The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees completing 10 years of service as per an employer-framed scheme may be entitled to regularization, despite the principles laid down in Umadevi's case.

JUDGMENT

Prayer: Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 01.12.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.12554 of 2022.)

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J

A. THE APPEAL:

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 01.12.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.12554 of 2022, in and by which the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by this Court directing the appellant to regularize the services of the respondent on completion of 10 years of service as casual labour. However with financial benefits from the date of the impugned order ie., 11.08.2021.

1.1. Hereinafter in this Judgment, the parties are referred to as per array in the writ petition.

B. Brief Facts Leading to the Appeal:

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was called for an interview by the respondent University by a call letter dated 13.10.2005. After subjecting him to selection, by an order dated 14.11.2015, he was appointed as a Casual Labour on a consolidated pay of Rs.3,600/-. The appointment was duly approved by the Appointments Committee by a resolution on the same day. Thereafter, the petitioner has been continued in service without any break in service whatsoever.

2.1. After completion of 10 years of service, the petitioner made representation dated 27.10.2015 for regularization of his services on par with similarly situated casual labours. Since there was no positive response, the writ petitioner approached this Court by Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.20955 of 2016 and by an order, dated 30.11.2016, the writ petitioner was directed to be regularized in service as Clerk/Junior Assistant as per the existing norms under the time scale of pay within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. On appeal, by order dated 28.04.2017, the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court set aside the said order by giving an opportunity to the University to file counter and remanded the matter back to the file of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the University filed a counter affidavit contending that the appointment of the writ petitioner was otherwise than by sponsoring through employment exchange. The engagement was not against any sanctioned post. Therefore, on the basis of the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and Others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to pray for regularization of service. Thereafter, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 09.03.2021 to consider the representation of the writ petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

2.2. Pursuant thereto, by order dated 11.08.2021, the request was rejected stating that the Judgment in Umadevi''s case have to be adhered to and the finance committee had recommended to call for vacancies by a proper recruitment process and the vacancies can be filled up only by a regular recruitment process. Challenging the same, the present writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.12554 of 2022 was filed, which was again resisted by filing a counter affidavit on the same lines as that of the earlier writ petition.

2.3. The learned Single Judge of this Court then considered the case of both parties and found that the petitioner was subjected to a selection process and a resolution was passed approving the appointment and thereafter, the petitioner has been serving the University without any break for 17 years. The learned Single Judge found that there is a resolution, which is passed by the respondent University on 12.08.2005 in and by which, the casual labourers be allowed regular time scale of pay after they completed 10 years of service and the said resolution has not been rescinded till date. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge considered the order, which was passed on the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)Nos.351 of 2012 e