S M Subramaniam, J.

The relief sought for in these writ petitions is to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings dated 07.09.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and further direction to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioner against the existing vacancy in the respondent-University.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners would contend that large number of vacancies are available in the respondent - University and these vacancies are approved by the competent authority. The writ petitioners are possessing all the required qualification to hold the post of Assistant in the respondent/University. The services of the writ petitioners are extended periodically, in spite of the fact that they are initially appointed on contract basis and therefore, the provision for regularization is also available with the respondent/University and thus, University has to consider the claim of regularization set out by the writ petitioners in this writ petition, in view of the fact that they are continuing in service for fairly a long period. The learned counsel in support of this contention cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees Union Vs. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 310 and it is relevant to extract Paragraphs No.32 and 33:

“32. It is thus seen that the nature of work done by the management is that they use work to explore the minerals in different parts of the country after taking over any project. According to the report of the year 1995-96, the Corporation had 50 projects. The Corporation is permanent and it has been doing the work continuously. When one project is completed, then work starts in another project. It does not appear that the work of the Corporation would come to an end.

33. Ample material was placed before us to show that the temporary/contingent employees have been doing the work of permanent nature and the temporary employees are required to do work which was used to be done by skilled employees. The annual report of the Corporation for the year 1995-96 was also considered by the Tribunal. It appears from the annual report and the magazine of the Corporation that the Corporation has sufficient work and the financial condition of the Corporation is also satisfactory”.

3. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents strenuously opposed the contention by stating that initially the appointment of the writ petitioner was on contract basis and for a specified tenure. On perusal of the order of appointment, the following conditions are prescribed:

“Sri G Kulanchiappan has been engaged as Clerk Assistant in IMU on a consolidated salary of Rs. 12600/- per month with effect from 6th February 2012 with two days break on 4th to 5th February 2012.

1. The engagement is purely on temporary basis and will not count for any claim for regular appointment.

2. This engagement is initially for a period of six months and may be extended further based on the requirement and the performance.

3. Compensation is inclusive of all allowances.

4. The eligibility of leave for the engagement of six months Casual/Leave 4 days for six months.

4. The similar appointment orders were issued to another person also and the conditions in the appointment order is also same. Thus, the learned Senior counsel contended that the writ petitioners cannot claim any right over the contract appointment, when the appointment itself was provided on contract basis for a specific period and on consolidated salary and periodical extension was provided based on the needs and such an extension will not confer any legal right on the writ petitioner to claim regularization or permanent absorption in the University. Thus, the question of regularization does not arise at all in this case, since the appoin