JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan J. Since common questions of law arise for consideration, therefore, both these writ petitions are taken together and are being disposed of by way of a common judgment. 2. CWP No.92 of 2016 has been filed for the following relief: “In view of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, it is humbly prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 6.11.2015 may kindly be set aside besides setting aside the OA No. 4272 of 2015 being without jurisdiction in the interest of justice and fair play.” Whereas CWP No.692 of 2016 has been filed for the following reliefs: “1. That respondents may kindly be directed to implement the policy and comply with directions passed in CWP No.2836 of 2015 titled as Monika Thakur and ors Vs. State of HP and ors in a time bound manner. 2. That advertisement dated 9.10.2015 may kindly be stayed and in alternative posts on which petitioners are to be adjusted as per the policy may kindly be kept reserved in the interest of justice and fair play. 3. That direction may kindly be issued not to disturb and dislodge the petitioners from their posts.” 3. With the consent of the parties, CWP No.92 of 2016, titled as Love Kishore & ors Vs. State of HP & ors, is taken as the lead case. The dispute lies in a narrow compass 4. Petitioners and similarly situated persons had filed various petitions before this Court, the lead whereof was CWP No.2978 of 2012 titled as Anil Verma & ors Vs. State of HP & ors, wherein they had sought a declaration to the effect that they be declared appointed on contract basis with all consequential benefits. These writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent State as also certain aggrieved lecturers thereafter filed various Letters Patent Appeals as also writ petitions before this Court, the lead whereof was LPA No. 107 of 2014 and the same came to be decided by this Bench on 3rd December, 2014 and the judgment of learned writ court was ordered to be set aside. The respondent State as also certain aggrieved lecturers thereafter filed various Letters Patent Appeals as also writ petitions before this Court, the lead whereof was LPA No. 107 of 2014 and the same came to be decided by this Bench on 3rd December, 2014 and the judgment of learned writ court was ordered to be set aside. However, at the same time, a direction was issued to the State Government to examine the cases of the writ petitioners for regularization or conversion of their posts on contractual basis while keeping in view the recommendations made by the official respondents themselves vide communication dated 25.4.2011, which reads thus: ““DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION VOCATIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL TRAINING H.P. SUNDERNAGAR. No.STV (TE)H:B (2)8/C-Vol-XIV-16035 dated 25.4.2011. To The Secretary, (Technical Education) to the Govt. of H.P. Shimla-2. Sub: Converting of the services of the employee working on hourly basis/consolidated salary under Student Fund/Student Welfare Fund in the Department into contract basis. “Please refer to your letter No. EDN(TE)B(15) 8/2009 dated 14.3.2011 on the above cited subject. In this connection, I have the honour to bring to your kind notice that a number of posts falling vacant due to the retirements, promotions and other reasons in Technical Educational Institutions are required to be filled up immediately in the interest of teaching work. It is also intimated that in the recent past, the admission intake in various disciplines has increased in polytechnics and a number of new trades have also been introduced in Industrial Training Institutes without creation of posts of the Training Instructors. Government Polytechnics at Talwar has been established, where only 08 posts have been created and no post of Engineering-faculty, supporting technical staff ministerial and Class-IV has been created. The posts created for Government Polytechnic Banikhet and Chamba have also not been allowed to be filled-up. There is a complete ban on direct recruitments, resultantly no appointments can be made even on contract basis without seeking the prior approval of Government. The process of seeking the approval of the Government for creation of additional posts, permission for filling-up of the vacant posts and recruitment through the concerned recruitment agencies is time consuming and cumbersome. In view of the aforesaid, the Department is facing acute shortage of staff in Technical Education Institutions and same is adversely affecting the teaching work. The process of seeking the approval of the Government for creation of additional posts, permission for filling-up of the vacant posts and recruitment through the concerned recruitment agencies is time consuming and cumbersome. In view of the aforesaid, the Department is facing acute shortage of staff in Technical Education Institutions and same is adversely affecting the teaching work. The posts in the Technical Educational Institutions can not be let vacant for a long as it affects the very purpose for which they have been created. In view of the aforesaid, the department engages teaching staff in Technical Educational Institutions under the control of Department on lecture/hourly basis. A number of teachers/ staff have been engaged almost in all the Institutions under the Student Fund of the Institute by calling applications through Employment office and conducting the Interviews as per the requirement of R&P Rules of the concerned post at the level of concerned Institution so that the teaching/training of the students may not suffer. A number of persons so employed are continuing as such for the last 4/5 years. A number of representations made to the Govt. of HP have been received for conversion of their such services to contract basis. As per the policy of the Government an employee has to work for about 40 to 42 hours in a week. Therefore, the considered view of the Department is that Government may consider the demand/ request of those employees who fulfill the requisite qualifications as per the R& P Rules and have been working more than 5 years continuously and have completed 9600 hours. It is submitted that Govt. may consider such cases for appointment on contract basis against the existing sanctioned posts by making a policy. It is further submitted that this situation is peculiar being department specific and there is a strong premise for evolving policy in respect of Technical Education Department by the State Govt.” Submitted for consideration and appropriate directions please. Yours faithfully, Director Technical Education Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sundernagar.” 5. It is further submitted that this situation is peculiar being department specific and there is a strong premise for evolving policy in respect of Technical Education Department by the State Govt.” Submitted for consideration and appropriate directions please. Yours faithfully, Director Technical Education Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sundernagar.” 5. The respondent State thereafter issued notification dated 3.10.2015, whereby it took over the services of all the teaching and non teaching employees engaged on hourly or period/lecture basis through Student Welfare Fund, Institute Management Committee(s) and under other schemes up to 31.7.2015 (i.e. date of closing of academic year 2014-2015) in Government Engineering Colleges, Polytechnics and Industrial Training Institutes of the Department of Technical Education Vocational & Industrial Training, on contract basis after completion of 7 years or 9600 hours whichever is earlier as one time measure, in the public interest with immediate effect. This, however, was subject to the condition that no litigation is subsisting and undertaking to this effect was to be taken from all the concerned employees. This was further subject to various terms and conditions as stipulated in the notification itself. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notification, respondents 5 to 7 preferred Original Application No.4272 of 2015 titled as Tanvi Vidya & ors Vs. State of HP & ors before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking therein the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned notification dated 3.10.2015 whereby the respondent Government has directed to take over the services on contract basis of teaching and non teaching employees earlier engaged on hourly or period/lecturer basis be quashed and set aside.” (ii) Further, respondent government be directed to start regular recruitment process for these posts in accordance with statutory rules.” 7. Indisputably, the present petitioners were not arrayed as parties and the learned Tribunal proceeded to pass an interim order on 6.11.2015 and stayed the operation of the notification dated 3.10.2015. 8. Indisputably, the present petitioners were not arrayed as parties and the learned Tribunal proceeded to pass an interim order on 6.11.2015 and stayed the operation of the notification dated 3.10.2015. 8. In the meanwhile, Special Leave to Appeal filed by the certain persons similarly situate as that of Tanvi Vidya aforesaid against the judgment rendered by this Court in LPA No.107 of 2014 came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 27.1.2016 and the same was disposed of in the following terms: “Having given a thoughtful consideration to the challenge raised in the present petition, we consider it just and appropriate to relegate the petitioners to the High Court of the State of Himachal Pradesh so as to enable them to assail the notification dated 3.10.2015. It shallbe open to the petitioners, if they are so advised, to assail the directions given by the High Court to the State Government (in its order dated 3.12.2014) passed in LPA No.107 of 2014.” 9. When the instant writs came up for consideration before this court on 2.5.2016, it was pointed out by the learned counsel representing the petitioners that the notification issued by the State government on 3.10.2015, was, in fact, in compliance to the judgment rendered by this Court on 3.12.2014 in LPA No. 107/2014 and despite this fact having been brought into the notice of learned Tribunal, it had not vacated the interim order earlier passed by it on 6.11.2015. 10. In order to verify this fact, we called for the records of OA No.4272 of 2015 from the learned Tribunal and it is revealed that on 6.11.2015, the learned Tribunal passed the followed order: “Heard notice. Mr. Varun Chandel, learned Additional AG waives service of notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Notice on behalf of respondent No.4 is also waived by Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, appearing vice Mr.D.K.Khanna, learned Standing counsel. In the facts and circumstances, before the respondents are called to enter upon replies, it shall be expedient and in the interest of justice that the learned Additional Advocate General obtains instructions in the matter. Ordered accordingly. In the facts and circumstances, it shall also be expedient and in the interest of justice that further action pursuant to the impugned notification dated 3.10.2015, annexure A-9, may continue, but shall not be finalized, in the meanwhile, till the next date of hearing.” 11. Ordered accordingly. In the facts and circumstances, it shall also be expedient and in the interest of justice that further action pursuant to the impugned notification dated 3.10.2015, annexure A-9, may continue, but shall not be finalized, in the meanwhile, till the next date of hearing.” 11. It would be noticed that OA No.4272 of 2015 has been filed at the instance of certain persons who are unemployed and, was, therefore, essentially in the nature of public interest. In such circumstances, the moot question that arises for consideration is as to whether the learned Administrative Tribunal could have entertained the petition which was in the nature of public interest litigation and furthermore whether the OA, which in substance questioned the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in LPA No.107/2014, could have been entertained by the learned Tribunal?. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 12. The first question is no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & ors Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and ors (1998) 7 SCC 273 , which position of law has subsequently been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various judgments. All these judgments have been taken note of by this court in Samriti Gupta & anr Vs. State of HP & ors, Latest HLJ 2016 (HP) 191, and it has thereafter been concluded as under: “11. Now, what emerges from the aforesaid exposition of law is that a private citizen or a stranger having no existing right to any post and not intrinsically concerned with any service matter is not entitled to approach the Tribunal and the necessary corollary which follows is that it is only “person aggrieved” within the meaning of the Act who can prefer an application for redressal of his grievances before the Tribunal constituted under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India. The Administrative Tribunals are constituted for adjudication or trial of the disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. Its jurisdiction and powers have been well defined in the Act and more importantly it does not enjoy any plenary power. 12. The Administrative Tribunals are constituted for adjudication or trial of the disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. Its jurisdiction and powers have been well defined in the Act and more importantly it does not enjoy any plenary power. 12. In the result, it can safely be concluded that the Administrative Tribunals constituted under the Act cannot entertain a Public Interest Litigation and the same would amount to defeating the object of speedy disposal of the service matter for which the Tribunals have been created.” 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can conveniently be held that OA No.4272 of 2015, which was in the nature of public interest litigation, was not maintainable and the same, therefore, could not have been entertained by the learned Tribunal. 14. Now, adverting to the second question, we may notice that respondents No. 5 to 7 in OA No. 4272 of 2015, filed by them, had virtually questioned the judgment rendered by this Court in LPA No. 107 of 2014. This would be evident from the grounds (b), (c) and (f) of the petition, which read thus:- “b. That the impugned notification of taking over the services on contractual basis of lecturers earlier appointed on hourly/period/lecturer basis contained in Annexure A-9 has been issued without considering the fact that the appointees contained in the impugned notification were initially appointed without following the regular procedure prescribed by the rules applicable for recruitment to such posts. Even on the ground of discrimination any notification issued for their absorption in regular service is in violation to the right of equality contained in Article 14 and 16 and will be contrary to the constitutional scheme of appointment to public employment. Hence, on this sole ground, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is required to be quashed and set aside. c. That the impugned notification of taking over the services on contractual basis of lecturers earlier appointed on hourly/period/lecturer basis contained in Annexure A-9 has been issued by the respondent government without considering the fact that these appointees contained in the notification were initially appointed by constituting a selection committee dehors the statutory rules at Institutional Level constituting of Principal as Chairman, HOD and lecturers as members. Otherwise, as per statutory rules, the Principal Secretary (Technical Education) is appointing/disciplinary authority and Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission is recruiting agency and as per regular procedure of recruitment the Principal Secretary (Technical Education) after taking approval from State Government was required to sent the requisition to recruiting agency for commencing recruitment process. Here, case in hand in most of the cases after advertisement of posts of lecturer/practical/hourly basis only one or two candidates were appeared before Selection committee and moreover, Chairman of the committee by exercising his unbridled and uncanalised powers even has waived off the condition of experience of two years as contained in statutory rules at his own illegally. These illegal appointees have no legitimate right enforceable by Court of law or legitimate expectation for absorption as they had been appointed at prescribed rate of Rs. 200/- per lecture and for Rs.100/- per practical with a stipulation that these appointments will be purely on hourly basis and the candidates selected will not have the right to regularization/continuation in service. Moreover, it is settled precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that irregularity can be regularized but illegality cannot be. Hence, on this sole ground the impugned notification is not sustainable in the eyes of law. f. That the impugned notification of taking over the services on contractual basis of lecturers earlier appointed on hourly/period/lecturer basis contained in Annexure A-9 has been passed without considering the fact that the appointees contained therein were appointed completely dehors the statutory rules and constitutional provisions and hence the same is illegal one. Moreover, while passing the impugned notification the respondent government has failed to appreciate the difference between illegal and irregular appointment and verdict passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as State of MP & ors Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, 2007 (1) SCT 620: (2007) 1 SCC 575, wherein in para 12 of its judgment, it has been held that: “The question which, thus, arises for consideration, would be : Is there any distinction between 'irregular appointment' and 'illegal appointment'? The distinction between the two terms is apparent. Lalit Kumar Verma, 2007 (1) SCT 620: (2007) 1 SCC 575, wherein in para 12 of its judgment, it has been held that: “The question which, thus, arises for consideration, would be : Is there any distinction between 'irregular appointment' and 'illegal appointment'? The distinction between the two terms is apparent. In the event the appointment is made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment would be an illegal one; whereas there may be cases where, although, substantial compliance of the constitutional scheme as also the rules have been made, the appointment may be irregular in the sense that some provisions of some rules might not have been strictly adhered to. This court in B.N. Nagarajan cleary stated that whereas any irregularity can be regularized but an illegality cannot be. Hence, on the basis of judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. Nagarajan and Lalita Kumari the impugned notification is not sustainable in the eyes of law.” 15. It is also borne out from the record that the notification dated 3.10.2015, as a matter of fact, had been issued in compliance to the directions passed by this Court in LPA No. 107 of 2014, and this would be evident from para 5 of the short reply submitted on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, which reads thus: “5. That it is respectfully submitted that in compliance with the aforesaid direction of the Hon’ble High Court, draft proposal with regard to framing a policy for regularization or conversion of services of hourly basis/lecture basis, lecturers and other staff engaged under Students Welfare Fund/IMCs in various institutions of the Technical Education Department, i.e. Engineer/ Polytechnic/ITI wings was under examination with Advisory Departments of the State Government, being a Policy matter. However, in the mean time the respondent/petitioners in LPA No.117/2014 feeling aggrieved with non compliance of the aforesaid directions of the Hon’ble High Court had filed Execution Petition No.15/2015 in LPA No.117/2014 wherein the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 26.5.2015 disposed of the same by directing the respondents to comply with the aforesaid direction of the Hon’ble Court within a period of eight weeks, if not already complied with and to report compliance before the Registrar (Judicial)(Copy of the judgment is enclosed as Annexure R-1). As a matter of framing policy was under examination with Advisory Departments, therefore, an application seeking extension of time for the execution of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble High Court was filed in the matter of Execution petition under reference. Further, after obtaining the opinion of all the Advisory Department, the matter was placed before the Council of Ministers for consideration and after its approval the impugned notification dated 3.10.2015, i.e. Annexure A- 9 was issued and accordingly the compliance affidavit has been filed in the Hon’ble High Court in the Execution petition under reference on dated 31.10.2015 (Copy of compliance affidavit is enclosed as Annexure R-2).” 16. It is rather strange that despite these facts having been brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal by the official respondents in their reply, it vide order dated 8.3.2016 still proceeded to extend the interim order earlier passed by it on 6.11.2015 and matter was ordered to be listed on 29.3.2016. 17. Once the official respondents had themselves acknowledged the notification dated 3.10.2015 to have been issued in compliance to the directions passed by this Court, then what to talk of the learned Tribunal even this Court would not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition, which virtually seeks to question the decision passed by this Court in LPA No. 107 of 2014. 18. In addition to the aforesaid, it would also be noticed that even in terms of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, liberty to assail the notification dated 3.10.2015 was available only to the persons who had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and was, therefore, not available to respondents 5 to 7. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can safely be concluded that OA No.4272 of 2015, filed by respondents 5 to 7, was not maintainable and, therefore, could not have even been entertained much less adjudicated by the learned Tribunal. 20. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the OA No.4272/2015 is ordered to be dismissed and resultantly, respondents are directed to comply with the notification dated 3.10.2015 in its letter and spirit. The petitions are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their costs.