Order The batch of cases arise out of the, order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C No. 16851 of 2007 dated 28.10.2010. 2. The main grievance of the appellants is that their cases have not been considered for regularization by the University in spite of the order passed by the Apex Court in S.L.P. No. 18594 of 1994 dated 18.2.1998, where the Apex Court had directed the University to consider the cases of the casual workers and the vacancies of 35 per cent and it has been opined that the balance of 65 per cent casual workers who have not been regularized within 35 per cent quota can be considered for the balance 65 per cent if an advertisement is made. Accordingly, the process of regularization was started in the year 2000. It has been contended before the learned Single Judge that some of the petitioners who are party of the said L.P.A. have been regularized but however, the regularization has been made as per the guidelines indicated in the said S.L.P. order. 3. The learned Single Judge has not accepted the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and has directed the University to consider the cases of the appellants with balance 65 per cent as these posts were advertised. 4. However, in appeal it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants before us that in spite of the order of the University their services were not regularized, and as in the order of the Apex Court it had indicated that the casual employees who had completed 15 years of service had to be regularized but most of the appellants have completed more than 20 years and their cases have not been considered by the University. I.A No. 3673 of 2008 had been filed in C.W.J.C No.16851 of 2007 indicating that an advertisement no. 4 of 2008 dated 21.4.2008 followed by advertisement no. I.A No. 3673 of 2008 had been filed in C.W.J.C No.16851 of 2007 indicating that an advertisement no. 4 of 2008 dated 21.4.2008 followed by advertisement no. 5 of 2008 dated 24.4.2008 had been questioned with a prayer for quashing the said advertisement on the ground that the appellants have to, be considered as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court passed in S.L.P of 18594 of 1994 dated 18.2.1998 by giving the age relaxation as most of the appellants have crossed the age of 50 years but taking note of the said fact the learned Single Judge however has directed that the appellants in pursuance of the advertisement of 65 per cent quota have to be considered in accordance with their eligibility. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the process of selection which was also in pursuance of advertisement no. 2 of 2008 as indicated by the learned Single Judge in the order followed by 4 of 2008 and 5 of 2008 has not been completed and the appellants cases have to be considered in accordance with the guidelines indicated by the Apex Court. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the University before the learned Single Judge stating in paragraphs 6 to 8 as follows:- "That the University in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court regularized/observed altogether 173 casual employees, who have completed 15 years as casual employee. As against 65 per cent remaining vacancies total 337 casual employees were appointed as per the direction of the Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) 18594/1994 & analogous cases. That in the second phase 29 casual employees were absorbed in the Service of the University where as the matter with regard to appointment of casual employees against the 65% open vacancies is under consideration and no appointment have been made till date. The University has invited application for appointment on various categories of Class-III and IV posts, due to unavoidable reason appointment have not been made. That the case of the petitioner is to be considered for appointment against 65% vacancies by way of open advertisement with age relaxation and 2 marks for each completed year subject to maximum 30 marks. The University will consider his case as per the guideline of the Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 18598/1994 and analogous cases. That the case of the petitioner is to be considered for appointment against 65% vacancies by way of open advertisement with age relaxation and 2 marks for each completed year subject to maximum 30 marks. The University will consider his case as per the guideline of the Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 18598/1994 and analogous cases. That the petitioner cannot claim absorption in view of the Apex Court judgment and at the highest he is enc titled to consideration of his case for regular appointment and benefit of age relaxation and weightage for experience. That the University assure fair treatment to the petitioner in the selection against the 65% open quota, It is now well settled that regularization is not mode of appointment and as such the petitioner cannot claim for appointment by way of regularization." 7. In view of the aforementioned stand of the University and the admitted fact that the appellants have applied for rest of the 65 per cent quota in pursuance of advertisement nos. 2 of 2008 and 4 of 2008 followed by advertisement no. 5 of 2008, it would suffice that a direction is given to the University to consider the cases of the appellants as per guidelines indicated in S.L.P. No. 18594 of 1994. 8. In a recent judgment in the case of State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. reported in (2010)9 SCC 247 , the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the regularization of casual workers/ daily wager/ad hoc employee wherein it was held as follows:- "The term "one-time" has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3), each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services." 9. In view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court, as reported above it would suffice that a direction is given to the University to follow the order of Apex Court dated 18.2.1998 in the light of the directions indicated in the cited judgment (supra) with reference to the appellants herein as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 months. 10. In the result, the order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent indicated above and all the L.P.As. are accordingly disposed of.