Judgment The petitioner has come up with this writ petition to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's services in the post of Night Watchman in the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Thirukkattupillai, Buthalur Panchayat Union, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District on completion of 10 years of service. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 20.12.1984 as Night Watchman in the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Thirukkattupillai and joined duty on 20.12.1984 in pursuant to the order of second respondent and is working continuously. On 11.04.1996, the fourth respondent sent a proposal to the second respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner. The second respondent did not take any action on the proposal sent by the fourth respondent. Therefore, he made a representation, dated 09.07.2010 to the respondents for regularisation of his service based on the G.O.Ms.No.856 Education, dated 08.02.1994. The respondents did not pass any orders on the representation. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. 3. The second respondent has filed the counter affidavit denying the various averments made by the petitioner. The second respondent stated that the petitioner's appointment is an irregular appointment as there was a ban on contingent service appointment. The District Collector, Thanjavur, dated 29.09.2006 has taken action against the persons responsible for the irregular appointment. The petitioner was appointed as contingent employee and was paid from 29.09.2006. The petitioner's appointment was irregular. Therefore, he is not entitled for regularisation. The second respondent also stated that the representation of the petitioner was not received and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard Mr.A.Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner, T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1,3 & 4 and Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in 2010(1) CWC 721 (P.Subramani vs. Director of School Education) in paragraph 11 of the judgment reads as follows:- "11. Coming to the first reason assigned in the impugned order, the second respondent would state that the petitioner is not a daily wager but a person appointed on consolidated pay and the pay is met from contingent expenses. Coming to the first reason assigned in the impugned order, the second respondent would state that the petitioner is not a daily wager but a person appointed on consolidated pay and the pay is met from contingent expenses. This could hardly be a reason for rejecting the case of the petitioner, the nomenclature by which the petitioner has been called by the fourth respondent or by the department is not the issue, the crux of the issue is a nature of employment and duties and responsibilities discharged by the petitioner. Likewise the test is not from under which head of account the expenses towards the petitioner's salary has been met, but the real test would be whether there is a need for the post. It is too late in the day for the respondents to state that there is no need for the post. This has been negatived by their own conduct in employing the petitioner for nearly 20 years. That apart at the level of the petitioner, he is not aware as to whether he is a part timer or a daily wager or a person on consolidate wage or a contingent worker on daily wages all that the petitioner is aware is that he is not a regular employee of the fourth respondent school, which is Government School." and he relied order dated 25.10.2007 made in W.A.(MD)No391 of 2007 and in paragraph 5 to 7 reads as follows: "5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side. In view of the Government order mentioned supra, the respondents are eligible for getting regularization in their service. It is not disputed that they have rendered service for over 10 years as on 01.01.2006 and all the respondents have completed more than 10 years of service so as to get eligibility under the Government order. There is nothing on record to show that any of the respondents suffer from any disqualification to hold the post. 6. We have also gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, which does not warrant any interference. The fact remains that they were already selected by the concerned authorities and at the time of selection, their names were sponsored by the employment exchange and they are continuing as wage earners. 7. 6. We have also gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, which does not warrant any interference. The fact remains that they were already selected by the concerned authorities and at the time of selection, their names were sponsored by the employment exchange and they are continuing as wage earners. 7. Since we do not find any disqualification on their part, it is just and necessary to direct the appellant herein to regularize the service of the respondents. The appellant is directed to comply with the direction of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 6. I have carefully perused the materials on record and consider the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner filed the writ petition for seeking a relief of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the petitioner's services in the post of Night Watchman in the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Thirukkattupillai, Buthalur Panchayat Union, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District on completion of 10 years of service. In the counter affidavit, the second respondent has stated that the proposal sent to the District Collector was returned. Further the petitioner was appointed as Contingent employee and paid through consolidated salary, when there was a ban on recruitment and his appointment is an irregular appointment. The issue of ordering regularisation of posts is no more, res integra. This issue is already decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1806 (Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V.Umadevi & Ors.) paragraph 48 held as follows: "48. C.A.Nos.3520-24 of 2002 have also to be allowed since the decision of the Zilla Parishads to make permanent the employees cannot be accepted as legal. Nor can the employees be directed to be treated as employees of the Government, in the circumstances. The direction of the High Court is found unsustainable." 7. The issue was again considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 769 (School Education Department, Chennai v. R.Govindaswamy) wherein it has been held that the 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. 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. The Hon'ble Apex Court also consider this issue especially in the case of AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1193 State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal and Division Bench of this Court reported in 2014(4) L.W.657 The State of Tamil Nadu v. M.Seeniammal & Others. 8. It is well settled now that when an appointment of a person is irregular and appointed contrary to Rules, Court cannot direct regularisation. 9. In view of the judgements referred to above and well settled judicial pronouncements the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.