The central legal point established in the judgment is that public appointments must be made in accordance with the law, and the principle of 'first come first serve' does not apply when there is no parity between already working candidates and newly selected candidates.

Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral):-In the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) To regularise the applicants from the date of their initial appointment i.e. in the month of February-March, 1995, with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority, etc. etc. In the alternative, it is submitted that the respondents may very kindly be directed to regularise the applicants against the posts for which now letters have been issued offering the posts on contingencies basis in the interest of law and justice.

(ii) That the impugned action of the respondents above stated may very kindly be quashed and set-aside to secure the ends of justice.

(iii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to pay interest @ 18% PA on the arrears.

(iv) Exemplary costs, as provided in section 35-A of CPC may very kindly be awarded in favour of the applicants and gains the respondents.”

2. Respondent No. 2 issued requisition to the Regional Employment Exchange, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, requesting for sponsoring the names of candidates for the appointment of Class-IV posts. In all, requisition for 40 posts was sent which were to be filled up in accordance with the applicable roaster. The petitioners’ names were sent by the respective Employment Exchanges. They were selected but however, were appointed only on daily wage basis. It is the grievance of the petitioners that since the requisition was for regular posts they could not have been appointed on daily wages.

3. For 28 similar posts another requisition was sent in November, 1995.

4. From the record it is evident that such of those persons whose names had been sent by the Employment Exchange, alongwith the petitioners name were also considered and selected by the Selection Committee but however were appointed on regular basis (Annexure A-6).

5. In the reply filed by the respondent it is not clear as to why appointment was offered to the petitioners on daily wage basis when the requisition was sent for regular posts.

6. Consequently on 7.1.2009 this Court had directed the respondents to file an affidavit.

7. In compliance of the same the Principal of the respondent-College has filed an affidavit stating that:

“1. That during December, 1994 Total 40 posts of Class-IV were advertised for sponsorship of candidates from various Employment Exchanges to fill up these posts on regular basis. The interview was conducted by the duly constituted Selection Committee. In this interview, besides the sponsored candidates from the Employment Exchanges, those already working candidates in the institution on Contingency, Daily wage and Part time workers were also interviewed. The Committee applied the reservation roster and decided that already working candidates on Contingency, daily wage and part time be offered appointment on regular basis whereas those who are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges be appointed on Contingency/Daily wage basis, the proceeding of the Selection Committee are annexed herewith as Annexure R-1.

2. That in the month of November, 1995, another requisition was sent to the Employment Exchanges to fill up the 28 posts on regular basis and the interviews were conducted on

29.1.96 for filling up these posts. The Selection Committee interviewed each candidates and selection was made as per the reservation roster and merit basis. In this Selection also the selection Board decided that already engaged incumbents on daily/Contingency basis be appointed on regular basis and those candidates who are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges be appointed on daily wage basis. The copy of the proceeding is annexed herewith as Annexure R-2.

3. That it is pertinent to mention here that all the applicants/Petitioners stands regularized vide order No. HFW(MC)b(2)12/96 Dated 30.9.1997. The copy of this order is annexed as Annexure R-3.

4. That from the above stated position, it is clearly evident that the petitioners are those candidates who are sponsored