JUDGMENT : R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. Challenge is to the order of the Writ Court dated 30.07.2024, in and by which, the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent seeking to quash the order of the second respondent dated 19.04.2023 and as a consequence direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment. 2. By the order impugned in the writ petition, a request of the petitioner for regularization and extension of service was held to be not feasible of compliance with a direction to the petitioner to employ herself through the University Approved out sourcing Agency, after a break of seven days from 01.04.2023 to 07.04.2023. The petitioner was employed as a Research Associate/Senior Research Investigator on a pay scale of Rs,9,300/- - 34,800/- + Grade pay of Rs.4,600/- on 20.09.2011. The notification calling for appointment was made on 04.08.2010 and the appointment was made after conducting a regular selection process. 3. The Agro Economic Research Centre in which the petitioner was appointed was established by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India, throughout the country and 15 Centres are functioning as of date. They were established in the Universities based on a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the second respondent University and the first respondent. Subsequently, the Agro Economic Research Centre, established under the Memorandum of Understanding was made a permanent Department of the University. 4. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, the staff, who were recruited for the purposes of its Agro Economic Research Centre would be treated on par with the permanent employees of the University. Claiming that she has been serving the Centre right from the date of her appointment and she has also been given annual increments and all other benefits on par with the regular employees and that her services have been extended year on year, the petitioner sought for regularization. Certain communications, issued by the first respondent requiring the University to regularize the services of the petitioner, were also relied upon by the petitioner. While things stood thus, by a communication dated 19.04.2023, the University while expressing its inability to regularize the services, directed the petitioner to employ herself through the University approved out sourcing agency, after a service break of 7 days from 01.04.2023 to 07.04.2023. It is this order which was subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition. 5. While things stood thus, by a communication dated 19.04.2023, the University while expressing its inability to regularize the services, directed the petitioner to employ herself through the University approved out sourcing agency, after a service break of 7 days from 01.04.2023 to 07.04.2023. It is this order which was subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition. 5. The petitioner contended that she having worked in the sanctioned post for more than 10 years on a regular scale of pay and the University having granted her increments as well as maternity leave treating her as a regular employee, her services should be regularized, inasmuch as the funding agency viz. the first respondent had also recommended regularization of the services of the petitioner. 6. This claim was resisted by the respondents. The first respondent would claim that the Agro Economic Research Centres were started in the year 1954 – 1955 as an Autonomous Institution and are functioning under the control of different Universities/Institutes. A Memorandum of Understanding was entered into with the University of Madras in the year 1969. While the activities of the Centre were funded by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India, viz. the first respondent in the Writ Petition, the Administrative control alone was with the University concerned. The Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India, was funding the Agro Economic Research Centres. On the communications dated 06.02.2018, 16.11.2018 and 24.11.2021, the first respondent took a stand that those communications were sent to the University only seeking clarification and the same would not confer any right on the petitioner. 7. The University filed a separate counter. While admitting the fact that the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis from 20.09.2011 and she has been serving the University without any break, the University contended that since her appointment was not permanent and it was only extended from time to time, as per the policy decision of the University to outsource the entire staff, the petitioner in the Writ Petition was required to get herself employed through the out sourcing agency nominated by the University. After hearing, the Writ petition in part, the Writ Court raised the following queries and required the University to furnish the details. "4. In view thereof, the following particulars are further required from the second respondent. After hearing, the Writ petition in part, the Writ Court raised the following queries and required the University to furnish the details. "4. In view thereof, the following particulars are further required from the second respondent. 1.Whether the centre being one of permanent in nature in the University, the post sanctioned are permanent or temporary in nature? 2. Whether any other employee of the centre is treated as permanent employee and retired employee who is being paid pension? 3. What is the condition in respect of other employees who are employed in the said centre? 4. Whether the particulars mentioned in the check list, as annexed to the letter dated 14.08.2018 stands correct or not? 5. Whether the post mentioned in Page No.50 of the typed set of papers which are mentioned as sanctioned post etc., are sanctioned permanently?”. 8. In answer to the queries, a typed set of documents was produced by the University. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Court concluded that the petitioner having been appointed to regular sanctioned post after undergoing a selection process ought not to have been made a contract employee where her services were extended year on year for more than 10 years. From the statement showing details of staff strength that was produced before the Writ Court, the Writ Court found that many of the employees were treated as regular employees on regular time scale of pay, after the initial appointment on contract basis and they have also been admitted into regular pension upon superannuation. Therefore, the Writ Court concluded that the Agro Economic Research Centre is a permanent department of the University and the post which the petitioner occupies is a regular post. 9. The Writ Court also adverted to paragraph 7 of the Counter affidavit of the second respondent, wherein it was admitted that the post which is occupied by the petitioner is a sanctioned post in the core Staff strength of the centre. When the extensions were granted by the University, the same was not approved by the first respondent which is the funding agency. The Writ Court has specifically adverted to the communication dated 24.11.2021, wherein the action of the University in extending the services of the petitioner for a period of 11 months as inappropriate. When the extensions were granted by the University, the same was not approved by the first respondent which is the funding agency. The Writ Court has specifically adverted to the communication dated 24.11.2021, wherein the action of the University in extending the services of the petitioner for a period of 11 months as inappropriate. A specific request was also made by the first respondent to the University to ratify the extension of services of the petitioner without break as per the letter dated 06.02.2018 and the Official Memorandum dated 16.11.2018. Again on 19.04.2022, the first respondent had sent to the following communication: "Subject: Regularization of the services of Tmt. T. Priya, Research Associate/Sr. Research Investigator of AERC, Chennai-regarding. The undersigned is directed to refer to this office letter of even number dated 24.11.2021 (copy enclosed) requesting therewith to ratify the extension of services of Tmt. T. Priya without break and to furnish the action taken report with regard to this office's earlier letter of even number dated 06.02.2018 and OM dated 16.11.2018 (copies enclosed) on the above mentioned subject. The University of Madras has been requested to take appropriate action with regard to regularization of service of Tmt. T. Priya as Research Associate/Sr. Research Investigator in AERC. Chennai, In this regard, this office has not received any communication so far from the University of Madras. 2. Therefore, it is again requested to take appropriate and. favourable action to ratify the extension without break and regularization of services of Tmt. T. Priya, Research Associate/Sr. Research Investigator in view of the instructions issued by this office vide letter dated 06.02.2018 and OM dated 16.11.2018. Action taken report in this regard may please be furnished to this office on priority." 10. The Writ Court after adverting to the stand of the first respondent as well as para 53 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and others , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , concluded that the petitioner is entitled to regularization of a services. Aggrieved, the University has come up on Appeal, while the first respondent has accepted the order. 11. We have heard Ms.V.Sudha, learned counsel appearing for the University, Mr.C.Vigneswaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/petitioner in the Writ Petition and Mr.V.T.Balaji, learned Panel Counsel for the Central Government appearing for the second respondent. 12. Aggrieved, the University has come up on Appeal, while the first respondent has accepted the order. 11. We have heard Ms.V.Sudha, learned counsel appearing for the University, Mr.C.Vigneswaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/petitioner in the Writ Petition and Mr.V.T.Balaji, learned Panel Counsel for the Central Government appearing for the second respondent. 12. Ms.V.Sudha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/University would vehemently contend that the University has taken a policy decision to out source all appointments and therefore, the direction for regularization ought not to have been granted. She would also contend that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2011 and her appointment was renewed year on year, with an artificial break in service and therefore, she cannot claim permanent status. Considerable reliance is also placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi , wherein it was held that regularization cannot be a matter of course and back door entrants, who were appointed without following a selection process cannot be regularized thereby denying an opportunity to others, who are waiting in the queue. 13. Contending contra, Mr.C.Vigneswaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner would submit that the decision in Uma Devi , would not apply inasmuch as the first respondent who was selected in a recruitment process which was conducted after an advertisement was made and therefore, terming the first respondent as a back door entrant itself is misconceived. The learned counsel would also rely upon the two recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court one in Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in 2024 INSC 1034 , and Shripal & anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 INSC 144 14. We have considered the rival submissions. 15. The facts are not in dispute. The Agro Economic Research Centres were established by the first respondent across the country. Though, they were the Autonomous Institutions, they were attached to any University or an Institute in the area concerned. The Centre at Chennai was attached to the appellant University. It was operating initially on a Memorandum of Understanding between the University and the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India. Subsequently by a resolution of a syndicate, the Centre was made a permanent department in the University. 16. The Centre at Chennai was attached to the appellant University. It was operating initially on a Memorandum of Understanding between the University and the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India. Subsequently by a resolution of a syndicate, the Centre was made a permanent department in the University. 16. It is also not in dispute that the funding of the Agro Economic Research Centre, is done by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India, and there is no expenditure incurred by the University for the salaries to be paid to the employees attached to the Centre. When extensions were granted by the University to the first respondent, the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India, which is the funding agency objected to such extensions being granted and required the University Administration to clarify as to how contractual staff have being appointed in the Centre. Once such communication is dated 06.02.2018. Again on 16.11.2018, the Department of Agriculture wrote to the Registrar of University of Madras stressing the need for having regular appointments in these Centre and the said letter reads as follows: 17. Despite this, the University went on extending the services of the petitioner year on year, at times with an artificial break. Finally in 24.11.2021, the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India, wrote to the University requiring to ratify the extension of the services of the first respondent without break and also take further action pursuant to the earlier correspondence dated 06.02.2018 and the official Memorandum dated 16.11.2018. The said request was reiterated again on 19.04.2022 by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India. Despite all these, the order impugned in the Writ Petition came to be passed by the University on 19.04.2023. The only contention of the University is that the petitioner was employed on a contractual basis and there is no provision for regularizing the services of the petitioner in the statutes of the University. 18. We find this submission rather amusing. Originally the Agro Economic Research Centre was made a part of the University by virtue of the Memorandum of Understanding between the University and the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India. Subsequently, it was made a permanent Department of the University. The Centre itself had a particular sanctioned staff strength. 18. We find this submission rather amusing. Originally the Agro Economic Research Centre was made a part of the University by virtue of the Memorandum of Understanding between the University and the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India. Subsequently, it was made a permanent Department of the University. The Centre itself had a particular sanctioned staff strength. It is not in dispute that the first respondent was appointed within the sanctioned staff strength after undergoing a regular process of selection. Therefore, the first respondent cannot be construed as a back door entrant or as a person appointed on a temporary basis in a temporary vacancy. The method of contractual appointment can be resorted to only when there is no permanent vacancy and hands are required to do the work which is arisen out of certain contingency or emergency. 19. Appointment of a contractual worker for a permanent sanctioned post itself is a dubious method, which should not be encouraged by the Courts. The dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi , cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the first respondent was appointed to a substantial vacancy, after undergoing a formal selection process and the entire expenditure incurred by the University, insofar as the Agro Economic Research Centre is reimbursed by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India. Therefore, there is no additional financial burden for the University. If we have to examine the case on the above backdrop, we find that the action of the University is wholly unreasonable. We should also point out at this juncture, the conduct of the University in granting the first respondent Annual Increments and Maternity Leave, treating her as a permanent employee. We are therefore, unable to resist observing that the order dated 19.04.2023 has been made for extraneous reasons. 20. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors, reported in 2024 INSC 1034 , as well as Shripal & anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 INSC 144 , referred to supra, had pointed out that these kind of contractual engagements amount to misuse of temporary labourers and empowers the employer to indulge in arbitrary termination. Carrier progression is also denied to these people. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 INSC 144 , referred to supra, had pointed out that these kind of contractual engagements amount to misuse of temporary labourers and empowers the employer to indulge in arbitrary termination. Carrier progression is also denied to these people. Use of out sourcing as a shield has also been decried by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The scope of the verdict in Uma Devi , was also considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors, reported in 2024 INSC 1034 , and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the applicability of the judgment in Uma Devi , to certain unfair ethical practices adopted by the employers, had observed as follows: “26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.” 21. We feel that the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors , capture the mindset of the employers, who indulge in making temporary appointments even for permanent vacancies. “25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. “25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.” 22. Again in Shripal & anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad , the very same Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had after referring to both Uma Devi as well as Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors , concluded that the appointments to permanent posts on a contractual basis or on a temporary basis shall not be approved by the Court. In doing so, the Court held that the Labour Court can even direct creation of more posts. In doing so, the Court held that the Labour Court can even direct creation of more posts. A Full Bench of this Court in M.Sivappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2024 (2) CTC 1 , in which one of us was a party (R.Subramanian, J), had also considered the rights of these temporary employees, who were appointed to regular posts which are found mentioned in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules and had held that if the appointments are to regular sanctioned posts, the fact that the appointments were made as temporary appointments cannot be used as a shield by the employer to ward of request for regularization. 23. In the light of the above Judicial precedents, we find that the action of the University is wholly unjustified. The contention of the University that regularization is not provided in the statutes of the University cannot be a ground. The statutes do not contemplate contractual appointment for permanent post. Therefore, the question of regularization also will not arise. A regularization is a consequence of a person being kept in temporary service for an unduly long period. The statutes of the University do not contemplate such temporary appointments to permanent vacancies. Therefore, it is quite normal that regularization is also not provided for. To our knowledge, none of the Service Rules of the State or the Central Government will provide for regularization. 24. Regularisation is normally done by way of a Scheme formulated for regularisation. The State and the Central Governments have come out with various schemes at various points of time for regularization of the employees and many such schemes have been upheld by the Courts. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the University that since the statutes do not provide for regularization, the University cannot be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner is completely misconceived. The Writ Court has taken note of these facts and held that the respondents will have to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post of the Research Associate/Senior Research Investigator. 25. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the Writ Court, the Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed . The Writ Court has taken note of these facts and held that the respondents will have to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post of the Research Associate/Senior Research Investigator. 25. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the Writ Court, the Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed . We extend the time granted by the Writ Court for compliance of Clause (ii) of Para 9 by four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in the Appeal and the time granted in Clause (iii) of para 9 by eight weeks there from. However, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.