ORDER : 1. Petitioner No.1 is an association formed and registered for the welfare of its members. According to petition averments, 1st petitioner – Association has as its members, lecturers working in as many as 30 colleges across the State including both teaching and non-teaching staff. Other petitioners are all staff working under different preuniversity colleges in Morarji Desai Residential Preuniversity colleges run by 2nd respondent – Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society. 2nd respondent is fully funded by the State Government and its affairs are regulated and controlled by the State Government though it has its own managing body. 2. Relief sought by petitioners in these writ petitions is for regularization of their services in terms of the regulation framed on 07.05.2011 produced at Annexure-G and on the basis of the direction issued by this Court in W.P. Nos. 20204-20364/2011 and connected cases disposed of on 13.07.2012 (Annexure-H) confirmed in W.A. No. 5127/2012 and W.A. Nos. 583161/2012 disposed of on 28.02.2013. Petitioners have also challenged the order dated 27.05.2016 (Annexure-D) and the order dated 28.05.2016 (Annexure-E) and as also the order dated 28.05.2016 produced at AnnexureE1 issued by 2nd respondent – Society. They have sought for a declaration that proposal made by 2nd respondent to post teachers of Morarji Desai High School possessing M.A. and M.Sc. qualification to work as lecturers in Morarji Desai Residential Preuniversity Colleges as one without authority of law and ultra virus the recruitment rules. 3. According to petitioners, they were duly qualified for being appointed as lecturers with effect from 2008 and 2009 onwards and were as such appointed as lecturers in the Morarji Desai Pre-University Colleges. Majority of petitioners, it is urged, have put in 58 years of service whereas some of them have put in 24 years of service. All these petitioners have been appointed through outsourcing by an outside agency based on a tender document approved by the Government of Karnataka and the tender process was permitted by the Government through 2nd respondent – Society and the Zilla Parishad of each district. 4. 2nd respondent – Society was formed by the State Government. The society was registered in the year 1999. It adopted a novel scheme on the lines of the scheme introduced by the Central Government for Navodaya Schools, Residential High Schools were established in different parts of the State by the Society. 4. 2nd respondent – Society was formed by the State Government. The society was registered in the year 1999. It adopted a novel scheme on the lines of the scheme introduced by the Central Government for Navodaya Schools, Residential High Schools were established in different parts of the State by the Society. Initially appointments were made by the Society on contract basis for teaching and non-teaching staff. From the academic year 2004-2005, Zilla Parishad in each districts were entrusted with the task of making appointments. Accordingly, appointments to teaching and non-teaching staff of high schools were made through an agency. 5. In 2011, regulations governing the recruitment of posts of high school teachers in residential schools came into force. Regulations provided for service weightage of 5 marks for each completed year of service subject to maximum of 40 marks in respect of candidates appointed by the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society on contract basis as one time measure in the matter of recruitment. Some of the teachers who had been appointed through outsourcing agency challenged the recruitment regulations of the year 2011 insofar as it related to extension of service weightage only to teachers appointed by the Society on contract basis. They sought for a direction to extend the same benefit to those who were appointed through outsourcing agency. 6. This Court in W.P. Nos. 20204-364/2001 allowed the said writ petitions holding that there could not be any discrimination in the matter of extending benefit of service weightage to high school teachers appointed by the Society on contract basis and those appointed through outsourcing agency subsequent to 2004-2005. Thus, writ petitions were disposed of holding that while petitioners therein were not entitled for absorption, the teachers appointed to high schools on or after 2004-2005 were entitled to be treated on par with teachers who were appointed prior to that date by the Society on contract basis in the matter of extension of benefit of service weightage as specified in the Recruitment Regulations, 2011. This judgment has been confirmed in W.A. No. 5127/2012 and W.A. Nos. 5831-61/2012 and connected cases disposed of on 28.02.2013. Both these judgments are produced at Annexures-H and K respectively. Special leave petition filed against the order passed by the Division Bench referred to above has been dismissed on 09.09.2013. 7. This judgment has been confirmed in W.A. No. 5127/2012 and W.A. Nos. 5831-61/2012 and connected cases disposed of on 28.02.2013. Both these judgments are produced at Annexures-H and K respectively. Special leave petition filed against the order passed by the Division Bench referred to above has been dismissed on 09.09.2013. 7. Further developments that have taken place are that as per the Government order dated 07.07.2009, 2nd respondent – Society was permitted to establish 29 Morarji Desai Preuniversity Colleges in different districts of the State. Condition with regard to appointments of lecturers in preuniversity colleges as stated in the said Government order was that the candidate must have secured post graduation in the concerned subject with minimum 50% marks to be entitled for being appointed through outsourcing and that preference shall be given to those who possessed additional qualification of B.Ed. As regards the post of Principal, minimum of 5 years experience in teaching was insisted for appointment through outsourcing along with other qualification required for a lecturer. Posts of principals and lecturers could be filled up by deputation from the education department. Clause 12 of the Government order made it clear that the said appointments were temporary until separate cadre and recruitment rules were framed regarding teaching and non-teaching staff of preuniversity colleges. It is as per this government order, appointments of petitioners were made through outsourcing agency and they were continued periodically. 8. By the impugned orders, decision has been taken by the Society which has been communicated to the department of social welfare thereby informing them that with effect from the academic year 2016-17, no appointments shall be made through outsourcing at district level for the 29 preuniversity colleges because the results of 2nd PU examination announced in March 2016 were not satisfactory and hence it had been decided to improve the quality of education in those colleges, therefore, for the academic year 2016-17 steps shall be taken to appoint such of the qualified high school teachers possessing required qualification of M.A. and M.Sc working in high schools by deputing them to teach as lecturers in preuniversity colleges. In that regard, process of securing the willingness of concerned high school teachers was initiated. 9. In that regard, process of securing the willingness of concerned high school teachers was initiated. 9. All this is evident from impugned orders produced at Annexures-D and E. One appointment order dated 28.05.2016 whereunder a high school teacher by name Suma R. Mugadur has been appointed as a lecturer in Chemistry in the Preuniversity Science College at Savanur has been produced at AnnexureE1. Aggrieved by this process initiated to dispense with the services of petitioners as lecturers appointed though outsourcing in the various preuniversity colleges by resorting to appointment of qualified high school teachers on deputation in their posts, petitioners have approached this Court seeking aforementioned reliefs. 10. Learned Senior counsel Sri Lakshminarayan appearing for petitioners has raised several contentions. In support of the claim for regularization of services of petitioners or in the alternative, for grant of weightage to them in fresh recruitment to be made, he has placed strong reliance on the judgment rendered in the writ petition confirmed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal referred to above. In this connection, he urges that as per the judgment of the Division Bench, service weightage has been given even to those candidates appointed through outsourcing and therefore, petitioners being similarly placed, they cannot be discriminated against. 11. He has contended that teachers from high school cannot be deputed to work as lecturers in preuniversity colleges merely because they possessed similar qualification because the two cadres were different and deputation could only be to an equivalent post. He has mainly urged that impugned order passed by the Executive Director in this regard is without authority of law. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India & Another, (2012) 7 SCC 757 (Paragraphs 13 and 14) wherein it is held that ordinarily transfers on deputations are made as against equivalent post from one cadre to another, one department to another, one organization to another or one Government to another. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of B. Thirumal Vs. Union of India & Another, (2012) 7 SCC 757 (Paragraphs 13 and 14) wherein it is held that ordinarily transfers on deputations are made as against equivalent post from one cadre to another, one department to another, one organization to another or one Government to another. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of B. Thirumal Vs. Ananda Sivakumar & Others, (2014) 16 SCC 593 (Paragraph 25) to urge that if any upgradation/redesignation is granted as a matter of cause without any selection process and merely on the incumbent acquiring a degree qualification, there was no reason to treat such upgradation/redesignation as a case of appointment to the said service by transfer. It is urged by him that nature of training and caliber required to teach the students of Preuniversity college are totally different from the one required to teach high school students, therefore, an illtrained teacher cannot be appointed to teach in the preuniversity colleges. He has placed reliance on the following judgments: Andhra Kesari Educational Society Vs. Director of School Education & Others, (1989) 1 SCC 392 (Paragraph 20), State of Orissa & Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 (Paragraphs 26 and 29). 12. As regards the alleged arbitrary and unfair manner in which the service of petitioners have been dispensed with, he has pointed out that petitioners were entitled to be treated fairly and they had legitimate expectation to have their services regularized and denial of such an opportunity was illegal and opposed to law. In this regard, he has drawn assistance of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Limited & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, (2007) 2 SCC 640 (Paragraph 183), Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited Vs. Girja Shankar Pant & Others, (2001) 1 SCC 182 . He has emphasized the fact that in these judgments, the Apex Court has observed that the object of natural justice was not only to secure justice but also to prevent miscarriage of justice. 13. Girja Shankar Pant & Others, (2001) 1 SCC 182 . He has emphasized the fact that in these judgments, the Apex Court has observed that the object of natural justice was not only to secure justice but also to prevent miscarriage of justice. 13. He invites the attention of the Court to certain documents filed along with a memo dated 12.07.2016 to contend that 2nd respondent – Society has made appointments of 82 high school teachers as lecturers in Morarji Desai preuniversity colleges as against the post held by some of petitioners that too during the pendency of these writ petitions though making a mention therein specifically that such appointments and postings were subject to the result of these writ petitions. 14. Learned Senior counsel Sri Lakshminarayan further submits that as per 2012 Rules framed by regulating the appointments of lecturers in preuniversity colleges, all 29 posts can be filled only by direct recruitment. Therefore, question of filling up of these posts by deputing high school teachers did not arise as the same was not permissible. He has urged that judgment in Umadevi’s case rendered by the Apex Court will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: Nihal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2013) 14 SCC 65 (Paragraphs 20 and 37), Malathi Das (Retired) Now P.B. Mahishy Vs. Suresh & Others, (2014) 13 SCC 249 (Paragraphs 9 and 13). 15. In support of his contention that direction of the society which was without jurisdiction cannot be ratified, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: Devasahayam (Dead) by LRs. Vs. P. Savithramma & Others, (2005) 7 SCC 653 ; State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Others Etc., AIR 2012 SC 364 ; Ritesh Tewari & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2010) 10 SCC 677 , Marathwada University Vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan, (1989) 3 SCC 132 (Paragraphs 27 to 29). 16. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent – Society Sri Jayakumar S. Patil has strongly refuted the contentions urged by petitioners’ counsel. He has sought to distinguish the judgment rendered by this Court in the writ petition confirmed in writ appeal, which pertained to teachers appointed in the high schools and their claim for absorption and weightage. 16. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent – Society Sri Jayakumar S. Patil has strongly refuted the contentions urged by petitioners’ counsel. He has sought to distinguish the judgment rendered by this Court in the writ petition confirmed in writ appeal, which pertained to teachers appointed in the high schools and their claim for absorption and weightage. It is urged by him that in the said writ petitions, question involved was with regard to interpretation and application of the regulations framed regarding service weightage to be given to teachers, whereas the present case pertained to appointment of lecturers in preuniversity colleges wherein no such regulation providing service weightage has been enacted and no such question falls for consideration. It is his submission that appointments as teachers to the high school run by 2nd respondent – Society were governed by 2011 Rules wherein provision for absorption and weightage were made confining it to the contract employees appointed by the Society but denying the same to those appointed by way of outsourcing from 2004 onwards. In that context, the Division Bench held that even the teachers who were appointed from 2004 onwards through outsourcing were entitled for service weightage as per the rules. 17. He invites the attention of the Court to the statement of objections filed by the society and the regulations framed called Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society (Cadre and Recruitment) (Amendment) Regulations, 2013 dated 07.08.2013 produced at Annexure-R3 to contend that provision for granting weightage was done away with in respect of contract teachers and therefore, in the absence of any provision for service weightage in the regulation framed, this Court cannot issue any direction to provide weightage for the period of service rendered by petitioners purely on temporary basis. 18. Sri Patil has pointed out that appointments were not made by inviting applications from eligible candidates by way of open competition. Their services were made available through outsourcing agencies on specific stipulation and condition that it was purely as a temporary arrangement hence, they cannot claim any right for being considered for grant of weightage let alone for regularization. He urges that such a recourse is strongly deprecated by the judgment of the Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case and therefore, petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their services or for that matter, extension of any benefit of weightage. He urges that such a recourse is strongly deprecated by the judgment of the Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case and therefore, petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their services or for that matter, extension of any benefit of weightage. He has also contended that the recruitment was not made by any committee by following any prescribed rules and adopting the policy of reservation as they were purely adhoc and hence, the said appointments not being regular recruitments fell within the mischief of Umadevi’s case. He has taken me through the judgment of the Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case to support his contention. With regard to the proposal to depute high school teachers to teach in the preuniversity colleges, he has contended that such a measure has been contemplated and initiated purely as a temporary step pending filling up of posts by regular recruitment in terms of the recruitment rules now framed. 19. He also points out that the appointing authority for the posts of lecturers continued to be the executive officer as per the rules even after amendment. It is his submission that the competency of the executive officer to make the appointment by way of deputation of qualified high school teachers to the posts of lecturers cannot be subject matter of challenge in the present proceeding at the instance of petitioners unless they establish their right for regularization or for that matter for weightage. 20. The State Government has not filed any statement of objections. It has not taken any definite stand in the matter. 21. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and in the light of the various contentions raised, following questions fall for consideration: (a) Whether petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services in the posts of lecturers of preuniversity colleges run by 2nd respondent? (b) Whether petitioners are similarly placed as that of writ petitioners in W.P. Nos. 20204-20364/2011 and connected cases and are, therefore, entitled for weightage of service rendered by them in their respective preuniversity colleges? (c) Whether petitioners are entitled to contend that appointments made to the posts held by them by deputing high school teachers possessing the qualification of M.A. and M.Sc. in their respective subjects was without authority of law and illegal? 20204-20364/2011 and connected cases and are, therefore, entitled for weightage of service rendered by them in their respective preuniversity colleges? (c) Whether petitioners are entitled to contend that appointments made to the posts held by them by deputing high school teachers possessing the qualification of M.A. and M.Sc. in their respective subjects was without authority of law and illegal? If answer to this question is in the affirmative, then, whether appointments made on deputation of high school teachers to the preuniversity colleges as lecturers is illegal and unsustainable? (d) What is the relief, to which petitioners are entitled? 22. Admittedly, petitioners have been appointed purely on temporary basis by an outsourcing agency. Though they have worked for the period ranging from 2009-10 onwards upto 2015-16 with some intermittent breaks in some cases, fact remains that they are all appointed purely on adhoc and temporary basis. No advertisement notifying the posts and inviting applications from the intending candidates was issued. It was not an open competition where petitioners participated and emerged successful. Therefore, it cannot be said that recruitment was made regularly and in terms of the Rules of recruitment or as per the Constitutional Scheme required to be followed in the matter of appointment to any post under the instrumentality of the State. The Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi & Others, reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 , has categorically held that orders of regularization or permanent continuance of employees who were appointed on ad hoc or daily wage basis would defeat the concept of social justice and equal opportunity for all and that the Courts must desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such persons and issuing directions for continuance of those who had not secured regular appointments as per procedure established. Hence, having regard to the nature of appointment of these teachers who were selected purely on temporary and ad hoc basis through an outsourcing agency and not by inviting applications from all eligible candidates aspiring to participate in the open competition for selection and appointment, petitioners cannot be held entitled for regularization of their service in the post of lecturers which they were holding temporarily. 23. 23. Point No.2: As regards the claim for grant of weightage of service rendered by them in their respective Preuniversity colleges on the basis of the order passed in W.P. Nos. 20204-20364/2011, it has to be stated that those writ petitions had been filed challenging the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society (Cadre & Recruitment) Regulations, 2011, insofar as it related to grant of service weightage only to members and teachers appointed by the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society denying similar treatment to the appointments of teachers made to high schools run by the Society through outsourcing agency. It is necessary to notice that 2011 regulations framed by the Society governed appointment of teachers to high schools. They specifically provided for grant of weightage for service rendered by such of the teachers who had served in the high school. But, while making such provision, benefit was confined only to such of the contract teachers who were directly appointed by the Society and not to those who were appointed through outsourcing agency. In such circumstance, this Court held that having regard to the nature of their appointment, length of service and the existence of the rule providing for weightage to the service rendered by them, there could be no discrimination between the teachers appointed by the Society and those appointed through agency. Hence, on the principle of equality and nondiscrimination of similarly placed persons, benefit of the rule framed extending service weightage was extended to all teachers. 24. In the instant case, there is no such discriminatory treatment alleged by petitioners. There are no two sets of teachers one appointed by the Society, another appointed by the outsourcing agency. All the teachers are appointed as lecturers to Preuniversity colleges through outsourcing agency. The most important aspect that distinguishes these cases is the absence of any rule providing for benefit of weightage. The new recruitment rules framed in the year 2012 dispenses with the benefit of service weightage given to the temporary teachers. So far as the Preuniversity college is concerned, the cadre and recruitment rules do not provide for any such weightage. In the absence of any rule, this Court cannot issue a direction to grant service weightage to the petitioners by reckoning their service in the respective Preuniversity colleges. 25. So far as the Preuniversity college is concerned, the cadre and recruitment rules do not provide for any such weightage. In the absence of any rule, this Court cannot issue a direction to grant service weightage to the petitioners by reckoning their service in the respective Preuniversity colleges. 25. Unless this Court comes to the conclusion that the recruitment was made on a regular basis by open competition taking note of the comparative merits of the candidates, it is not desirable to issue such a direction to extend service weightage recognizing such adhocand temporary service rendered by teachers who were appointed through outsourcing agency. Therefore, the contention urged by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P. Nos. 20204-20364/2011 and connected cases disposed of on 13.7.2012 confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench, petitioners are also entitled for service weightage cannot be accepted. 26. Though several judgments have been cited in this regard, none of these judgments have any application to the facts of the present case, particularly in the wake of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case. The temporary employees who have approached this Court seeking direction to extend benefit of service weightage have failed to show that the relevant recruitment rules imposed any legal duty on the appointing authority to take note of the past services rendered by them or that any right is vested in them to seek such benefit. In the absence of such provision in the rule, this Court will not normally issue any such direction granting service weightage. It is also necessary to notice here that the appointments which were subject matter of the writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 20204-20364/2011 were to the post of high school teachers as per the cadre and recruitment rules in force, whereas, the appointments now made are to the posts of lecturers in the Preuniversity colleges. Hence, the order passed in the said writ petition cannot be automatically made applicable to these cases. 27. Point No.3 and 4:Insofar as the other questions that petitioners have raised with regard to legality or otherwise of the action of the Society in deputing high school teaches possessing qualification of M.A. and M.Sc. Hence, the order passed in the said writ petition cannot be automatically made applicable to these cases. 27. Point No.3 and 4:Insofar as the other questions that petitioners have raised with regard to legality or otherwise of the action of the Society in deputing high school teaches possessing qualification of M.A. and M.Sc. to work as lecturers in Preuniversity colleges, there is no provision made in the Government Order dated 7.7.2009 under which 29 colleges in the name and style of Morarji Desai Preuniversity colleges were established in different districts enabling such deputation of teachers working in the high school to discharge their duties as lecturers in the Preuniversity colleges. It is true, for the purpose of appointment as lecturer, the candidate must have secured 50% marks in the post graduation course in the concerned subject. As per Clause11 of the Government Order the post of lecturer could be filled up on deputation from the Education Department. Clause12 makes it clear that the said appointments were purely temporary and were made as a temporary arrangement only till the cadre and recruitment rules were framed. Therefore, in the absence of any provision made in the Government Order providing for appointment of lecturers in the Preuniversity colleges by posting the high school teachers on deputation, there was absolutely no justification and legal basis for the Executive Officer of the Society to post such high school teachers in the place of the petitioners. Such a recourse has been adopted on the ground that results of the Preuniversity students studying in Morarji Desai Preuniversity Colleges spread over in the State for the academic year 2015 was not satisfactory. 28. While the Society is entitled to dispense with the service of the petitioners in accordance with law particularly keeping in mind that services of the petitioners were purely adhoc, the action initiated must be in accordance with law and the appointments made to the posts held by the petitioners has to be traceable to the authority and power conferred under the relevant Government Order or the Rules. Merely because high school teachers who are teaching the high school students also possessed MA and M.Sc. qualification, they cannot be posted on deputation to teach students of Preuniversity course in Preuniversity colleges. In the absence of any such provision in the Government Order, this action of the Executive Officer cannot be sustained. Merely because high school teachers who are teaching the high school students also possessed MA and M.Sc. qualification, they cannot be posted on deputation to teach students of Preuniversity course in Preuniversity colleges. In the absence of any such provision in the Government Order, this action of the Executive Officer cannot be sustained. The fact that, Secretary of the Department has approved a proposal in this regard could not cure the defect. No Government Order is produced to show that a decision had been indeed taken by the Government and an order was issued authorizing the Executive Officer to take recourse to such a measure of deputing high school teachers to teach in the Preuniversity colleges. 29. The contention urged by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Sri Jayakumar S. Patil that at the instance of the petitioners this question need not be gone into cannot be accepted because petitioners have been working as lecturers in the Preuniversity colleges. They have been continued from time to time. If they have to be replaced by others, it has to be only by appointing qualified persons in accordance with law. Therefore in my view the decision taken by the Executive Officer to depute the high school teachers to teach in the Preuniversity college is illegal and without authority of law. 30. There is no application of mind to the nature of training required to be imparted to the college students studying in Preuniversity course. The capability and equipment required to impart training and education to the Preuniversity students has not been examined. Therefore, such a hurried and hasty decision taken cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, points 3 and 4 are answered. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are partly allowed. Relief sought for regularization and for grant of service weightage is rejected. The action of the respondents in appointing high school teachers as lecturers in Preuniversity colleges on deputation is declared as illegal and without authority of law. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to make appointments to the posts of lecturers in Preuniversity colleges in accordance with law.