S.N.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) NONE appears for the respondents, despite the name of the counsel being shown in the cause list. Sri N.C. Mehrotra is present for the appellants. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.2.2001 had issued a direction for considering the case of the respondents for regularization whenever the posts are available and if juniors to the respondents are getting the regular pay scale, the appellants shall also pay the minimum of the regular pay scale to the respondents. Before the learned Single Judge, the respondents claimed for payment of regular pay scale and also for regularization of their services. Sri N.C. Mehrotra, appearing for the appellants submits that there was no post available for such regularization and unless the respondents are regularized in service, they cannot be given the pay scale. Similar controversy arose in the bunch of other petitions, which were taken to Supreme Court, wherein the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Awasthi and others, (2006) 1 SCC 667, after setting aside the order passed by the High Court has observed that no regularization of the services of ad-hoc or daily-wage employees not having been appointed in terms of the statutory provisions, rules and regulations can be claimed. In other words, the appointments made dehors the rules and without there being any post or vacancy available cannot be regularized. In view of the law laid down by the apex court, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. The order dated 14.2.01 passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained, which is hereby set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. The special appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.;