JUDGMENT : KALYAN RAI SURANA, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Dihingia, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 1 to 12 in W.A. 242/2024. None appeared on call for the respondent nos. 13 and 14. 2. The respondent nos. 1 to 12 in this intra-court appeal are the writ petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 6558/2023. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Govt. of India, Department of Fertilizers, proforma respondent no. 13 was arrayed as respondent no. 1 in the writ petition. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource, proforma respondent no. 14 herein, was arrayed as respondent no. 9 in the writ petition. The appellant in this appeal was arrayed as respondent no. 1 in the writ petition. The officials of the appellant, who were arrayed as respondent nos. 3 to 8 in the writ petition are not arrayed as respondents and/or proforma respondents in this appeal. 3. In brief, the case of the said respondents in the writ petition is that they were initially appointed as contractual teachers at the Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited Higher Secondary School, Namrup (hereinafter referred to as BVFCLHS School for brevity). It was projected that the said school was established by Namrup Unit of the erstwhile Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. (HFCL for brevity), a public sector undertaking under the Department of Fertilizer, Govt. of India. The said HFCL was declared sick. However, the Central Government wanted to revive the Namrup Unit of HFCL and thus, Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., Namrup (BVFCL for brevity) was incorporated, which took over the assets of the erstwhile HFCL. It has been further projected that the service contract of the private respondents were renewed from time to time till date, with artificial breaks for 2-3 days, with no right to claim regularisation or absorption into permanent posts. Accordingly, the private respondents had continued to serve in the said school since their appointment without any protest. 4. Seeking regularisation of their services, the private respondents had approached this court by filing a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) 6558/2023. Accordingly, the private respondents had continued to serve in the said school since their appointment without any protest. 4. Seeking regularisation of their services, the private respondents had approached this court by filing a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) 6558/2023. The learned Single Judge, by referring to the decision in the case of Pranjal Dutta v. Union of India & Ors. W.P. (C) 7253/2019 decided on 23.04.2024, allowed the writ petition by directing that the cases of the respondent nos. 1 to 12 are to be taken up for regularisation as teachers in BVFCLHS School by following the parameters in said earlier judgment dated 23.04.2024. 5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has referred to the grounds of appeal and amongst others, emphasis was given on the point that the judgment dated 23.04.2024 in W.P.(C) 7253/2019 was passed as the writ petitioners therein were found to have rendered more than 30 years of service, whereas some of the private respondents have not even completed 10 years of service in the said school. It was also submitted that those appointments were purely temporary and therefore, the private respondents were rendering service with full knowledge of their status and they had accepted their temporary status without any objection whatsoever. It has further been submitted that the BVFCL was a loss making and sick corporation and therefore, when the survival of the appellant is at stake, the impugned order, directing regularisation of the service of the private respondents requires interference. It has also been submitted that the private respondents have not produced any document to show that the posts in which the private respondents were engaged were duly sanctioned posts. By citing the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , it was submitted that the said judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court of India on 10.04.2006, when most of the private respondents had not entered into service as temporary appointees and therefore, without continuously serving for more than ten years, the ratio laid down in paragraph 53 of the case of Uma Devi (supra) created an embargo on any order for regularisation of service of the private respondents without existence of permanent posts. Moreover, by referring to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347 , it was submitted that the private respondents had not challenged the non- regularising their service and thus, had acquiesced to the same. Therefore, all the private respondents are fence-sitters. Only after their counterparts had got a favourable order in W.P.(C) 7253/2019, the private respondents have belatedly approached this Court. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the private respondents were not entitled to any relief in their writ petition, which was liable to be dismissed. 6. It has further been submitted that the BVFCLHS School did not form a part of assets that was taken over by the appellant in the proceedings before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR or short) and/or in the appellate proceeding before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR for short), because neither the name of the private respondents nor the name of the HFCHS/BVFCLHS School figured in the list of employees and assets taken over by the appellant in the demerger order passed by the AAIFR. Hence, it has been submitted that the impugned order was liable to be interfered with. 7. It has further been submitted that the liability of the BVFCLHS School was not fastened upon the appellant vide the demerger order dated 26.04.2002, passed by the AAIFR. It has also been submitted that by the said order, specific properties and assets, including industrial units and officers whose service was made available to the BVFCL. It was also submitted that at the time of demerger, the erstwhile HFCL was operating multiple educational Institutions including Kendriya Vidyalay School, Model School and BVFCLHS School, which is not mentioned in the demerger order. Thus, it has been submitted that the running of the operation of the said BVFCLHS School is only one of the steps taken by the BVFCL towards discharge of its corporate social responsibility (CSR for short). Moreover, it has been submitted that no children of any BVFCL employees are studying in the said school, but the said school caters to the children of in and around Namrup town. Moreover, it has been submitted that no children of any BVFCL employees are studying in the said school, but the said school caters to the children of in and around Namrup town. However, on a pointed query of the Court, it has been submitted that the land of the BVFCJHS School, including constructions standing thereon is owned by the appellant, however, it has been submitted that the said BVFCLHS School is not an integral part of the assets handed over to the appellant by virtue of order dated 26.04.2002, passed by the AAIFR. 8. It has been submitted that the private respondents have heavily relied on the Inter-Office Memo dated 27.09.1991, to project that the sanctioned strength of employees of the said BVFCLHS School is 134, with 117 teachers (H.S.), but the same is an unsigned document and the office of the BVFCL has no record of any such document. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the appellants cannot vouch for authenticity of the said document or in respect of its contents. Moreover, it has been submitted that the said document is prior to BVFCL’s coming into existence. Accordingly, it is submitted that without any specific provision in the demerger scheme, by which the teachers and other staff of BVFCLHS School were made employees of BVFCL, the private respondents cannot be treated as the employees of BVFCL so as to fasten any financial liability for regularising the service of the private respondent nos. 1 to 12 or for paying the salary or other emoluments to the said private respondents. 9. The learned senior counsel for the appellants had extensively referred to the materials available in the memo of appeal, including the writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition and on the additional affidavit filed by the appellants. Moreover, in support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has cited the following cases: (1) Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 (2) Kismat Singh v. Piariya Devi & Ors. 2018 SCC Online Del 11551 (3) Jaggo v. Union of India, SLP (C) No. 5580/2024 (4) Nihal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 65 (5) Vinod Kr. & Ors. v. Union of India, SLP (C) Nos. 22241-22242/2016 (6) National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. v. Somvir Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 493 (7) State of Karnataka & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 65 (5) Vinod Kr. & Ors. v. Union of India, SLP (C) Nos. 22241-22242/2016 (6) National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. v. Somvir Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 493 (7) State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesar & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 247 (8) Surinder Prasad Tiwari v. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 684 (9) State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 429 (10) Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi & Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405 (11) Masauddin Ahmed v. The State of Assam, Crl. Appeal No. 879/2004 (12) Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohammed Haji Latif & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 1413 (13) Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) v. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok & Ors. 2024 INSC 165 : (2024) 0 Supreme(SC) 184 (14) D.S. Parvathamma v. A. Srinivasan, (2003) 4 SCC 705 (15) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Taramai Borah & Ors. MAC Appeal No. 252/2017 (16) Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Anr. v. Manju Jain & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 157 10. Per contra of the learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents have submitted that all throughout the BVFCL has been paying fix salary to the private respondents, treating them as a contractual teacher without giving them status of a permanent and/or regular teacher only to deprive the private respondents of their rightful service benefit. It has also been submitted that in paragraph-4 of the writ petition, the private respondents had specifically pleaded that as per record, in the year 1991, the total sanctions strength of the school was 134, out of which 117 numbers of sanctioned post were for teachers (H.S.) and 17 numbers were for teachers (P.S.). in this regard, it has been submitted that while responding to statements made in paragraph nos. 2 to 4 of the writ petition, the appellant had not specifically denied about the existence of sanctioned strength of 117 teachers (H.S.) in the BVFCLHS School. Rather, the appellants had stated that as per the report submitted by the National Productivity Council 2022, there are only 2 regular post, being the Principal (Grade E-3) and Vice-Principal (Grade E-2) and a total number of 28 senior teachers on ad-hoc /contractual basis in the BVFCLHS School. Rather, the appellants had stated that as per the report submitted by the National Productivity Council 2022, there are only 2 regular post, being the Principal (Grade E-3) and Vice-Principal (Grade E-2) and a total number of 28 senior teachers on ad-hoc /contractual basis in the BVFCLHS School. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the alleged absence of record of list of sanctioned strength of school teachers of BVFCLHS School cannot mean as if the appellant has denied the existence of any such documents. Accordingly, it was submitted that the appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has cited the following cases, viz., (i) Uma Devi (supra); (ii) State of J&K v. District Bar Association, Bandipora, (2017) 3 SCC 410 , (iii) Shripal & Anr., Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144 : (2025) 0 Supreme(SC) 265. 12. At this juncture, it would be apposite to quote hereinbelow paragraph nos. 43 and 53 of the case of Uma Devi (3) (supra):- 43 . Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constellational scheme. Merely because, an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as ‘litigious employment’ in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 53 . One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071 , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmaiah & Anr. (1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799 and B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. 53 . One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071 , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmaiah & Anr. (1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799 and B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1988) 1 SCC 122 : (1988) 1 SCR 598 and referred to in paragraph 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 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 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 regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. 13. In light of the decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra), the records available in the present appeal has been examined to see as to how many years of service the respondent nos. 1 to 12 have rendered without intervention of the Court i.e. as on 18.10.2023, when W.P.(C) 6558/2023 was filed, as well as to find out the manner in which appointment orders/ letters were issued to engage the said respondents in BVFCLHS School as ad hoc teachers. 14. As per materials available on record, the approximate length of service that the private respondent nos. 14. As per materials available on record, the approximate length of service that the private respondent nos. 1 to 12 have rendered in BVFCLHS School, Namrup, as on 18.10.2023, the date when W.P.(C) 6558/2023 was filed, are as follows:- i. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition (available at pp.46 of the memo of appeal), the respondent no. 1 has stated as follows:– “… the Namrup Unit of HFCL, with a view to form a panel for recruitment of teachers and demonstrators against existing vacancies of sanctioned posts in Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (referred to HFCL from here on) higher secondary school (later rechristened as BVFCL higher secondary school) published advertisements and also issued requisition to the jurisdictional employment exchanges by following proper recruitment procedures. The name of the petitioner along with others, who were graduates and eligible to be considered for appointment against the posts involved, were forwarded by the employment exchanges. Accordingly, by letter dated 11.07.2006, issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, the petitioner was called to appear for the scheduled interview before the selection committee on 28.06.2006 at 9.30 a.m. alongwith her necessary academic documents.” The copy of the calling letter of the respondent no. 1 has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-3. However, for the reasons best known to the appellants, the said document is not found to be annexed to the memo of appeal. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition (at pp.47 of the memo of appeal), the respondent no.1 has pleaded that she was empanelled for appointment and after following due procedure for selection, the respondent no. 1 was appointed as Subject Teacher (Chemistry) on contractual basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,500/- per month and she joined on 11.07.2006. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed in W.P.(C) 6558/2023 by the Manager (Legal), BVFCL on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 8 in the writ petition, the statements made by the respondent no. 1 in paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the writ petition have not been denied. Thus, in the absence of any denial, it can be presumed that the respondent no.1 has rendered service of approximately 17 years 3 months on 18.10.2023. ii. Appointment order of respondent no.2 to join BVFCLH School, Namrup was issued on 19.11.2012. Her date of joining is not pleaded. 5 and 6 of the writ petition have not been denied. Thus, in the absence of any denial, it can be presumed that the respondent no.1 has rendered service of approximately 17 years 3 months on 18.10.2023. ii. Appointment order of respondent no.2 to join BVFCLH School, Namrup was issued on 19.11.2012. Her date of joining is not pleaded. Thus, the said respondent is presumed to have rendered service of approximately 10 years 10 months as on 18.10.2023. iii. Appointment order of respondent no.3 to join BVFCLH School, Namrup was issued on 19.11.2012. Her date of joining is not pleaded. Thus, the said respondent is presumed to have rendered service of approximately 10 years 10 months as on 18.10.2023. iv. Appointment order of respondent no.4 to join BVFCLH School, Namrup was issued on 04.03.2011. His name was sponsored by employment exchange. However, the date of joining is not pleaded. Thus, the said respondent is presumed to have rendered service of approximately 12 years 7 months as on 18.10.2023. v. Appointment order of respondent no.5 to join BVFCLH School, Namrup was issued on 13.08.2007, which does not state that his name was sponsored by any employment exchange. His date of joining is also not pleaded. Thus, the said respondent is presumed to have rendered service of approximately 16 years 2 months as on 18.10.2023. vi. Appointment order of respondent no.6 to join BVFCLH School, Namrup was issued on 04.08.2014, which mentions that her name was sponsored by employment exchange. Her date of joining is not pleaded. Thus, from the date of her appointment order, the said respondent is presumed to have rendered service of approximately 9 years 2 months as on 18.10.2023, which is less than 10 years of continuous service. vii. Appointment order of respondent no.7 to join BVFCLH School, Namrup was issued on 01.05.2009. However, it is not mentioned in her appointment order that her name was sponsored by employment exchange. Her date of joining is not pleaded. Thus, the said respondent is presumed to have rendered service of approximately 14 years 5 month as on 18.10.2023. viii. Appointment order of respondent no.8 to join BVFCLH School, Namrup was issued on 15.11.2013, wherein it has been stated that his name was sponsored by employment exchange. His date of joining is not pleaded. Thus, the said respondent is presumed to have rendered service of approximately 14 years 5 month as on 18.10.2023. viii. Appointment order of respondent no.8 to join BVFCLH School, Namrup was issued on 15.11.2013, wherein it has been stated that his name was sponsored by employment exchange. His date of joining is not pleaded. Thus, the said respondent is presumed to have rendered service of approximately 9 years 11 months as on 18.10.2023. ix. Appointment order of respondent no.9 to join BVFCLH School, Namrup was issued on 15.05.2017. In her appointment order, it is not stated that her name was sponsored by employment exchange. Her date of joining is not pleaded. Thus, the said respondent is presumed to have rendered service of approximately 6 years 5 months as on 19.06.2024. x. Appointment order of respondent no.10 to join BVFCLH School, Namrup was issued on 15.05.2017. In her appointment order, it is not stated that her name was sponsored by employment exchange. Her date of joining is not pleaded. Thus, the said respondent is presumed to have rendered service of approximately 6 years 5 month as on 18.10.2023. xi. Appointment order of respondent no.11 to join BVFCLH School, Namrup was issued on 19.05.2017. In her appointment order, it is not stated that her name was sponsored by employment exchange. Her date of joining is not pleaded. Thus, the said respondent is presumed to have rendered service of approximately 6 years 5 months as on 18.10.2023. xii. Appointment order of respondent no.12 to join BVFCLH School, Namrup was issued on 29.10.2018. In her appointment order, it is not stated that her name was sponsored by employment exchange. Her date of joining is not pleaded. Thus, the said respondent is presumed to have rendered service of approximately 4 years 11 months as on 18.10.2023. 15. On examination of the materials available on record, the appointment orders in respect of the respondent nos. 1 to 12 were issued as follows:- a. The respondent no. 1 has pleaded that she was selected and appointed after issuing advertisement and after calling candidates from employment exchange. b. However, the respondent nos. 2 to 12 have not specifically pleaded that they had applied for the post of teachers pursuant to an advertisement and/or that their names were sponsored by Employment Exchange and they were then selected and appointed. 1 has pleaded that she was selected and appointed after issuing advertisement and after calling candidates from employment exchange. b. However, the respondent nos. 2 to 12 have not specifically pleaded that they had applied for the post of teachers pursuant to an advertisement and/or that their names were sponsored by Employment Exchange and they were then selected and appointed. c. Nonetheless, on a perusal of the documents available in the memo of appeal, it is seen that the names of the respondent nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8 were sponsored by the University Employment Information and Guidance Bureau, which is an Employment Exchange as per the State Government website. After facing interview, they were offered contractual appointment for the post of Teachers vide appointment letters issued by the Personnel Officer, BVFCL, Namrup. d. The name of respondent no. 3 was sponsored by Employment Exchange, Namrup and after interview, he was offered contractual employment as Teacher vide appointment letter were issued by the Personnel Officer, BVFCL, Namrup. e. There are no documents in the writ petition to show that the names of the respondent nos. 5, 7 and 9 to 12 were sponsored by any employment exchange. From their appointment letters, it appears that they were appointed on the basis of applications made and interview held and their appointment orders were issued by the officials of BVFCL. f. Moreover, there are no documents in the writ petition to show that the respondent nos. 9, 10 and 11 had undergone the process of interview before being appointed. Their appointment orders were issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, BVFCL. 16. Thus, as indicated in paragraph nos. 14 and 15 above, the names of respondent nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 8 are found to have been sponsored by employment exchange. However, out of the said respondents, only the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are found to have rendered service of more than 10 years at BVFCLHS School, Namrup as on 18.10.2023, the date when W.P.(C) 6558/2023 was filed. The respondent nos. 6 and 8 to 12 are found to have not rendered more than 10 years of service as on 18.10.2023, the date when W.P. (C) 6558/2023 was filed. Thus, the appointment orders of only respondent nos. The respondent nos. 6 and 8 to 12 are found to have not rendered more than 10 years of service as on 18.10.2023, the date when W.P. (C) 6558/2023 was filed. Thus, the appointment orders of only respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are found to be in accordance with law laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 247 . 17. It is seen from the documents available in the record, the appointment orders in respect of the respondent nos. 2 to 12 were issued by the officials of the BVFCL and the appointment order of respondent no. 1 was issued by the erstwhile HFCL. It is not the case of the appellants that (i) the appointment of respondent nos. 2 to 12 were illegal, and (ii) that the officials who had issued the appointment orders/letters had acted illegally. Therefore, the stand of the appellant that the BVFCLHS School was not taken over by the appellant, has been referred to only to be rejected. If the appellant corporation had not taken over the ownership and management of the BVFCLHS School, their officials had no business to issue appointment orders and/or order for extension of ad hoc appointment of the respondent nos.1 to 12, thereby appointing them as contractual teachers and to renew their appointment from time to time after making some days of artificial break in their service in the said BVFCLHS School. By paying the salary of the private respondents, the appellant and its officials had acquiesced to their appointment. Thus, by necessary implication, the appellants are found to be acting as the owner, who is in the management of the said BVFCLHS School. The submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the BVFCL was paying salary of the contractual teachers under Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR for short), has to be outrightly rejected because it is neither the pleaded case of the appellants either in their affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ petition, nor there is any statement in the Memo of this appeal that the appellant corporation is giving financial grant to the School Management Committee for paying salary to contractual teachers. Moreover, no document has been filed by the appellant to show that the payment of salary was by way of CSR activity of the appellant. Moreover, no document has been filed by the appellant to show that the payment of salary was by way of CSR activity of the appellant. The appellant has not specifically denied that it was paying consolidated salary directly to the contractual teachers. 18. The learned senior counsel for the appellant had submitted that the private respondents were appointed on contractual basis for a period of 6 (six) months and/or for more shorter period and they were re-appointed after giving a break-in-service for about 2 to 3 days. Thus, it was submitted that the nature of appointment made, signifies that the appointment of the private respondents was on temporary basis and therefore, they have no right for regularization of their service. The said contention deserves to be and is accordingly, rejected because of the fact that although a specific statement was made in paragraph-4 of the writ petition that the sanctioned strength of teachers in the BVFCLHS School was 117 (H.S.), but the said statement has not been specifically denied by the appellant and thus, amounts to admission by virtue of the doctrine of non-traverse. 19. The other submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that having accepted the contractual appointment and extension thereto from time to time without seeking regularisation, the inaction on part of the private respondents would act as an estoppel against the private respondents. In the said context, it has been discussed hereinbefore that the names of respondent nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 8 were sponsored either by the University Employment Information and Guidance Bureau, which is an Employment Exchange in the State Government website, or by the Employment Exchange, Namrup. Thus, the private respondent nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 8 have been able to establish that they were appointed after following the due process of law. In this regard, the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the contention on behalf of the appellant had held that mode of recruitment on the strength of forwarding of names by the concerned employment exchange is a recognized mode in law for holding a selection process. In this intra-court appeal, the Court finds no reason to disagree with the said well- considered finding of the learned Single Judge. 20. In this intra-court appeal, the Court finds no reason to disagree with the said well- considered finding of the learned Single Judge. 20. It is also not the case of the appellant that at the time of entry into service, the private respondents were not qualified to hold the post of teachers. It is also not the case of the appellant that they have not been re- engaging the private respondents as contractual teachers for BVFCLHS School. Therefore, though the engagement and/or appointment of the private respondent nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 8 cannot be said to be illegal appointments, however, out of the said respondent nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 8, only the respondent nos. 1 to 4 are found to have rendered more than 10 years of service without intervention of the Court. 21. In order to bring home the point that there were only 2 (two) sanctioned post for the school, being the Principal and Vice-Principal, the learned senior counsel for the appellant had placed heavy reliance on the Manpower Assessment Report of BVFCLHS School, prepared by the National Productivity Council. It is noted that the entire report is not appended to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 8 in the writ petition i.e. the appellant herein and its various authorities. However, on a perusal of the said report, it is seen that paragraph 9.0 and sub-paragraphs thereto relate to BVFCLHS School. The inclusion of the BVFCLHS School in the said report stands as a testimony of fact that the said school is an integral asset of BVFCL, i.e. the appellant. Assuming that the said school was not an asset of an Govt. of India undertaking, then there is no explanation by the appellant as to why the said school, leaving out a large number of schools in the State of Assam, had been included in the report prepared by the National Productivity Council, which is established under DPIIT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Govt. of India. Thus, the stand of the appellant that BVFCL is not the owner of BVFCLHS School deserves rejection. In the said report, amongst others, reference is made to the pupil-teacher ratio and the said report states that the pupil-teacher ratio in BVFCLHS School is nearly 32:1 for 28 teachers. of India. Thus, the stand of the appellant that BVFCL is not the owner of BVFCLHS School deserves rejection. In the said report, amongst others, reference is made to the pupil-teacher ratio and the said report states that the pupil-teacher ratio in BVFCLHS School is nearly 32:1 for 28 teachers. Therefore, when the erstwhile HFCL and thereafter, the BVFCL has been continuously running the BVFCLHS School by appointing teachers temporarily and/or on ad hoc basis from time to time by paying their fixed-pay, the Court is inclined to reject the stand of the appellant that it has no manpower requirement for running BVFCLHS School. 22. Under such circumstances, the Court is unable to take a view contrary to the observations made by the learned Single Judge that in the present scenario regarding the scarcity of employment, the bargaining power of an incumbent who has been offered a particular post cannot be held to be at par with the employer and therefore, the question of any estoppel coming in the way of such claim would not arise. 23. On the unique facts of this case, the cases cited by the learned senior counsel for the appellants are not found to help the appellants in any manner. Therefore, no purpose would be served to burden this judgment and order with discussion on those cases. 24. In light of the discussions above, the private respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are held to have been appointed after following the due process of law. Their names are found to have been sponsored by the employment exchange. They were appointed after holding interview. Moreover, they have rendered more than 10 years of service as on 18.10.2023, the date of filing of W.P.(C) 6558/2023, which is without the intervention of the Court. Thus, the appointment of the said respondent nos. 1 to 4 is held to be not illegal. Thus, this appeal fails in respect of the said respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 25. Although the respondent nos. 5 and 7 have rendered more than 10 years of service as on 18.10.2023, i.e. the date when W.P.(C) 6558/2023 was filed, but their initial appointment order, available in the Memo of Appeal, do not reveal that that their names were sponsored by any employment exchange or that they had applied pursuant to an employment advertisement. 26. The respondent nos. 5 and 7 have rendered more than 10 years of service as on 18.10.2023, i.e. the date when W.P.(C) 6558/2023 was filed, but their initial appointment order, available in the Memo of Appeal, do not reveal that that their names were sponsored by any employment exchange or that they had applied pursuant to an employment advertisement. 26. The respondent nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are found to have not completed more than 10 years of service as on 18.10.2023. Moreover, their names are not found to be sponsored by any employment exchange. The said respondents are also not found to have applied for the post pursuant to any employment advertisement. 27. Therefore, insofar as the appointment of the respondent nos. 5 to 12 in service is concerned, their appointment is not found sustainable on facts and in law as laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra). Resultantly, the impugned judgment dated 19.06.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 6558/2023, directing regularisation of the service of the respondent nos. 5 to 12, is not sustainable in light of the law laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and the case of M.L. Kesari (supra). The learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 12 have not been able to show that the said ratio, as laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra), has been diluted by any case law cited by him at the Bar. Therefore, as the appointment of respondent nos. 5, to 12 are held to be not in accordance with law, no purpose would be served in discussing the cases cited by the learned senior counsel for the private respondents as those cases do not help the respondent nos. 5 to 12 in any way. 28. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed in respect of the respondent nos. 1 to 4. However, the Court is inclined to partly allow this appeal insofar as the respondent nos. 5 to 12 are concerned and to that extent, the impugned order dated 19.06.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6558/2023, is set aside by holding that the said respondent nos. 5 to 12 are not entitled to the relief of regularisation of their services. 29. In light of the discussions above, the Court is inclined to pass the following – ORDER: 30. 5 to 12 are not entitled to the relief of regularisation of their services. 29. In light of the discussions above, the Court is inclined to pass the following – ORDER: 30. In respect of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, this appeal is dismissed. The decision of the learned Single Judge would apply propio vigore in respect of the said respondents. 31. In respect of the respondent nos. 5 to 12, this appeal stands allowed. The said respondents are not found entitled to the relief of regularisation of service in terms of the impugned order dated 19.06.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6558/2023. 32. The parties are left to bear their own cost.