JUDGMENT : The petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged illegal regularisation of the contract/daily wage employees by the Government in the respondent organisations. 2. The petitioners contend that they are qualified for appointments under respondents 10 to 19, given a fair and regular selection process. Petitioners 1 and 2 hold B. Tech degrees, with the 1 st having been previously included in the PSC list for Civil Police Officer (Category No. 657/2017), while the 3 rd petitioner was listed for Last Grade Servants (Category No. 71/2017). Petitioners 4 and 5 possess ITI qualifications, and the 4 th was also part of the Civil Police Officer list. The 6 th petitioner has a valid driving license, making them eligible for appointment as a Driver. All petitioners would have a fair opportunity if appointments were conducted through the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) as mandated by law. 2.1. Respondents 10 to 19, as instrumentalities of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, are required to make appointments strictly following Articles 14 and 16(1), ensuring transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity. Public posts must be filled through the PSC or open notifications to ensure equal opportunity for all eligible candidates. The petitioners argue that respondents 10 to 19 have routinely engaged temporary workers on a contract or daily wage basis, subsequently regularising these appointees and depriving qualified candidates of their rightful opportunities. Government Order, G.O.(P) No. 28/2016/Fin., issued on 26.02.2016, restricts such appointments to grave administrative exigencies and mandates specific remuneration. Additionally, further orders state that contract or daily wage employment should not exceed one year, with a possible extension to a maximum of two years, contradicting practices that have occurred. 2.2. Such actions contravene the directives outlined in Government Orders and Circulars, including Ext. P1 – G.O.(P) No.56/2017/Fin. and Ext.2 Circular No. 48/2015/Fin., which emphasises the binding nature of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ]. These directives prohibit long-term temporary engagements or subsequent regularisations and mandate that posts of a permanent nature be filled through regular recruitment. Under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR), temporary appointments are permissible only in genuine emergencies, confer no rights to regularisation, and must ideally occur through the Employment Exchange and be limited to 179 days. These directives prohibit long-term temporary engagements or subsequent regularisations and mandate that posts of a permanent nature be filled through regular recruitment. Under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR), temporary appointments are permissible only in genuine emergencies, confer no rights to regularisation, and must ideally occur through the Employment Exchange and be limited to 179 days. The doctrine of legitimate expectation does not extend to temporary or contractual employees, and regularisation is contingent upon open competition through the PSC. 2.3. The petitioners assert that despite the availability of sanctioned posts, respondents 10 to 19 have made appointments without adhering to reservation norms or the prescribed recruitment procedures, often driven by political influences. Irregular appointees were regularised under purported humanitarian considerations, disregarding the Umadevi judgment, which denies a right to regularisation for temporary or contract employees except in narrow circumstances. Moreover, the petitioners highlight that public appointments must adhere to reservation norms as per the KS&SSR and that respondents 10 to 19 ignored these norms while regularising employees, constituting a violation of constitutional and statutory requirements. Consequently, the regularisations have become invalid. 2.4. Despite these violations, respondents 10 to 19 secured Government approval for mass regularisations of temporary employees without a proper selection process. Orders, Exts.P5 to P15, illustrate a pattern of regularisations often performed against non-existent or artificially created posts, sometimes contrary to objections from the Finance and Law Departments, thereby undermining the rights of qualified candidates such as the petitioners. 2.5. The petitioners assert that equality in public employment is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution, and the orders Exts.P5 to P15 violate Articles 14 and 16, amounting to a fraud on the Constitution. Many regularised employees did not occupy sanctioned posts or were only protected by interim court orders, rendering them ineligible for benefits under the Umadevi exception. Thus, the impugned orders are arbitrary, unconstitutional, and unsustainable. 2.6. The petitioners further note that PSC-ranked lists for similar posts were available during the time of alleged exigent temporary appointments. They argue that the respondents should have selected candidates from these lists instead of handpicking individuals who were later regularised, revealing that such regularisations were unnecessary and unlawful. 2.7. The petitioners recall instances where this Court, in W.P.(C)No.15732/2020 and W.A.No.1020/2020, stayed similar regularisations and stated that these appointees should be treated only as daily wagers. Additionally, similar stays in Calicut University further confirm that these regularisations cannot stand. 2.7. The petitioners recall instances where this Court, in W.P.(C)No.15732/2020 and W.A.No.1020/2020, stayed similar regularisations and stated that these appointees should be treated only as daily wagers. Additionally, similar stays in Calicut University further confirm that these regularisations cannot stand. They point out that despite the existence of a live PSC rank list for LDV Drivers, the Government issued orders regularising 51 temporary drivers, which was subsequently stayed by the Tribunal, exemplifying abuse of power and systemic fraud related to public employment. 2.8. The petitioners argue that their grievance is personal and enforceable, grounded in their right to due process for public appointment. Temporary employees cannot claim regularisation, and the State must dismiss such claims, filling posts as mandated. Orders Exts.P5 to P15 should be struck down for denying qualified candidates their rights, and the regularisations of respondents 22 to 31 and others must be cancelled. 2.9. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court ordered that all actions following Exts.P5 to P15 be deferred, maintaining the status quo as of 04.03.2021. The writ petition has since been amended to reflect ongoing violations by respondents 10 to 19, who continue to make temporary and daily-wage appointments without a selection process or proper notifications to the Employment Exchange. The petitioners contend that under the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act , 1959, and various Government Orders, all vacancies must be reported to the Employment Exchange and filled accordingly. Despite repeated directives, illegal recruitments persist, resulting in the misuse of public funds. Therefore, the petitioners seek a direction to the 1 st respondent to ensure compliance with notification requirements and to terminate all irregularly appointed employees while filling such positions lawfully. 3. A table showing details of respondents, number of persons regularised, posts regularised, and the justifications of the employers, is given below: The total number of persons regularised is 543, in 10 organisations. 4. Respondents 22, 23, 25, 27, and 28 have filed detailed counter-affidavits asserting that the writ petition is not maintainable, both legally and factually, and should be dismissed in limine. They argue that the petition is flawed due to the non- joinder of necessary parties, as all beneficiaries of the impugned Government Orders, who would be directly impacted by the outcome, were not included as parties, violating Rule 148 of the Kerala High Court Rules, 1971. They argue that the petition is flawed due to the non- joinder of necessary parties, as all beneficiaries of the impugned Government Orders, who would be directly impacted by the outcome, were not included as parties, violating Rule 148 of the Kerala High Court Rules, 1971. The petitioners failed to seek the Court's leave or notify the affected individuals, rendering the writ procedurally defective. 4.1. The respondents contend that the petition is essentially a public interest litigation in the service sector, which is impermissible, as established by the Honourable Supreme Court in cases such as Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others [ (1998) 7 SCC 273 ) and Girjesh Shrivastava and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [ (2010) 10 SCC 707 ). The petitioners have not demonstrated any personal or enforceable rights and thus lack the locus standi to challenge the appointments or regularisations of third parties. They argue that the writ is based on vague allegations without factual support, filed with ulterior motives, and constitutes an abuse of the writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the impugned Government Orders were issued after proper scrutiny and adherence to selection procedures by competent authorities. 4.2. The respondents maintain that the petitioners are strangers to the institutions concerned, lack bona fide cause of action, and are attempting to revive settled matters after a significant delay. They assert that the regularisations result from a carefully considered Government policy and do not contravene any statutory provisions. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merit and should be dismissed with costs. 4.3. The 27 th respondent, employed as a Peon in the National Coir Research and Management Institute (NCRMI), claims that his appointment and regularisation followed legal and institutional procedures. NCRMI, established under the Travancore–Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, is governed by a Governing Body that can create posts and an Executive Committee authorised to appoint personnel. Recruitment in NCRMI is not under the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), and the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR) do not apply. The respondent states that after merging with the Centre for Development of Coir Technology (C-DOCT), the Government sanctioned staff regularisation for contract employees in 2006, and in 2009–2010, was appointed through a merit-based selection process after a transparent recruitment procedure. 4.4. The respondent states that after merging with the Centre for Development of Coir Technology (C-DOCT), the Government sanctioned staff regularisation for contract employees in 2006, and in 2009–2010, was appointed through a merit-based selection process after a transparent recruitment procedure. 4.4. In response to the writ petition, the 22 nd respondent asserts that her selection and appointment as a Programmer were conducted as per prescribed recruitment procedures, following a transparent selection process. She joined as a result of a general selection conducted by KITCO for C-DIT, complying with communal reservation requirements. It is argued that Ext.P5 order itself stipulates that the Government would not grant any financial aid for this purpose and that the posts occupied by such regularised employees would cease to exist upon their retirement. 4.5. The 23 rd respondent, employed as an Assistant Grade at KILA, states that her appointment followed a transparent process and was regularised according to established norms after more than ten years of service. 4.6. The 25 th respondent, working as an Office Attendant in the Kerala Bureau of Industrial Promotion (K-BIP), highlights that the Bureau is governed by its own rules and appoints its staff independently from the KPSC. Having served continuously since1998, he notes that the regularisation was recommended based on extensive service history. 4.7. The 28 th respondent also maintains that her appointment as a Clerical Assistant complied with appropriate notifications and selections conducted by the 16 th respondent, SCOL, and that her service has been sustained for over fifteen years. Ext. P12, issued after due consideration and committee recommendation, only validated long-standing appointments of qualified employees and was a legitimate policy decision consistent with the principles recognised in Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra and Others v. State of Orissa and Others [ (2014) 4 SCC 583 ], and State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. District Bar Association, Bandipora [ (2017) 3 SCC 410 ]. 4.8. The 20 th respondent, LBS Centre for Science and Technology, states that the writ petition lacks merit and is unrelated to the Centre, alleging no orders of regularisation issued by it. The LBS Centre insists that all appointments have complied with established rules, with no amendments facilitating any appointments as claimed. This institution contends that no relief is sought against it, thus requesting dismissal of the writ in its regard. The LBS Centre insists that all appointments have complied with established rules, with no amendments facilitating any appointments as claimed. This institution contends that no relief is sought against it, thus requesting dismissal of the writ in its regard. Overall, the respondents uniformly contend that the writ petition should be dismissed as it is based on flawed premises and lacks substantive legal merit. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri.George Poonthottam, instructed by Smt. Nisha George, Sri. A.L.Navaneeth Krishnan, and Sri. Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent, Sri. Dinesh Mathew J Muricken, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, Sri. S. Ramesh for the 10 th respondent, Sri. P.K. Varghese for the 11 th respondent, Smt. Latha Anand for the 12 th respondent, Smt. M.A. Zohra for the 14 th and 26 th respondent, Sri. P.Ramakrishnan for the 15 th respondent, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan for 16 th and 21 st respondent, Sri. A. Parvathi Menon for 18 th respondent, Sri. Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil for the 19 th respondent, Smt. Shameena Salahudheen for the 20 th respondent, Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay for the 22 nd respondent, Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj for the 23 rd respondent, Sri. N. Satheesh for the 25 th respondent, Sri. P.Gopal for the 27 th respondent and Sri. T.C. Krishna for the 30 th respondent. 6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri. George Poonthottam, instructed by Smt. Nisha George, apart from reiterating the contentions taken in the writ petition, contends that the 10 th respondent, C-DIT, by Ext.P5 dated 04.02.2021, regularised 114 employees without disclosing their qualifications or the mode of selection. The only justification offered is “humanitarian consideration”, which cannot substitute the constitutional requirement of equality in employment. The counter affidavit admits that the appointees were daily-wage workers engaged on different occasions without any proper selection, though they were later absorbed into various administrative, technical and media- related posts. Similarly, the 32 nd respondent, KILA, regularised six employees by Ext.P7 dated 24.12.2020 in posts such as Lecturer in Rural Economics, Assistant Grade, and DTP Operator, again without indicating qualifications or selection procedure. Such appointments are arbitrary, amounting to a spoils system, and stand vitiated under Umadevi (supra). The 12 th respondent regularised three employees under Ext.P8 solely because of their long service, ignoring Exts.P1 and P2 Government Order and circular that prohibit such practices. Such appointments are arbitrary, amounting to a spoils system, and stand vitiated under Umadevi (supra). The 12 th respondent regularised three employees under Ext.P8 solely because of their long service, ignoring Exts.P1 and P2 Government Order and circular that prohibit such practices. The plea that they were appointed through the Employment Exchange does not constitute due selection; such engagements are temporary and cannot exceed 179 days. 6.1. The 13 th respondent, K-BIP, through Ext.P9, regularised six employees—including Programme Officer and Programme Assistants—on the sole ground of experience and length of service, claiming reservation was inapplicable since posts were created year-by-year. It is admitted that no sanctioned posts existed and that seven others continue on contract. The justification that the Bureau has an “absolute right” to fix its own method of appointment contradicts the law laid down in Umadevi (supra) and other judgments. The 14 th respondent regularised 296 employees under Ext.P10 without specifying their posts or the selection method, vaguely classifying them as Executives, Supervisory, and Workmen. Though the counter states there was a “written/skill test and interview,” no details are provided. The plea that these posts are outside PSC purview is irrelevant, since all public employment, even in autonomous bodies, must comply with Articles 14 and 16. 6.2. By Ext.P11, the 15 th respondent regularised ten employees to posts such as Librarian, Technical Officer, Clerical Assistant and Peon, citing incomplete formulation of special rules and long service of employees. No qualification details or selection records are produced. Under Ext.P12, the 16 th respondent regularised 54 employees purportedly after a “public selection process”, yet without disclosing any qualification norms or procedure. The counter refers to a Government-approved “scheme of regularisation” — a scheme contrary to Umadevi , since it treats continuous service as conferring eligibility for absorption. 6.3. The 17 th respondent, by Ext. P13, regularised 36 employees to posts ranging from Helper to Assistant Manager on “humanitarian” grounds, citing age and long service. It is admitted that the Corporation has no approved staff pattern or service rules, rendering such regularisation wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional. The 18 th respondent, by Ext.P14, regularised three employees solely on the Member Secretary’s recommendation “as a special case”, without disclosing their qualifications or recruitment process. 6.4. It is admitted that the Corporation has no approved staff pattern or service rules, rendering such regularisation wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional. The 18 th respondent, by Ext.P14, regularised three employees solely on the Member Secretary’s recommendation “as a special case”, without disclosing their qualifications or recruitment process. 6.4. Finally, the 19 th respondent, KSREC, issued Ext.P15 dated13.02.2021, regularising 11 employees, including Office Assistants, Confidential Assistants, Drivers, Data Entry Operators, Project Scientists, and others, again without disclosing qualifications or selection method. The counter admits that some of these employees continued in service under interim court orders and were regularised only for completing ten years in service — a ground explicitly rejected in Umadevi . It is therefore contended that the impugned regularisations constitute wholesale violations of Articles 14 and 16, the executive circulars (Exts.P1, P2), and binding precedents of the Honourable Supreme Court. The petitioners emphasise that “long service” or “humanitarian grounds” cannot cure illegality in appointments made without sanctioned posts or due selection. 6.5. The Senior counsel relies on the following judgments: Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh and Others [ (2007) 2 SCC 491 ], Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others [ (2008) 10 SCC 1 ], Harminder Kaur and Others v. Union of India and Others [ (2009) 13 SCC 90 ], Mohd. Ashif and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [ (2010) 5 SCC 475 ), State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. District Bar Association, Bandipora [ (2017) 3 SCC 410 ], Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others [ (2018) 8 SCC 238 ), Union of India and Another v. Raghuwar Pal Singh [ (2018) 15 SCC 463 ), Rajani P. Kuttan and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2021 (6) KHC 513 ], and Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. State [ 1996 (2) KLT 378 ]. 7. The learned Senior Government Pleader argues that Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are not maintainable in service matters, as held by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.10991 of 2017 dated 28.01.2020 and upheld by various Supreme Court judgments. Specifically, the issue of regularisation of contract or temporary employees is governed by the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi , which held that appointments made illegally or through backdoor methods are impermissible. Specifically, the issue of regularisation of contract or temporary employees is governed by the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi , which held that appointments made illegally or through backdoor methods are impermissible. However, the Court carved out an exception in paragraph 53, allowing the regularisation of employees who have served for more than ten years in duly sanctioned posts, provided their appointments were irregular (not illegal) and they were not protected by interim orders. 7.1. The distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments was clarified in Sathya Prakash and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [ (2010) 4 SCC 179 ], where the Honourable Supreme Court defined irregular appointments as those with minor procedural defects not undermining the selection process, while illegal appointments violate the constitutional scheme of equality. The principle was reinforced in State of Karnataka and Others v. M.L.Kesari and Others [ (2010) 9 SCC 247 ], where the Court held the Government's duty to regularise employees with ten or more years of service in sanctioned posts without court protection. This exception was reiterated in subsequent cases, highlighting that those who meet the criteria of service duration, sanctioned posts, and required qualifications can be eligible for regularisation. 7.2. In Sunil Kumar Biswas v. Ordnance Factory Board and Others [ (2019) 15 SCC 617 ], the Honourable Supreme Court stated that claims for regularisation in public sector employment should typically be settled by the Industrial Tribunal rather than through writ petitions. The Court also recognised the Government’s power to devise one-time schemes for absorption or regularisation if they comply with statutory frameworks. 7.3. In Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra), the court held that the intent of Umadevi was to prevent future irregularities and not penalise long-serving employees in sanctioned posts. The continued practice of such appointments post Umadevi was deemed an unfair labour practice, with the Court affirming that those completing ten years of uninterrupted service should benefit from regularisation. Similar principles were reiterated in Sheo Narain Nagar and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [ (2018) 13 SCC 432 ], wherein long-serving contractual employees before statutory rules’ enforcement could not be viewed as backdoor entrants, and the one-time measure for regularisation was applied. 7.4. Similar principles were reiterated in Sheo Narain Nagar and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [ (2018) 13 SCC 432 ], wherein long-serving contractual employees before statutory rules’ enforcement could not be viewed as backdoor entrants, and the one-time measure for regularisation was applied. 7.4. Further support for this contention is found in Chander Mohan Negi and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [ (2020) 5 SCC 732 ], where long-serving teachers under a government scheme were held entitled to regularisation due to their irregular but not illegal appointments. In Jaggo v. Union of India and Others [2024 SCC Online 3826], the Honourable Court cautioned against the misuse of temporary employment and upheld the right to regularisation for long-serving employees. Such views were reiterated in Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad — (Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024), directing initiation of a transparent process for regularisation. It is argued that judicial precedents affirm Umadevi's restriction on illegal appointments while expressly permitting the regularisation of irregular appointees with substantial experience and qualifications, thus empowering the State to establish schemes for such regularisations to promote equity and fairness. 7.5. The learned Government Pleader relies on the following judgments: Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others [ (2018) 8 SCC 238 ], Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra and Others v. State of Orissa and Others [ (2014) 4 SCC 583 ], State of Karnataka and Others v. M.L Kesari and Others [ (2010) 9 SCC 247 ], Satya Prakash and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [ (2010) 4 SCC 179 ], Chander Mohan Negi and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [ (2020) 5 SCC 732 ], Pratap Kishore Panda and Others v. Agni Charan Das and Others [(2015) 17 SCC 789], Sunil Kumar Biswas v. Ordnance Factory Board and Others [ (2019) 15 SCC 617 ], Sheo Narain Nagar and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [ (2018) 13 SCC 432 ], Jaggo v. Union of India and Others [2024 SCC Online 3826], Shripal and Anr v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [Civil Appeal No. 8157/2024]. 8. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, counsel for the 23 rd respondent, contends that the petitioners lack enforceable rights to appointment, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court. 8. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, counsel for the 23 rd respondent, contends that the petitioners lack enforceable rights to appointment, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court. Even if the petitioners are included in the ranked lists from the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), they do not possess an indefeasible right to appointment since recruitment notifications merely invite applications from qualified candidates. The government's discretionary power to fill vacancies is not subject to interference by the Court in its writ jurisdiction. Citing, Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [ (1991) 3 SCC 47 ], he contends that candidates do not acquire a right to appointment, even though the government can fill vacancies legitimately and fairly. 8.1. In the absence of a legal right or injury, the petitioners lack standing to maintain the writ petition. The Division Bench judgment in Ferosh M. Basheer (Dr) v. University of Kerala, Tvm [ 2022 (7) KHC 115 ] confirms that an individual must be personally affected by an impugned order to invoke Article 226 jurisdiction. Relief under Article 226 necessitates the existence of a legal wrong or injury. Public interest litigations in service matters are not maintainable when the petitioners have no legal right, as reinforced by the Honourable Supreme Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu (supra). Learned counsel relied on the following judgments: Travancore Devaswom Board v. Deputy Examiner for Local Fund Audit [2025 KHC 1782], K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others [ (2006) 6 SCC 395 ], Prabodh Verma and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [ (1984) 4 SCC 251 ], Dr. Duryodhan Sahu (supra). Learned counsel relied on the following judgments: Travancore Devaswom Board v. Deputy Examiner for Local Fund Audit [2025 KHC 1782], K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others [ (2006) 6 SCC 395 ], Prabodh Verma and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [ (1984) 4 SCC 251 ], Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others [ (1998) 7 SCC 273 ], Ferosh M. Basheer (Dr.) v. University of Kerala, Tvm [ 2022 (7) KHC 115 ], Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [ (1991) 3 SCC 47 ], Arjun Raj R. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [WPC No. 15732/2020], Vinod Kumar v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6238], Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [2025 KHC 6100], Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh and Others [ (2007) 2 SCC 491 ], Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Others [ (2007) 4 SCC 54 ], Biju v. Jashna [ 2021 (2) KLT 548 ], Joy Joseph v. Institute of Human Resources [ 2021 (2) KLT 309 ], Purushothaman v. Registrar [ 1996 (2) KLT 26 ], Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others [ (2018) 8 SCC 238 ]. 9. Learned counsel Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, for the 16 th respondent, submits that in the year 2006, a notification was issued for inviting applications to fill up various posts under the service of this respondent and a transparent selection process was conducted. The selection process and guidelines issued were approved by this court in WP(C) No. 4308/2007. It is submitted that though selection was made by a transparent selection process, the services could not be regularised in the absence of a regular post being sanctioned by the Government. The government vide Ext. R16(a) dated 20.08.2019 sanctioned various posts in the service of this respondent. It is further submitted that there is no challenge against the regularisation scheme or the earlier selection process. 9.1 The petitioners cannot claim any appointment to any of the posts to which persons are presently ordered to be regularised. It is submitted that though the petitioner says numerous posts, they are entitled to the specific post for which they are eligible has not been specifically pleaded. 9.1 The petitioners cannot claim any appointment to any of the posts to which persons are presently ordered to be regularised. It is submitted that though the petitioner says numerous posts, they are entitled to the specific post for which they are eligible has not been specifically pleaded. Going by the Umadevi’s case, especially paragraph 53, regularisation of persons as a one-time measure on framing a scheme cannot be faulted with. It is submitted that the inclusion in a list of Last Grade Servants or Civil Police Officers presented by the PSC is not a reason for seeking employment in the service of this respondent. The Counsel relied on the following judgments: Dharam Singh and Ors v. State of U.P. and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 8558/2018), State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra) and Rafiq Ahamed P.K. v. State of Kerala and Another (WPC No.4308/2007). 10. Learned counsel Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay for the 22 nd respondent submits that the petitioners do not say with clarity as to which post they have applied for, but were denied appointment. It is settled law that a person who is not an applicant for a post is not entitled to nurse any grievance against his non-selection. None of the petitioners has a case that he applied for the post of programmer in C-DIT and that he was not selected despite his better merit. They also do not have a case that they are qualified for appointment as programmers in the service of C-DIT. It is submitted that C-DIT has separate service rules, approved by the Government Order dated 12.05.2003, and the selection is not brought under the purview of the KPSC. 11. The Learned counsel, Sri. S. Ramesh for the 10 th respondent adopts the contentions of the above learned counsel and relies on the following judgments: Madan Lal v. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Others [ (2014) 15 SCC 308 ], Annes v. State of Kerala [2018 (1) KLT SN 21 (C. No. 29)], R.K. Jain v. Union of India [ (1993) 4 SCC 119 ]. 12. Learned counsel Sri. Dinesh Mathew J Muricken, for the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents, apart from adopting the above contentions, relied on the decisions in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, represented by its Registrar and Another v. Unnikrishna Pillai J [2022 SCC Online Ker 3790], State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra). 13. 12. Learned counsel Sri. Dinesh Mathew J Muricken, for the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents, apart from adopting the above contentions, relied on the decisions in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, represented by its Registrar and Another v. Unnikrishna Pillai J [2022 SCC Online Ker 3790], State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra). 13. Learned Counsel M.A. Zohra, appearing for the 14 th respondent, submits that the respondent is a public sector undertaking of the state and a company owned by the government and hence liable to follow the directives of the government in all matters, including the appointment of its employees. The regularisation was a policy decision of the Government of Kerala and was not made to the posts meant to be filled by the KPSC as sanctioned posts, and the financial situation and position of the company were duly addressed by the government, seeking details, before passing the government order affecting regularisation, and hence the employment scheme so envisaged is not violated. The learned counsel relied on Union of India and Others v. Ilmo Devi and Another [ (2021) 20 SCC 290 ]. 14. Sri. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil, counsel for the 19 th respondent, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC), argues that KSREC operates as an autonomous body under the Department of Planning and Economic Affairs, governed by its own Executive Committee and bye-laws, and is not under the Kerala Public Service Commission. Therefore, the petitioners, being PSC candidates, lack locus standi to challenge its internal appointments or regularisations. He contends that the writ petition is flawed due to non-joinder of necessary parties, as the eleven employees regularised under Ext.P15 (G.O.(MS) No. 5/2021/Planning dated 13.02.2021) have not been included despite being directly affected. This order, issued after detailed scrutiny of proposals dated23.12.2020 and 23.01.2021, regularised eleven employees—six against existing sanctioned posts and five through the creation of new posts—after verifying their qualifications and over ten years of meritorious service. The regularisation was a considered policy decision, reflecting institutional needs and employee representations. 14.1. Furthermore, the regularisation aligns with Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR) and the principles established in Umadevi , allowing a one-time scheme for regularising employees with ten years of continuous service without judicial intervention, provided they were initially engaged through a valid process. 14.1. Furthermore, the regularisation aligns with Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR) and the principles established in Umadevi , allowing a one-time scheme for regularising employees with ten years of continuous service without judicial intervention, provided they were initially engaged through a valid process. Citing T.C. Sreedharan Pillai and Others v. State of Kerala [ 1973 KLT 151 ], Kovit Joseph and Others v. Subash George and Others [ILR 2006 (3) Ker 162], he asserts that Rule 39 empowers the Government to address exceptional cases to prevent manifest injustice. KSREC is largely self-financing, and the regularisation does not impose a financial burden on the State exchequer. The Government's action is a judicious exercise of equitable power and not an attempt to circumvent recruitment rules, hence cannot be deemed arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 16. The 19 th respondent requests that the writ petition, filed without an enforceable right or necessary parties, be dismissed against it. 15. The Learned counsel, Sri. N. Satheesh, for the 25 th respondent, adopts the contentions of the above learned counsel and relies on the following judgments: Anjum Ara v. State of West Bengal and Ors (WPA 9636/2019), Sandip Mondal and Ors v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. (WPA 12347/2018). 16. Learned counsel for the remaining respondents also adopted the above arguments and prayed for dismissing the writ petition. 17. In Umadevi (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the binding principles governing regularisation and public employment, reaffirming the constitutional scheme envisaged under Articles 14, 16, 309, 315 to 320, and 335. The Court held that public employment must strictly conform to the constitutional mandate of equality and merit-based opportunity, and regular recruitment through the prescribed procedure remains the norm. Temporary, ad hoc, or contractual appointments may be resorted to only to meet administrative exigencies, but cannot become a substitute for regular recruitment. The Court categorically held that individuals engaged on a temporary, ad hoc, contract, or daily-wage basis, particularly without following proper selection procedures, do not acquire any legal right to continue in service or seek regularisation merely by reason of long continuance. 17.1. The Court categorically held that individuals engaged on a temporary, ad hoc, contract, or daily-wage basis, particularly without following proper selection procedures, do not acquire any legal right to continue in service or seek regularisation merely by reason of long continuance. 17.1. The judgment draws a clear distinction between regularisation and permanency, clarifying that regularisation may be considered where an employee has served for long years against a sanctioned vacancy but was initially appointed in a procedurally irregular manner, whereas permanency cannot be granted unless the initial appointment itself was constitutionally valid. The Court further held that temporary employees cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation to claim permanence or continuation, as they are presumed to understand the limited tenure and conditions of their employment. Courts exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226, 32, or 142 were cautioned not to undermine established recruitment processes by ordering absorption or regularisation in a manner that would defeat the rule of law, equality of opportunity, or impose an undue burden on the State. 17.2. At the same time, the Court provided guidance to government, observing that as a one-time administrative measure, the State may consider regularising the services of irregularly appointed persons who have completed ten years or more of continuous service in duly sanctioned posts, provided that such appointments were not made in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, and the continuance was not due to interim or court orders. The Court thereby struck a balance between administrative necessity and constitutional discipline, ensuring that the Rule of Law and fairness in public employment are preserved. The decision remains significant as it safeguards the equality and merit-based recruitment envisaged by the Constitution, prevents misuse of temporary appointments as a backdoor route to permanence, and ensures that any regularisation undertaken by the Government conforms to the limits prescribed therein. 17.3. The conditions for granting regularisation as recognised in Umadevi are: (i) the employment must be against a duly sanctioned post; (ii) the employee must have completed ten years or more of continuous service without interruption attributable to his fault; (iii) the continuance must not be the result of interim or court orders; (iv) the initial entry must not be through fraud or backdoor methods, though it may be procedurally irregular; (v) the employer must be a public authority; and (vi) regularisation, if considered, must be treated as a one-time measure. These principles were reiterated in State of Rajasthan and Others v. Daya Lal and Others [ (2011) 2 SCC 429 ], where the Honourable Supreme Court held that courts cannot direct regularisation, absorption, or permanent appointment unless the employee was appointed through a proper recruitment process open to competition and against sanctioned posts. It was further clarified that mere sympathy, long service, or continuation under interim orders would not justify regularisation in the absence of a valid appointment under the constitutional scheme. However, minor procedural irregularities that do not affect the core of fair competition may be overlooked. 17.4. The Constitution bench decision in Umadevi (supra) thus remains the touchstone for all questions relating to regularisation, reinforcing that while the Rule of Law must prevail in public employment, equity and fairness permit regularisation only in narrowly defined circumstances consistent with constitutional requirements. 18. After the decision in Umadevi , the Apex Court has consistently reaffirmed that all appointments in public service must adhere to the constitutional guarantees of equality, fairness, and transparency envisaged under Articles 14 and 16. Recruitment must strictly follow the prescribed statutory procedure and be based on open competition for sanctioned posts. Appointments made without advertisement, selection by a competent authority, or adherence to recruitment rules are void ab initio and confer no right to regularisation or continuance in service. Regularisation is not a mode of appointment and cannot cure an illegality; appointments made in violation of statutory provisions are nullities. The creation of posts and determination of recruitment methods lie within the executive domain, and courts cannot direct absorption or confer permanency upon persons appointed dehors the rules. Sympathy, length of service, or administrative convenience cannot justify deviation from constitutional discipline or be invoked to perpetuate illegality in public employment. The creation of posts and determination of recruitment methods lie within the executive domain, and courts cannot direct absorption or confer permanency upon persons appointed dehors the rules. Sympathy, length of service, or administrative convenience cannot justify deviation from constitutional discipline or be invoked to perpetuate illegality in public employment. (See: M.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhopal v. Nanuram Yaav and Others [ (2007) 8 SCC 264 ]; Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh and others [ (2007) 2 SCC 491 ], Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others [ (2008) 10 SCC 1 ), Harminder Kaur and Others v. Union of India and Others [ (2009) 13 SCC 90 ); Muhammed Ashif and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [ (2010) 5 SCC 475 ]; State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. District Bar Association, Bandipora [ (2017) 3 SCC 410 ), Chairman & Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others v. Jagdish Balram Bahira [ (2017) 8 SCC 670 ]; Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others [ (2018) 8 SCC 238 ], Union of India and Another v. Raghuwar Pal Singh [ (2018) 15 SCC 463 ), State of Odisha and Others v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan and Others [ (2022) 7 SCC 482 ]; Vineeth P. and Others v. Haridasan V. and Others [Civil Appeal No. 4670 of 2023]; Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 280]; Rajani P. Kuttan and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2021 (6) KHC 513 ]; and University of Delhi v. Delhi University Contract Employees Union and Others [2021 KHC 6190]. 18.1. The constitutional scheme obligates every State instrumentality to treat public employment as a matter of public trust and to ensure merit-based and transparent selection. The principle was further expanded in Amrit Yadav (supra), which crystallised the steps necessary for lawful recruitment in conformity with Articles 14 and 16. 18.1. The constitutional scheme obligates every State instrumentality to treat public employment as a matter of public trust and to ensure merit-based and transparent selection. The principle was further expanded in Amrit Yadav (supra), which crystallised the steps necessary for lawful recruitment in conformity with Articles 14 and 16. The Court held that recruitment must (i) be for duly sanctioned posts with prior approval; (ii) be made by a competent authority; (iii) be preceded by a transparent advertisement specifying number of posts, reservation details, qualifications, and method of selection; (iv) be open to all eligible candidates through public notice; (v) be conducted strictly under prescribed rules by a duly constituted selection committee maintaining proper records; (vi) exclude any illegality or arbitrariness; (vii) recognise that minor procedural lapses may be curable but illegal appointments cannot be validated by regularisation; and (viii) where the process itself is void, the whole selection must be cancelled without the necessity of individual hearings, since a nullity confers no rights. The Court reiterated that “those who come by the back door must go by the same door,” and that judicial sympathy cannot save unconstitutional appointments. 19. The distinction between an “illegal” and an “irregular”appointment, as clarified in Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh (supra), Official Liquidator (supra) and National Fertilisers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh [ (2006) 5 SCC 493 ], is crucial. An illegal appointment is one made without authority, against non- sanctioned posts, or in violation of Articles 14 and 16 — such an appointment is void ab initio and incapable of being cured or regularised. In contrast, an irregular appointment is where a duly qualified person is appointed to a sanctioned post by a competent authority, but where there has been a minor procedural deviation that does not go to the root of the process. Only such irregular appointments, and not illegal ones, fall within the limited protective scope of paragraph 53 of Umadevi . Sympathy or length of service cannot convert an illegal appointment into a lawful one. 19.1. It must be emphasised that the constitutional discipline governing public employment applies in full measure to all instrumentalities of the State. In Umadevi [supra], the Constitution Bench unequivocally held that the State and its instrumentalities are equally bound by Articles 14 and 16, and cannot resort to irregular or backdoor appointments. 19.1. It must be emphasised that the constitutional discipline governing public employment applies in full measure to all instrumentalities of the State. In Umadevi [supra], the Constitution Bench unequivocally held that the State and its instrumentalities are equally bound by Articles 14 and 16, and cannot resort to irregular or backdoor appointments. This principle was reaffirmed in Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board (supra), Harminder Kaur and Others v. Union of India and Others [ (2009) 13 SCC 90 ), and Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra), where it was held that equality of opportunity in public employment extends to every body falling within Article 12, whether statutory, autonomous, or government- controlled. These decisions reiterate that while appointments made in total violation of the constitutional or statutory provisions are void, irregular appointments of duly qualified persons to sanctioned posts may, as a one-time measure, be considered for regularisation in strict conformity with paragraph 53 of Umadevi. 19.2. These constitutional principles are reinforced by the binding Government Orders and circulars—Ext.P1 G.O.(P) No. 56/2017/Fin. dated 28.04.2017, Ext.P2 Circular No. 48/2015/Fin. dated 13.05.2015, and Exts.P3 and P4 communications of the Central and State Governments, which mandate that contract or daily-wage appointments shall not exceed two years and that all regular recruitment must be through the Public Service Commission or the Employment Exchange. These orders expressly prohibit departments and autonomous bodies from perpetuating ad hoc or long-term temporary engagements followed by regularisation, declaring such practice unconstitutional. 20. The judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court on this issue clarify that when a selection process satisfies the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the authority's power to regularise such selections remain unaffected by the Umadevi decision. Even if the selection process did not follow open competitive standards, such appointments can be considered irregular rather than illegal, thereby allowing for regularisation. The Umadevi judgment imposes a duty on the government to regularise the services of employees who have been appointed irregularly, provided they have served for more than 10 years without the benefit of interim court or tribunal orders. This serves to ensure job security for individuals who have faithfully served the state and its instrumentalities for over a decade. However, the State Government is permitted to devise a one-time scheme for the absorption of these irregularly appointed employees, as long as it does not conflict with governing statutes or regulations. This serves to ensure job security for individuals who have faithfully served the state and its instrumentalities for over a decade. However, the State Government is permitted to devise a one-time scheme for the absorption of these irregularly appointed employees, as long as it does not conflict with governing statutes or regulations. Denying regularisation to such employees may amount to exploitation and a denial of their legitimate claims. The Supreme Court in Jaggo acknowledged that while the Umadevi ruling aimed to prevent backdoor entries and ensure adherence to constitutional principles, its principles are frequently misinterpreted, leading to the unjust denial of the legitimate claims of long-serving employees. 21. Bearing the above principles in mind, when the rival contentions are analysed, it is pertinent to note that there is nothing on record to show that the initial appointments of the employees, covered by the impugned orders, were illegal. Their initial engagement was never challenged, nor was their continuance in service questioned at any stage. It is, therefore, difficult to hold or assume that their initial appointments were illegal. It is also not in dispute that the persons regularised under the impugned orders have rendered more than ten years of continuous service. There is hardly any material to suggest that any of them lacked the requisite qualifications for the posts held by them. Since the regularised employees are not parties to the writ petition, the plea regarding their alleged lack of qualification cannot be adjudicated in their absence. That apart, as it is the specific contention of the employer institutions that the posts held by them cease to exist once the incumbents retire, I am therefore not inclined to disturb their regularisation at this stage. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, in fairness, submitted that the petitioners do not intend to oust those regularised from their employment, despite their regularisations being challenged as illegal. 22. It is profitable to refer to the decision in Chairman & Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others v. Jagdish Balram Bahira [ (2017) 8 SCC 670 ], which reads as follows: “56. Service under the Union and the States, or for that matter under the instrumentalities of the State subserves a public purpose. These services are instruments of governance. Where the State embarks upon public employment, it is under the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 to follow the principle of equal opportunity. Service under the Union and the States, or for that matter under the instrumentalities of the State subserves a public purpose. These services are instruments of governance. Where the State embarks upon public employment, it is under the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 to follow the principle of equal opportunity. Affirmative action in our Constitution is part of the quest for substantive equality. Available resources and the opportunities provided in the form of public employment are in contemporary times short of demands and needs. Hence, the procedure for selection, and the prescription of eligibility criteria has a significant public element in enabling the State to make a choice amongst competing claims. The selection of ineligible persons is a manifestation of a systemic failure and has a deleterious effect on good governance. Firstly, selection of a person who is not eligible allows someone who is ineligible to gain access to scarce public resources. Secondly, the rights of eligible persons are violated since a person who is not eligible for the post is selected. Thirdly, an illegality is perpetrated by bestowing benefits upon an imposter undeservingly. These effects upon good governance find a similar echo when a person who does not belong to a reserved category passes of as a member of that category and obtains admission to an educational institution. Those for whom the Constitution has made special provisions are as a result ousted when an imposter who does not belong to a reserved category is selected. The fraud on the Constitution precisely lies in this. Such a consequence must be avoided and stringent steps be taken by the Court to ensure that unjust claims of imposters are not protected in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142. The nation cannot live on a lie. Courts play a vital institutional role in preserving the rule of law. The judicial process should not be allowed to be utilised to protect the unscrupulous and to preserve the benefits which have accrued to an imposter on the specious plea of equity.” 23. In the aforesaid view, it is hereby declared that the regularisations already granted to employees who have rendered long and continuous service against sanctioned posts shall not be interfered with. In the aforesaid view, it is hereby declared that the regularisations already granted to employees who have rendered long and continuous service against sanctioned posts shall not be interfered with. However, it is made explicitly clear that such regularisations shall be treated as one-time measures and shall not constitute, nor be relied upon as, a precedent for any future claims of a similar nature. 24. It is further declared that the said regularisations shall remain confined to the incumbents presently holding the posts and shall automatically cease with their retirement or cessation from service, whichever occurs earlier. No further or subsequent claims for regularisation, on identical or comparable grounds, shall be entertained by any of the respondent institutions or by any authority or body which is an instrumentality of the State. 25. It is further directed that such institutions shall scrupulously adhere to the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra) and the relevant government orders referred above, governing the method and manner of public employment and shall ensure that appointments and engagements hereafter made are strictly in conformity with the constitutional scheme. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part.