The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments could be regularized if the employees were appointed observing all formalities against a vacant post and had rendered long and continuous service without intervention of a court.

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. This is an appeal from a Judgment dated 29th April, 2016 in a writ petition filed by thirty-three persons (the writ petitioners) who were aggrieved by a communication dated 10th May, 2012 issued by the Government of West Bengal to the Chairman of Tamluk (now Tamralipta) Municipality expressing regret in the matter of regularizing the services of the writ petitioners by reason of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors. reported in, (2006) 4 SCC 1. By the impugned judgment, the Learned First Court held that each of the petitioners fell within the exception to the general principle carved out in Umadevi and any irregularity at the time of appointment could be regularized by a later permanent appointment. The Learned First Court accordingly allowed the writ petition by directing that the appointments of the writ petitioners would have to be regularized by the State-respondents with notional effect from the dates of their joining service within three months from the communication of the impugned judgment.

2. The State of West Bengal has challenged the judgment of the First Court and are the appellants before us.

3. It is the case of the appellants that the thirty-three writ petitioners, employees of Tamralipta Municipality, are governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 and the Rules framed there under. It is also the appellants' case that the finding of the Learned First Court that the writ petitioners were appointed between 14th July, 1994 and 15th October, 2000 in the sanctioned posts is contrary to records as no prior approval was obtained from the government before such appointments were made under the 1993 Act or the Rules there under. Accordingly, the appointment is illegal and without jurisdiction.

4. Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, submits that there was no evidence before the Learned Judge of the petitioners being appointed in compliance with the Rules and that the petitioners were not approved staff under the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 since the posts were filled up without the prior sanction of the State Government. He submits that the Municipality confirmed thirty-three casual employees (the writ petitioners) with effect from 5th August, 1996 in terms of a Government Order dated 10th March, 1996 issued by the Municipal Affairs Department and the petitioners draw salary there under from the Municipality. It is further submitted that the State Government, by an order dated 10th March, 2012, rejected the proposal for post facto approval of the petitioners in view of the judgment in Umadevi. It is submitted that the impugned communication was issued by the Director of Local Bodies in reliance of the aforesaid judgment and that the State Government has no power to approve appointments which are illegal as the initial appointment of the writ petitioners with effect from 1st August, 1996 was done without following the 100 point roster and post facto approval for such appointments cannot arise. He further submits that there was no publication of notification of vacancies prior to 5th August, 1996 by constituting Selection Committees with the approval of the State Government. He relies on the proviso (Section 54 (3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 before the 1994 Amendment which mandates that no appointments shall be made by the municipality without the prior sanction of the State Government). Mr. Mukherjee submits that the municipality has no power to regularize the service of casual employees and that the Municipality appointed the writ petitioners in August 1996 without approval. He urges that the exception carved out in Umadevi is not applicable to the present case as the State Government in 2012, could not approve appointments made in 1996. He also urges that the appointments for filling up vacancies were not advertised. He sa