COMMON ORDER

A writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as full time Vocational Instructors in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.35, School Education Department, dated 09.02.2007, with effect from the initial date of appointment with all monetary benefits. 2. The petitioners state that they were appointed as Vocational Instructors in the fourth respondent Government Higher Secondary School by the Headmaster of the School on 01.09.2004 and 01.08.2001 respectively with the aid of Parent-Teacher Association against vacancy. The petitioners are working continuously as Vocational Instructors and receiving consolidated pay salary from the funds of Parent-Teacher Association.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the Government issued orders in G.O.(Ms) No.35, School Education Department, dated 09.02.2007, granting the benefit of regularization and permanent absorption to the part-time Vocational Instructors, who were appointed through Parent-Teacher Association and the Government accorded permission to appoint 213 Vocational Instructors in the said Government Order. However, the case of the petitioners was not considered based on the Government Order and they are continuously working as Parent-Teacher Association employee and receiving consolidated pay salary. It is contended that the similarly placed teachers, vocational instructors, were absorbed on permanent basis on time scale of pay and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to regularization and permanent absorption in the sanctioned posts. Since the claim of the petitioners were not considered, the petitioners are constrained to move the present writ petitions.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the contention of the petitioners by stating that G.O.(Ms) No.35, School Education Department, dated 09.02.2007 is not applicable to the case of the petitioners since the Government accorded permission only to absorb 213 part-time vocational instructors, who were appointed prior to 20.09.1996. However, the petitioners were appointed in the years 2001 and 2004 and therefore, they are not falling under the purview of the Government Order issued in G.O.(Ms) No.35, School Education Department, dated

09.02.2007 and therefore, the writ petitions are to be rejected.

5. Regularization and permanent absorption cannot be granted in violation of the rules in force. Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate. Since posts are to be filled up by following the procedures contemplated under the recruitment rules, a person appointed through Parent-Teacher Association cannot seek permanent absorption in a sanctioned post and in the event of considering such cases, it would result in infringement of right of all other persons, who are all aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process. Back door appointments are prohibited by the Supreme Court of India. All appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the rules.

6. In the present case, the petitioners were appointed as Vocational Instructors through Parent-Teacher Association on consolidated pay salary. Therefore, they were not appointed by the competent authority of the Education Department under the relevant service rules in force. Thus, the initial appointment of the petitioners itself was not by the competent authorities and therefore, the benefit of permanent absorption cannot be granted.

7. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma devi [ 2006 4 SCC 1] settled the principles in the matter of public appointments. The Constitution Bench, in unequivocal terms, held that back door appointments cannot be regularized in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. One time benefit contemplated in paragraph No.53 of the aforesaid judgment cannot be extended in perpetuity so as to regularize the irregularity or ille