sanctioned post of Research Associate, for, law is well settled that in the
absence of a sanctioned post, regularization cannot be claimed. We may
refer to the decision in State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lal, reported in
(2011) 2 SCC 429, in this connection. We record the failure of Mr. Naik
to convince us in this behalf. Since the decision of the Supreme Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and
others., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, there has been numerous decisions
rendered by the Supreme Court which lay down the law that in exercise of
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court
cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus and compel the State and its
instrumentality/agencies to regularize the services, inter alia, of contractual
employees. The decision in Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and
others, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1, may be referred to in this
connection. In the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Accounts
Officer (A & I) AP State Road Transport Corporation Vs. P. Chandra
Sekhara Rao and others, reported in (2006) 7 SCC 488, it has been held
that guidelines for regularizing appointment could not have been made even
