JUDGMENT : Rai Chattopadhyay, J. 1. This appeal has been filed to challenge the order dated February 12, 2018 of the Hon’ble Single Bench, delivered in writ petition being W.P No. 13747 (w) of 2016. The prayer of the writ petitioner for regularisation of his service with the respondent Corporation was turned down by the Hon’ble Single Bench by dint of the said judgment. 2. The Court took notice of the fact of indigent financial condition of the respondent Corporation. The Court also took notice of the fact of availability of no vacancy with the respondent Corporation, as regards post in which the writ petitioner/appellant claimed to be regularised. The Court had also noticed absence of any scheme in this regard. Thus, the Hon’ble Single Bench was of the opinion that the prayers in the writ petition could not be entertained. It further directed that in the event of any scheme being framed for recruitment afresh or regularisation in permanent post of drivers and conductors, the appellant’s case would be taken into consideration by the respondent Corporation. The appellant, being aggrieved with the observation and finding of the Hon’ble Single Judge has preferred the instant appeal. 3. Before going into the arguments of the respective parties, it is necessary that the factual aspects, leading to filing of the case, be considered in a nut shell. The appellant/writ petitioner joined as an “extra trainee route driver” with the respondent Corporation, on May 22, 1992. However, his dissatisfactory performance made him to be struck off from the role of the respondent Corporation for some time thereafter. Subsequently he was again appointed on purely temporary basis in the post of ‘driver-cum-conductor’ vide a letter of appointment dated August 19, 2003. He joined afresh on September 1, 2003. Since then the appellant has been serving the respondent Corporation with utmost honesty, integrity and sincerity. After completion of initial training period, he was engaged as a daily rated ‘driver-cum-conductor’, with effect from March 7, 2004. He was allowed a daily allowances of Rs. 210/-with effect from March 2, 2004. The appellant has been remunerated by daily wages on ‘no work no pay’ basis. After completion of initial training period, he was engaged as a daily rated ‘driver-cum-conductor’, with effect from March 7, 2004. He was allowed a daily allowances of Rs. 210/-with effect from March 2, 2004. The appellant has been remunerated by daily wages on ‘no work no pay’ basis. The appellant has been aggrieved that in spite of his sincere and satisfactory continuous service for about ten years, the respondent Corporation has never considered his candidature for absorption against a substantive vacant post, allegedly in spite of availability of post and with ulterior motives. Written representations made by the appellant and that duly forwarded by the Depot Manager, Salt Lake Depot to the competent authority, i.e, Managing Director of the respondent Corporation have gone in vain. This had paved way for the appellant to seek redress before this Court. His first writ petition was Writ Petition No. 16918 (w) of 2013. The same was disposed of on June 27, 2013, directing the respondent authority to consider the appellant’s representations for absorption and dispose of the same by dint of a reasoned order. Subsequently the respondent authority passed order dated December 12, 2013, thereby rejecting appellant’s prayer for absorption and regularisation. The second writ petition of the appellant was W.P.No. 14486 (w) of 2014, the same was disposed of vide order dated June 10, 2014. The Court had passed order as follows:- “Since it is evident that the petitioner has worked for a considerable number of years as a daily-rated worker and the petitioner has not been afforded the courtesy of being absorbed despite the letter of engagement, W.P. No. 14486 (W) of 2014 is disposed of by directing the Managing Director of CSTC to ensure that the petitioner and others similarly placed as the petitioner who have rendered services in excess of 10 years as daily-rated Drivers-cum-Conductors are given preference over other candidates in the process of recruitment under the JNAURM scheme subject to such 3 persons otherwise fulfilling the guidelines and criteria for the job. In the event the petitioner cannot be given the contractual job under the advertisement on any ground whatsoever, the daily rate at which the petitioner is paid should be revised by the Managing Director in accordance with law. In the event the petitioner cannot be given the contractual job under the advertisement on any ground whatsoever, the daily rate at which the petitioner is paid should be revised by the Managing Director in accordance with law. In the event the petitioner is not given an engagement on contractual basis in respect of the JNAURM scheme, the petitioner’s candidature should be considered favourably upon any vacancy arising in the regular posts of Drivers and Conductors in CSTC.” 4. The present is the third round of litigation before this Court between the parties. Before the Hon’ble Single Bench the appellant had prayed for a relief that the order dated October 29, 2014, passed by the respondent authority be set aside, that the appellant be absorbed against the substantive vacancy in the respondent Corporation by following the stipulations made in his appointment letter dated August 19, 2003 (Clause xii). The appellant has submitted that from June, 2014 to March, 2016, about 500 permanent employees retired on superannuation. However, he was never considered for absorption by Calcutta State Transport Corporation. 5. After hearing the parties the Hon’ble Single Judge has passed the order dated February 12, 2018, as mentioned above. The same is challenged in this appeal and has been sought to be set aside. 6. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated January 10, 2014, in W.P. No. 14486 (w) of 2014, the appellant was offered a contractual post under the JNAURM Scheme, which he has declined. 7. Mr. Ghosh appears for the appellant. At the very outset, he has mentioned about the appointment letter dated August 19, 2003, of the appellant. He has specifically mentioned Clause (xii) thereof, which may be extracted below, for the benefit of discussion. “(xii) Question of absorption in regular establishment would be considered as per provisions made under G.O. No. 1700-EMP dt. 3.8.79 read with Circular No. 002/354 dt. 29.9.2000 and on completion of 720 days satisfactory duty, from the date of engagement as daily rated trainee worker according to availability of vacancy.” 8. “(xii) Question of absorption in regular establishment would be considered as per provisions made under G.O. No. 1700-EMP dt. 3.8.79 read with Circular No. 002/354 dt. 29.9.2000 and on completion of 720 days satisfactory duty, from the date of engagement as daily rated trainee worker according to availability of vacancy.” 8. It has been submitted on the basis of the above stipulations made in the appointment letter that the same has given right to the appellant for being absorbed in regular establishment of the respondent Corporation, on his completion of 720 days of continuous and satisfactory service with the respondent Corporation, starting from the date of engagement as the daily rated trainee worker. He says that the appellant joined on September 1, 2003, pursuant to the said appointment letter August 19, 2003. Therefore, according to the appellant after completion of 720 days of continuous and satisfactory service with effect from the date September 1, 2003, the appellant had become eligible for absorption as against a substantive vacancy in the respondent Corporation. 9. Mr. Ghosh has submitted that during the entire service career of the appellant with the respondent Corporation, which is for more than ten years, there has never been any adverse report of blemish as regards his performance. Thus his service must be seen to have been satisfactory to the management. He further says that the records would further and undeniably show his continuous engagement for much more than 720 days with the respondent Corporation, which is the elementary condition, for a person’s eligibility, to be considered for regularisation and absorbance. 10. Mr. Ghosh has submitted that the rights of the appellant having arisen in this way, the inaction of the respondent Corporation in rejecting his candidature for regularisation/absorption is only arbitrary and illegal. He would say that Clause (xii) of the appointment letter dated August 19, 2003, is the criteria for his client to come within the consideration zone and be absorbed. He shows that the said criteria as stipulated in the appointment letter has never been denied to have been fulfilled in case of his client, by the respondent Corporation. Therefore, he says, that having the elementary criteria for absorption, as envisaged in the appointment letter dated August 19, 2003 being fulfilled, the right of the appellant could not have been denied on any other pretext, for absorption as against a substantive post in the respondent Corporation. Therefore, he says, that having the elementary criteria for absorption, as envisaged in the appointment letter dated August 19, 2003 being fulfilled, the right of the appellant could not have been denied on any other pretext, for absorption as against a substantive post in the respondent Corporation. 11. The appellant says that the contractual appointment would not have been a proper redressal for breach of the substantive right accrued in his favour in terms of Clause (xii) of the said appointment letter. The appellant has further specifically relied on the portion of the Court’s order dated June 10, 2014, that petitioner’s candidature should be considered favourably upon any vacancy arising in the regular post of the drivers and conductors, in the Corporation. 12. The following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court have been relied on by the appellant, i.e, herein below:- (i) Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 ; (ii) Sate of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Kamal Prasad & Ors. reported in (2014) 7 SCC 223 ; (iii) Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra through its Dairy Manager & Anr. reported in (2020) 17 SCC 393 . 13. It is stated that the ratio of Umadevi’s case (supra), squarely applies in the case of the appellant, whose appointment can never be said to be illegal or even as irregular. The appellant has been appointed through the proper procedure. He has been allowed to continue as a daily rated staff for more than ten years. Accordingly, by applying the ratio in Umadevi’s case (supra), it is stated, that the appellant would be entitled for an order of absorption and regularisation. In the case of Kamal Prasad (supra) the Court has relied on and emphasised the dictum and the ratio in Umadevi’s case (supra). 14. In the case of Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav (supra) again the Court relies on the ratio of the decision of Umadevi (supra). It also says that the persons similarly placed like the appellant therein, having already been granted the benefit of absorption, the benefits cannot be denied against the appellant therein, he being placed similarly with the persons benefited earlier. 15. The appellant has also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (2) Calcutta Law Journal (Cal) 51 (The State of West Bengal & Ors. 15. The appellant has also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (2) Calcutta Law Journal (Cal) 51 (The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Tapas Chakraborty & Ors.) and of Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 51342 of 2016 between Dr. Kantaharaju M. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. (judgment dated April 23, 2019) Due observance of the ratio decided in Umadevi’s case (supra) is what has been highlighted in the aforementioned Division Bench judgment of this Court. Similar is in case of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. 16. The respondent would say that firstly the matter of fulfilment of the appellant’s claim of absorption would depend on availability of the vacant posts. Mr. Sen appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that regularisation of the appellant would not be a matter of course or routine. Vacancy in the substantive category, requirement of the authority for filling up that vacancy and above all, requirements of the service of the person in the post in which the appellant is to be absorbed -are at the pivotal points for consideration, when it comes for the respondent authority to consider appellant’s claim for absorption. The respondent Corporation has made out its case firstly that the Corporation would not have any requirement of service of a person in post in which the appellant is to be absorbed. It would further say that the respondent Corporation is now indigent so far as its financial health is concerned and the same has already been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Single Bench. It would say further that even in spite of its poor financial condition, the respondent Corporation has, in terms of this Court’s order dated June 10, 2014, has offered the appellant for acceptance of contractual appointment in the JNAURM Scheme. The appellant admittedly having declined such an offer of the respondent Corporation, which was in fact in terms of and compliance with the High Court’s order. The appellant would not be entitled to any further relief at present until and unless the respondent Corporation, as a matter of policy, decides for filing up of vacant posts of the appropriate category, if any. Mr. The appellant would not be entitled to any further relief at present until and unless the respondent Corporation, as a matter of policy, decides for filing up of vacant posts of the appropriate category, if any. Mr. Sen has stated that no vacant post in the substantive category being available there, any mandate issued against the respondent Corporation may not be appropriate in view of the attending facts and circumstances. 17. Mr. Sen has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 5 SCC 773 (Union of India & Ors vs. All India Trade Union Congress & Ors.) The Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the question if the order of the High Court mandating the appellant Union of India to frame a scheme for providing specific kinds of facilities/benefits to the casual workers working in B.R.O in Uttarkhand was proper or not. The Court relied on the finding in the case of (2011) 4 SCC 200 [Union of India vs. Vartak Labour Union (2)] and quoted the following paragraphs there from:- “17. We are of the opinion that the respondent Union's claim for regularisation of its members merely because they have been working for the BRO for a considerable period of time cannot be granted in light of several decisions of this Court, wherein it has been consistently held that casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. [See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] ; Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [ (2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] ; State of Karnataka v. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak [ (2010) 3 SCC 115 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 804] ; Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal [ (2010) 2 SCC 422 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 385] ; Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar [ (2010) 4 SCC 179 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] and Rameshwar Dayal v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. [ (2010) 11 SCC 733 ] ]” The Court held that in exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot overtake the executive and sole prerogative power of the Government to frame any scheme for absorption, excepting having regards to the facts and circumstances as discussed in Vartak Labour Union’s case (supra) the Hon’ble High Court has thus set aside the High Court’s order by dint of the said judgment. 18. Let the relevant paragraph of the case of Umadevi (supra) be quoted as herein below:- “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 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.” 19. 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.” 19. The question is as to what category of employees the Supreme Court has given protection of regularisation by laying down the ratio in Umadevi’s case (supra) and also if the present petitioner fits into that category of employees or not. 20. We understand that in Umadevi’s case (supra) the Supreme Court has decided the question of regularisation of service of the category of persons who has been employed through an irregular process of appointment, though against duly sanctioned vacant posts and have continuously worked for ten years or more, without the intervention of orders of the court or the Tribunal. In that case, the Supreme Court says that the said persons should be absorbed against the substantive vacancy. This ratio as decided in Umadevi’s case (supra) has been followed subsequently by the court in the other judgments, some of which are relied on by the appellant and mentioned hereinbefore. 21. Writ petitioner’s appointment on August 19, 2003, has not been against any sanctioned vacant post. He was appointed as a daily rated trainee worker for the post of ‘driver-cum-conductor’ with the respondent Corporation. Nowhere in the said appointment letter it is stated that his appointment was against any sanctioned vacant post. As a matter of fact neither the respondent Corporation has in this case pleaded so nor the petitioner himself has come up with a case that his appointment was against a sanctioned vacant post. Accordingly, this Court considers that the ratio decided in Umadevi’s case (supra) would not be applicable in the case of the present appellant/writ petitioner. 22. On the premise as above it would be evident that whatever may be the condition stipulated in the appointment letter of the appellant/writ petitioner dated August 19, 2003, his eligibility to be regularised would certainly depend on availability of the sanctioned vacant post to accommodate him. 22. On the premise as above it would be evident that whatever may be the condition stipulated in the appointment letter of the appellant/writ petitioner dated August 19, 2003, his eligibility to be regularised would certainly depend on availability of the sanctioned vacant post to accommodate him. Respondent’s specific case is that there would not be a sanctioned vacant post for regularisation of the writ petitioner/appellant and also that there would not be any scheme available for the workman in the respondent Corporation for regularisation. 23. Obviously in such view of the matter this court earlier had directed the respondent Corporation to absorb the appellant/writ petitioner on contractual basis in the scheme of JNAURM. Admittedly, such proposal has been declined by the writ petitioner. 24. The other condition as put forth by the court, vide order dated June 10, 2014, is that if the appellant is not given a contractual engagement in JNAURM Scheme, his candidature should be favourably considered, upon the vacancy having arisen in the regular posts of ‘driver-cum-conductor’. However, this Court considers, that the appellant having declined the proposal to be accommodated under JNAURM Scheme, in terms of the order dated June 10, 2014, and also having not challenged the same order, thereby accepting the same to be finally binding on him as the petitioner thereof, cannot now opt for the default provision made by the Court, when the respondent Corporation would fail to comply with the primary direction of the Court. The present appellant, having accepted the order dated June 10, 2014, of this Court to be final and binding, now cannot espouse his cause of prejudice for not being regularised in a substantive post, after declining the offer in terms of the said order of the Court. 25. As it is envisaged by the Supreme Court in Vartak Labour Union’s case (supra) and relied on by the respondent Corporation that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner should have been in terms of the due procedure/relevant rules in order to be entitled for absorption of regular service with the Corporation after long continuous period of service. This court is in concurrence of opinion with the said submissions, in view of the particular records in this case. This court is in concurrence of opinion with the said submissions, in view of the particular records in this case. It is also noticeable in this case that the appellant/writ petitioner though have produced the appointment letter as above has not been able to produce that his appointment by dint of the same appointment letter, has been in compliance with the due procedure of selection. The ratio of Vartak Labour Union’s case (supra) would be applicable here in this case too, in so far as the absorption of the appellant would not be a casual matter of routine, but would depend upon certain vital factors touching the point of propriety, justifiability and legality of the process of induction of the writ petitioner into the said respondent Corporation. The court finds no reason to doubt or defer with the fact that neither appellant’s appointment was in terms of any scheme or rules nor in compliance with due process of selection. The appellant thus would not be entitled to an order of absorption to the post as claimed by him. 26. On the discussion as above this Court finds no infirmity as regards the order impugned dated February 12, 2018, of the Hon’ble Single Bench passed in writ petition no. W.P 13747 (W) of 2016. There would not be any cogent ground to interfere with the same. Hence, the appeal would be liable to be dismissed. 27. The appeal being MAT 360 of 2018 is dismissed. The order dated February 12, 2018 of the Hon’ble Single Bench, in writ petition being W.P No. 13747 (W) of 2016, is upheld. The appeal is disposed of with connected applications, if any. 28. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to its parties on usual undertaking.