VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

1. These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners who are working as Assistant Professors with the respondent no.1 as contractual appointees. Petitioner seeks their regularization of their services. The prayers made in the petitions are identical and for the purpose of convenience the relevant prayer clauses of WP(C) No. 10368/2016 are reproduced below:

“PRAYER

In view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-

(i) Pass an appropriate Writ for quashing the Impugned Advertisement dated 17.10.2016, issued by the Respondent No.1 University, for being violative of the Petitioner’s Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

(ii) Pass an appropriate Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor in the Electronics & Communications Engineering Department of the Respondent University in terms of the policy decision of Respondent No.2 vide Order dated 19.10.2015;

(iii) Pass an appropriate Writ in the nature of a Mandamus or any other writ directing the Respondent No.1 University to absorb the Petitioner herein to the post of Assistant Professor in the Electronics & Communications Engineering Department of the Respondent University; and

(iv) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is now over 10 years since the of passing of the judgment by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others 2006 (4) SCC 1 and which judgment effectively puts to an end the industry created of temporary appointments and thereafter regularization of such temporary employees. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear in Umadevi’s case (supra) that before appointing of persons on a regular/permanent basis there have to exist recruitment rules or specific eligibility criteria laid down for the appointments, there must be sanctioned posts, there must be vacancies in the sanctioned posts, and finally there must be issued advertisements for filling the posts; not as temporary or contractual posts but as permanent posts; so that there should be a level playing field of competition with respect to prospective appointees. Candidates can also be called from the lists of employment exchanges. Umadevi’s case (supra) has laid down the following ratio:-

“(I) The questions to be asked before regularization are:-

(a)(i)Was there a sanctioned post (court cannot order creation of posts because finances of the state may go haywire),

(ii) is there a vacancy,

(iii) are the persons qualified persons and

(iv) are the appointments through regular recruitment process of

(b) A court can condone an irregularity in the appointment procedure only if the irregularity does not go to the root of the matter.

(II) For sanctioned posts having vacancies, such posts have to be filled by regular recruitment process of prescribed procedure otherwise, the constitutional mandate flowing from Articles 14, 16, 309, 315, 320 etc is violated.

(III) In case of existence of necessary circumstances the government has a right to appoint contract employees or casual labour or employees for a project, but, such persons form a class in themselves and they cannot claim equality(except possibly for equal pay for equal work) with regular employees who form a separate class. Such temporary employees cannot claim legitimate expectation of absorption/regularization as they knew when they were appointed that they were temporary inasmuch as the government did not give and nor could have given an assurance of regularization without the regular recruitment process being followed. Such irregularly appointed persons cannot claim to be regularized alleging violation of Article 21. Also the equ