1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule in both the petitions. At the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The challenge in these petitions is to the common judgment and order dated 15th September 2017 in Original Application No. 862 of 2010 and several other connected Original Applications instituted by the petitioners and others to question the denial of benefit of regularization to the petitioners and to also question advertisements dated 4th June 2010 and 2nd July 2010 by which posts of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) and Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) were sought to be filled in on regular basis.

4. The CAT, in the impugned judgment and order has held that the initial appointments of the petitioners in the years 2006/2007 i.e. about three years prior to the issuance of advertisement for filling up posts on regular basis, were appointments on daily wage basis, entitling them to no guarantee of regularization. The CAT has held that relaxations have been granted to the petitioners or similarly placed candidates and therefore, the relief of regularization cannot be granted to the petitioners. The CAT, in the impugned judgment and order has held that grant of relief of regularization to the petitioners, who were appointed on the basis of advertisements which had clearly indicated that the appointments would be only on daily rated basis or that the appointees will not have any claim for regularization, 'would make nonsense of the specific condition advertised under which the selection had taken place'.

5. Since, common issues of law and fact arise in both these petitions, the learned counsel for the parties agree that both these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and order.

6. Mr. Shrihari Aney, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners in writ petition no. 13968 of 2017 submits that the petitioners were appointed as PGT or TGT after adoption of the prescribed selection procedures. He points out that the necessary advertisements were issued inviting applications from eligibles, this was followed by written test, which was the basis for determination of the merit list. Mr. Aney submits that the petitioners were appointed, because there was dire need of PGT or TGT and the interest of education would have suffered immensely, if, the respondents were to await formal sanction of posts. Mr. Aney submits that there was absolutely nothing illegal in the appointments of the petitioners in the years 2006/2007 and therefore, the CAT, has clearly erred even in suggesting some illegality in the appointments of the petitioners and on such basis denying the petitioners the relief of regularization as PGT and TGT.

7. Mr. Aney submits that the petitioners claim for regularization was in pursuance of a policy formulated by the respondents themselves. He points out that such policy is reflected in OM dated 24th May 2010 and the existence of such policy is in fact clearly accepted by the Director of Education, Administration of Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa in his written statement/affidavit dated 14th June 2011 filed before the CAT. In particular, Mr. Aney makes specific reference to the averments in paragraphs 10, 14 and 15 of the written statement/affidavit dated 14th June 2011. Mr. Aney submits that upon consideration of such averments/admissions, the CAT was not at all justified in denying the petitioners the relief of regularization in services.

8. Mr. Aney relies upon Nihal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 65, to submit that the State can never refuse to absorb employees into the services of the State on permanent basis, by urging that the initial appointments of such employees were purely on temporary basis and not against any sanctioned posts created by the State. Mr. Aney points out that in this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the State had taken a conscious decision to m