ORDER : 1. Learned advocate Ms. Reena Kamani appearing for the petitioner was extensively heard on the last occasion and the main matter was taken up. Learned advocate Mr. Oza appearing for the respondents was also heard. The matter was kept today at the request of the learned Advocate Ms. Kamani in order to enable learned advocate Mr. Pathak for the petitioners to address the Court. Though, opportunity was given to learned advocate Mr. Pathak to appear, he has chosen not to appear. 2. Since, this Court has heard learned advocate Ms. Kamani extensively on the issue raised in the main matter, the same is decided after recording her submissions. 3. In the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction declaring the inaction on the part of the Government in not regularizing the services of the petitioners as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, direction is sought to extend the benefit of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 4. Learned advocate Ms. Kamani has submitted that the petitioners were employed as daily wager employees. In the year 1988, the services of the petitioners were terminated and they were constrained to approach this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 7586 of 1988 and this Court was pleased to protect the services of the petitioners and they were continued in service. By the order dated 17.02.2012, the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 7586 of 1988 and allied matters were disposed of directing the petitioners to make appropriate representation. 4.1 Learned advocate Ms. Kamani has further submitted that thereafter, the petitioners made a detailed representation to the respondents to regularize their services. After inter se discussion between the Chairman as well as the Secretary of the Board, it was decided by the Chairman of the Board to address a letter dated 26.06.2013 to the Chief Secretary, Education Department, to regularize their services, since they had given assurance that they will not claim any arrears from the Board. She has submitted that the Chairman of the Gujarat Secondary Education Board as well as Higher Secondary Board, Gandhinagar recommended the case of regularization to the Secretary, Education Department vide communication dated 26.06.2013, however, no decision was taken to regularize the petitioners in service. She has submitted that the Chairman of the Gujarat Secondary Education Board as well as Higher Secondary Board, Gandhinagar recommended the case of regularization to the Secretary, Education Department vide communication dated 26.06.2013, however, no decision was taken to regularize the petitioners in service. She has submitted that despite the aforesaid position, the petitioners since are working for so many years are entitled to be regularized in service. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Oza for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the petitioners cannot claim regularization in service since they were continued under the interim order of this Court which was passed in Special Civil Application No. 7586 of 1988 and allied matters. He has invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 17.02.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7586 of 1988 and allied matters, wherein the Court has declined to grant the prayers for treating them as continuous in service. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 and has submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any benefit. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Joshi appearing for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the State had sent the communication dated 09.10.2019 to the Board for taking appropriate decision. He has submitted that since the petitioners are employees of the Board, which is an autonomous body, it is left on the Board to take appropriate decision to regularize the service of the petitioners because the salary and payment are to paid by the Board from its own funds. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Joshi has further pointed out that in fact no approval is required from the State authorities to regularize such daily wagers appointed by the Board. 7. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 8. In the present case, the facts which are established are that the petitioners were terminated from service in the year 1988 which constrained them to file writ petitions being Special Civil Application No. 7586 of 1988 and allied matters challenging the termination orders. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2012 and because of the interim order staying the termination orders, the petitioners are continued for all these years. 9. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2012 and because of the interim order staying the termination orders, the petitioners are continued for all these years. 9. The Coordinate Bench of this Court did not entertain the first prayer made in the writ petition since the petitioners were already taken back in service because of the interim order passed by this Court. As regards the second part of the prayer is concerned seeking continuity of the service, the same was declined by this Court since they were continued despite being terminated because of the interim order passed by this Court. It was specifically observed that benefits as claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted since even today the petitioners were continued in service as Rojamdar Hamal. 10. Thus, as regards the continuity of the services of the petitioners, the same is denied by this Court, further it was observed that for any other benefits, if they are entitled, they may pursue the respondent authorities. The Coordinate Bench in paragraph No. 5 of the order dated 17.02.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7586 of 1988 and allied matters has observed thus: “5. So far as the last petition being Special Civil Application No. 8750 of 1992 filed by Vaghela Mohanbhai Maganbhai is concerned, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent Board that he has not reported for duty as rojamdar right from the year 2007. Be that as it may, the fact remains that as recorded in interim order the petitioners were already taken back in service as Rojamdar Hamal and they have been continued as Rojamdar since the time of their being taken back in service, therefore, first part of the prayer made in the petition for declaring that the termination of service of the petitioner as illegal, is not required to be decided. As far as the second part of the said prayer, for declaring that the petitioners continued to be in service throughout irrespective of the fact that the petitioners were retrenched, cannot be granted because as could be seen from the appointment order, appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis as Rojamdar Hamal and since the petitioners have all throughout continued after they have been taken back in service, benefits as claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted now when even as on today, the petitioners have been continued in service as rojamdar hamal. Under the circumstances, no further relief can be granted in this group of petitions. However, if the petitioners are otherwise entitled for any further benefits looking to their long tenure of service, it will be open for the petitioners to make appropriate representation or to avail any other remedy in accordance with law to satisfy the respondents for other benefits which might be available to the petitioners.” 11. Thus, if the petitioners are denied the continuity of service by this Court, they cannot demand regularization. The aforesaid order has been accepted by the petitioners. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, it appears that thereafter, the respondent Board requested the state authority to regularize the services of the petitioners. As submitted by Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Joshi by placing reliance on the affidavit, the State authorities have clarified their stand that since the Board is an autonomous body they can take a decision since the expenditure of the salary is required to be borne by it. It is also clarified that no approval of the state government is required if the Board wants to regularize the services of the petitioners. The communication dated 09.10.2019 reveals that no approval is required from the State authorities to regularize the service of such daily wagers which are employed by the Board. Thus, it is totally left on the discretion on the respondent Board to regularize the petitioners in service. 12. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) has held that daily wagers cannot claim as a matter of right to be regularized or absorbed in service merely because they are continued for considerably long time. 12. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) has held that daily wagers cannot claim as a matter of right to be regularized or absorbed in service merely because they are continued for considerably long time. The Supreme Court has also observed that merely because, an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which is described as “litigious employment” he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. It is further held that in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him. 13. The Supreme Court has observed thus in paragraph Nos. 43, 48 and 53 of the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (Supra), which read as under: “43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious employment' in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. 48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. It is stated that the State has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the concerned department on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating un-equals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled. 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. That would be treating un-equals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled. 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 14. The Supreme Court has held that no right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. It is further clarified that there is no fundamental right to those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. It is further clarified that there is no fundamental right to those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. It is further observed that such daily wagers cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has given directions for regularizing the irregularly appointed employees who have been continued to work for 10 years or more but without the intervention of orders of the Court or of the Tribunal as a one time measure. 15. In the present case, indubitably the petitioners have continued under the interim order of this Court for all these years and hence, they cannot claim to be regularized in service as a matter of right. However, it is further clarified that the aforesaid observations may not be construed detrimental to the petitioners in case the Board decides to regularize the service of the petitioners. The communications produced on the record reveal the intention of the Board to regularize the petitioners in service and they have also sought approval from the State authorities. Thus, if the Board so desire, they can regularize the present petitioners in service since the entire expenditure towards their salary etc. are to be borne it. 16. As regards the prayers sought by the petitioners to apply the provisions of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to their case is concerned, admittedly the petitioners were allowed to work under the respondent No. 2 Board pursuant to the interim orders of this Court and the court had denied them the continuity of service in the earlier round of litigation, hence in these circumstances no benefit arising of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 can be conferred to them. The petitioners have also miserably failed to satisfy the court about the applicability of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the Gujarat Education Board. 17. Under the circumstances and in light of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition fails. Rule stands discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 18. Since, the main matter is disposed of, Civil Application would not survive. Hence, disposed of accordingly.