1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 11 petitioners seek regularization of their services with the respondent no.1/Delhi Tourism and Transport Development Corporation Limited. Petitioners claim that they should be regularized inasmuch as they were appointed against vacancies in sanctioned posts and they met the eligibility criteria/qualifications for being appointed to the posts in question being the posts of Helper/Attendant.

2. The advertisement pursuant to which petitioners were appointed is dated 26.6.2007 and this advertisement reads as under:-

“ ADVERTISEMENT

DTTDC required Helper/Attendant for short period

Qualification 8th passed, desire experienced qualification is two years, Maximum age 25 years for (General), 30 years for (SC/ST), 28 years for (OBC). Interview shall be take place at Garden of Five Senses, Said-Ul-Ajaib, Mehrauli Badarpur Road, New Delhi on dated 27/06/2007 at 10:30 AM. Aspiring applicants may please bring their educational certificate and experience certificates on the above mention date for the interview.

General Manager”

3. A reference to the aforesaid advertisement shows that by the advertisement appointment was sought to be made of persons as Helper/Attendant only for a short period i.e. appointments which were sought to be made were not permanent appointments as distinguished from contractual/short term appointments or casual appointments. The issue is that can these persons claim regularization of their services by seeking permanent employment only on the ground that they were appointed against vacancies in sanctioned posts and they had the necessary eligibility criteria/qualifications and were recruited through the process of advertisement.

4. It is now no longer res integra that in terms of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others 2006 (4) SCC 1 before a person can seek regularization, four aspects must exist viz first of there existing sanctioned posts, second of there existing vacancies in sanctioned posts for which there exists authority/entitlement to fill up, thirdly that the persons who are appointed in vacancies against sanctioned posts are duly qualified persons, and fourthly appointment is made of persons who have been called through advertisements widely circulated so that there is open competition among the eligible persons.

5. The issue in the present case is that whether the advertisement in question reproduced above by which appointments were sought to be made only for a short period, is an advertisement in accordance with the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra).

6. I have recently had an occasion to examine this aspect in the bunch of cases with the lead case being Radhey Shyam & Ors. Vs. GNCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 471/2015 decided on 22.1.2015 and I have held in this judgment that to allow regularization of contractual employees or short period appointment employees, merely because such persons meet 3 out of 4 criteria in terms of the ratio of Umadevi’s case (supra) being that they are qualified persons and appointed against vacancies in sanctioned posts, the same would result in fraud upon the ratio of Umadevi’s case (supra) as also the general public because the object of Umadevi’s case (supra) was to prevent back-door entry and spoils system in public appointment and there cannot be regularization of employees who have got appointment in terms of the advertisement only for a fixed period. The relevant paras in Radhey Shyam’s case (supra) are paras 14 and 15 and which read as under:-

“14. Petitioners in this case seek appointment as Lab Technicians/Lab Assistants. In the present case, the relief which is claimed by the petitioners of their being regularized cannot be granted because if petitioners are specifically appointed for contractual period in terms of the advertisement which required only