JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar, CJ. - Unemployment and its attendant evils still loom large in an ideal-driven society aiming at Utopia, akin to the characteristic elephant in the room! Diverse, if not contradictory, decisions on the fate and destiny of those who secured employment through less than conventional means continue to fuel litigation on concomitant issues and in particular, regularization of services. 2. Presently, the State of Manipur is in appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.01.2021 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No.895 of 2018. Thereby, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 13.07.2018 and directed the authorities to regularize the services of the writ petitioner as a Peon/Grade-IV in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishnupur, against an existing vacancy. 3. Heard Mr. Samarjit Hawaibam, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the appellant; and Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1, the petitioner in W.P(C) No.895 of 2018. 4. Respondent No.1 was initially engaged as a Peon in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishnupur, for a period of one year, vide order dated 02.05.1998 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur. His appointment was against the substantial vacancy caused by retirement of the incumbent. His engagement was extended for a period of one year, by order dated 24.05.1999 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur. It appears that the authorities advertised the vacancy in a Grade-IV post in the Department of Revenue, Government of Manipur, in the year 2006 and respondent No.1 also participated in the selection, but the result thereof was never declared. He claimed that he continued to work without complaint in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishnupur. In consequence, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishnupur, addressed letter dated 07.09.2016 to the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur, recommending extension/regularization of his services. However, no action was taken thereon, though his services were utilized in multiple capacities. He was also assigned election duties, vide orders dated 23.09.2016 and 05.10.2017 of the Returning Officer, Bishnupur. 5. Respondent No.1 then filed W.P(C) No.23 of 2017 before this Court seeking a direction to the authorities to regularize his services. However, no action was taken thereon, though his services were utilized in multiple capacities. He was also assigned election duties, vide orders dated 23.09.2016 and 05.10.2017 of the Returning Officer, Bishnupur. 5. Respondent No.1 then filed W.P(C) No.23 of 2017 before this Court seeking a direction to the authorities to regularize his services. This writ petition was disposed of, by order dated 20.01.2017, directing the authorities to consider regularization of his services based on the various orders on regularization issued in respect of similarly situated persons and in the light of the order passed in W.P(C) No.220 of 2016. That writ petition was filed by one Ksh. Ibopishak Singh, a Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper in the office of the Sub-Deputy Collector, Yairipok, seeking regularization of his services as such. Significantly, he was also appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal. He claimed to have put in more than 30 years of devoted service and sought regularization of his services. The said writ petition was disposed of, directing the authorities to examine his case for regular appointment. The services of Ksh. Ibopishak Singh were thereupon regularized in the post of Chowkidar in the Sub-Deputy Collector's office, Yairipok, vide order dated 26.07.2018 of the Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur. 6. Pursuant to the order in W.P(C) No.23 of 2017, the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, issued order dated 13.07.2018, rejecting respondent No.1's claim for regularization. Assailing the said order, respondent No.1 filed the subject writ petition and sought a direction to the authorities to regularize/absorb his services as a Peon/Grade-IV in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishnupur, against the existing vacancy. 7. In his affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ petition, the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, admitted that the writ petitioner was initially engaged in May, 1998, and that his services were extended in May, 1999, for another year. According to him, his engagement as a Peon was not extended thereafter. He stated that after the disposal of W.P(C) No.23 of 2017, an inquiry was made but no record was found of the engagement of respondent No.1 as a Peon after 02.04.2000. Further, it was found that approval of the Administrative Department as well as concurrence of the Finance Department had not been obtained for appointing/engaging him. He stated that after the disposal of W.P(C) No.23 of 2017, an inquiry was made but no record was found of the engagement of respondent No.1 as a Peon after 02.04.2000. Further, it was found that approval of the Administrative Department as well as concurrence of the Finance Department had not been obtained for appointing/engaging him. He asserted that the Deputy Commissioner was not the appointing authority for any post in the Revenue Department and, therefore, the initial engagement of respondent No.1 was non est in the eye of law. He sought to distinguish the case of Ksh. Ibopishak Singh, the petitioner in W.P(C) No.220 of 2016, by stating that he had continued in service throughout whereas there was no record of extension of the services of respondent No.1 after April, 2000. 8. Perusal of the judgment under appeal reflects that the learned Judge took note of the letter dated 07.09.2016 addressed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishnupur, to the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur, recording that respondent No.1 was appointed in May, 1998, and was still serving as a contract Peon-cum-Chowkidar till that date. The assertion to the contrary by the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, was therefore rejected by the learned Judge. As that was the basis for the impugned order dated 13.07.2018, the learned Judge invalidated it and directed that respondent No.1 be placed on par with Ksh. Ibopishak Singh, the petitioner in W.P(C) No.220 of 2016. The learned Judge accordingly directed the authorities to regularize the services of respondent No.1 as a Peon/Grade-IV in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishnupur, against the existing vacancy. 9. In Secretary, State of Karnataka, and others v. Uma Devi and others [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 , a Constitution Bench had held that irregular appointments of duly qualified persons against duly sanctioned vacant posts, not being illegal appointments, may be regularized, as a one-time measure, by the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities, provided such appointees worked for 10 years or more without the protection of orders of Courts or Tribunals. The Bench also stated that there should be no further bypassing of the Constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the Constitutional scheme. The Bench also stated that there should be no further bypassing of the Constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the Constitutional scheme. It appears to have been the intention of the Bench that the State should discontinue the practice of engaging even such irregular appointees by resorting to regular recruitment, but that stage has not come to pass. 10. On the other hand, in State of Jammu and Kashmir and others v. District Bar Association, Bandipora [ (2017) 3 SCC 410 , the Supreme Court held that Uma Devi (supra) is not an authority for the proposition that the executive or the legislature cannot frame a scheme for regularization. It was pointed out that an irregular or temporary appointment is not illegal if made on the basis of administrative exigency and the same would be vitiated only if the exercise was undertaken without any exigency in administration and/or where the procedure adopted was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and/or where the recruitment process was overridden by the vice of nepotism, bias or malafides. It was further held that if the appointment was not vitiated due to the above faults and if it is not an illegal appointment but only an irregular appointment, it could be regularized by framing a scheme. 11. Again, in Union of India and others v. All India Trade Union Congress and others [ (2019) 5 SCC 773 , the Supreme Court pointed out that it is the sole prerogative of the Government to frame a scheme for regularization and it is only in exceptional cases that the Court would consider it proper to issue appropriate mandatory directions. 12. Earlier, in Union of India and another v. Kartick Chandra Mondal and another [ (2010) 2 SCC 422 , the Supreme Court pointed out that even if similarly placed persons were ordered to be absorbed, it cannot become the foundation for perpetuating further illegality, if done erroneously. It was clarified that if an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be the basis for further appointments, as an erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate errors to the detriment of the general welfare of the public or a considerable section thereof. This decision therefore did not choose to draw a distinction between 'illegal' and 'irregular' appointments. 13. This decision therefore did not choose to draw a distinction between 'illegal' and 'irregular' appointments. 13. In Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra and others v. State of Orissa and others [ (2014) 4 SCC 583 , it was pointed out that Uma Devi (supra) permitted a one-time exception for regularizing services of an employee who had been irregularly appointed and not illegally. Three essentials were spelt out for such regularization, under the exception carved out in Uma Devi (supra): 1) the employees should have worked for 10(ten) years or more; (2) they should have worked in duly sanctioned posts without the benefit or protection of orders of any Court or Tribunal; and 3) they should possess the minimum qualifications stipulated for appointment. On facts, the Supreme Court held that the enactment granting regularization of service to irregularly appointed Stipendiary Engineers did not call for interference. 14. In State of Bihar and others v. Devendra Sharma [ (2020) 15 SCC 466 , the Supreme Court held, on facts, that the appointments made were not merely irregular but were illegal, in terms of the ratio laid down in Uma Devi (supra) and, therefore, the same could not be protected. 15. In R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah and another [ (1972) 1 SCC 409 , the Supreme Court held that regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment and if the appointment itself is in infraction of the Rules or in violation of Constitutional provisions, such an illegal appointment cannot be regularized, as ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there is some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. 16. In the light of this curial wisdom on the issue, it is clear that there is no embargo, as such, upon regularization of 'irregular' appointments, provided they satisfy the three essentials set out in Uma Devi (supra). In the case on hand, consideration of respondent No.1's claim for regularization and the consequential order dated 13.07.2018 stemmed out of the direction of this Court in W.P(C) No.23 of 2017. The said direction was allowed to attain finality by the authorities and, therefore, they were bound to give effect to it in true letter and spirit. In the case on hand, consideration of respondent No.1's claim for regularization and the consequential order dated 13.07.2018 stemmed out of the direction of this Court in W.P(C) No.23 of 2017. The said direction was allowed to attain finality by the authorities and, therefore, they were bound to give effect to it in true letter and spirit. The direction was essentially to consider the case of respondent No.1 for regularization in the light of the order passed in W.P(C) No.220 of 2016, as respondent No.1 drew parity with Ksh. Ibopishak Singh and claimed that he was identically situated. The State therefore had to examine that aspect in a fair and just manner. 17. However, the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, baldly stated in the impugned order dated 13.07.2018 that their cases were not comparable. According to him, Ksh. Ibopishak Singh rendered continuous service without break while respondent No.1's services were not utilized after 02.04.2000. However, the letter dated 07.09.2016 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishnupur, explicitly recorded that respondent No.1, who was engaged as a Peon under order dated 02.05.1998, was still serving till that date. It also recorded that there was a sanctioned post of Chowkidar in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishnupur, which remained vacant; and that respondent No.1 had faced a DPC in 2006. The Sub-Divisional Officer also certified therein that respondent No.1 was a sincere, honest and hardworking employee. Significantly, this letter formed part of the record in W.P(C) No.23 of 2017. It is therefore presumed to be within the knowledge of the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, even if the original thereof was not available with him. Strangely, he did not even advert to this letter in the impugned order dated 13.07.2018, despite his claim that an inquiry had been conducted in the matter. Even now, there is no explanation forthcoming from the authorities as to the contents of this letter. In effect, the conclusion drawn by the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, that there is no proof of the services of respondent No.1 being continued after 02.04.2000 is contrary to the record. To compound matters further, respondent No.1 was allotted election duties in the years 2016 and 2017 and again, in the year 2022 in relation to the 12th General Assembly Elections in the State of Manipur. The Gate-Pass issued to him is placed on record. To compound matters further, respondent No.1 was allotted election duties in the years 2016 and 2017 and again, in the year 2022 in relation to the 12th General Assembly Elections in the State of Manipur. The Gate-Pass issued to him is placed on record. It is not open to the authorities to contend, on the one hand, that he is not even in service and entrust him with such sensitive duties, on the other. 18. Though it has been feebly contended that the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur, was not the authorized appointing authority for engaging respondent No.1 in the year 1998, this argument needs mention only to be rejected. This plea was also taken in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ petition but strangely, no material was placed before the Court in support thereof. When this was the stand taken in the writ petition without any proof, the least that was expected of the State was that necessary material or rules in that regard would be made part of the record at least in this appeal. However, no such steps have been taken. This contention also falls to the ground as it is the admitted position that, after his initial appointment in May, 1998, respondent No.1 was given extension for a period of one year in May, 1999. If the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur, had no power to make such an appointment, there is no explanation forthcoming as to why the extension was permitted. Notably, the initial appointment order dated 02.05.1998 and also the extension order dated 24.05.1999 were marked to the Revenue Department, Government of Manipur, apart from the Sub-Treasury Officer, Bishnupur, and the Accountant General, Manipur. Despite the same, no objections were ever raised against the appointment. Further, if the appointment itself was illegal in its inception, it is for the authorities to explain as to how they have continued respondent No.1 in service till now and have utilized him even for sensitive election duties, which would ordinarily be entrusted only to regular employees. To clinch the issue, it may be noted that Ksh. Ibopishak Singh was also appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal, but no such objection seems to have been taken while contesting his writ petition or while regularizing his services, pursuant to the order passed therein. To clinch the issue, it may be noted that Ksh. Ibopishak Singh was also appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal, but no such objection seems to have been taken while contesting his writ petition or while regularizing his services, pursuant to the order passed therein. When it is not the case of the State that it does not resort to regularization of services and as the case of the respondent No.1 was to be considered in the light of Ksh. Ibopishak Singh's case, the action of the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, in drawing a distinction between them, which did even not exist, cannot be countenanced. 19. More significantly, the appointment of respondent No.1 is not 'illegal' in terms of the essentials laid down in Uma Devi (supra). His initial appointment in the year 1998 was against a duly sanctioned vacancy, which arose upon retirement of the incumbent. Administrative exigency therefore required his engagement. It is not the case of the State that he did not possess the requisite qualification, in as much as he participated in the selection process when a post was notified a few years later. There is no indication of his having been appointed due to nepotism, bias or malafides. He continued in service since 1998 without the protection of any order from a Court and is still working as on date. In such circumstances, this Court finds no grounds whatsoever to distinguish his case from that of Ksh. Ibopishak Singh. The direction of the learned Judge to treat him on par with Ksh. Ibopishak Singh and to regularize his services, therefore, does not call for any interference. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in All India Trade Union Congress and others (supra), it is only in an exceptional case that the Court may consider it appropriate to issue mandatory directions. In the case on hand, given the flagrant discrimination shown by the authorities in dealing with two identically situated employees who sought regularization of their services, the positive direction of the learned Judge was not only desirable, but very much required. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Respondent No.1 shall be regularized in service with retrospective effect, as per the time stipulation in the judgment under appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.