JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. The present appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, 1865 emanate from the judgment and order dated 17.09.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in captioned writ petitions being Special Civil Application No. 11127 of 2003 and allied matters, wherein the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant-Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited to treat the respondents-employees (original petitioners) as permanent employees with effect from the date of institution of the petition and also to grant all consequential benefits to them and also to consider their absorption in other departments in terms of the policy. 2. All the respondents-employees were appointed on contractual basis pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1996. The advertisement specifically mentions that the persons mentioned therein are to be appointed on fixed period of contractual basis in Kalptaru Departmental Stores. It appears that thereafter, the appointment orders have been issued by the appellant-Corporation appointing the respondents for a fixed period initially for two years upto 1998 on a lump sum consolidated salary. Thereafter, it appears that their contractual period was extended and ultimately, by the order dated 27.08.2002, their contracts were extended for the last time i.e. from 01.09.2002 to 31.08.2003. It appears that thereafter, the respondent-employees filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 10852 of 2003 seeking regularization of service. By the interim order dated 31.07.2003, this Court restrained the appellant-Corporation from terminating their services. Thereafter, this Court (learned Single Judge) modified the interim order on 28.04.2004 to the effect that the service of the respondents-employees will not be terminated without due process of law during the pendency of the writ petition. It appears that thereafter, the respondents-employees, who were appointed under the Kalptaru Departmental Stores were posted in the District Supply Office in Mamlatdar Office at various places. 3. On 27.06.2014, their services were terminated, which was assailed by filing Civil Applications in pending writ petition. By the order dated 17.09.2014, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant-Corporation to regularize the services. The same is subject matter of challenge in the present appeals. 4. Mr. 3. On 27.06.2014, their services were terminated, which was assailed by filing Civil Applications in pending writ petition. By the order dated 17.09.2014, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant-Corporation to regularize the services. The same is subject matter of challenge in the present appeals. 4. Mr. Sahil Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-Corporation at the outset, has submitted that the respondents-employees were specifically appointed on a fixed period on contractual basis in view of the advertisement, which was issued in 1996 for the post, as mentioned in the advertisement for Kalptaru Departmental Stores, which was in nine different places in the State of Gujarat. It is submitted that such Kalptaru Departmental Stores were opened at various places and the present litigation is only confined to the Vadodara Kalptaru Stores. It is submitted that this Kalptaru Departmental Stores were only opened with a view to take the necessary public distribution system in the State of Gujarat. 5. Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate has submitted that all the stores are closed by now. It is submitted that the Kalptaru Departmental Stores at Vadodara had incurred losses in all these years and hence, they were constrained to close this store, after taking necessary approval. It is submitted that all these respondents-employees were appointed on contractual basis in these stores and hence, they cannot be ordered to be regularized or absorbed in regular posts, as they were only appointed for specific purpose for manning the Kalptaru Departmental Stores. 6. Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate has submitted that for all these years, the respondents-employees have continued under the interim order passed by this Court and hence, as per the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, they cannot be regularized on the posts that too of the Corporation merely, because they have rendered so many years in view of the interim order. 7. In support of his submissions, Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. R.J. Pathan and Ors. (2022) 5 SCC 394 . 7. In support of his submissions, Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. R.J. Pathan and Ors. (2022) 5 SCC 394 . It is submitted that the Supreme Court has considered the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and has submitted that if the employees who are appointed in any project, have no right to be continued further under the provision of the project and they have no vested right to be regularised or absorbed in service. It is submitted that the respondents-employees were not appointed or working under the sanctioned posts and hence, they do not have any right to be absorbed. It is thus, submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in directing the appellant-Corporation to absorb and regularise them in service. It is urged that hence, the judgment an order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside. 8. In response to the aforesaid submissions, Mr. I.H. Syed, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents-employees has submitted that in the year 2014 i.e. on 10.12.2014, the appellant-Corporation has issued the advertisement for filling up the vacancy of 177 posts however, due to the interim order dated 19.12.2014 passed by this Court, the vacancies were reduced and the respondents-employees were appointed on the said posts. It is submitted that the said interim order was assailed before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 287-309 of 2015, and the same were disposed of vide order dated 18.01.2016. It is submitted that this would show that the posts are already available in the appellant-Corporation and hence, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with. Mr .Syed, learned senior advocate has submitted that since the respondents-employees are continued for all these years since 1996 and have been adjusted / absorbed by the appellant-Corporation, they have right to be regularized on the posts they are working. In support of his submissions, Mr. Syed, learned senior advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 30.01.2024 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5153-5154 of 2024. In support of his submissions, Mr. Syed, learned senior advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 30.01.2024 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5153-5154 of 2024. It is thus, urged by the learned senior advocate that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with. 9. We have heard the learned advocates appearing of the respective parties. The facts, which are not in dispute and are established from the pleadings are that the appellant-Corporation issued an advertisement in the year 1996 for appointing Managers, Deputy Managers, Assistant Managers, Assistant Executives, Marketing Assistants and Packers in the Kalptaru Super Market at Vadodara on fixed period on contractual basis. Similar Super Markets were established to undertake the public distribution system in State of Gujarat at various places in the State of Gujarat. After few years, all the stores were closed since, they were incurring losses and during the intervening period, the contractual appointment of the respondents were not continued and the final extension was granted from 01.09.2002 to 31.08.2003 vide order dated 29.08.2002. Thus, the nature of appointment of all the respondents is for a specific project of manning Kalptaru Departmental Stores. 10. It appears that thereafter, the respondents-employees filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 10852 of 2003 praying for regularisation and ultimately, they were terminated. It appears that in view of the liberty reserved in favour of the appellant-Corporation to terminate their services by due process of law, the respondents-employees were terminated on 27.06.2014. 11. It appears that during the pendency of the present Letters Patent Appeals, the appellant-Corporation issued an advertisement for filling up 177 posts. The Coordinate Bench vide order dated 19.12.2014, directed the appellant - Corporation to appoint the 11 original petitioners. It is however, observed that issue of regularization may be decided at the final disposal of the appeals. It is also clarified in the interim order that arrangement as ordered by the Coordinate Bench will be subject to the final order as may be passed in the captioned Letters Patent Appeals. The interim order was assailed by the appellant-Corporation before the Supreme Court. It is also clarified in the interim order that arrangement as ordered by the Coordinate Bench will be subject to the final order as may be passed in the captioned Letters Patent Appeals. The interim order was assailed by the appellant-Corporation before the Supreme Court. Vide order dated 18.01.2016 all the SLP’s were disposed of by recording the statement of the learned Additional Solicitor General that since there was no stay operating, the interim order was implemented subject to outcome of the appeals. The Supreme Court directed the appellant - Corporation to seek expeditious disposal of appeals. Thus, after the respondents were terminated the Coordinate Bench by the interim order had directed the Corporation to appoint them since the vacancies were available and this arrangement was made in order to see that the livelihood of the respondents-employees would not get affected. However, the interim arrangement was made subject to final order, as may be passed in the present Letters Patent Appeals, and they are appointed subject to decision in appeals on the posts, which were advertised for filling up by the regular recruitment process. The respondents did not participate in the regular recruitment process. 12. Thus, the respondents-employees were continued after their contract was last extended on 29.08.2002 in view of the interim orders till 27.06.2014, when they were terminated. Their status of having been appointed on contractual basis on a project of Kalptaru Super Markets is also not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the Super Markets thereafter, have been closed down since they incurred losses. When the contractual period of the employees was finally extended, they got the interim orders from this Court. 13. The learned Single Judge was impressed of the fact that only the contractual employees like the respondents have been shunted out on the ground of closer of Kalptaru Departmental Stores at Vadodara. The learned Single Judge has categorically recorded that all the respondents were employed in the Kalptaru Departmental Stores, Vadodara on contractual basis despite such observation, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant-Corporation to regularize them in service. It appears that the learned Single Judge was also impressed of the fact that the appellant-Corporation had undertaken necessary exercise to fill up the regular posts. The learned Single Judge was also impressed of the fact that they have been continued for a period of three years after their contracts were extended. It appears that the learned Single Judge was also impressed of the fact that the appellant-Corporation had undertaken necessary exercise to fill up the regular posts. The learned Single Judge was also impressed of the fact that they have been continued for a period of three years after their contracts were extended. The learned Single Judge has presumed that there is a policy of the appellant-Corporation to absorb the contractual employees and the respondents-employees are also entitled to be absorbed in terms of such policy however, we do not find any such policy on record. 14. Considering the nature of appointment of the respondents - employees, and in light of their continuation, due to interim orders, we may at this stage, refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of R.J. Pathan and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court in case of those employees who were appointed on a project on contractual basis has held thus: “9. By observing that as the respondents have worked for a long time i.e. for seventeen years, the Division Bench has directed the State to consider the cases of the respondents for absorption/regularisation and if required, by creating supernumerary posts. However, while issuing such a direction, the High Court has not at all considered the fact that the respondents were continued in service pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court. 10. The Division Bench has also not appreciated the fact and/or considered the fact that the respondents were initially appointed for a period of eleven months and on a fixed salary and that too, in a temporary unit - “Project Implementation Unit” which was created only for the purpose of rehabilitation pursuant to the earthquake for “Post-Earthquake Redevelopment Programme.” Therefore, the unit in which the respondents were appointed was itself a temporary unit and not a regular establishment. The posts on which the respondents were appointed and working were not the sanctioned posts in any regular establishment of the Government. 11. Therefore, when the respondents were appointed on a fixed term and on a fixed salary in a temporary unit which was created for a particular project, no such direction could have been issued by the Division Bench of the High Court to absorb them in Government service and to regularise their services. 11. Therefore, when the respondents were appointed on a fixed term and on a fixed salary in a temporary unit which was created for a particular project, no such direction could have been issued by the Division Bench of the High Court to absorb them in Government service and to regularise their services. The High Court has observed that even while absorbing and/or regularising the services of the respondents, the State Government may create supernumerary posts. Such a direction to create supernumerary posts is unsustainable. Such a direction is wholly without jurisdiction. No such direction can be issued by the High Court for absorption/regularisation of the employees who were appointed in a temporary unit which was created for a particular project and that too, by creating supernumerary posts. 12. From the impugned judgment and order [R.J. Pathan Project Implementation Unit v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC Online Guj 2467] passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears that what has weighed with the High Court was that the respondents were continued in service for a long time i.e. seventeen years. However, the High Court has not considered that out of seventeen years, the respondents continued in service for ten years pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court. Therefore, even considering the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753, the period for which the employees have continued in service pursuant to the interim order is to be excluded and not to be counted. The High Court has totally missed the aforesaid aspect. 13. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753 and the subsequent decision of this Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 472, relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is concerned, none of the aforesaid decisions shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The purpose and intent of the decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753, was, (1) to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and (2) to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past and who have continued for a very long time. The decision of [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] may be applicable in a case where the appointments are irregular on the sanctioned posts in regular establishment. The same does not apply to temporary appointments made in a project/programme.” 15. Thus, after considering the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and array of judgments, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the contractual employees even if they have rendered long services, would not have any right to be absorbed or regularized. It is held that the employees, who are appointed on a fixed term and on a fixed salary in a temporary unit, which was created for a particular project, no direction of regularization or absorption can be issued even if the employees have worked for a long period. It is further held that the directions issued by the Constitution Bench about regularising the ‘irregular appointees’, who have worked for 10 years will not apply to the employees, who are appointed in temporary unit for a project. The Constitution Bench in the case of Uma Devi (supra) (in paragraph No. 43) has held that the contractual appointment comes to an end at the end of contract and the temporary employees cannot be made permanent on the expiry of his appointment even if he has long continued service and he is no right to be absorbed. It is further held in the said judgment (paragraph No. 53) that in case of irregular appointments of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts, such employees may have been continued in service for 10 years or more but without intervention of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals. 16. In the present case, the respondents-employees are unable to point out that they were appointed on duly sanctioned posts. 16. In the present case, the respondents-employees are unable to point out that they were appointed on duly sanctioned posts. In fact, they were appointed as Managers, Deputy Managers, Assistant Managers, Assistant Executives, Marketing Assistants and Packers in the Kalptaru Departmental Stores and it cannot be said that these were the sanctioned posts on the establishment of the Corporation. Thus, the respondents-employees who were engaged for the sole purpose of manning the Kalptaru Departmental Stores, cannot as a matter of right, claim absorption or regularization on the posts of the Corporation. Merely because the appellant-Corporation has issued an advertisement for filling up 177 posts, the respondents-employees cannot stake their claims on such posts, which are sanctioned on the regular establishment of the Corporation. It is not the case of the respondents- employees that the posts, which are advertised and filled up, are the posts of Kalptaru Departmental Stores, in which they were appointed. The stores were closed down long back in the year 2002. The learned Single Judge has also erred in holding that there was a policy of the appellant-corporation in regularizing/absorbing such employees. We have not found such policy on record. The learned Single Judge was also impressed with the fact of transfer of the employees in another departments on their request. Such transfer or posting the respondents-employees by the appellant-Corporation will not create equity in their favour, and the same cannot change their nature of initial appointments. The appellant - Corporation was gracious enough to accommodate them however, after the Stores were closed, they had no right to continue on the posts. 17. By the interim order dated 28.04.2004, passed in the writ petitions, this Court had directed that the respondents-employees shall not be terminated without following due process of law. Thereafter, they were terminated on 27.06.2014 by following due process of law. However, due to interim order dated 19.12.2014, they are again re-appointed on the advertised posts. The said appointments were made subject to the result of the captioned appeals. The respondents - employees cannot get any advantage of continuing on the posts, which were advertised and were to be filled in by regular selection process. The appellant-Corporation was constrained to reduce the number of advertised posts from 177 to 166. The right of those candidates, who could have been appointed on regular posts on which the respondents are appointed has been lost. The appellant-Corporation was constrained to reduce the number of advertised posts from 177 to 166. The right of those candidates, who could have been appointed on regular posts on which the respondents are appointed has been lost. The respondents enjoyed the luxury of getting appointed on the sanctioned posts without undergoing any selection process, after their termination. It is also informed to us that in subsequent recruitment process also, they have not participated. 18. The judgment, on which the reliance is placed by the respondents-employees of Vinod Kumar & Ors. (supra) will not apply to the facts of the case, as the issue raised therein was with regard to the promotion and the employees therein were granted promotion, though they were appointed initially as ex-cadre posts after the selection process involved written tests and viva-voice/interview. 19. Thus, in the light of law enunciated and reiterated by the Supreme Court in the array of judgments, we are not inclined to confirm the view and directions expressed by the learned Single Judge. The respondents have no right to be appointed or absorbed or regularized on the sanctioned posts, which were advertised by the appellant-Corporation for filling up through regular selection process. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside. The interim order stands vacated. However, it is clarified that the continuation of the respondents-employees in the appellant-Corporation, is left entirely on its wisdom and if they so desire, they may continue or discontinue them. 20. The Letters Patent Appeals are allowed. As a sequel, the connected Civil Applications stand disposed. 21. After the judgment was pronounced, learned advocate Mr. Rajput requests for stay of the present judgment however, the request is declined in light of the aforementioned observations.