Judgment & Order : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department as well as Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance and Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel, for the respondents No. 5 and 6. 2. By filing this petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize her service in the post of Subject Teacher of Logic and Philosophy at Sipajhar, HS and MP School in the District of Darrang, Assam on the ground that the post is lying vacant since 1997 in which, the petitioner has been allowed to serve, continuously. 3. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that she was appointed as Subject Teacher of Logic and Philosophy vide order dated 31.08.1997 at Sipajhar HS and MP School in a permanent vacant post in the District of Darrang, Assam and since then she is serving. 4 . It is projected that, although, the said post of Subject of Teacher in the Department of Logic and Philosophy at Sipajhar HS and MP School was sought to be filled up by an order dated 26.03.2001, where, one Nilakshi Bora was appointed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, the said appointee did not join, thereby the petitioner has been allowed to continue in the said post. 5. It is contended that considering the long service of the petitioner, on 26.04.2002, the Principal of the school had requested for taking steps for appointment in the said post in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had also filed representation before the competent authority praying for appointment in the said post and for payment of salary. Having not been considered, the petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition being WP(C) 4665/2002 praying for allowing her to continue in the said post till the regular appointment is made. 6. This Court vide order dated 30.07.2002 disposed of the writ petition with an observation that the respondent authorities may examine the matter and if the rules so permit, the petitioner may be allowed to work temporarily till the post is filled up in a regular manner by making it clear that the post should be filled up in a regular manner. Pursuant to the order dated 30.07.2002 of this Court, a recruitment process was initiated, wherein, the petitioner had participated. Pursuant to the order dated 30.07.2002 of this Court, a recruitment process was initiated, wherein, the petitioner had participated. However, she was unsuccessful and since the selected candidate had not joined the service, the same remains vacant. 7. Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a qualified person having MA in Philosophy and B.Ed degree. The authorities vide appointment order dated 31.08.1997 had allowed the petitioner to join as Subject Teacher in Logic and Philosophy and since then, she is continuously serving in the said post. Although, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.07.2002 in the aforesaid writ petition, a regular selection process was initiated, but the post could not be filled up and the post remains vacant as the selected candidate has refused to join in the said post, thereby allowed to continue the petitioner since 1997. In the circumstance, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularization as a Subject Teacher in Logic and Philosophy at Sipajhar HS & MP School. 8. Mr. Mondal, learned counsel, while referring to the various correspondences, submits that the initial appointment was a temporary arrangement and the subsequent action of the respondent authorities in the matter of the appointment in the said school of the petitioner clearly indicates that the petitioner has been allowed to continue in the said post. Therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner as a Subject Teacher of Logic and Philosophy at Sipajhar HS and M.P.School as the petitioner has been serving continuously since 1997. 9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo & Ors -vs- Union of India & Ors reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826. 10. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, for the respondents submits that the basis of claim for regularization by the petitioner is the purported appointment order dated 31.08.1997 issued by the Zilla Gano Parishad Samittee, wherein, the petitioner was temporarily allowed to join as Subject Teacher at Sipajhar HS and M.P. School and that too, without any financial benefit and subject to approval of the management committee of the school. Therefore, since the initial appointment of the petitioner is not by a competent authority, the same is nullity for which no reliance can be placed upon. 11. He submits that that the petitioner was allowed to join as subject teacher of Logic and Philosophy against a post which fell vacant due to deputation of one Smti Chandraprabha Bhuyan. It is only on 26.04.2002, the petitioner made representation before the Director of Secondary Education, to appoint her in the said vacant lien post. Her representation was forwarded by the Principal of Sipajhar HS & MP School vide letter dated 26.04.2002 and requested the Inspector of Schools, DDC Magaldoi to appoint the petitioner as a stopgap arrangement. Having not received any response the petitioner filed the above referred WP(C) No. 4665/2002. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30.07.2002 with an observation that the respondent authority may examine the matter if the Rules so permit, consider the case, if she is otherwise eligible. The Hon'ble court made it clear that the post should be filled up in a regular manner as the post was lying vacant for the last 5 years. 12. He submits that in compliance of Hon'ble High Court's order 30.07.2002, the process for appointment was initiated. Interview call letter was issued to the petitioner and accordingly she appeared in the interview on 12.05.2010 but she was unsuccessful. The candidate who was selected did not join as he got another job elsewhere. He submits that it is an undisputed fact that she appeared in the interview for the post in question but was not successful. Therefore, no claim can be made for appointment to the post in which she was not selected inasmuch as the post has to be filled up in accordance with the existing rules as directed by this Hon’ble Court. He further submits that in the matter of public appointment, the appointing authority is bound to advertise the post, call interview and prepare selection list. The procedure followed so far by the Respondent authorities cannot be faulted. The petitioner having participated in the interview and failed to succeed has accrued no legal right for appointment or regularization to the post in question. 13. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jahangir Alam and Ors -vs- State of Assam and Ors. The petitioner having participated in the interview and failed to succeed has accrued no legal right for appointment or regularization to the post in question. 13. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jahangir Alam and Ors -vs- State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2003 (3) GLT 544. 14. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 15. Admittedly, the petitioner was allowed to work as Subject Teacher in Logic and Philosophy at Sipajhar HS and MP School vide order dated 31.08.1997, issued by one Zilla Gano Parishad Samittee, without any financial benefit and subject to approval of the Management Committee. The petitioner appears to have continued to serve as Subject Teacher in the said school till 2002 when the post was filled up by appointing one other person. However, the said appointee did not join, therefore, the petitioner has been allowed to continue. Various correspondences reveal that the petitioner had approached the authorities for her appointment on regular basis in the said post from time to time. Thereafter, having not been materialized, finally, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) 4665/2002. 16. After consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the said writ petition particularly, that the petitioner had not prayed for regular appointment but may be allowed to work temporarily till the post is filled up in a regular manner, it was observed that the respondent authorities may examine the matter, if the Rules permit, consider the case of the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible. However, it was made clear that the post should be filled up in a regular manner as the post is lying vacant for the last five years. Pursuant thereto, a selection process was held, wherein, the petitioner had also participated, but was unsuccessful. However, the selected candidate did not join and therefore, the post remains vacant and the petitioner, may not in accordance with law, but then allowed to continue in the said post as on today by the management committee of the said school. 17. Pursuant thereto, a selection process was held, wherein, the petitioner had also participated, but was unsuccessful. However, the selected candidate did not join and therefore, the post remains vacant and the petitioner, may not in accordance with law, but then allowed to continue in the said post as on today by the management committee of the said school. 17. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner has been allowed to continue as Subject Teacher of Logic and Philosophy at Sipajhar HS and M.P. School since 1997, however, there is no record to show that the petitioner was initially appointed either temporarily or by the competent authority except the management of the school. Since the initial appointment is not in accordance with law or by a competent authority, even for temporary arrangement, the appointment cannot be said to be valid in the eye of law. Thus, the claim of appointment and mere allowing to continue for so many years in the service, would not give rise to any right to claim for regularization of her service as the said appointment and continuance are fundamentally not valid. The service rendered by the petitioner, is in fortuitous circumstances as distinguished from regular service rendered under the State. Appointment made in departure to the Rules in force and services rendered on basis of such appointment cannot be understood to cast any obligation on the part of the State to regularize such appointment. 18 . In order to appreciate the submissions and heavy reliance placed on by the Mr. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Jaggo(supra), to project that since the petitioner has been continuously serving since 1997, she is entitled to be regularized in the post of Subject Teacher in Logic and Philosophy in the said school, I deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant paragraphs, which are reproduced herein under- “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. 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," SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 25 of 29 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. 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. 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. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 19 . The above observation and the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is well settled proposition, however, a fact in a given case, in my view, has to be considered to apply the law as even a slight different in fact would make a huge difference in its application. In the above case, the fact therein pertains to engagement of the appellants by the Central Water Commission on part-time as a Safaiwala in 1993 from time to time. The appellants therein have sought for regularization of their services by contending that over the years, their roles and responsibilities had evolved beyond the nominal labels of “part- time” or “contractual” and that they were performing ongoing and core functions integral to the CWC’s operations. The appellants therein have sought for regularization of their services by contending that over the years, their roles and responsibilities had evolved beyond the nominal labels of “part- time” or “contractual” and that they were performing ongoing and core functions integral to the CWC’s operations. In that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering its earlier decisions and proposition of law, has observed and laid down the above proposition of law and a direction was issued for regularization of their services. 20 . In the present case, since the appointment was not done by the competent authority, the claim for regularization cannot be directed in view of the fact that the appointment even for temporary or adhoc has to be by the authority competent to appoint. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed by one Zilla Gano Parishad Samittee, although allowed to be continued for many years, which is fundamentally invalid. More so, there was a recruitment process pursuant to the order of this Court wherein, the petitioner had participated without any objection, but was unsuccessful. The action of allowing the petitioner by the school management committee by itself would not entitle the petitioner for claiming regularization on the basis of mere long period of service. Therefore, in my considered view, the case of Jaggo (supra) is clearly distinguishable with the present case. 21 . The judgment in the case of Jahangir Alam (Supra) relied on by Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel appears to be more relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the claim of the petitioner is for regularization of her service on being allowed to continue by the School Management Committee. 22. As noted above, the initial appointment of the petitioner was unauthorized being contrary to the provision of the Rules. The service rendered by the petitioner, even if it is assumed to have continued for long years, would not be service rendered under the State, rather in fortuitous circumstances as distinguished from regular service rendered under the State. No duty would cast upon the State an obligation in law to regularize the petitioner in service. There would not be any legal right to regularization, thus, can be recognized in the facts of the present case. No duty would cast upon the State an obligation in law to regularize the petitioner in service. There would not be any legal right to regularization, thus, can be recognized in the facts of the present case. At no point of time, the State had permitted the petitioner to continue to work as teacher nor was any assurance given by the State that on continuing to work, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of regularization. No act on the part of the authority creating any impression that the petitioner would be entitled to regularization, can be attributed so as to hold that the petitioner could have entertained a reasonable impression that if she continue to render her service, such service would be regularized. 23 . In view of what has been discussed herein above, I am of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner for regularisation of her service as Subject Teacher in Logic and Philosophy. 24 . Accordingly, Writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. However, no order as to costs.