S.M.Subramaniam, J.

The impugned notification issued by the 2nd respondent Periyar University, P.G. Extension Centre, Dharmapuri, in proceeding dated 14.07.2016 and the notification in respect of Periyar University Constituent Arts and Science College, Harur, dated 14.07.2016 is under challenge in these writ petitions.

2. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioners made a submission that the Writ Petitioners were appointed as temporary employees in Periyar University. The Writ Petitioners are continuing in service for many years and specifically most of the petitioners have already completed ten years of service. It is contended that on account of the long services rendered with the University. The Writ Petitioners are entitled for permanent regularization and permanent absorptions.

3. When the Writ Petitioners are working on temporary basis for more than ten years, the University had initiated steps to recruit new employees from open market and therefore the petitioners are constrained to move the present Writ Petitions challenging the recruitment notification issued by the University on 14.07.2016.

4. It is contended by the Petitioners that all of them were initially appointed on daily wages basis and thereafter they were brought under the consolidated pay scale. Accordingly, they are continuing in service for many years without any break in service. The petitioners are claiming regularization and permanent absorption based on the length of service rendered by them in the respondent University. The benefit of regularization had been granted to similarly placed employees in respect of other University and therefore the same benefit of regularization is to be extended to these Writ Petitioners also.

5. At the outset, the petitioners contended that they are fully qualified and continuing in the services of the University for more than ten years and therefore they are entitled to regularization in the permanent sanctioned posts in the time scale of pay.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the respondent University opposed the contention by stating that all the Writ Petitioners were appointed initially on daily wages basis and subsequently brought under the consolidated pay. The benefit of regularization cannot be granted, in view of the fact that the Writ Petitioners were not recruited by adopting the recruitment rules of the University. The University has to fill up the sanctioned post only by following the procedures contemplated for selection and without conducting the selection process, the post cannot be filled up. This apart, many of the Writ Petitioners are not qualified in accordance with the UGC as well as the University statutes. Thus, the University cannot grant the benefit of regularization without undertaking the process of selection in accordance with the rules in force.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent further states that more than 278 employees have filed the Writ Petitions. However, the notification for recruitment was issued in respect of 108 posts in the year 2016. The sanctioned posts as of now in respect of the respondent University is about 179 posts. This being the factum of the case, the question of grant of NOC regularization would not arise at all. The University is not empowered to create more posts over and above the sanctioned posts. This apart the benefit of regularization cannot be granted contrary to statutes and the rules in force.

8. This Court is of the opinion, that regularization or permanent absorption cannot be done in violation of the recruitment rules in force. All appointments are to be made only by following the recruitment rules in force. Mere continuing of an employee on temporary basis for considerable length of time would not constitute a right for claiming regularization or permanent absorption. Thus, appointments are to be made only in accordance with the rules in force. Equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandat