1. The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 10.02.2018 seeking to reinstate the writ petitioner in service and regularize his services on completion of ten years of service as casual labourers in the light of the W.P.No.43421 to 43248 of 2006 dated 26.03.2009.

2. The writ petitioners were initially appointed as casual labourer/Nominal Muster Rolls (NMRs') and was continuously working for about 21 years. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 28.02.2006, stating that the casual/temporary labourers, who have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 are eligible to be regularized in the permanent post in the time scale of pay. However, the said G.O.Ms.No.22 was modified and a revised Government Order was issued in G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 27.06.2013, imposing certain restrictions for grant of regularization. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 27.06.2013 is not applicable to the writ petitioner and he emphasized that the earlier G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department alone is applicable.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the said G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department was withdrawn and the modified Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 was issued. Therefore, the case of the writ petitioners cannot be considered based on G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department.

4. This Court is of the opinion that the writ petitioners were initially appointed as casual labourers and undoubtedly, served for a considerable length of time. Mere length of service will not provide a right to claim regularization or permanent absorption in view of the legal principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, reported in 2006 4 SCC Page No.1. All other Government Orders and the judgments delivered contrary to the legal principle settled by the Constitution Bench are denuded to loose its status as precedents. Thus, this Court is bound by the legal principle settled by the Constitution Bench alone and even the other judgments running contrary to the legal principle need not be followed in view of the fact that Paragraph 54 of the above said Constitution Bench judgment clarifies that all other judgments and Government Orders running contrary to the legal principles are denuded to loose its status as legal precedent.

5. Therefore, the Government Orders issued contrary to the legal principles settled by the Constitution Bench cannot be implemented. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has categorically ruled that equal opportunity in public employment is the Constitutional mandate and all the eligible candidates must be provided with an opportunity to participate in the process of selection. By way of entertaining these back door appointments, the Constitutional rights of the teeming millions of qualified and meritorious people are denied and their rightful opportunity even to participate in the process of selection through open competitive process are also denied. Thus, such practice of granting appointment or regularization or permanent absorption are to be deprecated and to be stopped at once.

6. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that any appointment made in violation of the recruitment rules cannot be considered for regularization or permanent absorption. Appointments are to be made only by following the recruitment rules in force and by providing equal opportunity to all the eligible and meritorious candidates, who are aspiring to secure public employment through open