Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. By these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are contractual employees of the respondent no.3/Institute of Liver and Biliary Science seek relief of regularization of their services. Petitioners also seek an additional relief that petitioners should not be terminated from their services by replacing them with similarly situated contractual employees.

2. So far as the first issue is concerned, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 places reliance upon para 3 of the advertisements issued with respect to the petitioners and as per which advertisements, appointment of the petitioners was to be on contractual basis and accordingly it is argued that contractual employees cannot seek regularization. One such advertisement para 3 reads as under:-

“3. All appointments shall be on “contract basis” and will be initially for a period of ‘four years’ including a probationary period of one year. The contractual appointment may be extended for a further period of ‘four years’ based on performance of the candidate during the initial period of four years.”

3. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 accordingly places reliance upon the ratio of the judgment delivered by this Court in a bunch of cases with lead case being W.P. (C) 10368/2016 titled as Kumar Mayank Vs. Delhi Technological University & Anr. decided on 10.11.2016 that contractual employees cannot be confirmed in their services and their services cannot be regularized. It may be noted that in Kumar Mayank’s case (supra), this Court has placed reliance upon the ratios of four judgments of the Supreme Court which hold that contractual employees cannot be regularized because this will amount to perpetrating fraud on those candidates who did not apply thinking that the posts are not permanent posts. The judgments of the Supreme Court in this regard are as under:-

(i) Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & Others (2008) 10 SCC 1

(ii) National Fertilizers Ltd. and Others Vs. Somvir Singh (2006) 5 SCC 493.

(iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. L.V. Subramanyeswara and Another, (2007) 5 SCC 326.

(iv) State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436.

4. I completely agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the respondent no.3 because contractual employees cannot claim regularization of their services and confirmation of services in view of the ratios of four judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above and relevant paras laying down the ratio of which four judgments, along with the ratio of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others 2006 (4) SCC 1, have been given in paras 2 to 8 of the judgment in Kumar Mayank’s case (supra) and which paras read as under:-

“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 cr