ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the endorsement dated 31.03.2015 issued by the third Respondent at Annexure-D whereby the claim of the Petitioner for regularization of his services has been rejected. Petitioner has also sough for a Writ of Mandamus to the second Respondent to consider his representation dated 24.04.2014 seeking regularization of his services in terms of the Judgment of this Court made on 24.04.2014 in his earlier Writ Petition No.66436/2012 (SRES). 2. The brief facts stated are : (a) The Petitioner a post graduate in Political Science holds a Doctoral Degree in the field of Human Rights. He was appointed on 07.08.1995 as a part time Lecturer in Political Science to the vacancy in the sanctioned post in the Respondent-Institution. (b) The Petitioner had made a representation way back in August, 2005 requesting the jurisdictional Respondents to regularize his services in terms of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the famous case of Dharwad Distt. PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees’ Association Vs. The State of Karnataka reported in 1990 (2) SCC 396 and also in accord with the Government Order dated 06.08.1990. (c) Since his representation was not considered with no justification whatsoever, the Petitioner had filed W.P.No.2755/2007 and this Court by Judgment dated 09.04.2007 had directed the consideration of his request regularization. (d) His request for regularization in terms of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case ( 2006 4 SCC 1 ) was turned down and therefore Petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.66436/2012 (SRES) which came to be disposed off on 24.04.2014 quashing the endorsement refusing regularization. A mandamus was also issued to consider Petitioner’s case afresh. (e) The third Respondent considered the request of the Petitioner for regularization and rejected the request by the impugned endorsement on the ground that the Petitioner’s part time services were not approved by the Department; the services of the Petitioner’s were made full time by the management only in the year 2002; the Government Order dated 01.03.2001 treats all vacant posts in the aided institutions to be permanently unaided and consequently Uma Devi Case is un-invocable. 3. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Smt. Sunita P. Kalasoor, vehemently contends that admittedly the Petitioner is eligible and qualified; he was appointed as a part Time Lecturer in August 1995 by the competent management after screening; in 2002 the very same management having been satisfied with the quality of his services made him a full time lecturer again against the vacancy in the sanctioned post. 4. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that, the services of the Petitioner have been continuous and uninterrupted to the full satisfaction of the management and the community of the students ; the fact that the Petitioner has been so working since 1995 i.e. nearly about 23 years itself goes to show that the services of the Petitioner are virtually on permanent basis with all the service conditions as are applicable to regular duties. 5. The learned counsel Smt. Kalasoor also submits that the case of the Petitioner for regularization is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi’s Case mentioned supra and in any circumstance it is fully supported by the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.L. Kesari ( AIR 2010 SC 2587 ) . 6. Learned counsel for the State Sri Anthony R. Rodrigues opposes the contention of the Petitioner on the ground that the regularization is completely blocked by the decision of the Apex Court in Uma Devi’s Case except to the extent specifically mentioned therein and that the case of the Petitioner does not fall within the exception. He also points out that, the decision of the Apex Court in M.L.Kesari’s Case does not advance the case of the Petitioner. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions advanced at the Bar. Admittedly, Petitioner is a post graduate in Political Science and he has been awarded P.hd. in the Branch of Human Right ; there is no issue as to the Petitioner being qualified and eligible for regular appointment. 8. The Petitioner has been admittedly in the employ of the fourth and fifth Respondent-Institution as a Part Time Lecturer working in the vacancy against the sanctioned post since August, 1995; later in the year 2002 he was upgraded to the Full Time Lecturer-ship; there is no complaint or allegation either from the Management or from the Respondent Authorities or from the Community of students all these years. 9. 9. The Petitioner had approached this Court for the first time by filing Writ Petition No.2755/2007 in which a Writ was issued on 09.04.2007 to consider his claim for regularization; he approached this Court second time in Writ Petition No.66436/2012 (SRES) and this Court had allowed the same quashing the impugned endorsement dated 06.02.2009 which had denied regularization. The matter was remanded for consideration afresh. 10. Again the third Respondent has issued almost identical endorsement dated 31.03.2015 at Annexure-D to the Writ Petition stating that petitioner’s case does not fit into the ratio of Uma Devi’s Case and that the Government in its Order dated 01.03.2001 has directed to treat all vacant posts of Teaching and Non-Teaching in the aided institutions as and to be permanently inadmissible for grant. 11. The case of the Petitioner in my considered view squarely falls within the ratio of Uma Devi Case and Kesari Case. The Government Order of 2001 mentioned in the impugned endorsement cannot silence the right to regularization of services of the employees who have put in long and spotless service having been irregularly appointed. Therefore, the Writ Petition is meritorious and the Petitioner is entitled to succeed. 12. Ordinarily the claim for regularization is a matter for the consideration of the concerned Respondents and therefore, matter would have been remanded for fresh consideration. But here is a case where the Petitioner was made to approach this Court as many as three times by spending his money and valuable time. Every occasion the impugned Orders have been issued almost on identical set of reasons. Therefore, this is a fit case to grant substantive relief to the Petitioner. 13. In the facts and circumstances stated above, I make the following order: (i) The Writ Petition is allowed; (ii) A Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned endorsement dated 31.03.2015 issued by the third Respondent at Annexure-D to the Writ Petition; (iii) A writ of mandamus issues to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to regularize or cause to be regularize the services of the Petitioner in the post of Lecturer within three months after obtaining necessary information and records from the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein.