JUDGMENT : 1. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred inter alia praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to regularize and approve the appointment of the petitioner to the post of “Clerk” at Rishra Vidyapith (Unit II) H.S. (Co-Ed) (in short, the said school). 3. Mr. Batabyal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that upon acquiring the Bachelor of Arts qualification, the petitioner applied for the post of Clerk in the said school. The Managing Committee of the said school upon adopting a resolution on 18th June, 2001 appointed the petitioner to the post of a Clerk and the petitioner joined the said post on 2nd July, 2001. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon the documents at pages 23 to 26 of the writ petition. He further submits that as the petitioner’s service has been utilised since the year 2001 for more than 15 years, appropriate steps should be taken towards regularization of such service. The representations submitted to that effect by the petitioner have also not been considered by the competent authority and aggrieved thereby the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed to meet the exigencies and his service is required till date and in the said conspectus, appropriate direction needs to be issued upon the respondents to regularize his service. 5. Such contention has, however, been disputed by Mr. Majumder, learned Government pleader appearing for the State respondents. He submits that the petitioner was not appointed in any sanctioned vacancy and from the document at page 25 it would be explicit that he was engaged without remuneration and that too for a period of two years and as such the petitioner cannot claim regularization. 6. Mr. Jana, learned advocate appearing for the school authorities has disputed the veracity of the resolution on the basis of which the petitioner was allegedly appointed in the said school. 7. It is well settled that the direction for regularization or absorption should not be granted by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the employee claiming regularization has been appointed in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment Rules and against a sanctioned post. 7. It is well settled that the direction for regularization or absorption should not be granted by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the employee claiming regularization has been appointed in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment Rules and against a sanctioned post. Mere continuance of service on ad hoc basis does not entitle the petitioner to seek regularization. In the event such direction is passed it would simply reinvigorate a class of claims which has been shut out permanently by the judgment delivered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Versus Uma Devi (III) & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 8. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is unable to give any relief to the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.