JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant, serving as a Clerk on temporary basis with the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, has prayed for the following reliefs: "(A) Your Lordships may please to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari in nature of direction to the respondent to give the petitioner permanent status on the post of Jr. Clerk and/or in any other post in class-III and/or any other post of similar nature in any of the department of the Respondent - Corporation and extend the benefits of the rule/scheme as extended to other daily rated employees. (B) And further Your Lordship may pleased to direct the respondent that petitioner be given the regular grade of Jr. Clerk and also arrears from the date from which he is entitled for the permanent status as per the said rules/scheme. Pending the petition, Your Lordships may pleased to direct the respondent to pay the pay scale of the Jr. Clerk. (C) Pass such other and further order or orders as may be thought fit in the interest of justice and allow the present petition." 2. The case of the writ-applicant may be summarised as under: "The writ-applicant joined the services of the Smt. Sarojini Naidu Girls High School, run, managed and controlled by the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, in the year 1995. He came to be appointed as a daily rated employee on the post of the Junior Clerk vide order dated 17th October 1995 passed by the Commissioner of the Corporation. At the time of the filing of this writ-application, he was being paid Rs. 86=00 per day. On 11th October 2004, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order: "Leave to amend prayer clause. Mr. Gogiya, learned counsel for the petitioner also seeks leave to place on record a copy of the memo of petition being Special Civil Application No. 5165 of 1999 along with order dated 28th February, 2000 of this Court in this petition. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. 2. Rule. Heard the learned Counsel on the question of interim relief. 3. Mr. Gogiya for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been rendering services as Junior Clerk from 17th October, 1995, the petitioner cannot be continued as Rojamdar for an indefinite period. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. 2. Rule. Heard the learned Counsel on the question of interim relief. 3. Mr. Gogiya for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been rendering services as Junior Clerk from 17th October, 1995, the petitioner cannot be continued as Rojamdar for an indefinite period. He further submits that the petitioner has completed 900 days service in last five years and therefore also the petitioner is entitled to benefit of regularisation. 4. Mr. A.K. Clerk, learned counsel for the respondent Rajkot Municipal Corporation, however, submits that the above policy is only applicable in case of labourers and not to others, much less to Clerks. Mr. Clerk for the respondent also submits that since Special Civil Application No. 5165 of 1999 filed by Corporation against the order of Tribunal in the case of Mr. Govani, is pending before this Court, the present petitioner does not have undisputed claim over the post in question. 5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is continuously rendering services as a Clerk from 17th October, 1995 and the fact that petitioner is the only Junior Clerk in Smt. Sarojini Naidu Girls High School run by the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, and also having regard to the fact that even if Mr. Govani succeeds ultimately in respect of the very post, the petitioner cannot be denied the remuneration due to him for rendering services as Junior Clerk for the period during which petitioner actually renders services as a Junior Clerk, by this interim order, the respondent Corporation is directed to pay the petitioner salary at the minimum of the pay scale for the post of Junior Clerk and allowances on that basis, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the final outcome of the present petition and Special Civil Application No. 5165 of 1999. This direction shall be effective from 1st October, 2004 i.e. for the salary payable for the month of October, 2004." 3. By virtue of the order passed by this Court referred to above, the writ-applicant was placed in the minimum of the pay-scale provided so far as the post of a Clerk is concerned. He continues to receive such pay-scale as on date by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. By virtue of the order passed by this Court referred to above, the writ-applicant was placed in the minimum of the pay-scale provided so far as the post of a Clerk is concerned. He continues to receive such pay-scale as on date by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. The writ-applicant is serving past 21 years with the Corporation but with the status of a temporary employee. There is a vacant sanctioned post of a Clerk in the school, but for some reasons or the other, the Corporation is not making any regular appointment on the said post. 4. It appears that in the past one Shri Dinesh Vallabhbhai Govani was appointed as a Clerk on the strength of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Corporation had challenged the order passed by the Tribunal by filing the Special Civil Application No. 5165 of 1999, which came to be disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 23rd April 2010, which reads as under: "1. While issuing Rule, this matter was ordered to be heard with Special Civil Application No. 6772/1997. However, today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that this petition may also be disposed of in terms of the order dated 21.02.2000 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6772/1997, which reads as under; "Heard the learned advocates. Rule expedited. 2. The petition has been preferred by the Association of the Ahmedabad Secondary & Higher Secondary School Managements. The petitioner challenges the Government Resolution dated 21st May, 1994. By the said Resolution, the Government has decided, inter alia, that the Secondary School Teachers appointed on or after 16th April, 1994; if rendered surplus, shall not be given the protection as a 'surplus teacher' and shall be discharged after making payment of compensation in accordance with law. However, in respect of the teachers appointed on or before 15th April, 1994; if rendered surplus, be given the protection of a 'surplus teacher' i.e., such surplus teachers shall be accommodated in the schools where there is a vacancy for such teacher and till then, the Government should continue to pay the salary. However, in respect of the teachers appointed on or before 15th April, 1994; if rendered surplus, be given the protection of a 'surplus teacher' i.e., such surplus teachers shall be accommodated in the schools where there is a vacancy for such teacher and till then, the Government should continue to pay the salary. It is further decided that the Management should accept the 'surplus teacher' allocated to such Management and if they fail to do so, they shall be liable to make good the salary of such teachers till they are allocated to one or the other school. It is contended that the aforesaid Resolution is contrary to the Government Resolution dated 11th January, 1983 which was passed in view of the matters pending before this Court and had the approval of this Court also. The gravamen of the grievance expressed by the petitioner is that the Management is not permitted to select and appoint teachers of their choice in accordance with Section 35of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972. 3. The petition is contested by the respondents i.e., the State Government and the teachers concerned. It is submitted that since the Government has to bear the financial burden of the salaries of such teachers, the Government cannot be asked to do so and pay the idle wages to the surplus teachers. The Secondary Schools receiving the grant from the Government shall accommodate such teachers who are otherwise qualified and were at the relevant time appointed after following the due procedure in consonance with the law. The concerned teachers have contended that they have been rendered surplus on account of no fault of them and they should not be made to sit idle and as and when they are allocated to some School, they have a right to render service and impart education in such School. It is further contended that recently on 20th October, 1999, the Government has entered into another settlement with the School Managements and the teachers and has modified the policy of allocation of 'surplus teachers' to 4. In view of the above facts, I am of the view that the teachers who are rendered surplus and are given the protection of being surplus, have to be accommodated in the other Secondary Schools as early as possible. In view of the above facts, I am of the view that the teachers who are rendered surplus and are given the protection of being surplus, have to be accommodated in the other Secondary Schools as early as possible. To pay idle wages to the concerned teachers is not conducive to the interest of either the teachers or the State Government. It is also equally important that the School Managements have a right to select and appoint teachers of their choice in accordance with the provisions of the law. Considering the balance to be struck between these two issues, it is just and proper that the aforesaid settlement dated 20th October, 1999 shall be operated pending this petition. Interim order accordingly. The concerned authorities shall, within a period of three weeks from today, file an affidavit indicating how many teachers are enjoying the status of being surplus' and how long should it take to accommodate them in other schools, considering the number of posts falling vacant in the ordinary circumstances." 2. Consequently, this petition will also be governed by the decision rendered in the said petition. Hence, this petition stands disposed of in terms of the order passed in S.C.A. No. 6772/1997 dated 21.02.2000. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs." 5. I am told that Shri Dinesh Govani has retired from service. The position as on date is that the writ-applicant is serving as a Clerk past 21 years on temporary basis and he prays that his services be regularised. It is his case that he is also entitled to the scheme of the State Government, which provides that once an employee puts in 900 days of continuous service, then he would be given the benefits of being a permanent employee. 6. In such circumstances referred to above, he prays that appropriate directions be issued to the Corporation to regularise his services. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the writ-applicant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this writ-application. 8. In such circumstances referred to above, he prays that appropriate directions be issued to the Corporation to regularise his services. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the writ-applicant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this writ-application. 8. While emphasising that the normal rule is that regular recruitment should be through prescribed agency but countenanced that the exigencies may call some times for an ad hoc/temporary employees by a regularly selected employee as early as possible and 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. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. 9. However, the Court also noticed equities arising from continued temporary employment for a fairly long spell and said: "If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to rules and his service recorded is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State. The proper course would be that each State prepares a scheme, if one is not a already in vogue, for regularization of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already framed, the same may be made consistent with our observations herein so as to reduce avoidable litigation in this behalf." 10. The proper course would be that each State prepares a scheme, if one is not a already in vogue, for regularization of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already framed, the same may be made consistent with our observations herein so as to reduce avoidable litigation in this behalf." 10. While holding in principle that the employee whose entry in service is illegal being in total disregard of recruitment rules or being not on existing vacancy, has no case for regularisation, distinction was pointed out by the Supreme Court between the cases requiring regularisation and the cases in which regularisation of services cannot be considered in Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 1628 , the Court said: "In this connection it is pertinent to note that question of regularisation in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies Vacancies which are of a long duration appointments are made on ad hoc basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and incumbents have continued to be employed any artificial breaks, and their services are otherwise required by the institution which employees them, a time may come in the service career of such employees who such an employees must be made against an available sanctioned vacancy by following the rules and regularisation may arise would be when the initial entry of the employees against an available vacancy is found to have suffered from some flow in the procedural exercise though the person appointing is competent to effect such initial recruitment and has otherwise followed due procedure for such recruitment. A need may then arise in the light of the exigency of administrative requirement for waiving such irregularity in the initial the irregular initial appointment may be made available to the concerned initial entry must not be found to be of all the established rules and in any case back door entries for filling up such vacancies have got to be strictly avoided. However, there would never arise any occasion for regularising the appointment of an employees whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach of the requisite procedure of recruitment and especially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of the candidate could ever be effected. However, there would never arise any occasion for regularising the appointment of an employees whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach of the requisite procedure of recruitment and especially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of the candidate could ever be effected. tainted from the very beginning and no entrant would ever survive for recruiting this latter class of cases." 11. In the case of Gujarat Agriculture University v. Labhu Bechar, AIR 2001 SC 201 , the Supreme Court again had the occasion to consider the issue about the concept of prolonged temporary casual appointment and the obligation of the State or instrumentality of the State towards such employees for regularisation. The appellant before the Supreme Court was the Gujarat Agricultural University, which is fully aided by the State of Gujarat and is engaged in educational activities in agriculture and allied sciences and humanity and is also prosecuting research in agriculture and other allied sciences. It engaged daily rated workers for its various activities. Those workers were paid as per the minimum wages fixed by the State Govt. from time to time. Such persons were engaged due to the exigencies of work without considering the relevant factors about their educational qualification, age limit and other relevant requirements for the purpose of regular appointment under the recruitment rules. Those daily rated workers employed at the different agricultural research centres at different places with different projects were unskilled, semiskilled, skilled and field labourers of the different categories. Since the University is grant-in-aid institution fully funded by the State Government, it requires prior sanction by the State Government for appointment of its employees. In fact, all the posts sanctioned by the State Government were filled by the University as per the recruitment rules. But in the case of daily wage workers who were plumbers, carpenters, sweepers, pump operators, helpers and masons etc., no posts were sanctioned for them and hence they were working on daily rate basis, thus, their appointment were on irregular basis and not in accordance with the recruitment rules. In the aforesaid scenario, the appellant Gujarat agricultural University had contested the claims of its workmen for regularisation and permanent status. A Single Judge of this Court relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Daily rated casual labour employed under P & T Deptt. In the aforesaid scenario, the appellant Gujarat agricultural University had contested the claims of its workmen for regularisation and permanent status. A Single Judge of this Court relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Daily rated casual labour employed under P & T Deptt. through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 122 , in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labour Bechar (supra), had directed the Gujarat Agricultural University to submit scheme for conferring regularisation and also directed that such a scheme of giving permanent status could not be confined to the workmen before the Court as large number of such workers were involved, disputes about which were pending in various labour Courts, and with the suggestion that it would be fair and just instead of making multiple schemes for such purpose separately in each case to frame a comprehensive scheme for the purpose of considering all pending litigations. Appeal against that order was dismissed by a Division Bench and further appeal before the Supreme Court during the course of which the appellant Gujarat Agricultural University challenged the direction of framing a scheme of regularisation for its workmen in a phased manner. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the right to claim regularisation was questioned by the University. The Court observed: "It is also well settled, if work is taken by the employer continuously from daily wage workers for a long number of years without considering their regularisation for its financial gain as against employees legitimate claim, has been held by this Court repeatedly as an unfair labour practice. 12. Therefore, the Court denouncing the new culture of taking work from the daily wage worker or ad hoc appointee for a long time either for financial gain or for controlling workers more effectively with the sword of democles hanging over their heads, said: "If the work is of such nature, which has to be taken continuously and in any case when this pattern become apparent, when they continue to work for year after year, only option to the employer is to regularise them...... In such situation a legal obligation is cast on an employer if there be vacant post to fill it up with such workers in accordance with rules if any and where necessary by relaxing the qualifications, where long experience could be equitable with such qualifications. In such situation a legal obligation is cast on an employer if there be vacant post to fill it up with such workers in accordance with rules if any and where necessary by relaxing the qualifications, where long experience could be equitable with such qualifications. If no post exists then duty is cast to assess the quantum of such work and create such equivalent post for their absorption." 13. The Court buttressed this conclusion by referring to Daily rated casual labour employed under P & T Deptt. through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India (supra), State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (supra), Surender Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD, (1986) 1 SCC 639 , Mool Raj Upadhavava v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, Dharwad Distt. PWD Literate daily wages employees Association v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396 , Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361 and large number of other cases also. 14. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the Supreme Court has viewed the continuance of employment on temporary, casual and ad hoc basis to be an act of arbitrariness violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution read in light of the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Articles 39, 41 & 42 of the Constitution. The test of reasonableness in State action pervades the constitutional scheme particularly with reference to Articles 14 & 21 which confines its positive manifestation and expression in the lofty ideal of social and economic justice which inspires and animates the Directive Principles and that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action. 15. In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath (2B) [1986 AIR 1571], the Court said: "...... State actions, including actions of the instrumentalities and agencies of the stale, must not only be in conformity with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Part 111 but must also be in accordance with the Directive Principles of State Policy prescribed by Part IV. State actions, including actions of the instrumentalities and agencies of the stale, must not only be in conformity with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Part 111 but must also be in accordance with the Directive Principles of State Policy prescribed by Part IV. Clause (a) of Article 39 provides that the Stale shall, in particular, provides that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards "securing that the citizens, men and women, equally have the right to adequate means of livelihood." Article 41 requires the State, within the limits of its economic capacity and development to "make effective provisions for securing the right to work". An adequate means of livelihood cannot be secured to the citizens by taking away without any reason the means of livelihood. The mode of making "effective provision for securing the right to work" cannot be by giving employment to a person and then without any reason throwing him out of employment. The action of an instrumentality or agency of the State, if it frames a service rule such as Clause (a) of Rule 9 of a rule analogous thereto would, therefore, not only be violative of Article 19 but would also be contrary to the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Clause (a) of Article 39 and in Article 41." 16. In this connection, following observations from the Supreme Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1984 (2) SCR 67 , also invite my attention. "It is the fundamental right of every one in this country, assured under the interpretation given to Article 21 by this Court in Francis Mullin's case ( AIR 1980 SC 849 ) to live with human dignity free from exploitation. "It is the fundamental right of every one in this country, assured under the interpretation given to Article 21 by this Court in Francis Mullin's case ( AIR 1980 SC 849 ) to live with human dignity free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive principles of State Policy and particularly Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42." The Court went on to say after observing that the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39, Article 41 are not enforceable in a Court of law, it may not be possible to compel the State through judicial process to make law "But where legislation is already enacted by the State providing those requirements to the workmen and thus investing their right to live with basic human dignity, with concrete reality and content, the State can certainly be obligated to ensure observance of such legislation for inaction on the part of the State in securing implementation of such legislation would amount to denial of the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 256 which provides that, the executive power of every state shall be so exercised as to ensure shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State. The State is under a constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation of the fundamental right of any person, particularly when the belongs to the weaker sections of the community and is unable to wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting him. The Central government is therefore bound to ensure observance of various social welfare and labour laws enacted by parliament for the purpose of securing to the workmen a life of basic human dignity in compliance with the Directive Principles of State Policy." 17. With these premise the Court held that State of Haryana cannot be permitted to deny benefits of various social welfare and labour laws enacted with a view to enabling them to live a life of human dignity. The State must therefore ensure that the employers observe various social welfare and labour laws enacted for the benefit of the workmen. With these premise the Court held that State of Haryana cannot be permitted to deny benefits of various social welfare and labour laws enacted with a view to enabling them to live a life of human dignity. The State must therefore ensure that the employers observe various social welfare and labour laws enacted for the benefit of the workmen. This is a constitutional obligation which can be enforced against the Central Government and the State by a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. 18. Thus the implementation of law to give effect to Directive Principles of State Policy are also enshrined in Articles 39, 41 & 42 as has been placed on such high pedestal to be enforceable as the fundamental Rights by invoking Article 39 of the Constitution. 19. On the aforesaid premise, the requirements of the State to consider regularisation as a positivist, in its manifestation of fundamental right under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution as animated in Directive Principles of State Policy and law enacted by Parliament on the subjects enumerated in the Concurrent list entries No. 21, 21 & 24 in the form of Industrial Disputes act, and the provisions made thereunder and the right to remedy against indefinite continuance in the service without the permanent status and regular employment resulting in unfair labour practice is a part of the Fundamental right. 20. To sum up the principle deduced from the long chain of decided cases it can be said to be well settled: "(i) In the matter of Government service normal rule is regular recruitment through prescribed agency, the recruitment of ad hoc or temporary hands is an exceptional leeway permitted due to exigencies of administration. In such a fact situation the endeavour will also be to replace such temporary employee by regular selected employees. (ii) That law does not favour ad hoc or temporary employment continuing for long spells, as it breeds unhealthy and unreasonable service environment endangering industrial peace perilously affecting dignity and quality of life of those whose security of work is under constant threat. (iii) Article 14 of the Constitution is embodiment of rule against arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the State action in all spheres of its activities. Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees protection against deprivation of life and personal liberty includes within it the right to dignified livelihood. (iii) Article 14 of the Constitution is embodiment of rule against arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the State action in all spheres of its activities. Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees protection against deprivation of life and personal liberty includes within it the right to dignified livelihood. Article 39(d) spells out the directive principles of the State policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both woman and man and Article 42 stipulates the Directive Principles of the State policy in securing just and humane conditions of work. (iv) Equal pay for equal work and security of employment by regularising casual employees of long duration within a reasonable period have been unanimously accepted as Constitutional goal to our policy. To this end, thrust has been that the management particularly Govt. agencies should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for unreasonably long period of time. (v) Mere continuation for some period on ad hoc by itself does not give a right to permanency but where for any reason ad hoc or temporary or work charged employees are continued for fairly long spell they have a right to claim regularisation and the authorities are under obligation to consider their case for regularisation in a fair manner. (vi) Regularisation cannot be resorted to by the governmental agencies as mode of fresh recruitment to permit back door entries to frustrate the mandate of Article 16 by making a straight jacket measure of service for regularising the appointment made de hors the rules, unmindful of the circumstances under which the appointment had been made. (vii) The first condition for laying claim for regularisation is availability of work on reasonably permanent basis. Mere continuance for some time of a casual or ad hoc employee does not give right to presume about need for continued employment or work charged but continuation of casual or ad hoc employee or work charged for a long duration of several years raises a presumption for need for regular permanent employment may be justified. Mere continuance for some time of a casual or ad hoc employee does not give right to presume about need for continued employment or work charged but continuation of casual or ad hoc employee or work charged for a long duration of several years raises a presumption for need for regular permanent employment may be justified. (viii) Apart from the right to reasonable treatment by the State agencies and security of job emanating from the Constitutional provisions, Industrial Disputes Act is a legislative measure giving effect to the directive principles of State Policy in the field of ensuring equal pay for equal work and ensuring security of job with just and humane conditions by providing prohibition against practising of unfair labour practice both by employers and employees and defining the term unfair labour practice to include practice of engaging workman for long spells characterising them badli, casual, temporary, ad hoc work charged with the object of denying them the status of permanency and benefits and privileges attached thereto. (ix) A claim by workers, continuing for long spell as casual or temporary or work charged under an employer governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, to permanency is a demand which can be achieved through collective bargaining or a claim giving rise to a industrial dispute which can be enforced through adjudication under the provisions of the I.D. Act. (x) Adjudication of claim for permanent status as an industrial dispute which has been made subject matter of reference to the Industrial tribunal is governed by the principles emanating from the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act which by necessary implication involves determination of question whether continued casual or temporary employment is a bonafide administrative exigency simplicitor or amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the employer, inasmuch as claim to permanency under Industrial Disputes Act directly emanates from prohibition against unfair labour practice adopted by the employer. (xi) In situation emerging from long spell of ad hoc or temporary or casual employment of daily rated workmen, courts have consistently resorted to issue of directions for framing a scheme for regularisation of such workmen on a just and fair basis to the employer or have also issue of directions for regularising the petitioners before it as the circumstances of the case may warrant but ordinarily in the first instance an opportunity is being given to the employer himself to frame a scheme in a fair and just manner of absorbing such casual workmen on permanent basis whether in one go or in a phased manner and has considered objections thereto, if any, before according its approval to such scheme. (xii) In considering the question of granting relief as to conferring status of permanency and emoluments and privileges attached thereto, primary consideration is existence of permanent nature of work for such casual employees to be utilised against it and the extent of absorption on regular and permanent basis depends upon the extent of regular work available against which temporary employee can be regularly employed. Regularisation or permanency is not to be resorted in case where the establishment by itself is of temporary nature; where the employment is not with the object of offering employment but for ameliorating financial condition of weaker sections of the society like employment under Jawahar Yojana or where employment has been secured or offered by committing illegalities, irregularities or fraud as in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) where the appointments were found to have been given to six thousand persons out of all proportion to the then existing requirement of the project for about 800 persons only, by the Director of the project Mr. Malik by committing illegalities, irregularities and fraud as per the investigation report. In which case the appointments against rules were held to be nullity and void ad initio." 21. In view of the above, the Corporation is directed to immediately look into this issue so far as the claim of regularisation as prayed for by the writ-applicant is concerned. 22. I expect the Commissioner of the Corporation to take appropriate decision in accordance with law and more particularly keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in this judgment. 23. 22. I expect the Commissioner of the Corporation to take appropriate decision in accordance with law and more particularly keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in this judgment. 23. If any proposal is put forward in this regard to the State Government for the purpose of regularising the services of the writ-applicant, then the Commissioner shall act accordingly as early as possible. It is not in dispute that the post of the Clerk in the school is a vacant sanctioned post and if the writ-applicant is serving on the said post past 21 years, then in my view, he is justified in putting forward such a claim. 24. The Corporation shall continue to pay the salary in accordance with the order which was passed by this Court dated 11th October 2004 referred to above. 25. If, ultimately, the services are regularised, then he shall be entitled to receive the regular pay-scale in accordance with the rules and regulations. 26. With the above, this writ-application is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.