JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. The petitioner is appearing in-person. 2. This Court heard the petitioner in-person at length and Mr. Hemant Kumar Gupta, the learned S.C.-V appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Jharkhand. The petitioner in-person submits that she is a victim of rape and has approached this Court for relief of compensation and employment relying on the judgment of Allahabad High Court and invoking the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. She claimed to be a poor adavasi and she is victim of rape. Considering this aspect of the matter as the petitioner is a lady belonging to scheduled tribe category, this Court provided legal aid through the learned counsel of the Court to be nominated by Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee and the Member-Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee was requested to appoint the learned counsel to represent the petitioner. It transpires from the record that the Member-Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee extended the said help by way of appointing one Advocate of this Court. But it appears that now this petitioner chooses to appear in-person. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the petitioner had preferred one criminal writ petition earlier which was numbered as W.P.(Cr.) No. 229 of 2014 in which the prayer of the petitioner was for compensation as per the judgment and order passed in S.C./S.T. Case No.11 of 2006 corresponding to Palamau Sadar P.S.Case No.162 of 2002 and the criminal writ petition was heard on different dates and ultimately the compensation was paid to the petitioner. The said compensation was paid in terms of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. As the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 229 of 2014, the same was disposed of by order dated 17.01.2018. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that there is no provision or scheme of the State Government with regard to providing employment to such victim. 4. It is within the domain of the State Government to create post. It is well-settled principle of law that the Court cannot create a post nor issue direction to absorb or regularize temporary employees nor continue them in service nor pay them salary of regular employees as these are purely executive and legislative functions. 4. It is within the domain of the State Government to create post. It is well-settled principle of law that the Court cannot create a post nor issue direction to absorb or regularize temporary employees nor continue them in service nor pay them salary of regular employees as these are purely executive and legislative functions. Such questions cannot be decided in Court on the basis of emotions and sympathies, but must be decided on legal principles. No doubt, Article 41 provides for a right to work but this has been deliberately kept by the Founding Fathers of our Constitution in the Directive Principles and hence made unenforceable in view of the Article 37 because the Founding Fathers in their wisdom realized that while it was their wish that every one should be given employment but the ground realities of our country cannot be overlooked. Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be stretched so far as it mean that every one must be given job. The number of available jobs are limited and hence the Court must take a realistic view of the matter and must exercise self-restrain. Reference in this regard can be made to a case of “Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.” reported in (2007) 1 SCC 408 . Paragraph Nos. 52 and 53 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “52. No doubt, Article 41 provides for the right to work, but this has been deliberately kept by the Founding Fathers of our Constitution in the directive principles and hence made unenforceable in view of Article 37, because the Founding Fathers in their wisdom realised that while it was their wish that everyone should be given employment, but the ground realities of our country cannot be overlooked. In our opinion, Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be stretched so far as to mean that everyone must be given a job. The number of available jobs are limited, and hence courts must take a realistic view of the matter and must exercise self-restraint. 53. In Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan this Court following its own decision in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Admn. held that the right to livelihood was found not feasible to be incorporated as a fundamental right in the Constitution and therefore employment was also not guaranteed under the constitutional scheme. 53. In Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan this Court following its own decision in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Admn. held that the right to livelihood was found not feasible to be incorporated as a fundamental right in the Constitution and therefore employment was also not guaranteed under the constitutional scheme. In Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. this Court observed that where there was no work in the project the employees cannot be regularised. In State of H.P. v. Ashwani Kumar this Court held that where a project has to be closed down for non-availability of funds a direction to regularise the displaced employees of the project could not be given because such direction would amount to creating posts and continuing them in spite of non-availability of work. The same view was taken in State of U.P. v. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh. It follows from these decisions that there is no legal right in temporary employees (whether called casual, ad hoc, or daily-rated workers) to get absorption, or to be continued in service or get regular pay.” 5. This Court has also examined Compensation Scheme for Woman Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes of 2018 of National Legal Services Authority in which also there is no provision of employment to such victim. However, there is provision of interim relief to the victim in that scheme of NALSA. So far as the judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.8210 (M/B) of 2015 of Allahabad High Court is concerned, it is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The present case is not applicable to the instant writ petition on the following grounds: (i) In the said case the victim was a minor and the case was registered under section 376, 506 of IPC alongwith section 3/4 of POCSO Act. Her age was 12 years and she was pregnant for 21 weeks. (ii) In this case a minor girl was subjected to horrendous and despicable act against her will. (iii) Subsequently the victim gave birth to a girl child, but in the instant case the petitioner’s marriage was solemnized and the petitioner has given birth after her marriage, i.e., in the year 1999. (iv) The victim was said to be suffering from typically ‘Rape Trauma Syndrome’ and her child was also treated as a victim. (iii) Subsequently the victim gave birth to a girl child, but in the instant case the petitioner’s marriage was solemnized and the petitioner has given birth after her marriage, i.e., in the year 1999. (iv) The victim was said to be suffering from typically ‘Rape Trauma Syndrome’ and her child was also treated as a victim. (v) The date of occurrence was 17.02.2015 and hence the victim was entitled for compensation under the U.P.Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014, whereas the petitioner was entitled for compensation under the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Rues, 1995 only as also declared in W.P.(Cr.) No.229 of 2014 vide order dated 17.01.2018. 6. As a cumulative effect of the above discussions, reasons and law, no positive directions can be issued to the State in this case. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 8. All the Interlocutory Applications are also dismissed.