JUDGMENT : Though this appeal is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally. 2. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 11.07.2019 passed in W.P.Nos.28646-28681/2019 by the learned Single Judge, by which, it has been held that writ petitioners were not entitled for regularization. 3. It was the case of the writ petitioners that they were appointed by the 2nd respondent – Institution which was an Institution registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and is an autonomous body imparting medical education. It was their contention that they were appointed for a block period of six months and they had thereafter been working in the institution continuously for a period ranging from six to ten years and more. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners contended that the prayer sought in the writ petitions was a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners for regularization of their service, grant of weightage and age relaxation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submitted that in respect of similarly placed persons, this Court, in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.3405-3431/2015 & connected matters, passed an order on 25.02.2019 in respect of very same Institution. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submitted that the writ petitioners would be satisfied if similar directions were issued in respect of them also and in essence the prayer made by the writ petitioners was to this effect. 7. In W.P.Nos.3405-3431/2015 & connected matters, a learned Single Judge of this Court while considering the claim of similarly placed employees passed an order. The relevant portion of the order which can be found at paragraphs 7 to 10 read as under : “7. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that these matters may be disposed of while fixing a time frame for the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners. In the light of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent-State Government, the State Government shall consider the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent and pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. In the light of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent-State Government, the State Government shall consider the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent and pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. Needless to observe that the services of the petitioners shall not be terminated since there is an interim order in favour of the petitioners protecting their services, till their representation and the recommendation of the 2nd respondent is considered by the 1st respondent – State Government. 9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners point out to the interim orders issued by this Court, reserving 102 posts of staff nurses for consideration of the case of the petitioners from out of the 600 posts that were to be filled by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the respondents may be directed to keep the 102 posts reserved as has been stated in the recommendation dated 15.02.2019 made by the 2nd respondent to 1st the respondent – State Government. It is further pointed out that there are 169 petitioners before this Court, and only 102 posts were directed to be kept vacant for filling up of the posts. 10. The interim orders directing the 2nd respondent to keep the 102 posts reserved for the petitioners, shall continue till the case of the petitioners, shall continue till the case of the petitioners are treated in terms of the directions given above. Even otherwise, further vacancies would have occurred and therefore the interest of other petitioners i.e., 67 of them who did not have the benefit of interim order shall also be considered by the 2nd respondent before they proceed to issue fresh notification.” 8. In view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the above mentioned writ petitions and in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, we feel it would be appropriate to pass similar directions in case of the writ petitioners/appellants in this case also. 9. The view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order that the writ petitioners had not made out a case for seeking regularization would not be proper and appropriate since, in similar cases, directions have already been issued in respect of similarly placed persons working in the same Institution. 9. The view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order that the writ petitioners had not made out a case for seeking regularization would not be proper and appropriate since, in similar cases, directions have already been issued in respect of similarly placed persons working in the same Institution. We are, therefore, of the view that it would be appropriate to issue similar directions on the ground of parity. 10. In the result, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and is substituted by the similar directions issued in W.P.Nos.3405-3431/2015 and connected matters disposed of on 25.02.2019. 11. It is hereby clarified that the appellants also shall not be terminated from service and shall be continued till their representations are considered by respondent No.1/State. The State shall also take into consideration, the recommendation, if any, made in respect of the appellants or similarly situated persons working in the Institution. Appeal is allowed and disposed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.