Judgment :- Sahidullah Munshi, J. This writ petition has been filed by Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority’s Karmachari Union, a registered Trade Union represented by its President and General Secretary, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the petitioner Nos.4 to 10 with a prayer for regularization of the service of the petitioner Nos.4 to 10 and the members of the said Karmachari Union. The petitioner has stated that near about 160 members of the said Union including the petitioner Nos.4 to 10 have been working as Pump Operators, Guards and Attendants in different pump houses under Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority those who were initially enrolled as Home Guards under the Department of Home (Civil Defence), Government of West Bengal during the period between 1972 and 1975. Sometimes after their enrolment as Home Guards these persons were called out on duty by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Home Guard) for operation and guarding of deep tube wells constructed, maintained and supervised by the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority, now known as Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Authority) on daily allowance basis in pursuance of requisition and/or demand made by the said Authority as the said Authority felt the necessity of some efficient and disciplined workers for operation of pump and protection of its valuable properties. It has been stated by the writ petitioners that after establishment of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority under Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’ of 1972) the said Authority engaged nearly 600 muster roll workers during the period from 1972 to 1975 for operation and guarding of tube wells constructed and/or maintained by the said Authority as also some Office Assistants, Attendants, Sweepers and others. Out of the said 600 muster roll workers about 150 workers were drawn from the Public Health Engineering Department, about 200 were drawn from Public Works Department and about 250 workers were drawn from the Home Guards. In addition to the aforesaid 600 muster roll workers the said Authority itself engaged some more muster roll workers directly for operation and guarding of deep tube wells on daily allowance basis. In addition to the aforesaid 600 muster roll workers the said Authority itself engaged some more muster roll workers directly for operation and guarding of deep tube wells on daily allowance basis. It is stated that all the aforesaid 600 muster roll workers were regularized and/or absorbed by the said Authority in the regular salaried establishment excepting the petitioners who have been working as Pump Operators, Guards and Attendants in different pump houses and sector offices under the said Authority. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioners were all Home Guards and were engaged for working as Pump Operators, Guards and Attendants from 1972 to 1975 and they were engaged on the requisition made by the said Authority to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Home Guard) for the said purpose. It is not in dispute that petitioners were engaged in their capacity as Home Guards when the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Home Guard) called out them on duty for operation and guarding of deep tube wells constructed, maintained and supervised by the said Authority on daily allowance basis as it was initially agreed at the time of engagement. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that initially a command certificate was being issued which was to remain valid for 90 days at the time of requisition of the said Home Guards who used to operate the pumps and discharge other functions as aforesaid but subsequently, the said Home Guards continued the function in their placed of work and no further command certificates were being issued as a result, the Home Guards those who were initially requisitioned, continued their work in the same place under the said Authority without the command certificate from the Police Authorities or from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Home Guard). But fact remains that the petitioners all through continued their work as Home Guards and not in any other capacity. Annexure-A to the writ petitioner discloses the details of the said Home Guards as regards the date of joining the Headquarters and the date of joining Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and also their place of posting and nature of job etc. Annexure-A to the writ petitioner discloses the details of the said Home Guards as regards the date of joining the Headquarters and the date of joining Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and also their place of posting and nature of job etc. It has been stated in the writ petition that although, the said Home Guards have been working as Pump Operators, Guards and Attendants since 1972 to 1975 on daily wage basis at a stretch and without any break, the said Home Guards have not been regularized and/or absorbed in the regular establishment by the said Authority on the ground that they were drawn from the Home Guards on deputation basis. The writ petitioners claimed that the said Authority cannot shirk their responsibility by describing them as deputationists holding lien to their permanent post of Home Guards. It has been also stated that some of the members of the petitioner No.1, after rendering long 20 years of service with the said Authority, have already been superannuated upon attaining the age of 60 years without any retiral benefits, although, the said members of the petitioner No.1 were legally entitled to the retirement benefits as such gratuity, provident fund, pension, but they were refused without any justification. The legal position as it appears from Home Guards Act, 1962, the service of Home Guards are purely voluntary and they get their allowances only to meet their expenses when they are called out on duty under the West Bengal Home Guards Act, 1962 and the West Bengal Home Guards Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’ and the ‘said Rules’). The Home Guards, therefore, do not hold any particular post under a fixed scale of pay. The said Act or the said Rules has not made any provision for deputation for the Home Guards to any Government or Semi-Government Organization. In the instant case, the KMDA requisitioned the service of the Home Guards through appropriate authority and the appropriate authority deputed the said Home Guards for the discharge of certain functions under the supervision of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and the condition of service is that the said Home Guards would discharge their function subject to payment of daily allowance. The Home Guards, so requisitioned and were functioning at different place of work, those are not permanent posts created by Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority. The Home Guards, so requisitioned and were functioning at different place of work, those are not permanent posts created by Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority. Whether the petitioners work as Pump Operators, Guards and/or Attendants, are not the sanctioned posts of the said Authority and such posts were never created by the said Authority as it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority. The Home Guards’ service is really a voluntary service on no work no allowance basis. It appears that after completion of the training period the members of Home Guards are issued Identity Cards by the authority concerned under the said Act of 1962. They are also issued dress materials, badges etc. by the concerned authority. They are also required to participate in parade and/or physical fitness training. In the present case, the KMDA, for the purpose of guarding and operating the pumps for water supply, required the service of number of disciplined workers and since the Home Guards are trained personnel, the said Authority sent requisition for engagement of such Home Guards as Attendants and/or Pump Operators in different pump houses maintained by the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority. In pursuance of such a requisition, the members of the petitioner No.1, being trained and disciplined persons, were sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Home Guard) to the said Authority and that is how the said persons are discharging their function under the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority. It is the case of the writ petitioners that since services of the members of the petitioner No.1 were utilized by the said Authority as Pump Operators, Guards and/or Attendants at a stretch without any break for more than 15 to 28 years, the works performed by the said members of the petitioner No.1 are outside the scope and purview of the duty as a Home Guard as defined under the said Act and the said Rules of 1962. The petitioner submitted that while the members of the petitioner No.1 were called out on duty to the said Authority, the Competent Authority of the Home Guard had issued required command certificate for a period of 90 days only to enable the members of the petitioner No.1 to perform their duties as Guards, Attendants and Pump Operators in the said Authority. But, after expiry of 90 days, neither the said members of the petitioner No.1 were called back nor any fresh command certificate was issued by the concerned authorities of the Home Guards. On the other hand, the said members of the petitioner No.1 were allowed to continue their duties as Guards, Attendants and Pump Operators at a stretch and without any break for more than 15 to 28 years. It is the further case of the petitioner that during the period while the members of the petitioner No.1 have been discharging their duties and responsibilities as Pump Operators, Guards and Attendants under the said Authority they were not issued any dress materials, badges etc. by the Home Guard Authorities nor were they given any regular training like parade, physical fitness training etc. which are required to be performed by the members of the Home Guards under the said Act and the Rules of 1962. Even the said members of the petitioner No.1 were never called out on any other emergency duty even for a day by the Authorities of the Home Guard. The writ petitioner, therefore, submits that the said members of the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner Nos.4 to 10, although, were engaged initially as Home Guards, but they have lost their identity and discharged their duties as Guards, Pump Operators and/or Attendants in the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and, accordingly, they have, inter alia, prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, more particularly the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to regularize and absorb the members of the petitioner No.1 including the petitioner Nos.4 to 10 in their respective posts of Pump Operators, Guards and/or Attendants in the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and to extend them or pay all other benefits as available to the regular employees performing identical duties under the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and further to pay all the statutory and retirement benefits to the members of the petitioner No.1 who have already superannuated and/or withdrawn on attaining the age of 60 years, and further a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents particularly respondent Nos.9 and 10 from withdrawing and/or calling back the members of the petitioner No.1 including the petitioner Nos.4 to 10 from the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority treating them as deputationist Home Guards and to place them again in the body of Home Guards in any manner whatsoever. In support of such prayer and the case made out in the writ petition it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. – Vs. – Umadevi (3) & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the petitioners’ engagement as Pump Operators, Guards and/or Attendants should be regularized. It has been submitted that paragraph 53 of the said judgment supports the case of the petitioner for regularization of the petitioners in the place of work they discharged their function having regard to the fact that such function has been discharged by the petitioners for over a period of 10 years continuously. The petitioners have also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Vs. – Kamal Prasad & Ors., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2513 and claimed for regularization of their service on the strength of the ratio decided in the said decision. The writ petition has been strenuously contested by the respondents by filing their respective affidavits-in-opposition. In opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner the learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 submits that the writ petitioner has made out no case for regularization. The writ petition has been strenuously contested by the respondents by filing their respective affidavits-in-opposition. In opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner the learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 submits that the writ petitioner has made out no case for regularization. In the said affidavits-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 it has been categorically mentioned that – a) The services of the petitioners are purely voluntary and they get allowances when they are called on duty as per the provisions of the Home Guards Act, 1962; b) Whenever manpower is needed in KMDA for the purpose of guarding various installations like pump house and other establishment/assets created by KMDA, the Authority made requisition in writing for the services of the Home Guards from the Home Guard Authority which was the general practice being adopted by the said Authority in regard to deployment of Home Guards in KMDA; c) In response to requisition made by the KMDA, the Home Guard Authority placed the service of the Home Guards at the disposal of KMDA, which in turn deployed them on payment on duty allowance at such rate as decided by the State Government and this type of deployment does not give the deployed Home Guards any status in KMDA since there exists no privity of contract between these Home Guards whose services are requisitioned from the Home Guard Authority by the KMDA; d) The petitioners never discharged any skilled work nor was it required to be performed by them. They only used to operate the main switch (switch on and switch off) of the deep tube well at the pump station and to guard equipment thereof. The pumps in various pump houses are in non-functional condition and most of them were handed over to the Municipal Corporation/Municipalities; e) The services of the Home Guards were requisitioned in writing for operation and guarding the pumps. The pumps in various pump houses are in non-functional condition and most of them were handed over to the Municipal Corporation/Municipalities; e) The services of the Home Guards were requisitioned in writing for operation and guarding the pumps. They were never posted as Attendants after the order of status quo which was passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the year 1984 in writ petition No.2787(W) of 1983 at the time of handing over deep tube wells and the pumps to the different municipal bodies and that the said order of status quo is still in force and as a result whereof the Authority was bound to continue with the Home Guards for such a long span of time in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Court notwithstanding there is no job of operation of guarding of pumps; f) It is the usual practice to hand over the assets created by KMDA like tube wells, pumps, street lights, underground services, other community facilities etc. to local Civil Authority that is, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Howrah Municipal Corporation and other Municipalities for maintenance after they are created. Accordingly, several pumps installed by KMDA in such bastis within the limits of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Howrah Municipal Corporation as well as street lights provided therein had been handed over to such Municipal Corporation in the past and with the handing over of the installation to the civil bodies their future operation and maintenance become the responsibility of those Authorities and there remains no need for KMDA to engage any personnel for the same; g) KMDA being the statutory Authority under the State Government is guided by a definite Employment Policy formulated by the State Government by which direct recruitments are made only through Employment Exchange and all direct employments in KMDA are made in terms of Labour Department circular being No.5120-LW dated 07.10.1977 by which direct appointments are being made by obtaining names from Employment Exchange and holding selection tests amongst them and, accordingly, direct absorption of Home Guards in KMDA against regular vacancies is not only impossible but also not permissible under the Statute. Further, the petitioners are not the regular employees of KMDA and at no point of time any letter of appointment was issued in their favour; and there were no sanctioned posts for the said works being performed by the petitioners as Home Guards which is temporary in nature. The respondent Nos.5 to 10 have also filed an affidavit-in-opposition and supported the stand taken by the respondent Nos.1 to 4. In their affidavit-in-opposition the said respondents have said – a) The Home Guards, before joining, have the knowledge that they would have to operate on voluntary basis. There is no system of monthly remuneration for Home Guards. They are merely entitled to daily allowance. They are not the Government Servant for any salaried establishment. There is no scope for any Home Guard before enrolment to infer that they would be treated as member of regular salaried establishment. Provisions of Home Guards Act and Rules of 1962 clearly specify that Home Guard Organization is an Organization of voluntary in nature. Home Guards are not appointed but they are only enrolled. They can perform duty only when called up by Deputy Commissioner of Police (Home Guard) or Commissioner of Police, Kolkata who is also Ex Officio Additional Commandant General, Home Guards. b) The member of petitioner No.1 and the petitioners were deputed at KMDA to perform the duties of Guard at their different installations and gradually those Home Guards were given charge to switch on and switch off water pumps and electricity lights. The Home Guards volunteers, those who were deputed at KMDA, had no technical qualification or experience but because of the nature of work assigned to the said Home Guards they could perform the work without any difficulty. According to the petitioners, KMDA itself, in its Memo dated 13th March, 1980, laid down a guideline regarding the absorption of casual workers, daily rated workers, muster roll workers and other specified categories of persons (Annexure-P8 of the writ petition). It is also the case of the petitioner that KMDA had regularized the service of some of the members who had been working as Pump Operators, Guards and Attendants in the KMDA but the members of the petitioner No.1, though holding the same rank and performing similar/identical works and functions, have not been absorbed by the KMDA. It is also the case of the petitioner that KMDA had regularized the service of some of the members who had been working as Pump Operators, Guards and Attendants in the KMDA but the members of the petitioner No.1, though holding the same rank and performing similar/identical works and functions, have not been absorbed by the KMDA. Thereby, they have been meted with hostile attitude which is completely dehors the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this case, it does not appear from the record that the petitioners have been working as casual workers or muster roll workers or daily rated workers and the persons working have no independent identity other than that they are enrolled members of the Home Guard Department and they were called out on duty to perform some specified work on daily allowance and that too on voluntary basis. The work they claim to have been discharging is not against any sanctioned post nor are those permanent posts. It is the case of the KMDA that after the work is being done by them those are handed over to the respective Municipalities and it is they who, ultimately, look after the same. Therefore, it is not for KMDA to appoint workers or employees for the work to be discharged as Pump Operators or Guards of the properties which would be under custody of the respective Municipalities or other bodies. Record also does not reveal that any person from the Home Guard has been regularized in the past. Record also does not reveal that the petitioners herein have ever approached the KMDA with any representation that they should be regularized in the respective area of work where they are presently discharging their functions. They have placed on record certain recommending letters from some Authority but, according to me, these recommending letters themselves create no right for the Home Guards, namely, the petitioners herein to be regularized in their respective field of work. It has been categorically stated by the KMDA that the normal rule for appointment is to call for candidates through the Employment Exchange and bypassing the said procedure no other mode can be adopted for giving appointment to the petitioners that will be rather give rise to an illegal bypassing of the rules of recruitment. It has been categorically stated by the KMDA that the normal rule for appointment is to call for candidates through the Employment Exchange and bypassing the said procedure no other mode can be adopted for giving appointment to the petitioners that will be rather give rise to an illegal bypassing of the rules of recruitment. The petitioners who were temporarily engaged (not even appointed) on daily wages basis and that too they agreed to do this job at such terms and conditions which they are functioning for a long time cannot give rise to them a right to be absorbed permanently. Nothing has been disclosed in the writ petition that the petitioners were ever appointed in any post to discharge any particular type of work nor has it been disclosed that there appears any privity of contract between the petitioner and the said Authority. It is also not apparent from the pleadings that the petitioners ever made any representation making prayer before the said Authority to absorb them on regular basis, nor is there any threat from the end of the said Authority for termination of their job. Then question obviously arises as regards cause of action for moving this writ petition which according to me, does not exist. That apart, it is evident from the record that these persons have been functioning under the order of status quo passed by a Court. Even though, the KMDA tried to repatriate these Home Guards but it was not possible due to the said order of status quo which was passed in W.P. No.2787(W) of 1983. It is one of the grounds raised by the petitioners that they have a good case for regularization of their service within the meaning of paragraph 53 of the case reported in Umadevi (supra). The only material on record is a letter dated 9th May, 1980 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal addressing it to the Deputy Director of Service and Deputy Secretary, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority making a request for absorption of Home Guard personnel and Officers of the Calcutta Home Guards Organization working on deputation to the Metropolitan Development Authority. This letter may have a suggestive value but is not binding upon the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority which is an autonomous body and which has got its own policy for recruitment, rules and regulations relating to its employees. This letter may have a suggestive value but is not binding upon the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority which is an autonomous body and which has got its own policy for recruitment, rules and regulations relating to its employees. If such letter is not taken into consideration or the KMDA has not acted on the basis of the said letter the writ petitioner cannot pray before this Court to command the said Authority to regularize the engaged Home Guards in their respective field of work. Thus, non-compliance of this letter does not give rise to any writ of mandamus before this Court. In support of the case made out by the writ petitioner for their regularization, as has already been discussed, the writ petitioner has relied on the decision of Umadevi (3) & Ors. (supra) and which says in paragraph 53 that – “The question of regularisation of services of such employees may have to be considered on the merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed.” In the present case, the petitioners have been functioning under the cover of order of Court as has already been pointed out earlier and that apart, as I have held, the posts are not sanctioned posts where the said Home Guards said to have been working. That being so, it is a remote issue to consider as regards regularization of the services of those Home Guards under the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner Nos.4 to 10. That being so, it is a remote issue to consider as regards regularization of the services of those Home Guards under the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner Nos.4 to 10. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has stated that Union, the States, their Departments and instrumentalities resort to irregular appointments specially in the lower category of service without reference to the duty to ensure a proper appointment procedure through the Public Service Commission or otherwise, as per the rules adopted and to permit these irregular appointees or those appointed on contractual or on daily wages to continue year after year, thus, keeping out those who are qualified to apply for the posts concerned and depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the posts. It has also led to persons who got employed without following a regular procedure or even through the backdoor or on daily wages, approaching the Courts seeking directions to make them permanent in their posts and to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned. Hon’ble Apex Court further says that the Courts have not always kept the legal aspects in mind and have occasionally even stayed the regular process of employment being set in motion and in some cases even directed that this illegal irregular or improper entrants be absorbed into service. Such orders are passed apparently in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and are intended to be used for a purpose certain to defeat the concept of social justice and equal opportunity for all. The Hon’ble Apex Court further issued cautions that the Courts should desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such persons and from issuing directions for continuance of those who have not secured regular appointments as per procedure established so that the power under Article 226 should be sparingly exercised and with caution. It is profitable to reproduce paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 of the above referred judgment and those are as follows:- “4. But, sometimes this process is not adhered to and the constitutional scheme of public employment is bypassed. It is profitable to reproduce paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 of the above referred judgment and those are as follows:- “4. But, sometimes this process is not adhered to and the constitutional scheme of public employment is bypassed. The Union, the States, their departments and instrumentalities have resorted to irregular appointments, especially in the lower rungs of the service, without reference to the duty to ensure a proper appointment procedure through the Public Service Commissions or otherwise as per the rules adopted and to permit these irregular appointees or those appointed on contract or on daily wages, to continue year after year, thus, keeping out those who are qualified to apply for the post concerned and depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the post. It has also led to persons who get employed, without the following of a regular procedure or even through the backdoor or on daily wages, approaching the courts, seeking directions to make them permanent in their posts and to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned. The courts have not always kept the legal aspects in mind and have occasionally even stayed the regular process of employment being set in motion and in some cases, even directed that these illegal, irregular or improper entrants be absorbed into service. A class of employment which can only be called “litigious employment”, has risen like a phoenix seriously impairing the constitutional scheme. Such orders are passed apparently in exercise of the wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Whether the wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are intended to be used for a purpose certain to defeat the concept of social justice and equal opportunity for all, subject to affirmative action in the matter of public employment as recognised by our Constitution, has to be seriously pondered over. It is time, that the courts desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such persons and from issuing directions for continuance of those who have not secured regular appointments as per procedure established. The passing of orders for continuance tends to defeat the very constitutional scheme of public employment. It is time, that the courts desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such persons and from issuing directions for continuance of those who have not secured regular appointments as per procedure established. The passing of orders for continuance tends to defeat the very constitutional scheme of public employment. It has to be emphasised that this is not the role envisaged for the High Courts in the scheme of things and their wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are not intended to be used for the purpose of perpetuating illegalities, irregularities or improprieties or for scuttling the whole scheme of public employment. Its role as the sentinel and as the guardian of equal rights protection should not be forgotten. 5. This Court has also on occasions issued directions which could not be said to be consistent with the constitutional scheme of public employment. Such directions are issued presumably on the basis of equitable considerations or individualisation of justice. The question arises, equity to whom? Equity for the handful of people who have approached the court with a claim, or equity for the teeming millions of this country seeking employment and seeking a fair opportunity for competing for employment? When one side of the coin is considered, the other side of the coin has also to be considered and the way open to any court of law or justice, is to adhere to the law as laid down by the Constitution and not to make directions, which at time, even if do not run counter to the constitutional scheme, certainly tend to water down the constitutional requirements. It is this conflict that is reflected in these cases referred to the Constitutional Bench. 6. The power of a State as an employer is more limited than that of a private employer inasmuch as it is subjected to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily (see Basu’s Shorter Constitution of India). Article 309 of the Constitution gives the Government the power to frame rules for the purpose of laying down public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any of the States. That article contemplates the drawing up of a procedure and rules to regulate the recruitment and regulate the service conditions of appointees appointed to public posts. That article contemplates the drawing up of a procedure and rules to regulate the recruitment and regulate the service conditions of appointees appointed to public posts. It is well acknowledged that because of this, the entire process of recruitment for services is controlled by detailed procedures which specify the necessary qualifications, the mode of appointment, etc. If rules have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution, then the Government can make appointments only in accordance with the rules. The State is meant to be a model employer. The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 was enacted to ensure equal opportunity for employment seekers. Though this Act may not oblige an employer to employ only those persons who have been sponsored by employment exchanges, it places an obligation on the employer to notify the vacancies that may arise in the various departments and for filling up of those vacancies, based on a procedure. Normally, statutory rules are framed under the authority of law. This is because, following any other course could be disastrous inasmuch as it will deprive the security of tenure and the right of equality conferred on civil servants under the constitutional scheme. It may even amount to negating the accepted service jurisprudence. Therefore, when statutory rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution which are exhaustive, the only fair means to adopt is to make appointments based on the rules so framed.” Paragraph 43 of the said judgment further clarified that 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. Relevant portions of the said paragraph is set out below:- “43. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as “litigious employment” in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as “litigious employment” in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitle to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.” The other judgment cited by the petitioner in the case of Kamal Prasad & Ors. (supra), the same stands altogether on a different footing. The fact involved in this case is totally different from the petitioners’ case. The petitioners in the above-mentioned case were duly appointed by the State of Bihar against regular sanctioned vacancies with due qualifications unlike the petitioners herein and they were functioning not under the cover of any order of Court. Therefore, in my view, the writ petitioners have made out no case in support of their prayers in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.