JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Sameer Saurav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs : “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of letter issued vide Memo No. 1006 (ii)/Establishment dated 13.8.2019 (Annexure-9) passed by the Respondent No. 6 by which it has been directed to all the B.D.O. to not send the proposal of regularization of MNREGA employee. AND (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners who are working on the sanctioned post of Gram Rojgar Sewak for more than 10 years in the light of the Gazette Notification dated 4.3.2015, Notification vide Memo No. 4871 dated 20.6.2019 and Letter No. 5535 dated 12.7.2019. AND/OR (iii) For any other consequential relief or relief (s) to which the petitioner is duly entitled in the eyes of law considering the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are belonging to District Ranchi. He submits that as per the impugned letter as contained in Annexure-9, the applications for consideration of regularization of persons employed under the MNREGA scheme are not being accepted, but similar applications are being accepted in other districts of the State of Jharkhand. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submits that the respondents cannot be selective in considering the regularization of MNREGA employees. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the impugned order has been rightly issued, in as much as, the employment under MNREGA is purely contractual. The persons are employed only for a period of one year and then, their employment is terminated and they are employed as and when they are required. The employment under MNREGA is guided by the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and therefore, there is no question of regularization of these persons. He further submits that as on date, there is no scheme for regularization of such persons. 7. The employment under MNREGA is guided by the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and therefore, there is no question of regularization of these persons. He further submits that as on date, there is no scheme for regularization of such persons. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the similar issue with regard to Jawahar Rozgar Yojna has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgement reported in (1992) 4 SCC 99 (Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Others) (para 22). He submits that there is no question of any selective application of any scheme for regularization with regard to MNREGA. He also submits that if any such scheme is floated by the government, the same would certainly take care of all the districts as per policy. The learned counsel submits that as on date, there is no scheme for regularization for MNREGA employees and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is observed that the petitioners have not produced or placed on record any scheme for regularization of persons employed under MNREGA. It is not in dispute that such persons are governed by the Act namely Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. It is sufficient to observe that if ever the respondents come up with any such scheme for regularization of MNREGA employees, they cannot be arbitrary and selective. If any such occasion arises later, the petitioners may have their remedy in accordance with law. 9. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the writ petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.