JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second and third respondents herein to regularize the petitioner services as a Clerk (Assistant) and confer regular time scale of pay with due regards to petitioner's seniority.) 1. The writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents, to regularize the petitioner's services as a Clerk (Assistant) and confer regular time scale of pay with due regards to petitioner's seniority. 2. The petitioner states that he joined as a Clerk in the year 1997 in the 3rd respondent / Government Polytechnic College Hostel. While so, he was not permitted to continue his duties with effect from June 2014 onwards. The petitioner was paid with the consolidated pay of Rs.12,100/- per month as on March 2014. Initially, he was engaged as consolidated pay employee for a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month. The petitioner has sent repeated representations to regularise his services in the sanctioned post in the Government Polytechnic College Hostel. However, the said request was not considered by the authorities. The 3rd respondent on 23.05.2014, directed the writ petitioner to hand over the accounts and key to the Deputy Warden of the Hostel. The petitioner sent a reply on 26.05.2014, asking the authorities to take decision as per the service conditions. However, no order has been passed by the competent authorities. 3. The petitioner states that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, passed an order bringing the Government Hostel as establishment within the meaning of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions of the Act, 1952. In view of the fact that the petitioner was continuously working for several years, his case is to be considered for grant of regularisation and permanent absorption. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that in the place of the writ petitioner, another consolidated employee was appointed. Temporary employment cannot be replaced with another temporary employee and therefore, the case of the writ petitioner is to be considered for regular appointment. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader objected the said contentions by stating that the writ petitioner was not even appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force. He was engaged as consolidated pay employee on temporary basis and no appointment order was issued during the relevant point of time. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader objected the said contentions by stating that the writ petitioner was not even appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force. He was engaged as consolidated pay employee on temporary basis and no appointment order was issued during the relevant point of time. He was engaged as temporary part time Accountant in the Hostel to look after the Hostel accounts and the key was also handed over to him. Since, he was a part time Assistant, his services were discharged on account of the fact that his services were not needed for the Hostel. The appointment of the writ petitioner was made to look after the Hostel records and it was not a full time job. Thus, the request of the writ petitioner for grant of regularisation was not considered. 6. It is contented that the writ petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the Service Rules in force in the sanctioned post and therefore, he has no right to claim the benefit of regularisation or permanent absorption. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that certain other temporary employees are also working in similar manner on temporary basis. Nearly about 12 such part time employees were engaged in the Hostel by the authorities to perform various jobs. However, it is not made clear, whether such posts were sanctioned by the Government or not, since, the 3rd respondent is a Government Polytechnic College. In the event of any such sanctioned post, selection or appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that in order to meet out certain emergency circumstances or to run the students hostel, the authorities are engaging temporary employees on part time basis or on some occasions on full time basis. Question arises, whether, such appointments are made under the Constitutional scheme and under the Recruitment Rules in force. Engagement of part time employees on temporary basis would not confer any right to seek permanent absorption or regularisation, as the sanctioned posts are to be filled up through recruitment process. 9. Thus, mere engagement as part time employee would not confer any right to seek regularisation or permanent absorption. Engagement of part time employees on temporary basis would not confer any right to seek permanent absorption or regularisation, as the sanctioned posts are to be filled up through recruitment process. 9. Thus, mere engagement as part time employee would not confer any right to seek regularisation or permanent absorption. No doubt, there was a situation, which was prevailing long before by engaging part time and full time employees on temporary basis without adverting to the recruitment process. The Constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Deviand othersreported in [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ],settledthe principles to be followed for grant of regularisation and permanent absorption. 10. No doubt, the Constitution Bench in paragraph 53 of the judgment had given a one time opportunity to the respective States to regularise the services of such employees, who were otherwise appointed by following the procedures as contemplated under the rules. In other words, regarding pending proposals during the relevant point of time, when the judgment was delivered, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted those proposals to be finalised for grant of regularisation or permanent absorption. Such one time measure cannot be followed as permanent measure in order to regularise illegal or irregular appointments. 11. The very principles laid down by the Constitution Bench is to make appointments only through recruitment process as per rules in force. The Constitution Bench in unambiguous terms ruled that irregular and illegal appointments cannot be regularised. Thus, the one time permission granted in paragraph 53 of the judgment cannot be followed in perpetuity. It was intended to clear the proposals, which was pending during the relevant point of time and more so, even in such cases, the authorities competent are bound to verify, whether it is illegal or irregular appointments. It is not as if the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India directed the authorities to regularise illegal appointments. No such approval was granted by the Constitution Bench as the principles are well settled by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court of India. 12. There are subsequent judgments, following the principles laid down in the Uma Devi'scase (cited supra). No doubt, the relief of regularisation and permanent absorption was granted even by two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in certain cases after the Uma Devi'scase (cited supra). 12. There are subsequent judgments, following the principles laid down in the Uma Devi'scase (cited supra). No doubt, the relief of regularisation and permanent absorption was granted even by two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in certain cases after the Uma Devi'scase (cited supra). However, those relief were granted by considering the particular facts and circumstances of those cases. Those judgments rendered subsequent to the Uma Devi'scase by the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court have denuded to loose its status as precedent. Those judgments cannot be followed as precedent as paragraph 54 of the Constitution Bench judgment clarifies that the judgments and the Government orders running counter to the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench have denuded to loose its status as precedent. Thus, the Government orders and the subsequent judgments, granting benefits of regularisation or permanent absorption by the High Court or by the Supreme Court on certain facts cannot be followed as precedent and thus, the judgements produced in this regard cannot be relied upon for the purpose of grant of regularisation or permanent absorption. 13. Pertinently, with reference to the part time temporary appointments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary to Government, School Education Department Vs. Thiru R.Govindaswamy and Othersreported in [ (2014) 4 SCC 769 ], considered the scope of issuing direction by the High Court for grant of regularisation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considered the principles laid down in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lalreported in [ (2011) 2 SCC 429 ]and in the case of Union of India Vs. A.S.Pillaireported in [(2014) 13 SCC 448]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in clear terms ruled as follows: “8.This Court in State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. The same are as under: (SCC p. 435, para 12) (i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. (ii) Mere continuation of service by atemporary or ad hoc or daily wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be 'litigious employment'. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates. (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees. (v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute. (emphasis supplied)” 14. In the present case, the petitioner states that he was continuously engaged as part time Assistant for several years and he was discharged from services without even passing any order of termination. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute. (emphasis supplied)” 14. In the present case, the petitioner states that he was continuously engaged as part time Assistant for several years and he was discharged from services without even passing any order of termination. It is an admitted fact that no appointment order was issued nor any order of termination was issued. 15. The petitioner accepting the terms and conditions of the employment, served in the Hostel and therefore, he cannot turn around and seek the benefits of regularisation or permanent absorption in violation of the Recruitment Rules. 16. The respondents state that the petitioner was engaged as part time Assistant to maintain the students Hostel records and he has not handed over the key on his discharge from service and in this regard, the respondents filed a Criminal complaint before the jurisdictional Police Station. The fact regarding the discharge of the writ petitioner was disputed by the petitioner, stating that no order of termination or discharge was issued. Therefore, he has not handed over the key. However, these facts may not be relevant and deserves no further consideration. 17. At the outset, the writ petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force in a sanctioned post. If at all the posts are sanctioned by the Government, then the respondents are bound to appoint persons in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force by affording equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates, who all are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process. Rule of reservation is to be followed under the Constitutional scheme of appointments. Equal opportunity in public employment is the mandate. Thus, in the event of undertaking the process of selection, appointments for sanctioned posts, the procedures are to be scrupulously followed. 18. In the present, case no process of selection was undertaken during the relevant point of time nor any appointment order was issued to the writ petitioner. He was allowed to continue as part time Assistant to maintain the Hostel records. However, the petitioner was not allowed to work after June 2014 onwards. 18. In the present, case no process of selection was undertaken during the relevant point of time nor any appointment order was issued to the writ petitioner. He was allowed to continue as part time Assistant to maintain the Hostel records. However, the petitioner was not allowed to work after June 2014 onwards. This being the factum established, this Court is of the considered opinion that benefit of regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be granted by this Court by exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in unequivocal terms held that the High Court in exercising powers of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not issue direction on regularisation or permanent absorption, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been determined in pursuance of the regular recruitment in the relevant rules through open competitive process, even in case of sanctioned post. In view of the fact that the essential principles for regular appointment has not been complied in the appointment of the writ petitioner as part time Assistant, the relief as such sought for cannot be granted. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.