JUDGMENT : M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Heard Mr. J.E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Advocate, who appears along with Mr. Vinod Korgaonkar and Mr. P. Kamat on behalf of the Petitioners in each of these Petitions and Mr. D. J. Pangam, learned Advocate General, who appears along with respective Additional Govt. Advocates on behalf of the Respondents. After hearing the learned counsel extensively, we proceed to dispose of these petitions. 2. Mr. Pereira, at the outset, submits that common issues of law and fact, arise in each of the above Petitions and, therefore, there can be no difficulty in considering all these Petitions together. He submits that Writ Petition No.135/2022 (filing) may be taken as the lead Petition. The learned Advocate General also agrees to the adoption of this course of action. 3. The challenge in each of these Petitions is to the non-regularisation of the Petitioners' services as Technical Assistant in the Public Work Department (PWD). The Petitioners also challenge the Recruitment Rules notified on 2/6/2021 to the extent they render some of the Petitioners ineligible to be considered for regular appointment to the post of Technical Assistant (Computer/Electronics/ Information Technology). There is also a challenge to the Memorandum dated 12/11/2021 extending the services of the Petitioners on a contractual basis by only 3 months considering the Memorandum dated 5/8/2021 which the Petitioners rely upon, as also the alleged right of the Petitioners to be considered for regularisation. 4. The Petitioners have pleaded and the record bears out that an advertisement was issued sometime in the year 2012 for filling up 46 posts of Technical Assistant on a contractual basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 18,700/-per month. This advertisement dated 23/11/2012, read with corrigendum issued sometime thereafter, had provided the following essential and desirable qualifications for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant on a contract basis : “Essential: (1) Diploma in Engineering/Technology (Computer Science/Electronics and Telecommunications) or Bachelor of Computer Application or Bachelor of Sciences(Computer Science)or equivalent. (2) Age not exceeding to 42 years (3) Knowledge of Konkani. Desirable : (1) Knowledge of Marathi Note: In case of non-availability of a suitable candidate with the knowledge of Konkani, this requirement can be relaxed.” 5. Mr. Pereira submitted that almost 2700 candidates applied for an appointment on a contractual basis to the post of Technical Assistant. (2) Age not exceeding to 42 years (3) Knowledge of Konkani. Desirable : (1) Knowledge of Marathi Note: In case of non-availability of a suitable candidate with the knowledge of Konkani, this requirement can be relaxed.” 5. Mr. Pereira submitted that almost 2700 candidates applied for an appointment on a contractual basis to the post of Technical Assistant. Interviews were conducted by a Four Member Committee and, ultimately, on the recommendations of the Director (IT), by an order dated 26/8/2013, 31 candidates, including the Petitioners were appointed as Technical Assistant on a contractual basis, on a monthly consolidated salary of Rs. 18,000/-. 6. The order dated 26/8/2013 makes it clear that the same is subject to the conditions stipulated in the offers of appointment issued to the Petitioners. A copy of one of such offers of appointment dated 5/7/2013 is placed on record. Clause (i) of this Memorandum dated 5/7/2013 (offer of appointment) sets out the following terms of appointment : “1. The terms of appointment is as follows : (i) The appointment is purely on contract basis and will not confer any title for permanent employment. (ii) The appointment may be terminated at any time by a month’s notice given by either side, viz. The appointee or the appointing authority, without assigning any reasons. The appointing authority however, reserves the right of terminating the services of the appointee forthwith and on such termination the appointee shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his monthly salary for period of the notice at the same rate at which he/she was drawing them immediately before the termination of his/her services, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of the month. (iii) The appointment carries with it the liability to serve in any part of Goa State” (Emphasis supplied) 7. The record bears out that the term of the contractual appointment was extended from time to time and the last such extension order in respect of 27 Technical Assistants, including the Petitioners, was issued on 12/11/2021. This extension is to operate up to 31/1/2022 and states that the same is issued in terms of O.M. dated 5/8/2021, upon which reliance is placed by the Petitioners. 8. This extension is to operate up to 31/1/2022 and states that the same is issued in terms of O.M. dated 5/8/2021, upon which reliance is placed by the Petitioners. 8. O.M. dated 5/8/2021 is also annexed to the Petition as Annexure ‘I’ (page 83) and the same, interalia, provides that the Government has decided to permit extension to the existing contractual appointees beyond 31/10/2021 for one year up to 31/10/2022, or for such period as per the requirement of the Department/PSUs concerned, whichever is earlier. The O.M. requires all the Head of Departments/PSUs to therefore assess the requirement of such contract appointees and, if required, to extend the contractual appointments for one year or until a regular appointment is made, or till 31/10/2022, whichever is earlier with the approval of the Minister of Administrative Department concerned. 9. The Petitioners have pleaded and even the record bears out that at the time when the Petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis as Technical Assistant in the PWD, there were no Recruitment Rules, governing their appointments. The Petitioners have then pleaded and it is even otherwise borne out from the record that vide Notification dated 2/6/2021, in the exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Goa made the Government of Goa, Public Works Department, Group ‘C’, Non-Gazetted,Non-MinisterialPosts,RecruitmentRules,2021, governing, inter alia, appointments to the post of Technical Assistant (Computer/Electronics/Information Technology) (said Rules). The said Rules have been published in the Official Gazette dated 10/6/2021. 10. In terms of the said Rules, the age limit for direct recruitment to the post of Technical Assistant is 45 years, which is relaxable for Government servants up to 5 years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Government from time to time. Further, the essential and desirable qualifications for direct recruitment to the post of Technical Assistant is provided as follows : “Essential: (1) Degree in Engineering from a recognized University in the branch of Information Technology/ Computer/Electronics/ Electronics and Telecommunications/Electrical and Electronics. (2) Knowledge of Konkani. Desirable: Knowledge of Marathi”. 11. The Petitioners, on 17/6/2021, made a representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Hon’ble PWD Minister, and the Chief Secretary, urging them to consider their cases for regularisation in the post of Technical Assistant. (2) Knowledge of Konkani. Desirable: Knowledge of Marathi”. 11. The Petitioners, on 17/6/2021, made a representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Hon’ble PWD Minister, and the Chief Secretary, urging them to consider their cases for regularisation in the post of Technical Assistant. The Petitioners have pleaded that they were given to understand that the PWD would consider their case for regularisation. Mr. Pereira even submitted that the Petitioners were assured by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Hon’ble PWD Minister during their visit to hand over the representation dated 17/6/2021 that the Petitioners would be “selected”. 12. The Petitioners have pleaded and even, otherwise, the record bears out that advertisements were issued, inviting applications in the prescribed format for filling up, inter-alia, 31 posts of Technical Assistant (Computer/Electronics/Information Technology). The advertisement/website refers to the essential and desirable qualifications, as reflected in the said Rules i.e. Degree qualification and knowledge of Konkani. 13. The learned Advocate General submitted that almost all the 27 contract employees applied in the prescribed format for consideration of their candidature for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant. The learned Advocate General also submitted that from out of the 27 contractual appointees, 3 of the contractual appointees find a place in the select list. The learned Advocate General submitted that from this, it is quite clear that the Petitioners took their chance at the selection process in terms of the said Rules and the advertisement and it is only after some of them were not successful in finding a place in the select list, that these Petitions have been instituted, interalia, to question the said Rules. The learned Advocate General submitted that this is impermissible and the challenge to the said Rules at the behest of such Petitioners, must be rejected on this ground, amongst other grounds that equally apply to this case. 14. Mr. Pereira submitted that in terms of the said Rules, the degree qualification was made an essential qualification. He submitted that in the advertisement dated 23/11/2012 for filling up the post of Technical Assistant on a contractual basis, Diploma in Engineer/Technology (Computer Science/Electronics and Telecommunications) or Bachelor of Computer Application or Bachelor of Sciences (Computer Sciences) or equivalent, was prescribed as an essential qualification. He submitted that in the advertisement dated 23/11/2012 for filling up the post of Technical Assistant on a contractual basis, Diploma in Engineer/Technology (Computer Science/Electronics and Telecommunications) or Bachelor of Computer Application or Bachelor of Sciences (Computer Sciences) or equivalent, was prescribed as an essential qualification. He submitted that whilst 10 to 12 Petitioners possess the degree qualification prescribed in the said Rules, remaining do not possess this degree qualification though, they were fully qualified in terms of the 2012 advertisement. Mr. Pereira submits that since the Petitioners were assured that they would be selected, they might have taken part in the selection process. He submitted that therefore, this cannot preclude the Petitioners from challenging the said Rules and, in any case, from challenging the non-regularisation of their services as Technical Assistant. 15. On the aspect of regularisation, Mr. Pereira submitted that initial appointments of the Petitioners were not illegal, but, might have been only “irregular”. He points out that the appointments were against sanctioned posts in pursuance of a valid advertisement and most importantly, after considering the candidature of several applicants. He submitted that the applicants fulfilled the essential, as well as the desirable qualifications prescribed in the advertisement and, therefore, there was nothing illegal in the appointments of the Petitioners. 16. Mr. Pereira submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Umadevi and ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 did not concern the issue of regularisation of services of contractual employees or daily wage employees at all but the decision is concerned with the scope of powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the conflicting directions issued by the Benches of the Karnataka High Court, as well as other High Courts. Mr. Pereira submitted that in any case, the situation in which the Petitioners are placed is governed by paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi (supra) since there was nothing illegal in the appointments of the Petitioners, though the appointments might be irregular. Based upon all this, Mr. Pereira submitted that non-regularisation of the Petitioners’ services would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because it would amount to permitting the Respondents to exploit the Petitioners by continuing them on contractual basis for a term of almost 8 years. 17. Mr. Based upon all this, Mr. Pereira submitted that non-regularisation of the Petitioners’ services would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because it would amount to permitting the Respondents to exploit the Petitioners by continuing them on contractual basis for a term of almost 8 years. 17. Mr. Pereira also relied on Nihal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and ors., (2013) 14 SCC 65; Arjun Singh and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors., (2015) 15 SCC 713 and State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari and ors., (2010) 9 SCC 247 to submit that in similar cases regularisation of services of casual labour/daily wagers/ad hoc employees was ordered. Based on these decisions, Mr. Pereira submits that the Respondents are violating the constitutional provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by not regularising the services of the Petitioners as Technical Assistant. 18. Mr. Pereira submits that the said Rules are arbitrary and illegal because they do not take into account the plight of the Petitioners. He submits that the Respondents should have considered the position of essential and desirable qualifications in the year 2013 when the Petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis as Technical Assistant. He submits that the said Rules are arbitrary and unreasonable because they have been framed without keeping in mind the nature of services for which the appointments are made and the qualifications prescribed have no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. He submits that the said Rules smack of malafides and have been framed to eliminate the Petitioners and other similarly placed employees from being selected or to deprive the Petitioners and other similarly placed of their right to be considered for regularisation. 19. Mr. Pereira submitted that the Respondents ought to have provided preference and relaxation to the Petitioners and other contract service employees when it came to regular selection. Mr. Pereira submitted that for all these reasons, even the said Rules are liable to be struck down as unconstitutional. 20. Mr. 19. Mr. Pereira submitted that the Respondents ought to have provided preference and relaxation to the Petitioners and other contract service employees when it came to regular selection. Mr. Pereira submitted that for all these reasons, even the said Rules are liable to be struck down as unconstitutional. 20. Mr. Pereira also made a passing reference to the news items in The Times of India and Times News Network at Annexure 'J’ to the Petition which refer to one of the MLAs alleging that the PWD Minister sold jobs and the Hon’ble Chief Minister ordering probe into the allegations and keeping the recruitments on hold, in the meantime. Mr. Pereira submitted that this is an additional reason why the relief should be granted to the Petitioners in these Petitions. 21. Learned Advocate General submitted that the offers of contractual appointment which were accepted by the Petitioners without any protest had made it clear to the Petitioners that they would not be entitled to claim any title for permanent employment. He submitted that the advertisement had made it very clear that the appointments were only on a contractual basis and, therefore, it is fallacious to urge that there was some fair competition in the selection process. He relied on Official Liquidator vs. Dayanandand ors., (2008) 10 SCC 1 in support of this contention. 22. The learned Advocate General submitted that even the contractual appointments were made based only on interviews of some 2700 candidates, without there being any written test or other tests involving any objective criteria. He submitted that this is an additional reason to hold that the contractual appointments were not merely irregular, as urged by the Petitioners. He submitted that there is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the said Rules, particularly because the requirement of degree qualification is prescribed for the Technical Assistant even in other Government Departments. He submitted that the requirement of a degree for the post of Technical Assistant has a direct nexus with the job requirements. He submitted that in any case, these are matters which must be left to the Government. He submitted that there are no malafides involved and, in any case, the said Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, cannot be questioned on the ground of malafides. He submitted that in any case, these are matters which must be left to the Government. He submitted that there are no malafides involved and, in any case, the said Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, cannot be questioned on the ground of malafides. He submitted that the Petitioners took their chance in the selection process based on the said Rules and only because some of them failed to be selected, these Petitions have been instituted. He submits that there were no promises or assurances held out to the Petitioners either on the issue of regularisation or on the issue of their selection in the selection process and, therefore, the doctrine of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel does not apply to the present matters. He relied on Umadevi (supra) and University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Unionand ors., 2021 SCC OnLine 256 in support of his submissions. For all these reasons, the learned Advocate General submitted that these Petitions may be dismissed. 23. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 24. On the issue of regularisation of the Petitioners’ services, the Petitioners have placed on record no material entitling them, as a matter of right, for such regularisation. The entire case is based on the so-called assurances given by the Ministers and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra). Mr. Pereira also urged that such regularisation is required to be granted in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh (supra), Arjun Singh(supra) and M.L.Kesari (supra). 25. There is nothing on record that indicates that any assurances were given by the Ministers on the aspect of regularisation of the Petitioners’ services. In any case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra) has rejected the contention based on legitimate expectation or breach of promise by holding that the State Government cannot constitutionally make such promises. Relevant observations are to be found in paragraph 47 of Umadevi (supra) and the same reads as follows : “47. In any case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra) has rejected the contention based on legitimate expectation or breach of promise by holding that the State Government cannot constitutionally make such promises. Relevant observations are to be found in paragraph 47 of Umadevi (supra) and the same reads as follows : “47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature, Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees, It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.” 26. The contention based on legitimate expectation was considered in great detail in OfficialLiquidatorvs.Dayanand (supra) in the precise context of regularisation of services. But such contention was ultimately rejected, after relying upon Umadevi (supra) and some other decisions. The discussion on the subject of legitimate expectation is to be found in paragraphs 101 to 114 of the SCC report. All this is sufficient to turn down the Petitioners’ plea based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel. 27. Since, Mr. Pereira placed heavy reliance on the observations in paragraphs 53 of Umadevi (supra), the same are transcribed below for the convenience of reference : 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. All this is sufficient to turn down the Petitioners’ plea based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel. 27. Since, Mr. Pereira placed heavy reliance on the observations in paragraphs 53 of Umadevi (supra), the same are transcribed below for the convenience of reference : 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore vs. S.V. Narayanappa – (1967) 1 SCR 128 ; R.N. Nanjundappa vs. T. Thimmiah – (1972) 2 SCR 799 and B.N. Nagarajan vs. State of Karnataka – (1979) 4 SCC 507 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 above referred 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.” 28. In this case, no indulgence is due to the Petitioners based on the aforesaid observations because, in the first place, the Petitioners came to be appointed on a contractual basis after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra). In this case, no indulgence is due to the Petitioners based on the aforesaid observations because, in the first place, the Petitioners came to be appointed on a contractual basis after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra). Secondly, and in any case, the Petitioners have not continued in their contractual appointments for 10 years or more and, therefore, there was no obligation on the State Government to have explored the possibility of their regularisation as a one-time measure. Thirdly, and most importantly, it is not a case where the contractual appointments of the Petitioners can be styled as merely “irregular” appointments. 29. In the last context, the Petitioners have themselves pleaded that the advertisement was quite clear since the appointments were to be made on a contractual basis. Besides, even though almost 2700 candidates applied for selection to about 46 posts, the selection was done by a committee, the composition of which is not clear, based only on oral interviews. The learned Advocate General has pointed out that in such matters a written test would be necessary since a written test would introduce some element of objectivity in the selection process. Considering the nature of the post (Group ‘C’), we agree with the learned Advocate General that the selection made only based on an oral interview, cannot be regarded as merely irregular selection. 30. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Petitioners cannot insist upon regularisation based upon the observations in paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra). 31. In Delhi University Contract Employees Union (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was called upon to consider the correctness of a decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court that had set aside the decision of the Single Judge, dismissing the plea of the contract employees for regularisation in terms of paragraph 53 of Umadevi(supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Division Bench and restored the decision of the Single Judge, declining the contractual employees the relief of regularisation based on paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra). In doing so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered several decisions, including, interalia, the decisions in M.L. Kesari (supra) and Nihal Singh (supra)upon which reliance was placed by Mr. Pereira in these Petitions. 32. In doing so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered several decisions, including, interalia, the decisions in M.L. Kesari (supra) and Nihal Singh (supra)upon which reliance was placed by Mr. Pereira in these Petitions. 32. In Delhi University Contract Employees Union (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the decision in Umadevi (supra) was considered by a Bench of Three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand (supra). In that case, the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and the Delhi High Court were under challenge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the challenge and reversed the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and the Delhi High Court by making the following observations in paragraphs 52 and 75 : “52... In this context, we may also mention that though the Official Liquidators appear to have issued advertisements for appointing the company-paid staff and made some sort of selection, more qualified and meritorious persons must have shunned from applying because they knew that the employment will be for a fixed term on fixed salary and their engagement will come to an end with the conclusion of liquidation proceedings. As a result of this, only mediocres must have responded to the advertisements and joined as company-paid staff. In this scenario a direction for absorption of all the company-paid staff has to be treated as violative of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution … … …. . 75. By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution, the judgment of the Constitution Ben in Umadevi (supra) is binding on all the courts including this Court till the same is overruled by a larger Bench. The ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment has been followed by different two-Judge Benches for declining to entertain the claim of regularisation of service made by ad hoc/temporary/daily wage/casual employees or for reversing the orders of the High Court granting relief to such employees - Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen – (2007) 1 SCC 408 , Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 533 , Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. L.V Subramanyeswara- (2007) 5 SCC 326 , Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh – (2007) 6 SCC 207 . However, in U.P. SFB v. Pooran Chandra Pandey- (2007) 11 SCC 92 , on which reliance has been placed by Shri Gupta, a two Judge Bench has attempted to dilute the Constitution Bench judgment by suggesting that the said decision cannot be applied to a case where regularisation has been sought for in pursuance of Article 14 of the Constitution and that the same is in conflict with the judgment| of the seven-Judge Bench in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India – (1978) 1 SCC 248 .” 33. In Delhi University Contract Employees Union (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Employees Union by observing that the concerned employees had put in more than 10 years of service and could, therefore, claim the benefit in terms of paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi (supra). Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the import of its decision in M.L. Kesari (supra) and Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand - (2018) 8 SCC 238 by rejecting the latter decisions in the backdrop of the facts of that case. Therefore, by following the law laid down in Delhi University Contract Employees Union (supra), which has explained the import of the observations in paragraph 53 of Umadevi(supra), the Petitioners’ plea for regularisation based on the observations in the said paragraph will have to be rejected. 34. Even, otherwise, in Nihal Singh(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the initial appointments were not irregular. Rather, the selection process was designed under which the District Senior Superintendent of Police was required to choose suitable ex-servicemen or other able-bodied persons for being appointed as Special Police Officers (SPOs) in terms of Section 17 of the Police Act. Accordingly, a requisition was made by the Police Department, and options were called from ex-servicemen who were willing to be enrolled as SPOs under Section 17 of the Police Act. Such a procedure of making recruitments was held to be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in Union of India vs. N. Hargopal – (1987) 3 SCC 308 . Based on these distinguishing factors, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was nothing irregular in the appointments of the SPOs. Such a procedure of making recruitments was held to be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in Union of India vs. N. Hargopal – (1987) 3 SCC 308 . Based on these distinguishing factors, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was nothing irregular in the appointments of the SPOs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noted that at that time there was large-scale unrest in the State of Punjab and there was a dire necessity to appoint the SPOs. Having regard to all such distinguishing features, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered absorption of such SPOs in service. Such factors do not obtain in the present Petitions and, therefore, the decision in Nihal Singh (supra) can be of no assistance to the Petitioners. Incidentally, Nihal Singh (supra) was also distinguished by the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself in the recent decision in DelhiUniversityContractEmployeesUnion (supra). 35. Similarly, in Arjun Singh(supra), the appellants were appointed after following all procedures of selection, including the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, and were continued in service for a long time. In the facts of the said case, it was found that there were sanctioned posts and the appellants were discharging the same duties as were being discharged by their regularly appointed counterparts. The State failed to disclose the circumstances in which the advertisement was published by the Public Service Commission and the scale of pay was shown @ 50% of the regular pay and the nature of appointment on a contract basis. Even the rule of reservation was followed while making the selection and appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the decision of the State Authorities, including the Public Service Commission, prescribing 50% of the regular pay on contract basis initially for one year, extendable on a year-to-year basis, was against the very requisition and the decision taken by the Electricity Board. Having regard to these distinguishing features, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the action of the State Authorities was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to these distinguishing features, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the action of the State Authorities was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to notice that this was not a case of any regularisation of services of the appellants, but it was a case where directions ought to have been issued to the Respondents to provide the appellants with orders of regular appointment from the date of their initial appointment itself. Again, none of such factors obtain even remotely in the present Petitions. Therefore, even the decision in Arjun Singh (supra) can be of no assistance to the present Petitioners. 36. In these Petitions, as noted earlier, the advertisement issued in the year 2012 had made it very clear that the appointments were to be made only on a contractual basis. In this context, reliance was appropriately placed by the learned Advocate General on the observations in paragraphs 52 of the Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the advertisement issued by the Official Liquidator for appointing the company-paid staff had clearly disclosed the status and terms of appointment, including the fact that the appointees would be paid from the company fund and not the consolidated fund of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, based on this factor, concluded that more qualified and meritorious persons must have shunned from applying because they knew that the employment will be for a fixed term on a fixed salary and their engagement will come to an end with the conclusion of liquidation proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that as a result of this, only mediocres must have responded to the advertisements and joined as company-paid staff. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in this scenario, a direction for absorption of all the company-paid staff has to be treated as violative of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. These observations will appropriately apply to the facts in the present Petitions as well because the advertisements, in this case, were quite clear that the appointments would be made only on a contractual basis on a consolidated salary. The advertisement did not even hint at the possibility of absorption or regularisation. 37. These observations will appropriately apply to the facts in the present Petitions as well because the advertisements, in this case, were quite clear that the appointments would be made only on a contractual basis on a consolidated salary. The advertisement did not even hint at the possibility of absorption or regularisation. 37. Therefore, upon cumulative consideration of the facts, circumstances, as well as decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Petitioners’ plea for regularisation will have to be rejected. 38. On the issue of challenge to the said Rules, even if we proceed on the basis that the Petitioners are not estopped from raising such a challenge after having participated in the selection process, we find that there is no case made out to sustain such a challenge to the said Rules. The said Rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. It is a well-settled position that such rules are legislative, or in any case, quasi-legislative in character. Therefore, such rules cannot be challenged on the ground of malafides or by imputing motives. 39. The rule-making function under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India is legislative (see B.S. Yadav v/s. State of Haryana 1980 Supp. SCC 524). For this reason, such rules can be struck down only on such grounds as may invalidate a legislative measure and not on the ground of any improper motive (see R.L.Bansal V/s. Union of India – 1992 Supp. (02) SCC 318 and V. K. Sood v/s. Secretary, Civil Aviation (supra). 40. In V.K. Sood vs. Secretary, Civil Aviation and ors., 1993 Sup. (3) SCC 9 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once there was no dispute that the recruitment rules had been made by the President exercising the powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, there was no question of questioning the validity of such rules on the ground of malafides. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in the exercise of rule-making power, the President or the authorized person is entitled to prescribe the method of recruitment, qualification both, educational as well as technical for appointments or conditions of service to an office or a post under the State. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in the exercise of rule-making power, the President or the authorized person is entitled to prescribe the method of recruitment, qualification both, educational as well as technical for appointments or conditions of service to an office or a post under the State. The rules thus, having been made in exercise of the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, being statutory, cannot be impeached on the ground that the authorities have prescribed the tailor-made qualifications to suit the stated individuals. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is suffice to state that it is settled law that no motives can be attributed to the Legislature in making the law. 41. Such rules, therefore, cannot be held to be unreasonable or arbitrary, simply because the advertisement for making the appointments on a contractual basis issued in the year 2012, had considered even the diploma holders or the candidates having a degree of Bachelor of Computer Application or Bachelor of Sciences as eligible and the said Rules now only insist on Degree in Engineering from a recognized University in the branch of Information Technology/ Computers/Electronics/ Electronics and Telecommunications/Electrical and Electronics. Since we are concerned with the post of Technical Assistant (Computer/Electronics/Information Technology), the essential qualifications prescribed in the said Rules have a direct nexus with the duties that such Technical Assistant is required to be discharged. Therefore, the said Rules cannot be held to be either arbitrary or unreasonable, simply because some of the Petitioners who are contractual employees, may not possess the essential qualifications prescribed under the said Rules. 42. The contention that the Government ought to have exercised the power of relaxation or the Government ought to have considered the plight of the contracted employees before the said Rules were framed is, again, not a plea sufficient to hold that the said Rules are either arbitrary or unreasonable. Even, Mr. Pereira submitted that about 10 to 12 contractual employees possess the qualification prescribed under the said Rules. The learned Advocate General submitted that 3 of the eligible contractual employees also find a place in the select list. 43. Mr. Pereira also urged that the Petitioners might be aged-barred to seek regular employment and for this reason also the said Rules are liable to be declared as arbitrary and unreasonable. The learned Advocate General submitted that 3 of the eligible contractual employees also find a place in the select list. 43. Mr. Pereira also urged that the Petitioners might be aged-barred to seek regular employment and for this reason also the said Rules are liable to be declared as arbitrary and unreasonable. In terms of the said Rules, the age limit for direct recruitment is 45 years. There are no pleadings in each of these Petitions on the aspect of any of the Petitioners being age-barred on the date of the advertisement dated 27/8/2021. Rather, the cause title in each of these Petitions indicates that the Petitioners are in the age group of 29-38 years and have not crossed the age limit of 45 years prescribed in the said Rules. Even, otherwise, this ground will not be sufficient to strike down the said Rules as arbitrary or unconstitutional. 44. Thus, no case is made out to strike down the said Rules as arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconstitutional based upon the grounds raised in the Petitions and the additional grounds urged by Mr. Pereira on behalf of the Petitioners. 45. The next contention based on certain press reports is also not sufficient to grant any relief to the Petitioners in the present Petitions. In the first place, this Court does not rely upon such press reports. Secondly, the press reports speak about some extraneous considerations being involved in the selection, pursuant to the advertisement dated 27/8/2021 for filling up the posts of Technical Assistant on a temporary basis. This advertisement was issued based on the said Rules. Now, assuming that there was some issue regards such selection, the same is not a good enough reason for either regularisation of the Petitioners' services or for striking down the said Rules. Therefore, the contention based upon the press reports, cannot be accepted. If any person or candidate is aggrieved by the selection process then it is for such person or candidate to challenge the process on such grounds as may be available in law. But this cannot be a good enough ground to either strike down the said Rules or to order the regularization of Petitioners' services. 46. If any person or candidate is aggrieved by the selection process then it is for such person or candidate to challenge the process on such grounds as may be available in law. But this cannot be a good enough ground to either strike down the said Rules or to order the regularization of Petitioners' services. 46. The contention based upon the Memorandum dated 5/8/2021, also cannot be accepted because this memorandum generally permits extension of the existing contractual appointments beyond 31/10/2021 for a further period of one year i.e. up to 31/10/2022 or for such period of time, as per the requirement of the Department/PSUs concerned, whichever is earlier. Since it is reported that the requirement in the PWD is only up to 31/1/2022, we cannot say that the order dated 12/11/2021 is in conflict with the Memorandum dated 5/8/2021 or that the same is otherwise arbitrary. 47. Finally, though we are not non-suiting the Petitioners on these grounds, we must record that there are no pleadings of the Petitioners having made any representation for regularisation of their services at any time before 17/6/2021, even though the Petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis in the year 2013. This is possibly because the Petitioners were aware that they were being appointed on a contractual basis long after the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (supra). The representation was made on 17/6/2021 only after the said Rules were notified on 10/6/2021 and some of the Petitioners were found to be ineligible to seek regular appointment for want of prescribed qualifications under the said Rules. Even, thereafter the contractual employees, including the Petitioners, took part in the selection process based allegedly on the promises of selection allegedly secured by them. Three of the contractual employees even find a place in the select list. Thus, it is only after the Petitioners failed to secure a position in the select list that these Petitions came to be instituted on 15/1/2022 when the Memorandum dated 12/11/2021 had made it clear that the Petitioners' contractual engagement will continue only up to 31/1/2022. The Petitioners have not even bothered to implead any of the candidates that find a place in the select list as parties to these Petitions. Even if all such factors are overlooked, no case has been made out for the grant of reliefs as prayed for in these petitions. 48. The Petitioners have not even bothered to implead any of the candidates that find a place in the select list as parties to these Petitions. Even if all such factors are overlooked, no case has been made out for the grant of reliefs as prayed for in these petitions. 48. For all the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss all these Petitions.