1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2090/1993 (Kamal Kishore Vs. State & Ors.) Date of order : 16.5.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. M.R. Singhvi, for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Dy. Govt. Counsel. In this case, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents to fill up 10 vacancies of the post of Lecturer in Electronics subject after preparing merit list of the short-listing test conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission against ten vacancies while calling first 30 candidates of the merit list to appear in the interview. The case of the petitioner is he is possessing qualification of BE (Electronics), which is acquired by him in the year 1989, thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on 9.3.1990 by the respondents on urgent temporary basis on the post of Lecturer in Electronic subject. The petitioner is still working on the said post and have completed more than 18 years of service. The petitioner while leaving his claim for appointment through R.P.S.C. has 2 prayed that the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has specifically made directions to Union of India, State Governments and other instrumentalities to take steps to regularize as a one-time measure the services of such irregularly appointed employees who have continuously worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned post. Learned Dy. Govt. Counsel does not dispute the ratio decided in the aforesaid case. Learned counsel for the petitioner while leaving all the prayers made in the writ petition submits that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in view of para-53 of the Judgment in case of Uma Devi's case (supra). In this view of the matter when the petitioner is working on adhoc basis since 9.3.1990 then in my opinion, the respondent State is required to consider the candidature of the petitioner in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). Upon perusal of para-53 of the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that in the said para it has been held that the 3 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. Para -53 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :- “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan 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 reffered 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, 4 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. 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 by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” In this view of the matter, the respondent State is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner in light of para 53 of the aforesaid judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Uma Devi (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun