By the Court.—Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, for petitioners and Sri Tarun Verma for respondents.

2. These two writ petitions have arisen from a common judgment dated 21.11.2001 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), hence as requested, have been taken together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Petitioners claim is for regularization and absorption on the post of ‘Accounts Clerk’ and also a direction to respondents not to revert them to their substantive Group-D posts on which they were recruited substantively. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners were working in Group-D posts and had completed three years of service.

4. Divisional Accounts Officer, Izatnagar, Bareilly sought to make recruitment by promotion on the post of Accounts Clerk by publishing six vacancies on 21.2.1991 pursuant where to petitioners applied. They were subjected to written and viva-voce tests. Thereafter they were selected and promoted as ‘Accounts Clerk’ in the Grade of 950-1500, on temporary basis. The appointment/promotion order dated 24.5.1991 reads as under :

^^fdlh Hkh fyfid dks dHkh Hkh mlds foHkkx esa inkour dj okil Hkstk tk ldrk gS vFkok jsy HkrhZ cksMZ ls fyfid miyC/k gksus ij inkour fd;k tk ldrk gSA mijksDr O;oLFkk iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ gS rFkk bl O;oLFkk ds QyLo:i deZpkfj;ksa dks bl in ij cus jgus rFkk ojh;rk ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gksxkA dk;Z dh lekfIr ij bu deZpkfj;ksa dks buds ewy inksa ij okil dj fn;k tk;sxkA**

“Any clerk may, at any time, be reverted to his department after demotion or he may be demoted on availability of clerk from the Railway Recruitment Board. The aforesaid arrangement is purely temporary; and by virtue of this provision, employees shall not be entitled to continue on these posts and attain seniority. On cessation of work, these employees shall be reverted to their substantive posts.”

(English translation by Court)

5. The petitioners after working for sometime, claimed regularisation as ‘Accounts Clerk’. The respondent No. 5 referred their matter for regularization/substantive appointment on Group-C post which has not been accepted by higher authorities of Railway Department.

6. The petitioners approached Tribunal in Original Applications No. 376 of 1999 and 375 of 1999 seeking regularization and absorption on the post of Accounts Clerk with all consequential benefits, which has been negatived vide impugned judgment dated 24.11.2001.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners submitted, even if appointments of posts were not made strictly in accordance with Rules and procedure prescribed under the Rules, still petitioners having been subjected to written and viva-voce examination for the post of Accounts Clerk, cannot be said to have been appointed illegally and their appointments on Group-C post, at the best would be irregular, hence they are protected by observations made by Constitution Bench of Apex Court in paragraph 53 of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1.

53. “One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of Courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten