ORDER :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. When the matter is called out, learned advocate for the appellant has fairly pointed out that in identical matters being Letters Patent Appeals Nos.437 of 2023 and 439 of 2023, this Court has passed an order dated 6.4.2023, whereby the appeals filed by the concerned appellants have been dismissed. It is also pointed out that the learned Single Judge had passed a common order on 12.10.2022 in all the three petitions filed by the concerned petitioners.

2. In view of the aforesaid, the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order dated 6.4.2023, wherein this Court has observed as under :

“1. As common issue arises in both these appeal, both these appeals are heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. Both these appeals arise out of the common oral order dated 12.10.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions filed by the respective appellants and, hence, the appellants have filed two different appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Aditya Gupta for the appellant and learned advocate, Mr. M.K. Vakharia for the respondent.

4. For the sake of convenience, facts of Letters Patent Appeal No.437/2023 are taken into consideration.

5. Learned advocate, Mr. Gupta submitted that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent on 04.10.2011 and after following recruitment process, he was appointed on the post of 'Lower Division Clerk' on adhoc basis for a period of 12 months, which was extended from time to time till his last extension, which was ended on 31.12.2019. It is the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner that having been appointed through regular selection process after an advertisement and an interview, the appointment of the appellant - original petitioner cannot be termed as illegal and irregular. It is submitted that at the relevant time, there were 36 sanctioned posts of Lower Division Clerks, on which, only 11 posts have been filled in and when the petitioner had worked for a period of 8 years, he is entitled to be regularized in service. It is submitted that only because of the fact that the petitioner filed captioned petition before this Court, the respondent authority did not extend contractual period. It is also contended that during the period of 9 years' of service, there was no complaint with regard to the work of the petitioner.

6. Learned advocate would submit that learned Single Judge has committed an error while placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.3463/2019, which was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.835/2019 and allied matters. Learned advocate has referred to relevant observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 20.01.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.835/2019 and allied matters. It is submitted that in the said case, the concerned appellants were appointed without following due procedure of law and dehors the recruitment rules. Thus, it was the case of back door entry and, therefore in the facts of the said case, the Division Bench did not entertain the said appeal filed by the concerned appellant - petitioner. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and relief as prayed for by the appellant - original petitioner in the petition be granted.

7. Learned advocate for the appellant has also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1997) 2 SCC 1. Learned advocate has more particularly placed reliance upon Paragraph No.14 of the said decision.

8. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Vakharia has opposed these appeals. Learned advocate for the respondent would submit that l