JDUGMENT : (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) Petitioners are working on contract basis with the respondent-Bhakra Beas Management Board (in short ‘respondent-Board’). They seek direction to the respondents to regularize their services on completion of two years of probation period and to treat their appointments as regular appointments for all intents and purposes. Release of consequential service benefits, i.e. seniority, regular pay scale, increments etc. as admissible to regular employees has also been prayed. 2. Facts:- 2(i). Respondent-Board was facing acute shortage of manpower against vacant critical permanent sanctioned posts of long term employment cadres. On 30.10.2014, the Board took a decision to fill up certain categories of Class- III and Class-IV posts in its Irrigation and Power Wing by direct recruitment on contractual basis. The direct recruitment was to be through regular selection process by the Centralized Staff Selection Committee as per the Bhakra Beas Management Board Class III and Class IV Employees’ (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘1994 Regulations’). Relevant portion from the aforesaid office letter dated 30.10.2014 is extracted hereinafter:- “Subject: Filling up of vacant Critical Technical & Tradesman Class-III & IV post(s) in Irrigation & Power Wing sequel to the decision taken in the 219th meeting of the Board against-Agenda Item “Acute Shortage of Manpower in BBMB”- direct recruitment on Contractual Basis. ………………………………………. The approval of the competent authority is hereby accorded in respect of the following post(s) (attached at Annexure) for direct recruitment on Contractual Basis as per the decision taken in the 219th meeting of the Board. The direct recruitment shall be through the regular selection process by the Centralized Staff Selection Committee as per the mandate given in the BBMB Class-III & IV Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulation 1994………” 2(ii). Consequent upon the aforesaid decision, Advertisement No.2 of 2014 was issued by the Centralized Staff Selection Committee of the respondent-Board, inviting online applications for recruitment to certain categories of Class-III posts on contract basis for one year and extendable as per requirement. The last date for receipt of online applications was 26.02.2015. Petitioners participated in the selection process under the aforesaid advertisement for the categories of Junior Engineer (Civil), Junior Engineer (Irrigation), Staff Nurse, Hoist Operator and Driver. The last date for receipt of online applications was 26.02.2015. Petitioners participated in the selection process under the aforesaid advertisement for the categories of Junior Engineer (Civil), Junior Engineer (Irrigation), Staff Nurse, Hoist Operator and Driver. The petitioners were selected and appointed against their respective applied for categories (Class-III) on contract basis as under:- Petitioner No. Names of the Petitioners Date of appointment letter Name of Post 1. Nirmal Singh 03.09.2015 Hoist Operator 2. Baljit Singh 03.09.2015 Hoist Operator 3. Ishan Sodhi 05.09.2017 Junior Engineer (Civil) 4. Ajay Kumar 03.09.2015 Hoist Operator 5. Shanul Rana 06.02.2017 Junior Engineer (Irrigation) 6. Ajay Kumar 16.01.2017 Junior Engineer (Irrigation) 7. Devender Kumar 11.05.2017 Junior Engineer (Irrigation) 8. Robin Kumar 16.01.2017 Junior Engineer (Irrigation) 9. Anshul Chauhan 03.01.2017 Junior Engineer (Civil) 10. Amandeep Singh 03.09.2015 Hoist Operator 11. Mitter Dev 29.04.2016 Driver 12. Prem Chand 29.04.2016 Driver 13. Shalini Kumari 27.12.2017 Junior Engineer (Civil) 14. Vandana Kumari Sharma 17.03.2016 Staff Nurse 15. Karanveer Singh Mangat 16.01.2017 Junior Engineer (Irrigation) 16. Rahul Saini 16.01.2017 Junior Engineer (Irrigation) 17. Lakshya Gupta 04.06.2017 Junior Engineer (Irrigation) 18. Kuldeep Kumar 19.05.2017 Junior Engineer (Civil) Appointment orders were issued to the petitioners expressing that their appointment was on contract basis. The terms & conditions governing the appointment were also mentioned therein including Condition No.1(h), that “You will be governed by the service Rules and Regulations of the Bhakra Beas Management Board as in force from time to time”. Petitioners joined the services of the respondent-Board as Class-III employees. 2(iii). It appears that petitioners represented to the respondent-Board for conferring them regular status. Their representations were examined and Agenda item Nos.231.09, 232.10, 233.18, 234.12 & 235.15 were prepared recommending regularization of services of the petitioners/employees working on contractual basis in the Board for 231st, 232nd, 233rd, 234th and 235th meeting of the respondent-Board, respectively. Services of the petitioners were not regularized, though some enhancement was given in their salaries under Agenda Item No.235.15 proposed for 235th meeting of the Board. 2(iv). Respondent-Board issued advertisement No.1 of 2018, inviting applications for filling up Group-B & C posts. Services of those recruited under this advertisement were regularized w.e.f. 14.03.2022, i.e. on completion of probation period. Petitioners, who were recruited in previous years following the same selection process, are still continuing to serve on contractual basis. 2(iv). Respondent-Board issued advertisement No.1 of 2018, inviting applications for filling up Group-B & C posts. Services of those recruited under this advertisement were regularized w.e.f. 14.03.2022, i.e. on completion of probation period. Petitioners, who were recruited in previous years following the same selection process, are still continuing to serve on contractual basis. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the respondents be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners soon after the completion of probation period and treat the appointments of the petitioners, as appointment on regular basis for all intents and purposes. ii) That the respondents be directed to release all consequential benefits to the petitioners, in view of their regularizations with effect from their initial appointments respectively i.e. increments, seniority, regular pay scale and all other consequential benefits which are available to regular employees.” 3. Submissions:- 3(i). Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that recruitments and conditions of service of Class-III and Class-IV employees in the respondent-Board are governed by the 1994 Regulations. These regulations do not provide for appointment on contract basis. As per the Regulations, the posts, which form part of Schedule to the Regulations, can be filled up only by direct recruitment on regular basis, though the employees recruited as such are to satisfactorily complete the probation period. On successful completion of the probation period, their services are to be confirmed. Advertisement No.2 of 2014 (Annexure P-3) issued by the respondent-Board for appointment on contract basis was de hors the Regulations. Petitioners’ recruitment against Class-III posts under this advertisement was the result of selection process carried out by the respondents as envisaged for regular direct recruitment under the 1994 Regulations. The regulations are to be applied as they exist without any discrimination. The petitioners have a right to be appointed on regular basis in view of their selection in terms of the 1994 Regulations. The regulations are Magna Carta, governing the appointments against Class-III and IV posts in the respondent-Board. Without there being any amendment to the regulations, which provide only for regular appointment to Class-III and Class-IV posts, petitioners’ appointments for all intents and purposes, are to be considered as regular appointments. Neither execution of service contract was imposed as a condition in the advertisement nor the petitioners executed such contract. Without there being any amendment to the regulations, which provide only for regular appointment to Class-III and Class-IV posts, petitioners’ appointments for all intents and purposes, are to be considered as regular appointments. Neither execution of service contract was imposed as a condition in the advertisement nor the petitioners executed such contract. The petitioners had been appointed against regular posts, therefore, their services were required to be confirmed on completion of the probation period and benefits attached to regular appointments were required to be released in their favour from the date of successful completion of probation period. Respondents cannot exploit the petitioners by continuing to keep them on contract basis for years together. Learned counsel also highlighted that the respondent-Board had undertaken a selection process for recruitment to some more categories of Class-III and Class-IV employees vide a subsequent advertisement, being Advertisement No.1 of 2018. Services of the incumbents selected thereunder were regularized on completion of three years of service/probation period. The respondents cannot discriminate the petitioners, who were selected under advertisement No.2 of 2014 with those selected under advertisement No.1 of 2018. Same regulations govern both sets of employees, who were appointed by following same selection procedure. 3(ii). Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent- Board did not dispute the fact that appointments to Class- III & Class-IV posts in the respondent-Board are governed by the 1994 Regulations, which do not provide for contractual appointments and in terms of which, only regular appointments are envisaged. Learned Senior Counsel, however, submitted that in view of Regulation No.4(4) of the 1994 Regulations, the vacancies in the respondent-Board were to be filled-up in the ratio of 33:67 between the BBMB regular employees and the employees of partner State Governments/Electricity Boards (States of Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab and Union Territory of Chandigarh) working in the Board, respectively. 67% of the total vacancies were to be notified to the partner State Governments/Electricity Boards according to their share quota. It was in the event of non-availability of required number of personnel from the partner State Governments/Electricity Boards that the resultant shortfall in such vacancies could be filled up from amongst the BBMB regular employees. In the instant case, staff had been requisitioned from the partner States as per their allotted shares, but they did not deploy the requisitioned staff. It was in the event of non-availability of required number of personnel from the partner State Governments/Electricity Boards that the resultant shortfall in such vacancies could be filled up from amongst the BBMB regular employees. In the instant case, staff had been requisitioned from the partner States as per their allotted shares, but they did not deploy the requisitioned staff. Awaiting the response from the partner States, decision was taken to fill up vacant critical Class-III and Class-IV posts in the Board on contract basis for a period of one year. Such appointees had to give way on deployment of staff by the partner States. The petitioners were selected under regular recruitment process on contract basis. They were, however, continued after the expiry of the period. They are still continuing to work. The petitioners were fully aware of the conditions of Advertisement No.2 of 2014 issued by the respondent-Board, in terms of which, they had participated in the selection process. The advertisement clearly stated filling up temporary posts in Class-III and Class-IV categories on contract basis for one year, though extendable as per the requirement on lump sum payment/fixed emoluments. Petitioners did not raise any issue at the relevant time. They did not agitate that the advertisement was contrary to the provisions of 1994 Regulations. The petitioners participated in the selection process on the basis of terms & conditions mentioned in the advertisement. The appointment orders issued to the petitioners were as per stipulations of the advertisement, clearly stating that the petitioners had been appointed on contractual basis. Therefore, the petitioners are estopped from raking the issue at this stage to contend that their appointment is to be deemed to be on regular basis for all intents and purposes and that their services are required to be confirmed on completion of two years of probation period. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4(i). The 1994 Regulations:- 4(i)(a). The facts are not in dispute. Against the background of admitted facts, it will be appropriate to first take note of different provisions of the Bhakra Beas Management Board Class III and Class IV Employees’ (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1994. Regulation No.1(3)(iii) states that the Regulations shall, inter alia, apply to the employees appointed by the Board hereafter under the regulations. Against the background of admitted facts, it will be appropriate to first take note of different provisions of the Bhakra Beas Management Board Class III and Class IV Employees’ (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1994. Regulation No.1(3)(iii) states that the Regulations shall, inter alia, apply to the employees appointed by the Board hereafter under the regulations. The said regulation reads as under:- “1(3) They shall apply to the following:- (i) and (ii) ………….. (iii) The employees appointed by the Board hereafter under these regulations.” - ‘Appointing Authority’ has been defined under Regulation No.2(1)(a) to mean as “the authority empowered to make appointment to any post in the group of posts as mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ annexed with these regulations”. - Regulation No.2(1)(e) defines ‘Direct recruitment’ as “an appointment made by selection on the recommendations of the Staff Selection Committee or by the concerned appointing authority otherwise than by promotion of an employee governed under these regulations”. - The word ‘Employee’ as per Regulation No.2(1)(f) means “an employee of the Board to whom these regulations apply”. - As per Regulation No.2(1)(j), probation means “appointment of an employee against a regular vacancy for a specific period to test his suitability for the post”. - ‘Service’ is defined in Regulation No.2(1)(p) as “the service of the Board and shall comprise groups of various classes of posts shown in Schedule ‘A’ annexed with these regulations”. - ‘Staff Selection Committee’ as per Regulation No.2(1)(o), is “a Centralized Committee as may be constituted by the Chairman under regulation 4(2) for making selection of candidates for appointment to the various Class III and Class IV posts in the Board”. - Mode of appointment is governed by following Regulation No.4:- “4. Mode of appointment.- (1) Appointment to the post(s) in the group(s) shall be made in the manner specified against each in the Schedule ‘A’ annexed with these regulations. (2) The direct appointment to Class III and Class IV posts borne on the cadre of Bhakra Beas Management Board shall be made only, if the partner State Governments and their Electricity Boards are unable to provide personnel for the vacancies so notified to them. Such appointment shall be made by the appointing authority on the recommendations of the Centralized Staff Selection Committee as may be constituted by the Chairman. Such appointment shall be made by the appointing authority on the recommendations of the Centralized Staff Selection Committee as may be constituted by the Chairman. (3)(i) The Staff Selection Committee, on the basis of requisition received from the various Heads of Departments of the Board shall advertise the vacancies through the press and notify the vacancies to the Employment Exchanges and shall hold tests and or conduct interviews, as per the procedure approved by the Chairman from time to time and recommend the selected candidates to the respective Heads of Departments for appointment. (ii) The Heads of Departments shall allocate the candidates recommended by the Staff Selection Committee to the concerned offices of the Board. The candidates hall be issued letters of appointment by the relevant appointing authorities as shown against each post in Schedule ‘A’ annexed with these regulations. (4) A committee shall be constituted by the Chairman to determine the mode for filling up the vacant posts by promotion. Such vacancies shall be filled up in the ratio of 33:67, between the Bhakra Beas Management Board regular employees and the employees of the partner State Governments/Electricity Boards working in the Bhakra Beas Management Board respectively. Only 67% of such total vacancies shall be notified to the partner State Governments/Electricity Boards according to their share quota and in the event of non-availability of required number of personnel from the partner State Governments/Electricity Boards, resultant short fall in such vacancies shall also be filled up from amongst the Bhakra Beas Management Board regular employees. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations appointment by promotion shall be made by selection based on seniority-cum-merit and no employee shall be entitled to such appointment as of right.” As per Regulation No.4, appointments to the posts are to be made in the manner specified against the post/groups in Schedule ‘A’ annexed with the regulations. Schedule ‘A’ to the 1994 Regulations provides for different Class-III and Class-IV posts in the respondent-Board alongwith number of posts, pay scales, method of appointment, minimum educational and other qualifications, minimum experience and appointing authority etc. The method of appointment mentioned therein does not include appointment on contract basis. For the post in question, the method of appointment is by direct recruitment, i.e. governed by Regulation 4(2). The method of appointment mentioned therein does not include appointment on contract basis. For the post in question, the method of appointment is by direct recruitment, i.e. governed by Regulation 4(2). Direct appointment to Class-III and Class-IV posts borne on the cadre of the respondent-Board is to be made only if the partner States/their respective Electricity Boards are unable to provide personnel for the vacancies so notified to them and such direct appointments are to be made by the appointing authority on the recommendations of the Centralized Staff Selection Committee. - Regulation No.7(i), inter alia, provides that “persons appointed to any post in the service shall remain on probation for a period of two years, if recruited by direct appointment and one year if appointed on promotion”. On completion of probation period and subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions, an employee appointed against permanent vacancy is to be confirmed as per following Regulation No.7(3):- “(3) On the completion of the period of probation of a person and also if a departmental examination is prescribed for that post, the appointing authority may,- (a) if his work and conduct has, in its opinion, been satisfactory,- (i) confirm such person from the date of his appointment if appointed against a permanent vacancy, or (ii) confirm such person from the date from which a permanent vacancy occurs, if appointed against a temporary vacancy; or (iii) declare that he has completed his probation satisfactorily, if there is no permanent vacancy; or (b) if his work and conduct has not been, in its opinion, satisfactory,- (i) dispense with his services, if appointed by direct recruitment and if appointed by promotion revert him to his former post or deal with him in such other manner as the terms and conditions of his appointment permit; or (ii) extend his period of probation and thereafter pass such orders as he could have passed on the expiry of the original period of probation; Provided that the total period of probation, including extension, if any, shall not exceed two years in case of those appointed on promotion and three years in case of those appointed by direct recruitment.” The 1994 Regulations are very clear that the posts included in Schedule ‘A’ thereof can only be filled in through direct recruitment on the basis of selection process described in the regulations. The incumbents appointed as a result thereof are to be confirmed in service on successful completion of probation period subject to fulfillment of other codal conditions. 4(i)(b). 1994 Regulations have been framed by the respondent-Board in exercise of powers conferred by sub- Section (9) of Section 79 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 and the orders made by the Central Government under first proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 79 of the said Act. The Regulations, thus, have statutory force. 4(ii). Petitioners’ selection and appointment vis-à-vis Advertisement No.2 of 2014:- 4(ii)(a). The Board could have resorted to recruitment against vacant Class-III posts only in terms of 1994 Regulations. Advertisement No.2 of 2014, though was issued by the Board for making appointment on contract basis against Class-III and Class-IV posts, yet, admittedly, there is no source of power with the Board for issuing such advertisement for making appointment on contract basis against permanent cadre posts of Class-III & IV categories, which form part of Schedule of the 1994 Regulations. 4(ii)(b). Admittedly, petitioners’ selection under Advertisement No.2 of 2014 for recruitment to Class-III posts was in terms of 1994 Regulations and the procedure prescribed therein. The procedure followed for making regular recruitment was adopted in selecting and appointing the petitioners under this advertisement. It is also not in dispute that petitioners’ appointments were against the sanctioned strength of vacancies in Class-III category. 4(ii)(c). Advertisement No.2 of 2014 was issued pursuant to the decision of the Board dated 30.10.2014 that direct recruitment will be resorted to for filling up vacant critical posts, though on contractual basis, but through regular selection process by the Centralized Staff Selection Committee as per the mandate given in the Bhakra Beas Management Board Class III and Class IV Employees’ (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1994. If the mandate to the Board is only to act as per the 1994 Regulations, then, there was no occasion for the Board to deviate from these regulations and to appoint the petitioners on contract basis. The petitioners have to be considered as appointed on regular basis as their appointments were in terms of 1994 Regulations, which do not envisage appointment on contract basis. Further, petitioners’ appointment was after following complete selection process envisaged under the 1994 Regulations for regular appointments. Denial of regular appointment to the petitioners, therefore, is not only unjust and arbitrary, but is also unconstitutional. Further, petitioners’ appointment was after following complete selection process envisaged under the 1994 Regulations for regular appointments. Denial of regular appointment to the petitioners, therefore, is not only unjust and arbitrary, but is also unconstitutional. 1994 Regulations do not prescribe contractual appointments as one of the mode of recruitment. The respondents do not dispute that not only the petitioners, but the Bhakra Beas Management Board is also governed by the 1994 Regulations. In fact, not only the Board’s decision dated 30.10.2014, but the appointment orders issued to the petitioners also stipulate that petitioners would be governed by the Service Rules and Regulations of BBMB as in force from time to time. That being the position, the statutory regulations cannot be superseded or obliterated by any administrative instructions/ advertisement, issued in conflict with the Regulations. Once the statutory regulations provide for employment on regular basis, there was no occasion for the Board to go for the contractual appointments. 4(iii). Respondents’ defence that since the partner States had not responded to respondent-Board’s requisition for allocating staff as per respective shares, the Board had no option, but to go for contractual appointment against vacant critical posts, is also not tenable. Firstly, the issue of shortage of manpower against vacant critical posts was deliberated by the Board with partner States under Item No.218.01 in the meeting of the Board held on 09.05.2012, wherein, it was decided as under:- “Item Acute Shortage of Manpower in BBMB No.218.01 (Carried over Since 210th Meeting of the Board held on 03.05.2012). Chairman, BBMB reiterated the issue of Shortage of Manpower and intimated that he had been highlighting this problem time and again in Board Meetings for the last 3½ years starting right from the 205th meeting held on 04.10.2010 at Manali. He pointed out that the shortage had been increasing day by day due to retirement of personnel. He informed that the retirements would be about 454 in the year 2014; about 464 in the year 2015 etc. thereby aggravating the manpower shortage further provided there is proportionate induction from partner states/power utilities. He reiterated his views that about 4 to 5 years on job training was required to train the newly inducted employees for learning, operation and maintenance of power houses, substations, dams etc. in efficient manner. He further informed that 943 critical posts had been identified by BBMB. He reiterated his views that about 4 to 5 years on job training was required to train the newly inducted employees for learning, operation and maintenance of power houses, substations, dams etc. in efficient manner. He further informed that 943 critical posts had been identified by BBMB. Out of these 943 critical posts, 143 posts had been filled up by transfer of employees from Ranjit Sagar Dam Project of Punjab to BBMB. Even after filling of these posts about 800 posts are still vacant. Chairman, BBMB further quoted example of Chief Engineer/BSL who had been insisting for deploying adequate Dredger operators otherwise he would be left with no choice but to stop the dredging operations at Sundernagar Balance Reservoir which in turn would seriously affect the operation of 990 MW Dehar Power House. Chairman, BBMB quoted another example that due to shortage of staff, the operation of EOT Crane was being done from the other category employees such as electrician etc. which is risky. He cautioned the Members that any fault in the Power System and/or Hydro Mechanical System might cause an incalculable loss to BBMB leading to catastrophic situation. He pointed out that two month notice for recruitment of staff for filling the vacant posts is required to be given to partner states and this period had already elapsed since long. Therefore, BBMB can easily go for recruitment as per regulation but BBMB preferred consensus on the issue. xxx xxx xxx After detailed deliberation , the following was approved by the Board only as a stop gap arrangements:- “BBMB can fill up the vacant posts by deploying persons on contract basis till the availability of regular employees from the partner states after firming up legal issues, if any, and pay packages.” Though Chairman, BBMB reiterated that there would be legal complication for making them permanent and therefore, it is not a permanent solution to overcome acute shortage of manpower of BBMB.” The partner States did not depute the staff required by the Board for filling up the critical posts lying vacant for years together. The situation attracted Regulation No.4(2), whereunder, the respondent-Board was empowered to fill up posts lying vacant due to inability of partner States to deploy staff, by resorting to regular selection process and on regular basis. The situation attracted Regulation No.4(2), whereunder, the respondent-Board was empowered to fill up posts lying vacant due to inability of partner States to deploy staff, by resorting to regular selection process and on regular basis. Secondly, in case the respondent-Board wanted to opt for contractual appointments for a short term, amendment in regulations was required to be carried out. No such amendment in the regulations was carried out. No source of power has been shown by the respondent-Board, which authorized it to make appointment on contract basis against sanctioned strength of vacant posts, that too, when the terms & conditions of service of employees (petitioners) appointed in the process are admittedly governed by 1994 Regulations, which do not provide for contractual appointment as Mode of Recruitment. The only mode of recruitment under the Regulations is direct recruitment on regular basis. 4(iv). The discrimination meted out to the petitioners vis-à-vis the selectees under the subsequent advertisement, bearing No.1 of 2018, is also writ large. Advertisement No.1 of 2018 was issued for recruitment against temporary posts of Group B and C categories in the respondent-Board. Services of persons selected under this advertisement were regularized on completion of requisite probation period. The respondent-Board cannot apply 1994 Regulations selectively to some persons and deny its applicability in totality to the petitioners. Admittedly, selection process adopted by the respondents for appointment of the petitioners was same and similar as resorted to in case of the incumbents selected under advertisement No.1 of 2018. The petitioners cannot be discriminated and compelled to continue on contractual basis year after year and be superseded by those, who were subsequently appointed in a manner similar to them, but whose services stand confirmed. 4(v). Considering petitioners’ case that in view of 1994 Regulations governing the field, they have to be treated as regular employees from the date of their initial appointment as also keeping in view respondents’ defence that advertisement, in terms whereof petitioners were appointed, stipulated contractual appointment, it will be profitable to refer to Arjun Singh and Ors. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2015) 15 SCC 713 , wherein the appellants claimed regular appointment in view of the fact that they had been appointed after following the selection procedure for regular appointment and were continuing in service since long. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2015) 15 SCC 713 , wherein the appellants claimed regular appointment in view of the fact that they had been appointed after following the selection procedure for regular appointment and were continuing in service since long. The High Court had held that regularization of service was not permissible in view of specific terms & conditions of pay and nature of appointment on contract basis inserted in the advertisement. Allowing appeal against this decision, Hon’ble Apex Court held that in fact, the case was not of regularization of service, but where directions had to be issued to the respondents to provide the appellants with orders of regular appointment from the date of their initial appointment. Respondents’ action of prescribing less pay than regular pay scale on contract basis to the appellants initially for one year and extending it on year to year basis was held as unfair employment practice, arbitrary & violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Relevant paras of the judgment read as under:- “4. After publication of Regulation 2006, the Electricity Board decided to fill up the posts of Assistant Accounts Officer through H.P. Public Service Commission. By letter dated 14th March, 2007, the Electricity Board requested the Principal Secretary (Power), Government of Himachal Pradesh to take steps to fill up 14 posts by direct recruitment on regular basis and to send requisition to the Public Service Commission………………. 6. However, when the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission issued advertisement No.IX/2007 on 13th November, 2007 inviting applications to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer Class-I, for the reasons not disclosed by respondents the scale of pay was shown 50% of the regular pay and the nature of appointment on contract basis as apparent from Clause (c) of the advertisement………….. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that all procedure for regular appointment having been complied with including recommendation by the Public Service Commission, there was no occasion for the respondents to employ them on contract basis and there should not be any difficulty to provide them regular appointment. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer on the ground that their appointment were made in terms of Regulation 2006 on contract basis and there is no provision for regularization of service. 15. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer on the ground that their appointment were made in terms of Regulation 2006 on contract basis and there is no provision for regularization of service. 15. The action on the part of the respondents/State authorities including the Public Service Commission prescribing 50% of the Regular pay of Rs.7750+DP on contract basis initially for one year, extendable on year to year basis is against the requisition and the decision taken by Electricity Board. Such action on the part of the authorities not only amounts to unfair employment practice but also arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. It is clear that the terms of conditions of payment at the rate of 50% of regular pay and nature of appointment on contract basis was inserted in the advertisement by the State authorities and the H.P. Public Service Commission at later stage just to deprive the candidates from their regular pay and their right to continue in the service. The High Court failed to noticed the aforesaid fact and erred in holding that the regularization of service is not permissible. In fact it was not a case of regularisation of service of the appellants but is a case wherein direction ought to have been issued on the respondents to provide the appellants with orders of regular appointment from the date of their initial appointment and to treat the initial period of two years as probation and to provide them with other consequential benefits. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 27th June, 2013 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No.1553 of 2013-F and direct the respondents to provide letter of regular appointment to the appellants w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment treating the initial two years as on probation with further direction to provide the appellants with consequential benefits including regular scale of pay, increment, arrears of pay, seniority etc. to which they are entitled under the law. to which they are entitled under the law. The formal orders in compliance with this Court’s order to be issued within two months and consequential benefits should be paid within three months.” State of H.P. and others Versus Ravinder Kumar, LPA No.21 of 2013 in CWP No.6727 of 2010, decided alongwith connected matters on 4.10.2019 holds that contractual appointment cannot be a mode of recruitment where the applicable Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India do not permit it and only provide for regular appointment. Paras relevant to the context are extracted below:- “4. Observations: 4(i) It is not in dispute that even though the State Government on 12.12.2003 had requested all the Heads of Departments to amend Clause-10 of R&P Rules, for including contractual appointment as one of the mode of recruitment in accordance with the decision taken by the State, yet, Recruitment & Promotion Rules for lecturers (school cadre) were not amended in tune with 12.12.2003 decision of the State Government. The mode of recruitment under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for appointment lecture (School cadre) continued to be only on regular basis. It was only on 20.9.2010, that Clause-10 of the R&P Rules for the posts in question was amended and notified, incorporating contractual appointments, as one of the mode of recruitment. 4(ii) The college in question was taken over by the State on 6.2.2007. In terms of notification dated 25.8.1994, services of the eligible staff were also required to be taken over w.e.f. 6.2.2007. State though had taken over the services of the staff of the Kanwar Durga Chand Memorial College, Jaisinghpur only on 21.6.2010. Fact remains that services of writ petitioners were taken over prior to amendment of R&P Rules. The services of the petitioners were required to be taken over in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules, which were in existence on the date of taking over the college i.e. 6.2.2007. The R&P Rules as they existed on 6.2.2007 did not provide for contractual appointments. The Rules only provided for regular recruitments. Service of petitioners were taken over w.e.f. 6.2.2007. College itself was taken over on 6.2.2007. Therefore, clause providing appointment on contractual basis inserted in the R&P Rules by way of amendment of Rules on 20.09.2010, could not be retrospectively applied to the petitioners. The Rules only provided for regular recruitments. Service of petitioners were taken over w.e.f. 6.2.2007. College itself was taken over on 6.2.2007. Therefore, clause providing appointment on contractual basis inserted in the R&P Rules by way of amendment of Rules on 20.09.2010, could not be retrospectively applied to the petitioners. It is apt to refer the judgment passed by this Court, in CWP No.1811 of 2008, titled Dev Raj Vs. State of H.P & others, relevant segment reproduced hereinafter:- “25…………………. Government appointments are made in accordance with the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. When such Rules are framed the Government is expected to act and make appointments in accordance with the Rules. If the Rules do not permit the Government to make appointment on contract basis they must be made on regular basis. 4(iii) The notification dated 25.8.1994, under which State Government took over the privately managed colleges as well as services of staff working there, provides for granting them Government scales as admissible to their respective corresponding categories. Clause-9 of this notification reads as under:- “9. Provided that services of only those employees will be taken over who furnish a written acceptance on non-judicial paper duly attested by the competent authority to the effect that they are willing to be absorbed in Government services on the terms and conditions laid down in these rules.” There is no provision in the above notification for taking over services of staff of privately managed colleges on contract basis, more so, in the facts of instant case, in view of Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Lecturer (School cadre) as they existed on 6.2.2007 i.e. the date of take over, whereunder no provision for appointment on contract basis was there, regular recruitment was the only prescribed mode. 5. Thus, services of the petitioners’ were thus required to be taken over w.e.f. 6.2.2007 on regular basis. There is no infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. All these appeals are therefore dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any.” 4(vi). Principle of estoppel has also been invoked by the respondents that the petitioners were aware of the contractual nature of appointment and emoluments offered under Advertisement No.2 of 2014. Years later, they cannot be permitted to plead that advertisement was inconsistent with statutory regulations and that their appointments have to be construed as regular from the date of initial appointments. Principle of estoppel has also been invoked by the respondents that the petitioners were aware of the contractual nature of appointment and emoluments offered under Advertisement No.2 of 2014. Years later, they cannot be permitted to plead that advertisement was inconsistent with statutory regulations and that their appointments have to be construed as regular from the date of initial appointments. The above argument does not hold much substance in this case. Right to regular appointment claimed by the petitioners flows to them under Statutory Regulations 1994. It is well established principle that there can be no estoppel/acquiescence against law/statute or constitutional provisions. If law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner. If it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in eyes of law. Reference in this regard can be made to Krishna Rai (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. Versus Banaras Hindu University Through Registrar & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.4578-4580 of 2022, decided on 16.06.2022 , relevant paras whereof read as under:- “23. The case laws relied upon by the Division Bench would have no application in the facts of the present case as none of the judgments relied upon by the Division Bench laid down that principle of estoppel would be above law. It is settled principle that principle of estoppel cannot override the law. The manual duly approved by the Executive Council will prevail over any such principle of estoppel or acquiescence. 30. On the contrary, what we find is that, in the case of Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and others Vs. State of Orissa and others, 1995 (6) SCC 1 , it has been held that the suitability criteria is to be laid down by the rule making authority and that the selection criteria cannot be laid down by the Selection Board/Selection Committee unless specifically authorized. In the present case, firstly, there was no authorization to the Board of Examiners to lay down the selection criteria and further there was clear violation of the suitability criteria laid down by the rule making authority. Paragraph nos. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder: “31. Now, power to make rules regulating the conditions of service of persons appointed on Govt. Paragraph nos. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder: “31. Now, power to make rules regulating the conditions of service of persons appointed on Govt. Posts is available to the Governor of the State under the Proviso to Article 309 and it was in exercise of this power that the present rules were made. If the statutory Rules, in a given case, have not been made, either by the Parliament or the State Legislature, or, for that matter, by the Governor of the State, it would be open to the appropriate Government (the Central Government under Article 73 and the State Government under Article 162) to issue executive instructions. However, if the Rules have been made but they are silent on any subject or point in issue, the omission can be supplied and the rules can be supplemented by executive instructions. (See: Sant Ram Sharma V. State of Rajasthan). 32. In the instant case, the Government did neither issue any administrative instruction nor did it supply the omission with regard to the criteria on the basis of which suitability of the candidates was to be determined. The members of the Selection Board, of their own, decided to adopt the confidential character rolls of the candidates who were already employed as Homoeopathic Medical Officers, as the basis for determining their suitability. 33. The members of the Selection Board or for that matter, any other Selection Committee, do not have the jurisdiction to lay down the criteria for selection unless they are authorized specifically in that regard by the rules made under Article 309. It is basically the function of the Rule making authority to provide the basis for selection. this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. V. Sadanandam and Ors observed as under: (SCC pp. 583-84, para 17): “We are now only left with the reasoning of the Tribunal that there is no justification for the continuance of the old rule and for personnel belonging to either zone being transferred on promotion to offices in other zones. In drawing such conclusion, the Tribunal has travelled beyond the limits of its jurisdiction. We need only point out that the mode of recruitment and the category from which the recruitment to a service should be made are all matters which are exclusively within the domain of the executive. In drawing such conclusion, the Tribunal has travelled beyond the limits of its jurisdiction. We need only point out that the mode of recruitment and the category from which the recruitment to a service should be made are all matters which are exclusively within the domain of the executive. It is not for judicial bodies to sit in judgment over the wisdom of the executive in choosing the mode of recruitment of the categories from which the recruitment should be made as they are matters of policy decision falling exclusively within the purview of the executive.” (Emphasis supplied). 34. The Selection Committee does not even have the inherent jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection nor can such power be assumed by necessary implication. In P.K. Ramachandra lyer and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (SCC pp. 180-81 para 44) , it was observed : “By necessary inference, there was no such power in the ASRB to add to the required qualifications. If such power is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reasons that such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm”. 35. Similarly, in Umesh Chandra Shukla Etc. v. Union of India and Ors. it was observed that the Selection Committee does not possess any inherent power to lay down its own standards in addition to what is prescribed under the Rules. Both these decisions were followed in Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Ors and the limitation of the Selection Committee were pointed out that it had no jurisdiction to prescribe the minimum marks which a candidate had to secure at the viva-voce test. 36. It may be pointed out that rule making function under Article 309 is legislative and not executive as was laid down by this Court in B.S. Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. For this reason also, the Selection Committee or the Selection Board cannot be held to have jurisdiction to lay down any standard or basis for selection as it would amount to legislating a rule of selection.” 31. Further in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (preventive), Jamnagar, 2015 (11) SCC 628 , it has been laid down that there can be no estoppel against law. Further in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (preventive), Jamnagar, 2015 (11) SCC 628 , it has been laid down that there can be no estoppel against law. If the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in the eye of the law. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment is reproduced below: “18. The Tribunal’s judgment has proceeded on the basis that even though the samples were drawn contrary to law, the appellants would be estopped because their representative was present when the samples were drawn and they did not object immediately. This is a completely perverse finding both on fact and law. On fact, it has been more than amply proved that no representative of the appellant was, in fact, present at the time the Customs Inspector took the samples. Shri K.M. Jani who was allegedly present not only stated that he did not represent the Clearing Agent of the appellants in that he was not their employee but also stated that he was not present when the samples were taken. In fact, therefore, there was no representative of the appellants when the samples were taken. In law equally the Tribunal ought to have realized that there can be no estoppel against law. If the law requires that something be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, and if not done in that manner has no existence in the eye of law at all. The Customs Authorities are not absolved from following the law depending upon the acts of a particular assessee. Something that is illegal cannot convert itself into something legal by the act of a third person.” Respondent-Board’s action of appointing the petitioners on contract when Statutory Regulations provide only for regular appointment, is illegal. Administrative actions in derogation to Statutory Regulations have no legal sanctity. The advertisement made in violation of 1994 Regulations was beyond the authority and power vested in the respondents. Such illegal action cannot be validated by invoking ‘doctrine of estoppel’. Petitioners cannot be deprived from the benefits that flow to them under the Statutory Regulations 1994, viz. Administrative actions in derogation to Statutory Regulations have no legal sanctity. The advertisement made in violation of 1994 Regulations was beyond the authority and power vested in the respondents. Such illegal action cannot be validated by invoking ‘doctrine of estoppel’. Petitioners cannot be deprived from the benefits that flow to them under the Statutory Regulations 1994, viz. to be treated as having been appointed on regular basis from the date(s) of their initial appointment, corresponding pay scale, increments etc. in accordance with 1994 Regulations. Respondent- Board was also aware of the injustice meted out to petitioners. Agenda items in succession had been prepared for regulating petitioners’ contractual services. 4(vii). The sum & substance of above discussion is that:- (a). Recruitment to Class-III and IV posts in respondent-Board is governed by the 1994 Regulations. (b). 1994 Regulations have statutory force. (c). 1994 Regulations do not provide for contractual appointments against posts, which form part of Schedule to the Regulations. In case of failure of partner States to deploy the staff requisitioned from them by the Board, Regulation No.4(2) gets attracted, which authorizes the Board to make direct recruitment on regular basis against permanent posts forming part of Schedule. Mode of Recruitment provided under the Regulations is direct appointment by the Centralized Selection Committee on regular basis. (d). Respondent-Board was facing acute shortage of manpower against critical posts that were part of Schedule to 1994 Regulations. Partner States had not deployed the staff requisitioned by the Board. Petitioners were selected and appointed by the Board against permanent vacant Class-III posts of critical nature by the Centralized Selection Committee by following the mode of recruitment approved under the 1994 Regulations. The posts against which petitioners were appointed are part of Schedule to the 1994 Regulations. Petitioners were appointed by following the selection process envisaged under the Regulations for direct recruitment on regular basis. (e). Appointment orders issued to the petitioners stipulated that their service conditions shall be governed by 1994 Regulations. (f). Other incumbents appointed subsequently to the petitioners & in similar manner, have been confirmed in service on completion of successful probation period in terms of 1994 Regulations, whereas, petitioners appointed much earlier continue to serve on contract basis against permanent posts. (g). Denial of regular appointment to the petitioners is contrary to the 1994 Regulations. Respondents’ action in not appointing petitioners on regular basis is arbitrary and unconstitutional. (g). Denial of regular appointment to the petitioners is contrary to the 1994 Regulations. Respondents’ action in not appointing petitioners on regular basis is arbitrary and unconstitutional. In the given facts of the case, where stipulation of contractual appointment on payment of fixed emoluments in the advertisement is violative of statutory regulations, principle of estoppel cannot be held against the petitioners for denying them the benefits that flow to them under the Statutory Regulations. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as having been appointed on regular basis from the date of their initial appointment for all intents and purposes. The respondents are also directed to confirm the services of the petitioners on their successful completion of probation period prescribed at the relevant time in terms of the 1994 Regulations. Consequent thereupon, petitioners shall be entitled for all the service benefits including seniority, regular pay scale and increments etc. attached to their post. This exercise be carried out within six weeks, failing which, monetary benefits shall be payable alongwith interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.