MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th december, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants herein. The appellants were engaged by the respondent as Mali/beldar at different points of time without following the procedure laid down for recruitment to the said post of Mali/beldar. The initial appointments of the appellants were irregular and illegal and in violation of the Recruitment rules. ( 2 ) OFFICERS of the respondent did not stop at that but went on to take work of Group-C post from the appellants. Group-C posts can be filled up in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. Copy of the Recruitment Rules for appointment to the post of LDC has been placed on record. 75% recruitment to the said post, in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 is by direct recruitment and 25% posts are to be filled up by way of promotion from regular Group-D employees. Minimum educational qualifications are also prescribed under the recruitment Rules. A person must have 60% marks in Matriculation or a second division at Graduation. In addition, he should know typing. In case of promotion from Group-D employees, requirement of minimum marks is not applicable but such employee must meet the education qualifications. ( 3 ) THE appellants herein cannot claim themselves to be regular Group-D employees. Therefore, as per Recruitment Rules they could not have been promoted as LDCs. Promotion from Group-D as per Recruitment Rules is by simple test (15%) and 10% by seniority. It appears that the appellants were not only engaged through back door without selection but were also given promotion through back door by some of the officers of the respondent who are responsible for the present anomalies. ( 4 ) IT is stated by the counsel for the respondent that though the appellants were discharging some functions of LDC, they were not being paid salary of the said post. There is no explanation forthcoming from either of the parties as to why this situation had arisen and why no action was taken by the respondent for filling up vacancies of LDC, if there be any, through regular recruitment as per the prescribed procedure under the Rules. Under no circumstances the appellants could have been given promotion as LDC. There is no explanation forthcoming from either of the parties as to why this situation had arisen and why no action was taken by the respondent for filling up vacancies of LDC, if there be any, through regular recruitment as per the prescribed procedure under the Rules. Under no circumstances the appellants could have been given promotion as LDC. The action of the respondent is in complete violation of and in disregard of the recruitment Rules. Wrong and illegal appointments made have to be corrected and cannot be given stamp of approval by this Court. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the appellant at one stage sought to submit before us that there could be relaxation of the Rules so as to give benefit to the appellants. We see no reason as to why such benefit should be given to persons who have been appointed irregularly and without being eligible for such appointment. The appellants have never been declared as regular Group-D employees by the respondent. They could not have been promoted to Group-C posts de hors and contrary to the Recruitment Rules. Claim and rights of all citizens to compete and apply for selection cannot be denied. Similarly, rights of Group-D employees to be considered for promotion to the post of LDC cannot be ignored. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing discussions, we find no reason to take a different view than what was taken by the learned Single Judge, in the facts and circumstances of this case. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.