S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE authorities of the Osmania University have filed this writ appeal against the order of the learned single Judge made in WP No. 11291 of 1991. The respondent, Smt. B. K. Ramadevi, filed the above writ petition praying for a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioner in the post of Telugu Pandit Grade II in Model High School, Osmania University, Hyderabad with all consequential service benefits. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows: She was appointed as a Telugu Grade II on temporary basis by proceedings dated 19-6-1985 and she reported for duty on 9-10-1985. Since then she has been working as Telugu Pandit Grade II and hence she is entitled to be regularised in service. ( 3 ) A counter-affidavit was filed by the University opposing the relief sought by the petitioner. In the counter, it was contended that one post of Telugu Pandit had fallen vacant in the year 1985 on the demise of the incumbent and applications were called for to fill up the said post, but the selection could not be proceeded with, as a Telugu Pandit Grade II already in service sought appointment to Grade II on the ground that she is an internal candidate. It is also stated that in those circumstances the post of Telugu Pandit Grade II was filled up on temporary basis in the exigency of work by appointing the petitioner. It was also contended in the counter that the petitioner did not work during summer vacation from 24-4-1986 to 15-6-1986 and she has been continuing in service on temporary basis on extensions accorded to her from time to time and that in each year, the petitioner s services were terminated during the summer vacation of the school. ( 4 ) ALTHOUGH an argument was advanced before the learned single Judge on behalf of the University that the appointment of the petitioner as a teacher was irregular, quite curiously, the University authorities did not place the relevant statutory rules or administrative instructions or bye-laws, as the case may be, governing recruitment to the post of teacher in the High School managed and run by the University. In the absence of such statutory rules or administrative instructions or bye-laws governing recruitment to the post of teacher in the High School, the learned Judge, having taken into account the admitted facts that in the year 1985 a vacancy arose in the post of teacher as a consequence of the demise of the incumbent of the post, applications were called for to fill up the post and in response to the invitation, the petitioner applied and she was interviewed, selected and appointed by the appointing authority to the post of Telugu Pandit Grade II, though it appropriate to grant the relief to the petitioner and found fault with the action of the University in keeping the petitioner on temporary basis for decades and terminating her services at the fag end of every academic year with intention to create artificial breaks in service so as to deny her the benefits of continuous service. Hence this writ appeal by the University. ( 5 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the University would contend that the writ petition filed by the respondent should have been dismissed in limine by the learned single Judge inasmuch as she has not impleaded the A. P. State Government as a party-respondent, and the State Government is a necessary and proper party, particularly having regard to the provisions of Section 49 of the A. P. Universities Act, 1991 (for short, the Act ). The learned Standing Counsel would next contend that only the Selection Committee constituted under Section 43 of the Act can select a candidate for appointment to the post of teacher and it is nobody s case that the Selection Committee constituted by the University under Section 43 of the Act selected the petitioner for the post and, therefore, the very selection of the petitioner to the post of teacher is irregular and not in accordance with law. ( 6 ) THE law relating to the regularization of services is a subject-matter of many pronouncements of the Supreme Court. In Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. ( 6 ) THE law relating to the regularization of services is a subject-matter of many pronouncements of the Supreme Court. In Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. , (1997) 2 SCC 1 , the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, dealing with the necessary conditions to direct regularization of services of an employee, has opined in para 14 of the judgment that-"in this connection it is pertinent to note that question of regularization 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 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 employ 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 regularize 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. The second type of situation in which the question of regularization may arise would be when the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy is found to have suffered from some flaw in the procedural exercise though the person appointing is competent to effect such initial recruitment and has otherwise followed due procedure for such recruitment. A need may then arise in the light of the exigency of administrative requirement for waiving such irregularity in the initial appointment by a competent authority and the irregular initial appointment may be regularized and security of tenure may be made available to the incumbent concerned. But even in such a case the initial entry must not be found to be totally illegal or in blatant disregard of all the established rules and regulations governing such recruitment. In any case back-door entries for filling up such vacancies have got to be strictly avoided. But even in such a case the initial entry must not be found to be totally illegal or in blatant disregard of all the established rules and regulations governing such recruitment. In any case back-door entries for filling up such vacancies have got to be strictly avoided. However, there would never arise any occasion for regularizing the appointment of an employee whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach of the requisite procedure of recruitment and especially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of the candidate could ever be effected. Such an entry of an employee would remain tainted from the very beginning and no question of regularizing such an illegal entrant would ever survive for consideration, however, competent the recruitment may be. The applicants fall in this latter class of cases. They had no case for regularization and whatever purported regularization was effected in their favour remained it an exercise in futility. The learned Counsel for the appellants, therefore, could not justifiably fell back upon the orders of regularization passed in their favour by Dr. Mallick. Even otherwise, for regularizing such employees well-established procedure had to be followed. In the present case it was totally by-passed. In this connection, we may profitably refer to Government Order dated 31-12-1986 to which our attention was invited by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The said Government Order is found in the additional documents submitted in CAs. No. 10578-59 of 1995 at Annexure IV. Secretary to Government of Bihar, Health Department, by communication dated 31-12-1986 had informed all Regional Deputy Directors, Health Services, Tuberculosis Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, and other authorities concerned in connection with the compliance and implementation of the orders passed and instructions issued by Deputy Director (Tuberculosis), Bihar, Patna under the Tuberculosis Control Programme, covered under the 20 point programme. It was stated in the said communication that steps will be taken to fill up sanctioned Third and Fourth Grade Post as soon as possible according to the prescribed procedure and all possible efforts should be made to achieve the fixed targets in a planned and phased manner. Even this letter clearly indicates that the post had to be filled up by following the prescribed procedure. Despite all this communications neither the initial appointments nor the confirmations were done by following the prescribed procedure. Even this letter clearly indicates that the post had to be filled up by following the prescribed procedure. Despite all this communications neither the initial appointments nor the confirmations were done by following the prescribed procedure. On the contrary all efforts were made to by-pass recruitment procedure known to law which resulted in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India both at the initial stage as well as at the stage of confirmation of these illegal entrants. The so-called regularization s and confirmations could not be relied on as shields to cover up initial illegal and void actions or to perpetuate the corrupt methods by which these 6000 initial entrants were drafted in the scheme by Dr. Mallick. For alt these reasons, therefore, it is not possible to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any case the confirmation given to these employees gave them sufficient cloak of protection against future termination from service. On the contrary of all the cobwebs created by Dr. Mallick by bringing in this army of 6000 employees under the scheme had got to be cleared lock, stock and barrel so that public confidence in Government administration would not get sheltered and arbitrary actions would not get sanctified. " ( 7 ) FROM a careful perusal of the above observations of the Apex Court, three principles can be deduced. Before directing regularization of services of a temporary or ad hoc employees, the Court should find the existence of two conditions, namely, (i) the appointment was made against a clear vacancy in a sanctioned post, and that (ii) that appointment was made following the rules and regulations governing such appointment. According to the Apex Court, even in a case where these two conditions co-exist, the question whether regularization should be ordered or not is always with the domain and discretion of the Court and that discretion has to be exercised judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. If the facts of the present case are examined in the light of principles stated above, we find that both the preconditions co-exist. If the facts of the present case are examined in the light of principles stated above, we find that both the preconditions co-exist. We say this because, even according to the University as reflected in its counter, the vacancy arose on account of the demise of the incumbent, applications were called for, the petitioner applied for the post and she was interviewed and selected. Although a contention was raised before the learned single Judge that the appointment of the petitioner as a teacher was irregular and not in accordance with the regulations, the University did not place any material or relevant rules, statutory or otherwise, governing recruitment to the post of a teacher in the High School, except placing reliance on Section 43 of the Act. Section 43 of the Act speaks about the constitution of Selection Committee in regard to the appointment of Professors, Readers and Lecturers. It is true that the petitioner was not selected by the committee constituted under Section 43 of the Act. But, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, Section 43 has no application to the appointment of the petitioner as a teacher in the High School. Section 43 deals with constitution of Selection Committee by the University exclusively with regard to the appointment of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in the University and not teachers in the High School managed and run by the University to cater the educational needs of the students of the University s employees. In the absence of statutory regulations governing recruitment to the post of teacher in the High School, the procedure adopted by the School Management in the year 1985 in calling for applications and appointing the petitioner as a teacher in a clear vacancy in the sectioned post cannot be said to be an irregular procedure. On the other hand, in the absence of such rules, the procedure adopted by the School Management was appropriate, proper and legal. Therefore, the second pre-condition was also complied with in the year 1985 when the petitioner was appointed as a teacher. In other words, both the preconditions for directing regularization of the services of an employee do exist in this case. ( 8 ) THE next question is whether this Court in justified in directing regularization of the petitioner having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In other words, both the preconditions for directing regularization of the services of an employee do exist in this case. ( 8 ) THE next question is whether this Court in justified in directing regularization of the petitioner having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1985 and she has been working all these 17 years continuously except with artificial breaks deliberately caused by the University by terminating her services at the fag end of every academic year during summer vacation. Such a practice is denounced by the constitutional Courts repeatedly. hire and fire has no place in our constitutional scheme. Therefore, those breaks in the service should be ignored while considering the request of the petitioner for regularization of her services. The very fact that the petitioner has been working in a sanctioned post all these years also merits granting of the relief to her. ( 9 ) THE other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the University that the State Government is not made a party-respondent to the writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable, is based on the provisions of Section 49 of the Act. Section 49 of the Act reads as follows:"49. Certain restrictions in respect of financial matters:--The University shall, not, without the prior approval of the Government, divert earmarked funds for other purposes or upgrade any post or revise the scales of pay of its staff or implement any scheme which involves any matching contribution from the Government or create a post resulting in a recurring liability on the Government either immediately or in future. Provided that for the existing purposes the Executive Council may authorize the creation and filing up of posts of teachers for a period not exceeding one year but any such post of posts shall not be continued or created afresh for any period beyond the said period of one year without the prior approval of the Government. " ( 10 ) SECTION 49 of the Act is not a bar for this Court to enforce a constitutional right of the petitioner flowing from Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. The statutory obligation imposed on the University under Section 49 of the Act may come into play when the University proceeds to regularize the services of the petitioner. The statutory obligation imposed on the University under Section 49 of the Act may come into play when the University proceeds to regularize the services of the petitioner. It is not the case of the University that at any point of time, it had proposed to regularize the services of the petitioner and such proposal was turned down by the State Government. Therefore, this kind of hyper-technical objection raised by the University after realizing that it has no case on merit should be disapproved and cannot be countenanced. The State and instrumentalities of State should win or loose the case on substantive grounds and they should not indulge in technical and hyper-technical tortures to defect legitimate rights of their employees. Therefore, we are not inclined to dismiss the writ petition in limine as suggested by the learned Standing Counsel for the University on the ground that the State Government of Andhra Pradesh is not impleaded as a party-respondent. ( 11 ) IN the result, we dismiss the writ appeal with no order as to costs. The University authorities shall take necessary steps to regularize the services of the writ petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.