Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

1. Public employment must adhere to the constitutional scheme, which mandates regular appointment procedures. Temporary or casual employment is permissible considering economic conditions, but such appointments should not bypass the established process (!) (!) .

2. Courts should generally refrain from directing the absorption or regularization of employees who were engaged without following proper selection procedures. Such orders are often beyond the scope of judicial authority and may conflict with constitutional principles (!) (!) .

3. The continuation of employees under ‘litigious employment’ (employment under court orders) does not automatically grant them right to permanent employment or regularization. Continuance beyond the appointment period does not create a right for absorption or permanence unless proper procedures are followed (!) (!) .

4. Employees engaged on daily wages or on contractual basis, without proper selection, cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation to claim permanency or regularization. They are aware of the temporary nature of their employment and cannot demand permanent status based on long service alone (!) (!) .

5. Regularization of irregular appointments made in compliance with rules may be considered on merit, especially if employees have worked for a long period (e.g., ten years or more) and without court intervention. However, regularization cannot be used as a means to bypass constitutional appointment procedures (!) (!) .

6. Courts should not impose financial burdens on the State by directing permanent employment for employees engaged without following due process, as this could be counterproductive and threaten departmental viability (!) (!) .

7. The right to equality in public employment, as guaranteed by the Constitution, requires appointments to be made through proper procedures, including fair competition and adherence to rules. Orders for regularization or permanent appointment outside this scheme are generally not sustainable (!) (!) .

8. The doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ does not extend to regularizing appointments made without following proper procedures. Such regularizations cannot be used to override the constitutional and statutory framework governing public employment (!) (!) .

9. The right to employment under Article 21 does not include a fundamental right to be employed or regularized in public service. The constitutional scheme prioritizes fair opportunity and adherence to established procedures over individual claims based on long service or hardship (!) (!) .

10. Employees engaged on casual or temporary basis, without proper selection, do not have enforceable legal rights to permanent employment or regularization. Courts should not issue writs directing the State to absorb such employees unless the appointment was in accordance with the law (!) (!) .

11. The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to claim regularization when appointments were made contrary to legal procedures or rules. Such expectations do not override the constitutional scheme for public employment (!) (!) .

12. Regularization is not a mode of recruitment and cannot confer permanence or rights to continued employment where appointments were made irregularly or without following due process. The courts should uphold the integrity of the constitutional appointment process (!) (!) .

13. The State’s administrative and financial considerations are relevant and courts should exercise caution before imposing obligations that could jeopardize departmental functioning or economic stability (!) (!) .

14. The Court emphasizes the importance of the rule of law and the constitutional scheme, which requires appointments to be made through established rules and procedures. Deviations or bypassing these procedures undermine the constitutional principles of equality and fairness (!) (!) .

15. Courts should avoid extending rights to those who were engaged unlawfully or irregularly, especially when such relief could perpetuate illegality or disrupt the constitutional framework for public employment (!) .

These points collectively reinforce that appointments in public employment must follow the constitutional and statutory procedures, and that courts should exercise restraint in directing regularization or permanent employment outside the lawful framework.