ORDER : 1. These appeals are directed against order dated 19.01.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby it declared that the unpaid candidates appointed till 12.02.1987 cannot be termed as backdoor entrants and they are eligible for the schemes formulated by the State Government, which were circulated vide GRs. dated 21.10.1995 and 22.10.1996 and directed that the vacant Class-III posts be filled from amongst the unpaid candidates who were appointed on or before 12.02.1987. 2. The Revenue and Forest Department of the Government of Maharashtra maintains the land records in respect of urban as well as agricultural lands. The land records include survey numbers of land, layouts and property cards. The Department also maintains records of transfers of ownership and possession of all immovable properties in Maharashtra. For making available certified copies of the property cards and other documents which are required to be supplied under the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Inspection, Search and Supply of Copies of Land Records) Rules, 1970, the Department employed unpaid candidates. They were not paid salary by the Government but were paid 70% of the amount collected from those, who applied for certified copies. The balance 30% used to be deposited in the Government treasury. 3. Shri Madan Vishwamber Desai, Secretary of Bhoomi Abhilek Vina-Vetan Karamchari Sanghatana, Maharashtra, an unregistered association representing about 150 persons filed O.A. No. 153/1991 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') for issue of a direction to the State Government and its functionaries to regularise their services and pay them salary at par with regular employees by asserting that unpaid employees were continuously working and discharging the duties of regular employees. The Appellants, who were non-Petitioners before the Tribunal contested the application mainly on the ground that members of the association were not regularly recruited and were not paid salary and other benefits admissible to Government employees and, as such, they were not entitled to be regularised in Government service. 4. After considering the rival pleadings and arguments, the Tribunal partly allowed the application and issued the following directions: 1. 4. After considering the rival pleadings and arguments, the Tribunal partly allowed the application and issued the following directions: 1. Unpaid candidates who have put in more than 10 years of service should be given preference by relaxing their age for their absorption in Land Records Department if they fulfil the conditions of qualification and registration with the Employment Exchange in accordance with the orders issued by the Government vide Government Resolution Revenue and Forests Department dated 17.10.1978 without referring them to Regional Subordinate Selection Board. 2. Unpaid candidates who have put in less than 10 years service but are overage should be given 3 more chances to apply to the Regional Subordinate Selection Board whenever the posts suitable to their qualification are advertised. 3. Unpaid candidates who are within age should be permitted to apply to Regional Selection Board or M.P.S.C. whenever posts suitable to their qualification are advertised. 4. Unpaid candidates should be selected for initial appointment from amongst the candidates sponsored by the District employment Exchange instead of entertaining direct applications and the condition that they shall be free to apply to Regional Selection Board or M.P.S.C. whenever posts suitable to their qualifications are advertised should be incorporated in the appointment order itself. 5. Special Leave Petition (CC No. 1794/1995) filed against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by this Court on 14.7.1995 by recording the following order: Grossly delayed. The explanation is for from satisfactory. But even on merits, we see no reason to interfere. Hence dismissed. 6. Thereafter, the Government of Maharashtra (Revenue and Forest Department) issued GR dated 21.10.1995 for implementation of order dated 20.10.1992 passed by the Tribunal. After 3 years, the Settlement Commissioner and Director, Land Records, vide his letter dated 30/31.3.1998 issued instructions for terminating the services of unpaid employees who were not covered by the order passed by the Tribunal and GR dated 21.10.1995. 7. Feeling threatened with the termination of their services, the Respondents filed writ petitions and prayed for issue of mandamus to the Appellants to absorb them against Class-III posts by contending that their case is similar to other unpaid employees in whose favour the Tribunal had passed order dated 20.10.1992 and the Government had issued GRs dated 21.10.1995 and 22.10.1996. 7. Feeling threatened with the termination of their services, the Respondents filed writ petitions and prayed for issue of mandamus to the Appellants to absorb them against Class-III posts by contending that their case is similar to other unpaid employees in whose favour the Tribunal had passed order dated 20.10.1992 and the Government had issued GRs dated 21.10.1995 and 22.10.1996. The Appellants contested the writ petitions on the ground that the Petitioners were not eligible to be considered for regular appointment because they were not having qualifying service of 10 years specified in GR dated 21.10.1995 and 22.10.1996. 8. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the State Government issued GR dated 10.3.2005 incorporating the decision taken by it on the issue of absorption of unpaid employees (non-salaried Copyists). Paragraphs 1 to 4 of that GR read as under: 1) In case of the non-salaried Copyists who have been continuously working for 10 years or more in Revenue Department, if they supply an application for a Grade-III post in the Revenue Department, Government is according approval to accommodate them in service on available vacant posts provided they should be holding educational qualifications prescribed for the post and have registered their names in the Employment Exchange and for accommodating them in service, the condition of age limit be relaxed. Also the condition of appointment through Selection Board/Selection Committee will not be applicable to them. 2) At the time of appointments of non-salaried Copyists as above, care should be taken that the reservations for backward classes in the Government service are not affected. By Government Resolution No. MC-1001/C. No. 29 (Part 6)/2004/Financial Reforms dated 1.7.2004, Finance Department has granted permission to fill open category posts. Therefore, subject to Finance Department's order dated 1.7.2004, action be taken to fill above posts. Similarly, while appointing non-salaried Copyists, instructions contained in General Administration Department's Government Circular No. COMP-1003/C. No. 59/2003/VIII dated 30.1.2004 should be taken into consideration. If the non-salaried Copyists belong to reserved class, they will be entitled to appointment on the reserved posts. 3) On non-salaried Copyists getting accommodated in Government service, the period for which they have worked as non-salaried Copyists will not be taken into consideration for the benefit of leave and pension or any other Government purpose relating to service. 4) This Government Resolution will be applicable from the date of issue. 9. 3) On non-salaried Copyists getting accommodated in Government service, the period for which they have worked as non-salaried Copyists will not be taken into consideration for the benefit of leave and pension or any other Government purpose relating to service. 4) This Government Resolution will be applicable from the date of issue. 9. The Division Bench of the High Court took cognizance of the three GRs, referred to the judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 on which reliance was placed by the Appellants and partly allowed the petitions. Paragraphs 10 to 12, 14 and 18 of the impugned order, which contain the reasons recorded by the High Court for granting relief to the Respondents are extracted below: 10. In Writ Petition No. 3127 of 1998 the Superintendent of Land Records, Mumbai Suburban District has filed an affidavit-in-reply and to the same the details of all these Unpaid candidates, most of whom are the Petitioners before us, have been furnished. In the said affidavit the cut off date was treated to be 20/10/1992. However, we do not find any justification in fixing the cut off date as 20/10/1992 when in the G.R. dated 22/10/1996 the State Government itself has shifted the cut off date from 20/10/1992 to 30/11/1995 i.e. the date on which the second judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was rendered in O.A. No. 895 of 1995. We, therefore, have no doubt in our mind that the above mentioned candidates were illegally denied benefit for absorption as per the scheme formulated by the State Government vide its G.R. dated 22/10/1996 and they are eligible for being absorbed against the 150 posts directed to be kept vacant by this Court as per the order dated 18th December 2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 2151 of 1998 and this has not been very seriously disputed by the learned AGP who addressed before us on behalf of the State Government. 11. Coming to the case of the remaining Petitioners i.e. those who are not covered by the G.R. Dated 22/10/1996, our attention has been invited by the learned AGP to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 942 of 2004 on 4/2/2005, by relying upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of A. Umarani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Ors. [ (2004) 7 SCC 112 ]. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 942 of 2004 had relied upon the G.R. Dated 22/10/1996 and the cut off date as 30/11/1995 and prayed for directions for being regularised as the State Government employee. The order dated 4/2/2005 concluded in the following words: 4. It would, therefore, be clear that in such appointments there can be no case of regularisation. No writ, therefore, could have been issued by this Court in such matters. We reiterate the said proposition as carved out from the judgment in A. Umarani (Supra). For the aforesaid reasons Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. Considering the law as laid down by the Apex Court in A. Umarani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Ors. [ (2004) 7 SCC 112 ] the State Government may take steps to issue G.R. in the matter of regularisation strictly in terms of the judgment in A. Umarani (supra) and as explained by this Court in this Judgment. If regards be had to the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 942 of 2004 following the law laid down in A. Umarani's case (Supra), the State Government would have done well in not issuing the G.R. Dated 10/3/2005, though the said G.R. states that it was issued in obedience of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1882, 1885 and 2067 of 2002. It is not known whether the orders passed by this Court in these three petitions were placed on record when Writ Petition No. 942 of 2004 was decided on 4/2/2005 and even otherwise the G.R. has been issued thereafter i.e. on 10/3/2005. Nothing stopped the State Government from filing a civil application in Writ Petition No. 942 of 2004 to seek appropriate directions/modifications before issuing the G.R. Dated 10/3/2005. The scheme framed for absorption vide the G.R. dated 10/3/2005 has, in fact, removed the cut off date and the scheme clearly envisages ten years or more service as on the date the G.R. was issued and now the State Government appears to have woken up by the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Umadevi (Supra), in support of its contentions that the unpaid candidates or any others who were not appointed against regular posts and who have entered the Government departments by backdoor entries are not entitled for regularisation. There can be no dispute on this proposition that those who have entered the Government service by backdoor entries cannot claim regularisation of service by way of a vested right. However, this doctrine will not be applicable to those Petitioners who were otherwise eligible for regularisation of service as per the GRs dated 21/10/1995 and 22/10/1996, in asmuchas all those Petitioners were wrongly denied the benefit of the scheme framed by the State Government vide the said Government Resolutions. 12. We have no doubt in our mind that those Petitioners who were covered by the G. Rs. dated 21/10/1995 and 22/10/1996, their entry as Unpaid Candidates in all the concerned departments could not be said to be backdoor entry. As set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment, the Unpaid Candidates came to be recruited as per the initial G.R. dated 30/10/1961 and they had undergone the due selection process as was prevailing at the relevant time. 14. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned AGP, we are satisfied that the above said observations of the Tribunal do not imply that all the Petitioners are the backdoor entrants or that their appointments were made without following the recruitment procedure prescribed under the relevant Rules or Resolutions. It is more than clear that none of the parties had invited the Tribunal's attention to the G.R. dated 30/10/1961 and the procedure for enlisting the candidates for being trained and appointed in the clerical posts in the Revenue Department was formulated. The said Resolution in its preamble stated: In view of the changed circumstances after the issuance of orders contained in Government Resolution No. 5756/33 dated February 1957, particularly after the introduction of the training scheme for revenue Clerks, it is found necessary that the various provisions with regard to the procedure for enlistment period, training and appointment of the enlisted candidates, as laid down in the various Government orders should be compiled together in a consolidated order. In view of this and also the need for having uniformity throughout the State, Government is pleased to lay down the following revised rules. They come into force from the date of issue of this order in all the areas of the State. These rules should be deemed to have superseded rules, orders etc. issued on the subject by the former States of Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad. They come into force from the date of issue of this order in all the areas of the State. These rules should be deemed to have superseded rules, orders etc. issued on the subject by the former States of Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad. These Rules very clearly laid down the eligibility conditions and the procedure for enlisting the eligible candidates, lower as well as higher age limit, educational qualifications (SSC), reservation for backward classes etc. Rules 9 to 12 of the said revised Rules read as under: 9. Each candidate shall be assigned to an office and shall work there except when sent for training in the clerks training centre or appointed in an acting vacancy in that or in any other office. When not employed in an acting vacancy, he should be employed as copyist and allowed to receive the fees. 10. Each candidate shall be required to attend office regularly and punctually and no candidate shall be allowed to absent himself without leave. 11. If an existing list of enlisted candidates in any district happens to contain a greater number of names than as prescribed by this Resolution the Collector, shall forthwith wood out unsuitable candidates. 12. The enlisted candidate, before he is sent for training with stipend, shall give an undertaking as prescribed in Government Resolution Revenue Department No. TDX 1060-F dated 4th April 1968 (before they are under training). After passing the test he shall remain as a Candidate till a vacancy becomes available for appointing him as a Clerk. 18. From all this material on record we have no hesitation to hold that the Unpaid Candidates who were appointed till 12/2/1987 were not the backdoor entrants and certainly those who were appointed from 13/2/1987 onwards or after the establishment of the Regional Subordinate Selection Boards as per the G.R. Dated 9/2/1988 are the backdoor entrants. In our view the Petitioners who were appointed as Unpaid Candidates initially on or before 12/2/1987 will have to be given the benefit of the scheme for regularisation as implemented by the State Government vide its GRs dated 21/10/1995 and 22/10/1996. As noted by the Tribunal in its judgment in O.A. No. 153 of 1991 the State Government had issued the first G.R. on 17/10/1978 for regularisation of the Unpaid candidates. 10. We have heard Ms. As noted by the Tribunal in its judgment in O.A. No. 153 of 1991 the State Government had issued the first G.R. on 17/10/1978 for regularisation of the Unpaid candidates. 10. We have heard Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri S.B. Sanyal, learned senior Counsel appearing for the private Respondents and perused the record. 11. Since it is not in dispute that the private Respondents had been employed prior to 12.02.1987 after due selection and had continued in employment for over 10 years as on the date of filing of the writ petitions, their cases were clearly covered by the GRs issued by the State Government and it is not possible to find any fault in the direction given by the High Court for their appointment against the vacant Class-III posts. 12. We may add that in the reply affidavits filed before the High Court, the Appellants had not disputed that the Respondents had been recruited after undergoing the selection. Therefore, the High Court rightly observed that they cannot be treated as backdoor entrants and denied relief by applying the ratio of Umadevi's case. As a matter of fact, the State Government and its functionaries should have taken cognizance of the facts that the Respondents were not backdoor entrants; that as on the date of filing the writ petitions, they had continuously worked for more than 10 years and that regular selection could not be made due to non-constitution of the Subordinate Service Selection Board and non-holding of examination for a pretty long time and issued orders for absorption of the unpaid employees in the regular cadre. 13. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. 14. The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.