Judgment J.N.Bhatt, J. 1. In this group of 59 writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the main issue placed in focus has been the regularisation or absorption or permanency in public employment in the Department of the State Government. Since in this group of petitions common questions of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together on various dates and are being disposed of by this common judgment, upon consensus of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Indisputably, public employment as constitutional scheme has been envisaged by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of due process prescribed and established in that behalf. It cannot be questioned that public employment entails equality of opportunities in our Constitution. For the public employment specific provisions are, also, provided in our Constitution under Articles 14 and 16. The whole mark of conjoint reading of both the constitutional provisions is the equality of public employment. It is, therefore, the settled proposition of law that any recruitment in the public employment ought to be in terms of the constitutional scheme and statutory provisions and Recruitment Regulations. However, it has been noticed at times that the Government or its instrumentalities on certain occasions may have to employ persons on posts which are temporary or ad hoc or on daily wage or in some cases as additional hands without following the established practice of Recruitment Rules in public employment. 3. As a matter of course, regular process of recruitment rule has to be resorted to when regular vacancies in posts are to be filled up at a particular point of time. It is very well expounded by many authoritative pronouncements that filling up of regular vacancies cannot be done without following the established procedure or in haphazard manners or on the basis of patronage or equality or other irrelevant considerations. Regular appointment has to be made under the Recruitment Rules. This proposition of law has been elucidately expounded in the latest Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. (2006)4 Supreme Court Cases 1 [:2006(2) PLJR-(SC) 363]. It is a landmark decision relatable to recruitment of public employment. 4. In almost all the cases in this group, the appointments in public employment are irregular or illegal as contended on behalf of the Respondent State. vs. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. (2006)4 Supreme Court Cases 1 [:2006(2) PLJR-(SC) 363]. It is a landmark decision relatable to recruitment of public employment. 4. In almost all the cases in this group, the appointments in public employment are irregular or illegal as contended on behalf of the Respondent State. The common contention raised by the petitioners has been: (1) That the petitioners are employed on temporary basis or on ad hoc basis or on daily wages for long spell of time and in some cases more than two decades and the Government has exploited the stand and, therefore, they should not suffer. (2) That some of the juniors to the petitioners have been earlier regularised by the Government. (3) That some of the petitioners after long employment have been terminated without following due process of law. (4) That some of the employees have been retrenched unceremoniously. (5) That some of the employees even after termination or retrenchment or retirement have not been paid their due and payable salary and allowances. (6) Therefore, the respondent State should be directed to absorb them or regularise them or accord them permanency in service as they have already become obsolete on account of over age and other factors. 5. It is very clear from the proposition of law propounded in Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra) that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is basic feature of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of constitutional provisions enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the State that they cannot be permanently absorbed or regularised. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have addressed this Court on various dates at a greater length. The factual profile of the individual cases are explained and examined. 7. Since common questions of law and facts have been involved, it would be necessary to highlight and articulate the factual profile of the individual case, as rightly, submitted on behalf of the learned counsel. 8. Our attention has been invited by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the observations in Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra) case made in paragraphs 45 and 53* are relevant and pertinent. Greater emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioners on those observations. 8. Our attention has been invited by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the observations in Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra) case made in paragraphs 45 and 53* are relevant and pertinent. Greater emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioners on those observations. It would be therefore, expedient to reproduce the observations made in the said paragraphs. In paragraph 45 the following observations are pertinent and the said paragraph is reproduced with profit herein as under: "While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain-not at arms length-since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succour to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not (sic) one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution." 9. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the observations made in paragraph 53* which read herein as under: "One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or to tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 10. Indisputably, most of the employees have been working and some of them have worked in past for a long spell of time ranging from 10 to 25 years. Undoubtedly, therefore, they would be out of employment because of overage. It is in this context, equity is pleaded and sympathy is sought. None-the-less the expositions of the legal propositions and law laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra) case ought to be considered for the purpose of "appreciating the merits and adjudication of the common disputes raised in this group of petitions. 11. If appointment is not made or selection is not based as per the established practice or in terms of the recruitment rules or on regular vacant posts, the constitutional protection is hardly obtainable. However, the observations made in paragraphs 45 and 53* carve out some exception in some case. 12. Relying on the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra) case, ratio decidendi this Court has recently recorded two Division Bench judgments: (1) The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Purendra Sulan Kit: 2006(3) Patna Law Journal Reports, 386, and (2) The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Bipin Prasad Singh and Ors. analogous cases : fL.P.A. No. 1211 of 2005 decided on 22.11.2006 13. vs. Purendra Sulan Kit: 2006(3) Patna Law Journal Reports, 386, and (2) The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Bipin Prasad Singh and Ors. analogous cases : fL.P.A. No. 1211 of 2005 decided on 22.11.2006 13. Virutally, in those two decisions similar issues of irregularity and illegality in the selection or appointment had been raised and was adjudicated upon in the light of the law laid down in the Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra) case. 14. Since question of absorption or permanency of the employees appointed in public employment temporarily, on ad hoc basis, on daily wages, or as work charge persons for a particular project or scheme, whether they are irregularly appointed or illegally appointed, the factual profile has to be examined in each case on the individual basis by the respondent State. 15. Considering the overall picture emerging from the present group of petitions, the catalogue of events and circumstances, the factual profile and common issue involved in this group, there is requirement of investigation of facts to reach to a conclusion as to whether the appointments are legal or regular or not, whether such appointments which are terminated and questioned in this group of cases would fall within the amplitude and altitude by the observations contained in paragraphs 45 and 53* of the case rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra). It is in these context, this Court is inclined to dispose of this group by giving the following directions to the respondent State of Bihar: (1) The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar shall constitute a Committee of three Secretaries within a period of two months from today to examine the manner and mode and the type of appointment and whether such appointments are in consonance with the Recruitment Rules on regular posts, irregularly made or illegally made or not. (2) Such Committee shall consider the individual case after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected employees, the procedure for which the Committee will evolve its own modality and modus operandi so as to reach to a conclusion as to the nature of the appointments of the employees covered in this group of petitions and to ascertain whether their appointments are regular, irregular or illegal and whether they are falling within the ambit of the observations made in paragraphs 45 and 53 of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi (3) (supra) case judgment. (3) The Committee shall, undoubtedly, take a decision in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra) and in particular in the light of the observations which are quoted hereinabove. (4) It shall, also, be remembered that the exercise of regularisation, if required, shall be a one time measure. (5) The exercise by the Committee is directed to be completed within six weeks after the creation thereof and in the event of any necessity it will be open for the concerned party to seek extension of time by taking leave from this Court. (6) The contention that in some of the cases out of the present group in earlier round of litigation finality has been attained and achieved shall, also, be examined by the Committee. (7) Until the Committee concludes its process and exercise directed hereinabove, the status quo in respect of the petitioners obtainable as on today, is directed to be maintained. 16. In view of the foregoing discussions and the propositions of law, this group of 59 writ petitions shall, accordingly, stand disposed of with no order as to costs.