JUDGEMENT 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the Judgment passed on 6.10.2009 by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3867 of 2009, by which the learned Single Judge has set aside the termination order relying on the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi and Ors. reported in 2006(2) P.L.J.R. (SC)363, and considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors V/s. M.L. Kesari & Ors. reported in (2010)9 SCC 247 in paragraph 11 of the Judgment. The Apex Court has observed as follows: "The object behind the said direction in para 53* of Umadevi is two fold, First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of Court or Tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily wage/ ad hoc/ casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all per sons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any Court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above direction in Umadevi as a one time measure." 2. In view of the above law laid down, the order of termination of the petitioner is illegal. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed more than ten years of his service, and has completed about 21 years of service as against the vacant post, appointed by the competent authority and was paid salary and was also given promotion after regularization of service and confirmation. His appointment cannot be said to be illegal, which differs from irregular appointment. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed more than ten years of his service, and has completed about 21 years of service as against the vacant post, appointed by the competent authority and was paid salary and was also given promotion after regularization of service and confirmation. His appointment cannot be said to be illegal, which differs from irregular appointment. The appointment of the petitioner also cannot be said to be irregular and as per law laid down in Uma Devi case in para 53* and M.L. Keshris case, the petitioner was fully entitled for regularization of his service, therefore, his termination is bad in law. 3. The learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition and set aside the termination order. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith and salary shall be paid month to month regularly and arrears of salary shall be paid within four months. We fully agree with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge for the reasons recorded above. The appeal is devoid of merit. 4. Accordingly, this L.P.A. is dismissed.