JUDGMENT : Harinath N., J. The batch of writ appeals are filed by the State aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions by setting aside the orders rejecting the absorption of the respondents in the writ appeals in Aided posts. The learned Single Judge further directed the State to absorb the petitioners in the Aided posts of Lecturers in the respective private managements with all consequential benefits. The said orders are challenged and as a common issue involved in all the writ appeals, as such a common judgment is passed. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in not considering the counter affidavit submitted in the writ petition and erroneously held that no counter was filed. The State has submitted a detailed counter affidavit and the same is on record. 3. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the respondents were made amply clear through various proceedings categorically mentioning that those posts will be un-aided and will not be admitted to grant-in-aid either now or in future and the entire expenditure will be met from the College Management Funds Only. It is also submitted that the respondents were engaged as un-aided Lecturers in pursuance of the proceedings referred above. In such a scenario the respondents cannot seek absorption into aided regular government vacancies. The learned Government Pleader further submits that the detailed counter filed by the State was not at all considered by the learned Single Judge before passing the orders impugned in the writ petitions. 4. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the respondents were aware of their terms of appointment and they are also aware of the conditions of their employment. The respondents are also aware of their non-existent right seeking absorption into the Aided post. It is also stated that, the respondents also have not submitted any documents which assured them of their right to seek absorption into grant-in-aid post. 5. GO.Ms.No.12, dated 22.01.1992 prescribes the procedure for selection of Lecturers and Junior Lecturers. The relevant portion extracted hereunder ; The private managements shall notify the vacancies to the employment exchange and without waiting for sponsoring of candidates by the employment exchange, after a lapse of 15 days, the private management shall notify the vacancies in 2 dailies indicating the roster point, calling for application from the eligible candidates. The relevant portion extracted hereunder ; The private managements shall notify the vacancies to the employment exchange and without waiting for sponsoring of candidates by the employment exchange, after a lapse of 15 days, the private management shall notify the vacancies in 2 dailies indicating the roster point, calling for application from the eligible candidates. It is brought to the notice of the Court, the private managements have not notified the vacancies and have evaded intimation to the employment exchange. 6. It is also submitted that majority of the aided institutions have voluntarily surrendered their aid and staff to the Government in consonance with the policy decision of the Government notified vide GOMs.No.42, dated 10.08.2021. The learned Government Pleader relies on Union of India Vs. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows ; 13. A writ of mandamus is issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right in himself. A writ of mandamus is issued against a person who has a legal duty to perform but has failed and/or neglected to do so. Such a legal duty or by operation of law. The writ of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature. The object of mandamus is to prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted. 7. The learned Government Pleader also placed reliance on Seshmani Shukla Vs. District Inspector of Schools, (2009) 5 SCC 65 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the writ petitioner must establish a legal right in himself and a corresponding legal duty in the State. Further reliance is placed on State of Rajasthan Vs. Dayalal and others, (2011) 2 SCC 429 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the well settled principles relating to regularization and parity in pay. 8. The learned Government Pleader also places reliance on Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guiding principles in so far as the regularization of employees is concerned. 9. The learned Government Pleader submits that the reliance placed by the respondents on cases where directions to regularize the services of the petitioners therein were issued would not be applicable universally for all such employees. 9. The learned Government Pleader submits that the reliance placed by the respondents on cases where directions to regularize the services of the petitioners therein were issued would not be applicable universally for all such employees. It is submitted that the said orders came into existence on account of administrative lapses such as nonfiling of counters or failure on part of the State to place the appropriate facts before the Court. Such orders ought not to be considered for grant of similar reliefs more so when the State is placing all relevant material to reject the claim of the respondents. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents’ places reliance on various Government Orders issued by the State from time to time and placed heavy reliance on the orders passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.263, 340 of 2019 and 69, 218 of 2020. Whereby this Court has dismissed the writ appeals filed by the State against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in a batch of writ petitions directing the respondents therein to absorb the petitioners into grant-in-aid posts. As seen from the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also the order of the writ appeal relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is evident that the material before this Court by the State for denying the claim of the respondents was not placed before this Court and as such the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of this Court have passed the orders on the material placed before them only. 11. That apart, as seen from the order of the learned Single Judge it is evident that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that there was no counter on record. The detailed counter filed by the State amply clarifies the stand of the State in so far as absorption of the respondents into aided posts. The case of each of the respondent/employees has to be considered individually on merits and appropriate orders must be passed against each of the employee. There cannot be an omnibus consideration of the cases of the respondents and it is not expected that the State shall pass an omnibus order in the cases of all similarly placed employees who are seeking regularization. There cannot be an omnibus consideration of the cases of the respondents and it is not expected that the State shall pass an omnibus order in the cases of all similarly placed employees who are seeking regularization. The State has to consider each case of the employee duly taking into account their terms of employment and whether the private colleges have followed the procedure stipulated under the GO for selecting the respondents. The State ought to also consider the terms and conditions of employment before passing the detailed order. The respondents shall submit individual applications to the appellants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The respondents shall also submit the relevant annexures, such as, the appointment letter, service record if any available with the respondents and any other document relating to their claim for absorption into aided posts. 12. The appellants shall pass appropriate orders preferably within a period of 8 (eight) weeks after receipt of such representations from the respondents. With these observations the writ appeals are disposed off without costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.