Employees claiming regularization must have been appointed in accordance with the relevant rules in an open competitive process against a sanctioned vacant post. Mere continuation of service under interim orders from the court does not confer any right to absorb into service.

Aggrieved by the non-regularization of the petitioners engagement, who have been employed on contract basis under the respondent corporation, they have come up before this Court.

2. The petitioners have been employed on contract basis under the respondent corporation from 01.01.2003. They allege that juniors, who are appointed on contract basis and who have put far less service than the petitioners, have been regularized and have been afforded regular pay scale. They further allege that even after many a representations before the 3rd respondent, they have not been regularized. As per notification published on 01.12.2012 in Lakshadweep Times, applications were called for the vacancy of "Deck Crew" on contract basis under the respondent corporation. Petitioners were taken into the post of Deck Crew (contract basis) and had been working under the 3rd respondent corporation from 01.01.2003 onwards with a consolidated salary of 3,000/- per month. After four years, all the works and staff relating to the Fishing Division at Kavaratti were shifted under the CTOD (Control Tower Operation Division), Kavaratti. The petitioners filed Ext.P6 representation for regularization of their service, pointing out that the two cable TV technicians (Cable TV Division and Port Control Tower Division), two management trainees with lesser period of service than the petitioners, who were on contract basis, were regularized and were given regular pay scale. Even though several representations, including Ext.P6, were forwarded to the 4th respondent, no further step was taken by the respondent corporation to regularize the petitioners; it is alleged. It is with this background, the petitioners have come up before this Court.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was contended that the petitioners are not selected for appointment as per Ext.P2 minutes of the Interview Board; and in fact, three candidates were selected and the petitioners were included in the panel of 13 candidates for future appointments if necessary. It was further contended that no records of the appointment of the petitioners from 01.01.2003 is available in the office of the LDCL. The petitioners cannot be classified as contract appointees merely because of the fact that the petitioners have paid consolidated wages; according to the respondent corporation. It was further contended that the petitioners are not engaged against any sanctioned vacancy but they were engaged to clear out urgent works or works of non-permanent nature. Therefore, they prayed for a dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Arguments have been heard.

5. In the writ petition, the petitioner are seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 4 to regularize the service of the petitioners as Multi Skilled Employees (Attender) forthwith and for a declaration that they are fit to be regularized considering the number of years they have served under the respondent corporation. It was also prayed not to regularize any contract employees until the petitioners are regularized.

6. The stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioners are working under the LDCL on consolidated wages. The issue is whether they are entitled to get their service regularized. The position is no more res integra. The apex court, in a catena of decisions, has illustrated and clarified the position. The definite stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner was not engaged in any sanctioned vacancy. The concept of regularization of casual employees took a drastic change with the decision of the apex court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi (3) & Others [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. This was subsequently followed by the apex court in a series of decisions. In State of Rajasthan & Others v. Dayalal & Others [(2011) 2 SCC 429], the apex court has summarized the settled principles relating to regularization of casual employees as under;

"i. The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not