O R D E R:

This Writ Petition was filed aggrieved by the inaction of respondents in regularizing the services of petitioner on par with similarly-situated employees. She termed this as illegal, arbitrary and also violative of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi1 and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari

2. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as attender on 16.07.1990 in the 3^rd respondent college against an aided vacancy, which is a sanctioned post. It is stated, along with 10 similarly-situated employees, petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No. 11009 of 2014, seeking better wages and regular pay scale, as the wages paid to her were inadequate. As a result of this petition, which is still pending, the 3rd respondent college enhanced their salaries by approximately 30%. Petitioner asserts that she fulfills all conditions for regularization as laid down in the judgments in Umadevi’s case and ML Kesari’s case, but respondents have failed to consider her case. She explains that due to lack of cooperation from Respondents 1 and 2 in

1 2006 (4) SCC 1

making appointments to available aided vacancies, the 3rd respondent college appointed her to one such post. However, her salary was paid from the college's corpus fund instead of the grant-in-aid fund. This situation has persisted for 25 years despite her performing duties of an aided post.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri B. Sree Rama Krishna submits that in Writ Petition No. 19090 of 2011, this Court allowed regularization of a similarly-situated Attender appointed against an aided vacancy. The order was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1393 of 2012 and subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 29508 of 2013 vide order dated 28.10.2014. While the Hon’ble Supreme Court specified that SLP decision cannot be cited as a precedent, the principles established in the judgments referred to supra remain binding. According to learned counsel, petitioner served for 25 years, hence, her case be considered for regularization in the said post. Learned counsel characterizes petitioner’s long tenure without regularization as an "unacceptable and shocking phenomenon," asserting that it infringes on equity and the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.

4. The Deputy Director, Office of Commissioner of Collegiate Education states in the counter that while petitioner claims to have been appointed as Attender on 16.07.1990, no documentary evidence has been provided in support thereof. Even if it is assumed that petitioner was appointed during 1990, this employment is solely between petitioner and the 3^rd respondent and Respondents 1 and 2 have no involvement in her appointment, as the 3^rd respondent’s college also operates unaided sections. This respondent refers to G.O.Ms.No.1119, dated 18.12.1976, which lays down procedure for selection of candidates for non-teaching posts in private or aided colleges. It is asserted that the 3^rd respondent's college did not adhere to this procedure while appointing petitioner, rendering the same irregular.

It is also stated, G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 provides for regularization of services of individuals who have worked continuously for a minimum period of five years and were still in service as of 25.11.1993, however, petitioner's claim for regularization based on working in an aided vacancy for over two decades is untenable, as there is no employment contract between the Petitioner and the Government. Hence, the judgments stated supra are not applicable to his case.

Respondent addresses petitioner's reliance on the judgment in Writ Petition No.19090 of 2011, which directed regularization of services with all consequential benefits. While the said order was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1393 of 2012 and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.29508 of 2013, the Supreme Court clarified that the judgment should not be cited as a precedent in other cases. Subseque