(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 226 - Recruitment and regularization of Class-IV employees - Denial of bonus marks for work experience - Parity with candidates who were parties to a prior settlement - A settlement arrived at between the State Government and a specific union or individuals is *inter partes* and not a judgment *in rem* - Persons not privy to such settlement cannot claim parity or similar benefits as they do not fall in the same class as those who were parties to the settlement (Para 17) - Courts are generally slow to interfere with completed selection processes, especially when candidates are not guilty of fraud or illegality, as doing so would disrupt administrative stability (Para 18) - Doctrine of acquiescence and estoppel applies to candidates who participate in a selection process without protest and challenge the criteria only after being unsuccessful (Para 19).

(B) Service Law - Regularization of contractual employees - Prolonged ad-hocism for perennial and essential duties is violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 - State as a model employer cannot extract regular work from daily-wage employees without sanctioning posts or initiating regular recruitment (Paras 22, 35) - Mere nomenclature of “temporary” or “contractual” cannot defeat substantive rights where the employee performs essential duties under the direct control of the employer (Para 34) - While illegal appointments cannot be regularized, one-time regularization of employees with long continuous service against sanctioned posts is permissible if the appointment was irregular rather than illegal (Para 31).

(C) Administrative Law - Selection Process - The discretion of the Interview Committee in determining the duration and nature of interviews for lowest-grade posts is subject to limited judicial review, and standard formulas for such interviews cannot be rigidly applied (Para 34).

(D) Reservation Policy - If a reserved category is sufficiently represented in the total cadre strength, the absence of reserved vacancies in a specific recruitment advertisement does not constitute a violation of the reservation policy (Paras 26-28).

Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions were filed challenging the recruitment process for Class-IV employees. Some petitioners sought bonus marks based on their contractual work experience, claiming parity with candidates who were granted such marks following a prior settlement and subsequent court orders. Other petitioners challenged the transparency of the interview process, the lack of advertised vacancies for the Scheduled Caste category, or the denial of an interview call. Additionally, some petitioners who had served as contractual employees for 15 to 20 years sought regularization of their services.

Findings of Court:
The court found that bonus marks granted pursuant to a settlement are limited to the parties of that settlement and cannot be extended to others. The court also declined to unsettle a completed selection process involving several years of service of the appointed candidates. However, the court recognized that petitioners who had rendered long, continuous, and essential service through contractors are entitled to have their cases considered for regularization to prevent exploitation.

Issues: Whether non-parties to a settlement can claim parity in bonus marks; whether a concluded selection process can be interfered with; whether long-serving contractual employees are entitled to regularization; and whether the absence of reserved vacancies in a specific recruitment advertisement violates reservation policy.

Ratio Decidendi: A settlement between the State and specific employees is *inter partes* and does not establish a general legal right for all similarly situated persons. However, the State must act as a model employer; the continuous performance of perennial duties for a prolonged period creates a constitutional obligation to rationalize or regularize engagement, provided the appointment is not illegal.

Result: Writ petition No. 15084/2016 partly allowed (denied bonus marks but directed the respondents to consider regularization/absorption in accordance with law); all other writ petitions dismissed.