ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Aditya Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. M.K. Vakharia, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. All these petitions have been filed by ad-hoc employees of the Gujarat Vidyapith. Facts of Special Civil Application No. 2274 of 2019 are taken into consideration as, it is undisputed that in all these petitions, the petitioners-employees were engaged on contractual basis for over a period of six to seven years on different posts under the Gujarat Vidyapith. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 2274 of 2019 applied for the posts of Lower Division Clerk on the basis of an advertisement issued by the respondent on 04.10.2011 after clearing a written examination and the interview, appointed on adhoc basis from 01.11.2011 to 31.12.2012. The tenure of the contract was extended from time to time till the last extension which ended on 31.12.2019.

3. Mr. Aditya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that having been appointed through a regular selection process after an advertisement and interview, the petitioners’ appointment cannot be treated as illegal. At best it can be irregular and having worked for over a period of six to seven years and now that contract was not extended merely because of the filing of the petition, the petitioners cannot be ousted and their case deserved to be considered for regularization of their service. According to the petitioners, there are 36 sanctioned posts of Lower Division Clerks of which only 11 have been filled in. Having worked for more than eight years now and having graduation as a qualification, they are entitled to be regularized in service.

3.1 Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, would rely on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sachin Ambadas Dawale & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1670. He would rely on paragraphs 11 to 17 of the decision, wherein, having relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court observed that the decision of Uma Devi (supra) would not be applicable in the case where it is undisputed that the petitioners are working on sanctioned posts and their selection was pursuant to the decision of the Selection Committee.

3.2 Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Ashif & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 4256-257 of 2010 dated 06.05.2010. Paragraphs 6 and 7 were pressed into service for the relief of regularization.

4. Mr. Vakharia, learned counsel appearing for the Gujarat Vidyapith, would take the Court through the reply and submit that in similar issues, this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3460 of 2019 and 3463 of 2019 dismissed the petitions and such orders of dismissal were confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. He would further submit that the appointments were purely contractual, which were extended from time to time. Conditions in the appointment order, namely, Condition No. 7 and 8 indicated that it was open for the Vidyapith to discontinue their services with notice. It was within the knowledge of the petitioners right from the inception that they were working on an ad-hoc basis as is evident from the advertisement pursuant to which their appointments were made. The affidavit-in-reply at Annexure-R3 is the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioners were appointed.

4.1 Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, would dispute the proposition that the appointments were contractual. In fact, with the rejoinder, he has placed on record material to suggest that even if there were artificial breaks, on that date, the petitioners were engaged for discharging their duties and they have worked continuously on a sanctioned post for nine years, they deserve their due of their services being regularized.

5. Considering the submissions made