IMPORTANT POINT
Regularization of employment and entitlement to pay scales are contingent upon specific qualifications and conditions, not merely on the performance of similar duties.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Admit. Mr. Sahil Trivedi, learned AGP waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Chaitanya Joshi, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No. 3.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing today.

3. There are multiple prayers made by the appellants – original petitioners in the writ petitions. The same are as under:

“6(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application.

(B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to respondents to regularise the service conditions of the present petitioners and to confer the benefit of permanency on that post of Lecturers held by them in different Government Colleges and to give them all consequential benefits with effect from filing of this petition.

(C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate, writ order or direction to direct respondents, their agents and servants not to terminate the service of the present petitioners in any manner.

(D) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct respondents to forthwith frame and implement the scheme to relax age and to select the qualified and experienced adhoc Lecturers/Contractual Lecturers through a limited competitive exams as suggested by this Hon’ble Court in its order dated 24.03.2011 passed in LPA No. 2986 of 2012.

(E) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition by issuing a writ or direction against the respondents to direct the respondents to consider the case for minimum pay scale of Lecturers as they have been appointed against sanctioned vacant post in the interest of justice.

(F) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from discharging the petitioners or terminating their services of the petitioners in any manner.

(G) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain status quo of the service condition of the petitioners.

(H) To pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. Before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitions were only pressed for prayers (B) and (E).

5. The learned Single Judge has after threadbare examination of the issue and after considering the array of judgments of the Supreme Court has rejected the writ petitions. During the pendency of the present Letters Patent Appeals, the State Government, Education Department vide Resolution dated 02.08.2024 has decided to confer the fix pay of Rs.40,176/- to the appellants. Before the issuance of said Resolution, they were being paid fixed wages of Rs.25,000/-. So far as the claim of the wages @ of Rs.40,176/- with retrospective effect is concerned, a statement has been made before us that the appellants, if they so desire, will be filing separate proceedings for claiming the differential amount.

6. The prayer (B) of the writ petition suggests that the appellants-petitioners are claiming benefit of permanency on the post of Lecturers held by them in different Government colleges. They were all appointed as Vyakhyata Sahayak on fixed wages on contractual basis of Rs.25,000/. It is settled legal precedent that the regularization/ permanency cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the same depends on number of factors such as mode of appointment, availability of sanctioned posts, qualifications, Rules governing regularization, etc. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petitions on this issue while placing reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court including Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1. The Supreme Court in said case as a one-time measure, had directed regularization of those daily wagers, ad hoc and contr