The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the State Government to consider regularisation of services for employees who have served for more than 10 years, as per the principles established in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi & others.

By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellants-writ petitioners are aggrieved against the judgment dated 25th July. 2011 by which" the writ petitions of the writ petitioners were dismissed.

3. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are required to be narrated in brief only because there is in fact no dispute with respect to the factual aspect.

4. The petitioners alongwith others were initially appointed on the post of "Junior Engineers in the Rural Development Department in the erstwhile State of Bihar. about 30 years ago from now i.e. they were appointed in the year 1981. The petitioners were dilly qualified for the post. However after taking their services for six years as Junior Engineers the State Government on 27th June 1987, passed another order and appointed these persons on the posts of Assistant Engineers temporarily for a period of six months and it is mentioned in the order dated 27th June. 1987 itself that the said appointments are in anticipation to the recommendation which may come from the State Public Service Commission. However so far as appointment on the post of Junior Engineers was concerned that appointment did not require any recommendation from the State Public Service Commission. The petitioners continued and served on the post of Assistant Engineers. The petitioners since were temporarily appointed and were allowed to continue on d therefore they had apprehension every time that their services may be terminated and therefore it appears from the facts of the case that in that apprehension when there was advertisement advertised for the post of Assistant Engineers they applied for the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1985 when advertisement No. 13/1985 was advertised by the Government for filling up of the vacancies which were in existence as on 31.12.1987. The petitioners' could not succeed and their names were in the waiting list. However, even after such regular selection and postings in pursuance of advertisement No.13/1985, the petitioners services were not terminated or dispensed with obviously because, vacant posts were available. It will be worthwhile to mention here that Union of unemployed graduate engineers preferred three writ petitions before this Court wherein they prayed that 200 posts have been created in Rural Engineering Organisation and have been advertised from the Road Construction Department and those posts may be included in advertisement No. 13 of 1985. However this prayer was rejected by the High Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There was one plea of unemployed graduates in the writ petition that less vacancies had been shown by the State Government and this issue was decided in favour of these writ petitioners i.e. unemployed graduate engineers and it was held that the Government had not given out the complete number of vacancies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld that finding of the High Court that the State Government had not given out the complete number of vacancies in the advertisement. One Interlocutory Application was also submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the ad-hoc employees of the National Rural Employment Programme praying then in that those 200 posts be given to them but that too was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Then the process of selection was completed and as we have already noticed that these writ petitioners alongwith remaining persons who were 42 in total numbers could not succeed in the selection and could not get regular appointments on the post of Assistant Engineers and their names remained in the select list a: ld even after giving appointment to the persons selected regularly under advertisement No.13/1985, the services of these 42 Assistant Engineers had not been terminated. It will .also be worthwhile to mention here that in the year 1996 the petitioners got more opportunity in view of the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7