Regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and temporary employees have no right to the post. Regularisation cannot be a mode of recruitment, and no order can be passed merely on equity. Court directions for regularisation do not set a precedent.

M. Katju, J.

This bunch of special appeals has been filed against the impugned judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 10.7.2003. We have perused the impugned judgment and heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The writ petitioners filed Writ Petitions for regularisation on the post of Junior Clerk in the office of the Chief Electoral Office, Lucknow. They have also prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the District Chief Electoral Officer by which petitioner's representation regarding their claim for regularisation has been rejected.

3. The facts of the case are that the writ petitioners were appointed initially against temporary posts of Junior Clerk in the office of the District Election Officer temporarily for certain periods according to the exigency and the work load in connection with the election of Lok Sabha for short spells. The details arc given below:

S. No.	Appeal No.	Petitioner’s name		Total short	Period of service in different term spells
						Y.M.D.
1.	703 of 2003	Sanjay Kumar Pandcy	1.9.16		between	9.5.88 to 31.3.94
2.	704 of 2003	Dinesh Yadav	2.5.14		between	12.4.91 to 30.6.98
3.	22 of 2004	Salah Uddin Siddiqm	3.1.18		between	6.3.82 to 30.6.98
4.	23 of 2004	Ram Bnksha	2.7.23		between	3.9.83 to 30.6.98
5.	24 of 2004	Hecra Lal	2.3.18		between	27.5.88 to 30.6.98
6.	88 of 2004	Km Snmati Devi	0.11.7		between	25.1.98 to 31.12.99
7.	99 of 2004	Kamla Prasad Yadav	0.11.7		between	25.1.98 to 31.12.99
8.	100 of 2004	Vinod Kumar	2.9.20		between	25.4.88 to 30.6.98
9.	102 of 2004	Dinesh Kumar Shukla	4.1.25		between	16.5.88 to 30.6.98
10.	104 of 2004	Ravindra Kumar	2.6.25		between	25.5.88 to 30.6.98
11.	336 of 2003	Hansraj	5.4.23		between	9.3.80 to 31.3.97
12.	337 of 2003	Rakesh	4.2.01		between	9.3.80 to 31.3.97

They were not appointed against substantive vacancies on permanent posts but they were given short term appointments during the time of the election due to the increase of work load for short duration. For regularisation and substantive appointment a procedure has been prescribed under the U.P. Election Department District Level Ministerial Service Rules, 1992 as amended in 1995. Under the Rules there are only two modes by which regularisation can be granted. The first mode is that those who were' appointed on adhoc basis and had worked continuously for more than 3 years and their cases are governed by the U.P. Regularisation of Adhoc Appointment (On Posts Out Side the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules can be considered for regularisation on the basis of the past performance, character roll etc. The writ petitioners were not eligible for regularisation under the Regularisation Rules as they did not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Rules. The writ petitioners had not worked continuously for more than 3 years on the relevant dates.

4. The second mode of regularisation could have been under the 1992 Rules as amended in 1995. In the present case regular selection was notified by the appellant and was finalised in the year 1997-98. The writ petitioners either did not appear in the aforesaid selection or could not be selected. Hence the writ petitioners could not be regularised by this mode also. Most of the petitioners are over age and hence are ineligible for regular appointment. Considering this aspect the Chief Election Officer by order dated 30.7.99 rejected the claim of the writ petitioners for regularisation. In fact the services of the writ petitioners had already come to an end on the expiry of the period for which they were appointed. They were not in service on the date when the writ petitioners filed the writ petition and hence we cannot see how the le