( 1 ) HEARD Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant in W. A. No. 1100 of 1997 and Sri B. Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, appellant in W. A. No. 1313 of 1997. ( 2 ) WRIT Appeal No. 1100 of 1997 was filed by the appellant writ petitioner to the extent of not granting the relief of regularisation from the date of initial appointment and consequential benefits, whereas W. A. No. 1313 of 1997 is filed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan against the order of the learned single Judge directing regularisation (absorption into service) of the services of the appellant as Music Teacher. The brief facts of the case are as follows:the writ petitioner was appointed in the year 1987 on ad hoc basis as Music Teacher in a clear vacancy by the duly constituted Selection Committee and the same was approved by the appointing authority i. e. Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan, Secunderabad. The petitioner s name was sponsored by Employment Exchange on the requisition made by the respondent-school. The writ petitioner was interviewed and selected. Thus, the petitioner was continued in the service with artificial breaks in service on the eve of vacations and the said practice continued till the filing of writ petition. On 8. 1. 1993, the petitioner filed the writ petition No. 74 of 1993 seeking relief of regularisation of services from the date of initial appointment i. e. 8. 10. 1987 along with consequential benefits. According to the writ petitioner-appellant, he possesses the requisite qualifications for appointment as Music Teacher and therefore, he was selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee and that he has been working for full time on par with regularly appointed teachers for the last 15 years and that the said facts are not disputed by the respondents in their counter. ( 3 ) A learned single Judge of this Court on a consideration of the material on record and the decisions of the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA V. HARGOPAL, JACOB M. PUTHUPARAMBIL V. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, and in STATE OF HARYANA V. PIARA SINGH directed the authorities for regularisation and absorption of the petitioner in the service of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as music teacher. However, consequential benefits were not granted. However, consequential benefits were not granted. ( 4 ) AS stated earlier aggrieved by the decision of the learned single judge to the extent of not granting the relief of regularisation of the appellant/writ petitioner from the date of initial appointment i. e. 8. 10. 1987 and other consequential benefits the appellant preferred W. A. No. 1100 of 1997. ( 5 ) SRI K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the learned Judge ought to have taken into consideration that the appellant is fully qualified to hold the post and was selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee on ad hoc basis against clear vacancy and that the appointment was approved every time by the appointing authority and that the appellant has been continuing in the same post since 8. 10. 1987 with artificial temporary breaks on the eve of summer vacations upto 1992. From 1993 onwards, the appellant has been continuing without any breaks in view of the orders of this Court. Therefore, the learned single Judge ought to have taken into consideration that the appellant is qualified and has been working for the last 10 years and as such the learned Judge ought to have given the benefit of continuation of service from the date of initial appointment of the appellant with all other benefits on par with other teachers. ( 6 ) PER contra, the learned counsel for the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan, which filed W. A. no. 1313 of 1997 against the order in the writ petition, contended that the learned judge has not noticed from the guidelines issued by the authorities for constituting Selection Committee on All India basis region wise. The writ petitioner is required to appear before the Selection Committee constituted for selecting candidates for making permanent recruitment. The learned counsel submits that the respondents should have been directed to consider the case of the petitioner for permanent recruitment in due course if he applied for the said post in pursuance of notification being published every year and that the Management is not competent to regularise the services of the writ petitioner. ( 7 ) WITH the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, both the appeals were heard together. We have perused the entire pleadings and the order under appeal. At the time of hearing, our attention was invited to a number of decisions of the Apex Court. ( 7 ) WITH the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, both the appeals were heard together. We have perused the entire pleadings and the order under appeal. At the time of hearing, our attention was invited to a number of decisions of the Apex Court. ( 8 ) IN ASHWANI KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR, three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court laid down the principles for regularisation viz. , 1) There must be a clear vacancy; 2) Person should possess requisite qualification for appointment to the post; and 3) Person s initial entry should not be through back door method and it should be according to Rules. ( 9 ) IT is useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the decision, which reads as under:in this connection it is pertinent to note that question of regularisation in any service including any government service may arise in two contingencies. Firstly, if on any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointments are made on ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if it is found 9 that the incumbents concerned have continued to be employed for a long period of time with or without any artificial breaks, and their services are otherwise required by the institution which employs them, a time may come in the service career of such employees who are continued on ad hoc basis for a given substantial length of time to regularise them so that the employees concerned can give their best by being assured security of tenure. But this would require one precondition that the initial entry of such an employee must be made against an available sanctioned vacancy by following the rules and regulations governing such entry. ( 10 ) IN JACOB M. PUTHUPARAMBIL V. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY (2 supra), which was also followed by the learned single Judge, the Supreme Court held that the need for job security in the present context of unemployment and surplus labour is to be kept in mind. The Court further held that the employees serving for a reasonably long period and having requisite qualifications to hold the post deserve to be regularised. The Court further held that the employees serving for a reasonably long period and having requisite qualifications to hold the post deserve to be regularised. The claim made by the employees in the said case was contested mainly on the plea that their tenure and service conditions were regulated by Rule 9 (a) (i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 which were statutory in character and were, therefore, binding on the Authority as well as the employees. It is contended that the employees belonging to different categories were appointed on different dates by the PHED prior to 1/04/1984 under this rule and, therefore, their services could only be regulated thereunder. After the autonomous Authority was constituted w. e. f. 1/04/1984 on the enactment of Ordinance 14 of 1984, the Authority passed a Resolution No. 8/04/1984 adopting the aforesaid Rules and hence all appointments made after 1/04/1984 also came to be governed by Rule 9 (a) (i) of the Rules till S. 69 of the Act came into force w. e. f 4/08/1986 and not 30/07/1988 when the relevant rule was amended by the introduction of item (LIII) referred to earlier. Appointments made after 4/08/1986 are clearly subject to the requirement of S. 69 of the Act and the Authority cannot act in contravention thereof. Para 9 of the said decision is reproduced hereunder:india is a developing country. It has a vast surplus labour market. Large-scale unemployment offers a matching opportunity to the employer to exploit the needy. Under such market conditions the employer can dictate his terms of employment taking advantage of the absence of the bargaining power in the other. The unorganised job seeker is left with no option but to accept employment on take-it-or-leave-it terms offered by the employer. Such terms of employment offer no job security and the employee is left to the mercy of the employer. Employers have betrayed an increasing tendency to employ temporary hands even on regular and permanent jobs with a view to circumventing the protection offered to the working classes under the benevolent legislations enacted from time to time. One such device adopted is to get the work done through contract labour. It is in this backdrop that we must consider the request for regularisation in service. One such device adopted is to get the work done through contract labour. It is in this backdrop that we must consider the request for regularisation in service. ( 11 ) IN KARNATAKA STATE PRIVATE COLLEGE STOP GAP LECTURERS ASSOCIATION5, the Supreme Court was considering the case of teachers appointed temporarily for three months or less in accordance with the Government order by privately managed degree colleges receiving cent per cent grant-in-aid and controlled by Education Department of the State. The Government Order also provided for payment to such teachers a fixed salary being ten rupees less than the minimum payable to regular teachers. Such teachers continued with breaks for long years. In this case, the Supreme Court issued the following directions: (1) Services of such temporary teachers who have worked as such for three years, including the break till today shall not be terminated. They shall be absorbed as and when regular vacancies arise. (2) If regular selections have been made the government shall create additional posts to accommodate such selected candidates. (3) The teachers who have undergone the process of selection under the directions of the High court and have not been appointed because of the reservation policy of the government be regularly appointed by creating additional posts. (4) From the date of judgment every temporary teacher shall be paid salary as is admissible to teachers appointed against permanent post. (5) Such teachers shall be continued in service even during vacations. ( 12 ) IN BASERUDDIN M. MADARI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA, the Supreme Court held that ad hoc teachers of the Universities appointed for small periods, continued to work for three years with one day break in circumstances identical to the circumstances of Karnataka State Private College Stop Gap Lecturers Association case (supra) and that such teachers working are entitled to relief similar to that granted in the said case. The Supreme Court prohibited the services of the employees therein from being terminated and directed that their services be regularised as and when regular vacancies arose and also directed that they be given salary on par with the teachers appointed on regular basis against permanent vacancies and in case of shortage of posts on account of reservation, additional posts were directed to be created to absorb such teachers. ( 13 ) PARAS 2 and 3 of the decision read thus:the learned counsel for the appellants points out that the subject-matter of the present litigation is identical to the one in Writ Petition (C) No. 873 of 1990 and allied matters which came to be disposed of by this court on 29/1/1992 in (Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Assn. v. State of Karnataka. The learned counsel for the respondents was not able to point out any distinguishing feature except that in the instant matter the institution concerned is the University whereas in the case relied on they were private colleges; the modus operandi, however, being the same. The difference in the management of the institutions should make no difference. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decision relied on applies on all fours to the facts of the present case and we must pass an order on the same terms on which the court disposed of the earlier matters. We, therefore, allow these appeals and direct as under: 1 Services of the petitioners/appellants who have worked for three years, including the break till today shall not be terminated and they shall be absorbed in regular vacancies as and when they arise. (2 In the case of Appellant 5 who has since left service, regular appointment has been made and that shall not be disturbed. ( 14 ) THE petitioners/appellants other than No. 5 shall be paid salary as is admissible to a teacher appointed on regular basis against a permanent post. They shall also be treated as continuing during vacation and be paid salary accordingly. ( 15 ) IF there is a provision as to reservation for SC, ST. OBC the respondents will indicate the slot for them and if necessary create additional posts for the petitioners herein, if there is a shortage of post on account of reservation for SC, ST, OBC candidates. ( 16 ) A DDivision Bench of this Court consisting of M. S. Liberhan, CJ (as he then was) and G. Raghuram. J. while dealing with the employees of A. P. Women s Cooperative Finance Corporation who had put in temporary service of more than ten years, directed to regularise their services as per rules and grant payment of time scale. J. while dealing with the employees of A. P. Women s Cooperative Finance Corporation who had put in temporary service of more than ten years, directed to regularise their services as per rules and grant payment of time scale. The Division Bench followed the decision in PIARA SINGH (supra) and held as under: There is no gain saying that the appellant - petitioner worked with the respondent Corporation for more than a decade which gives rise to just expectation in the mind of the employee that his case will be considered for regularisation in accordance with the Rules as established on the equitable principles laid down in Piara Singh vs. State of Haryana. ( 17 ) IN the circumstances the respondent Corporation is directed to regularise the services of the appellant in accordance with Rules. Learned single Judge has granted payment of time scale to the appellant. It shall be paid as directed. ( 18 ) IN SATISH KUMAR V. CANE COMMISSIONER, UP LUCKNOW, the appellant therein worked for more than 5 years and the order of termination was set aside by the Supreme Court and a direction was issued to reinstate and regularise his services. The Apex Court held therein as follows:having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it just and proper to set aside the order of termination of service made on 28/12/1981. Since the appellant was appointed in 1976 and acted there for more than 3 years, we direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant and regularise his service within two months from today. Learned counsel for the appellant states before us that he will not claim back wages. The appeal is accordingly, allowed but there will be no order as to costs. ( 19 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant- writ petitioner has also placed before us another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in AVSNB SHANKARAN V. CIEFL, HYDERABAD with regard to the consequential reliefs. In this case, this Court was considering the case of appointments made for regular posts after calling for nominations from employment exchange holding interviews and selecting the appellants therein. However, their appointments were kept on temporarily by giving breaks in service. Subsequently, fresh candidates called from employment exchange and after interview, the respondents therein were selected and appointed in the place of the appellants. However, their appointments were kept on temporarily by giving breaks in service. Subsequently, fresh candidates called from employment exchange and after interview, the respondents therein were selected and appointed in the place of the appellants. The Division Bench held that the procedure followed is illegal and that the intermittent breaks given in the service of the appellants is to be ignored and the appellants should be treated as continuing in service. The Court has categorically held that introducing breaks in service and labelling the appointments as temporary when the appointees were recruited for the work which is continuously available is not permissible. ( 20 ) WE may now refer to the decision of a Constitution Bench of five Judge of the Apex Court in RUDRA KUMAR SAIN V. UNION OF INDIA wherein the Apex Court considered as to when the appointment can be described as ad hoc, stop gap or fortuitous and indicated the considerations that apply. The Bench held:the three terms ad hoc , stop-gap , and fortuitous are in frequent use in service jurisprudence. The meaning to be assigned to these terms while interpreting provisions of a Service Rule will depend on the provisions of that Rule and the context in and the purpose for which the expressions are used. The meaning of any of these terms in the context of computation of inter se seniority of officers holding cadre post will depend on the facts and circumstances in which the appointment came to be made. For that purpose, it will be necessary to look into the purpose for which the post was created and the nature of the appointment of the Officer as stated in the appointment order. If the appointment order itself indicates that the post is created to meet a particular temporary contingency and for a period specified in the order, then the appointment to such a post can be aptly described as ad hoc or stop-gap . If a post is created to meet a situation which has suddenly arisen on account of happening o some event of a temporary nature then the appointment of such a post can aptly be described as fortuitous in nature. If a post is created to meet a situation which has suddenly arisen on account of happening o some event of a temporary nature then the appointment of such a post can aptly be described as fortuitous in nature. IF an appointment is made to meet the contingency arising on account of delay in completing the process of regular recruitment to the post due to any reason and it is not possible to leave the post vacant till then and to meet this contingency an appointment is made then it can appropriately be called as a stop-gap arrangement and appointment in the post as ad hoc appointment. It is not possible to lay down any straight-jacket formula nor give an exhaustive list of circumstances and situation in which an ad hoc fortuitous or stop gap appointment can be made. ( 21 ) IN this case, the Supreme Court observed that the continuous length of service should be the criteria for the inter se seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees. ( 22 ) IN STATE OF HARYANA V. PIARA SINGH (supra), the Supreme Court observed: If at a given moment suitable candidates amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges are not available or no candidate has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and recruitment is made on ad hoc basis from the sources other than Employment Exchange, it cannot be said in regulation policy that such candidates would not be entitled to be regularised. The basic policy decision is that ad hoc employees who have worked for quite some time and have gained experience should be regularised and in case they are shunted out, hardship would be caused in numerous ways. ( 23 ) IN JACOB V. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY (supra), the Apex Court observed: The employees who are serving on the establishment for long spells and have requisite qualifications for the job should not be thrown out; but their services should be regularised as far as possible. ( 24 ) IN STATE OF HARYANA V. PIARA SINGH (supra), the Supreme Court observed: As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the directive principles of the Constitution. ( 24 ) IN STATE OF HARYANA V. PIARA SINGH (supra), the Supreme Court observed: As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the directive principles of the Constitution. It is for this very reason it is held that a person should not be kept in a temporary or ad hoc status for long. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long the court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly directs regularisation. ( 25 ) WHERE a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long the court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly directs regularisation. While all the situations in which the court may act to ensure fairness cannot be detailed here, it is sufficient to indicate that the guiding principles are the ones stated above. ( 26 ) IN Hansbury and Maudsley s Modern Equity, eleventh Edition at page 753 it was stated follows:thus it is common to speak that the equities of estoppel, of rescission, of rectification of undue influence, of consultation of mortgages to which may now be added the equity arising from the principles that he who takes the benefit must accept the burden, and the list is not exclusive. ( 27 ) THE instant case, the following are the undisputed facts:the petitioner has been working since 1987. The petitioner was appointed for six times by the Vidyalaya appointment Committee (duly constituted committee) as per Art. 36 (1) read with appendix 5, 6 at page 231, 233 of Education Code of Kendriya Vidyalaya. All the times, the petitioner s appointments were approved by the appointing authority i. e. under Article 43 by the Assistant Commissioner. All the times, the petitioner s name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange at the request of the respondents. The petitioner has been working in a clear vacancy. The petitioner is possessing the requisite qualifications for the appointment to the post of Music Teacher. The petitioner gained 10 years of teaching experience in Kendriya Vidyalaya. All the times, the petitioner s name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange at the request of the respondents. The petitioner has been working in a clear vacancy. The petitioner is possessing the requisite qualifications for the appointment to the post of Music Teacher. The petitioner gained 10 years of teaching experience in Kendriya Vidyalaya. ( 28 ) IN view of the aforesaid fact situation and the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that appellant-writ petitioner is entitled to have his services regularised as Music Teacher from the date of his initial appointment. In the result, we allow the writ appeal No. 1100 of 1997 filed by Prabhakar Joshi and consequently, we hold that the appellant is entitled for the prayer sought for in the writ petition. We accordingly declare that the action of the respondents in appointing the petitioner/appellant on ad hoc basis and terminating his services periodically and not regularising his services is arbitrary and illegal. We accordingly issue direction to the respondent-Management to regularise petitioner-appellant s services as Music Teacher w. e. f. 8. 10. 1987 and to pay all other attendant benefits etc. The writ appeal filed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan i. e. W. A. No. 1313 of 1997 shall stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.