JUDGMENT :

S. Vaidyanathan, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.27707 of 2018.)

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27707 of 2019, the Writ Petitioner has come up with the present Writ Appeal.

2. According to the Appellant/Writ Petitioner, she was appointed as a Sweeper by the Village Educational Committee in the 5th Respondent School with effect from 10.12.2010 and is continuously working in the School in the said post. It is stated by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner that, her appointment order has been forwarded by the 3rd Respondent to the 4th Respondent vide communication dated 21.11.2011, for suitable orders ratifying her appointment and to disburse salary.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Writ Petitioner contended that, the learned Single Judge failed to consider that, the post of Sweeper comes within the category of basic employment and there is no necessity to call for Applications from the public, as the Village Educational Committee is competent to make appointments in respect of basic employees. He pointed out that, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has rendered service in the 5th Respondent School for more than eight years without any break and by virtue of her long service, her services in the 5th Respondent School may be regularized. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.47, School Education Department, dated 02.03.2012, relevant portion of which, reads as under:

“Whereby 5000 sweepers and allied non-teaching staff were sought to be recruited in the Schools for a considerable period, had made a representation to consider them for regularization of their services. When the appointments under G.O.Ms.No.47 was sought to be made, the Government in certain cases had rejected the claim of these ad hoc appointees stating that, they were not properly appointed and that, the caste reservation and age criteria were not taken into consideration at the time of ad hoc appointments, etc.”

4. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, when cases of similarly placed persons were considered by the Government and the benefit of regularization had already been extended, similar benefit may also be extended to the Appellant/Writ Petitioner.

5. In reply, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents submitted that, pursuant to the said Government order, the Government had already appointed 1495 Watchman and 2213 Sweepers on 23.11.2012 and the remaining 506 vacancies of Night Watchman and 786 Sweepers are yet to be filled up and that, the vacancies will be filled up after getting appropriate orders from the Government.

6. The learned Single Judge observed that, regularization or permanent absorption cannot be granted in violation of the Recruitment Rules in force and that, all appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the procedures as contemplated in the Rules. In respect of irregular and illegal appointments, the benefit of regularization or permanent absorption cannot be given in view of the legal principles settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1.

7. In view of the said decision, the learned Single Judge held that, the Writ Petitioner is not entitled for regularization or permanent absorption and in the event of any recruitment Notification, the Writ Petitioner is at liberty to participate in the process of selection, if she is otherwise eligible and qualified in accordance with law, for the purpose of securing permanent appointment. However, the learned Single Judge directed to pay the salary due to the Writ Petitioner. Further, the learned Single Judge directed the Writ Petitioner to submit a representation to the Respondents and in the event of submitting any such representation, directed the Respondents to consider the same and pass orders only with r