GAIL, which is clear from his admission that he was paid salary of Rs.2,500/- against a voucher which he would sign by way of acknowledgement. Although it is the case of Prakash that he was a project affected person, no material has been produced on record to substantiate this aspect. Even if Prakash was indeed a project affected person, that by itself would not entitle him to secure any regular appointment, in absence of some scheme or policy in that regard. As has been recognized in the case of Umadevi (supra) there may be occasions when the State or its instrumentalities will have to employ persons, in posts which are temporary, on daily wages, as additional hands or taking them in without following the required procedure to discharge the duties in respect of posts that may be sanctioned or required to be filled in terms of relevant procedure or for work in temporary posts or projects. This right of the State or its instrumentalities cannot but be recognized and there is nothing, either in the Constitution or in the service rules, which bars or bans such engagement of persons temporarily, or daily wages to meet the exigencies of the situation. Of course, such engagement must not be a ruse for exploitation or unfair labour practices. However, the mandate of constitutional requirement for public employment is quite clear in that the regular employment has to be in accordance with the prescribed rules and procedure. In
