JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6399 of 2011 by which the writ petition has been dismissed declining to pass positive direction for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for regularization by implementing the decision of the Board of Directors of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (in short RRDA) resolved in its meeting held on 10.11.2008. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated herein, read as under: The writ-petitioner was appointed vide office order no. 117/06 contained in Memo No. 1174 dated 01.09.2006 on the post of Computer Operator on the honorarium of Rs. 5,500/- per month w.e.f. 01.09.2006. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the Board of Directors of RRDA in its meeting held on 10.11.2008 has decided that the service of the writ-petitioner will continue even after completion of the tenure of the said Chairman. But, the services of the writ petitioner and other benefits attached to the said post along with the salary had been stopped. Thereafter, the writ petitioner made several representations before the authorities but no heed had been paid to the said representations. Being aggrieved by the said action of the authorities, the writ petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 6399 of 2011 which has been dismissed against which the instant appeal has been preferred. 3. It appears from the pleading made in the writ petition that the writ-petitioner who was appointed on co-terminus basis vide order dated 01.09.2006 had joined the services and started discharging his duties with the then Chairman of RRDA, namely, R.N. Tiwari. A meeting was held on 10.11.2008 wherein decision was taken allowing the writ petitioner to discharge his duties even after the tenure of the then Chairman. The writ petitioner basis upon the said decision taken by the committee has ventilated his grievance allowing him to continue in service but he had not been paid salary and hence, he has made representations with the prayer for regularization for his services and arrears of salary. The writ petitioner basis upon the said decision taken by the committee has ventilated his grievance allowing him to continue in service but he had not been paid salary and hence, he has made representations with the prayer for regularization for his services and arrears of salary. Since grievance having not been redressed, the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6399 of 2011 was filed but the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and considering the entry of appointment of the writ petitioner has refused to pass positive direction by dismissing the writ petition against which the present appeal has been preferred. 4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Roy, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted by referring to the provision of Section 6(2) of the RRDA Act, whereby and whereunder, power has been vested upon the authority for making rule for appointment. It has been contended that if the power has been conferred upon the RRDA as under Section 6(2) and in that view of the matter if the decision has been taken by the committee in the meeting held on 10.11.2008 allowing the writ petitioner to continue in the services even after the tenure of the then Chairman, the same cannot be said to be improper. Further, since the committee has taken a conscious decision for continuation of the writ petitioner in services, hence, that is to be considered as a measure for regularization of the writ petitioner in service, but, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact in the light of the provision of Section 6(2) of the BRDA Act rather by relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi (supra) has dismissed the writ petition which cannot be said to be justified. It has been contended that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi (supra) is in a case where there is no available rule but herein, rule is there conferring power upon the authority to make appointment and in that view of the matter, the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable. 5. Per contra, Mr. 5. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-RRDA has submitted that the appointment was made of the writ petitioner purely on ad-hoc basis said to be co-terminus to be continued till the tenure of the then Chairman and the day when the tenure of the then Chairman gets concluded, the services of the writ petitioner stood automatically closed. It has been submitted that specific stipulation has been made in the appointment letter as appended as Annexure-1 but the Chairman exceeding his jurisdiction has convened a meeting and extended the period of services of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner basis upon the said decision is now claiming regularization in service. It has been contended in the aforesaid premise that once the writ petitioner has been inducted in service by way of back door entry which is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner is having no claim for regularization. Therefore, it has been submitted that if the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration this aspect of the matter refusing to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 7. The issue involved herein is regarding the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization. Such claim is based upon the decision taken by the Chairman of the RRDA. 8. It is evident from the engagement order as appended as Annexure-1 that the appointment of the writ petitioner was made on co-terminus basis, i.e. his engagement will be allowed to be continued till the tenure of the Chairman of the RRDA and the day when the tenure of the Chairman will be completed, the tenure of the writ petitioner will automatically stand cancelled. For ready reference, the content of the said order is being referred as under: 9. The Chairman, before completion of his tenure, has convened a meeting wherein decision has been taken by changing the nature of the appointment of the writ petitioner for continuation of the services of the writ petitioner. For ready reference, the content of the said order is being referred as under: 9. The Chairman, before completion of his tenure, has convened a meeting wherein decision has been taken by changing the nature of the appointment of the writ petitioner for continuation of the services of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner basis upon the said recommendation has agitated his grievance for his regularization in service by taking aid of the provision of Section 6(2) of the RRDA Act. Section 6 of the Act is being referred as under: “6. Staff of the Authority: (1) The Authority shall have a Secretary, to be appointed by the State Government, who shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed by regulations or delegated to them by the Authority, or the Chairman. (2) The Authority may, subject to such control and restriction as may be prescribed by rules approved by Government appoint such number of other officers and employees (including experts for technical work such as Economic Planner, Transportation Planner, Health and Education Planner, Date Information System Planner) as may be necessary for the efficient performance of its functions and may determine their designation and grades. (3) The Secretary, and other officers and employees of the Authority shall be entitled to receive from the funds of the Authority such salaries and such allowances if any, and shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be determined by regulations : Provided that appointments to posts with minimum salary of Rs. 500 shall be made on the advice of the Bihar Public Service Commission. The Authority may appoint a person on any post carrying salary above Rs. 500 after approved of the State Government and the total period of such appointment shall in no case exceed six months. (4) The Authority may appoint a consultant on hire to assist in planning and other tasks, provided that in case a consultation fee exceeds rupees five thousand for a consultant prior approval of State Government shall be necessary.” 10. It is evident from the provision of Section 6, more particularly sub-section (2) thereof that power of making rule has been conferred therein. 11. The admitted position herein is that no rule was formulated in view of the provision of Section 6(2) of the Act. 12. It is evident from the provision of Section 6, more particularly sub-section (2) thereof that power of making rule has been conferred therein. 11. The admitted position herein is that no rule was formulated in view of the provision of Section 6(2) of the Act. 12. The question which requires consideration is that in absence of any rule to be formulated under Section 6(2) of the Act, is it available for the Chairman of the authority to appoint/regularize a person by back door entry. 13. It requires to refer herein by taking into consideration the very object and intent of Section 6 of the Act, more particularly sub-section (2) thereof, that the authorities have to make out a rule governing the field of recruitment so as to achieve the object and intent of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by maintaining the principle fairness and transparency in the matter of public employment. But herein, the writ petitioner has been appointed on co-terminus basis and thereafter, he has been allowed to continue also. The writ petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid fact, is not claiming for his regularization. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court has already dealt with the issue in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi (supra) wherein the very purpose of the provision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment is to prohibit the back door entry in the public employment but in order to regularize the services of one time exercise, exception has been carved out as under paragraph-53 thereof. For ready reference, the said paragraph is being referred as under: “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071 , R.N. Nanjundappa (1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799 and B.N. Nagarajan (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937 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.” 15. The purpose of carving out the measure as a one time exercise is that hence forth, i.e., from the date of judicial pronouncement there must be restriction in back door entry. The exception has been carved out by way of one time exercise which also suggest that the exercise for regularization by inducting a person through back door entry has been made to be impermissible. 16. Subsequent to the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified the implication of the judgment on the issue raised that since the State of Jharkhand was made on 15.11.2000and the period of 10 years will be counter, then from 15.11.2000 none of the cases of such employees who have entered into service through back door will be considered since the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi (supra) has laid down the proposition that 10 years is to be counted up to the day of pronouncement of judgment, i.e., 10.04.2006. 17. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2018) 8 SCC 238 , therefore, has laid down that 10 years will be counted so far as the State of Jharkhand is concerned from 15.11.2000 as also the State of Jharkhand had been directed to make out a rule. The Rule has been formulated in pursuance of the aforesaid direction in the year 2015. 18. It appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of RRDA that the rule, however, has not been formulated in view of the provision of Section 6(2) of the Act but in absence thereof, the rule formulated by the State Government and order/circular issued from time to time are being followed in the RRDA, Ranchi. 19. Admittedly herein, the writ petitioner is claiming for regularization on the ground that he has been engaged in service on co-terminus basis which admittedly does not confer any right upon him to hold the post on substantive capacity. 20. The writ petitioner has been appointed on co-terminus basis, hence, no right is being accrued in his favour to claim continuation on the said post by way of regularization. 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat and Another vs. P.J. Kampavat and Others, (1992) 3 SCC 226 , had occasion to look into a case where persons concerned were appointed directly in the office of the Chief Minister on purely temporary basis for a limited period up to the tenure of the Chief Minister. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the said premise, has held that such an appointment was purely a contractual one, and it was coterminous with that of the Chief Minister's tenure, and such service came to an end simultaneously with the end of tenure of the Chief Minister. No separate order of termination or even a notice was necessary for putting an end to such a service. 22. Herein also exactly similar is the position since the writ petitioner was appointed on coterminous basis up to the tenure of the Chairman of RRDA and the moment the tenure of Chairman of RRDA ends, the services of the writ petitioner will also come to an end. 23. 22. Herein also exactly similar is the position since the writ petitioner was appointed on coterminous basis up to the tenure of the Chairman of RRDA and the moment the tenure of Chairman of RRDA ends, the services of the writ petitioner will also come to an end. 23. The claim of the writ petitioner that decision has been taken by the Chairman for his further continuation cannot confer any right upon the writ petitioner to claim regularization in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat and Another vs. P.J. Kampavat and Others (supra). 24. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect along with the legal position as above, has come to the order impugned wherefrom this Court has found that the learned Single Judge has given thoughtful consideration by negating the claim of the writ petitioner basis upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi (supra) as also by taking into consideration that no rule has been formulated by the RRDA in view of the provision of Section 6(2) of the Act, hence, rule formulated by the State of Jharkhand in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others (supra) will be applicable to be followed by the RRDA till the formulation of Rule under Section 6(2) of the Act. 25. The aforesaid ground led the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition by declining to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner. 26. This Court, in view thereof, is of the view based upon the aforesaid discussion that the learned Single Judge while arriving to such conclusion has committed no error. 27. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed. 28. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stands disposed of.