JUDGMENT : MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H.K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the three writ petitions. Also heard Mr. K.Gogoi, learned counsel for the State respondents while Mr. U.B. Sharma, learned counsel appears for respondent Nos.17 to 32 in WP(C)/8795/2019. Ms. P.Sharma, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC). 2. The three writ petitions are being taken up together in view of the fact that the issue to be decided is the same in all the three writ petitions. The petitioners in WP(C) 9795/2019 and WP(C) 157/2025 are the same, i.e, they are working as Guest/Part Time Lecturers (Technical) in various Polytechnics, while the petitioners in WP(C) 159/2015 are working as Guest/Part Time Lecturers (Non-Technical). 3. The case of all the writ petitioners is that as they have been working for a period of 7/8 years in various Polytechnics as Guest/Part Time Lecturers against sanctioned posts and were selected after the posts were advertised. Thus, their services should be regularized. The prayers of the petitioners is that the impugned advertisement dated 30.12.2024, for filling up 138 regular vacant posts of Lecturers (Technical) and 96 regular vacant posts of Lecturers (Non- Technical), should be set aside, in view of the fact that the services of the petitioners, who have been working as Guest/Part-Time Lecturers for 7/8 years in various Polytechnics, should be regularized. 4. The facts of the case is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 24.12.2016 for engagement of Guest/Part-Time Lecturers in new Polytechnics, the petitioners participated in the same and they were selected. After the selection process was over, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department wrote a letter dated 13.02.2017 to the Director of Technical Education, Assam conveying the approval of the Government in the Higher Education Department for engagement of the petitioners from April, 2017, subject to the condition that - i. Appointment should be purely temporary basis till regular appointment of faculties against created posts. ii. Salary/remuneration should be fixed pay only. iii. All the existing procedures, if any, should be strictly followed for appointment of the Guest/Part-Time Faculties. 5. Consequent to the above, the petitioners were appointed as Guest/Part Time Lecturers (Technical) and (Non-Technical) for an initial period of 6 months in February, 2017. ii. Salary/remuneration should be fixed pay only. iii. All the existing procedures, if any, should be strictly followed for appointment of the Guest/Part-Time Faculties. 5. Consequent to the above, the petitioners were appointed as Guest/Part Time Lecturers (Technical) and (Non-Technical) for an initial period of 6 months in February, 2017. One appointment order, which is similar to others is reproduced hereinbelow, as follows : “On compliance and submission of undertaking as per Letter No. TE(E)A- 1/2016/498 Dated 01.02.2017, this letter of engagement is issued to you to serve as Guest/ Part-Time Faculty against the post sanctioned vide Govt. Letter No. ATE.141/2016/65 Dated 23.12.2016 in Mechanical Engineering at Baksa Polytechnic, Belguri Pather with a monthly fixed remuneration of Rs.25,000/-. You are to report to the office of the undersigned on 01.04.2017 positively for undertaking your duties of engagement for commencement of academic session at Baksa Polytechnic in particular and in any other Polytechnic in general as directed. This engagement is initially for a period of six months from the date of reporting and may be renewed 25 per requirement of the Department. However, this engagement shall not be claimed for regular appointment.” 6. 3 months after the petitioners’ appointments, the State respondents issued an advertisement dated 25.05.2017, for filling up of 113 vacant posts of Lecturers (Technical) and 86 posts of Lecturers (Non-Technical). The present writ petitioners herein, instead of submitting their applications to take part in the selection process for regular appointment, challenged the advertisement dated 25.05.2017, vide WP(C) 8975/2019, on the ground that they had a right to have their services regularized, against the posts which were advertised. This Court, vide order dated 29.11.2019, directed that the services of the petitioners should not be disturbed without the specific leave of this Court. This Court in the order dated 29.11.2019 passed in WP(C) 8795/2019 held as follows : “The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Guest Lecturers in the 10 Polytechnics in the State of Assam. Though their initial appointments were contractual in nature, they were made to understand that in due course, their services would be regularized. Therefore, they have been rendering their services virtually as regular employees as Guest Lecturers. Petitioners claim that they had been appointed as Guest Lecturers after facing a regular recruitment process and after having been selected in a public competition. Therefore, they have been rendering their services virtually as regular employees as Guest Lecturers. Petitioners claim that they had been appointed as Guest Lecturers after facing a regular recruitment process and after having been selected in a public competition. It has been accordingly submitted that if the posts which have been now advertised vide advertisement dated 25th May, 2017 are filled up on regular basis, this petition would become virtually infructuous. It has been submitted that as mentioned in the order dated 26.09.2019, the term of appointment of the petitioners is valid up-to 31.12.2019. However, as mentioned in Clause 4 of the said order, their services may be terminated at any time. Accordingly, petitioners are apprehensive that their services may be terminated by invoking Clause 4 of the said order. Be that as it may, all these aspects will be considered and an attempt shall be made to dispose of the petition on the next date on filing of return by the respondents as already indicated above. Till then, services of the petitioners may not be disturbed without specific leave of this Court. List on 27.01.2020.” 7 . The advertisement dated 25.05.2017 was also put to challenge by some other persons vide WP(C) 2089/2020. WP(C) 2089/2020 was disposed of, vide judgment and order dated 02.07.2024, by setting aside the advertisement dated 25.05.2017, in so far as it related to filling up the 113 posts of Lecturers (Technical) and 86 posts of Lecturers (Non-Technical), due to the fact that the Assam Technical Education Service Rules , 1981 (hereinafter referred to “1981 Rules”), which empowered the APSC to conduct the selection process, had been amended in the year 2020 and the said power to conduct the selection process had been given to the Assam Engineering Services Recruitment Board. This Court, vide the said judgment and order dated 02.07.2024 passed in WP(C) 2089/2020, also gave liberty to the State respondents to take appropriate steps to fill up the said 113 regular vacant posts of Lecturers (Technical) and 86 regular vacant posts of Lecturers (Non-Technical) in accordance with the amended 1981 Rules. 8 . Consequent to the above judgment and order dated 02.07.2024 passed in WP(C) 2089/2020, the State respondents have issued the present impugned advertisement dated 30.12.2024, which has been put to challenge by the petitioners. 9. 8 . Consequent to the above judgment and order dated 02.07.2024 passed in WP(C) 2089/2020, the State respondents have issued the present impugned advertisement dated 30.12.2024, which has been put to challenge by the petitioners. 9. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners have the required eligibility criteria to have their services as Lecturers (Technical) and (Non- Technical) regularized. Further, they were appointed against regular sanctioned posts after going through a selection process, in pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.12.2016. He submits that the petitioners were thereafter appointed on a fixed pay as Guest/Part Time Lecturers. 10. The petitioners’ counsel submits that even though the unamended Rule 6 of the 1981 Rules provided that the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) was to issue the advertisement and the selection of the candidates for appointment as Lecturers was to be done by the APSC, the same had been done by the Director of Technical Education, Assam and not by the APSC. He submits that due to the above anomaly, the appointment of the petitioners can be deemed to be an irregular appointment and not an illegal appointment, in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Siraj Ahmed vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another , reported in (2020) 19 SCC 480 and in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Umadevi (3) & Others , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 11. The petitioners’ counsel submits that in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Others , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 , the Supreme Court held that where appointments were not illegal but possibly irregular, and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned posts for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous and unblemished service, performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can over time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. He submits that in terms of the above case in Jaggo (supra) , the Courts must look beyond the surface levels and consider the realities of continuous long term employment. 12 . He submits that in terms of the above case in Jaggo (supra) , the Courts must look beyond the surface levels and consider the realities of continuous long term employment. 12 . The petitioners’ counsel also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sachin Ambadas Dawale & Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Another , reported in 2014 (2) Mh.L.J 36 wherein regularization of the temporary Lecturers therein were directed to be made, as the Government had not made appointment of Lecturers for a period of more than 10 years, through a selection process to be conducted by the Public Service Commission. He submits that as the petitioners herein have all the eligibility criteria for regular appointment to the posts of Lecturers (Technical) and Lecturers (Non- Technical) in terms of the 1981 Rules, the long period of service of the petitioners as Guest/Part Time Lecturers should be regularized. 13. Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the State respondents, on the other hand submits that prior to the advertisement dated 30.12.2024, the State respondents had issued another advertisement dated 21.02.2023, for filling up 80 nos. vacant posts of Lecturers (Technical) and 57 nos. vacant post of Lecturers (Non-Technical). As the petitioners had participated in the selection process for regular appointment in terms of the advertisement dated 21.02.2023, the petitioners had waived their right to claim regularization of their services. He also submits that the 1981 Rules was amended in 2020. Prior to 2020, the selection process for filling up the vacant posts of Lecturers (Technical) and Lecturers (Non-Technical) vested with the Assam Public Service Commission. However, with the amendment of the 1981 Rules, the selection process was to be conducted by the Assam Engineering Service Recruitment Board. He submits that when the present impugned advertisement dated 30.12.2024 has been made due to the State respondents being given the liberty to do the same, in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in WP(C) 2089/2020, this Court cannot act/sit as an appellate authority, over a judgment of a coordinate Bench. He also submits that the petitioners have no right to claim regularization due to they being in service for a period of 7/8 years, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar & Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Others , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1417. He also submits that the petitioners have no right to claim regularization due to they being in service for a period of 7/8 years, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar & Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Others , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1417. 14. Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not waived their right to have their services regularized, just because they took part in the selection process for filling up the posts of Lecturers pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.02.2023. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners were appointed as Guest/Part Time Lecturers in February, 2017, while the posts which were to be filled up pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.02.2023 were in relation to the posts which had become vacant since 25.05.2017, as has been reflected in Note-2 of the advertisement date 21.02.2023. He also submits that even though a Coordinate Bench of this Court had set aside the advertisement dated 25.05.2017 and given the liberty to the State respondents to advertise the said posts afresh, the petitioners’ prayer with regard to regularization of their services had not been affected by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 15. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 16. In the case of Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar (supra) , the Supreme Court while taking into consideration the case of State of Karnataka vs Umadevi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , held that no legal right is created in favour of a person who has worked for a long period of time on contractual basis to be appointed on a regular basis, only because the person had served for a long period of time. 17. Judgments referred to by the counsels for the parties, all relate back to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra) . Though the Supreme Court Umadevi (3) (supra) had deprecated the bypassing of the constitutional scheme, by employing persons without following a regular procedure or even through backdoor or on daily wages, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had kept in mind the fact that a number of persons had worked long years in duly sanctioned posts after a process of selection had been taken. As such, a onetime concession had been given for those persons who had worked for long continuous years on the basis of an irregular appointment and not illegal appointment. 18. In the case of Umadevi (3) (supra) , which was decided on 10.04.2006, the Supreme Court has held that a temporary, contractual, casual or daily wage employees does not have a legal right to be made permanent, unless they have been appointed in terms of the relevant Rules or in adherence to Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court in paragraph No. 53 of Uma Devi (3) (supra), had directed the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities to take steps for regularization as a “one-time measure”, the services of irregularly appointed persons, who had worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts, but not under the cover of the orders of the Courts or of Tribunals. Paragraph No. 53 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra) was thereafter clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Others Vs. M.L. Kesari, reported in 2010 9 SCC 247 , wherein it held that an exception to the general principles against the regularization was allowed in Uma Devi (3) (supra), if the following conditions were fulfilled. “(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) the appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned post, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular”. 19. In the present case the petitioners had taken part in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.12.2016, for engagement of Guest/Part Time Lecturers. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned post, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular”. 19. In the present case the petitioners had taken part in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.12.2016, for engagement of Guest/Part Time Lecturers. The advertisement and the selection process was to have been conducted by the APSC as per the 1981 Rules. However, the same was not done by the APSC and it was done by the Director, Higher Education Department. Thus, the selection of the petitioners was done de hors the Rules. The petitioners were thereafter selected for appointment as Guest/Part Time Lectures and permission for engaging them was made to the State Government, which was given by the State Government with certain conditions. The permission for engaging the petitioners clearly reflected the fact that the petitioners appointments would be temporary till regular appointments were made. The salary would be fixed pay. The appointment letters issued to the petitioners also clearly stated that their engagement would be for 6 months and they could not make a claim for regular appointment. Knowing fully well the conditions of their engagement, the petitioners were appointed in February, 2017. Even before 6 months had elapsed and during the subsistence of their engagement period, advertisement dated 25.05.2017 was issue for making regular appointments to the posts of Lecturer (Technical) & (Non Technical). Instead of the petitioners submitting their applications for taking part in the selection process for filling up the posts of Lecturer (Technical) & (Non Technical) on regular basis, the advertisement dated 25.05.2017 was put to challenge by the petitioners, vide WP(C) 8795/2019, with a further prayer that their services should be regularised. This Court gave protection to the petitioners, by directing the respondents not to disturb the services of the petitioners without the leave of the Court, vide interim order dated 29.11.2018 passed in WP(C) 8795/2019. This Court gave protection to the petitioners, by directing the respondents not to disturb the services of the petitioners without the leave of the Court, vide interim order dated 29.11.2018 passed in WP(C) 8795/2019. As can be seen from the above facts, the petitioners’ case for regularization does not come within the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in Umadevi (3) (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra), wherein an employee could be considered for regularisation, if he had worked for 10 years or more in a duly sanctioned post, without the benefit or protection of an interim order of any Court or Tribunal . In the present case, the petitioners are still working as Guest/Part Time Lecturers on the basis of the protection given vide interim order dated 29.11.2019 passed in WP(C) 8795/2019. When the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Umadevi (3) (supra) does not allow for counting of the services of temporary, contractual employees under the protection of an order of a Court for the purposes of regularisation, the petitioners cannot claim regularization on the ground that they have worked continuously as Guest/Part-Time Lecturers for the period beyond the requirement of the State respondents. The petitioners should have participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.05.2017, inasmuch as, on the date of issuance of the said advertisement dated 25.05.2017, the petitioners had only completed approximately 3 months of service as Guest/Part-Time Lecturers. 20. The above being said, the further fact remains that the advertisement dated 25.05.2017 was set aside by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) 2089/2020, due to the fact that the selection process for filling up the vacant post of Lecturers was to be conducted by the Assam Engineering Service Recruitment Board only, instead of the APSC from the year 2020, as the 1981 Rules had been amended. However, the Coordinate Bench while disposing of WP(C) 2089/2020, gave liberty to the State respondents to advertise the same posts that were advertised in the advertisement dated 25.05.2017 afresh, for filling up the same as per the amended 1981 Rules. However, the Coordinate Bench while disposing of WP(C) 2089/2020, gave liberty to the State respondents to advertise the same posts that were advertised in the advertisement dated 25.05.2017 afresh, for filling up the same as per the amended 1981 Rules. Thus, when the Coordinate Bench has allowed the State respondents to re-advertise the same posts mentioned in the earlier advertisement dated 25.05.2017, by way of the present impugned advertisement dated 30.12.2024, the prayer of the petitioners for setting aside the impugned advertisement dated 30.12.2024 cannot be considered by this Court, inasmuch as, this Court does not have any appellate jurisdiction/authority over the judgment of the Coordinate Bench passed in WP(C) 8795/2019. 21. It is also to be noted that the petitioners had taken part in the selection process for filling up the post of Lecturers (Technical) and Lecturers (Non- Technical) on regular basis, pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.02.2023. When the petitioners had taken part in the selection process for filling up the regular post of Lecturers (Technical) & (Non Technical) in terms of the advertisement dated 21.02.2023, there can be no reasonable explanation for the petitioners to challenge the impugned advertisement dated 30.12.2024 and it can be said that the petitioners had waived any right they might have had, by the said participation. However, the petitioners do not have any right to regularisation of their services and the petitioners can participate in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.12.2024. 22. It is also seen that at the time of selection and appointment of the petitioners, the petitioners had been selected by the Director of Technical Education and not by the APSC, which was dehors the 1981 Rules. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to direct the respondents to consider regularising the services of the petitioners. Besides, this Court is of the view that the decisions cited by the parties do not support the case of the petitioners. 23. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to set aside the impugned advertisement dated 30.12.2024 issued by the Chairman, Assam Engineering Service Recruitment Board, insofar as it relates to the post of Lecturers (Technical) & (Non Technical) in the various departments of the respective Polytechnic Colleges of Assam. 23. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to set aside the impugned advertisement dated 30.12.2024 issued by the Chairman, Assam Engineering Service Recruitment Board, insofar as it relates to the post of Lecturers (Technical) & (Non Technical) in the various departments of the respective Polytechnic Colleges of Assam. The further prayer for regularizing the services of the petitioners in the sanctioned regular posts is also rejected due to the reasons given in the foregoing paragraphs. 24. All the three writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.