IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2353 of 2010(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SUMATHI.C,PULUVINCHI HOUSE, P.O.KUTTIKOL,CHENGALA VIA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. SHYAMALAKUMARI,'KARTHIKA NILAYAM', KADAKAM,KARADUKKA.P.O,MULIYAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. KAMMADATHU.A.V,W/O.K.RAGHAVAN, ANGANVADY WORKER,CHEMMATTUVAYAL ANGANWADY, P.O.BALLA,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,PATOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SREELATHA.K.B,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS,I.C.D.S,CHAVAKKAD,RESIDING AT KAITHAVALAPPIL VEEDU,P.O.NANTHIKARA,PIN-680030, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. ROSY,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,VADAKKANCHERRY,RESIDING AT KATTIPARAMBIL VEEDU,NAYARAMBALAM.P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. M.V.BHANUMATHY,SUPERIVISOR ON CONCTRACT BASIS,I.C.D.S,PAYYANNUR,RESIDING AT "SURABHI", CHETHANNUR,P.O.MOYYAM,KANNUR DISTRICT. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.2353/2010 T 7. C.C.LEELA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,IRIKKUR,RESIDING AT CHEMBARITHUNGAL VEEDU, KOLAKKAD,MEPPATTA,CHENGOM.P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. T.SANTHA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,EDAKKAD,RESIDING AT THUNOLI HOUSE, MANGAD.P.O,KALLYANI,KANNUR DISTRICT. 9. M.K.KANCHANA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS,I.C.D.S,PERAVOOR,RESIDING AT "SREYAS", THEKKIKULAM,P.O.KOODALI,KANNUR DISTRICT. 10. C.USHAVATHY,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,THALASSERY,RESIDING AT KOMATH CHALIL, P.O.ERIVERI,KANNUR DISTRICT. 11. K.SHYAMALA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,THALASSERY,RESIDING AT CHETTIYERI HOUSE, P.O.CHIRAKKARA,KANNUR DISTRICT. 12. K.HALEEMA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,KUNNAMANGALAM,RESIDING AT THEKKE PANANGARA,PARANNUR.P.O,NARAKUNI,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 13. O.K.SOBHA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,KOZHIKODE URBAN I, RESIDING AT SANCHURA NIVAS,BRINGAL-KOTTAKKAL,VADAKARA,KOZHIKODE DIST. 14. V.J.CLARA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,KUNNUMMEL,RESIDING AT VETTIYANKKAL, KAYANNA.P.O,QUILANDY,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 15. P.M.VILASINI,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,PANTHALAYANI,RESIDING AT THACHURAKKAL HOUSE,PERUVAYAL.P.O,KOZHIKODE DIST. 16. P.ROJA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,PANTHALAYANI,RESIDING AT SREEDEVAKI MANDIRAM,MELEDATH PARAMBU,KOTTULY,KOZHIKODE DIST. 17. MERCY.X,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,MALAMPUZHA.RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAKKAL VEEDU,PUNNAPRA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. Kss ..3/- ..3.... WPC.NO.2353/2010 T 18. M.MUSTAR JAN,SPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,MALAMPUZHA,CHULLIPPOORAKKAL VEEDU, VANDITHAVALAM.P.O,CHITTOOR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 19. K.B.SOBHANA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,MALAMPUZHA,RESIDING AT KAVUNGAL KADAKKARA, EZHIKKARA.P.O,NORTH PARAVOOR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 20. K.V.PARVATHY,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,ALATHUR,RESIDING AT AISWARYA NAGAR, PUTHUNAGARAM,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 21. SUMITHRA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,SREEKRISHNAPURAM,RESIDING AT VADAKKUMPURAM,MANKURISSI.PO,PALAKKAD. 22. K.K.MERCY,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,ATTAPPADY,RESIDING AT POMBRA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 23. VIJAYAKUMARI.M,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,OTTAPPALAM,RESIDING AT VARIYANKKAD HOUSE, KALLOOR.P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 24. E.M.SEENATH BEEVI,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,PATTAMBI,RESIDING AT PANDIKASALAKKAL HOUSE,EDAVANAKKAD.P.O,ERNAKULAM. 25. K.RANJINI,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,MANNARKKAD,RESIDING AT VISHALAYI NIVAS, NARAMKUZHI,CHITTOOR.P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 26. LAKSHMI,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,ALATHUR,MANJESHWARAM,RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEVEEDU,PERUMBALA VIA,KALANADU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 27. PUSHPA.B.K, SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S, MANJESHWARAM,RESIDING AT EDANEER HOUSE, P.O.EDANEER,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 28. GEETHA NAIK,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,MANJESHWARAM,BHOOTHAKUDI HOUSE, BEERANTHABAYAL,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. Kss ..4/- ...4.... WPC.NO.2353/2010 T 29. A.KARTHIYANI,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,KASARAGOD,SREE GANESHA,KODIMAJAL HOUSE,P.O.EDANEER,MADHOOR,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 30. P.NARAYANI,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,KANHANGAD,RESIDING AT SREERAGAM, VARAYILLAM HOUSE,P.O.HARIPURAM. 31. THULASIBHAI AMMA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,IDUKKI,RESIDING AT CHANKU PUTHEN VEEDU,SOORANAD NORTH.P.O,NEAR HIGH COURT JUNCTION. 32. ELSA SEBASTIAN,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,DEVIKULAM,RESIDING AT KULATHUNGAL, MELEKUPPATT PADY,KATTAPPANA. 33. N.P.GEETHA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,SULTHAN BATHERY,EDAKKAMBAM VEEDU, KANILYAMBATTA.P.O,WAYANAD DISTRICT. 34. A.RATHIDEVI,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,SULTHAN BATHERY,RESIDING AT CHANDRALAYAM, PUTHENKOOMB.P.O,SULTHAN BATHERY,WAYANAD TALUK. 35. P.I.MARY,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,MANANTHAVADY,RESIDING AT THURUTHIPARAMBIL VEEDU,THONICHAL NALLOORNADU,MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 36. M.SARASWATHY,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,MANANTHAVADY,RESIDING AT MOOTHEDATH ILLAM,MADAKUNNU.PO,KALPETTA,WYANAD. 37. K.SAFIA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,NILAMBUR,RESIDING AT KOLLANNAMMEL VEEDU, KANTHAPURAM,UNNIKULAM,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 38. N.SHYLAJA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,MALAPPURAM RURAL,RESIDING AT NARINGAPARAMBIL VEEDU,PANG.P.O,KULATHOOR VIA, PIN-670 338. 39. K.M.JAMEELA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,MALAPPURAM RURAL,KUTTIRAYAN, MARAKKARAKATH,P.O.THANOOR,PIN-676302. Kss ..5/- ...5..... WPC.NO.2353/2010 T 40. VIJAYAKUMARI,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,MALAPPURAM RURAL,OORALAKATH, PATHIRIKKATT HOUSE,NEDIYIRUPPU.P.O, KONDOTTY. 41. RAMLA BEEGUM.N,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,TIRUR,NANKUNNATHU HOUSE,P.O.PACHATTIRI,THRISSUR. 42. P.VILASINI,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,PERUMBADAPPU,RESIDING AT SAI VIHAR, EDAPPAL.P.O,THATTANPADY,PIN-679576. 43. A.PADMAVATHY,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,PERINTHALMANNA,RESIDING AT ALINKKAL VEEDU,KEZHATTOOR.P.O,PANDIKADU VIA. 44. SAKEENA KUNNATH,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,THANOOR,RESIDING AT KUNNATHU HOUSE, THRIPPAMKODU.P.O,TIRUR. 45. JAMEELA.C.O.T,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,THANOOR,RESIDING AT CHAMMALIL VEEU, KOLAKKAT CHALIL,CHELEMBRA. 46. B.AMINA,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,VANDOOR,RESIDING AT BENGALATH HOUSE, UDARAMPOYAL,KALIKAVU.P.O. 47. SUJATHA MANALIL,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,VANDOOR,RESIDING AT PULIKUNNU VEEDU, KARAKUNNU.P.O,MANJERI. 48. P.AYISHAKUTTY,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,VANDOOR,RESIDING AT PALAPPATTA VEEDU, KUNNUMMEL,EDAVANNA.P.O. 49. SUBAIDA KOMBAN,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,VANDOOR,RESIDING AT KOMBAN VEEDU, PEROOR.P.O,MALAPPURAM. Kss ..6/- ...6.... WPC.NO.2353/2010 T 50. REMA.B,SUPERVISOR ON CONTRACT BASIS, I.C.D.S,VAZHAKKULAM,RESIDING AT KANDANATTUVELI, MARUTHALAVATTOM.P.O. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC R4 TO R40,42,43,46 TO 50 BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM), SRI.MATHEW SUNNY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2353/2010 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SHORT LIST FOR THE POST OF SUPERVISOR (ICDS). P2: COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT WHICH APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 19/12/2009. P3: COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.57/2009 DTD. 16/12/2009. P4: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 19/03/2008 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DTD. 14/02/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R18(A):COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P) NO.28/99/SWD DTD.3/7/1999. R18(B):COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.39/99/SWD DTD.28/9/1999. R18(C):COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 27/09/2002 IN O.P.NO.29115/1999. R18(D):COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 1/06/2005 IN WPC.NO.13307/2005. R18(E):COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR IN RESPECT OF 17 PERSONS DTD. 16/08/2005 PURSUANT TO EXT.R18(D) JUDGMENT. R18(F): COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 17/12/1993. R18(G): COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APPLICANT BY THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DTD. 10/10/1994. R18(H): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DTD. 31/12/1994. R18(I): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 19/03/2001 IN O.P.NO.8537/1997. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.2353 of 2010 (T) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are Anganwadi Workers. In pursuance to a notification issued by the Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Supervisor (Integrated Child Development Service) in the quota earmarked for appointments from Anganwadi Workers through Public Service Commission, they applied and are included in Ext.P1 short list. At that stage, the Government issued Ext.P3 order dated 16/12/2009 ordering regularisation of 47 ICDS Supervisors, who are continuing in the post on contract basis. It is challenging this order, the writ petition is filed. 2. Main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that being contract appointees, their right, at best, is to continue only for the period for which they are appointed as contract appointees and that they have no right to be regularised as Supervisors. It is also contended that their appointments being illegal, the Government could not have ordered their regularisation as ICDS Supervisors. In support of this contention, the learned WP(C) No.2353/2010 -2- counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (2006(4) SCC 1), Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic and Another v. Anu Lamba and Others (2006(7) SCC 161), Surinder Prasad Tiwari v. U.P.Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Others (2006(7) SCC 684), Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh and Others (2007(2) SCC 491), Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and Another (2009(3) SCC 35), National Fertilizers Ltd. And Others v. Somvir Singh (2006(5) SCC 493) and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008(10) SCC 1); and judgments of this Court in Usha.K v. State of Kerala and others (ILR 2007(4) Kerala 862) and State of Kerala and Another v. T.C.Valsamma and Others (2010(2) KHC 34). 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the party respondents, contended that the ICDS Scheme was introduced by the Government of India in 1985. It is stated that soon thereafter, applications were invited from Anganwadi Workers for appointment of ICDS Supervisors on contract basis and that in 1985 itself, first batch of 100 ICDS Supervisors were selected, trained and were WP(C) No.2353/2010 -3- appointed on contract basis. It is stated that periodically, period of their appointment was extended. 4. Meanwhile, in 1992, Special Rules for appointment to the post of ICDS Supervisor were framed and the post was to be filled up in the ratio of 3:1 between direct recruits and promotees from the feeder categories. Subsequently on 14/12/1993, the PSC invited applications for filling up the post of ICDS Supervisor in the quota earmarked for direct recruitment and ranked list was published, and 190 candidates were advised from the list. 5. While so, by Ext.R18(a), the Special Rules were amended and the ratio 3:1 between direct recruitment and promotion from feeder categories was amended into 2:1:1 between direct recruitment from open candidates, direct recruitment from Anganwadi Workers and promotion from the feeder categories respectively. It is stated that immediately thereafter, Ext.R18(b) order was issued on 28/09/1999, by which the Government of Kerala regularized the ICDS Supervisors then holding the post on contract basis. Ext.R18(b) was challenged before this Court in O.P.No.29115/1999 and in Ext.R18(c) judgment, this Court upheld the regularisation ordered on the ground that under Rule 39 of the WP(C) No.2353/2010 -4- General Rules, it was perfectly within the power of the Government of Kerala, to have issued Ext.R18(b) order. 6. Insofar as the party respondents and the petitioners are concerned, they were also Anganwadi Workers. On 17/12/1993, Ext.R18(f) notification was issued by the Social Welfare Department inviting applications for appointment of 136 ICDS Supervisors on contract basis. A reading of this notification shows that apart from the number of vacancies, the qualifications, age limit and scale of pay prescribed in the Special Rules were all specified in this notification. Among others, it was stated that Anganwadi Workers with five years experience were also eligible to apply in response to the notification. Among others, the party respondents also applied in response to Ext.R18(f) notification, and eligible among the applicants were called for an interview as per individual memos issued. Ext.R18(g) is one of the memos issued to a candidate. The affidavit in I.A.No.8178/2010 shows that the applicants were interviewed by a Committee consisting of the Secretary to Government, Director of Social Welfare Department, District Collector and two other members. On conclusion of the selection process, ranked list was published. Ext.R18(h) order shows that the WP(C) No.2353/2010 -5- Government had accorded sanction for appointment of Supervisor, ICDS on contract basis, on the scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200 for a period of two years or till P.S.C./Regular Hands report for duty, whichever is earlier. It is stated that it was accordingly that Ext.P18 (f) notification was issued, applications were received, candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee and the ranked list was published. On this basis, according to necessity, selected candidates were appointed complying with community rotation as per the Rules in force. According to the party respondents, it was in pursuance to the aforesaid process of recruitment that they were selected and appointed on contract basis initially for two years. On expiry of the term, the period of appointment was extended and the respondents are continuing in service. They claimed regularization as ICDS Supervisors and the Government rejected their claim, which was challenged before this Court in O.P.No.8537/1997. That original petition was dismissed by this Court as per Ext.R18(i) judgment dated 19/03/2001, clarifying that, it will be open to the petitioners to pursue the matter before the Government. According to the party respondents, the ICDS Supervisors continuing in service on contract basis again represented seeking regularization and it WP(C) No.2353/2010 -6- was in pursuance to those representations that finally, the Government issued Ext.P3 order dated 16/12/2009 allowing remaining of them to be regularized. It is contended that as is evident from Ext.P3 itself, they have been ordered to be regularized against the promotion quota vacancies earmarked in Ext.R18(a) Special Rules. 7. On these facts, the contention raised by the party respondents is mainly two fold. First is that the petitioners can have no grievance against their regularization. This contention is raised on the basis that going by the Special Rules, the post of ICDS Supervisor is to be filled up in the ratio of 2:1:1 between direct recruitment from open candidates, direct recruitment from Anganwadi Workers and promotion from the feeder categories. It is stated that while the party respondents are ordered to be regularized against the quota earmarked for promotion from feeder categories, which does not even include Anganwadi Workers, the short list in which the petitioners are included is against the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment from Anganwadi Workers. It is therefore contended that since none of the vacancies earmarked for the quota to which the petitioners are aspiring for is WP(C) No.2353/2010 -7- diverted to the promotion quota, the petitioners can have no grievance against the regularisation in question. 8. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the party respondents is that, at best, their appointments on contract basis were irregular appointments and not illegal appointments and therefore the Government was perfectly justified in ordering regularization of their services. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (2006(4) SCC 1) with particular reference to paragraph 53 thereof. 9. The learned Government Pleader has referred me to the statement filed by him. It shows that the total sanctioned strength of ICDS Supervisor is 1292 and the posts are to be filled up in the ratio of 2:1:1. According to him, the total cadre strength is distributed in the ratio of 646:323:323 between direct recruitment from open candidates, direct recruitment from Anganwadi Workers and promotion from feeder categories. It is stated that in the quota of Anganwadi Workers, there exists 210 vacancies, which have already been reported to the PSC, and that the PSC has already been WP(C) No.2353/2010 -8- published Ext.P1 short list in which the petitioners are included. It is contended that since none has been regularised against that quota, the petitioners can have no grievance to be redressed in a writ proceedings before this Court. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that having regard to the long service rendered by the contract appointees, it was decided to regularize them as ICDS Supervisors. 10. From the contentions thus raised by both sides, two issues arise for consideration. First is whether the petitioners can be said to be aggrieved by the regularization ordered by Ext.P3. The second is whether, the appointments of the party respondents as ICDS Supervisors on contract basis were illegal appointments or irregular appointments, in which event alone can their services be regularized. 11. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, as already seen, Ext.R18(a) Special Rules govern appointment to the post of Supervisors ICDS. The ratio 2:1:1 is to be maintained between direct recruitment from open candidates, direct recruitment from Anganwadi Workers and promotion from feeder categories. Admittedly, Ext.P1 short list, in which the petitioners are included, is WP(C) No.2353/2010 -9- for appointment to the quota earmarked for direct recruitment from Anganwadi Workers and Ext.P3 order regularizing the service of 47 ICDS Supervisors is to the quota earmarked for promotion from the feeder categories. Therefore the quota in respect of which the short list is prepared and the quota against which the party respondents are regularized are two different quotas. That apart, it is the admitted case of the petitioners that Anganwadi Workers do not come within the feeder categories for promotion quota as well. In such circumstances, none of the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment from among Anganwadi Workers, or even to which they could aspire for promotion, having been lost to that category as a consequence of the regularization that is now ordered by Ext.P3, I am afraid that the petitioners are not prejudiced by Ext.P3. Therefore, that objection of the learned counsel for the party respondents and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents deserves to be upheld and I do so. 12. The remaining question is whether the appointment of the party respondents on contract basis was an illegal appointment or whether it was only an irregular appointment, in which event only the Government could have regularized their appointment. As WP(C) No.2353/2010 -10- already seen, impugning Ext.P3 order, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Apex Court Judgments referred to above. In all those judgments, the Apex Court has held that regularization of casual or daily waged or contract appointees is impermissible since such appointments have been made against the constitutional scheme requiring compliance with the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. However, after laying down the principle as above, in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (2006(4) SCC 1), in paragraph 53 thereof, the Apex Court has held that there may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for 10 years or more but without the intervention of orders of Courts or of Tribunals. It was held that the question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits. Therefore, the Apex Court recognized the power of the Government to regularize irregular appointments. Considering what is an irregular appointment, in paragraphs 15 & 16 of the said judgment, it is held that 'irregularity' in appointment is a term calculated to condone only procedural WP(C) No.2353/2010 -11- irregularities and is meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to the methodology followed in making appointments. Proceeding further it is held that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection, which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised. Thereafter, in paragraph 17, it has been held that in appropriate cases, the executive would have only the right to regularise an appointment made after following the due procedure, even though a non-fundamental element of that process or procedure has not been followed. Again in State of U.P. and Others v. Desh Raj (2007(1) SCC 257) it was held that there is a distinction between irregularity and illegality and that the appointment, which has been made throwing all constitutional obligations and statutory rules to the winds would render such appointment illegal, whereas irregularity presupposes substantial compliance with the Rules. Thereafter, holding that the appointment in that case was without following the Recruitment Rules, the appointment was held to be illegal. Similarly in National Fertilizers Ltd. and Others v. Somvir Singh (2006(5) SCC 493) it was held that appointments made without inviting applications, without constituting selection WP(C) No.2353/2010 -12- committee and in violation of Recruitment Rules and defying the ban on employment, was held illegal and not irregular. Again in Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and Another (2009(3) SCC 35), the Apex Court reiterated the principle that only irregular appointments can be regularised. These principles have been reiterated in Mohd. Ashif v. State of Bihar (2010(5) SCC 475). 13. Bearing these principles in mind, the question to be answered is whether the contract appointments in question can be said to be one made in substantial compliance with the Rules. In other words, the question is whether the appointments were only irregular. Ext.R18(a) is the Rules. As already seen, applications were invited by Ext.R18(f). Eligibility laid down in the Special Rules were fully complied with. Candidates were interviewed by a duly constituted selection committee. In the selection, method of appointment prescribed in the Special Rules were followed in all respects. It is thereafter that ranked list was published and appointments were offered to the candidates included in the ranked list and that too in compliance with the Rules governing reservation. Notification and Ext.R18(h) proceedings of the Director of Social WP(C) No.2353/2010 -13- Welfare itself show that the appointees were to hold the post for the period of appointment or till a PSC/regular hand joins duty. This necessarily leads to the conclusion that the appointments were made against sanctioned posts. Therefore, entire process laid down for recruitment was complied with and thus the appointment of Supervisors on contract basis were made in substantial compliance with the constitutional scheme for appointment in public employment as indicated by the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case. 14. Such appointments were only irregular appointments and not illegal appointments and therefore, it was perfectly within the domain of the Government to invoke its powers under Rule 39 of the General Rules and issue Ext.P3 and regularize the appointments. In the result, I do not see any illegality in Ext.P3 warranting interference in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg