Judgment :

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. Leave Granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. The common question which arises for consideration in all these appeals is whether the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in different Writ Petitions filed before it by the appellants herein dismissing the said Writ Petitions and upholding the directions given by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore ("KAT" for short") to the appellants to consider the cases of the respondents for regularization of their service on merits are sustainable.

3. The facts which are necessary to answer the aforesaid question are being culled out here. The respondents in all these appeals were working on daily wages either as plantation watchmen or wireless operators or helpers. The respondents in all these appeals claimed regularization of their service in light of the fact that they had been in continuous service for more than ten years since the day of their initial appointment. The appellants, however, refuted their claim on the ground that the scheme of regularization pertained to only those persons who had been working prior to 01.07.1984.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, supported the decision of the High Court of Karnataka.

5. We have heard all the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In light of the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties, we have carefully perused the documents available on record. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court as also the KAT had erred in allowing the claim of the respondents for regularization of their services as the respondents had failed to establish their rights for regularization. The counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted before us that the claim of the respondents for regularization was not sustainable in view of the fact that they had not been recruited as per the Recruitment Rules and also because the respondents had been recruited after 01.07.1984 whereas the scheme of regularization pertained to only those who had been working prior to the aforesaid date. It was also contended before us by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the respondents not being recruited through the proper procedure were back-door entrants into government service, and therefore, regularization of their services would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. At this juncture, we intend to refer to a few recent decisions of this Court on the issue involved herein. In Civil Appeal No. 2090 of 2007 which was pronounced on 15.01.2010, one of us (Mukundakam Sharma J.) had the opportunity to deal with a similar question concerning regularization of the casual workers. This Court, while allowing the petition dismissed the claim of the casual workers for regularization or absorption. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, this Court placed reliance on two recent and landmark decisions of this Court. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , this Court, in paragraphs 43 and 45 of the judgment, observed as follows: -

"43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an