JUDGMENT 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State-appellants and learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. These Special Appeals are directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 8.4.2013, by which, he has allowed the writ petitions, with directions to the State-respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation within a period of four months, and till then, their services will not be terminated to frustrate their cause, unless there are serious complaints followed by an enquiry. A further direction was given that the respondents would be at liberty to utilise the services of the petitioners, as per their requirement, but it will not frustrate their claim for regularisation and benefits arising out of it. 3. In pursuance to an advertisement issued in the year 1996, the respondents were engaged as 'Syees' in the Department of Animal Husbandry for a period of six months on contract, extendable by further period of six months. In few of the cases, appointment orders were issued in the year 1996, and in others, appointment orders were issued subsequent to the year 1996. Since thereafter the respondents are working on contract, extensions from time to time. 4. Learned Single Judge relied paragraph 53 of the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , in which the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court declared that all appointments made dehors the Rules, to be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. After discussing all the previous judgments of the Apex Court, it was held that the persons, who have not been appointed regularly, and are continuing as daily wagers, contractual employees, including temporary employees, can be considered for regularization, strictly in accordance with the Rules, for regularisation made by the State Governments or their instrumentalities, as employers. In the same judgment, considering that many of such employees, who are duly qualified, on duly sanctioned vacant posts, and have been working for ten years, but not without the intervention of orders of courts or tribunals, may be considered for regularization, as a one time measure. The Apex Court held in paragraph 53, as follows:- "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. The Apex Court held in paragraph 53, as follows:- "53. 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 of 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. 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. 5. The State of Rajasthan considered the effect of the judgment and amended the rules under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regularisation of all such employees, who have completed ten years of service as on 10.4.2006 (the date on which the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi was delivered). 6. 5. The State of Rajasthan considered the effect of the judgment and amended the rules under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regularisation of all such employees, who have completed ten years of service as on 10.4.2006 (the date on which the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi was delivered). 6. The Rules notified by notification dated 8.7.2009 by the State of Rajasthan, made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, called as "Rajasthan Various Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2009", provides amendment as follows:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the persons, irregularly appointed on duly sanctioned posts and completed ten years service on 10-04-2006, without intervention of any court or tribunal, and continuously working as such on the date of commencement of these amendment rules, shall be screened by a committee consisting of - (a) in case of posts falling within the purview of the Commission:- (i) Chairman of Commission or a member nominated by him; (ii)Pr. Secretary/Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel; (iii) Pr. Secretary/Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy Secretary; and (iv) Pr. Secretary/Secretary to the Government, of the concerned department. (b) in case of the posts outside the purview of the Commission:- (i) Pr. Secretary/Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel; (ii) Pr. Secretary/Secretary to the Government, Finance Department or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy Secretary; (iii) Pr. Secretary/ Secretary to the Government of the concerned department: provided they were eligible for appointment, as per rules on the date of their initial irregular appointment and vacancy is available at the time of screening. The Appointing Authority shall issue appointment order of the person, who is adjudged suitable by the screening committee and appointment shall be effective from the date of issue of such appointment order." 7. With the aforesaid amendment, any person, who was irregularly appointed on duly sanctioned post and had completed ten years of service as on 10.4.2006, without intervention of any court or tribunal, and was continuously working as such on the date of commencement of the amendment Rules, i.e.on 8.7.2009, was eligible to be considered for regularization. The amendment, complied with the mandate of paragraph 53 of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra). The amendment, complied with the mandate of paragraph 53 of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra). The State of Rajasthan had, as a one time measure, provided for regularisation of all such employees, who were eligible and qualified in accordance with paragraph 53 of the judgment, after their screening by the Screening Committee, for regularisation. 8. It is submitted that learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the observations made in paragraph 53 of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra), and the amendment in the Rules by the Government of Rajasthan. He has carved out a new category for regularisation of those persons, who may have completed ten years of service after 10.4.2006, and even after the amendment in the Rules vide notification dated 8.7.2009. The direction of the Supreme Court in paragraph 54 of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) and the consequent amendment in the Rules notified on 8.7.2009, does not provide for regularisation of any employee, who has completed ten years of service after 10.4.2006. The regularisation on the amendment in the Rules, was by way of one time measure, and that, the extension of the cut off date, for the purposes of regularization, is in contravention of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) and the consequent amendment made in the statutory rules on 8.7.2009. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the object of saving all those persons, who were duly qualified and were appointed against the sanctioned posts, by open competition, was to provide for regularisation of all those persons, who had completed ten years of service. The expression "one time measure" cannot operate to deprive the persons, who have completed ten years of service, after 10.4.2006 from considering them for regularization. 10. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents further submit that in a similar case [ State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Captain Murari Badhadrra, D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.2684/2011] , in which Captain Murari Badhadrra had completed ten years of service after 10.4.2006 i.e.on 1.9.2006, a learned Single Judge had granted relief to him for regularisation of his services. He was appointed as Gliding Instructor Incharge on contract basis on 2.9.1996. v. Captain Murari Badhadrra, D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.2684/2011] , in which Captain Murari Badhadrra had completed ten years of service after 10.4.2006 i.e.on 1.9.2006, a learned Single Judge had granted relief to him for regularisation of his services. He was appointed as Gliding Instructor Incharge on contract basis on 2.9.1996. After considering the effect of paragraph 53 of the Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court held held that since he had completed ten years of service, he would be entitled to be considered for regularization. A Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.2684/2011 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.278/1999, vide judgment dated 8.8.2012, dismissed the special appeal. It was observed by the Division Bench, in the judgment, that since the writ petitioner was continuously working since September 1996, and that, he had completed about sixteen years of service, therefore, the direction issued by learned Single Judge for consideration of the case of the petitioner for regularisation on his post, was just and reasonable, particularly when he is fully qualified, and is continuously working against regular and sanctioned post. 11. We have gone through the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra), and the consequent amendment of the Rules by the State of Rajasthan, as a one time measure, by amending Various Service Rules, under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, vide notification dated 8.7.2009. These Rules called the "Rajasthan Various Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2009, fixed the cut off date for completion of the services of the person, who were irregularly appointed on duly sanctioned post for regularisation and were serving upto 10.4.2006 without intervention of any court or tribunal, after going through the process of screening by the Screening Committee. The State of Rajasthan had chosen the cut off date to be the same, on which the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) was delivered. 12. We do not find that the petitioners, who are respondents before us, had challenged the validity of the Rules, or the cut off date given in the Rules to be arbitrary, or without any basis. 13. We do not find that in Captain Murari Badhadrra (supra), the amendment in the Rules was considered by learned Single Judge, or by Division Bench. 13. We do not find that in Captain Murari Badhadrra (supra), the amendment in the Rules was considered by learned Single Judge, or by Division Bench. We do not find any reference of the Rajasthan Various Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2009, notified vide notification dated 8.7.2009, in the judgment. There was no objection raised, nor any point discussed, or considered with regard to the amendment in the Rules, and the cut off date fixed by the State as one time measure, in accordance with the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra). 14. In the absence of the reference of the Rules, and further, in the absence of any defence taken, by the State Government and any discussion in law, the judgment in Captain Murari Badhadrra (supra) is not binding on us. It is a judgment, which is per incuriam, without noticing the relevant rules, and the amendments which had come into force, on the date when the judgment was delivered. The principles of law in which a judgment may be treated to be 'per incuriam' as an exception to the rules 'stare decisis', in glaring case of obstructive omission have been explained in State of U.P. & Anr. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr., (1991) 4 SCC 139 as follows:- "40. 'Incuria' literally means 'carelessness'. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The 'quotable in law' is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, 'in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority'. ( Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd.). Same has been accepted, approved and adopted by this Court while interpreting Article 141 of the Constitution which embodies the doctrine of precedents as a matter of law. In Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey this Court while pointing out the procedure to be followed when conflicting decisions are placed before a bench extracted a passage from Halsbury's Laws of England incorporating one of the exceptions when the decision of an appellate court is not binding." 15. In Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey this Court while pointing out the procedure to be followed when conflicting decisions are placed before a bench extracted a passage from Halsbury's Laws of England incorporating one of the exceptions when the decision of an appellate court is not binding." 15. We are of the view that the entire object and purpose of delivering the judgment and laying down the law by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, which is binding on all the courts and authorities of the entire country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, was to stop the regularisation of the daily wagers, contractual and adhoc employees, in public services. The Supreme Court was of the view, that no further orders should be passed either by the State Government, or by the courts, regularising such employees, as all such appointments were violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It was by way of an exception in paragraph 53 of the judgment, that the Supreme Court, considering the plight of those employees, who were qualified and were appointed on duly sanctioned post, and were working for more than ten years, allowed the Union of India, State Governments and their instrumentalities, to take steps to regularize, as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who had worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned post, but not under the cover of orders of the courts or tribunals, and further, issued directions that regular recruitments be undertaken to fill those sanctioned vacant posts, that required to be filled up, in case where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. 16. We may be missing the point, if we do not notice the last lines of paragraph 53, in which the Supreme Court stated:- "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." 17. In the present case, the State of Rajasthan accepted the directions issued by the Supreme Court, and made amendment in the Rules fixing the cut off date, as 10.4.2006, on which an employee, who was duly qualified but was irregularly appointed on a sanctioned post, and had completed ten years of service, could be considered for regularisation by a Screening Committee. The Rules were made, as statutory Rules for regularization. As directed by the Supreme Court, it was only by way of one time measure. Any further attempt for regularisation of these employees, who may have completed ten years of service, after 10.4.2006, would be in clear and blatant violation of the directions issued in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra). 18. We can understand, if the State Government had amended the Rules, subsequent to the date of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra), the said date would have been defended as the date, on which, if such employees, who may have completed ten years of service, may have claimed for consideration for regularization, but after the State Government fixed the date i.e.10.4.2006, which was the date, on which the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) was delivered, the High Court did not have authority to issue a direction contrary to the mandate of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, on a consideration that such employees are being discriminated, as against those, who had completed ten years of service as on 10.4.2006. 19. We are of the view that the evil, which was sought to be remedied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot have been encouraged either by the State Government, or by the High Court, on the judicial side.In the aforesaid circumstances, the Special Appeal is allowed. The judgment of learned Single Judge is set aside.A copy of this judgment be placed in all the connected files.Special Appeals Allowed. *******