Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to regularize her services as Junior Assistant in the Hindi Maha Vidyalaya (College of Arts, Commerce & Science), Nallakunta, Hyderabad, and pay regular salary and all other allowances due to her in the Government scales of pay from the date of her appointment and release grant-in-aid to the post of the petitioner, or in the alternative to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner in the post of Store Keeper in the said College.

3. Factual background, in brief, appears to be that the petitioner was employed in the 3rd respondent College as Junior Assistant in the year 1992, on temporary and daily-wage basis, on a consolidated remuneration by the management. Even as on today, she claims that she has been continuing as such. She sought for regularization of her services in view of the long service rendered by her in the 3rd respondent College. She claims to have made a representation to the Commissioner, College Education, Hyderabad, seeking regularization of her services, the result of which is not known. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 controverting the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

5. Though the petitioner made the College as party-respondent (as third respondent in this writ petition), the 3rd respondent did not file any counter-affidavit vindicating its stand.

6. From the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner was engaged by the third respondent College as a Junior Assistant, on a consolidated remuneration, on daily-wage and temporary basis only. Though the petitioner had filed number of material papers, she did not file any appointment order issued to her by the 3rd respondent-College.

7. It is obvious that the petitioner is fully aware of the nature of her appointment, i.e., on temporary basis with consolidated remuneration. Therefore, she is deemed to have the knowledge of her status of employment/engagement in the 3rd respondent-College and the consequences thereof.

8. A temporary or ad hoc appointment, as the nomenclature denotes, is not on regular basis. The rights of such temporary employee are very limited and are governed by the terms and conditions enumerated in the order of appointment. In other words, such appointment is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the order of appointment. Having accepted the appointment with those conditions, it is not for the employee, like the petitioner, to claim or seek the status of a regular employee on any ground.

9. Normally, if there is a permanent vacancy, i.e., sanctioned, recognized, or regular vacancy, the same shall have to be filled up in accordance with certain guided principles. Even if any person is appointed or engaged on temporary or ad hoc basis in such regular vacancy, out of acute necessity or to meet any exigency, he/she shall be replaced soon by resorting to regular mode of selection and appointment as per Rules.

10. Certain appointments may be irregular - for example, an appointment without sanction of the competent authority. At times, the employer may make such temporary or ad hoc appointments in order to meet certain exigency or out of acute necessity. Such appointment/engagement, by itself, will not clothe the appointee to claim any rights or parity with a regularly appointed person. An appointment can also be illegal- for example, if a person devoid of eligibility or educational qualifications etc., is appointed/employed such appointment is illegal. There is a clear distinction between irregular and illegal appointments.

11. Law is well-settled that illegal appointments cannot be sustained. Illegal appointments cannot be accepted nor need not necessarily be accepted by the employer or by the State merely because such an appointment was made. In other words, there is no indefeasible right for an employee, wh