JUDGMENT W.P. (C) Nos.19114, 19116, 19117, 19118, 19121, 19124, 19125, 19126, 19129 and 19130 of 2016. 09.10.2017. In this batch of writ petitions, temporary employees of Shree Jagannath Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, Puri have prayed for regularisation of their service w.e.f. their respective dates of engagement with all consequential benefits. In W.P. (C) No.19114 of 2016, the petitioner Prasana Kumar Mohanty was engaged as an Electrician by the University on daily wage basis since 17.04.1989. In W.P. (C) No.19116 of 2016, the petitioner Lalita Devi Gochhayat was engaged as a Sweeper by the University on daily wage basis since 14.10.1991. In W.P. (C) No.19117 of 2016, the petitioner Saroja Kumar Mishra was engaged as a Watchman by the University on daily wage basis since 15.01.1995. In W.P. (C) No.19118 of 2016, the petitioner Bhajaman Behera was engaged as a Gardener by the University on daily wage basis since 05.02.1989. In W.P. (C) No.19121 of 2016, the petitioner Pratap Kumar Behera was engaged as a Watchman-cum-Peon by the University on daily wage basis since 08.05.1995. In W.P. (C) No.19124 of 2016, the petitioner Jung Bahadur Thappa was engaged as a Security Guard by the University on daily wage basis since 19.05.1990. In W.P. (C) No.19125 of 2016, the petitioner Ajay Kumar Biswal has been working as a Watchman by the University on daily wage basis since 08.08.1990. In W.P. (C) No.19126 of 2016, the petitioner Sridhar Panda working as a Peon was engaged by the University on daily wage basis since 21.03.1990. In W.P. (C) No.19129 of 2016, the petitioner Rabindra Kumar Mohapatra was engaged as a Peon by the University on daily wage basis since 21.03.1990. In W.P. (C) No.19130 of 2016, the petitioner Prativa Behera presently working as Technical Assistant in the Central Library was engaged by the University on daily wage basis since 01.11.1988. In all these cases, appointment letters have been issued by the opposite party No.2. 2. It is the case of the petitioners in all the cases that they have been engaged on daily wage basis initially and their services have been extended from time to time and since their dates of appointment they are discharging their duties regularly. Furthermore, it is apparent from the records of all these cases that the petitioners were appointed by virtue of due selection procedure. Furthermore, it is apparent from the records of all these cases that the petitioners were appointed by virtue of due selection procedure. In the year 1998, a writ petition was filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bearing O.J.C. No.5441 of 1998 for regularization of their services and some of them are petitioners in this batch of writ petitions. After hearing the parties, the Division Bench of this Court on 11.08.2008 passed the following operative order: “On consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rath, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties, we dispose of these writ applications directing that in the event, the list of such employees has been submitted and any of the petitioners name does not appear in the list as per the schedule, their names may be included in the list to that their cases can be considered for regularization. This exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.” 3. It is the case of the opposite party that as per the direction of this Court, opposite party No.2 scrutinized all the papers and prepared a list of names of the petitioners for absorption of NMR/DLR/Job contract workers under the regular establishment. Same was forwarded to the Higher Education Department for implementation of order passed by this Court in letter No.4235 of 2008 SJSV, Puri dated 04.10.2008. It is the further case of the opposite parties that in absence of sanctioned post, the services of the petitioners cannot be regularized and the Government have already been requested in phases for creation of different non-teaching posts. It is also stated that very recently, the State Government has been requested for creation of posts for all such employees including the petitioners vide letter No.4448 dated 08.12.2016 for their absorption in service. The specific case of the opposite parties is that the University through its Registrar has stated in its counter affidavit that the petitioners’ case cannot be considered for regularization in absence of sanctioned post and in absence of due procedure for any competitive selection. Hence, the services of the petitioners cannot be regularized without any sanctioned post or cannot be considered at University level. 4. Hence, the services of the petitioners cannot be regularized without any sanctioned post or cannot be considered at University level. 4. In course of hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioners relies on the ratio decided in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 and submits that the State or its instrumentalities cannot exploit its employees by taking recourse to the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (supra) held that temporary, contractual or daily wage employees do not have legal right to claim for absorption on regular basis unless he has been appointed in terms of relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Hon’ble Supreme Court however made one exception to the above proposition and the same has been reflected in paragraph 53 of the judgment. It is appropriate to quote the exact words used by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appoints) 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.” 6. Thus, it is apparent from the exception of principles against regularisation enunciated in State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (supra) following conditions are to be followed: (1) The employees concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in the duly sanctioned post, but without the intervention of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure. (2) Where appointments are made and the applicants do not possess prescribed minimum qualification, the appointment should be considered to be illegal. But where the employee possesses the prescribed qualification and was working against the sanctioned post, but has been selected without undertaking the process of the competent selection such appointments are considered to be legal. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (supra) casts a duty on the Government and its instrumentalities concerned to take steps to regularise the services of them without being under protection of any interim order by the Court or Tribunal as one time measure. But in the case, it is seen that though such a direction has been given to the State Government and its instrumentalities, no such process has been taken up by the Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya in the case of State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (supra). Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the term ‘one time measure’ has to be understood in its proper perspective. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that this should be normally made immediately after taking of the decision. One time measure need not be taken in case of the ad hoc employees who have been working for more than 10 years. They should be subjected to verification as to whether they were working in the past and their services can be regularised. In this case, since no procedure having followed and the no direction having been given by the University, the petitioners are suffering. They should be subjected to verification as to whether they were working in the past and their services can be regularised. In this case, since no procedure having followed and the no direction having been given by the University, the petitioners are suffering. It is seen that though the Division Bench order in O.J.C. No.5441 of 1998 has been passed on 11.08.2008, the opposite parties wrote a letter to the HLO-Deputy Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department for implementation of this order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition of the year 1988. But it is borne out from the records that no decision has been taken thereof but thereafter on 08.12.2016 as per letter No.4448/16, the Registrar of the aforesaid University i.e. opposite party No.2 has again written a letter for creation of non-teaching posts to the Joint Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Thus, a direction to the State Government in the Higher Education Department would serve the purpose of justice. However, the State Government has not been made a party in these writ applications. So, following the principles laid down in the case of State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (supra), this Court directs that the opposite parties shall, within three months of receipt of this judgment, undertake an exercise as one time regularisation scheme to find out whether there are daily wage, casual, work charged and any such employees as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (supra), if they have fulfilled the criteria, their services have to be regularised. This Court further concludes and directed that even if those persons have not been working against sanctioned vacant posts and since they are continuing for more than 20 years, they should be appointed on regular basis. In this connection, the opposite parties are directed to move the Government to create appropriate posts for their appointment on regular basis, if the opposite parties are willing to continue the services of these petitioners. 8. Hence, all the writ applications are disposed of directing the opposite parties to comply the aforesaid two directions by its letter and spirit and should not show any laxity in taking steps for compliance of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Hence, all the writ applications are disposed of directing the opposite parties to comply the aforesaid two directions by its letter and spirit and should not show any laxity in taking steps for compliance of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Application disposed of.