JUDGMENT : Sonia Gokani, J. 1. RULE in the respective matters. The formal service of notice of Rule in the respective matters is waived by the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. The Rule is fixed forthwith in the respective matters. All these writ petitions, preferred under Articles 14, 16 & 226 of the Constitution of India, since involve identical questions of law and facts, and therefore, by way of this common judgment, they have been taken up for adjudication together. Facts necessary for the purpose of adjudication are drawn from Special Civil Application No. 13621 of 2014 as well as Special Civil Application No. 13145 of 2014. PETITIONERS' VERSION: 2. The facts, in capsulized form, read thus: 2.1 Petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 13621 of 2014 are possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering. They were appointed to the post of Technical Assistant on different dates between 16th June 2008 and 1st March 2012 under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment GuaScheme on contractual basis for a fixed term of 11 months. Such appointment came to be renewed from time to time after a technical break. The petitioners thus have put in total service of nearly 2 to 6 years. 2.2 It is the say of the petitioners that on 23rd December 2013, the Government of Gujarat in Panchayat, Rural Housing & Rural Development Department issued a Resolution stipulating that all the contractual appointments made on the establishment of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme ["hereinafter shall be referred to as, "the MANREG Scheme"] shall be terminated on expiry of contractual period i.e., 28th February 2014 and the posts shall be filled in by way of fresh recruitment made on the strength of revised qualifications and experience; as may be prescribed. 2.3 It is the say of the petitioners that the Government Resolution dated 14th August 2014 issued by the Panchayat, Rural Housing & Rural Development Department details out the recruitment programme for all the posts on the establishment at the State; District; Taluka and Village levels for the period from 1st March 2014 to 28th February 2017. In other words, the petitioners by virtue of this Government Resolution are required to undergo normal process of recruitment to continue their services on contractual basis, as the public advertisement also came to be issued on 28th August 2014, and therefore, the challenge in the form of present writ petition. In other words, the petitioners by virtue of this Government Resolution are required to undergo normal process of recruitment to continue their services on contractual basis, as the public advertisement also came to be issued on 28th August 2014, and therefore, the challenge in the form of present writ petition. 2.4 It is the say of the petitioners that they were recruited on the post of Technical Assistants by a regular mode of recruitment process and appointments were given at different Taluka level establishments under the said Scheme undertaken by the State Government. 2.5 It is averred that the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 ["the Act" for short] came into force on 5th September 2005 which provides for enhancement of livelihood, security of the households in the rural areas of the country by providing atleast one hundred days of guaranteed wage-employment in every financial year to every household whose adult member volunteers to do unskilled manual work and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 2.6 It is the say of the petitioners that under Section 18 of the Act, the State Government has an obligation to make available to the District Programme Coordinator and Programme Officers, necessary staff and technical support for smooth implementation of the Scheme. Necessary establishment was sanctioned at the State level by a Resolution dated 29th June 2006 issued by the Panchayat, Rural Housing & Rural Development Department. Members of establishments are also appointed on fixed monthly pay on contractual basis without any allowances for a period of 11 months. Resolution dated 12th December 2008 issued by the Panchayat, Rural Housing & Rural Development Department also prescribes minimum qualification for different cadres at State, District, Taluka and Village level establishments. The fixed monthly pay was linked with experience of candidates concerned. 2.7 For the post of Technical Assistant, the minimum qualification prescribed is "Diploma in Civil Engineering with one year's experience". If the candidates with this minimum qualification are not available, then the candidates qualified to be "Surveyor with knowledge in Computer Operations", are to be selected. It is alleged that due to meagre fixed monthly pay, the qualified and experienced persons have started leaving the job. This has resulted into hampering of the smooth functioning and operation of the Scheme. If the candidates with this minimum qualification are not available, then the candidates qualified to be "Surveyor with knowledge in Computer Operations", are to be selected. It is alleged that due to meagre fixed monthly pay, the qualified and experienced persons have started leaving the job. This has resulted into hampering of the smooth functioning and operation of the Scheme. On realizing this, the Panchayat, Rural Housing & Rural Development Department came out with another Resolution dated 15th September 2010 sanctioning establishment upto 28th February 2014 and by prescribing the minimum qualification and experience required for various cadres and posts along with monthly fixed pay. By way of incentive, the payment was increased every year by a maximum of 15% of the pay on the basis of performance of the employee concerned. For termination of contract of employment, however, one month's notice or pay in lieu of notice has been contemplated. 2.8 It is further the say of the petitioners that monthly fixed pay of Technical Assistants is revised from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 13,000/- for those who possess Diploma in Civil Engineering with one year's experience and for qualified Surveyors working as Technical Assistants, the fixed monthly salary is revised to Rs. 8,000/- per month from Rs. 5,000/- pm. 2.9 According to the petitioners, on 23rd December 2013, the said Department of Panchayat, Rural Housing & Rural Development came out with a Resolution stipulating that all contractual appointments made on the establishment of the Scheme should be terminated on expiry of contractual period i.e., on 28th February 2014. The said Resolution further provides that all the posts on the establishment should be filled in by way of fresh recruitment to be made on the basis of revised qualification and experience. However, there are no changes in the qualification and experience required for the post of Technical Assistant nor was there any change in the pay, which was fixed at Rs. 13,000/-. In fact, with addition of annual increments granted to the petitioners by virtue of Resolution dated 15th September 2010, they are getting more than Rs. 13,000/- per month. 2.10 In essence, it is the say of the petitioners that in the matter of recruitment on the post of Technical Assistant, the petitioners must be given priority and preference, if the recruitment process is conducted in accordance with Government Resolution dated 23rd December 2013 and 14th August 2014. 13,000/- per month. 2.10 In essence, it is the say of the petitioners that in the matter of recruitment on the post of Technical Assistant, the petitioners must be given priority and preference, if the recruitment process is conducted in accordance with Government Resolution dated 23rd December 2013 and 14th August 2014. It is wrong on the part of the respondents to compel the petitioners to undergo the recruitment process once again when they in fact not only possess requisite qualification, but also, experience for the said post. It is their say that such action on the part of respondents is contrary to the legitimate expectation and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the petitioners cannot be compelled to undergo for the second time, the same recruitment process. It is their say that such action on the part of respondents is contrary to the legitimate expectation and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the petitioners cannot be compelled to undergo for the second time, the same recruitment process. They have thus challenged the Government Resolution dated 23rd December 2013 and 14th August 2014 with the following prayers: "[A] to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned Government Resolutions dated 23rd December 2013 and 14th August 2014 to the extent and in so far as they require the petitioners to undergo the recruitment drill as per the public advertisement dated 28th August 2014 for the posts of Technical Assistant; [B] to declare the impugned Government Resolutions dated 23rd December 2013 and 14th August 2014 as bad in law, arbitrary and discriminatory and thus, violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution to the extent and in so far as they require the petitioners to undergo the recruitment process for the post of Technical Assistant; [C] to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding or directing the respondent authorities to renew the petitioners' contract of service on the same terms and conditions and pay as hitherto been without their having to undergo the process of recruitment under Government Resolutions dated 23rd December 2013 and 14th August 2014 as per public advertisement dated 28th August 2014 for the posts of Technical Assistant; [D] to stay the recruitment process for the post of Technical Assistants to the extent and in so far as it requires the petitioners to undergo the process under Government Resolutions dated 23rd December 2013 and 14th August 2014; pending admission and final hearing of the present writ petition; [E] to direct the respondent-authorities to keep 16 posts of Technical Assistant unfilled; pending admission and final hearing of the present petition. [F] to pass any other and/or further order, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice." 3. Petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 13145 of 2014 are working individually in various capacity as Accountant, Assistants, MIS Coordinator, Technical Assistants, APO-NREGA etc. [F] to pass any other and/or further order, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice." 3. Petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 13145 of 2014 are working individually in various capacity as Accountant, Assistants, MIS Coordinator, Technical Assistants, APO-NREGA etc. It is the say of the petitioners that by virtue of Government Resolutions dated 23rd December 2013; 18th February 2014 and 28th August 2014, it has been decided to abolish the existing staff set-up and to undergo fresh process of recruitment and to continue the existing staff upto 31st March 2015 only or till the new appointments are made; whichever is earlier. This decision to continue the existing staff till they are replaced by new set of employees on contractual basis is ex facie contrary, bad in law and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 3.1 Essentially, the challenge made by this group of employees is that since inception of the Scheme they are working diligently and therefore there is no earthly, legal or valid ground for the respondents to discontinue the present establishment and to bring in the totally fresh recruits when the recruitment of the petitioners is done following the due procedure at law viz., publication of advertisement, selection process and appointment orders. It is the say of the petitioners that they are now called upon to undergo similar process, which would also be an unnecessary expenditure on public exchequer. According to the petitioners, huge amount has already been spent by the Government in imparting training to the petitioners, who are discharging their duty satisfactorily and this being a Scheme which is to continue for the benefit of rural people, and therefore, it is a settled legal position that a set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees. 3.2 As further averred by the petitioners, about 5700 posts have been advertised and as per the knowledge of the petitioners, out of 5700 posts, 1700 posts are only vacant and on 4000 posts, persons like the petitioners are working already. When new establishment, as per the advertisement is upto 2017, it is quite likely that the same step/action would be repeated in the year 2017 which is quite demoralizing for the young people. When new establishment, as per the advertisement is upto 2017, it is quite likely that the same step/action would be repeated in the year 2017 which is quite demoralizing for the young people. It is the grievance of the petitioners that even a labourer who works for 240 days entitles himself to continue in service whereas, in the present case, the respondents have shown door to their employees without any rhyme or reason. It is the say of the petitioners that the impugned action of issuing advertisement is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and the same is against the letter and spirit of the Act and the Scheme both. 3.3 It is further the say of the petitioners that some of them have already represented their case before the concerned authorities, however, no response is received as yet. Therefore, raising the ground that the action impugned being arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is made in these writ petitions. 3.4 Additional affidavit is filed by the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 13145 of 2014 contending inter alia that the respondents are wrongfully treating them to have been appointed on ad hoc or temporary basis, though the petitioners have been appointed after they have undergone regular process of selection made pursuant to an advertisement and open competition, written test and oral interviews, and therefore, their appointment cannot be termed either as ad hoc or temporary and they cannot be terminated or dispensed with or replaced by a new set of employees on contractual basis; as may be selected pursuant to advertisement dated 28th August 2014. 3.5 Moreover, according to the petitioners, advertisement dated 28th August 2014 contains exactly similar process of recruitment by way of contractual appointments, as was undergone by the present petitioners, and therefore, the new selectees and appointees engaged pursuant to such advertisement are also going to be appointed on ad hoc and temporary basis. 3.6 Seeking reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, reported in 1992 (4) SCC 118 , it is emphasized that ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee, but he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. 3.6 Seeking reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, reported in 1992 (4) SCC 118 , it is emphasized that ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee, but he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. It is urged that though the said decision is overruled by the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 , however, the principle of law enunciated that an ad hoc employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc employee has not been over-ruled, and therefore, the said principle of law still holds good, as also held in Pradeep Navinbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2014 (2) GLH 501 . 3.7 It is further the say of the petitioners that similar natured petitions preferred by the employees under National Rural Livelihood Mission programme of Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, being implemented through the State Government and Gujarat Livelihood Promotion Company Limited, a Government Company under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, under the Scheme of "Mission Mangalam". Likewise, ad hoc Readers and Lecturers of the Government Ayurved Colleges also have preferred the petitions wherein they all have been protected by way of interim relief. Likewise, ad hoc Readers and Lecturers of the Government Ayurved Colleges also have preferred the petitions wherein they all have been protected by way of interim relief. 3.8 The substantial prayers sought for in Special Civil Application No. 13145 of 2014 deserve reproduction, which read as under: "27(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the advertisement dated 28.08.2014 issued by the respondents; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the resolutions dated 23.12.2013, 18.02.2014 and 28.08.2014 issued by the respondents in so far as and to the extent that it limits the employment of the present petitioners upto 31.03.2015 or until the new appointments are made, whichever is earlier; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction holding that the petitioners are entitled to continue in their employment until the scheme under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 is operative; (D) Your Lordships be pleased to hold and declare and direct that the present petitioners have already undergone the due process of selection and appointment and therefore they are not required to again undergo the fresh process of selection and appointment pursuant to the Advertisement dated 28.08.2014 issued by the respondents; (E) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay further operation of the impugned Advertisement dated 28.08.2014 issued by the respondents; (F) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to restrain the respondents, their agents and servants from discontinuing/discharging/disengaging/terminating the services of the petitioners; (G) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to restrain the respondents, their agents and servants from displacing/replacing the petitioners by new set of employees on contract basis; (H) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to restrain the respondents, their agents and servants from altering service conditions of the petitioners adverse to them in any manner;" RESPONDENTS' VERSION: 4. Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 by Deputy Commissioner, Rural Development Department containing inter alia that the petitioners have no legal right much less fundamental rights to continue in service as they were appointed on contractual basis only for implementation of MGNREG Scheme which is not of a perennial nature. The petitioners having accepted fixed term employment cannot now turn around and challenge the same nor can they seek exemption from appearance in the examination which is part of the recruitment process, pursuant to advertisement dated 28th August 2014. The said Scheme is demand based and nobody can claim as a matter of right further extension of three years on the respective posts. 4.1 It is not being disputed that the petitioners were appointed on fixed term contractual basis for a period of three years, however, they had sought directions to extend the said contractual appointment for a further period of three years on respective posts without there being any legal right much less fundamental right in their favour. According to the respondent, the Legislature has enacted an Act inter alia providing for 100 days of guaranteed wage-employment in a financial year to every rural household, whose adult member volunteers to do unskilled manual work. This being a demand driven programme, where provision of work is triggered by the demand for work by the wage-seekers. It is further the say of the respondent that as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, it is obligatory on the State to make available to the District Programme Coordinator and Programme Officers, necessary staff and technical support; as may be necessary for effective implementation of the Scheme. However, it is the discretion of the State to make necessary arrangement of staff and technical support, as it may think necessary. Thus, the object behind proviso is to see that the staff and technical support is provided as and when and wherever it is required. The Operational Guidelines, 2013 have been formulated by the Ministry of Rural Development, as per Chapter XII of the Act. 4.2 It is further contended that the State in its Panchayats, Rural Housing & Rural Development Department had issued a Resolution dated 15th September 2010 sanctioning the Establishment for proper implementation of the Scheme. The Operational Guidelines, 2013 have been formulated by the Ministry of Rural Development, as per Chapter XII of the Act. 4.2 It is further contended that the State in its Panchayats, Rural Housing & Rural Development Department had issued a Resolution dated 15th September 2010 sanctioning the Establishment for proper implementation of the Scheme. The said Resolution provides for a State level; District level, Taluka level and Village level establishments, whereunder, eleven posts have been sanctioned for the State level, which are manned by the Government employees posted on deputation; and employees for nine (9) cadres at the State level are being employed on contractual basis. The said pattern is followed at District level and Taluka level as well. It is further added that the seven cadres, each at District level and Taluka level plus one cadre at Village level and nine cadres at State level have been sanctioned by the Government Resolution dated 15th September 2010 and for the said respective cadres, the total posts created for these cadres at District, Taluka and Village levels are 15592. 4.3 It is their case that vide Resolution dated 15th September 2010, the petitioners were appointed for a fixed period of three years upto 28th February 2014 and on expiry of the said period, extension was granted upto 31st March 2015 or till the contractual appointments that may be made as per the new terms and conditions, as stipulated in the Government Resolution dated 23rd December 2013; whichever is earlier. However, in the interregnum i.e., in the year 2012, the Central Government effected certain changes by providing Chapter XI i.e., Management Information System, inter alia, giving a go-bye to the Manual Muster Rolls being prepared by the staff manually. Therefore, owing to introduction of Computer and Information System, the old requirement and qualification for the aforesaid 24 cadres have been replaced by a Modified Qualification in tune with the said system. A comparative chart is also brought on the record at Annexure-III showing the old qualification vis-a-vis the new qualification. 4.4 Thus, it is emphasized by the respondent that the present petitions are against the settled canon of law and the petitioners cannot; as a matter of right, dictate the State Government to prescribe qualifications to suit their convenience and make themselves eligible. 4.4 Thus, it is emphasized by the respondent that the present petitions are against the settled canon of law and the petitioners cannot; as a matter of right, dictate the State Government to prescribe qualifications to suit their convenience and make themselves eligible. It is further averred that there are about 60,000 candidates who would be competing in the examination for contractual appointment wherein Gujarat Technological University and Institute of Rural Management, Anand have been assigned the task of conducting the examination with a view to see that transparency is maintained and thereby experienced candidates who possess higher skill and qualification are engaged. Respondent has further contended in the reply affidavit that special provisions have been made in the interest of the persons who are already working on contractual basis by providing 15% marks to them as weightage plus the question paper contains questions with respect to MGNREG Scheme to the extent of 10 to 20 marks. This would facilitate the petitioners and those others who are already working on contractual basis to excel better in the forthcoming examination. It is further contended by the respondent that the petitioners be directed to appear in the said examination which is scheduled on 30th November 2014 and let the process may not be stayed, as to the extent approximately 3500 posts will be adversely affected which would deprive the beneficiaries i.e., unskilled poor household families of rural areas from getting employment, as prescribed under the Scheme. It is emphasized that merely because in the past, the petitioners have cleared certain examination, they cannot claim exemption, and that would not exempt them from appearance again as there is variation in qualification and even the introduction of new Information Technology System also necessitate such changes, they will need to appear and clear the examination. According to the respondent no right is vested in the petitioners either to claim exemption nor does their services with the respondent entitle them to pray for any relief. According to the respondent no right is vested in the petitioners either to claim exemption nor does their services with the respondent entitle them to pray for any relief. 4.5 Further affidavit-in-reply is also filed for and on behalf of respondent No. 3 by the Deputy Commissioner, Rural Development Department stating inter alia that the authorities have never held out any promise, while engaging the petitioners on contractual basis to continue them for ever, and therefore, they cannot seek issuance of writ of mandamus to continue them in employment until the Scheme is in operation; more particularly when no Statute imposes such a legal duty on the authorities concerned to so do it. It is contended, by highlighting various features of the Scheme, that it is necessary for the State authorities to put an end to the contractual appointments and to go ahead with the recruitment drive. 4.6 The main thrust is on revised operational guidelines issued by the Government of India in the year 2013 in which number of changes for effective implementation of the Scheme have been made. According to the respondent, the entire Scheme is IT driven and web-based. Therefore, the issue of e-muster, transfer of money into beneficiaries' account through Electronic Fund Management System, use of Information Technology for planning and execution of works, etc. have been made mandatory. Moreover, large number of directives and advisories are given since 2011 to make the implementation of the Scheme more effective and to create productive and sustainable assets. Further, after issuance of Operational Guidelines-2013, a large number of directives and advisories have been issued by the Central Government for ensuring better quality in planning and execution of works. The intermediate directives issued lay more emphasis to measure the outputs and outcomes of each and every MGNREGA works. In order to cope up with the changed scenario, ten new cadres have been created at the State level and at the District as well as Taluka levels, two new cadres have been created. In majority of cadres, qualifications have been revised and the fixed pay also has been substantially increased. At Village level, staff restructuring has been done and in the cadre of Gram Rojgar Sevak. Out of 13715 appointed earlier, only 1829 have remained on job, which means that nearly 11886 have left the job on the ground that remuneration was inadequate. In majority of cadres, qualifications have been revised and the fixed pay also has been substantially increased. At Village level, staff restructuring has been done and in the cadre of Gram Rojgar Sevak. Out of 13715 appointed earlier, only 1829 have remained on job, which means that nearly 11886 have left the job on the ground that remuneration was inadequate. Considering the fact that sufficient remuneration should be offered and also considering the fact that higher qualification is required ie., minimum Graduation instead of Standard XII pass and the fact that villages have been grouped together making it a cluster level position, the salary of Gram Rojgar Sevaks has been doubled from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month. Thus, 13715 posts of Gram Rojgar Sevak which existed earlier have been restructured now as 2743 Cluster Coordinators. It is also pointed out that out of 2992 contractual employees, ninety five per cent have already applied for written examination. It is further pointed out that these applicants would have definitely an advantage over others, as due weightage to the services rendered by them ranging from 10 to 20 marks is to be given to them in the written examination. 5. Whereas it is the case of the petitioners that barring few of them, majority of the petitioners are not ready to accept new appointment under the Scheme. The new orders are under new contract and appointment is only for a period of 11 months. Such appointment is upto 28th February 2017 or 11 months' period; whichever is earlier. The petitioners have already put in seven years and there is a provision for enhancement of salary every 11 months. The petitioners if join on the Selection of 2014, they would start from scratch and the same would be treated as new recruitment. ORAL SUBMISSIONS BY PETITIONERS: 6. A fortiori, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing with Ms.Vidhi Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, has urged that the objections raised by the respondent authorities are four fold viz., (a) the scheme is not perennial in nature; (b) it is market driven; (c) absorption is impermissible and (d) interpretation of Section 18 of the Act means discretion to the State. Shalin Mehta appearing with Ms.Vidhi Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, has urged that the objections raised by the respondent authorities are four fold viz., (a) the scheme is not perennial in nature; (b) it is market driven; (c) absorption is impermissible and (d) interpretation of Section 18 of the Act means discretion to the State. 6.1 According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Act is in operation from the year 2005 and it has been brought with an avowed object of providing direct supplementary wage employment to the rural poor through public works. Many programmes were initiated and this Scheme was enacted to provide wages for atleast one hundred days in every financial year to every rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. According to him, it is quite unlikely that the Act/Scheme is going to achieve its object in a near future and as long as under employed and surplus forces remain in the rural sector, they shall need to be provided supplementary wage employment through public works. He, therefore, urged that the Central Government has to bear 6% of the administrative expenses and 94% of the expenses are to be borne by the State. He emphasized that ad hoc persons cannot be permitted to be replaced by ad hoc employees. The payment made is virtually so meager that no body can survive in the present days. Person has a fundamental right to livelihood and there are three directive principles which would make it obligatory for the State to continue these persons. The process of termination is inconsistent with the Supreme Court directives rendered in case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Anr. v. Director General of Police, Assam & Ors., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611 . He has lamented that the artificial breaks have been given and the persons had continued for all these years. The process of selection and recruitment when these persons were recruited was in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Gujarat Technological University conducted the said task of selection which is based on merit and the order of appointments had been given and the order recites the terms and conditions of appointment. He has urged that the computer skill and information technology knowledge was from the beginning a requirement for the said post. The Gujarat Technological University conducted the said task of selection which is based on merit and the order of appointments had been given and the order recites the terms and conditions of appointment. He has urged that the computer skill and information technology knowledge was from the beginning a requirement for the said post. At no stage, the respondents have asked the petitioners to upgrade their other skills nor asked to improvise the technical skill. The petitioners, therefore, may not be expected to undergo rigour of passing the examination after so many years. Those who have qualified only on the basis of revised qualification need not undergo the test again as that sounds very strange and lacks rationale. Moreover, MGNREKA is an Act of Parliament and the same cannot be compared with any Scheme. He further urged that the law never is subject to market driven forces. Its requirement is perennial and Section 18 of the said Act is source of power as far as the present petitioners are concerned which does not allow the policy of hire and fire. All the Statutes are to be read in consonance with Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioners are not aversed to acquiring additional qualifications, but the method adopted by the respondents is objectionable. 7. Learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara has vehemently pointed out from the appointment made of some of the petitioners of 2007-2008 that their orders are as old as of the year 2006 and the orders recite the terms and conditions of their appointment. He has urged that the Government Resolution came to be issued on 15th September 2010 and on duly sanctioned posts, appointments of the petitioners came to be made. Their pay is meagre, tenure is less and that is the major impediment in implementation of the scheme where most of the persons are at Taluka or Village level. He added that after regular selection process on the basis of merit, their appointment has been made. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Sudhir Nanavati appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 12727 has urged that 59 persons have cleared the examination. Ten candidates did not clear and 17 were not called for. He has urged that regularly selected candidates are not to be replaced by another set of employees. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Sudhir Nanavati appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 12727 has urged that 59 persons have cleared the examination. Ten candidates did not clear and 17 were not called for. He has urged that regularly selected candidates are not to be replaced by another set of employees. He has sought to rely upon decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 13200 of 2013, particularly emphasizing on paragraph 25, 26 & 31 of the said decision. Action of the Government, according to the learned Counsel being arbitrary, requires interference. What the petitioners are urging is further extension of three years. The Talati-cum-Mantri and Junior Clerks in the Government's latest recruitment of 2013 has had qualification of XII standard pass, then, why is there insistence for graduate employees here. He, however, urged that Section 18 of MGNREGA requires continuity of these petitioners and many of them have already cleared the examination. 9. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 13083/2014 has urged that out of 287 petitioners, 220 have passed the examination. Employment being perennial in nature when the Statute so says it, it is not open to the Government or for that matter the State to say that the market driven forces should govern their action. Till the country becomes self sufficient, according to the learned Advocate, such nature of employment would need to be supported by such persons. 10. Mr. Ramnandan Singh appearing for the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 18183 & 18151 urged that these are Technical Assistants; Gram Sevaks and MS Coordinators. They all possess requisite qualification. Only these technical assistants do not have qualification as per the new norms. They continue to discharge their duty diligently. Reliance is placed on the decision of Delhi High Court rendered in case of Narinder Singh Ahuja and others v. Secretary, The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, rendered on November 03, 2014, while dealing with WP(C) No. 1741 of 2014. According to him, there are vacancies on other posts. When the Union contributes in a major way, the State cannot have a discriminatory policy. Moreover, those who approached the Court have been continued in service and for rest of them, their services have been discontinued and such discriminatory attitude is also impermissible. 11. According to him, there are vacancies on other posts. When the Union contributes in a major way, the State cannot have a discriminatory policy. Moreover, those who approached the Court have been continued in service and for rest of them, their services have been discontinued and such discriminatory attitude is also impermissible. 11. Learned counsel Shri Nirav Thakkar appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 13440 of 2014 has urged that initial appointment of the petitioners was for a period of six months as per Circular dated 15th September 2009 and they have been continued till this date, and therefore, the present petitioners should continue till regularly selected candidates are appointed. ORAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT: 12. Learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi appearing with the learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Sangeeta Vishen for the respondent-State has urged vehemently that this Act i.e., Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 was enacted with an objective to enhance the livelihood security of poor households in the rural areas of the country by providing at least 100 days of employment in a financial year, in every rural household, whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work, at guaranteed minimum wages. The Operational Guidelines of 2013 issued by the Ministry of Rural Development of the Central Government, if are read with Section 22 of the Act, if the cost of the project is Rs. 100/-, the wage expenditure for villagers would atleast be Rs. 60/- and the material expenditure would be at the cost of Rs. 40= with a maximum of Rs. 6/- being 6% of the cost towards wage and material expenses, can be utilized towards administrative expenses. Two-third of the material expenditure is required to be borne by the Central Government and one-forth by the State Government. Unlike other Government Schemes, MGNREGA is based on demand, and hence, staff and technical manpower recruited requires to be changed according to the requirement of the works, as specified in Schedule-I to the Act. 13. The number of employees deployed for implementation of MGNREG scheme will depend on the number of on-going works as well as administrative cost towards the same. Therefore, any person recruited for implementation of MGNREG Scheme cannot be continued unless there is a demand for work. 13. The number of employees deployed for implementation of MGNREG scheme will depend on the number of on-going works as well as administrative cost towards the same. Therefore, any person recruited for implementation of MGNREG Scheme cannot be continued unless there is a demand for work. He further urged that in Union Territory of Daman & Diu, in view of availability of higher remuneration to an extent of Rs. 400/- per day for doing unskilled manual work, there has been no demand for works, since the large area is covered by the process of industrialization and shipping activities and the present guaranteed minimum rate of wage being Rs. 178/- per day. Moreover, for effective implementation of the Scheme, the qualification of people who are recruited may be changed and when there is a change in the category of works specified in Schedule I to the Act, the supporting staff also would require different qualifications. Moreover, the administrative cost must not exceed 6% of the total cost on recurring basis. He urged that right from 2012-2013, the burden is borne by the State where administrative cost goes beyond 6%. According to him, more the coverage of MGNREG Scheme, higher would be the amount of administrative cost available at the disposal of the State Governments. The State of Gujarat unfortunately is ranked at serial No. 19 in the country. He further urged that appointment of staff/technical manpower in the year 2011 was based on the Operational Guidelines issued by the Government of India in the year 2008. Whereas, the revised Guidelines of 2013 were issued requiring various changes, as the entire Scheme has become I.T driven and web-based. The issue of e-muster, transfer of money into beneficiaries' accounts through electronic fund management system, use of IT for planning and execution of works, etc., have been made mandatory, and therefore, for better planning and execution of the works, better quality of manpower would be necessary. 13.1 It is the say of the learned Advocate General that in order to implement MGNREG Scheme, the State recruited about 12,000 persons in different cadres in the month of April 2011 which was admittedly not on permanent basis, nor on regular establishment with prescribed pay scale, but on temporary and contractual basis for a fixed period and on fixed monthly pay. Since the posts are not permanent, definite and perennial, such appointees would have no right to be regularized or to be treated at par with other similarly situated regular Government employees. In the entire country, all the States have resorted to recruitment of supporting staff only on contractual basis which itself is indicative that the Central Government has not contemplated the said Scheme to be permanent, definite and perennial. In Chapter-IV of the Guidelines, the Central Government has also supported hiring of the staff on contractual basis. However, it has left it to the State Government as to what would be the recruitment policy of the functionaries. 13.2 According to learned Advocate General, none of the posts carries any prescribed pay scale and, therefore, it is not a situation in the present set of cases, where two set of persons are working on the same set of posts- one in ad hoc capacity having fixed monthly pay and another in a regular capacity with pay scale. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Land Development Corporation and another v. Mohd. Khursheed Anwar and another, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 739 , therefore, would have no applicability. He has further urged that all the judgments sought to be relied upon by the learned advocates appearing for the respective petitioners deal with permanent establishments where on permanent posts carrying prescribed pay scale, persons were appointed on ad hoc basis with fixed pay and were sought to be replaced by other set of ad hoc employees, instead of going for regular recruitment for appointing qualified persons on permanent basis, which is not the eventuality here. (Emphasis supplied) 13.3 There are 2186 petitioners who form part of the total strength of 2955 persons presently engaged and working in MGNREG Scheme. However, the sanctioned posts are in all 5796 in number for different cadres to be employed on contractual basis, as per the Government Resolution dated 23rd December 2013. (Emphasis supplied) 13.3 There are 2186 petitioners who form part of the total strength of 2955 persons presently engaged and working in MGNREG Scheme. However, the sanctioned posts are in all 5796 in number for different cadres to be employed on contractual basis, as per the Government Resolution dated 23rd December 2013. Moreover, the contracted employees in the cadre of Gram Rojgar Sevak are also to implement MGNREG Scheme, therefore, special software, which is in English language, having electronic transactions for carrying out various tasks needs to be operated, which include [a] capturing demand and then allocating work to rural household within 15 days of demand; [b] recording their attendance in Electronic Muster Roll; [c] maintaining 60 :40 wage material ratio at Gram Panchayat level; [d] maintaining all MGNREGA related registers and [e] facilitating Gram Sabha meetings and Social Audits. Earlier qualification required was Standard XII pass with knowledge of Computer, which has now been changed to Graduation with knowledge of Computer, bearing in mind the fact that there are important duties to be performed. 13.4 Out of total petitioners, about 1229 petitioners are Gram Rojgar Sevaks; out of which 572 have been found eligible as a result of recent examination, whereas the remainder 657 persons have not been found on the merit list. They cannot claim any pay scale or so-called minimum wages or parity with comparable class of employees regularly employed in the State Government. Moreover, there are no pleadings in support of their claim as regards statutory fixed minimum wages applicable to Gram Rojgar Sevak. All the Gram Rojgar Sevak have been working under the Programme Officer ie., Taluka Development Officer and not under the Talati-cum-Mantri. 13.5 Moreover, in respect of cadre of Technical Assistant at District level the requirement was Diploma in Civil Engineering with monthly fixed pay of Rs. 13,000/- which has now been changed to Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering with monthly fixed pay of Rs. 20,000/-. There are eight petitioners who are working as Technical Assistants at District level under old qualification. However, out of the said Technical Assistants, four Technical Assistants have been found eligible whereas, remaining four either do not possess requisite qualification or have failed in the recent examination. 20,000/-. There are eight petitioners who are working as Technical Assistants at District level under old qualification. However, out of the said Technical Assistants, four Technical Assistants have been found eligible whereas, remaining four either do not possess requisite qualification or have failed in the recent examination. 13.6 It is further his say that Technical Assistants at Taluka level [Civil], old qualification required as on 15th September 2010 came to be changed and the category of Surveyor has been removed, however, all the thirteen petitioners who are still working as Technical Assistants at Taluka level do not possess higher qualification prescribed in the amended Guidelines. 13.7 The cadre of Statistical Assistant, as asserted by the learned AG, at the material point of time was Graduation with principal subject of Statistics/Economics/Mathematics. However, with the introduction of new computer technology, the very task has now to be performed by MIS Coordinators, and hence, it has been contemplated to do away with the said cadre, and therefore, this post has not been advertised. Out of total 16 petitioners, 13 have been selected for other posts with higher monthly pay. It is emphatically urged that the judgments of the Supreme Court are not to be read as Statute, however, precedents flowing from them are to be applied only if the facts of the decided cases and those which are on hand are comparable. 14. Thus, from the rival submissions made on both the sides, some of the issues which have arisen for determination are: "(i) Whether the government resolutions dated December 23, 2013 and August 14, 2014, are arbitrary and discriminatory as they require the petitioners to undergo once again the process of selection and recruitment and whether interference of this court is warranted in the policy matters. (ii) Whether the respondent, in the wake of change in policy in the year 2013, can insist on upgradation of educational qualification and technical skill. (iii) Whether on the establishment, which is not permanent, the petitioners can insist on being continued by seeking renewal of their contract till the continuation of the scheme and not to be replaced by another set of employees." LAW POINTS: 15. The foremost emphasis on the part of the State is not to interfere in the policy decision of the State as the change has been introduced by way of the resolution under challenge. The foremost emphasis on the part of the State is not to interfere in the policy decision of the State as the change has been introduced by way of the resolution under challenge. Judiciary is not expected to step into the shoes of executive authority. Another contention emphasised is of absence of constitutional or legal right to continue on contractual employment and also, the issue of the absence of right of absorption and equal pay. On all these aspects, the discussion shall take place simultaneously. 16. Considering the law on the subject, firstly, in case of P.U Joshi & Ors. v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 632, the issue of parity in pay-scale of various cadres of establishment in the Indian Audit & Accounts Department relating to the Office of Accountant Generals in the State had arisen. They were bifurcated and restructured with effect from 01st March 1984 into [a] Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements) and (b) Accountant General (Audit). The dispute had arisen since the pay-scales were to be brought at par in both the offices with eligibility criteria. The claim of the appellants was based on denial of equality of opportunities and equal protection. The Apex Court has held therein that the question relating to constitution of posts, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy when is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State; subject of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory Tribunals to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria. Apt it would be, to reproduce the observations made by the Apex Court, which read thus: "10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties. Apt it would be, to reproduce the observations made by the Apex Court, which read thus: "10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its view for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has not right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service." 17. In case of State of Haryana & Anr. v. Tilka Raj & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 123 , the claim was for parity of pay-scale with regular employees by the daily wagers who also claimed their entitlement to regularization in view of long period of service put in by them. They claimed equal pay for equal work. In case of State of Haryana & Anr. v. Tilka Raj & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 123 , the claim was for parity of pay-scale with regular employees by the daily wagers who also claimed their entitlement to regularization in view of long period of service put in by them. They claimed equal pay for equal work. The High Court allowed the petition although they were not granted regular pay scale which their regular counter parts were receiving. They were held entitled to draw minimum of the pay scale with dearness allowances. The Apex Court held that, "..the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organizations or even in the same organization...The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula." It would be profitable to reproduce the relevant observations made by the Apex Court in its decision at paragraphs 7, 11 and 12, which read thus: "7. In State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia ( 1989 (1) SCC 121 ), it was pointed out that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case of similar work. In Harbans Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh ( 1989(4) SCC 459 ) it was held that a mere nomenclature designating a person as a carpenter or a craftsman was not enough to come to a conclusion that he was doing the work as another carpenter in regular service. A comparison cannot be made with counterparts in other establishments with different managements or even in the establishments in different locations though owned by the same management. The quality of work which is produced may be different, even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job requires may differ from job to job. It must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. Same was of the view expressed in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary ( 1995 (5) SCC 210 ). 11. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job requires may differ from job to job. It must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. Same was of the view expressed in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary ( 1995 (5) SCC 210 ). 11. A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds no posts. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. To claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on a par with the other group vis-à-vis an alleged discrimination. No material was placed before the High Court as to the nature of the duties of either categories and it is not possible to hold that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is an abstract one. 12. "Equal pay for equal work" is a concept which requires for its applicability complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula." 18. In case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the question was for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees appointed and continued for a long in public employment de hors the constitutional scheme or public employment. The Apex Court held that the wide powers of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution are not intended to be used for the purpose of perpetuating illegalities, irregularities or improprieties. The role of High Courts as sentinels and as guardians of equal rights protection should not be forgotten. The casual labour or temporary employees do not have any right to regular or permanent public employment. They must be deemed to have accepted the same fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. The role of High Courts as sentinels and as guardians of equal rights protection should not be forgotten. The casual labour or temporary employees do not have any right to regular or permanent public employment. They must be deemed to have accepted the same fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. Necessary it would be, to reproduce observations made by the Bench in this regard, which read thus-- "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in concerned cases, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post. 48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. It is stated that the State has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the concerned department on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. 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 16of 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. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled." 19. In case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 408 , the Apex Court held that, "the term "temporary employee" is a general category which has under its several sub-categories eg., casual employee, daily rated employee, ad hoc employee, etc. A daily rated or casual worker is only a temporary employee and it is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post, or to be continued in service, to get absorption, far less of being regularized and getting the regular pay.... A casual or temporary employment is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. A casual or temporary employment is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The argument that since one has been working for sometime in the post, it would not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment." (Emphasis supplied) In the case before the Apex Court, the appellant was a Public Sector Undertaking which manufactures pharmaceuticals products. The dispute relates to ten of its employees who were appointed as casual workers on daily rated basis for the reason that they were dependents of employees dying in harness. It was on account of prolonged agitation by the trade union and to maintain industrial harmony that their appointments were made; although there was complete absence of any policy of such a kind of offer compassionate employment in the services of the appellant-Company, which was already overstaffed. The financial position of the appellant-company became critical from the year 1986 as it was running on huge losses and hence, fresh recruitment was also banned. In these circumstances, when these persons approached the Labour Court, they were held to be entitled to regularization. This was challenged by the Company before the High Court which quashed the order of regularization, in view of decision in case of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P v. Anil Kumar Mishra, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 122 where it has been held that completion of 240 days or more does not entitle the right of regularization. However, it directed the Company to continue such employees in its service till their superannuation and further directed to pay them wages like regular employees. Under these circumstances, the Company approached the Apex Court and the Court held that the orders of the High Court and Labour Court were wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained, and accordingly, they both were set-aside. Some of the findings and observations made therein are profitably reproduced hereunder: "40. The courts must, therefore, exercise judicial restraint, and not encroach into the executive or legislative domain. Orders for creation of posts, appointment on these posts, regularization, fixing pay scales, continuation in service, promotions, etc. Some of the findings and observations made therein are profitably reproduced hereunder: "40. The courts must, therefore, exercise judicial restraint, and not encroach into the executive or legislative domain. Orders for creation of posts, appointment on these posts, regularization, fixing pay scales, continuation in service, promotions, etc. are all executive or legislative functions, and it is highly improper for Judges to step into this sphere, except in a rare and exceptional case. The relevant case law and philosophy of judicial restraint has been laid down by the Madras High Court in great detail in Rama Muthuramalingam v. Dy. S.P. AIR 2005 Mad 1 , and we fully agree with the views expressed therein. 41. No doubt, in some decisions the Supreme Court has directed regularization of temporary or ad hoc employees but it is well settled that a mere direction of the Supreme Court without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent. It is only where the Supreme Court lays down a principle of law that it will amount to a precedent. Often the Supreme Court issues directions without laying down any principle of law, in which case, it is not a precedent. For instance, the Supreme Court often directs appointment of someone or regularization of a temporary employee or payment of salary, etc. without laying down any principle of law. This is often done on humanitarian considerations, but this will not operate as a precedent binding on the High Court. For instance, if the Supreme Court directs regularization of service of an employee who had put in 3 years' service, this does not mean that all employees who had put in 3 years' service must be regularized. Hence, such a direction is not a precedent. In Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1087 , the Supreme Court observed that only a statement of law in a decision is binding. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, 1999 (6) SCC 172 , this Court observed that everything in a decision is not a precedent. In Delhi Administration v. Manoharlal, AIR 2002 SC 3088 , the Supreme Court observed that a mere direction without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, 1999 (6) SCC 172 , this Court observed that everything in a decision is not a precedent. In Delhi Administration v. Manoharlal, AIR 2002 SC 3088 , the Supreme Court observed that a mere direction without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent. In Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty, 2003 (7) SCC 197 , this Court observed as follows: "....The decision ordinarily is a decision on the case before the Court, while the principle underlying the decision would be binding as a precedent in a case which comes up for decision subsequently. The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. The only thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle, upon which the case was decided.." 42. In Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan, AIR 1994 SC 1808 , this Court held that the directions issued by the court from time to time for regularization of ad hoc appointments are not a ratio of this decision, rather the aforesaid directions were to be treated under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. This Court ultimately held that the High Court was not right in placing reliance on the judgment as a ratio to give the direction to the Public Service Commission to consider the cases of the respondents for regularization. In that decision this Court observed: "11. This Court in Dr. A.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1988 (1) SCR 335 , gave directions under Article 142 to regularize the services of the ad hoc doctors appointed on or before October 1, 1984. It is a direction under Article 142 on the particular facts and circumstances therein. Therefore, the High Court is not right in placing reliance on the judgment as a ratio to give the direction to the PSC to consider the cases of the respondents. Article 142 power is confided only to this Court. The ratio in Dr. P.C.C Rawani v. Union of India 1992 (1) SCC 331 , is also not an authority under Article 141. Therein the orders issued by this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution to regularize the ad hoc appointments had become final. Article 142 power is confided only to this Court. The ratio in Dr. P.C.C Rawani v. Union of India 1992 (1) SCC 331 , is also not an authority under Article 141. Therein the orders issued by this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution to regularize the ad hoc appointments had become final. When contempt petition was filed for non implementation, the Union had come forward with an application expressing its difficulty to give effect to the orders of this Court. In that behalf, while appreciating the difficulties expressed by the Union in implementation, this Court gave further direction to implement the order issued under Article 32of the Constitution. Therefore, it is more in the nature of an execution and not a ratio under Article 141. In Union of India v Gian Prakash Singh, 1993(5) JT (SC) 681 this Court by a Bench of three Judges considered the effect of the order in A.K. Jain's case and held that the doctors appointed on ad hoc basis and taken charge after October 1, 1984 have no automatic right for confirmation and they have to take their chance by appearing before the PSC for recruitment. In H.C. Puttaswamy v Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka, AIR 1991 SC 295 : (1991 Lab 1 C 235), this Court while holding that the appointment to the post of clerk etc. in the subordinate courts in Karnataka State without consultation of the PSC are not valid appointments, exercising the power under the Article 142, directed that their appointments as regular, on humanitarian grounds, since they have put in more than 10 years' service. It is to be noted that the recruitment was only for clerical grade (Class-III post) and it is not a ratio under Article 141. In State of Haryana v Piara Singh, ( 1992 AIR SC 2130), this Court noted that the normal rule is recruitment through the prescribed agency but due to administrative exigencies, an ad hoc or temporary appointment may be made. In such a situation, this Court held that efforts should always be made to replace such ad hoc or temporary employees by regularly selected employees, as early as possible. In such a situation, this Court held that efforts should always be made to replace such ad hoc or temporary employees by regularly selected employees, as early as possible. Therefore, this Court did not appear to have intended to lay down as a general rule that in every category of ad hoc appointment, if the ad hoc appointee continued for long period, the rules of recruitment should be relaxed and the appointment by regularization be made. Thus considered, we have no hesitation to hold that the direction of the Division Bench is clearly illegal and the learned single Judge is right in directing the State Government to notify the vacancies to the PSC and the PSC should advertise and make recruitment of the candidates in accordance with the rules". 47. We are of the opinion that if the court/tribunal directs that a daily rate or ad hoc or casual employee should be continued in service till the date of superannuation, it is impliedly regularizing such an employee, which cannot be done as held by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (supra), and other decisions of this Court. 48. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the orders of the Labour Court as well as the High Court were wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained for the reasons already mentioned above. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court and the Labour Court are set aside and the Reference made to the Labour Court is answered in the negative. There shall be no order as to costs. 49. Before parting with this case, we would like to state that although this Court would be very happy if everybody in the country is given a suitable job, the fact remains that in the present state of our country's economy the number of jobs are limited. Hence, everybody cannot be given a job, despite our earnest desire. 50. It may be mentioned that jobs cannot be created by judicial orders, nor even by legislative or executive decisions. Jobs are created when the economy is rapidly expanding, which means when there is rapid industrialization. Hence, everybody cannot be given a job, despite our earnest desire. 50. It may be mentioned that jobs cannot be created by judicial orders, nor even by legislative or executive decisions. Jobs are created when the economy is rapidly expanding, which means when there is rapid industrialization. At present, the state of affairs in our country is that although the economy has progressed a little in some directions, but the truth is that this has only benefited a handful of persons while the plight of the masses has worsened. Unemployment in our country is increasing, and has become massive and chronic. To give an example, for each post of a Peon which is advertised in some establishments there are over a thousand applicants, many of whom have MA, M.SC., M.Com or MBA degrees. Recently, about 140 posts of Primary School Teachers were advertised in a District in Western Madhya Pradesh, and there were about 13000 applicants i.e. almost 100 applicants for each post. Large scale suicides by farmers in several parts of the country also shows the level of unemployment. These are the social and economic realities of the country which cannot be ignored. 51. One may be very large hearted but then economic realities have also to be seen. Giving appointments means adding extra financial burden to the national exchequer. Money for paying salaries to such appointees does not fall from the sky, and it can only be realized by imposing additional taxes on the public or taking fresh loans, both of which will only lead to additional burden on the people. 52. No doubt, Article 41 provides for the right to work, but this has been deliberately kept by the founding fathers of our Constitution in the Directive Principles and hence made unenforceable in view of Article 37, because the founding fathers in their wisdom realized that while it was their wish that everyone should be given employment, but the ground realities of our country cannot be overlooked. In our opinion, Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be stretched so far as to mean that everyone must be given a job. The number of available jobs are limited, and hence Courts must take a realistic view of the matter and must exercise self-restraint. 53. In our opinion, Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be stretched so far as to mean that everyone must be given a job. The number of available jobs are limited, and hence Courts must take a realistic view of the matter and must exercise self-restraint. 53. In Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1999 SC 923 this Court following its own decision in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi, AIR 1992 SC 789 held that the right to livelihood was found not feasible to be incorporated as a fundamental right in the Constitution and therefore employment was also not guaranteed under the Constitutional scheme. In Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. AIR 1992 SC 713 this Court observed that where there was no work in the project the employees cannot be regularized. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ashwani Kumar, 1996(1) J.T. 214 this Court held that where a project has to be closed down for non-availability of funds a direction to regularize the displaced employees of the project could not be given because such direction would amount to creating posts and continuing them in spite of non-availability of work. The same view was taken in State of U.P. v. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh AIR 1996 SC 708 . It follows from these decisions that there is no legal right in temporary employees (whether called casual, ad hoc, or daily rated workers) to get absorption, or to be continued in service or get regular pay." 20. In case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Anr. v. Director General of Police, Assam & Ors., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611 , the question was with respect to regularization of staff employed for a particular project or scheme which was temporary in nature, though continued from time to time. The question was effect of continuation of the scheme of decades. Such persons, according to the Apex Court, cannot claim regularization nor can they claim continuance or regularization in another project or scheme, as the existence of posts in such a temporary scheme is co-terminous with the scheme itself. The appellants before the Apex Court were two ex-servicemen who were employed under the Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners Additional Scheme, 1987 which was meant for strengthening of Assam Government machinery for detection and deportation of foreigners. The Scheme, of course, was temporary but was continued from time to time. The appellants before the Apex Court were two ex-servicemen who were employed under the Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners Additional Scheme, 1987 which was meant for strengthening of Assam Government machinery for detection and deportation of foreigners. The Scheme, of course, was temporary but was continued from time to time. The appellants raised certain grievances against the Scheme. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed their writ petition, however, the Division Bench set-aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The question that was raised before the appellate Court was whether appellants were entitled to regularization. The Apex Court, while denying the claim for regularization, has held that those who were engaged in connection with a particular project or scheme, the ad hoc services of persons employed under the said project or scheme would come to an end on completion of the project or scheme. Apt it would be, to reproduce the relevant observations and findings given in the said decision in paragraphs 1 to 3; 14 to 18 and 22 to 24, which read thus: "1. The Government of India formulated the Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners Scheme (PIF Scheme for short) for Assam, for strengthening the Assam Governmental machinery for detection and deportation of foreigners in the year 1960. The scheme has been extended from time to time and is in force even now. 2. By communication dated 3.6.1987, the Government of India informed the Govt. of Assam about the sanction of the following additional posts by the President under the PIF Scheme: Inspectors-5, Sub-Inspectors-323, Head Constables-306 and Constables-646. Under the said PIF Additional Scheme, the Government of India agreed to reimburse the cost of pay and allowances of persons employed in the additional posts provided all the additional posts were filled by only ex-servicemen. It also agreed to reimburse all other expenditure incurred by the State for the said Additional Scheme. 3. The PIF Additional Scheme provided that the sanction will be valid for the period of two years from the date of its issue (3.6.1987), to be reviewed thereafter along with the main PIF Scheme. A selection board was constituted for selection of ex-servicemen to the various posts which were sanctioned under the Additional Scheme dated 3.6.1987. xx xx xx 14. The PIF Additional Scheme provided that the sanction will be valid for the period of two years from the date of its issue (3.6.1987), to be reviewed thereafter along with the main PIF Scheme. A selection board was constituted for selection of ex-servicemen to the various posts which were sanctioned under the Additional Scheme dated 3.6.1987. xx xx xx 14. The fact that the Scheme had been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularization. Even if any posts are sanctioned with reference to the Scheme, such sanction is of ad hoc or temporary posts co-terminus with the scheme and not of permanent posts. [Emphasis supplied] 15. On completion of the project or discontinuance of the scheme, those who were engaged with reference to or in connection with such Project or Scheme cannot claim any right to continue in service, nor seek regularization in some other project or service. (See Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana - 1987 (4) SCC 634 , Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration - 1992 (4) SCC 99 , Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., v. Employees Union - 1995 (3) SCC 474 , UP Land Development Corporation v. Amar Singh - 2003 (5) SCC 388 , Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad UP v. Anil Kumar Mishra - 2005 (5) SCC 122, Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi - 2006 (4) SCC 31, Indian Council of Medical Research v. K. Rajyalakshmi - 2007 (2) SCC 332 , and Lal Mohammed v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. - 2007 (2) SCC 513 ). In view of this settled position, the appellants will not be entitled to regularization. 16. We may next consider the challenge to the procedure of annual termination and reappointment introduced by the circular dated 17.3.1995. The PIF Scheme and PIF Additional Scheme were introduced by Government of India. The scheme does not contemplate or require such periodical termination and re-appointment. Only ex-servicemen are eligible to be selected under the scheme and that too after undergoing regular selection process under the Scheme. They joined the scheme being under the impression that they will be continued as long as the PIF Additional Scheme was continued. The scheme does not contemplate or require such periodical termination and re-appointment. Only ex-servicemen are eligible to be selected under the scheme and that too after undergoing regular selection process under the Scheme. They joined the scheme being under the impression that they will be continued as long as the PIF Additional Scheme was continued. The artificial annual breaks and reappointments were introduced by the state agency entrusted with the operation of the Scheme. This Court has always frowned upon artificial breaks in service. 17. When the ad-hoc appointment is under a scheme and is in accordance with the selection process prescribed by the scheme, there is no reason why those appointed under the scheme should not be continued as long as the scheme continues. Ad-hoc appointments under schemes are normally co-terminus with the scheme (subject of course to earlier termination either on medical or disciplinary grounds, or for unsatisfactory service or on attainment of normal age of retirement). Irrespective of the length of their ad hoc service or the scheme, they will not be entitled to regularization nor to the security of tenure and service benefits available to the regular employees. In this background, particularly in view of the continuing Scheme, the ex-serviceman employed after undergoing selection process, need not be subjected to the agony, anxiety, humiliation and vicissitudes of annual termination and re-engagement, merely because their appointment is termed as ad hoc appointments. 18. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the process of termination and re-appointment every year should be avoided and the appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, co-terminous with the scheme. The circular dated 17.3.1995 directing artificial breaks by annual terminations followed by fresh appointment, being contrary to the PIF Additional Scheme and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be is quashed. xx xx xx 22. We are conscious of the fact that the issue is a matter of policy having financial and other implications. The circular dated 17.3.1995 directing artificial breaks by annual terminations followed by fresh appointment, being contrary to the PIF Additional Scheme and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be is quashed. xx xx xx 22. We are conscious of the fact that the issue is a matter of policy having financial and other implications. But where an issue involving public interest has not engaged the attention of those concerned with policy, or where the failure to take prompt decision on a pending issue is likely to be detrimental to public interest, courts will be failing in their duty if they do not draw attention of the concerned authorities to the issue involved in appropriate cases. While courts cannot be and should not be makers of policy, they can certainly be catalysts, when there is a need for a policy or a change in policy. 23. Another issue requiring consideration by the respondents is the question of pay. The order of appointment in the case of first appellant shows that he was appointed in a time scale of pay. First appellant and similarly placed will therefore be entitled to increments in terms of the pay scale. Second appellant was appointed on a fixed pay. But even in the case of second appellant and others appointed on fixed pay, it is alleged that the State Government had treated their appointments as being in a time scale of pay and claiming reimbursement from the Central Government on that basis. 24. If the State Government has treated the appointments on fixed salary as appointments on a time scale, and claimed reimbursement from the Government of India on that basis, the State Government should, in all fairness, pass on the benefit of such time-scale of pay to the employees concerned. When persons are engaged under the same Scheme, discriminatory treatment, that is extending benefit of increments to some and denying the said benefit to others, should be avoided." 21. In case of Ajay Ashokrao Ghatole & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2013 (4) Bom. CR 177, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court was considering the case of appointment of Data Entry Operators on contractual basis. Earlier appointees were allowed to continue for one more year but later adding some more posts for every Municipal Corporation, readvertised all posts to continue on temporary contact basis. CR 177, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court was considering the case of appointment of Data Entry Operators on contractual basis. Earlier appointees were allowed to continue for one more year but later adding some more posts for every Municipal Corporation, readvertised all posts to continue on temporary contact basis. The Court held that the procedure for appointments reflect complete transparency of consideration towards qualifications and process indicated in the Government Resolution same were followed. The post though were sought to be temporary were continued for another year. The Court held that it is not proper for the Courts to direct absorption in permanent employment to these engaged without following due process of selection envisaged by constitutional scheme is therefore wholly misplaced because the selection process has taken place. The Court held that the petitioners were well aware of the fact that they were appointed on contractual basis for a limited period of one year. The respondent continued services of the petitioners for another year. The State Government reviewed the position as regard honorarium to be paid to the Data Entry Operators who were working on contract basis and accordingly increased the same from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 9,600/- p.m. The State Government approved the proposal of creating one post of Data Entry Operator at each Municipal Corporation level. However, so far as post of Data Entry Operator occupied by the petitioners were concerned, the decision did not direct re-advertisement. It is only the additional posts created were allowed to be filled in. The Court, following the decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir [supra], allowed the writ petition. 22. In case of State of Jharkhand & Anr. v. Harihar Yadav & Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 114 , the Apex Court, while issuing detailed directions for payment of the dues of the workmen, held that the State and State Corporations had conveniently ostracised concept of model employer and abandoned their responsibility to pay employees despite availing work from them for years. In the case before the Apex Court, the State of Bihar floated a company in the name of Bihar Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited and got it registered under the Companies Act, 1956. In the case before the Apex Court, the State of Bihar floated a company in the name of Bihar Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited and got it registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The object of the Company was to explore, execute, install, develop, promote, improve, establish, finance, manage, administer and maintain water resources for the purpose of ensuring regular irrigation facilities to the cultivators in the hilly areas through the means of bigger diameter wells intake, wells lift irrigation scheme as well as other suitable devices appropriate for such irrigation facilities and to manufacture spare parts, machinery tools, implements, material, substances, goods or things of any description which in the opinion of the Company were likely to promote or advance the development of the irrigation facilities to the cultivators in the aforesaid areas. The Court held that the Courts are bound to respond to the written constitutional framework of which directive principles of State policy constitute an integral part. The State as an employer, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution has a sacrosanct duty to act in terms of sacred objectives of social and economic justice. The Court in its decision at para 19 to 22 has observed thus: "19. As the events have been unfolded, in the State of Bihar many a Government corporation and companies were not paying the salaries to the employees and the whole thing was in utter chaos. An employee of a statutory corporation had attempted immolation as a consequence of which he sustained serious injuries and, eventually, succumbed to the same. At that stage a public spirited person, Kapila Hingorani, preferred a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before this Court asserting, inter alia, that various Government companies/public undertakings situate in the State of Bihar have not paid salaries to their workmen and other employees for a long time resulting in deaths and insurmountable miseries befell on large number of families dependant on such employees. The two-Judge Bench, dealing with the case of Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar {Supra}encapsulated the pivotal controversy thus:-- "If at all and to what extent the Government of the State of Bihar is vicariously liable for payment of arrears of salaries to the employees of the State owned corporations, public sector undertakings or the statutory bodies is the core question involved in this writ petition." 20. Be it noted, a list was provided to this Court on 12.3.2003 and the name of BHALCO featured at Sl. No. 19. The Court addressed the lis at length and took note of the dismal atmosphere in the State, as the deaths had occurred owing to starvation or malnutrition and the fact that employees had not been paid their salaries for a long time and in some cases for a decade or more as admitted. A stand was taken by the State of Bihar that having regard to the fact that most of the undertakings are companies registered or incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, the rights and liabilities of the shareholders would be governed by the provisions of the said Act and the liabilities of the said companies cannot be passed on to the State by taking recourse to the doctrine of "lifting of veil" or otherwise. A further contention was advanced that having regard to the magnitude of the problem it would be just and proper if liabilities directed is met with to the extent of 80% by the Union of India and 10% by the State Government and the remaining from the sale of properties belonging to the respective companies. The public spirited person, Kapila Hingorani, appearing in person, contended that the State cannot escape its liability in the matter of payment of salary to its own employees though ostensibly they are working in companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. 21. The Court referred to number of authorities and came to hold that thegovernment companies/public sector undertakings being "States" would be constitutionally liable to respect life and liberty of all persons in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, they must do so in cases of their own employees. It was further opined that the Government of the State of Bihar for all intent and purport is the shareholder, although in law, its liability towards the debtors of the company may be confined to the shares held by it but having regard to the deep and pervasive control it exercises over the government companies; in the matter of enforcement of human rights and/or rights of the citizen to life and liberty, the State has also an additional duty to see that the rights of employees of such corporations are not infringed. 22. 22. The learned Judges further observed that the right to exercise deep and pervasive control would in its turn make the Government of Bihar liable to see that the life and liberty clause in respect of the employees is fully safeguarded. The Government of the State of Bihar had a constitutional obligation to protect the life and liberty of the employees of the government-owned companies/corporations who are the citizens of India. It had an additional liability having regard to its right of extensive supervision over the affairs of the company. It was further held that the State having regard to its right of supervision and/or deep and pervasive control, could not be permitted to say that it did not know the actual state of affairs of the State Government undertakings and/or it was kept in the dark that the salaries of their employees had not been paid for years leading to starvation death and/or commission of suicide by a large number of employees. It has been ruled therein that concept of accountability arises out of the power conferred on an authority. That apart, the failure on the part of the State in a case of this nature must also be viewed from the angle that the statutory authorities had failed and/or neglected to enforce the social-welfare legislations enacted in this behalf e.g. Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act, etc. Such welfare activities as adumbrated in Part IV of the Constitution of India indisputably would cast a duty upon the State being a welfare State and its statutory authorities to do all things which they are statutorily obligated to perform." (Emphasis supplied) 23. Undoubtedly, the events that had unfolded before the Apex Court was non payment by various Government Corporations and Companies for a long time, resulting into deaths and insurmountable miseries having befell on large number of families dependent on such employees. The dismal atmosphere in the State leading to starvation and malnutrition eventuality led a public spirited person to knock the door of the Court and considering the totality of the circumstances, in the interest of justice, number of directions came to be issued by the Apex Court. 24. In case of Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 361 , the issue was for regularization and confirmation of daily rated workers serving for a long time with artificial breaks in service. 24. In case of Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 361 , the issue was for regularization and confirmation of daily rated workers serving for a long time with artificial breaks in service. According to the Apex Court, whether the persons concerned possessed minimum educational qualification at the relevant stage of appointment, but not at the stage of confirmation, when workers gained long practical experience. The Court observed thus-- "6. The main controversy centres around the question whether some petitioners are possessed of the requisite qualifications to hold the posts so as to entitle them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them. The indisputable facts are that the petitioners were appointed between the period 1983 and 1986 ever since, they have been working and have gained sufficient experience in the actual discharge of duties attached to the posts held by them. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. In our view, three years' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the respondent, in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation. If there is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re-appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of the three years period. Since the petitioners before us satisfy the requirement of three years' service as calculated above, we direct that 40 of the seniormost workmen should be regularized with immediate effect and the remaining 118 petitioners should be regularized in a phased manner, before April 1, 1991 and promoted to the next higher post according to the standing orders. Since the petitioners before us satisfy the requirement of three years' service as calculated above, we direct that 40 of the seniormost workmen should be regularized with immediate effect and the remaining 118 petitioners should be regularized in a phased manner, before April 1, 1991 and promoted to the next higher post according to the standing orders. All the petitioners are entitled to equal pay at par with the persons appointed on regular basis to the similar post or discharge similar duties, and are entitled to the scale of pay and all allowances revised from time to time for the said posts. We further direct that 16 of the petitioners who are ousted from the service pending the writ petition should be reinstated immediately. Suitable promotional avenues should be created and the respondent should consider the eligible candidates for being promoted to such posts. The respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the Registry of this Court within four weeks to meet the remuneration of the Industrial Tribunal." 25. In case of Rajendra s/o. Vittalrao Kamle v. Government of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2012 (4) Mh. LJ 505, the appellants were appointed as Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors under the Director General of Police or Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai under a contract. On expiry of the contractual period from January 2010, the approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench challenging their termination and also challenging some of the conditions in the Government Resolutions under which they were appointed. They also prayed for a direction to the State to regularize their appointments as Law Officers/Instructors. The Tribunal was pleased to struck down condition No. 3 in the GR dated 21st August 2006 and conditions (a), (b) and (c) in the GR dated 15th September 2006, however, did not grant prayer for regularization of their appointment to the posts of Law Officers/Instructors. Two sets of writ petitions came to be preferred - one by the State Government against the decision of striking down the aforesaid clauses and another by the applicants against the decision of the Tribunal of not granting the relief of regularization and continuation of their appointments as Law Officers/Instructors. The High Court, after framing certain points of law, dismissed all the petitions filed by the State as well as the original applicants. It relied on the decision of Mohd. The High Court, after framing certain points of law, dismissed all the petitions filed by the State as well as the original applicants. It relied on the decision of Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Anr. v. Director General of Police, Assam & Ors. [supra] to hold that 471 permanent posts in the cadres of Law Advisors and Law Officers had been created by the Government. The Court also noticed that no competitive examination was held at the time of appointment. Their appointment was made by the ad hoc local committees without following the regular selection process. The applicants were selected/nominated for appointment for appointments for a period of 11 months. The Court observed that though they cannot be replaced by another ad hoc appointees, they cannot acquire the status of permanency, nor can their appointments be made permanent in light of the decision of a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 26. Yet another decision sought to be relied upon is in case of Pradeep Navinbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2014) GLH (2) 501, where action of the State Government was challenged in seeking to terminate the petitioners' services in order to replace them with another set of ad hoc/temporary/contractual employees, whose terms and conditions were identical to those of the petitioners. The Court, after detailed discussion held that till the posts are filled up by regularly selected candidates, those who are continuing after following the due process of recruitment cannot be disturbed, and therefore, it was held that ad hoc employees cannot be terminated till regularly selected candidates by GPSC were available. In the said decision, the Court also held that the very existence of the contractual/temporary/ad-hoc appointments for a long period of time would go to establish that there is a genuine requirement of filling up such posts on regular basis. The frequent or continuous adhocism ought not to be resorted to. It would be profitable to regurgitate relevant observations and findings of the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.) rendered in the case of Pradeep Navinbhai Patel (supra), which read as under: "18. The frequent or continuous adhocism ought not to be resorted to. It would be profitable to regurgitate relevant observations and findings of the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.) rendered in the case of Pradeep Navinbhai Patel (supra), which read as under: "18. The principle of law enunciated in the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), to the effect that ad-hoc or temporary employees should not be replaced by other ad-hoc or temporary employees, has not been touched by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.). It is submitted that this principle of law still prevails. Referring to paragraph-54 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), learned Senior Counsel has contended that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has clarified that those principles run counter to this decision, shall no longer be considered as precedents. The judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), is regarding the legality, or otherwise, of temporary or casual workers or daily wagers against the posts where they have been working for a long period of time. The Supreme Court has considered various modes of appointments terming some appointments as irregular ones and others as illegal ones and has laid down principles of law regarding such appointments. These principles would not be relevant to the case in hand which is regarding ad-hoc employees being replaced by other ad-hoc employees. 19. It is contended that the judgment in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others (Supra.), there is a reference to the case of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), in paragraph-67, with regard to regularization of the services of temporary employees. In that context, paragraph-26 of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), has been reproduced in this judgment, wherein paragraph-50 State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), has been overruled. 20. Similarly, in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (Supra.), there is a reference to the case of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), in the context of regularization. 20. Similarly, in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (Supra.), there is a reference to the case of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), in the context of regularization. The Supreme Court has held in this judgment that the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), does not lay down the correct law regarding invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, to enable the employees to claim permanency or regularization in service, though they had not been selected in terms of the rules for appointment. It is submitted that the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), has been overruled in its entirety is, therefore, not correct. The principle of law that an ad-hoc employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc employee has not been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), what has been overruled is only the principle of law laid down in paragraph-50 of the judgment in State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), and not the judgment as a whole. 21. This Court has heard Mr. D.C. Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D.M. Devnani and Mr. Vishal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the State Government and Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for the Gujarat Public Service Commission, at length and considered the material on record as well as the submissions advanced at the Bar. 22. It is not disputed that the petitioners possess the requisite qualifications for the posts of Assistant Professors/Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics, as required by the GPSC. However, the fact remains that at the relevant period of time when the petitioners came to be appointed, no regularly selected candidates by the GPSC were available to fill up the said posts. Moreover, the GPSC had not received any requisition from the State Government for regular recruitment. The State Government, therefore, resorted to the practice of issuing an advertisement for filling up the said posts on contractual basis for a period of 11 months or till the regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are available. Moreover, the GPSC had not received any requisition from the State Government for regular recruitment. The State Government, therefore, resorted to the practice of issuing an advertisement for filling up the said posts on contractual basis for a period of 11 months or till the regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are available. It may be noted that the Division Bench of this Court, in the judgment dated 07.09.2011, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2986/2010 and connected matters, was dealing with an identical situation. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has directed the State Government to take steps to fill up the remaining 1106 vacant posts and any other vacancies that may have arisen of Assistant Professor/Lecturer in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics. The State Government was directed to forward its requisition to the GPSC on an earlier date. The requisition pursuant to the said judgment of the Division Bench has been sent only on 07.08.2013, after almost two years. 23. As noted above, in the intervening period after the passing of the judgment by the Division Bench, and the requisition sent by the State Government to the GPSC, the State Government issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of Assistant Professors/Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics, on contractual basis for a period of 11 months or till regularly selected candidates are available. It is pursuant to this advertisement in the month of September, 2013, that the petitioners have been appointed. It is an admitted position that as of date, no regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are available to replace the petitioners. The Government has, therefore, decided to replace the petitioners with another set of contractual employees, on the same terms and conditions as the petitioners; meaning thereby that temporary/ad-hoc employees such as the petitioners are sought to be replaced by another set of temporary/ad-hoc employees, instead of by regularly selected candidates. 24. It may be made clear, at this stage, that the appointment of the petitioners, being of a contractual nature, does not confer any right upon them to the posts against which they have been appointed, even though they may be vacant posts. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), the Supreme Court has observed as below: 47. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), the Supreme Court has observed as below: 47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in concerned cases, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post." 25. Keeping this position of law in mind, it may be noticed that in the present case, the petitioners are not seeking regularization or confirmation against the posts they are occupying on a contractual/temporary basis. It has been conceded on behalf of the petitioners that they have no permanent right against these posts. That the petitioners have not claimed any right to continue in service once regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are available. The scope of this petitions, therefore, is narrowed down to the extent that the petitioners have challenged the action of the State Government in seeking to terminate their services in order to replace them with another set of ad-hoc/temporary/contractual employees, whose terms and conditions would be identical to those of the petitioners. The issue for determination before this Court would be whether the action of the State Government in replacing the petitioners who are temporary employees by another set of temporary employees, is sustainable in law, or not. 26. The issue for determination before this Court would be whether the action of the State Government in replacing the petitioners who are temporary employees by another set of temporary employees, is sustainable in law, or not. 26. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), the Supreme Court has referred to the principles of law laid down by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.). The relevant quotations from the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: 25. This Court then concluded in paras 45 to 49: (SCC p.152) "45. The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary employee. 46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. 47. Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. 48. An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes. 49. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. 48. An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes. 49. If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State." 26. With respect, why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts? This Court, in our view, is bound to insist on the State making regular and proper recruitments and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment. The direction to make permanent - the distinction between regularization and making permanent, was not emphasized here -can only encourage the State, the model employer, to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to compete. With respect, the direction made in para 50 (of SCC) of Piara Singh is to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 (of SCC) therein. With great respect, it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision. Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad hoc, temporary or casual employees engaged without following the regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent." (emphasis supplied) 27. It may be noted that in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has not interfered with, or diluted the principles of law, enunciated in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.) to the effect that an ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee, but must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee, so as to avoid arbitrariness on the part of the appointing authority. The Constitution Bench did not agree with the directions made in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), as contained in paragraph-50 of the said judgment, regarding a Scheme for regularization of the services of temporary employees to be prepared by the State Government. The principle of law enunciated in the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), regarding ad-hoc appointees, as reproduced in paragraph-25 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), has not been interfered with by the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.). Hence, the principle of law that an ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee, still holds good. The appointing authority, in this case the State Government, must resort to the procedure of appointing regularly selected candidates. This process, though underway, will take almost a year for completion, if not more. There is no valid reason for the State Government to bring in another batch of temporary employees by terminating the services of the petitioners by resorting to continued ad-hoc appointments. 28. This Court has carefully perused the judgments in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (2) and others (Supra.) and Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.) as well as the judgment in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others (Supra.) and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (Supra.). In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (2) and others (Supra.), a reference was made to a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court regarding the issue whether employees appointed by the State or its instrumentalities on temporary or casual basis, or on daily-wage, have a right to approach the High Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing that they may be made permanent or absorbed in the posts on which they are working. In paragraph-26 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court did not approve of the principles of law laid down in paragraph-50 of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), to the extent that directions issued to the States to prepare a scheme for regularization of the temporary or casual or daily-wage workers. The reference to the Constitution Bench was regarding regularization of such employees and to that extent the principles of law laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), have been overruled by Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), in paragraph-50 regarding touching upon the regularization of temporary/casual workers and daily-wagers have been overruled. However, the principle of law enunciated in the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), that ad-hoc employees should not be replaced by another ad-hoc employees has not been overruled. The judgment of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), as a whole, has not been overruled and the principles of law laid down to the effect that ad-hoc employees should not be replaced by other ad-hoc employees still holds good. 29. In Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others (Supra.), a reference is made to State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), only with regard to regularization of the services of temporary employees and paragraph-26 of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), has been reproduced. 30. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (Supra.), a reference to State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), has been made in the context of regularization only. Moreover, both the judgments in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others (Supra.) and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (Supra.) are of three and two Hon'ble Judges, respectively, whereas the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), has been rendered by five Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court. In paragraph-54 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), the Supreme Court has held as below: "54. In paragraph-54 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), the Supreme Court has held as below: "54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents." 31. The principles settled in the decision of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), are those pertaining to regularization of temporary/casual/daily-wage workers. Having regard to the above, this Court is inclined to agree with the submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the principle of law laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), that ad-hoc employees ought not to be replaced by another set of ad-hoc employees, but only by regularly selected candidates, has not been diluted and still holds good. 32. A similar view has been taken by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 07.09.2011, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2986/2010, and connected matters. When the appeals were being heard, initially, the Division Bench passed an interim order dated 24.03.2011, whereby it was directed that till the posts are filled up by regularly selected candidates, the Assistant Professors/Lecturers be not disturbed. These directions have attained finality in the final judgment dated 07.09.2011. While disposing of all the Letters Patent Appeals, the Division Bench has made it clear that till regular appointments are made, the ad-hoc Lecturers/Assistant Professors, who were the respondents therein would be continued. The State Government was directed to continue the interim arrangement, as ordered by the Division Bench in its order dated 24.03.2011. This judgment has attained finality, as there is no further challenge to it. It has been pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleaders that the State Government has not only accepted the judgment, but has also implemented it. The ad-hoc Assistant Professors/Lecturers, who were before the Division Bench in those cases were continued and are still continuing, till such time as regularly selected candidates are not available. It has been pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleaders that the State Government has not only accepted the judgment, but has also implemented it. The ad-hoc Assistant Professors/Lecturers, who were before the Division Bench in those cases were continued and are still continuing, till such time as regularly selected candidates are not available. Even while reiterating that the petitioners cannot have any claim to the posts after the regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are available, this Court fails to understand why the State Government, which has implemented the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of identically situated Assistant Professors/Lecturers, has once again resorted to the same practice that was disapproved by the Division Bench earlier. The very existence of contractual/temporary/ad-hoc appointments for a long period of time would go to show that there is a genuine requirement for filing up the posts on a regular basis. The Constitutional Scheme of Public appointments, as has been expounded in the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), mandates that appointments to regular posts should be made by following the proper procedure. Frequent or continuous resort to ad-hocism ought not be made in the interest of the State, Institution, or, in the present case, the academic future of the students. Making appointments of Assistant Professors/Lecturers on ad-hoc basis for a term of eleven months and thereafter replacing them with another set of ad-hoc Assistant Professors/Lecturers, again for a short period of eleven months, and to continue this process over and over again until regularly selected candidates are available, would definitely be detrimental to the interest of the students. This is an aspect that deserves consideration. The object of appointment of Assistant Professors/Lecturers is to teach the students of Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics. If a method is resorted to that would undermine the continuity of the studies of the students and, thereby, lower the quality of education that they receive, it would fail to have any rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Besides this, the services of the petitioners are sought to be terminated during mid-term, which would further adversely affect the studies of the students. 33. It appears from the submissions made on behalf of the GPSC that the requisition for filling up regular posts has come from the State Government on 07.08.2013. Besides this, the services of the petitioners are sought to be terminated during mid-term, which would further adversely affect the studies of the students. 33. It appears from the submissions made on behalf of the GPSC that the requisition for filling up regular posts has come from the State Government on 07.08.2013. The procedure for regular recruitment is still underway and, as per the submissions made by Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for the GPSC, it may take another 10 to 12 months to complete the same. It may be true that the petitioners do not have any permanent right to the posts that they are occupying on ad-hoc basis; however, it is difficult to understand what rational purpose would be served in terminating the services of the petitioners and engaging fresh ad-hoc persons for eleven months. Such action would be in contradiction to the principle of law laid down in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (Supra.) as quoted in the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.). Moreover, it would lead to multifarious litigation, as is already the case. 34. As has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners, the challenge in the present petitions is limited only to the extent of the termination of the services of the petitioner to make way for another set of ad-hoc employees. It does not extend to those Assistant Professors/Lecturers, who may have been appointed in the Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics, pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.08.2013, or to any other vacant posts. 35. Accordingly, as a cumulative effect of the above discussion and for reasons stated hereinabove, and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 07.09.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2986/2010 and connected matters, the petitions are partly-allowed to the extent that the services of the petitioners as Assistant Professors/Lecturers on temporary/contractual basis in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics shall not be terminated, till regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are available. 36. It is clarified that this judgment shall not confer any right upon the petitioners to the posts on which they are working, after the regularly selected candidates through the GPSC are available." 27. 36. It is clarified that this judgment shall not confer any right upon the petitioners to the posts on which they are working, after the regularly selected candidates through the GPSC are available." 27. This decision was challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1085 of 2014, wherein the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : K.S. Jhaveri and A.G. Uraizee, JJ.) held vide order dated February 18, 2015, as under: "4. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant No. 2-Commissioner of Technical Education, issued an advertisement on his Website for filling up the vacant posts of Assistant Professors/Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics, on contractual basis, for a fixed period of eleven months or till regularly selected candidates by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC, for short), are available, whichever is earlier. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the respondents herein applied for the said posts. As they possess the requisite qualifications for the said posts, they were appointed as Assistant Professors/Lecturers by issuing appointment orders of various dates. The appointment orders of the respondents herein are identical in all cases and contain the same terms and conditions. As per condition No. 1 of the appointment letters, the period of appointment was for eleven months or till the availability of regularly selected candidates by the GPSC. 4.1 In the present cases, the period of eleven months was to come to an end in the month of February, 2014. Apprehending the termination of their services and before the completion of the period of eleven months, the respondents herein approached this Court by filing the writ petitions. By an order dated 20.01.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 709/2014 and connected matters (and similar orders in other petitions), this Court, following the judgment dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2986/2010 and allied matters, protected the petitioners by way of an ad-interim arrangement to the effect that the service conditions of the respondents would not be altered on the ground that their contract has come to an end. This arrangement was to continue till further orders. The Court also made it clear that this order would not confer any right upon the respondents. This arrangement was to continue till further orders. The Court also made it clear that this order would not confer any right upon the respondents. It may be noted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the State Government issued a fresh advertisement on 20.01.2014, for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors/Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics, again for a period of eleven months, on terms and conditions identical to the cases of the respondents before this Court. 4.2 The grievance of the respondents in the writ petition was that they were appointed for a period of eleven months on contractual/ad-hoc basis, therefore, till such time as regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are not available, their services ought not to be terminated by appointing other Assistant Professors/Lecturers on contractual/ad-hoc basis, on the same terms and conditions. Therefore, the respondents filed petition being Special Civil application No. 682 of 2014 before this court. This Court vide impugned order partly allowed the said petition. Hence, these appeals. 5. Mr. Shukla and Mr. Patel, Learned AGPs for the appellants have jointly submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed error in passing the impugned judgment and order by following the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 2986 of 2010. It is the next contention of learned AGPs for the appellants that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the appellants herein have no powers to extend the time limit of the contract which came to an end on 01.02.2014 as in view of the provisions laid down in the Gujarat Public Service Commission (Exemption From Consultation) Regulations, 1960 only GPSC had power and right to filled upon the posts in question. 5.1. By making such submission, learned AGPs for the appellants urged that this Court may allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Nisarg Shah, learned advocate for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and order of the leaned Single Judge and submitted that the learned Single Judge after appreciating the material available on record has passed the impugned judgment and orders. Therefore, he urged that this Court may dismiss the present appeals and confirm the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Therefore, he urged that this Court may dismiss the present appeals and confirm the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 7. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and have perused the material available on record. We have also perused the impugned judgment and orders of the learned Singe Judge and found that the learned Single Judge has, for cogent reasons, partly allowed the writ petitions. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly followed the decision dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Division Bench passed in Letter Patent Appeal No. 2986 of 2010 and connected matter and has rightly held that the service of the petitioners-respondents herein shall not be terminated till regularly selected candidate by the GPSC are available. In our view, the decision relied upon by the learned Single Judge is squarely covers the issue involved in these matters. Further, in our view, an ad-hoc employees ought not to be replaced by another ad-hoc employee, but only by regularly selected candidates. 8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and orders. Therefore, in our view, it will not be appropriate to disturb the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeals are dismissed. It is made clear that the terms and conditions of the service of the respondents will remain the same and in future the respondents will not be entitled to claim for continuation of their services." What gets deduced from the discussion held hereinabove is that in the case of public employment, a person entering temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual worker, if such engagement is not based on recognised procedure or rules, he cannot advance theory of legitimate expectation. It is made quite emphatic that they cannot also equate themselves with those regularly recruited on permanent basis. Every public employment is to clear the litmus test of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. It is made quite emphatic that they cannot also equate themselves with those regularly recruited on permanent basis. Every public employment is to clear the litmus test of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. At the same time, those appointed on temporary basis or ad hoc basis cannot be replaced by another set of ad hoc employees by giving artificial breaks to those who are appointed after regular selection and any attempt to replace them by another set of employees with artificial breaks is at no stage approved by the Apex Court. At the same time, it clearly provides that those appointed under the Scheme, even if such Scheme continues for a considerable long time have no right to insist for permanency. At the most, they can continue if appointed after regular selection process till the scheme continues and their appointment could be co-terminus with the scheme itself. It is quite apparent from the decision in case of Mohd. Kadir [Supra] where the employees continued on very sensitive post to check infiltration on the border for nearly two decades and yet, the Apex Court has held that they had joined it with open eyes and although their replacement on resorting to artificial breaks is impermissible, their insistence for permanency is not be countenanced. Before applying the law to the facts of the instant cases, some of the vital Government Resolutions will need a reference in its chronology. All the judgments referred to hereinabove insist on not to replace employees by another set of ad hoc employees on permanent establishment. The law is made amply clear by various decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court. Applying the ratio laid down in such decisions; particularly in case of Pradeep Navinbhai Patel (supra), if a set of ad hoc employees employed by following the recruitment process is being replaced by another set of ad hoc employees, this Court surely would need to interfere. OBJECT OF MGNREGA WITH A PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO SECTION 18 OF THIS ACT: 28. Broad objectives and framework of the Act deserves reference here. This Act has come into force on September 05, 2005. Originally, it was National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NAREGA). The Act as it is called MGNREGA was substituted in the year 2009 by the Amendment of 46 of 2009 with effect from October 02, 2009. Broad objectives and framework of the Act deserves reference here. This Act has come into force on September 05, 2005. Originally, it was National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NAREGA). The Act as it is called MGNREGA was substituted in the year 2009 by the Amendment of 46 of 2009 with effect from October 02, 2009. 28.1 This Act is essentially brought to provide for the enhancement of livelihood and security of households in rural areas of the country by providing minimum 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to each household whose adult member volunteers to do unskilled manual work. The statement of object and reasons states that this legislation constitutes a pioneering endeavour to secure wage employment for the poor households in rural areas as a guaranteed entitlement for 100 days. This would provide a legal guarantee for at least 100 days of employment to at least one able-bodied person in every rural, urban poor and lower middle class household, every year at minimum wages. 28.2 It is for the State to prepare a scheme within six months from the date of commencement of legislation, to give effect to the said guarantee. 28.3 For review and monitoring of effective implementation, at a Central and State level, Employment Guarantee Councils are established. Specific responsibilities for implementation are given to District Panchayat, District Programme Coordinator, etc. The Central Government, as also the State Government constituted Employment Guarantee fund. 29. At this juncture, section 18 of the Act would require a specific reference, which reads as under: "18. Responsibilities of State Government in implementing Scheme : The State Government shall make available to the District Programme Coordinator and the Programme Officers necessary staff and technical support as may be necessary for the effective implementation of the Scheme." 29.1 It, thus, provides that the State Government shall make available to the District Programme Coordinator and the Programme Officers necessary staff and technical support as may be necessary for the effective implementation of the Scheme. The State Government thus is mandated requisite supporting staff necessary for effective implementation of the Scheme. Guidelines of the year 2008 and 2013, both clearly provide that such staff shall need to be hired on contractual basis to provide services at the National as well as State level and the recruitment policy for the functionaries is to be framed by the State Government. Guidelines of the year 2008 and 2013, both clearly provide that such staff shall need to be hired on contractual basis to provide services at the National as well as State level and the recruitment policy for the functionaries is to be framed by the State Government. Admittedly, none of the posts on contractual establishment in MGNREG Scheme carries any prescribed pay scale. 29.2 This Act is not meant for availing guaranteed employment to the petitioners who act as support to achieve the object of the Act. The very object of the Act is to provide livelihood to every rural household whose able-bodied person if is ready to do unskilled work. Thus, considering the stark reality at the national level, it can be though noticed that the Scheme made under the MNGREGA itself is not a permanent, definite and/or perennial, it is the Scheme which operates under The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, which the Central Government can choose to repeal from the Statute book on realising that the Act has served its purpose and objectives or economic condition in the individual State may not warrant continuation as stated in case of Union Territory Diu during the course of submissions by the learned Advocate General. It seems quite much unlikely that in a near future, there is going to be an achievement of such a herculean target, though it would be a collective wish and desire for such an idealistic economic state to operate in the country. However, this discussion is in the realm of speculations and need no stretching further. Suffice it to note that the contractual employment of the petitioners being under the Scheme and their having accepted the same knowing fully well this fact and also in absence of any permanent establishment, they at the most can claim their continuation till the operation of the Scheme. 29.3 It would not be correct in view of the discussion made hereinabove and the one to follow hereinafter on the part of the State to say that this Act which is otherwise meant for providing the livelihood security of the households in the rural areas atleast for 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in each financial year is market driven. 30. At the same time, the appointees under the MGNREG Scheme cannot claim benefits at par with similarly situated regular employees. 30. At the same time, the appointees under the MGNREG Scheme cannot claim benefits at par with similarly situated regular employees. As noted above, all the petitioners fall under the category of necessary staff and technical support, as provided under Section 18 of the Act for the effective implementation of the Scheme. Petitioners are, in fact, the extended arms under the MGNREG Scheme, who are required to provide assistance to District Programme Coordinator and Programme Officers in successful implementation of the Scheme to ensure that such benefits truly reach to the beneficiaries of the said Act. The petitioners also are aware that the Act is not meant for providing permanent employment. Article 41 of the Directive Principles though contemplates that the State shall make effective provisions for securing right to work, education and public assistance in case of unemployment, within its economic capacity and development. These principles are not made justiciable. As referred to by the Apex Court in case of Madhyamik Siksha Parishad (supra), some of the decisions of the Apex Court hold that when the project closes down or there is no availability of fund, the employees cannot insist on continuation. 30.1 On a specific query raised by the Court, the State has furnished details that all the State Governments in the country, while operating MGNREG Scheme have resorted to recruitment of supporting staff under section 18 of the said Act on contractual basis and it has been left to the State Governments to decide its own policy for the purpose of engagement of the supporting staff and technical assistance. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE STATE & RESOLUTIONS: 31. On 29th June 2006, the State Government issued a Resolution through its Panchayat, Rural Housing & Rural Development Department sanctioning the establishment in furtherance of the provisions of the NREG Act, 2005. 31.1 By virtue of the said Government Resolution, four cadres were sanctioned viz., (i) Account Assistants; (ii) Secretariat Assistants; (iii) Data Entry Operators and (iv) IT Assistants - six posts each were created for six Districts, totaling 36 posts. 31.2 Thereafter, three cadres viz., (i) IT Assistant-1 Post; (ii) Account Assistant-1 Post; and (iii) Data Entry Operator - 2 Posts each for 48 Talukas [Totalling 192 posts] were sanctioned. Thus, in all, at the District and Taluka levels, as stated above, 228 posts were sanctioned. 31.2 Thereafter, three cadres viz., (i) IT Assistant-1 Post; (ii) Account Assistant-1 Post; and (iii) Data Entry Operator - 2 Posts each for 48 Talukas [Totalling 192 posts] were sanctioned. Thus, in all, at the District and Taluka levels, as stated above, 228 posts were sanctioned. Appointments on these posts were effected by the concerned Districts without following any process of appointment. 31.3 On 22nd June 2007, three more districts viz., Valsad, Navsari and Bharuch came to be included for extending benefit of the Scheme. The State Government, by issuing Resolution restructured the entire set up by cancelling three cadres viz., Secretariat Assistant, Data Entry Operator and IT Assistant by introducing two more cadres viz., MIS Coordinator - 1 Post; Technical Assistant - 1 Post for each district. The post of Account Assistant was kept intact at district level. With the new set up, there were three cadres for 9 Districts, making a total of 27 posts. Whereas, at Taluka level, cadre of IT Assistant and Account Assistant were abolished and cadre of Data Entry Operator was renamed as MIS Coordinator. Further, the cadre of Technical Assistant was newly introduced with Four posts. In all, two cadres for 66 talukas containing six posts were sanctioned, making the total of 396 posts. Whereas, at the Gram Panchayat level, old structure was abolished by substituting the same with the cadre of Gram Rojgar Sevak, for each Gram Panchayat, consisting 4,147 posts. 31.4 On 3rd June 2008, 17 more districts were brought within the purview of the Scheme. The State Government created additional posts for the newly added 17 districts by keeping intact the cadres already sanctioned vide Government Resolution dated 22nd June 2007. Thus, as on 3rd June 2008, for 26 districts, the set up was as indicated in the tabular form given hereinafter. 31.5 For the newly added 17 districts, the cadres of Assistant Taluka Programme Officer and Additional Assistants Engineer [one Post each] were decided to be filled in on contractual basis. The said establishment was sanctioned upto 28th February 2009. 31.6 By Resolution dated December 12, 2008, the cadres of Deputy District Programme Coordinator, Works Manager [Deputy Executive Engineer - Class II] and Accounts Manager were permitted to be filled on contract basis, instead of filling up these posts on deputation. The said establishment was sanctioned upto 28th February 2009. 31.6 By Resolution dated December 12, 2008, the cadres of Deputy District Programme Coordinator, Works Manager [Deputy Executive Engineer - Class II] and Accounts Manager were permitted to be filled on contract basis, instead of filling up these posts on deputation. So far as cadre of Technical Assistant at District level was concerned, their educational qualification and salary had been altered. Likewise, at Taluka level, the educational qualification in respect of cadres of Assistant Programme Officer and Technical Assistant were changed. Again by another Resolution dated 25th March 2009, the aforesaid set up of 15,898 posts at District, Taluka & Village Panchayat levels was extended upto 30th June 2009. By Resolution dated 15th September 2010, owing to certain difficulties experienced by the State in effectively implementing the Scheme, it was decided that certain measures were required to be introduced and thus, a policy decision was taken to increase salary of those working on the sanctioned establishment by 15% on the basis of evaluation of work; circumscribing the same to 6% administrative expenses, and to continue the establishment upto 28th February 2014. Thus, the establishment was once again restructured by enhancement in the salary by giving extension to the contractual period. 31.7 At the District level, in the Cadre of Technical Assistant, additional one post came to be created for each of the 26 districts, making 26 posts at District level. A relaxation was given that in case, if the candidates are not available on deputation, then in that event, the said cadres viz., Deputy District Programme Coordinator, Works Manager, Account Manager were to be filled in on contractual basis. At Taluka level, four more cadres viz., Assistant Works Manager, Technical Assistant [Civil], Statistical Assistant and Accounts Assistants 224 posts each at Taluka level - totaling 896 posts came to be introduced to be filled in on contractual basis. Thus, the Taluka level establishment, the cadre strength was increased to seven from three cadres and at the Village Panchayat level, additional 15 posts of Gram Rojgar Sevak came to be created, making the total of 13,715 posts. :: STATE LEVEL ESTABLISHMENT :: Sr. No. Present Post as per GR dated September 15, 2010 Pay-Scale and Educational Qualification Educational Qualification and Pay-Scale as per GR dated December 23, 2013 1. State Programme Officer MBA/MSW/MRS and three years’ experience/knowledge of computer will be preferred. :: STATE LEVEL ESTABLISHMENT :: Sr. No. Present Post as per GR dated September 15, 2010 Pay-Scale and Educational Qualification Educational Qualification and Pay-Scale as per GR dated December 23, 2013 1. State Programme Officer MBA/MSW/MRS and three years’ experience/knowledge of computer will be preferred. Fixed Pay of Rs.30,000/- per month MBA/MSW/PGPRM from the renowned institution of Rural Management viz. IRMA/IIFM and three years’ experience in Government/Development Authority Public Section Knowledge of computer Fixed Pay of Rs.50,000/- per month 2. Capacity Building Coordinator MSW/MRM/MRS/MBA and experienced/candidate having knowledge of computer will be preferred. Fixed Pay of Rs.15000/- per month…………………….. More than two years’ experience Fixed Pay of Rs.20,000/- per month MSW/MRM/MRS/MBA/PGRM and three years experience in Government Development Authority Public Sector, Knowledge of computer Fixed Pay of Rs.25,000/- per month 3. System Analyst MCA/B.E. (Computer)/B.E.(I.T.)/Msc. (IT) and experienced/candidate having knowledge of computer will be preferred. Fixed Pay of Rs.15,000/- per month MCA/B.E.(Computer)/B.E. (I.T.)/Msc. (IT/ICT) and minimum two years experience in Government/ Development Authority Public Sector, Web Developer will be preferred, Fixed Pay of Rs.20,000/- per month 4. Deputy Chitnish B.B.A./B.B.M./B.Com and one year’s experience (Candidate having obtained First Class and knowledge of computer will be preferred) Fixed Pay of Rs.10,000/- per month …………………………. BA/BCom/BSc/BBA/BBM One year’s experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector, Knowledge of computer is must or MA/MCom/MSc Knowledge of computer is must Fixed Pay of Rs.15,000/- per month 5. Technical Assistant B.E. Civil (First Class will be preferred) Fixed pay of Rs.16,500/- per month B.E. Civil and Two years’ experience in Government Development Authority Public Sector, Fixed Pay of Rs.20,000/- 6. M.I.S. Coordinator Graduate and (CIC/DCA/PGDCA) One year’s Experience (Knowledge of English, Gujarati Type and Computer) Fixed Pay of Rs.7,500/- per month MIS Coordinator (EFMS) (MCA with Bcom (MSc IT/ICT) or PGDCA with BCom (two years’ experience) (2) MIS Coordinator (Narega Soft) MCA (MSC IT/ICT) OR BCA/PGDCA (two years’ experience) (3) MIS Coordinator (GIS) MCA (MSC IT/ICT) OR BCA/PGDCA (two years’ experience) (4) MIS Coordinator (Monitoring) MCA (MSC IT/ICT) OR BCA/PGDCA (two years’ experience) Fixed Pay of Rs.12,500/- per month 7. Executive Assistant Graduate, Knowledge of English or Gujarati Steno and experience of computer Fixed Pay of Rs.6,000/- per month Graduate with knowledge of Gujarati/ English Type is necessary Per month Rs.8,000/- 8. Executive Assistant Graduate, Knowledge of English or Gujarati Steno and experience of computer Fixed Pay of Rs.6,000/- per month Graduate with knowledge of Gujarati/ English Type is necessary Per month Rs.8,000/- 8. Data Entry Operator Graduate, Knowledge of English or Gujarati Type and experience of computer (CCC) Fixed Pay of Rs.5,000/- per month Graduate with ITI (Data Entry Operator), Knowledge of English or Gujarati type is necessary and experience of computer (CCC) Fixed Pay of Rs.7,500/- Per month 9. Technical Expert B.E. Civil/B.Tech, M.E. Civil/M.Tech will be given first preference (two years’ experience) Fixed Pay of Rs.20,000/- per month B.E. Civil/M.E. Civil will be given first preference and Two years’ experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector, Fixed Pay of Rs.25,000/- per month ::DISTRICT LEVEL ESTABLISHMENT :: Sr. No. Present Post as per GR dated September 15, 2010 Pay-Scale and Educational Qualification Educational Qualification and Pay-Scale as per GR dated December 23, 2013 1. Deputy District Programme Coordinator Post-graduate in any discipline from a Government recognised University or M.S.W./and three years experience in Government/Semi Government/Renowned institute/preference will be given to those having knowledge of computer Fixed Pay of Rs.20,000/- per month OR ……………………. First Class MBA/Post Graduate Diploma in Rural Management/Post Graduate Diploma in Rural Development or its equivalent and three years’ experience in Government/Semi Government/renowned institute/preference will be given to those having knowledge of computer Fixed Pay of Rs.25,000/- per month or As per the Rules of the Government of the Retired Employee. MBA/MRS.MSW/MSc Agri/M.Tech Agri and Minimum four years’ experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector/Private Sector Fixed Pay of Rs.30,000/- per month 2. Works Manager B.E. Civil and two years experience Fixed Pay of Rs.20,000/- per month or …………………. Diploma Civil and Two years experience Fixed Pay of Rs.16,500/- Per month or As per the Rules of the Government to the Retired Employee B.E. Civil and minimum four years in Government/Development Authority Public Sector/Private Sector Fixed Pay of Rs.25,000/- per month 3. Account Manager M.Com – 55% (First Class will be given preference) and two years account work experience/knowledge of Tally and computer Fixed Pay of Rs.15,000/- per month Or As per the Rules of the Government to the Retired Employee M.Com and minimum two years experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector/Private Sector and knowledge of Tally of Retired Accounts Officer (Class – 2 and above pay) Fixed Pay of Rs.15,000/- per month 4. Technical Assistant Diploma Civil, One year experienced candidate will be given preference, Fixed Pay of Rs.13,000/- per month B.E. Civil and minimum two years experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector/Private Sector Fixed Pay of Rs.20,000/- per month 5. M.I.S. Coordinator Graduate and (CID/DCA/PGDCA) One year’s experience (English, Gujarati Type and computer knowledge) Fixed Pay of Rs.7,500/- per month MCA/MSc (IT/ICT) BCA or PGDCA and Two Years experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector, Fixed Pay of Rs.12,500/- per month 6. Account Assistnat B.Com-50% and more and two years experience of account work and knowledge of computer Fixed Pay of Rs.10,000/- per month or As per the Rules of the Government to the Retired Employee Knowledge of B.Com. and Tally and minimum two years experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector/Private Sector Fixed Pay of Rs.10,000/- per month 7. Technical Assistant Technical Assistant Diploma Civil, one year’s experience shall be preferred (one per each District) Fixed Pay of Rs.13,000/- Per month B.E. Civil and minimum tow years’ experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector/Private Sector Per month Rs.20,000/- : :: TALUKA LEVEL ESTABLISHMENT :: Sr. No. Present Post as per GR dated September 15, 2010 Pay-Scale and Educational Qualification Educational Qualification and Pay-Scale as per GR dated December 23, 2013 1. Assistant Programmer Graduate from any discipline (preference will be given to First Class) Knowledge of M.S. Office in computer Fixed Pay of Rs.10,000/- per month Or ………………… M.Com/M.Sc./MBA/MRS/MSW/MRM First Class and two years experience, knowledge of M.S. Office in computer Fixed Pay of Rs.12,000/- per month Graduate in any discipline and Minimum two years’ experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector/Private Sector, knowledge of computer is must Fixed Pay of Rs.15,000/- per month 2. Technical Assistant (Civil) Diploma Civil, Preference will be given to the candidate having one year’s experience Fixed Pay of Rs.13,000/- per month Or ………………………….. Surveyor ITI – Preference will be given to an experienced candidate Fixed Pay of Rs.8,000/- per month Diploma Civil and minimum two years experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector/Private Sector, knowledge of computer is must. Fixed Pay of Rs.13,000/- per month 3. MIS Coordinator Graduate and (CIC/DCA/PGDCA) One years experience, (knowledge of English, Gujarati Type and computer) Fixed Pay of Rs.7,500/- per month MCA/MSc (IT/ICT) BCA or PGDCA and minimum one year’s experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector/Private Sector Fixed Pay of Rs.10,000/- per month 4. Fixed Pay of Rs.13,000/- per month 3. MIS Coordinator Graduate and (CIC/DCA/PGDCA) One years experience, (knowledge of English, Gujarati Type and computer) Fixed Pay of Rs.7,500/- per month MCA/MSc (IT/ICT) BCA or PGDCA and minimum one year’s experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector/Private Sector Fixed Pay of Rs.10,000/- per month 4. Assistant Works Manager B.E. Civil – Experienced candidate will be given preference (one per each Taluka) Fixed Pay of Rs.16,500/- per month B.E. Civil and minimum one year’s experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector/Private Sector Fixed Pay of Rs.16,500/- per month 5. Technical Assistant Diploma Civil-experienced candidate will be given preference (one per each Taluka) Fixed Pay of Rs.13,000/- per month Or Surveyor-ITI- Experienced candidate will be given preference (one per each Taluka) Fixed Pay of Rs.8,000/- per month Diploma Civil and Two years’ experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector/Private Sector Fixed Pay of Rs.13,000/- per month 6. Statistical Assistant First Class Graduate with the principal Subjects of Statistics Economics and Mathematics or retired employee with Graduate in Statistics related subject (one each Taluka) Fixed Pay of Rs.10,000/- per month or Master Degree with principal subjects as Statistics/Economics and Mathematics or retired employee with Graduate in Statistics related subject/computer literate Fixed Pay of Rs.12,000/- per month Graduate (Mathematics/Statistics) or Retired Statistical Assistant or the higher posts of Statistical cadre. Fixed Pay of Rs.12,000/- per month 7. Account Assistant B.Com with more than 50% and two years account work experience and computer literate Fixed Pay of Rs.10,000/- per month B.Com(50% and above) Minimum one year’s experience in Government/Development Authority Public Sector/Private Sector Per month Rs.10,000/- :: ::VILLAGE LEVEL ESTABLISHMENT :: Sr. No. Present Post as per GR dated September 15, 2010 Pay-Scale and Educational Qualification Educational Qualification and Pay-Scale as per GR dated December 23, 2013 1. Gram Rojgar Sevak Domicile of village having Std.12 pass and having knowledge of computer and Graduates will be given preference Fixed pay of Rs.4,000/- per month Graduate Knowledge of computer is must Fixed Pay of Rs.7,000/- per month and Rs.1000/- (Travel Allowance) 32. Thus, as a part of the restructuring, a detailed transparent procedure for contractual appointment in the cadres envisaged vide Government Resolution dated 23rd December 2013 came to be introduced. This was done by altering the educational qualification of the respective posts. Thus, as a part of the restructuring, a detailed transparent procedure for contractual appointment in the cadres envisaged vide Government Resolution dated 23rd December 2013 came to be introduced. This was done by altering the educational qualification of the respective posts. Due to creation of new 7 districts making it additional posts were created for those 7 districts and 49 additional posts and 854 additional posts at Taluka level. One post of Technical Assistant is removed and that of State Quality Management-Deputy Engineer has been created. Whereas, at the Village Panchayat level, the total posts of 13,715 are of Gram Rojgar Sevak i.e., Cluster Coordinator is now to look after 5 Gram Panchayats. 32.1 On 18th February 2014, the tenure of establishment since was coming to an end on 28th February, 2014, came to be extended for six months or till completion of recruitment process; whichever is earlier. Further, on 28th August 2014 upto March 31, 2015 or till completion of selection process, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, on 27th March 2015 and 15th July 2015, the tenure of establishment came to be extended from time to time, and ultimately, the same stood extended upto 30th September 2015. 32.2 Thus, vide resolution dated December 12, 2013, the establishment is sanctioned from March 01, 2014 to February 28, 2017, since earlier period was expiring on February 28, 2014. Pursuant to this, a public advertisement for 36 different cadres consisting of 5616 posts was issued with improvised qualification. Terms and conditions in Government Resolution of December 23, 2013, are somewhat different than those incorporated vide Government Resolution dated September 15, 2010. Main emphasis is on the improvisation of qualification and Information Technology. 32.3 Many of the contractual employees participated in the selection process though they had cleared the examination of the year 2011, whereas many from Gram Rojgar Sevak cadre could not participate as earlier in the year 2011, required educational qualification for Gram Rojgar Sevaks was Std. 12th Pass, which has now been changed to graduation from any stream. Although introduction of requirement of higher qualification is an appreciable aspect, many from Gram Rojgar Sevak, with experience and continuity also could not participate due to this handicap. Likewise, educational qualification in case of Technical Assistant was Diploma Civil or ITI (Surveyor), whereas with the restructuring in the year 2014, for District Level B.E. Civil. Although introduction of requirement of higher qualification is an appreciable aspect, many from Gram Rojgar Sevak, with experience and continuity also could not participate due to this handicap. Likewise, educational qualification in case of Technical Assistant was Diploma Civil or ITI (Surveyor), whereas with the restructuring in the year 2014, for District Level B.E. Civil. Of course, at Taluka Level, it required Diploma Civil. That also did not allow them in the field to appear for the examination for District level posts. 32.4 It can be noticed from the record that in the earlier year 2009, when contractual appointment was made, the same was by public advertisement, followed by interview of the candidates. 32.5 In the year 2011, for three cadres, viz. Gram Rojgar Sevaks, Technical Assistants and Statistical Analysts, written examination came to be conducted and by and large, those who presently continued to work, have cleared this examination of the year 2011. ROLE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN CHANGED POLICY: 33. Another facet of this very discussion is that the appointees since are otherwise to act as requisite staff and technical support to the officers in the cadre of District Coordinator and Programme Officer, it is equally important for the State to select persons who are better equipped educationally and technically. With the advent of technology and requirement of transparency in the dealing, the knowledge of information technology is inevitable for all those who are working in any Government or private institution. It is to be noted that in the latest policy of the year 2013 also, it has been re-emphasized that the Scheme is IT driven and web-based, making it mandatory to transfer the funds through electronic management system, to make use of IT for planning and execution of work, to issue e-muster and use of technology for all other purposes, for fulfillment of the objectives enshrined in the very Act. 33.1 It could be noticed that there are 2186 petitioners in this group of petitions, who are presently engaged in implementing the MGNREG scheme and the sanctioned posts as per the Government Resolution dated December 23, 2013 are 5796 in all. 33.1 It could be noticed that there are 2186 petitioners in this group of petitions, who are presently engaged in implementing the MGNREG scheme and the sanctioned posts as per the Government Resolution dated December 23, 2013 are 5796 in all. Gram Rojgar Sevaks are required to implement MGNREG Scheme through special software, which is in English language, having electronic transactions for carrying out various tasks, which include [a] capturing demand and then allocating work to rural household within 15 days of demand; [b] recording their attendance in Electronic Muster Roll; [c] maintaining 60 :40 wage material ratio at Gram Panchayat level; [d] maintaining all MGNREGA related registers and [e] facilitating Gram Sabha meetings and Social Audits. Earlier qualification required on this post has now been changed to Graduation with knowledge of Computer. 33.2 As mentioned hereinabove, in the year 2008, the Government of India has provided Operational Guidelines for appointment of Staff and Technical manpower and on the basis thereof the State proposed the establishment and the Scheme, which was implemented by the State of Gujarat in the year 2008/2009. Cadrewise establishment was sanctioned vide Government Resolution dated September 15, 2010 and selection process was undertaken in the year 2011. Thereafter, the revised guidelines also came to be issued in the year 2013 and the State came out with Government Resolution dated December 23, 2013 and has also prepared the Scheme giving advertisement in the year 2014, which is under challenge. It had been emphasized all along that the entire scheme, after revised guidelines has become IT driven and web-based which includes e-muster, use of Information Technology, etc. 33.3 To acquire better and advanced knowledge of computer in the present days for proficient workings in any service is sine qua non. Use of computer since is an order of the day, knowledge of computer is inevitable, for better quality of work, planning and efficient operationalization and implementation of MGNREG Scheme. All those contractual employees are already working on computers and it is not in dispute that earlier policy also envisioned use of computers to a considerable extent. A large number of persons appear to have been appointed on different cadres on fixed monthly salary for a fixed term for effective working of the Scheme. All those contractual employees are already working on computers and it is not in dispute that earlier policy also envisioned use of computers to a considerable extent. A large number of persons appear to have been appointed on different cadres on fixed monthly salary for a fixed term for effective working of the Scheme. 33.4 In the opinion of this Court, the Information Technology was an integral part of the operational guidelines provided by the Center, even in the earlier years and the same was forming a part of the Scheme made by the State on the guidelines of the Centre. Any additional emphasis in the latest guidelines of the Centre and in turn, of the State on Information Technology, has also not weighed with this Court of their replacement. 34. Yet another angle that cannot be left sight off at this stage is that vigorous training has also been imparted to this set of employees at SPIPA and also at Nirma Institute. Performance of the petitioners is also found satisfactory by the State or and most of the petitioners have also become age barred due to efflux of time. Under the scheme, employment of majority of petitioners continued till September 30, 2015 by periodical extension and they are still working, of course, thereafter by the order of this Court or because it was ensured to the Court by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State. 35. With regard to issue of payment, reliance is placed once again on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir (supra). In the matter before the Apex Court, one of the appellants was appointed on time scale of pay, whereas others were appointed on a fixed pay and the allegation was that the State Government had made their appointment on time scale of pay though on a fixed pay and the State was claiming remuneration from the Central Government on the basis of time scale. 36. In this context, the Apex Court held that the State Government when has treated the appointment on fixed salary as appointments on time scale and claimed reimbursement from Government of India on that basis, the State Government in its all fairness should pass on the benefit of such time scale of pay to the employees concerned. 36. In this context, the Apex Court held that the State Government when has treated the appointment on fixed salary as appointments on time scale and claimed reimbursement from Government of India on that basis, the State Government in its all fairness should pass on the benefit of such time scale of pay to the employees concerned. It further held that the persons if are engaged in the same scheme, discriminatory treatment of extending benefit of increment to some and denying the said benefit to others should be avoided. 36.1 Whereas, in the instant case no such case is emerging from the record. It is not the case that some of the employees have been given appointment on time scale and the rest are on the fixed pay. It is also not their case that the State Government is claiming any reimbursement from the Central Government, treating these appointments in the time scale of pay. Therefore, to insist upon grant of time scale at par with the Government employees, no direction is warranted. 36.2 The Courts cannot be and should not be the makers of the policy. However, while acting as a catalyst, as held by the Apex Court, it can be at the most stated that the State Government in consultation with the Central Government need to be alive of the steep rise in the prices of essential commodities and overall standard of living. Need of periodical revision in the wages on fixed amount of salary cannot be over. The State also needs to bear in mind that revision of the pay in case of regular employees when is made on periodical intervals, in case of those who are on fixed salary, this reality is necessarily to be taken into consideration. Even when the petitioners joined service with open eyes that the same is on contractual basis on fixed salary, the possibility cannot be ruled out that those who are scrupulous and diligent would suffer in silence or quit the job as done by hundreds in this case; and on the other hand, some of them may resort to means other than legal; the issue which begs the attention of the State. 36.3 India is the country with maximum number of youth in the entire world as per the report of the United Nations on November 18, 2014. 36.3 India is the country with maximum number of youth in the entire world as per the report of the United Nations on November 18, 2014. 41% of total population is below the age group of 20 years as per Census of the year 2011. Half of the population is between the age group of 20 years and 59 years. 356 millions are between the age group of 10-24 years and as per the UNESCO, youth literacy in the age group of 15-24 years is 90.2% in the year 2015. The State Government cannot be oblivious of the youth in search of opportunity of respectable means of livelihood. Their aspiration to grow vertically, horizontally, economically and socially in leaps and bounds and their unbound frustration and disappointment in absence of maintaining responsiveness of the system, cannot be ignored either. 37. Thus, it is apparent from this journey of the Act and various Resolutions that the Act which was amended in the year 2000 was re-named as MGNREG Act. The scheme is in operation from the year 2006. The periodical changes, both at the structural level of organisation and in the qualifications and salary have been made as far as some of the posts are concerned. While increasing the salary as well as number of posts, evaluation of performance also has been an integral part of the exercise, however, the State has attempted not to cross the administrative expenses beyond 6% of the total expenditure. The State in the year 2009, after public advertisement made selection, where oral interview was the mode of selection, whereas in the year 2011, written examination was conducted with oral interview and following requisite procedure of public advertisement, following the prevalent rules and policy decisions for recruitment on contractual basis, appointments have been made. 38. Thus, it becomes apparent that majority of the petitioners have been working with the respondent State since the initial implementation of the scheme. Out of the total number of employees, majority of the petitioners have cleared the recruitment process of either the year 2009 or 2011. Majority of these employees have also cleared selection process of the year 2014 as they have applied pursuant to the advertisement in relation to the posts occupied by them on contractual basis so also for the vacant posts. Majority of these employees have also cleared selection process of the year 2014 as they have applied pursuant to the advertisement in relation to the posts occupied by them on contractual basis so also for the vacant posts. Some of the petitioners have cleared the examination, but have not been qualified for this being competitive examination and many of them refused to join though having cleared the written examination and having been qualified, too, as their chief objection is that they are being given fresh appointment, despite their having served the respondent-State for a long time. According to them, that may jeopardize in future their right of being made permanent on the post. It is to be noted that the State permitted all the petitioners who were in service to appear in the written examination. They are also given extra marks for their skill/expertize/experience. Mostd of the employees not only applied but also have cleared the said test. Those who were already before this Court prior to the last date of extension on contractual employment have continued either by virtue of order of this Court or on assurance given by the learned Advocate General. In other words, a very few petitioners who are before this Court are not in the employment, majority of them continue to be on the same establishment. Scenario that emerges can be better shown in the tabular form in the following manner: Sr. No. Particular Details 1. Total number of contractual employees working under MGNREGA (District, Block, Cluster (intermediate level)/Gram Panchayat) 2649 2. Total number of employees who have filed the writ petitions 2233 3. Total number of employees continuing in the employment by virtue of the protection granted by this court. 1718 4. Total number of petitioners who appeared in the examination. 2056 5. Total number of petitioners who cleared the examination. 1675 6. Total number of petitioners who have cleared the examination and are eligible. 1108 39. It can be further sub-divided petitioners' wise for better appreciation from Special Civil Application No. 13145 of 2014 and other such petitions, which also consists of cluster of one paged group of petitions as under: TABLE CONTINUITY VIS-A-VIS PERMANENCY:: 40. The advertisement of August 28, 2014, in question was for 5616 posts. On about 4000 posts, the petitioners and other similarly situated contractual employees are working. The advertisement of August 28, 2014, in question was for 5616 posts. On about 4000 posts, the petitioners and other similarly situated contractual employees are working. It is to be noted that as per the challenged resolution of December 23, 2013 and the consequential advertisement, new establishment is sanctioned upto the year 2017 i.e. for the period from March 01, 2014 to February 28, 2017. Grievance is, therefore, rightly raised by the petitioners that those of them who have joined in the year 2011 and thereafter, have been made to discontinue from service on account of this new advertisement. There is likelihood of those who are now being appointed, to be terminated in the year 2017. This kind of frequent change surely would have a major negative impact on the lives of those who have at present already reached the age where public employment elsewhere is next to impossible. As the scheme has continued for all these years and is further geared up for effective implementation, of course, the better and higher qualification of support team is always desirable, but, that surely cannot be permitted if the action otherwise of the State is found arbitrary and contrary to the settled law of the country. Decision rendered by the Apex Court in Mohd. v. State of Assam [supra] needs to be borne in mind at this stage. The said decision has been subsequently followed by various High Courts and by the Apex Court. As mentioned, while discussing the law on the subject, the staff which was employed for a particular period or scheme which was temporary in nature though continued from time to time, even they were continued due to continuance of the scheme for decades, the Court held that such persons cannot claim regularization and their service come to an end as and when project or scheme is completed. Insistence on regularisation in any project or scheme is also impermissible and the existence of the posts would be co-terminus with the Scheme. The Apex Court also has held that issue, as a matter of policy having financial and other implications i.e., issues involving public interest has not engaged the attention of those concerned with the policy and failure to take prompt decision on a pending issue is likely to be detrimental to the public interest. The Apex Court also has held that issue, as a matter of policy having financial and other implications i.e., issues involving public interest has not engaged the attention of those concerned with the policy and failure to take prompt decision on a pending issue is likely to be detrimental to the public interest. The Court would fail in its duty if they do not draw attention of the authority concerned. It held that the Courts cannot and should not be a maker of policy, however they can certainly be the catalyst when there is a need for policy or change in the policy. 41. This Court is fully conscious of catena of decisions, some of which found place in the discussion on law hereinbefore that the matter of creation/abolition of posts, cadre, prescription of qualification of service, etc., is in the exclusive domain of the State and it is neither for the Courts to direct on eligibility or method of selection nor to substitute its views for that of the State. Amendment, additions, variations in the rules for administrative exigencies should be left to the State to handle. 41.1 Again, contractual employees appointed or continued for a long time in public employment, ordinarily may not be allowed to claim under the theory of legitimate expectation. No theory of the State holding out promise of making permanent while engaging them also can be countenanced. Their claim or prayer of equal pay for equal right, also is not easy to be translated in mathematical formula. These employees even as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), form a class by themselves. This Court, however, at the same time, cannot be oblivious of the fact that their appointment has been made on fixed contractual term in a particular cadre, after following due process of selection in terms of relevant recruitment rules/guidelines. Their periodical extension on review of their performance and continuation of the scheme also are the factors which would cement their claim of continuation. 42. With regard to the prayer of regularization of the petitioners, this Court needs to once again refer to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Their periodical extension on review of their performance and continuation of the scheme also are the factors which would cement their claim of continuation. 42. With regard to the prayer of regularization of the petitioners, this Court needs to once again refer to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another v. Director General of Police, Assam and others, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611 , where the appellants were ex-servicemen and they were employed under the Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners Additional Scheme, 1987. The scheme which was otherwise meant for strengthening of Assam Government machinery for detection and deportation of foreigners. The scheme was temporary but it was continued although for nearly two decades after extending it from time to time. The Apex Court had rejected the claim of regularization by holding that any temporary or ad-hoc engagement or appointment if in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme is there, the services of those persons under such project would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the project or scheme. The Court went on holding that merely because the scheme was in operation for some decades and the employee concerned had continued for one or two decades, also would not entitle them to seek permanency or seek regularization. Even if any posts are sanctioned with reference to the scheme, such sanction is of ad hoc or temporary posts co-terminous with the scheme and not of permanent posts. 43. Thus, after referring to various decisions on the issue, the Apex Court has denied the permanency to those also who were engaged in connection with such project or scheme. Qua the right to continue in service or seeking regularization in some other project or service, this Court is of the opinion that such claim of the petitioners of regularization of their services on account of their continuing in the project for a sufficiently long time, would not curry favour with the Court. 44. This Court held and observed in this judgment of Pradeep Navinbhai Patel (supra) that the continuation of contractual appointment for a long span would establish a genuine requirement of filling up such posts on regular basis. The frequent or continuous adhocism is not desirable in any service. 44. This Court held and observed in this judgment of Pradeep Navinbhai Patel (supra) that the continuation of contractual appointment for a long span would establish a genuine requirement of filling up such posts on regular basis. The frequent or continuous adhocism is not desirable in any service. And, yet creation of permanent establishment if is not possible as these appointments are meant for implementing the scheme, they need to be made co-terminous with the scheme itself. Once the appointment is made on following the rules or guidelines or through regular process of selection, frequent changes and new selection adopting adhocism is surely not a welcome step. In other words, the petitioners if are precluded under the law to claim permanency, the State cannot either be permitted to exploit the situation. As a model employer, while insisting on proficiency and optimum output from the contractual employees, it is not expected to take shelter behind the new policy to remove regularly selected contractual employees who have worked for a considerably long period without any grievance against them. 45. At the same time, in the changed policy guidelines prepared in the year 2013, qualification of the persons manning each cadre is enhanced as is quite apparent from the table given hereinabove. Along with better qualification, experience of prescribed years is also part of the requirement. Of course, those petitioners who were already working in the field have by now received the field experience of many years. 46. There are about 1229 petitioners who are Gram Rojgar Sevaks; out of which 572 have been found eligible as a result of recent examination, whereas the remainder 657 persons are not figuring in the merit list either for their not clearing the examination or for possessing the old qualification. None of the Gram Rojgar Sevak can claim pay-scale or minimum wages at par with the employees regularly employed in the State Government as in the case of Special Civil Application No. 9898 of 2013 and 3024 of 2014. Sufficient reasons have been provided for not allowing them to claim any pay-scale comparable with the regularly working employees. At the same time, to deny employment to 657 persons either on the ground of their having not qualified for the selection despite having cleared the examination or for their possessing old qualification of Std. Sufficient reasons have been provided for not allowing them to claim any pay-scale comparable with the regularly working employees. At the same time, to deny employment to 657 persons either on the ground of their having not qualified for the selection despite having cleared the examination or for their possessing old qualification of Std. XII pass instead of graduation with knowledge of computer, in the opinion of this Court may not be permissible. 47. As could be noticed from the factual matrix, out of total number of employees, many of them have left contractual employment considering extremely meager payment methods and service conditions and yet many of them have continued who are desirous of being regularized under the scheme, more particularly, when the scheme or the project has continued and is likely to continue for a while. It is also not for this Court to make any hazardous guesses as to for what length of period, there would be requirement of continuing such scheme or project. As discussed above, it is quite unlikely that the objective set out in MGNREGA would get fulfilled in a near future. In its all probabilities, these objectives may require the continuity of project or scheme for a very long time. However, the scheme may continue, but those of them who are the extended administrative arms for providing enhancement of livelihood and security of household in the rural areas, may undergo the change with the restructuring of the set up. It is to be ingeminated that what the said Act of 2005 has provided is 100 days' guaranteed wages by employer in every financial year to every household. This guaranteed wage employment is for those millions of families who are the part of household in rural areas. The Act surely does not provide the guarantee of continuance or permanency for those who are the part of implementation team, as with the change of passage not only restructuring of the set up may be necessary, but there are other facets which may be added. As held, in absence of any legal right to uphold the claim of permanency, merely because the goal set out in the MGNREGA appears to be yet far-fetched, also cannot furnish a reason, much less a potent ground for the same. 48. As noted in the foregoing paragraph, from time to time the establishment for implementing the said scheme has been restructured. 48. As noted in the foregoing paragraph, from time to time the establishment for implementing the said scheme has been restructured. The last such restructuring was made in the year 2013 by the State whereby the extension was given for contractual period to those working under this set up. The new measures introduced along with increase in salary to the sanctioned establishment by 15% on the basis of evaluation of work and circumscribing the same to 6% administrative expenses. And, yet the terms and conditions set out in the Government Resolution dated December 23, 2013, do not allow any other benefits, except the limited aspect as mentioned hereinbefore. 49. Those of them who have cleared examination even with change in the policy guidelines and the enhancement in the qualifications, surely need no replacement by another set of ad-hoc employees. Many of them have chosen not to join on the ground of non-grant of permanency. Their insistence on issuance of the writ of mandamus or any other similar writ for securing them permanency on the post on which they have been serving all these years, in the wake of discussion held hereinabove, cannot be acceded to. The limited immunity that could be made available to the petitioners is to allow them to continue and not to be replaced by another set of ad-hoc employees. 50. It is, of course, required to be emphasized that these contractual employees are required to update themselves and are expected to enhance their professional skills with passage of time. With the change of requirement periodically due to administration exigency, a platform needs to be provided by the State Government for these contractual employees to equip themselves with higher qualifications and the skills. In-service training in all departments for widening the base of knowledge and skill is not alien to the government departments. For doing so, the ad-hoc employees need not be replaced by fresh appointees. These employees are needed to gear up and also to deliver, armed with such knowledge and skill. While permitting introduction of competitiveness and mechanism of enhancement of professional skills as also the rigours of disciplinary rules, the State cannot be permitted to employ completely a new set of employees on contractual terms on ad-hoc basis. 51. Variation in qualification of those who would be freshly recruited and those who are continuing, also is not a ground to deny continuation. 51. Variation in qualification of those who would be freshly recruited and those who are continuing, also is not a ground to deny continuation. It happens in every establishment that those who are employed earlier may possess less qualification than the one required due to amendment in rules. That per se cannot throw out the person who performed sincerely, diligently and without any grievance against them. While denying the request of permanency in the wake of discussion made hereinabove, it is being noted that in the examination conducted in the year 2014, the criteria have been fixed for allocating marks for expertise and the skills as well as experience, the petitioners had in the field while evaluating and finalising the results. Except this variation in qualification and excessive emphasis on use of Information Technology while operating in the field are two major grounds put forth by the State for overhauling and as held, discussed and observed hereinbefore, they are neither sufficient nor adequate, much less potently valid to permit replacement or change as provided in the Government Resolution dated December 23, 2013. :: OPERATIVE ORDER :: 52. For the foregoing reasons, the present group of petitions are partly allowed. 52.1 The prayer of the petitioners to regularise their contractual services and make them permanent on the establishment is rejected. Limited immunity that is made available to the petitioners is by allowing them to continue on their contractual employment and not to be replaced by other set of contractual employees on ad-hocism. The petitioners shall be continued in the existing cadre as long as the said Scheme continues, but purely on contractual basis and such employment shall be co-terminus with the scheme, subject to evaluation of their performance, service and disciplinary rules as may be made applicable to them. The respondent-State shall insist on periodical upgradation of knowledge, improvisation of technical skill and overall preparedness on the subject, so also on computerisation. 52.2 The challenge to the Government Resolutions dated December 23, 2013 and August 28, 2014 and the consequential process of recruitment undertaken in the year 2014 pursuant to the public advertisement dated August 28, 2014, succeeds qua the petitioners only. Those petitioner who have qualified in the last examination of the year 2014 shall be continued on contractual employment without insistence on their fresh appointment by the respondent-State. Those petitioner who have qualified in the last examination of the year 2014 shall be continued on contractual employment without insistence on their fresh appointment by the respondent-State. The respondent-authorities shall renew the petitioners' contract of service on the same terms and conditions as continued so far 52.3 Those petitioners who have cleared the examination and not qualified in the process of recruitment of the year 2014, shall not be discontinued, if already on contractual service pursuant to their selection through legally permissible mode in the years 2009 and 2011. 52.4 Those of the petitioners who have approached this Court after their termination on account of non-extension of their contractual employment, but otherwise given appointment after selection under the Rules/on following public advertisement, shall be restored to continue on their original posts. This shall be considered as their contractual employment without any break. 52.5 It is being clarified that those appointments which have been made freshly pursuant to the aforementioned resolutions and process of selection under challenge in the year 2014, in no manner, shall be affected by this judgment. 52.6 It is being clarified that in absence of any policy of the State to grant permanency in any of the cadres at the District, Taluka or Gram Panchayat levels, the issue of the length of service of the petitioners deserves no adjudication. However, if any such policy in future is made by the State, the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise the contention of continuation and shall be entitled to raise the issue of the length of service from the date of their initial appointment. This Court has not concluded the said issue in the present group of petitions and has left the same for the petitioners to contend at an appropriate time in the future, if the occasion so arises. 52.7 As a parting note, it is being observed that this Court would fail in its duty if it does not act as a catalyst in the words of the Apex Court and draws the attention of the State Government that if may need to take a policy decision in respect of creating permanent establishment where contractual appointments have continued for more than a decade and its continuation is still felt by gearing up at all levels. Since it entails large financial implication, a marathon exercise is begging the attention of the State. Since it entails large financial implication, a marathon exercise is begging the attention of the State. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. In view of disposal of the main petitions, the connected Civil Applications do not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly. Disposed of accordingly. :: FURTHER ORDER :: After passing of the aforesaid judgment, Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has made a request to stay the implementation and operation of this judgment. Having heard both the sides, the aforesaid request made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State is acceded to. The implementation and operation of this judgment shall remain stayed for a period of six weeks from today. Shri K.B. Pujara, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, has further urged that those petitioners who have been discontinued from the service and their matters could not be taken up for hearing because the final hearing was going on, should be given the benefit of being restored in service. The request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is not acceded to. Let the entire order remain stayed as stated hereinabove as such a piecemeal stay, at this stage, may prejudice either side. Disposed off