JUDGMENT : 1. Rajendra Singh and Pramod Kumar are assailing before us the validity of the order dated 21.02.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.18192 of 1992 (Rajendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) wherein the Learned Single Judge has proceeded to non-suit the claim of the petitioner-appellants by holding that appointment of petitioner-appellant has been made in violation of statutory rules and accordingly, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief background of the case is that petitioner-appellants' claim to have been appointed as Gram Panchayat Adhikari vide appointment letters dated 16.03.1990 and claim to have joined on the respective post w.e.f. 16.05.1990 and 26.05.1990, respectively. 2. Brief background of the case is that petitioner-appellants' claim to have been appointed as Gram Panchayat Adhikari vide appointment letters dated 16.03.1990 and claim to have joined on the respective post w.e.f. 16.05.1990 and 26.05.1990, respectively. The appointment letter of petitioner-appellant no.1 dated 16.05.1990 provides for as follows :- vkns'k Jh jktsUnz flag vkRet dh fuEu& jke fuoklh eykiqj i=ky;&vkehj] tuin&fQjkstkckn dks xzke iapk;r vf/kdkjh ds in ij osru dze 950&20&1150& n0jkW&25&1500 rFkk 'kklu }kjk fu/kkZfjr eagxkbZ HkRrk vkfn tks Hkh ns; gksa] fodkl [k.M gkFkoUr [kjx<+] tuin fQjkstkckn esa dk;ZHkkj x`g.k djus ds fnukad ls fuEu izfrcU/kksa ds lkFk vLFkk;h LFkkukiUu :i ls fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA 1- Jh flag dh lsok;s 2 o"kZ ds fy, ;fn iwoZ lekIr u gks tk, rks ijh{k.k vof/k ij ekuh tk;sxhA 2- budh lsok;sa fdlh Hkh le; fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ds lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA 3- :0 150-00 udn tekur tek djds ikl cqd ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh] fQjkstkckn ds in uke ls cfU/kr djkuh gksxh rFkk 2&, QkeZ Hkjuk gksxkA 4- l{ke fpfdRlkf/kdkjh ls LokLF; izek.k i= izLrqr djuk gksxkA 5- ;fn fookfgr gks rks ,d gh iRuh dk ?kks"k.kki=A /keZ flag xkSre ftyk jkt vf/kdkjh fQjkstkcknA dk;kZy; ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh fQjkstkckn i=kad 134@iapk;r&90&91 fnukad ebZ 16] 90 izfrfyfi %& Jh jktsUnz flag vkjRet Jh fuEcjke] fuoklh eykiqj] iks0 vk/khj] tuin fQjkstkckn dks bl vk'k; ls fd og viuh ;ksxnku vk[;k m0f0v0 lk/kZoUr [ksjx<+ tuin fQjkstkckn dks viuh ;ksxnku vk[;k izLrqr djsa rFkk lHkh vko';d izek.k i= Hkh izLrqr djsaA 2- [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh gkFkoUr [ksjx<+ tuin fQjkstkckn dks bl vk'k; ls fd& fu;qDr Hkwfe iapk;r vf/kdkjh ls 150@& dh udn tekur tek dj tekur ikl cqd ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh fQjkstkckn ds uke ls cfU/kr djk dj 2&, QkeZ er'kadj LokLF; izek.ki= izkIr dj HkstsaA blds i'pkr~ bUgsa 15 fnu fdlh xzke iapk;r vf/kdkjh ds lkFk lEc) dj izf'k{k.k fnykus dh O;oLFkk djsaA mlds }kjk izf'k{k.k dk izek.ki= izkIr djds gh U;k; iapk;r {ks= dks LorU= Hkkj fnykdj lwfpr djsaA 3- LFkkiuk fyfidA 4- O;fDrxr i=koyh gsrqA ftyk & iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh fQjkstkcknA 3. The appointment letter of petitioner no.2 provides for as follows :- dk;kZy; vkns'k Jh izeksn dqekj vkRet Jh 'kkUrh Lo:i] fuoklh ckebZ] i=ky; HkkjkSy] tuin fQjkstkckn dks xzke iapk;r vf/kdkjh ds in ij osrudze la0 950&20&1150&n0jkW0&25&1500 rFkk 'kklu }kjk fu/kkZfjr eagxkbZ HkRrk vkfn tks Hkh ns; gks fodkl [k.M ekj[kh tuin fQjkstkckn esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus ds fnukad ls fuEu izfrcU/kksa ds lkFk vLFkk;h rnFkZ :i esa fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA 1- Jh izeksn dqekj dh lsok;sa 2 o"kZ ds fy, ;fn iwoZ lekIr u gks tk;s rks ijh{k.k vof/k ij ekuh tk;sxha 2- mudh lsok;sa fdlh Hkh le; fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA 3- :0 150-00 udn tekur tek djds iklcqd ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh fQjkstkckn ds in uke ls cfU/kr&djkuh gksxh rFkk 2&, QkeZ Hkjuk gksxkA 4- eq[; fpfdRlkf/kdkjh ls LokLF; izek.k i= izkIr dj izLrqr djuk gksxkA 5- ;fn fookfgr gks rks ,d gh iRuh dk ?kks"k.kk i= izLrqr djuk gksxkA 6- nks jktif=r vf/kdkfj;ksa ls pfj= izek.k i= izkIr dj izLrr djuk gksxkA /keZ flag xkSre ftyk iapk;r& vf/kdkjh fQjkstkckn dk;kZy; ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh fQjkstkckn i=kad 135@iapk0@LFkk0&xzk0ia0v0@90&91 fnukad ebZ] 16] 1990 izfrfyfi 1%& Jh izeksn dqekj vkRet Jh 'kkUrh Lo:i] fuoklh ckebZ] iksLV&HkkjkSy ftyk fQjkstkckn dks bl vk'k; ls fd og viuh ;ksxnku vk[;k [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh ukj[kh&fQjkstkckn dks lHkh vko';d vfHkys[k@izek.k i=ksa lfgr izLrqr djsaA 2- [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh ukj[kh&fQjkstkckn dks bl vk'k; ls fd og uofu;qfDr xzke iapk;r vf/kdkjh ls 150-00 dh udn tekur tek dj tekur iklcqd ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh fQjkstckn ds uke ls cfU/kr djkdj 2&, QkeZ Hkjokdj lHkh vko';d izek.ki= izkIr dj HkstsA blds i'pkr~ bUgsa 15 fnu fdlh xzke iapk;r vf/kdkjh ds lkFk lEc) dj izf'k{k.k fnykus dh O;oLFkk djsaA mlds }kjk izf'k{k.k dk izek.k i= izkIr djds gh U;k; iapk;r {ks= dk Lora= :i ls Hkkj fnykdj lwfpr djsaA 3- LFkkiuk fyfidA 4- O;fDrxr i=koyh gsrqA ftyk iapk;r& jkt vf/kdkjh fQjkstkckn 4. Petitioner-appellants claim that they have been performing and discharging their duties and thereafter issues were raised in reference to their appointment and thus a show cause notice was issued to them and their services were dispensed with. 5. Petitioner-appellants filed Writ Petition no.18192 of 1992 and therein an interim order was passed and based on the same, petitioner-appellants submit that the order of disengagement of service was recalled and they continued to function. 5. Petitioner-appellants filed Writ Petition no.18192 of 1992 and therein an interim order was passed and based on the same, petitioner-appellants submit that the order of disengagement of service was recalled and they continued to function. Petitioner appellants have further contended that thereafter Writ Petition in question has been taken up for final hearing and disposal and at the said point of time, as their services were liable to be regularized under the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (on posts etc. provisions of Public Service Commission) Rules 1979 a request in this regard was made and the learned Single Judge has proceeded to non suit the claim of petitioner-appellant and thus present Special Appeal. 6. In the Special Appeal in question, supplementary affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has been filed apart from counter affidavit and based on the pleadings that have come forward, present matter has been taken up for final hearing and disposal. 7. Shri Shiddharth Khare, Advocate appearing for the appellants contended with vehemence that the engagement of petitioner appellants were made as per exigencies of service and as such by placing reliance on the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Sewak Service Rules 1978, the claim of petitioner-appellants could not have been non-suited as it has been done and as petitioner-appellants have functioned for continuously long period, equitable view ought to have been taken in the matter instead of non-suiting the claim of petitioner-appellants on totally unsuitable ground. 8. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that appointment of petitioner-appellants has been made without there being any due procedure followed by maintaining transparency in the matter of selection and appointment and the engagement in question was temporary/stop gap arrangement with the mention that their services could be terminated at any point of time without any prior notice and in view of this there is no scope for interference. 9. 9. After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual situation on which there is no dispute that as far as substantive appointment that is to be made on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari is concerned, the same is governed by statutory rules known as U.P. Panchayat Sewak Service Rules 1978 wherein substantive appointment has been defined under Rule 3(h) as an appointment not being an ad-hoc appointment on a post in the cadre of service, made after selection in accordance with rules and, if there are no rules, then in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the time being, by executive instructions issued by the Government. 10. In the present case, accepted position is that at no point of time substantive appointment of petitioner-appellants have been made rather the appointment letters of petitioner-appellants clearly reflect that their arrangement in question was purely a temporary/stop gap arrangement and their engagement in question could also have been dispensed with by giving a notice within one month. Petitioners have conceded this fact that they have not faced any selection process and to the contrary simple application straightway has been given seeking engagement, based on the same note sheet has been prepared by Head Clerk, mentioning therein that they have moved application for appointment, Scheduled Caste quota is vacant, as such they can be offered appointment. On the said note sheet, the District Development Officer, who had been holding additional charge of District Panchayat Raj Officer gave this consent. 11. Once such is the factual situation that has come forward that without there being any fairness and transparency in the matter of engagement of petitioner-appellants their engagement have been made and the superior authorities in question, in their wisdom, found that said arrangement in question was totally de-hors to the statutory provisions and the Authority concerned has proceeded to disengage the services of petitioner-appellants by giving one month notice, then the said action of respondents in this background cannot be faulted by any means. 12. 12. Once appointment is to be made under U.P. Panchayat Sewak Service Rules 1978 certainly the procedure that has been prescribed therein, has to be dealt with, and even in the matter of ad-hoc appointment, the procedure that is to be so adhered has to be a fair and transparent procedure and in the present case, as far as the emergence of petitioner-appellants on the scene are concerned, it appears to be a walk in affair wherein they have asked for employment and they have been offered engagement. Under U.P. Panchayat Sewak Service Rules, 1978, recruitment in service has to be made as is provided in Rule 15, that deals with procedure to be adhered. Rule 16 deals with appointment and Rule 17 deals with probation. Here totally illegal appointment has been made and most surprisingly it has been mentioned that if services are not terminated within two year then they would be treated on probation. All these facts are speaking for themselves as to how the Rules have been flouted with impugnity. 13. Once engagement of petitioners have been made without following any due procedure of law and thereafter their services have been sought to be disengaged as per the terms and conditions of service, then learned Single Judge is absolutely right at the point of time when he endorses the action of the departmental authorities by not entertaining the prayer of petitioners for continuance in service. Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1 , has dealt with in detail viz-a-viz the status of daily wagers, temporary employees/ad-hoc employees and has clearly held that Courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not unduly interfere with the economic arrangement of its affair by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate by-passing of constitutional and statutory mandates. Further temporary, contractual, casual, ad-hoc or daily wage public employment must be deemed to be accepted by the employee concerned fully knowing the nature of it and consequences flowing from it. From such perspective also petitioner-appellants have no right to claim continuance and the disengagement being as per the terms and conditions of appointment/engagement. 14. Further temporary, contractual, casual, ad-hoc or daily wage public employment must be deemed to be accepted by the employee concerned fully knowing the nature of it and consequences flowing from it. From such perspective also petitioner-appellants have no right to claim continuance and the disengagement being as per the terms and conditions of appointment/engagement. 14. Petitioner-appellants have tried to contend that their long continuance be kept in mind along with the fact that one of incumbents, who had been similarly situated has died, his legal heir has been offered compassionate appointment. 15. The law on the subject is equally clear that in case an incumbent has proceeded to function on the strength of the interim order, then certainly his claim cannot be considered for regularization as per the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1 and in the present case, the re-emergence of the petitioner appellants on the scene has been after interim order has been passed by this Court and it appears that the authorities on spot in compliance of the order passed by this Court has mentioned that the order impugned stood recalled but the fact of the matter has been that once the order impugned has been stayed by this Court, then the net effect of the same would be that on the strength of interim order passed by this Court petitioner-appellants would be entitled to function and receive remuneration, in this backdrop any order based on mis-conception cannot be held to be valid and with the dismissal of writ petition continuance of petitioner-appellants stood recalled. 16. Once continuance of petitioner-appellants has been on the strength of interim order, then provisions of U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (on posts etc. provisions of Public Service Commission) Rules 1979 will not at all come to the rescue and reprieve of petitioner-appellants specially when disengagement has been as per the terms and conditions of engagement. 17. We also make it clear that in case compassionate appointment has been offered to legal heir of similarly situated incumbent, same will not improve the case of petitioner-appellants as parity can be claimed qua positive acts and negative equality cannot be claimed. 18. Consequently, no relief or reprieve can be given to the petitioner-appellants, in view of this, Special Appeal is dismissed.