Amitava Roy, J.

1. The aforementioned miscellaneous cases have been registered on separate applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ('the Act') for condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the accompanying writ appeals against the common Judgment and order dated 29.4.2009 passed in the corresponding writ petitions being WP(C) No. 118/2006 and WP(C) No. 99/2006.

2. We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, senior advocate assisted by Mr. R. Dubey, Advocate for the applicants and Ms. Subrata Borah Chowlek and Ms. Anima Das Gogoi, opposite party in person.

3. An abridged version of the facts leading to the present applications is indispensable for appropriate comprehension of the rival pleas. The opposite party instituted the abovementioned writ proceedings seeking an appropriate writ and/or direction from this Court to the appellant-Corporation (applicant herein) for regularization of their services under it from the dates of their initial appointment, as well as for disbursement of their service dues consequent thereto. They pleaded to have responded to an employment notice issued by the Corporation and published in the daily Assam Tribune for filling up of two posts of Teachers in Primary School (English medium) against permanent vacancies. Though, on their successful participation in the various segments of the selection process, they were appointed, their recruitment as teachers was for less than 45 days with the basic pay of Rs. 2,263 per month. This, the writ petitioners contended was in gross departure from the stipulations in the advertisement.

The initial term of their appointment was thereafter extended intermittently and their pay was enhanced to Rs. 5,400 per month. As their engagements from time to time was effected with artificial breaks in between and inspite of repeated representations, their services were not regularized with consequential benefits, they approached this Court for redressal of their grievances as indicated hereinabove.

4. The applicants (respondents in the writ petitions) while admitting the initiation of a selection process by the employment notice as above, asserted that the appointments of the opposite party-writ petitioners as teachers were on temporary basis in a School run by the Assam Oil Division of the Corporation. They contended that the School did not form an integral part of the Corporation and in fact was closed in the year 2004 owing to an irreversible fall in enrollment. According to them, the opposite party-writ petitioners were thereafter re-deployed as temporary Junior Clerk Typists in May 2006. The applicants-respondents, however, admitted that the opposite party-writ petitioners were not in receipt of the full service benefits such as, annual increments, loan and advances etc. availed of by the regular employees of the Corporation. The Opposite party-writ petitioners in their reply, however, reiterated their assertions in the writ petitions.

5. The learned Single Judge by the judgment and order dated 29.4.2009 after hearing the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, allowed the writ petitions with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to treat the petitioners to have been regularly appointed with effect from the dates of their initial appointment with all consequential service benefits including notional fixation of pay from the date(s) of such appointment and to release their arrear salary on and from the date of filing of the writ petitions. All consequential service benefits were also directed to be made available to the opposite party-writ petitioner.

6. In course of the adjudicative process preceding such directions, the learned Single Judge on a scrutiny of the official records pertaining to the selection, observed that the same did not disclose any reason or justification for the appointment of the opposite party-writ petitioners, though selected, on fixed pay basis and for a limited duration with recurrent extensions involving artifici