Point of Law : The appointment of such an employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

ORDER :

1. The batch of writ petitions have been filed before this Court questioning the notification that has been issued on 31.12.2018 (Notification dated 23 of 2018) by the APPSC for recruitment to the post of Polytechnic lecturers/workshop attendants.

2. The entire batch was taken up for hearing together.

3. In WP.No.4703 of 2020, there are 33 petitioners. According to them, they all have been rendering service as contract lecturers in various Government Polytechnics in the State. It is contended that all of them are validly recruited and have been rendering continuous service for more than 10 years. Hence, they argue that they are entitled to regularization in the category of lecturers, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Or. v. Umadevi’, (2006) 4 SCC 1 case. They also contend that until they are regularized into service, the respondent-State cannot issue a notification to fill up all the posts.

4. Similarly, in WP.No.7790 of 2020, there are 29 petitioners who have raised a similar plea about the notification that has been issued. They also contend that in view of their long service as contract lecturers, they are entitled to regularization.

5. In WP.No.8584 of 2020, there are 42 petitioners. All of them raised similar grounds. They have been working as contract lecturers and they have been recruited through a valid selection process. Therefore, it is argued that all the petitioners are entitled to regularization.

6. In WP.No.20811 of 2019, two petitioners, who are claiming to be physically dis-advantaged people have filed the writ petition questioning the notification 23 of 2018 on the ground that para 4.2 of the notification is illegal and contrary to the rights given to the physically challenged people under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ( for short ‘2016 Act’). The prayer is to declare that the A.P. Technical Education Service Rules, 2005 and in particular Rule 4 is illegal and to direct the respondents to issue a fresh notification by providing 4% reservations. In this case also, the challenge is to the recruitment proposed to be made in notification 23 of 2018. These are the essential writ petitions that have been filed questioning this notification.

7. Apart from this, WP.No.13087 of 2021 has been filed by 40 petitioners questioning the inaction of the respondents in finalizing the selection and making appointments pursuant to notification 23 of 2018. These petitioners have appeared for the examination, were selected in the same and were called for the oral interview. They urge that despite the tests conducted in March, 2020 and the oral test conducted in March, 2021, their results are not declared. They also question the right of the petitioners in the other writ petitions to claim regularization.

8. These are the writ petitions which have been taken for hearing.

9. Counters have been filed by APPSC and also the State. The essential defence raised is that the petitioners are not entitled to regularization. It is pointed out that since the petitioners are not working against a sanctioned post, they cannot, as a matter, claim regularization. Both the State and the APPSC point out that earlier notifications were already issued for recruitment of lecturers in polytechnics and that the petitioners have never questioned the same. Therefore, they urge on the ground of estoppel etc., that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. They also point out that the notification was issued in December, 2018, and that at the last minute, these writs are filed and the entire procedure is being stalled. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that a proper public recruitment through notification is the only recognized mode of recruitment and the entire procedure is being stalled on the tenuous ground that the petitioners who worked as contract lecturers are entitled to regularization. It is submitted that till the rights of the petitioners are