H.C. Mishra, J.

As common question is involved in all these writ applications, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in all these writ applications and the learned counsel for the State.

3. The petitioners in all these writ applications were appointed on daily wages/contract basis on different posts and they are aggrieved by the non-consideration of regularisation of their services, as a cut-off date has been prescribed in the notification issued by the State of Jharkhand in its Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, notifying the Rules, namely, "Jharkhand Sarkar Ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup Se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo Ki Sewa Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015" (hereinafter referred to the "Regularisation Rules, 2015").

4. As the nomenclature of the above Rules suggests, these Rules have been framed by the State Government for regularisation of the services of irregularly appointed employees of the State Government. These Rules have been framed as one time measure for regularisation of services of the irregularly appointed Government employees in the State of Jharkhand.

5. The aforesaid Regularisation Rules, 2015, have been framed by the State Government under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., as reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 [: 2006(2) JLJR (SC) 282]. In that case, the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that the persons appointed/engaged on the public posts, as temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad-hoc basis, when their appointment/engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedures, they cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post. Such engagements cannot be used to defeat the very scheme of public employment and there cannot be much difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it is ordinarily not proper for the Courts whether acting under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Article 32 of the Constitution, to direct absorption in permanent employment of those who have been engaged without following a due process of selection as envisaged by the constitutional scheme.

6. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court made an exception to the above position in paragraph 53 of the Judgment, which reads as follows:-

"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constituti