variation usual, customary, normal or general. Gerald V. American Gas Co. of Reading, pa, D.C.N.C.; 249 F Supp. 355, 357. Made according to rule, duly authorized, formed after uniform type; built or arranged according to established plan, law or principle, Antonym of "casual" or "occasional" Palle V. Industrial Commission 79 Utah 47, 7 P.2d 284, 290. 24. At this juncture, this Court worth recalls and recollects the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar and others V. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1628 & 1629, whereby and whereunder, it is observed and laid down as follows: "Question of regularisation in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies. Firstly, if on any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointments are made on ad hoc basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if it is found that the concerned incumbents have continued to be employed for a long period of time with or without any artificial breaks, and their services are otherwise required by the institution which employs them, a time may come in the service career of such employees who are continued on ad hoc basis for a given substantial length of time to regularise them so that the concerned employees can give their best by being assured security of tenure. But this would require one pre-condition that the initial entry of such an employees must be made against an available sanctioned vacancy by following the rules and regulations governing such entry. But this would require one pre-condition that the initial entry of such an employees must be made against an available sanctioned vacancy by following the rules and regulations governing such entry. The second type of situation in which the question of regularisation may arise would be when the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy is found to have suffered from some flow in the procedural exercise though the person appointing is competent to effect such initial recruitment and has otherwise followed due procedure for such recruitment. A need may then arise in the light of the exigency of administrative requirement for waiving such irregularity in the initial appointment by competent authority and the irregular initial appointment may be regularised and security of tenure may be made available to the concerned incumbent. But even in such a case the initial entry must not be found to be totally illegal or in blatant disregard of all the established rules and regulations governing such recruitment. In any case back door entries for filling up such vacancies have got to be strictly avoided. However, there would never arise any occasion for regularising the appointment of an employee whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach of the requisite procedure of recruitment and especially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of the candidate could ever be effected. Such an entry of an employee would remain tainted from the very beginning and no question of regularising such an illegal entrant would ever survive for consideration, however competent the recruiting agency may be." 25. Further, this Court aptly points out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Education Society and another V. Sk.Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2126, wherein it is observed as follows: "The appointment in private schools are regulated and controlled by the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. Where the appointment letter states that the appointment of a candidate in clear vacancy is purely temporary for a period of 11 months, his appointment has to be taken as purely temporary for a limited period and his appointment cannot be considered to be a permanent appointment. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a regularly appointed employee." 26. Where the appointment letter states that the appointment of a candidate in clear vacancy is purely temporary for a period of 11 months, his appointment has to be taken as purely temporary for a limited period and his appointment cannot be considered to be a permanent appointment. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a regularly appointed employee." 26. For a fuller and better appreciation of the subject matter in issue, this Court, to prevent an aberration of Justice and in furtherance of substantial cause of Justice, cites the following decisions: (i) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Chanchal Goyal V. State of Rajesthan, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1713 & 1714, it is held as follows: "In the instant case the initial order of appointment shows that petitioner, was appointed to post of Lady Doctor in terms of Rules 26 and 27 by Municipal Commissioner. It was clearly mentioned that the appointment was made on a temporary basis with further condition that if candidate selected by the Service Commission is available, the employment was to come to end automatically. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 is of considerable importance. It specifically lays down no appointment made under sub-rule (1) shall be continued beyond a period of one year without referring to the Commission for their concurrence and shall be terminated immediately on their refusal to concur. Learned Single Judge was swayed by the fact that for a longer period the concurrence was not sought for from the Commission and held that the inaction gave an undefeatable right to the appellant. The view was rightly set at naught by the Division Bench. The nature of employment and the authority with whose concurrence the continuation could be made are clearly spelt out in sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. There is no scope for taking a view that there is automatic extension once the period of one year is over in case reference was not made to the Commission. There is no scope of regularization unless the appointment was on regular basis. Considerable emphasis has been laid down by the appellant to the position that even for temporary appointment there was a selection. That is really of no consequence. Another plea of the appellant needs to be noted. There is no scope of regularization unless the appointment was on regular basis. Considerable emphasis has been laid down by the appellant to the position that even for temporary appointment there was a selection. That is really of no consequence. Another plea of the appellant needs to be noted. With reference to the extension granted it was contended that a presumption of the Service Commission's concurrence can be drawn, when extensions were granted from time to time. This plea is without any substance. As noted above, there is no scope for drawing a presumption about such concurrence in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. After one year, currency of appointment is lost. The extension orders operated only during the period of effectiveness. The plea by the petitioner that the selected candidate did not join, would really be of no assistance to her. The fact remains that a person has been selected and the Service Commission has drawn up a list of selected candidates. If the person, who was to replace the appellant, did not join for some reason, obviously another selected person can be posted. Non-joining of the selected candidate does not confer any right on the appellant. As the initial order dated 27.11.1974 shows, what is required is the availability of a candidate selected by the Service Commission, and not the joining of the selected candidate. Furthermore on the facts of the case delineated above, the principle of legitimate expectation has no application. It has not been shown as to how any act was done by the authorities which created an impression that the conditions attached in the original appointment order were waived. Mere continuance does not imply such waiver. No legitimate expectation can be founded on such unfounded impressions. It was not even indicated as to who, if any and with what authority created such impression. No waiver which would be against requisite compliances can be countenanced. Whether an expectation exists is, self-evidently, a question of fact. Clear statutory words override any expectation, however, founded." (ii) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.Vishwanatha Pillai V. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1469, it is held that 'A person appointed illegally does not become holder of any post'. Whether an expectation exists is, self-evidently, a question of fact. Clear statutory words override any expectation, however, founded." (ii) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.Vishwanatha Pillai V. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1469, it is held that 'A person appointed illegally does not become holder of any post'. (iii) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others V. Dattatraya Rupa Pagar and others, (2012) 13 Supreme Court Cases 534, at special page 537 & 538, in paragraph Nos.7 to 9, it is observed and held as under: "7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our view, the order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was ex facie erroneous and the High Court committed serious error by refusing to quash the same. A reading of the terms and conditions embodied in the letter dated 3-9-2002 issued by the Chairman of Appellant 1 shows that Respondent 1 was appointed for a fixed period with a clear stipulation that he will not be treated on a par with regular teachers or government employees and after completing three years' satisfactory service as Shikshan Sevak, he will be eligible for appointment as teacher in the prescribed pay scale and the service already rendered by him will be considered for post-retiral benefits. It is neither the pleaded case of Respondent 1 nor has any doucment been produced before this Court to show that Respondent 1 had been appointed as a teacher after regular selection and he was appointed on probation. Therefore, the Tribunal was clearly in error in holding that Respondent 1 had been appointed on probation and on completion of three years, he will be deemed to have been confirmed. 8. The service of Respondent 1 was terminated strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of his appointment. Therefore, the issue of approval or non-approval of his appointment by the Education Officer was inconsequential and even if one of the reasons put forward by the appellants to justify their action was legally unsustainable, the termination of the service of Respondent 1 could not have been declared illegal by relying upon the High Court's judgment in St. Ulai High School V. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh, (2007) 1 Mah LJ 597. 9. Ulai High School V. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh, (2007) 1 Mah LJ 597. 9. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, who decided the writ petition filed by the appellants did not even advert to the issues raised therein and dismissed the same and that too without taking cognizance of the fact that Respondent 1 had been appointed as Shikshan Sevak for fixed period and he was never appointed as a teacher on probation so as to justify a conclusion by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal that on completion of three years' period of probation he stood confirmed." (iv) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinodan T and others V. University of Calicut and others, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1885 at special page 1888, 1890 in paragraph Nos.18 to 20, 25, it is observed and laid down as follows: "17. The Ordinance was replaced by the Pre-Degree Course (Abolition) Act, 1997 (Act 3 of 1998). The Act substantially reproduces the language of the Ordinance which it replaced. 18. The Empowered Committee set up under the Ordinance completed its task of phased specification of colleges during the academic year 1997-98. On 3rd July, 1997, the Empowered Committee issued an order which it inter alia provided for relaxation on the ban of appointments of non-teaching staff to a limited extent, by allowing only provisional appointment through the Employment Exchange in the Universities "in already sanctioned vacancies". 19. In our opinion, this blanket ban on regular appointments statutorily imposed for three years was by itself sufficient ground for the University to cancel the rank list. 20. In addition to this circumstance was the creation of Kannur University by which several colleges which earlier fell within the jurisdiction of Calicut University came under the aegis of Kannur University. This took place after the publication of the 1995 Rank List, and cannot be said to be an irrelevant reason for cancelling the 1995 Rank List. According to the respondents, the formation of Kannur University had rendered about 130 Assistants as excess staff in Calicut University. It is true that the Calicut University made internal adjustments pursuant to the creation of Kannur University by which certain Assistants were required to discharge the function of Section Officers but this would not take the case of the appellants much further. Matters were clearly in a state of flux. It is true that the Calicut University made internal adjustments pursuant to the creation of Kannur University by which certain Assistants were required to discharge the function of Section Officers but this would not take the case of the appellants much further. Matters were clearly in a state of flux. What the position would be once the transfer of the Colleges and personnel took place could not be determined. 25. The facts of this case are totally at variance with those in Piara Singh. In this case there was a complete statutory ban on appointments by the University from 1997 till 2000. The appellants were appointed provisionally only pursuant to orders of Court purely by way of interim relief because of the then existing need of the University. There is no scheme for regularisation formulated by the University. Besides regularisation in the appointment of the appellants would mean appointment contrary to the order of merit in the Rank List. There is also nothing to show that such regularisation would be in keeping with the reservation rules. The appellants cannot stand in the way of the candidates who successfully competed in the 2001 selections for the post of Assistants. The alternative prayer of the appellants is, therefore, unsustainable." (v) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhupinder Singh Saini and others V. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2535, it is, inter alia, observed that 'Mere fact that the appellant's appointment as Registering Clerks was on purely temporary basis they cannot be treated as surplus employees'. (vi) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhirendra Chamoli and another V. State of U.P. (1986) 1 Supreme Court Cases 637, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised the necessity of existence of sanctioned posts in the context of regularisation of casual workers. (vii) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Triveni Shankar Saxena V. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 496, it is held that 'A person appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis has no right to the post'. (viii) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. V. Anil Kumar Mishra and others etc., AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1638 and 1639, in paragraph No.4, it is held as follows: "We are unable to uphold the order of the High Court. (viii) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. V. Anil Kumar Mishra and others etc., AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1638 and 1639, in paragraph No.4, it is held as follows: "We are unable to uphold the order of the High Court. There were no sanctioned posts in existence to which they could be said to have been appointed. The assignment was an ad hoc one which anticipated spent itself out. It is difficult to envisage for them, the status of workmen on the analogy of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, importing the incidents of completion of 240 days' work. The legal consequences that flow from work for that duration under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are entirely different from what, by way of implication, is attributed to the present situation by way of analogy. The completion of 240 days' work does not, under that law import the right to regularisation. It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the service. It is not appropriate to import and apply that analogy, in an extended or enlarged form here." (ix) In R.N.Nanjundappa V. T.Thimmaiah and another, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1767, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'A rule under Article 309 of the Constitution providing for regularisation of appointment by stating that notwithstanding any rules, the appointment is regularised strikes at the root of the rules framed under Article 309 and if the effect of the regularisation is to nullify the operation and effectiveness of the appointment rules. Such regularising rule would itself be opened to criticism on the ground that it is in violation of current rules.' (x) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai V. R.Govindaswamy and others, 2014 (3) SCALE 34 at page 35, it is observed and laid down as follows: "5. The issue involved here remains restricted as to whether the services of the part-time sweepers could have been directed by the High Court to be regularized. The issue is no more res integra. In State of Karnataka & Ors. The issue involved here remains restricted as to whether the services of the part-time sweepers could have been directed by the High Court to be regularized. The issue is no more res integra. In State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1806 , this Court held as under: “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. 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.” 6. In Union of India & Ors. v. A.S. Pillai & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 448 , this Court dealt with the issue of regularisation of part-time employees and the court refused the relief on the ground that part-timers are free to get themselves engaged elsewhere and they are not restrained from working elsewhere when they are not working for the authority/employer. Being the part-time employees, they are not subject to service rules or other regulations which govern and control the regularly appointed staff of the department. Therefore, the question of giving them equal pay for equal work or considering their case for regularisation would not arise. 7. This Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1193 , has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. 7. This Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1193 , has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. The same are as under: “8(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation 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 regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the 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 regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. (ii) Mere continuation of service by a 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 regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation 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 regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation 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.” (Emphasis added) 8. The present appeals are squarely covered by clauses (ii), (iv) and (v) of the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the appeals are allowed. However, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case as Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel has submitted that the appellant has already implemented the impugned judgments and does not want to disturb the services of the respondents, the services of the respondents which stood regularised should not be affected. With the aforesaid observations, the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs." 27. It cannot be gainsaid that where appointment is purely either temporary or on ad hoc basis and is also contractual in nature and by lapse of time, the said appointment comes to an end, an individual holding such post has no right to continue in the post. This is the case even if a person is continued from time to time on ad hoc basis for more than the prescribed period [mentioned in the initial appointment order]. 28. Significantly, the 2nd Respondent/Managing Director, T.N.H.B., Chennai, in the Counter (filed through Secretary and Personnel Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board) to M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2013 in M.P.Nos.2 to 2 of 2012 in W.P.Nos.23832 to 23835 of 2012, had averred, in paragraph 6, as follows: "6. I respectfully submit that the Board has taken up several projects throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. A large number of Technical Personnel have retired from service on superannuation. Hence, the Board is facing acute shortage of Technical Assistant. The post of Technical Assistant is field (site) oriented who supports the work of Junior Engineer /Assistant Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer etc. who are field officers. A large number of Technical Personnel have retired from service on superannuation. Hence, the Board is facing acute shortage of Technical Assistant. The post of Technical Assistant is field (site) oriented who supports the work of Junior Engineer /Assistant Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer etc. who are field officers. Moreover, the post of Technical Assistant is a feeder post for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer and further line of promotion. In the absence of sufficient number of Technical Assistants in Tamil Nadu Housing Board it is very difficult to execute the work promptly and therefore it is very essential to fill up the vacancies in order to avoid the unnecessary delay in executing the work smoothly and in timely manner. In view of the interim order granted by this Honourable Court on 31.08.2012, the Board is not in a position to fill up the vacancies. I respectfully submit that it is very difficult to execute the scheme initiated smoothly in various parts of Tamil Nadu without filling up the said vacancies. Further line of promotion of Junior Engineer is also vacant in very large numbers due to non-recruitment of Technical Assistants for several years in a row thus resulting in deadlock." 29. Earlier, in M.P.Nos.2 to 2 & 3 to 3 of 2012 in W.P.Nos.23832 to 23835 of 2012, this Court, on 31.08.2012, had passed the following order: "In view of the fact that there are only 15 posts to be filled up and having regard to the fact that this Court has granted interim order in W.P.No.17207 of 2012, there will be an interim direction to the respondents that the respondents may go ahead with the interview but shall not finalise the select list until further orders. Notice." 30. Later, in W.P.No.17202 of 2012, this Court, on 17.09.2012, in paragraph 6, had observed the following: "6. In my considered opinion, it is not so. The order of the learned Single Judge is dated 04.07.2003 and the order of the Division Bench is 18.04.2004. From the year 2003 onwards, the petitioner was not in service at all. But, the petitioner did not work out his remedy in this regard for reinstatement. Had it been true that he was terminated from service though there was no surplus staff, he should have challenged the same. From the year 2003 onwards, the petitioner was not in service at all. But, the petitioner did not work out his remedy in this regard for reinstatement. Had it been true that he was terminated from service though there was no surplus staff, he should have challenged the same. Having failed to do so, it is not open for the petitioner now to seek relief in the light of G.O.Ms.No.22. G.O.Ms.No.22 which specifically directs that regularisation shall be given to those daily wages employees who were in service as on 01.01.2006 for more than 10 years. Admittedly, as on 01.01.2006, the petitioner was not in service. As already I have stated, he was discontinued even in the year 2003 itself. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22." And dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the Petitioner was not entitled for any relief in the Writ Petition. 31. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and this Court, taking note of the fact that the Petitioners' engagement as Technical Assistants, through Letter No.A5/481/88 dated 29.11.1989, were 'purely on daily wages basis and the same were neither regular nor temporary' and further, it was made clear that they should not claim the continuance of permanent on the job, as a matter of right, comes to an inescapable conclusion that the pleas of the Petitioners to reappoint and regularise their services as Technical Assistants in the Housing Board, are not per se maintainable before this Court, in the eye of law and as such, this Court negatives their pleas. Viewed in that perspective, the plea of the Petitioners that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board passed a Resolution dated 30.04.2012 to fill up the vacancies of 15 Assistant Engineers, 15 Technical Assistants and one Land Surveyor, by ignoring their representations dated 16.05.2011, could not be sustained because of the reason that in the absence of number of Technical Assistants in Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the Board found it difficult to execute their work promptly and with a view to fill up the vacancies to avoid unnecessary delay in executing the works smoothly and timely, the Resolution was passed. Consequently, the Writ Petitions fail. In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.