JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Original Petitioner, whose writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 6192 of 2005 was dismissed, by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23rd April, 2014, whereby, prayer of this appellant for regularisation or for readjustment of this appellant (petitioner) into the services of the Respondent No.1-University as an Assistant Professor was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and hence, Original Petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is the Original Petitioner. This appellant was appointed as a Teaching Associate on 23rd May, 2002, vide appointment letter at Annexure 4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Looking to the appointment letter, it appears that this appellant was appointed purely on temporary basis for six months and with several conditions attached with the appointment and the condition Nos. 1,2,4,5 and 9 read as under: “1. This engagement is purely temporary and only for six months from the date of issue of the letter. 2. This engagement may be terminated by one month notice on either side 4. This engagement is not a cadre post in any way implicit or explicit. 5. The incumbent shall not be eligible to claim either for adjustment against any post or for re-employment of any nature in the University. 9. Once the incumbent join it will be understood that our terms & conditions have been acceded to as state above.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. Thus, in view of the aforesaid appointment letter, issued by the Respondent -University and which was accepted by this appellant, it entitles this appellant neither for regularisation nor for readjustment of his services. 5. The plea of readjustment is novice to the law, especially when a public post is involved. This appellant cannot be regularised into the services on the post of Assistant Professor mainly for the reason that looking to the appointment letter, which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and looking to Section 2(28), to be read with Section 19 of the Jharkhand Agriculture University Act, 2000, the post in question is not a Teaching Post at all. For ready reference Section 2 (28) and Section 19 is quoted below: “2. Definitions. For ready reference Section 2 (28) and Section 19 is quoted below: “2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:- (i) ……………………….. (ii) ………………………. ……………………………. ………………………………. (xxviii) “Teacher” means a person appointed or recognized by a University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension education and include a person who may be declared by the Statutes to be a teacher; (xxix) …………………………. ………………………………… ………………………………… (xxxi) …………………………” “19. Officers of the University.-The following shall be officers of a University namely:- (1) the Chancellor; (2) the Vice-Chancellor; (3) the Registrar; (4) the Comptroller; (5) the Deans; (6) the Directors; and (7) such other persons in the service of a University as may be declared by the Statutes to be the officers of a University.” 6. In view of the aforesaid definitions the temporary post upon which this appellant (Original Petitioner) was appointed as Teaching Assistant is not a Teaching Post at all. It is a Non-Teaching Post. 7. This appellant is seeking regularisation on the post of Assistant Professor without any advertisement, which is not permissible in the eye of law. No public post can be given to anyone without there being any public advertisement and without there being competition amongst the eligible candidates, otherwise everybody will get illegal appointment by way of back door entry and later on by way of regularisation their services will be regularized. 8. Regularization cannot be a rule. It is an exception and must be a rarest of rare phenomenon. Regularisation of services of employee can be done, only in accordance with law, rules, regulations or by the virtue of policy decision of the employer-management. There is bound to be a law, rules, regulations or policy for regularisation, under which regularisation can be done. By mere sympathy there cannot be any regularisation by court. “Charity beyond law, is cruelty to others”. It has become a fashion in the country that those who are adorning high administrative posts are giving public appointment by way of back door entry, without advertisement and without following the rules of recruitment and without there being any sanctioned post by the Government, they are filling up the posts. Therefore, in such eventuality, salary of such employees shall be deducted from the salary of the Appointing Officer or from his pension so that no question of regularisation or absorption, whatsoever, arises in future. Therefore, in such eventuality, salary of such employees shall be deducted from the salary of the Appointing Officer or from his pension so that no question of regularisation or absorption, whatsoever, arises in future. Back Door entry must be stopped mathematically by the State. Every now and then such type of cases are coming to the court. Every regularisation pre supposes illegality or irregularity in appointment. More the number of regularisation more are the chances of illegal or irregular appointment in future. More the number of regularisation, more is the encouragement to the high ranking administrative officers of the State to take a chance in giving employment, which is illegal or irregular and hence, the State Government or instrumentalities of the State ought to stop mathematically such type of regularisation. Lethargic approach in following the rules and enthusiastic approach in following the exceptions encourages such type of back door entries in public employment. Enough number of litigations are coming to this court which are generated by the generosity of the State. This case is no exception to this Rule. Though, this appellant (Original Petitioner) is working on a Non-Teaching Post, not on a cadre post, not on a sanctioned post, only on contractual basis and only with a fixed monthly remuneration, he is aspiring for his readjustment on the post of Assistant Professor because the State Government has given enough encouragement to such type of employees by regularising their services. This ought to be stopped by the State Government or by the instrumentalities of the State Government, who are the “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 9. Even if, in the past there are few regularisations, for such type of illegal action there is no need to maintain equality in illegality by the State Government. There is no legal obligation by the State or by the State instrumentalities to maintain equality in illegality. 10. Thus, the employee-appellant who is holding a Non-Teaching Post, who is claiming to be an expert of the subject in question, has no courage or confidence to apply for the post of Assistant Professor as and when advertisement was given by the Respondent No.1-University. Once he applied and he was not selected. 10. Thus, the employee-appellant who is holding a Non-Teaching Post, who is claiming to be an expert of the subject in question, has no courage or confidence to apply for the post of Assistant Professor as and when advertisement was given by the Respondent No.1-University. Once he applied and he was not selected. Thus, despite there being public advertisements for the post of Assistant Professor given by the respondent University after the year 2002, either this appellant was not selected or he has not applied. Thus, it appears that such type of employees, who are employed off the cadre on a post which is not a sanctioned post or a post which is for a limited period they have no courage to apply for regular recruitment and hence, there is no need to regularise their appointment, especially when there is no law, rules, regulations or policy for regularisation or readjustment. 11. There is a submission made by counsel for the appellant for a lenient view to be taken by this Court. Charity beyond law, is cruelty to others. We are not here to be more charitable than law. The court cannot reduce or enhance the criteria for employment while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Every citizen is getting enough chance to get public employment, if he or she is otherwise qualified and competent. Those who are incompetent are not applying for the public post and they are always in search of regularisation in service, by way of back door entry. 12. There is not a single service law prevailing in the State of Jharkhand which permits regularisation as one of the methodology of the public employment on any post, much less on the post of Assistant Professor in the respondent University. It has become a fashion now to create, one more mode of public employment, by way of regularisation. This ought to be stopped immediately. Only as a rarest of rare case this type of regularisation should be allowed. It appears that sometimes rules are more observed in breach than in compliance. 13. Counsel for the appellant has also argued out that National Eligibility Test, popularly known as NET, is not a pre-requisite for the post concerned as per the requirement of Veterinary Council. This argument was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. It appears that sometimes rules are more observed in breach than in compliance. 13. Counsel for the appellant has also argued out that National Eligibility Test, popularly known as NET, is not a pre-requisite for the post concerned as per the requirement of Veterinary Council. This argument was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. This argument is not accepted by this court also mainly for the following reasons: (a) Even with or without clearance of the NET examination, there is no right vested in the appellant to be regularised or to be readjusted on the post of Assistant Professor as prayed in the memo of the writ petition. (b) Even if this appellant is the first rank holder in the NET examination, then also his services cannot be regularised because regularisation is not one of the mode of giving employment on public post viz.- Assistant Professor. (c) Even if this appellant is the first rank holder in NET he is to apply in pursuance of a public advertisement and compete with others and he must be found relatively better candidate in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor, otherwise whoever has passed NET, can be appointed directly without any public advertisement. Even who has passed NET has to compete with others to find their place in the list. Clearance of NET is not a magic bond which can give appointment without advertisement or competition. (d) Thus, irrespective of the fact whether the appellant has passed NET examination or not, it is explicitly clear that his services cannot be regularised by Respondent No.1. The very concept of readjustment in the services, as prayed for in the memo of the writ petition, is a novice or an illegal concept. There is nothing like readjustment and regularisation. (e) Public post can be filled up in accordance with rules of recruitment. The rules of recruitment for the post of “Assistant Professor” are in existence. Regularisation or readjustment in the service does not find place in Rules of recruitment. 14. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(S) No. 6192 of 2005, vide order dated 23rd April, 2014, and we see no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. 15. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 16. 15. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 16. Copy of this order will be sent to all the Vice-Chancellors of all the Universities situated within the State of Jharkhand.