JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 12.10.1999 passed by the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited is under challenge whereby and whereunder the authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioners for their reinstatement in service due to having no scope to accommodate them in employment. 2. The fact leading to approach this Court by way of the instant writ petition is that the petitioners were working at Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, Berhampur Plantation-A Division to the satisfaction to their superiors but all of a sudden their services have been dispensed with against which they had approached this Court in O.J.C.No.7320 of 1998, this Court while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 30.6.1998 has directed to consider grievance of the petitioners in the light of the said order, the authorities have taken decision by rejecting the claim of engagements on account of the fact that the work area and the workload of the Orissa Forest Development Corporation have been squeezed consequent upon withdrawal of the sponsored scheme and there is no scope to accommodate the petitioners in employment, hence disengaged with effect from 25.10.1999. 3. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners has submitted that the authorities while taking decision have not taken into consideration the principle of first come last go since workers engaged under the Division after engagement of the petitioners have been retained in service and as such it cannot be said that there is no work available under the Berhampur Plantation-A Division. He submits that the petitioners have been discriminated only to accommodate others. He further submits that even after retrenchment, compensation as referred in the impugned order has not yet been paid. 4. Learned counsel representing the Orissa Forest Development Corporation has vehemently opposed the submission of the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners. He submits that after the judgment rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vrs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 the authorities cannot be compelled to retain the petitioners in service in view of the specific stand taken by them that there is no work for them. He further submits that the authorities have taken decision in the light of the order passed in O.J.C.No.7320 of 1998 wherein well reasoned order has been passed. He further submits that the authorities have taken decision in the light of the order passed in O.J.C.No.7320 of 1998 wherein well reasoned order has been passed. He further submits that the contention raised by the petitioners that persons junior to them are continuing is absolutely incorrect. He submits that whatever statement made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners regarding juniors have been retained in service and working prior to issuance of the order impugned or disengaged since 25.10.1999 is not correct. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Admittedly the petitioners have been appointed on daily rated capacity under the Orissa Forest Development Corporation. While they were continuing, their services have been dispensed with against which they have approached this Court vide O.J.C.No.7320 of 1998. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 30.6.1999, has directed the Orissa Forest Development Corporation to take decision by passing speaking order. The petitioners have filed representation in the light of the direction passed by this Court in O.J.C.No.7320 of 1998. The Management, with a view to give reasonable opportunity, has requested the petitioners to appear before the Managing Director for personal hearing, accordingly chances of personal hearing have been given. The authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the work area and the workload of the Orissa Forest Development Corporation have been squeezed consequent upon withdrawal of the sponsored scheme and as such there is no scope to accommodate them on employment hence disengaged from service. The said decision of the authorities is before us for its judicial scrutiny. 7. We, before scrutinizing the decision of the authorities, have examined the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vrs. The said decision of the authorities is before us for its judicial scrutiny. 7. We, before scrutinizing the decision of the authorities, have examined the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vrs. Umadevi(3) and others(supra) wherein at paragraph-53 the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that illegal appointment is not to be regularized, however, if the appointment is irregular and if the daily rated employee is serving continuously for a period of 10 years without any support from any interim order passed by any court of law and working against sanctioned post, the State Government is to take decision for their regularization by way of taking one time exercise to be completed within period of six months from the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the said case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-53 of the said judgment has left the matter upon the State Government that if the State Government or the authorities are in requirement of services of the daily rated employees whose services are irregular, they can be regularized in their service. The judgment further stipulates that the court of law should not pass any direction for regularization in service. Difference in between illegal appointment and irregular appointment have been discussed in the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka & others –vs- M.L.Kesari & others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while taking into consideration the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi-3 has discussed the difference in between illegal appointment and irregular appointment. According to the said judgment, if process in making appointment have not been followed, such appointment will be said to be irregular but if the workers have been appointed without any post having sanctioned or not eligible to hold the post, such type of appointment is said to be illegal. The Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of State of Karnataka & others Vs. M.L.Kesari & others(supra) has clarified the position by directing the State Government to regularize such irregular appointment by completing exercise in its entirety. So far as the fact in hand is concerned, it is not clear from the pleadings that the appointments are against sanctioned post or not. M.L.Kesari & others(supra) has clarified the position by directing the State Government to regularize such irregular appointment by completing exercise in its entirety. So far as the fact in hand is concerned, it is not clear from the pleadings that the appointments are against sanctioned post or not. The petitioners have not completed 10 years of continuous service and more specifically the authority have taken ground that there is no work available due to withdrawal of the sponsored scheme. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Manager, Govt. Branch Press and another vs. D.B.Belliappa, reported in AIR 1979 SC 429 . We have examined the judgment rendered in the said case and found that the Hon’ble Apex Court has passed the judgment taking into consideration the specific stand taken by the appellant before it that the persons who had come after him, have been retained in employment and as such the decision of the authorities has been held to be in the teeth of the provision contained in para-14. We, on appreciation of the facts involved in the instant case, are of the view that the petitioners has failed to make out a case of discrimination since no detail of the persons appointed after them, have been disclosed, rather a vague statement has been given as discussed in the previous paragraph and as such in that view of the matter, the judgment relied upon by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, is of no help. 9. 9. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that juniors have been retained in service and to that effect statements have been made in the affidavit but no specific names have been mentioned that who are the persons appointed after the petitioners and what is their date of appointment, rather a vague statement has been made at para-5 of the affidavit filed on 30.3.2000 in support of the same, Annexure-17 has been annexed showing names of some persons who stated to have been appointed after appointment of the petitioners, but after perusal of Annexure-17 annexed to the affidavit, we have found that the said list is of 14.3.1996 and the decision to disengage the petitioners has been taken in the month of October,1999, in such circumstances, the claim of the petitioners have seriously been disputed by the authorities. 10. In view of the disputed question of fact and considering the ratio of the judgment in the case of Umadevi-3 and specific submission has been made by the authorities that no work is available, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities which is impugned in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.