JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. Both these writ petitions have been preferred for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 737/J dated 16.06.2021 issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the petitioners’ claim for regularization has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization/absorption on Class III post i.e. Lower Division Clerk giving them age relaxation with all consequential benefits. 2. Argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners: (i) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners of both the writ petitions jointly submit that several posts were created by the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand for the office of the Advocate General, Jharkhand vide Memo No. 1595 dated 14.07.2003 and the petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 2825 of 2021 (hereinafter referred as P1) and the petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 3511 of 2021 (hereinafter referred as P2) were appointed on the post of Routine Clerk (Now Lower Division Clerk) on contractual basis against the sanctioned and vacant posts in the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6000/- vide Office Order as contained in Memo No. 9167 dated 01.12.2004 and Memo No. 7770 dated 02.11.2004 respectively. The services of the petitioners were extended from time to time and the last extension was granted to them on 07.07.2021 till 30.09.2021. Moreover, they were also granted revision of pay scale as was being given to the regular employees. (ii) The Government of Jharkhand framed ‘Jharkhand Sarkar Ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup Se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo Ki Sewa Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015’ (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rule 2015’) and the said rule was subsequently modified vide Memo No. 4871 dated 20.06.2019 after the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, (2018) 8 SCC 238 . (iii) P1 and P2 had earlier preferred writ petitions being W.P. (S) No. 2517 of 2020 and W.P. (S) No. 5512 of 2018 respectively seeking direction upon the respondents to regularize them in service. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide orders dated 09.11.2020 and 10.07.2019 respectively, whereby the respondent-State was directed to take a conscious decision for regularization of the petitioners’ services. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide orders dated 09.11.2020 and 10.07.2019 respectively, whereby the respondent-State was directed to take a conscious decision for regularization of the petitioners’ services. (iv) A proposal for regularization of the petitioners’ services as well as services of other irregularly appointed/working employees was sent by the Advocate General to the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand and thereafter in the light of the notifications dated 13th February, 2015 and 20th June, 2019 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, a committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for making recommendation with respect to regularization of the services of the employees working in the office of the Department of Law and its attached offices (office of the Advocate General, Jharkhand and the Jharkhand State Law Commission) on verification of documents and assessing their eligibility for the said purpose. The said Committee finally found that the petitioners were eligible to be regularized. However, on the one hand no decision was taken for regularization of the petitioners’ services and on the other hand the Advocate General, Jharkhand was continuously writing to the Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Ranchi for posting of two Lower Division Clerks. (v) Subsequently, an order as contained in Memo No. 737/J dated 16.06.2021 was issued under signature of the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi in pursuance of the order dated 09.11.2020 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2517 of 2020 and order dated 10.07.2019 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2517 of 2020 arbitrarily rejecting the petitioners’ claim for regularization. (vi) Since the petitioners had been working against the vacant and sanctioned posts of Routine Clerk (now Lower Division Clerk) in the office of the Advocate General, Jharkhand continuously for more than sixteen years on contractual basis, they are legally entitled to be absorbed/regularized against the said posts. The impugned decision as contained in Memo No. 737 dated 16.06.2021 is in the teeth of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Others Vs. The impugned decision as contained in Memo No. 737 dated 16.06.2021 is in the teeth of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Others Vs. M.L Keshri & Others, (2010) 9 SCC 247 , wherein it has been held that the persons appointed and working against the sanctioned posts cannot be termed illegal appointees, rather they are to be treated as irregular appointees and as such their services can be regularized. (vii) Though it has been stated in the impugned order that the Advocate General had no power to appoint the petitioners, but the respondents have failed to substantiate the same. The petitioners have crossed the age for any fresh appointment elsewhere. Since they have satisfactorily rendered their services in the office of the Advocate General having no complaint whatsoever, they deserve to be regularized. (viii) Once the orders with respect to regularization of the petitioners were passed by a Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5512 of 2018 and W.P. (S) No. 3511 of 2021 and the 1st Committee had submitted the report clearly observing that the petitioners were eligible for regularization, the Advocate General had no power to constitute a sub-committee in order to somehow reject the petitioners’ claim for regularization of their services. (ix) The persons who were initially not appointed by competent authority against the sanctioned and vacant post, but were subsequently adjusted against sanctioned and vacant post, have also been treated as irregular appointees and have been regularized. 3. Argument advanced on behalf of the respondents: (i) On the contrary learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the notifications of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand dated 13.02.2015, 20.06.2019 and 12.07.2019, a proposal for the petitioners’ regularization in service was received from the office of the Advocate General, Jharkhand on 19.08.2019. Thereafter, a committee was constituted by the Law Department vide Office Order no. 53 dated 14.11.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, the then Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi for verification of documents and to assess the candidates who were eligible for regularization. Thereafter, a committee was constituted by the Law Department vide Office Order no. 53 dated 14.11.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, the then Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi for verification of documents and to assess the candidates who were eligible for regularization. On 18.12.2019, a meeting of the Committee was held, wherein it was decided by the members of the Committee to first go through the documents of the petitioners and others and then to hold a meeting in order to assess the eligible candidates. A meeting of the said Committee was again held on 17.02.2020 under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Department of Law, but a member who was representing Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe was not present as he had already superannuated. The Committee decided to write a letter to Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand to nominate a fresh member as representative of Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe. The Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa through letter no. 2496 dated 20.05.2020 appointed Smt. Poonam Prabha Purti, Joint Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department as the member representing Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe in the aforesaid Committee. The Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand vide letter no. 937 dated 18.06.2020 informed all the members of the Committee that a meeting would be held on 29.06.2020. Accordingly, the meeting of the said Committee was held on 29.06.2020, wherein it was decided that if there were more than one candidate for any post, then the roster clearances were to be obtained from the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand prior to considering their claim for regularization. It was also decided that if any candidate was working on contractual post and was seeking to be regularized, then clarification was to be obtained from the said department in the light of its Notification No. 1348 dated 13.02.2015. As per the decision of the Committee, the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand sent the file to the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa for above clarifications. After clarification received from the said department, a meeting of the committee was again held on 18.09.2020 under the Chairmanship of Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, the then Principal Secretary cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. After clarification received from the said department, a meeting of the committee was again held on 18.09.2020 under the Chairmanship of Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, the then Principal Secretary cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The said Committee found that the petitioners were eligible for regularization of their services as Routine Clerks. Thereafter, the file moved to the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, government of Jharkhand. (ii) The Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand sent the file to the office of Advocate General, Jharkhand on 19.11.2020 for obtaining legal opinion. The Advocate General, Jharkhand provided his opinion dated 01.12.2020 and thereafter the matter was reconsidered and the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand pointed out that regularization could be done only with respect to irregular appointment and not illegal appointment. (iii) In the case in hand, the circular dated 05.07.2002 (for temporary engagement on contractual basis) has not been followed. The contractual appointments of the petitioners were illegal, de-hors the rules and as such they cannot be regularized. The meeting of Committee of the Department of Law was held on 10.03.2021 in compliance of the order dated 10.07.2019 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5512/2018 and the order dated 09.11.2020 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2517/2020 and thereafter the file was sent to the Advocate General, Jharkhand mentioning that the office of the Advocate General was not a sub-ordinate office of the Department of Law, rather an attached office of the said department. It was further mentioned that it would be practicable for the Advocate General to constitute a sub-committee in its establishment and to take decision in accordance with the Notification No. 1348 dated 13.02.2015 and Notification No. 4871 dated 20.06.2019, both issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand. It was also mentioned that the committee constituted by the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand would make recommendation on the decision taken by the sub-committee constituted in the office of the Advocate General, Jharkhand. It was also mentioned that the committee constituted by the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand would make recommendation on the decision taken by the sub-committee constituted in the office of the Advocate General, Jharkhand. (iv) Thereafter a sub- committee was constituted by the Advocate General, Jharkhand and in the meeting dated 26.03.2021, the sub-committee decided that the contractual appointments of the petitioners were made without any advertisement, constitution of selection committee, following the reservation policy, interview being occasioned, preparation of selection list, verification of documents, etc., meaning thereby their engagements were done in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and thus the same were illegal and not irregular. (v) The decision of the sub-committee was forwarded by the Advocate General, Jharkhand to the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand. Finally, vide order as contained in memo no. 737/J dated 16.06.2021, the then Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi confirmed the findings/decisions of sub- committee dated 26.03.2021 constituted by the Advocate General, Jharkhand and, accordingly, rejected the petitioners’ request for regularization of their services. The Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi also did not find the petitioners eligible for regularization of their services and returned the file to the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand on 05.07.2021. Analysis of argument and finding of the Court: 4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for both the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed by the then Advocate General, Jharkhand on vacant sanctioned posts of Routine Clerk in the year 2004 and they continued to serve on the said posts till 30th September, 2021 as their services were extended from time to time. As such the impugned order dated 16.06.2021 is against the provisions of the Rules, 2015 as amended vide Memo No. 4871 dated 20.06.2019 as well as in the teeth of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (Supra) and several other judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time in the matters of regularization. 6. 6. It is contended that the names of the petitioners were recommended for regularization by a duly constituted Committee headed by the then Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand by observing that they were eligible to be regularized on the post of Routine Clerk in the office of the Advocate General, Jharkhand and as such there was no valid reason for re-consideration of the matter of regularization of their services by a new committee under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand. 7. Another contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the new Committee constituted by the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand in pursuance of the orders dated 10.07.2019 and 09.11.2020 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5512 of 2018 and W.P. (S) No. 2517 of 2020, respectively, did not apply its independent mind, rather it simply referred the matter to the Advocate General to constitute a sub-committee and to take decision with respect to regularization of the petitioners. The Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand finally passed the impugned order merely on the basis of the report of the sub-committee constituted by the Advocate General. It is also asserted that sub-committee so constituted by the Advocate General was not in accordance with law. 8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the impugned order dated 16.06.2021 submits that since initial appointments of the petitioners were illegal and not irregular, their claim for regularization has rightly been rejected by the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand. The Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer has observed in the impugned order that the provisions of Circular No. 4569 dated 05.07.2002 was not followed at the time of the petitioners’ initial appointment as well as during extension. Moreover, extension of the petitioners’ services after coming into force of the Jharkhand Secretariat Clerical Service Rules, 2010 was itself against the said rules. 9. Following issues have been framed vide order dated 18.05.2023 to be decided in this case: (i) Whether after recommendation of the duly constituted Committee for regularization, a Sub-Committee can be constituted for taking a fresh decision? (ii) Whether the affidavit filed by the Law Secretary will be a full proof for consideration that the petitioner was working on sanctioned post or whether any other affidavit will substitute the same? (ii) Whether the affidavit filed by the Law Secretary will be a full proof for consideration that the petitioner was working on sanctioned post or whether any other affidavit will substitute the same? (iii) Whether case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court passed in W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 (Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases? Issue No. (i): 10. So far as the issue no. (i) is concerned, this Court has perused Rules, 2015. Rule 3(Kha) provides the procedure for regularization. As per the said rule, a Committee is to be formed in each department under the chairmanship of Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary for regularization of eligible employees and all the government departments have to collect information about the eligible/qualified candidates and prepare a list with relevant documents/records/evidences, which shall be submitted before the said committee. Thereafter, the said committee shall prepare a panel after making enquiry with respect to compliance of all the conditions mentioned in the said Rules. The said panel is to be sent to the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the concerned department and thereafter to the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha as well as the Department of Finance. After their consent, the same is to be placed before the Cabinet. Finally, on approval of the Cabinet, the appointing authority has to take decision with respect to regularization of the candidates as per the panel. 11. In the present case, a committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand in terms with rule 3(Kha) and the said Committee submitted its report stating that the petitioners were eligible to be regularized. In Rules, 2015, there is no provision for constitution of any sub-committee for regularization of any employee of a department. Thus, after recommendation of the duly constituted Committee for regularization of the petitioners’ services, the new Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand in pursuance of the orders passed in W.P. (S) No. 5512 of 2018 and W.P. (S) No. 2517 of 2020 misdirected itself in referring the matter to the Advocate General for taking decision by constituting a sub-committee. The constitution of sub-committee was itself in the teeth of the orders passed in W.P. (S) No. 5512/2018 and W.P. (S) No. 2517/2020 since there was no direction in the said orders for constitution of any sub-committee by the Advocate General to take decision on the petitioners’ claim for regularization. This Court finds substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand while passing the impugned order dated 16.06.2021 has not applied its independent mind, rather he has taken decision primarily on the basis of the report of the sub-committee constituted by the Advocate General, Jharkhand. 12. It is, thus, held that constitution of the sub-committee by the Advocate General after recommendation by the duly constituted Committee for regularization of the petitioners’ services was contrary to law. The issue no. (i) is decided accordingly. Issue No. (ii): 13. So far as the 2nd issue is concerned, the first committee constituted for regularization of the services of the employees working in the office of the Department of Law and its attached offices (office of the Advocate General, Jharkhand and the Jharkhand State Law Commission) had resolved that the petitioners were working in the office of the Advocate General, Jharkhand against the sanctioned posts of Routine Clerks since 2004 and the Advocate General was the competent authority to appoint them. It was further resolved that the petitioners were eligible to be regularized on the said posts. 14. On bare perusal of the impugned order dated 16.06.2021, it would appear that the report of the said Committee was not accepted by the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand stating that the office of the Advocate General, Jharkhand was neither consulted nor any information was obtained from the said office before taking the decision. 15. It is an admitted fact that the proposal for regularization of the services of the petitioners along with the relevant documents was received from the office of the Advocate General by the Department of Law on 19.08.2019 and only thereafter the 1st Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand. 15. It is an admitted fact that the proposal for regularization of the services of the petitioners along with the relevant documents was received from the office of the Advocate General by the Department of Law on 19.08.2019 and only thereafter the 1st Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand. Thus, this Court is of the view that since the proposal for regularization of the petitioners’ services was sent by the Office of the Advocate General itself, the 1st Committee had the reason to believe that the said proposal was sent after verifying the entire records and therefore the 1st Committee had not committed any error in not reverting the matter back to the Advocate General before taking the decision. Hence, there was no justified reason in brushing aside the recommendation of the 1st Committee on the ground that the office of the Advocate General was not consulted before making recommendation for regularization of the petitioners’ services. 16. Moreover, the Advocate General, Jharkhand in his opinion dated 01.12.2020 observed that while making appointment of the petitioners, no advertisement was issued, reservation roaster for two posts was not followed and only two applications were made for two posts which was apparently a backdoor entry. It was further opined that the appointments of the petitioners were illegal and dehors the rules, without following the process of advertisement, reservation roster and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was also opined that since the Office of the Advocate General was coming under the administrative control of the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand, the appointment of the petitioners had to be made by the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand and not by the Advocate General. Hence, it was finally opined by the Advocate General, Jharkhand that initial appointment of the petitioners for a period of six months was not made by the competent authority. 17. So far as the objection relating to the competence of the former Advocate General, Jharkhand to appoint the petitioners is concerned, the said objection of the Advocate General was not accepted by the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand stating that the office of the Advocate General was not under the Administrative Control of the said department, rather an attached office. The other infirmities pointed out by the Advocate General were procedural in nature and, therefore, the appointment of the petitioners can be said to be irregular, but not illegal. 18. This Court is of the view that since no valid reason has been explained by the respondents in discarding the recommendation of the 1st Committee, the same will have its prominence while considering the fact that the petitioners were working on sanctioned post and no affidavit filed in this regard will substitute the same. The issue no. (ii) is answered in the above manner. Issue No. (iii): 19. Before coming to the 3rd issue, it would be appropriate to refer the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of their contentions, which are mentioned herein after. 20. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi & Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “15. Even at the threshold, it is necessary to keep in mind the distinction between regularisation and conferment of permanence in service jurisprudence. In State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128 this Court stated that it was a misconception to consider that regularisation meant permanence. In R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409 this Court dealt with an argument that regularisation would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment. This Court stated : (SCC pp. 416-417, Para 26) “Counsel on behalf of the respondent contended that regularisation would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment whereas counsel on behalf of the State contended that regularisation did not mean permanence but that it was a case of regularisation of the rules under Article 309. Both the contentions are fallacious. If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution illegality cannot be regularised. Ratification or regularisation is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. Ratification or regularisation is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules.” 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (1967) 1 SCR 128 , R.N. Nanjundappa (1972) 1 SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan (1979) 4 SCC 507 and referred to in Para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L Kesari & Others, (2010) 9 SCC 247 , has held as under: “9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L Kesari & Others, (2010) 9 SCC 247 , has held as under: “9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services. 11. The object behind the said direction in Para 53 of Umadevi is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.” 22. In the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, (2018) 8 SCC 238 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “7. In the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, (2018) 8 SCC 238 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi and Kesari sought to avoid. 8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi, is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench. 9. The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise - the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance. 10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. This is hardly good governance. 10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc.” 23. In the case of State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Kamal Prasad & Others, (2014) 7 SCC 223 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “14. The Division Bench of the High Court after referring to State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, has clearly held that if a person has served for 10 years or more, then it is the duty of the State Government to consider his case for regularisation in the post. The said conclusion came to be reached by relying on Articles 309, 14, 16 of the Constitution of India. Relying upon Umadevi, the High Court has further referred to the judgment in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 which is considered by this Court and this Court has clearly held that Umadevi casts a duty upon the State Government to take steps to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed appointees, who had served for more than 10 years without the benefit or protection of any interim order. Further in the said case, this Court has declared that it has been clearly ordered that one-time settlement/ measure should be taken within six months i.e. from 10-4-2006. With reference to the aforesaid decision the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent employees placed reliance upon Article 142 of the Constitution in support of the submission that order of the Supreme Court be respected and implemented in its true meaning and spirit. With reference to the aforesaid decision the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent employees placed reliance upon Article 142 of the Constitution in support of the submission that order of the Supreme Court be respected and implemented in its true meaning and spirit. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court accepted the same and came to the conclusion that the claims of the respondent employees for regularisation in their posts are fit cases and they became unfortunate only because of the creation of the State of Jharkhand over which the employees had no control and could not have prevented creation of the State of Jharkhand and because of that reason only, one State cannot take a different stand with respect to the employees appointed by the same process. The State Government cannot throw the employees jobless after 30 years of their continuous service in public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution, which would result in great injustice since their source of income will be taken away and thereby the employees and their families will suffer due to the arbitrary action of the State Government of Jharkhand which deprived a person of life and liberty guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 24. The law laid down in the aforequoted judgments are summarized as under: (a) If a person is appointed in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, he cannot be regularised. Ratification or regularisation is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. (b) Irregular appointments made by a competent authority of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts who have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals, may be regularized as a one-time measure by the concerned Government. (c) The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. (c) The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services. (d) The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi was therefore twofold, firstly to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision rendered in Umadevi is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. (e) A strict and literal interpretation should not be done to the decision of the Constitution Bench rendered in the case of Umadevi. (f) The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise - the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. (g) The Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and if a person has completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, he should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to his regularisation like misconduct, etc. 25. In the case in hand, the respondents have not disputed the factum that the petitioners were appointed in the year 2004 on the vacant sanctioned posts of Routine Clerk in the office of Advocate General, Jharkhand and they continued to serve in the said office for more than 10 years till the date of coming into force of the Rules, 2015. It has been contended by them that the Advocate General, Jharkhand was not the competent authority to appoint the petitioners, rather in view of Jharkhand Secretariat Clerical Service Rules, 2010, the appointment was to be made by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand. 26. Neither in the impugned order dated 16.06.2021 nor before this court, the respondents have disclosed as to which rule specifically deals with the appointment of the employees of Advocate General Office. Moreover, the Advocate General is a constitutional authority and the petitioners were appointed by him in the year 2004 against the vacant sanctioned posts. So far as the Rules, 2010 is concerned, it was not in vogue at the time of initial appointment of the petitioners and the respondents have failed to explain before this Court as to which rule has been violated in making their appointment in the office of the Advocate General. 27. The record of the case reveals that in the light of the Notification No. 1348 dated 13.02.2015 and Notification No. 4871 dated 20.06.2019 a committee was constituted by the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand vide Office Order No. 53 dated 14.11.2019 under the Chairmanship of the then Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for verification of documents and to assess the candidates who were eligible for regularization and the said committee observed that the petitioners were eligible to be regularized in service as Routine Clerks. The Committee also specifically observed that at the time of appointment of the petitioners, the Advocate General was the competent authority to appoint them. 28. Thus, the contention of the respondents that the petitioners were not appointed by the competent authority is not legally tenable. In the case in hand, the petitioners were appointed on vacant and sanctioned posts of Routine Clerk and they have served continuously for more than ten years till the date of coming into force of the Rules, 2015. Even if it is assumed that due procedure for their appointment was not followed, the same will be treated as irregular and not illegal and hence their cases are covered by the direction/observation made in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (Supra.). As such the petitioners are legally entitled to be regularized in service. The issue no. (iii) is answered in terms with the aforesaid observations. 29. As such the petitioners are legally entitled to be regularized in service. The issue no. (iii) is answered in terms with the aforesaid observations. 29. Moreover, on the basis of the report of the 1st committee, a person, namely, Sandip Ranjan, who was appointed on the post of Typist-cum-Computer Operator against the vacant and sanctioned post in the Department of Law, has already been regularized by the Government. As such, this Court finds substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is discriminatory in nature and also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 30. Learned counsel for the respondents has put reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. & Others Vs. Somvir Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 493 . In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the recruitment rule had not been followed while making appointment of the respondents and as such their appointments were treated as illegal not irregular. Their Lordships further held that the fact that they had been working for a long time, was not a ground for directing regularization of their services. 31. The learned counsel for the respondents has put further reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, (2023) 3 SCC 639 , wherein it has been held that the appellant was not entitled to be regularized since he was neither appointed by the competent authority nor against the sanctioned post. 32. The observations made in the aforesaid cases are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present cases. Admittedly, the petitioners have been appointed by the Advocate General, Jharkhand against the sanctioned posts and the respondents have failed to show any specific rule so as to satisfy that in the year 2004, the Advocate General, Jharkhand was not the competent authority to appoint the petitioners. 33. Another aspect in the matter is that the petitioners have served for a period of more than 16 years in the office of the Advocate General, Jharkhand and information about their repeated extensions were also given to the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand, but no objection was ever raised by the said department regarding extension of their services. 34. Another aspect in the matter is that the petitioners have served for a period of more than 16 years in the office of the Advocate General, Jharkhand and information about their repeated extensions were also given to the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand, but no objection was ever raised by the said department regarding extension of their services. 34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (Supra.) has held that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi which is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. It is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. It has further been held that if a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi, is to be taken into consideration, then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand can ever be regularised. 35. In the present case, since the appointments of the petitioners have been held to be irregular, this Court finds it appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to regularize their services so as to do substantive justice to them. 36. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the order as contained in Memo No. 737 dated 16.06.2021 issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to regularize the petitioners’ services on the post of Lower Division Clerk within eight weeks from the date of this order. 37. These writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed.