JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. Rule . Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties waive service of notice of Rule. 2. The present review application emanates from the common judgment and order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1327 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011 along with other civil applications for joining parties. By the common judgment and order dated 16.10.2019, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat. THE ISSUE : 3. The issue in the matters pertains to the regularization of 322 Multi-purpose Health Workers, (“MPHWs”, in short) serving in different district panchayats of State of Gujarat. BRIEF HISTORY OF LITIGATION : 4. Before the Division Bench, in the captioned Letters Patent Appeal, the judgment and order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011 was under challenge. By the said judgment, the learned Single Judge (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohinder Pal) allowed the writ petition filed by respondent - Samiti of MPHWs seeking regularization by placing reliance on the judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 (Coram: Hon’ble Smt. Justice Abhilasha Kumari), which was filed by Mr.J.M.Jagani and 28 others MPHWs. (hereinafter referred to as ' Jagani’s writ petition ') 5. The aforesaid common judgment and order dated 16.10.2019 passed in the captioned Letters Patent Appeal was further assailed by the State of Gujarat by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.5663 of 2020, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 26.10.2020 by recording thus : - “Delay condoned. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, including applications including application for intervention / impleadment, also stand dismissed.” 6. After the dismissal of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition, the State Government passed an order dated 19.07.2021, thereby extending the benefit of regularization to 322 MPHWs, subject to six conditions since the authorities were facing contempt proceedings. Thereafter, by a subsequent order dated 18.09.2021, the condition Nos.1 and 4 of the earlier order dated 19.07.2021 were deleted. After the dismissal of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition, the State Government passed an order dated 19.07.2021, thereby extending the benefit of regularization to 322 MPHWs, subject to six conditions since the authorities were facing contempt proceedings. Thereafter, by a subsequent order dated 18.09.2021, the condition Nos.1 and 4 of the earlier order dated 19.07.2021 were deleted. The order dated 19.07.2021 specifically confers regularization to 322 MPHWs subject to the successful completion of pre-service training, the training examination, as well as the 'CCC' (Course on Computer Concepts) examination. By the modified order dated 18.09.2021, the State Government categorically recorded that 322 posts, on which the MPHWs were regularized, would be treated as sanctioned posts. It was further clarified that the orders regularizing these 322 Multi- Purpose Health Workers shall not be treated as a precedent for future cases. It appears that during the pendency of the contempt petitions filed by the MPHWs, the State Government passed another order dated 18.07.2022, clarifying that the benefits extended were subject to the outcome of review application to be filed in future. 7. It appears that thereafter, the present review application came to be filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay, being Civil Application No. 2 of 2022 in the captioned Letters Patent Appeal No. 1327 of 2019. The said application was allowed by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 13.06.2022, whereby the operation, implementation, and execution of the judgment and order dated 16.10.2019, was stayed. 8. Thereafter, the respondents – MPHWs assailed the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application (for Condonation of Delay) No.2 of 2022 before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Petition (C) Dairy No.24915 of 2023. The Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.07.2023, issued notice to the present applicant – State authorities and stayed the consequential effect of the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application (for Condonation of Delay) No.2 of 2022 filed in the captioned appeal. 9. The Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.07.2023, issued notice to the present applicant – State authorities and stayed the consequential effect of the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application (for Condonation of Delay) No.2 of 2022 filed in the captioned appeal. 9. Since there was a stay operating on the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench allowing the application seeking condonation of delay , this Court had directed to list the present review application after the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Petition (Civil) Diary No.24915 of 2023, reserving liberty in favour of the respective parties to file a note after the disposal of the Special Leave Petition. 10. It appears that in parallel proceedings concerning the Multi-Purpose Health Workers, another Special Leave Petition, being Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Nos.16960–61 of 2024, which was also pending before the Supreme Court, came to be disposed of vide order dated 09.08.2024, wherein liberty was reserved to file a review application before this Court. In the said order dated 09.08.2024, the Supreme Court further clarified that the order passed on 10.07.2023 in Special Leave to Petition (C) Diary No.24915 of 2023, arising out of the present proceedings, pertaining to the review application pending before this Court. The direction issued therein was interpreted by the respective parties in their own favour, which led to filing of I.A No.15115 of 2023 in S.L.P. (C) No.15115 of 2023. In the said I.A an order was passed by the Apex Court on 08.03.2025. The said order is reproduced here-in-below: - “?.?. ??.62741/2025 1. We are not inclined to entertain this application. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. 2. However, it is made clear that in the event the review applications are decided by the High Court the same shall not be given effect to for a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. 3. It is further made clear that the outcome of the said review petition shall be subject to the result of the special leave petitions pending before this Court.” 11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid order, the present review application was listed and we have taken up for final hearing. 12. 3. It is further made clear that the outcome of the said review petition shall be subject to the result of the special leave petitions pending before this Court.” 11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid order, the present review application was listed and we have taken up for final hearing. 12. The instant review application is thus substantially premised on the ground that, at the time when the judgment and order dated 16.10.2019 was passed by the Coordinate Bench, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing in the matter was unable to distinguish the factual differences between Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011, which was decided by judgment and order dated 10.08.2016, and captioned Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011. 13. At this stage, it would be very relevant to mention that the captioned Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011 was filed by the Gujarat State Karmachari Sankalan Samiti through their Chairman, which has 3509 members. 14. Insofar as the maintainability of the present Misc. Civil Application after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition is concerned, there is no cavil regarding the same between the parties. However, the respondent-employees have contested the Review Application by contending that it is not entertainable in law. Accordingly, the application is confined to the submissions advanced by the respective learned advocates on merits. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE : 15. Learned Advocate General Mr.Kamal Trivedi, appearing with Ms.Manisha Lavkumar, learned Additional Advocate General with learned AGPs Mr.Vinay Vishen and Mr.Jay Trivedi, for the appellant-State of Gujarat, has submitted that this Court may graciously be pleased to reconsider the judgment and order dated 16.10.2019 in light of a significant and material distinction between the petitioners of the captioned writ petition, i.e. Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011, and those in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 ( 'Jagani’s writ petition' ). 16. It is pointed out to us that while the petitioners of ' Jagani’s writ petition ' were appointed as MPHWs on an ad- hoc basis, whereas in the present case, they were appointed purely on a contractual basis for a fixed tenure of 11 months, with no assurance or indicia of permanency or continuity in service. 17. It is submitted that the factual foundation in the earlier case (SCA No. 6289 of 2011) was wholly distinct. 17. It is submitted that the factual foundation in the earlier case (SCA No. 6289 of 2011) was wholly distinct. The petitioners in Jagani’s writ petition had been appointed following a public advertisement and they had duly appeared before the Selection Committee, and were issued appointment orders post completion of training programmes. Furthermore, they had continuously worked for nearly 25 years, receiving service benefits such as LTC, Leave Encashment, DA, HRA, Medical Allowance, Medi-claim, and were covered under GPF and the 6 th Pay Commission, and crucially, were appointed against sanctioned and vacant posts. It is contended that, the appointment orders in the case of the petitioners in Jagani’s writ petition contained Clause 10, explicitly contemplated participation in the regular selection process, thereby acknowledging their status as ad-hoc employees awaiting regularization through due process. Their grievance, inter alia, stemmed from the non-initiation of the regular selection process by the authorities from 1991 to 1996, thereby rendering them overage for regular recruitment. 18. Learned Advocate General Mr.Kamal Trivedi, has submitted that in sharp contrast, the MPHWs, in the present case, were engaged without any formal selection procedure and they were not appointed against sanctioned posts, and were never made to undergo any training programme. They were appointed for a limited and predetermined contractual term, with a fixed monthly remuneration, and were not extended any service benefits or allowances, let alone continuity of service. Hence, it is urged that in such a scenario, the principle of parity could not have been mechanically applied by the learned Single Judge by following the earlier judgment since the nature of appointment, the terms of engagement, and the service conditions of the MPHWs in the two petitions, are fundamentally incomparable. 19. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in issuing directions in the present matter by mechanically extending the benefit of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011, without appreciating the material factual and legal differences between the two sets of petitioners. However, the learned AGP was unable to point out these distinguishing features before the Division Bench which resulted into dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal. 20. However, the learned AGP was unable to point out these distinguishing features before the Division Bench which resulted into dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal. 20. On the issue of regularization, it is contended that as per settled principles of service jurisprudence, regularization or absorption cannot be directed de hors the recruitment rules and established government policy, since mere continuance or engagement in service for a particular duration, especially on contractual terms, cannot from a basis for claiming legitimate expectation of regularization. 21. It is contended that by extending the benefit of regularization and absorption to the respondent-MPHWs from the date of initial appointments, without any foundational legal entitlement, is not only legally untenable, but also opens a floodgate of litigation, whereby many similarly situated persons, who were engaged on contractual or irregular basis, may seek parity without merit or legal basis. It is urged that this Court may re-examine the judgment dated 16.10.2019 in the interest of justice and in view of the adverse administrative and legal consequences arising from its blanket application, including multiplicity of petitions and claims not sustainable in law. 22. Further attention is drawn to the recruitment process pertaining to the Multi-Purpose Health Workers i.e. the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6289 of 2011 ( Jagani’s writ petition ), and is submitted that they were selected pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Junagadh District Panchayat dated 14.07.1989. Thereafter, they were subjected to oral interviews, and subsequently, admitted to a training programme. On 27.12.1991, after being declared successful in the examination conducted by the District Panchayat, they were issued appointment orders on an ad hoc basis, in the pay scale of Rs.950–1500/-, along with admissible allowances such as Leave Travel Concession (LTC), Leave Encashment, Traveling Allowance (T.A.), Dearness Allowance (D.A.), House Rent Allowance (HRA), Medical Allowance, Medical Reimbursement, and even the benefits under the 6th Pay Commission. Reliance has also been placed on the appointment order of one of the petitioners in Jagani’s writ petition . It is further submitted that a fresh public advertisement was issued by the District Panchayat on 09.03.1996, inviting applications for the post of Multi-Purpose Health Worker to be filled on a permanent basis with a regular pay scale. Reliance has also been placed on the appointment order of one of the petitioners in Jagani’s writ petition . It is further submitted that a fresh public advertisement was issued by the District Panchayat on 09.03.1996, inviting applications for the post of Multi-Purpose Health Worker to be filled on a permanent basis with a regular pay scale. The petitioners in Jagani’s writ petition participated in the said selection process, but were declared disqualified on the ground of age criteria, which constrained them to approach this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011. The learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 10.08.2016, directed their regularization in service, having regard to the fact that similarly situated Multi- Purpose Health Workers in Rajkot and Sabarkantha Districts had been extended the benefit of regularization from the initial date of their appointment. 23. Learned Advocate General Mr.Kamal Trivedi has submitted that in the present case, the respondents–MPHWs, who are represented through their Union, have not disclosed that they were appointed pursuant to any advertisement or recruitment process akin to the one followed in the case of the Multi-Purpose Health Workers in Jagani’s writ petition (Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011). It is therefore submitted that the respondents cannot claim the benefit of regularization from the initial date of appointment, and their case stands on a different footing and cannot be equated with the case of Mr.Jagani & 28 ors. It is further submitted that there exists a fundamental distinction between the two sets of cases; however, at the relevant time, the learned Assistant Government Pleader was unable to bring this distinction to the notice of the Division Bench. Consequently, the Division Bench rejected the Letters Patent Appeal, which culminated in the passing of the order dated 16.10.2019. This, in turn, has necessitated the filing of the present review application by the State. 24. Learned Advocate General Mr.Kamal Trivedi, in this regard, has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another Vs. Gokulprasad Maniklal Agarwal and another , (1999) 7 S.C.C. 578 , has submitted that where a mistake has occurred due to failure on the part of the learned advocate to bring correct facts to the notice of the Court, such an error can be a ground for review. Gokulprasad Maniklal Agarwal and another , (1999) 7 S.C.C. 578 , has submitted that where a mistake has occurred due to failure on the part of the learned advocate to bring correct facts to the notice of the Court, such an error can be a ground for review. It is submitted that, in the present case, the impugned order is a clear example of an error apparent on the face of the record, arising from non-consideration of crucial facts and documents relating to Jagani’s writ petition therefore, this Court is well within its jurisdiction to exercise its power of review in the interest of justice. 25. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajender Singh vs. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Ors., (2005) 13 S.C.C. 289 . Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. Mahadeshwar a Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal , (2019) 4 S.C.C. 376 . It is submitted, on the strength of these decisions, that the present review application is maintainable even after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. 26. It is further pointed out that the respondent – Gujarat State Karmachari Sankalan Samiti, comprises 3,509 members, and among them, 322 Multi-Purpose Health Workers have been extended the benefit of regularization by the State Government due to the pendency of contempt proceedings. It is submitted that at no point of time the respondent–Samiti has disclosed the individual details of each of its members. It is further submitted that out of the said 322 Multi-Purpose Health Workers, 58 individuals had already been denied the benefit of regularization in earlier proceedings, namely Special Civil Application Nos.6875, 7320, 7322, and 7325 of 2010, as well as Special Civil Application Nos.12201 and 12203 of 2009, which were heard along with Letters Patent Appeal No. 85 of 2010. The said Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by a judgment dated 20.07.2019. The said Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by a judgment dated 20.07.2019. It is also submitted that out of these 322 Multi-Purpose Health Workers, several have filed civil applications in the present proceedings as impleadment as the party respondent in Civil Application No.3 of 2022 (120 persons), Civil Application No.1 of 2022 (55 persons) Civil Application No.1 of 2023 (93 persons) and Civil Application No.1 of 2025 is filed by 10 persons, whose services were already terminated in the years 2012 and 2013 and they have moved this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.5409 of 2022, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 19.10.2022, confirmed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 03.12.2024. 27. Learned Advocate General, has referred to the contents of the affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 07.04.2025 filed by the Deputy Secretary, Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development Department and it is submitted that admittedly, the respondent – Multi-Purpose Health Workers were appointed on ad hoc basis as contractual employees for a period of 11 months, but thereafter they continued for further period. It is submitted that no sanctioned posts existed, when the respondents were appointed. 28. It is further submitted that all the respondents did not undergo training programme for three months followed by passing of the examination and few documents produced on behalf of the respondents i.e. the Multi-Purpose Health Workers of Districts of Ahmedabad, Sabarkantha and Mehsana, it cannot be generalized that all three persons were recruited as contractual for a period of 11 months at different point of time, ranging from the year 2003 to 2016 by different District Panchayats, more particularly, when the said Training Programme of three months is followed by the examination, which is compulsorily in nature. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter cannot put these 322 Multi-Purpose Health Workers at par with the petitioners of Jagani’s writ petition who were required to undergo compulsory training programme of one and half years, followed by the passing the examination as per the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter cannot put these 322 Multi-Purpose Health Workers at par with the petitioners of Jagani’s writ petition who were required to undergo compulsory training programme of one and half years, followed by the passing the examination as per the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967. It is submitted that in the present case 322 persons have been granted the regularization right from initial date of appointment as contractual employees, which has incurred a huge financial burden on the State and such action has been further prompted the other similar Multi- Purpose Health Workers to claim similar benefit on the ground of parity. 29. Learned Advocate General has also referred to the Rules of 12.04.1984, which mandate six months training in the Multi- Purpose Health Workers. He has also referred to the Notification (Rules) of 06.05.1985 issued by the Family and Health Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar promulgating the Multi-Purpose Health Workman, Health and Family Department Recruitment Rules, 1981, which mandates passing of the training examination. The aforesaid Rules were further amended on 23.10.1990, which also mandates that the Multi- Purpose Health Workers are required to undergo training programme. While referring to the recruitment Rules of 15.06.2011, he has contended that the same also mandates that the Multi-Purpose Health Workers are required to pass the examination in order to claim the regular pay-scale as per the Rules of Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) General Rules, 1998, which were further amended by Resolution dated 15.06.2011 Rules. It is thus, submitted that the recruitment rules initially issued by the Health Department and subsequently by the Panchayat Department mandates that the Multi-Purpose Health Workers are required to undergo training and pass the examination and only after completion of the training and examination, they are required to be placed in the regular pay-scale. 30. He has referred to the judgment dated 20.07.2010 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.85 of 2010 and has submitted that similar prayers of regularization were made in the various matters filed by the Multi-Purpose Health Workers and the Division Bench has rejected the matters claiming the regularization. 31. An additional ground has been raised objecting the regularization in the present application by the State. 31. An additional ground has been raised objecting the regularization in the present application by the State. It is submitted that although examinations were conducted by the State Government in the years 2011, 2014, and 2016, the 322 Multi-Purpose Health Workers failed to clear the said examinations and, therefore, are not entitled to the benefit of regularization. It is further submitted that the Multi-Purpose Health Workers appointed during the period between 2003 and 2012 are governed by the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1996, whereas those appointed from the year 2013 onwards are governed by the Notification dated 17.04.2012, namely the Gujarat Panchayat Services (Class-III) Recruitment (Examination) Rules, 2012. 32. A contention has been raised to the effect that the cause of filing the captioned writ petition by the respondent-MPHWs was the issuance of advertisement by the applicant – State authority for filling up the posts and since the respondents did not want to appear in the regular recruitment process, they chose to file the writ petition, challenging the advertisement. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge though has ordered regularization, however no observations are made so far as the challenge to the advertisement is concerned. 33. By making the foregoing submissions, it is urged by learned Advocate General Mr.Kamal Trivedi that the impugned order passed by the Division Bench dated 16.10.2019 may be reviewed and recalled. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE MPHWs : 34. Opposing the present application seeking review, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Gautam Joshi, appearing on behalf of the Multi-Purpose Health Workers, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal vs. State Tax Officer and Ors., (2024) 3 S.C.C. 362, more particularly on Paragraph No.16, and pointed out the scope and jurisdiction of this Court while examining the review application. While not disputing the maintainability of the review application per se, he has submitted that, as per the observations of the Supreme Court, the applicant – State cannot be permitted to re-agitate or re-argue the questions already considered and decided, nor can the review application be treated as an appeal in disguise. It is submitted that, as held by the Supreme Court, even a change in law or a subsequent decision by a Larger Bench cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for review. It is submitted that, as held by the Supreme Court, even a change in law or a subsequent decision by a Larger Bench cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for review. He has contended that in the present case, when the Division Bench was hearing the Letters Patent Appeal, it had specifically called upon the learned Assistant Government Pleader to point out any factual distinction between the two matters – Special Civil Application No. 6289 of 2011 (Jagani & 28 ors) and the captioned writ petition Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011, however, no such distinction was pointed out. Accordingly, the Division Bench rejected the Letters Patent Appeal by recording that the learned Assistant Government Pleader was unable to show any distinguishing features between the petitioners in the two petitions. Moreover, it is submitted that no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the earlier judgment of this Court dated 10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 was either set aside, modified, or recalled. After examining both the judgments, the Division Bench did not find any reason to take a different view and, therefore, dismissed the appeals. It is further submitted that the State Government challenged the said dismissal by filing a Special Leave Petition, which has been rejected by the Supreme Court. 35. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi, has submitted that all the Multi-Purpose Health Workers were appointed after undergoing recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement issued by the different District Panchayats. It is submitted that the aforesaid post of Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male) and (Female), having pay-scale of Rs.260-400/- (Class-III) were created in each Health Sub-Centre by the State from 1977 onwards, and further, the revision of pay was also extended as per the Central Pay Commission recommendation. It is submitted that it is totally incorrect and misleading statement made by the State that the original-petitioners were not appointed after following the due selection process, but in fact all are appointed pursuant to the advertisements issued in the newspaper by the respective District Panchayats and thereafter, they were also sent for training. It is submitted that it is totally incorrect and misleading statement made by the State that the original-petitioners were not appointed after following the due selection process, but in fact all are appointed pursuant to the advertisements issued in the newspaper by the respective District Panchayats and thereafter, they were also sent for training. It submitted that the State Government granted permission to fill 2300 permanent, sanctioned and vacant posts of Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male) (out of 5400 such permanent posts in the year 2003), by selection of matriculate candidates with Sanitary Inspector Diploma plus three months short training course named as “Bridge Course” to cover other areas of post in addition to sanitation. It is submitted that after the completion of Bridge Course, a post training examination was being conducted and on being successful in this examination, certificate was being issued to declare the candidate qualified and eligible for Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male) post. It is submitted that the State Government introduced the Competitive Examination for the post of Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male) vide Notification dated 18.07.2011 being Gujarat Panchayat Service (Recruitment) Examination Rules, 1999, a competition examination to be held through selection process by the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board or the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee of the concerned district, and accordingly, the entire process of advertising vacancy, inviting application, conducting competitive examination and recommending candidates was within a function of District Panchayat Service Selection Committee. 36. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi has referred to the statement made in paragraph No.9 of the affidavit dated 06.04.2025 filed by the Sankalan Samiti and has submitted that all 3509 petitioners were / are having the qualification and have also undergone necessary pre-training conducted by the State and they had fulfilled all the criteria required under the relevant recruitment rules. It is submitted that the selection of the Multi-Purpose Health Workers based upon merits after undergoing the recruitment process through an advertisement and they have undergone basic training of the Bridge Course and again at the time of ad hoc appointment and additionally, they have also gained long experience for working so many years. It is submitted that all 3509 members of the Samiti are similarly situated to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 and Special Civil Application No.2344 of 2014. It is submitted that all 3509 members of the Samiti are similarly situated to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 and Special Civil Application No.2344 of 2014. Thus, the present application may not be entertained as it directly affects the order of regularization, which is already passed by the State Government. 37. He has further submitted that huge financial implication cannot be a ground for review. It is submitted that the judgment and order is completely implemented and after five years the same may not be disturbed and in case, the State Government is aggrieved that the present judgment and order will not be followed then in that case, this Court may observe that the judgment and order, which is subject matter of review may not be cited as a precedent. 38. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Joshi, and learned advocate Mr.Apurva A. Dave, who are appearing for the Samiti, have submitted that in the writ petition, ample opportunity was given to the respondents to controvert the submissions and the averments of the writ petition and accordingly, the respondents had also filed an affidavit. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering the fact that the State Government and the respective District Panchayats, have also regularized the service of similarly situated Multi-Purpose Health Workers, the learned Single Judge has directed the regularization and before the Division Bench also, the State Government was unable to point out any distinguishing feature. It is submitted that the Members of the Samiti i.e. the Multi-Purpose Health Workers are appointed after regular recruitment process on sanctioned vacant posts and after they had rendered long years of service and they are ordered to be regularized by the learned Single Judge, as per the earlier decision rendered in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 in Jagani’s writ petition . It is submitted that numerous Multi- Purpose Health Workers, whose orders are already on record, show that they are regularized in services by various District Panchayats without clearing regular process of selection. He has referred to the chart placed in the affidavit-in-reply dated 01.04.2025. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2019 UNDER REVIEW : 39. The instant review application emanates from the common order of the Division Bench dated 16.10.2019, which is as under : - “2. He has referred to the chart placed in the affidavit-in-reply dated 01.04.2025. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2019 UNDER REVIEW : 39. The instant review application emanates from the common order of the Division Bench dated 16.10.2019, which is as under : - “2. This Letters Patent Appeal assails correctness of the judgment and order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the petition of the private respondents, relying upon an earlier judgment of this Court dated 10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6289 of 2011. The learned Single Judge extended the same benefits to the present writ petitioners as was extended to the writ petitioners of the aforementioned Special Civil Application. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Dave has not been able to show any distinction between the petitioners of the two petitions, nor has been able to place any material before the Court to show that the earlier judgment of this Court dated 10.08.2016 has been set aside, modified or recalled. 3. In view of the above, and having perused the judgment under challenge, as also the judgment dated 10.08.2016, we do not find any reason to take a different view. The appeal lacks merits.” 40. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court by the respondent – State being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5663 of 2020, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 26.10.2020. For the sake of brevity, we may not reiterate further orders passed in the present litigation. However, the present review application is heard in view of the specific clarification by the Supreme Court expressed in the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by in IA No.62741 of 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No.15115 of 2020. 41. So far as the maintainability of the present review application is concerned, the learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents have not contested the same, but have urged that the same may not be entertained. 42. The scope of the review application has been reiterated recently in the case of Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal (supra) . The parameters, while exercising the review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, are succinctly stated as under : “16. 42. The scope of the review application has been reiterated recently in the case of Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal (supra) . The parameters, while exercising the review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, are succinctly stated as under : “16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: - 16.1 A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2 A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3 An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.” 16.5 A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” 16.6 Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7 An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 16.8 Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co- ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 43. Thus, the Supreme Court has clarified the exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, while examining the ‘judgement’ premised on “reasoning” in a given case. In the present case, as such the Division Bench has dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal on the failure on the part of the learned Assistant Government Pleader to point out distinguishing feature and the Division Bench has categorically recorded, after perusing both the judgments, that it does not find any reason to take any different view. 44. In the present case, as such the Division Bench has dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal on the failure on the part of the learned Assistant Government Pleader to point out distinguishing feature and the Division Bench has categorically recorded, after perusing both the judgments, that it does not find any reason to take any different view. 44. The entire case of the State Government in the present application seeking review hinges only on one issue, i.e. the failure on the part of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, to distinguish the difference between two writ petitions being Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011 (i.e. the captioned writ petition) and Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011, (Jagani and 28 ors.) which was decided by the judgment dated 10.08.2016 by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the contentions / submissions, which are raised before us by the rival parties, the analysis of facts and the merits of the matter were not examined by the Division Bench. An endeavour has been made by the applicant – State authority as well as the respondent-MPHWs before us to point out the dissimilarity and similarity in two set of petitions i.e. in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 ( Jagani’s writ petition ) and the captioned Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011. The learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition has followed the judgment rendered in Jagani’s writ petition. COMPARISON OF THE FACTS AND ISSUE OF BOTH THE PETITIONS (SCA No.6289/2011 & SCA No.12537/2011 ) : 45. There are various contentions raised by the respective parties on merits and facts before us. 46. The subsequent facts, after passing of the impugned order of Division bench, and dismissal of the State SLP, cannot be ignored, and is relevant in deciding the present application. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge granting benefit of regularization to the Multi-Purpose Health Workers has been implemented. The State Government, accordingly had passed the Orders dated 19.07.2021 and 18.09.2021 extending the benefits of regularization to the Multi-Purpose Health Workers. The first order dated 19.07.2021 mentions a specific condition No.2 that the employees have to pass the pre-service training examination and also training examination and CCC' (Course on Computer Concepts) examination. With these specific conditions, 322 MPHWs are regularized. 47. The first order dated 19.07.2021 mentions a specific condition No.2 that the employees have to pass the pre-service training examination and also training examination and CCC' (Course on Computer Concepts) examination. With these specific conditions, 322 MPHWs are regularized. 47. However, the State has expressed grave concern that since all these MPHWs are regularized from their initial date of appointment, similar relief will be claimed by other MPHWs. It is also not in dispute that the litigation in this regard is pending before this Court. Subsequently, it appears that the State Government vide order dated 18.07.2022 has further clarified that the regularization’s is made subject to the result of the review application yet to be filed. Thus, after the benefits were extended, further communication has been issued on 18.07.2022 by the Deputy Secretary Panchayat, Rural Housing Development Department to all the District Education Officers of the Districts that the approval is granted subject to filing of any review petition in future and the orders passed therein. It is further recorded that the instant approval granting the benefits of regularization may not be treated as a precedent in any other case. 48. Before us also, the learned Senior advocate Mr.G.M.Joshi appearing for the MMPH’s has agreed that the judgment and order on the issue of regularization may not be treated as a precedent. 49. The State Government, has submitted that the MPHWs, who were before the learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition filed by Mr.Jagani and 28 others (Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011) are not similarly situated to the present MPHWs of the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011 as their initial recruitment process is different and falls under different policy. 50. It is pertinent to note that both the writ petitions are filed in the year 2011. The writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 was filed by the Multi-Purpose Health Workers i.e. Mr.J.M.Jagani and 28 others, who were appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1989 and 1999 by the District Development Officer, Junagadh. They were selected and appointed on ad-hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500. They were sent to the training and cleared the same. They had rendered almost 25 years of service. They were also being paid other allowances. They were selected and appointed on ad-hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500. They were sent to the training and cleared the same. They had rendered almost 25 years of service. They were also being paid other allowances. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions vide judgement dated 10.08.2016, primarily on four grounds : (A) the regular recruitment process; (B) long service tenure; (C) parity with other MPHWs of Rajkot and Sabarkantha districts; and (D) by placing reliance on the Constitution bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors., vs. Uma Devi & Ors. , (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1 . 51. This judgment was followed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition-Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011 filed by the Samiti of MPHWs with two fold prayers; (i) challenging the advertisement dated 11.08.2011; (ii) claiming the order of regularization. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge following the judgment passed in Jagani’s writ petition . However, the learned Single Judge did not observe anything about the advertisement. 52. The cause for filing the writ petitions by the respondent- MPHWs - Samiti was issuance of the advertisement dated 11.08.2011 for filling up the posts of MPHWs on regular basis. This advertisement has been issued by the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board, Ahmedabad for filling up of 4268 posts in 26 districts. The advertisement reflects that the MPHWs were required to be recruited initially for a period of five years on fixed pay of Rs.4500/- and thereafter they were to be regularly absorbed in the regular pay scale of Rs.5200-20200. 53. In the captioned writ petition filed by the respondent- Samiti of MPHWs in paragraph No.2.5, has categorically averred that its members were appointed after undergoing regular recruitment process of selection and training, i.e Bridge Course, from the recognized Institutes of the State Government, and hence they cannot be compelled to participate in the recruitment process of filling up the posts in the entire State. Before filing the writ petition, the Samiti had also filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.8481 of 2011, for claiming regular pay, which was disposed of vide order dated 07.07.2011, relegating them to file representation in view of the directions issued by this Court in Public Interest Litigation being P.I.L. Special Civil Application No.2492 of 2009 vide order dated 26.08.2010. It appears that the P.I.L. was filed by the fixed rated government employees challenging the action of the State in giving them less than minimum wages. 54. It appears that during the pendency of the captioned writ petition, the members of the Samiti filed Civil Application No.7865 of 2012 inter alia praying that their members may be exempted from appearing in the examinations which were to be held pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.08.2011. However, this Court vide order dated 13.07.2012 disposed of the same by directing the members of the Samiti to appear in the examination, subject to the result of the writ petition. It appears that during the pendency of the captioned writ petitions, some of the MPHWs were terminated on account of regularly selected candidates, which led to filing of Civil Application No.749 of 2013, which was subsequently withdrawn. 55. On a perusal of the averments made in the captioned writ petition, filed by the Sanklan Samiti, it appears its members. were aggrieved with the issuance of the advertisement dated 11.08.2011 inviting the application from the candidates for the purpose of appointment / recruitment to the post of Multi- Purpose Health Workers (Male) in various District Panchayats under the State Government. It was their case that when they were already working from last several years, they should be regularized in service. The respondents – original petitioners also have placed reliance on the aforementioned Rules, which have been introduced in the year 1981 and further amended Notification and Rules of 20.11.1984 and 25.10.1999 and 24.04.2003 and also on the Notification dated 15.06.2011, by which the Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male) Class-III Recruitment Rules were amended. A specific averment has been made in the paragraph No.12.5 of the writ petition that all the members of the petitioner - Samiti were appointed by undergoing regular process of selection and training i.e. the Bridge Course from the recognized institute of the State Government. A specific averment has been made in the paragraph No.12.5 of the writ petition that all the members of the petitioner - Samiti were appointed by undergoing regular process of selection and training i.e. the Bridge Course from the recognized institute of the State Government. Further averment in paragraph No.2.10 were made that they were appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respective appointees between the year 1992 to 2011. Before us also, when the matter was being heard, a categorical statement and assertion has been made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents and Multi-Purpose Health Workers that all the Multi-purpsoe Health Workers have been appointed through recruitment process initiated by the various advertisements issued by the respective Panchayats. It is also contended that they are sufficiently trained by working so many years and hence, they are required to be treated at par with the petitioners of the writ petitioners of Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011. 56. Thus, a fundamental difference of manner of appointment appears from the pleadings that the MPHWs of Jagani’s writ petition (Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011) and the captioned writ petition filed by the Samiti. The MPHWs in Jagani’s writ petition were appointed on ad-hoc basis in regular pay scale of Rs.950-1500 with admissible allowances, whereas the MPHWs of Samiti are appointed on contractual basis of Rs.2500/-. It is also asserted in the affidavits filed by the Samiti before us that all its members are appointed through various advertisements, and they have also undergone requisite training from various Institutes. ISSUE OF REGULARIZATION : 57. We shall now make an endeavor to decide the core issue raised in the present application. We shall also deal with the judgement relied upon by the applicant-State in case of other MPHW’s. 58. Reliance is placed by the appellant – State on a judgment dated 20.07.2010 passed by the Division Bench in group of matters being Letters Patent Appeal No.85 of 2010, which were filed by the Multi-Purpose Health Workers seeking regularization, it is noticed by us that the Division Bench has categorically recorded that the appellant - writ petitioners (Multi-Purpose Health Workers) of the said Group of matters, were not appointed without inviting application(s) from all the eligible candidates and they have not appointed following the prescribed procedure. 59. 59. Reliance was also placed on the judgment dated 19.07.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.507 of 2016 passed by the Division Bench, which also pertains to the regularization of Multi-Purpose Health Workers appointed on contractual basis, however the facts suggest that in that case, the petitioners/appellants failed to clear the Departmental Examination, though relaxation of age was also granted to them. 60. Thus, both the MPHWs, who are not appointed without inviting applications and have failed to pass the requisite Departmental Examination, are not held to be entitled for regularization by this Court. 61. It also contended before us by the State that out of 322 Multi-Purpose Health Workers, who are regularized, 287 have never taken examination. From the documents on record and the pleadings, we find that it is not the case of the appellant- State that 322 Multi-Purpose Health Workers have been appointed through back door entry, and the appointments are absolutely illegal. 62. We agree to the concern expressed by the learned Advocate General that the original writ petition was filed by Sakalan Samiti, which has 3509 MPHW’s as its members and no details of respective Multi-Purpose Health Workers are supplied in the writ petition pointing out that they are appointed through a particular advertisement. However, the judgment and order either of the learned single judge or of the Division Bench cannot be set aside merely because for want of such information, since it is/was always open for the State authority to verify each and every aspect of service details of its employees before extending the service benefits. In case, no details of the members were supplied by the Samiti, it was always open for the respondent-authorities to oppose the maintainability of the writ petition or in the alternative precise contention was required to be taken before the learned Single Judge. In this regard no efforts were made by the authorities either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench. Hence, we cannot delve in this issue in the present review application. 63. So far as the issue of regularization is concerned, we may refer to the recent decision of the Supreme Court. The Constitution Bench judgment in case of Uma devi(supra) which is followed by the learned single judge in Jagani’s writ petition is recently considered and clarified in the recent decisions of the Apex Court. 64. 63. So far as the issue of regularization is concerned, we may refer to the recent decision of the Supreme Court. The Constitution Bench judgment in case of Uma devi(supra) which is followed by the learned single judge in Jagani’s writ petition is recently considered and clarified in the recent decisions of the Apex Court. 64. Further, in the case of Vinodkumar Vs. Union of India (2024) 9 SCC 327 on the issue of regularization after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), it has been held thus: “5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status. 6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder: “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [ (1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071 ] , R.N. Nanjundappa [ (1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799 ] and B.N. Nagarajan [ (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937 ] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 65. The aforesaid judgement is followed in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India AIR 2025 SC 296 , and has held thus : - “20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.5, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below: “6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…” 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants’ engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 23. xxxxxx 24. xxxxxxxx 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. 23. xxxxxx 24. xxxxxxxx 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. 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.” 66. Thus, in fact there is no substantial change in the law of regularization after the decisions of rendered by learned single judges in the respective petitions. The issue of regularization in both the writ petitions, i.e. in Jagani’s writ petition and the captioned writ petition is primarily premised on the Constitution Bench judgment of Apex Court in case of Uma devi(supra). The upshot of the foregoing observations of the Supreme Court is that the ad-hoc or temporary employees, who have worked for prolonged period and are rendering same work of regular employees, cannot be discriminated by branding them as “irregular” employees for denying the benefit of regularization. The upshot of the foregoing observations of the Supreme Court is that the ad-hoc or temporary employees, who have worked for prolonged period and are rendering same work of regular employees, cannot be discriminated by branding them as “irregular” employees for denying the benefit of regularization. While referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra ), it is held that, 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. The Government departments often cite the judgment in the case of 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. 67. The Apex Court has highlighted the plight of such employees. It is emphasized that prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. The Courts are asked to lift the veil and examine the realities of employment, and to look beyond the labels of employment and assure that the lables like "Temporary" or "Contractual," are not misused even when the roles of such employees mirror those of regular employees. The Courts have to examine the continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments, and light of such parameters, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. The State Government and the instrumentalities of the State have been cautioned that their reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. The advertisement dated 11.08.2011 clarifies that these were 4268 sanctioned posts, which were required to be filled in, when the respondent – MPHWs were already working on such posts, which constrained them to file the captioned writ petition. The advertisement dated 11.08.2011 clarifies that these were 4268 sanctioned posts, which were required to be filled in, when the respondent – MPHWs were already working on such posts, which constrained them to file the captioned writ petition. Hence, the ground of non-applicability of sanctioned posts, also cannot be delved upon by us. 68. Thus, in view of the reiteration of law on the issue of regularization in the aforementioned judgments, the mode of appointment of MPHWs in both the cases i.e. Jagani’s writ petition , and the present case, even if is to treated as separate and distinct, the same will have no bearing on the issue of regularization in view of established fact that the initial appointment of the respondent - MPHWs, who were appointed at the relevant time cannot be labeled as illegal. Those who were appointed illegally, have already failed before this Court, hence they cannot be extended the benefit of regularization. The State government can always scrutinize their cases and deny the benefits at any stage. But in the cases of those MPHWs, who are appointed through a selection process pursuant to the issuance of advertisement and have fulfilled the conditions of the advertisement cannot be denied regularization in view of the settled legal precedent. It is trite that a valuable right of citizen cannot be permitted to be taken away, only because there is possibility of floodgate litigation (vide (2007) 9 SCC 625 in the case of Coal India Ltd. & Ors Vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra). Similarly huge financial burden on the State cannot also defect the legal claim of the litigants. CONCLUSION AND ORDER: 69. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has been implemented and the Multi-Purpose Health Workers, who are 322 in numbers, are already extended the benefit of regularization. The State Government has already clarified that 322 MPHWs are to be extended the benefits of regularization subject to conditions mentioned therein. 70. By now, more than four years have passed after the orders of regularizations are passed, and the writ petition itself dates back to the year 2011, and over 13 years ago. The State Government has already clarified that 322 MPHWs are to be extended the benefits of regularization subject to conditions mentioned therein. 70. By now, more than four years have passed after the orders of regularizations are passed, and the writ petition itself dates back to the year 2011, and over 13 years ago. It is not the case of the appellant–State that the respondents are not being employed on a regular basis and are not rendering their duties akin to other MPHW’s who are conferred regular pay scale at par with the petitioners in Jagani’s writ petition . In light of the subsequent events, particularly on the issuance of the orders by the state government, it is clarified that the regularization of 322 Multi-Purpose Health Workers shall remain subject to the conditions stipulated in the said Resolution, and they have to undergo the rigors as specified therein. 71. We are constrained to pass a reasoned order since detail submissions are advanced by the rival parties which were not advanced before the coordinate bench, since the captioned Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on the failure on the part of the learned AGP to point-out the distinguishing feature in two cases. Although, the respondents have not contested the maintainability of the review application, in view of the aforementioned facts and settled legal precedent, more particularly considering the tenure of the Multi-Purpose Health Workers and the conditions mentioned in the orders regularizing their services, we are of the considered opinion that the present application does not merit acceptance. However, it is clarified that the observations recorded in the judgment and order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the learned single judge as confirmed by the Division bench shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case, and shall apply only to those Multi-Purpose Health Workers, who were the members of the Sankalan Samiti as of the year 2011, when the captioned writ petition was filed. It is also clarified that we have not opined anything on the date/s from which the benefit of regularization has to be extended, since the issue in this regard is pending before another Bench. 72. The present review application stands dismissed. Accordingly, other civil applications for joining parties also stand disposed of. 73. It is also clarified that we have not opined anything on the date/s from which the benefit of regularization has to be extended, since the issue in this regard is pending before another Bench. 72. The present review application stands dismissed. Accordingly, other civil applications for joining parties also stand disposed of. 73. However, in view of specific directions issued by the Supreme Court, vide order dated 08.03.2025 in I.A No.15115 of 2023 in S.L.P. (C) No.15115 of 2023, the present order is stayed for a period of 08 (eight) weeks.