RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.

1. The validity of Rule 3 of the Weightage Point and Relaxation in Age Limit to the Personnel Regularized under Regulation (Amendment) Rules, 2016, in Direct Recruitment Rules, 2018 (for short ‘the 2018 Rules’) is questioned in this writ petition as being ultra vires and illegal.

2. The petitioners, seven in number, were appointed on contract basis on different dates between September and November, 2010. The Regularisation of Daily Wager, Work Charge, Contract, Fixed Salary, Part-time and Ad-hoc appointed employees Regularisation Rules, 2013 (for short ‘the 2013 Rules’) stipulated that all those candidates, who had put in five years’ service on or before 30.12.2008, were entitled to be considered for regularization of their services. The 2013 Rules were amended in the year 2016, and the cut-off date for regularization was extended from 30.12.2008 to 31.12.2011. Consequent to the amendment of the 2013 Rules, by the 2016 Amendment, the petitioners, who were all appointed between September & November, 2010, were entitled to have their services regularized and, accordingly, their services were regularized by proceedings dated 02.01.2017.

3. The validity of the 2016 amendment, to the 2013 Rules, was subjected to challenge before this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) Nos. 154 and 155 of 2017 and this Court, by order dated 17.04.2018 applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi: AIR 2006 SC 1806, observed that regularization could be done only as a one-time measure; it was being resorted to, in the State of Uttarakhand, repeatedly, and this was in clear violation of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Umadevi; the first regularization was made under the 2011 Rules, where eligibility was fixed as 10 years of service in the post; later in the year 2013, new Rules came into force, which reduced this eligibility to 5 years, and finally the 2016 Amendment, whereby the period had been further reduced; this could not go on forever; it is settled law that regularisation cannot be a mode of recruitment; but this was being made so, by way of the amendment carried out in the year 2016; if this amendment was to be held good, it would then not only amount to an approval by the Court of the present amendment, but to any subsequent amendment as well; this ingenious method, of enlarging the scope of eligibility, had great potential for abuse in future; if this method continued then the irregular appointments would become regular, and regular appointments would become irregular; and, consequently, the impugned amendment (2016 Amendment to the 2013 Rules) was not only violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, but was also in clear violation of the directions given by the Supreme Court in Umadevi. The 2016 amendment, notified on 14.12.2016, was quashed and set aside.

4. In compliance with the above referred order of the learned Single Judge, the 2018 Rules were made whereby all the posts regularized, pursuant to the 2016 amendment to the 2013 Rules, were declared as deemed to be vacant, and weightage was given, in filling-up all these vacant posts, to employees who were already working in different posts under the Government. It is the validity of Rule 3 of the 2018 Rules which is put in issue in this writ petition by Sri Ganesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Sri Ganesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the 2018 Rules is based on the erroneous premise that the orders of regularization, made pursuant to the 2016 amendment to the 2013 Rules, have been set aside by the learned Single Judge; the order of the learned Single Judge would show that the various orders of regularization have not been interfered with; the said judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot, in any event, be applied to the petitioners who were not parties thereto; neither was the regularization of the services of the petitioners, made under the 2016 amendme