JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularise the service of deceased employee Mr.Raman employed with Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Tiruvannamalai and direct them to pay family pension to the petitioner as prescribed under law.) 1. When the matter was listed for hearing on 13.07.2022, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, this Court passed an order, directing the Registry to list the matter on 15.07.2022 under the caption “For Dismissal”. 2. On 15.07.2021, when the matter was called, there was also no representation on behalf of the petitioner. In order to give one more opportunity to the writ petitioner, this Court once again passed an order, directing the Registry to list this matter under the caption “For Dismissal” on 19.07.2022. Again when the matter is taken up for hearing today i.e., on 25.07.2022, none appeared for the petitioner. 3. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the deceased employee Mr.Raman employed in Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Tiruvannamalai. 4. The petitioner states that she is the wife of the deceased Government Servant Mr.Raman, who served as Sweeper in the Government School. The husband of the writ petitioner was engaged as Part Time Sweeper in the Government School on consolidated pay. 5. As far as the Part Time Sweeper in the Education Department is concerned, the benefit of regularisation was declined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary to Government vs. R.Govindasamy and others [ (2014) 4 SCC 769 ]. In view of the abovesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the benefit of regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be granted in favour of the Part Time employees, who were not appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force. The Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against a sanctioned vacant post. 6. The Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against a sanctioned vacant post. 6. Equality class contained under Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and the Courts should not issue direction for regularization of the employee, which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process can be regularized, back door entry appointment contrary to the constitutional scheme and appointment to the ineligible candidates cannot be regularized. 7. In the present case, the husband of the writ petitioner was working as Part Time Sweeper in the School on consolidated pay. The writ petition itself was filed after the death of the employee. 8. This being the factum, the benefit of regularisation as such sought for in the present writ petition cannot be granted. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.