Afr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8326 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2610 of 2021 1 - Dr. Anil Kumar Tripathi S/o Dr. Ram Kailash Tripathi Aged About 40 Years Posted At Government Ayurveda Aushadhalay Akalsara, Jaijaipur Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh versus --- Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Ayurveda, Yoga And Prakritik Chikitsa, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Purana Mantralaya Parisar Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Ayurveda Adhikari Office Of District Ayurveda Officer, In Front Of District Hospital Janjgir, Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 4629 of 2022 1 - Dr. Jyoti Kaushik W/o Shri Gitesh Kumar Kaushik Aged About 40 Years Presently Working At Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Akhrar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, R/o Near Balaji Nursing Home, Devnandan Nagar (Phase - 1), Naya Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Directorate Of Ayurveda, Yoga And Prakritik Chikitsa, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Purana Mantralaya Parisar Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Ayurveda Adhikari Office Of District Ayurveda Officer, Nutan Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) 2 WPS No. 2635 of 2021 1 - Dr. Madhu Sharma W/o Dr. Vipin Chandra Sharma Aged About 51 Years Govt. Ayurveda Aushadhalay Mahuda, Baloda Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Ayurveda Yoga And Prakritik Chikitsa, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayushu) Purana Mantralaya Parisar Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Ayurveda Adhikari Office Of District Ayurveda Officer, In Front Of District Hospital Janjgir , Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2637 of 2021 1 - Dr. Arati Gaikwad W/o Dr. Mahendra Gaikwad Aged About 51 Years Ayurveda Medical Officer, Govt. Ayurveda Aushadhalay Dagori, Block- Belha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Ayurveda, Yoga And Prakritik Chikitsa, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Purana Mantralaya Parisar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Ayurveda Adhikari Block- Belha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5128 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
1 - Dr. Veena Verma W/o Shri Suresh Kaushik, Aged About 45 Years R/o Shakuntala Heights, B- Block, Sarkanda, Bilaspur,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner(s) 3 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Ayurveda, Yoga And Prakritik Chikitsa, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Purana Mantralaya Parisar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Ayurveda Adhikari, District Ayurveda Office Of District Ayurveda Officer, Nutan Chowk, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 6559 of 2024 1 - Dr. Aparna Mishra W/o Shri Anupam Mishra Aged About 45 Years Ayurveda Medical Officer, Govt. Ayurveda Aushadhalay Paunsara, Block Belha, Dist Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Ayurveda, Yoga And Prakritik Chikitsa, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Purana Mantralaya Parisar Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - District Ayurveda Adhikari Block Belha, Dist Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 501 of 2025 1 - Dr. Sunanda Goswami D/o Shri Narayana Bharati Aged About 52 Years Posted At Government Ayurveda Aushadhalay Bundela, Pamgarh, Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Ayurveda, Yoga And Prakritik Chikitsa, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Indrawati Bhawan, Block- 1, Third Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Ayush Officer Office Of District Ayurveda Office, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 4 WPS No. 517 of 2025 1 - Dr. Satish Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Mithila Prasad Tiwari Aged About 46 Years Posted At Government Ayurveda Aushadhalay Lakhali, Block- Bamhanidih, Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Ayurveda, Yoga And Prakritik Chikitsa, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Indrawati Bhawan, Block- 1, Third Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Ayush Officer Office Of District Ayurveda Office, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 484 of 2025 1 - Dr. Chhatrapati Patel S/o Ghanshyam Patel Aged About 46 Years Posted At Government Ayurveda Aushadhalay Sapos, Dabhara, District- Sakti, C.G. Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Director Directorate Of Ayurveda, Yoga And Prakritik Chikitsa, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Indrawati Bhawan, Block-1 Third Floor, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. 3 - District Ayush Officer Office Of District Ayurveda Office, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G. --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Kumar Bajpai, Advocate and Ms. Pooja Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate, along with Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer 5 Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/02/2025 1. This bunch of writ petitions is being decided by this common order as issue involved in all these writ petitions are one and the same and as such, they are being heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. In all these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, stating that all the writ petitioners are Ayurvedic Doctors having degree in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS). They are being posted as Medical Officer on the basis of their merit with effect from 11.08.2007 on contractual basis and since then, they are continuing in service on the basis of their contract appointment. 3. Grievance of petitioners in all these writ petitions are that since 2007 – 2008, petitioners are claiming their regular service, however, even after rendering more than 10 years of service, they are not being regularized. State Government has regularized services of some of the Ayurvedic Lecturers and about more than 16,000 Siksha Karmis’, after taking consideration of decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) AIR SC 1806. It is the case of petitioners that petitioners are taking their duties with atmost care and caution. They are rendering their services towards common people and to the society at large. During the course of pandemic COVID – 19, they have worked as frontline workers and their services have been widely appreciated in the society. As the petitioners are working on 6 contractual basis, as such, they are also getting very meager amount towards their salary and their services are at a stake due to their temporary service. Petitioners are seeking interference of this Court under extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while praying for a suitable direction for regularization of their services as Medical Officer (Ayurvedic) in the Health Department.
Decision
Since in all the writ petitions, common question has been raised by petitioners, as such, in order to decide all these writ petitions, W.P.S. No. 2610 of 2021 is being considered as master case and all these writ petitions are being decided on the basis of pleadings made in this writ petition. 4. In these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioners and Ayurveda Adhakari Sangh from the office of respondents for its kind perusal by issuing a writ of certiorari and after going through the record, further be pleased to command the respondents to regularize the petitioners after completion of 10 years service w.e.f. 10.08.2017 with all consequential benefits with retrospective effect by issuing a writ of mandamus can be issued which is under the power, control and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant any other writ order or directions in the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners.” 5. The case, as projected by learned counsel for petitioners, in all these writ petitions, are that petitioner are having degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) and were appointed as Medical Officers (Ayurvedic) by the State Government on contractual basis way back in the year 2007 – 2008 on different dated. Their 7 appointment has been made strictly in accordance with law having being qualified for appointment to the said post. Petitioners have been working in the said post since their appointment way back in the year 2007 - 2008 and till date, there is no break in their services. After completion of more than 10 years of their services, It is the legitimate expectation of the petitioners to receive the benefits of regularization, including the attendant service benefits that are afforded to regular employees. After passing of the judgment by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umadevi (Supra) and further after issuance of notification dated 05.03.2008 by the State Government in terms of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court Umadevi’s case for regularization of Class – III and Class – IV which states that employees, after rendering of services for more than 10 years, would be regularized and therefore, petitioners are also in expectation that their case will also be considered for regularization and they will be given all service benefits. In this respect, they have moved several representations to the authorities for considering their case for regularization. Their association has also approached higher authorities for regularization of petitioners, however, regrettably, the effort was unsuccessful and ultimately, State Government has issued a notification stating that 532 post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer may be exempted from the purview of the State Public Service Commission’s competitive recruitment process. The aforementioned decision was made by the State Government with the intention of retaining the services of these doctors and regularizing their positions. Notably, a Cabinet resolution was also passed on this subject, vide resolution dated 10.06.2016. Concerned authorities have also recommended the case of petitioners for 8 consideration of their regularization after passing of order in the matter of Umadevi (Supra). Following said order, State Government has also issued a notification dated 05.03.2008 whereby, for one time settlement, it was directed to regularize service of Class – III and Class – IV employee who are working since 10 years or more than 10 years. Earlier also, during pandemic, disease dysentery was spread over Bastar region way back in the year 1984, in which, State Government has taken services of Ayurvedic Doctors on an urgent basis and later on, those Doctors were regularized. Present petitioners, Ayurvedic Medical Officers, are also entitled for consideration of their service for their regularization. 6. Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Kumar Bajpai, Advocate and Ms. Pooja Sinha, Advocate argued that case of petitioners are squarely covered by the judgment pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umadevi (Supra) as also notification of the State Government dated 05.03.2008. Further considering total period of service rendered by petitioners which is more than 10 years, case of petitioners are required to be considered for regularization. They relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo vs. Union and India and Others arising out of S.L.P. No. 5580 of 2024 and in case of State of Karnataka and Others vs. M. L. Kesari and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247. They further relied upon order of this Court in the case of Gopi Sao S/O B. P. Sao passed in Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2017 vide order dated 07.12.2018. Order passed by this Court in the case of Gopi Sao (Supra) was put to challenge before Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8097-8122/2024 which came to be dismissed and order passed by Division Bench of this Court was affirmed. 9 7. On the other hand, Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate, along with Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer for the State submits that case of petitioners are not akin to the case for regularization of Class – III and Class – IV employee. Petitioners are Ayurvedic Doctors and their recruitment rules are entirely different from that of Class – III and Class – IV employees. Recruitment of petitioners are governed by Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules 2012, according to which, the renewal of appointment of contract of Ayurveda Medical Officers is given for the period of 01 year (in this case) or till the posting of a regular doctor, whichever is earlier. 8. It is further contention of learned State counsel Petitioner can only be recruited on their regular post while going through process of recruitment through State Public Service Commission which included advertisement, filling of applications, scrutiny of applications and documents and thereafter to appear in the written examination followed by an interview in order to get regular service. Petitioners being Ayurvedic Doctors cannot claim and granted regularization via backward entry in the shape via media order of regularization. Case of petitioners cannot be computed along with Clerks’ and Peons’, they being Ayurvedic Doctors having degree in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) are required to go through recruitment process as stated in preceding paragraphs. They cannot be regularized by way of any alternate arrangement. For their regularization, they have to undergo process as required under the law i.e. going through examination and interview conducted by State Public Service Commission. Regularization can only be done as per regularization 10 policy by the State Government and no one can claim regularization as a matter of right. They cannot claim regularization on the basis of their long service though it may be of more than 10 years. Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of their contention, they placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others vs. Ilmo Devi and Another reported in (2021) AIR SC 4855. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and also perused the documents annexed along with these writ petitions with atmost circumspection. 10. Admittedly, in the present case, petitioners were appointed as Medical Officers (Ayurveda) on the basis of an advertisement issued by District Ayurveda Officer, Distt. - Janjgir – Champa (C.G.) vide advertisement dated 12.10.2006. According to said advertisement, it has been categorically stated that contract appointment is being made till appointment of regular post of Ayurveda Medical Officer through State Public Service Commission or till promotion to the post of Ayurveda Medical Officer or till availability of Ayurveda Medical Officer from the State of Madhya Pradesh, whichever is earlier. The contract appointment was for a maximum period of 1 year on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 8,000/- per month. 11. From perusal of advertisement, it is also clear that though eligibility criteria as well as conditions for appointment were fixed, however, no recruitment process was done through State Public Service Commission and only for a time gap arrangement, petitioners were appointed as Ayurveda Medical Officer on contract basis. In the advertisement it has been categorically mentioned that contract 11 appointment is for a maximum period of 1 year, however, services of petitioners were extended time to time and according to learned counsel for petitioner, they are still in service on contract basis. Though in the advertisement, 40 posts were advertised while following roster in respect to class of persons, however, it was confined to the fact that it was a time gap arrangement till regular recruitment in respect of said post is done either through fresh appointment or through promotion meaning thereby petitioners were not appointed following due recruitment process and were only appointed on their fulfilling requisite qualification and other qualifications. They have not gone through process of written examination followed by an interview. Neither select list was prepared nor any other process of recruitment was done. It is not in dispute that petitioners are working on the said post from their date of appointment way back in the year 2007 – 2008 and they have completed more than 10 years of service. 12. In the matter of M.L. Kesari (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing the issue with regard to regularization, has held as follows:- “5. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 was rendered on 10.04.2006. In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its 12 affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 6. This Court in Umadevi (supra) further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below: "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], R.N. Nanjundappa [1972 (1) SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [1979 (4) SCC 507] 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 regularization 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 regularize 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...." 13 7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. 8. Umadevi (supra) casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). 9. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time 14 exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily- wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.” 13. Further, in the matter of Vinod Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327, Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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 the said judgment are reproduced herein-below :- “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 Umadevi 15 (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 Umadevi (supra). 7. The judgment in the case Umadevi (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 Umadevi (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 16 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. 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. (emphasis in original)" 8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.” 14. Recently, in the matter of Jaggo v. Union of India and others passed in SLP(C) No.5580/2024 decided on 20.12.2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government 17 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 Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. employees. • 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: 18 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 Umadevi (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. 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 Umadevi (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 19 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.” 15. So far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for petitioner in aforementioned cases are concerned, when this Court examined judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umadevi (Supra), M. L. Kesari (Supra), Jaggo (Supra) as also in the cases of Vinod Kumar (Supra) and in case of Shripal and Another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 221, it is abundantly clear that these cases related with Class – III and Class – IV employees and not for any Gazetted post in which recruitment process is based upon verification of documents, appearing in written examination followed by an interview. 16. On the basis of judgment rendered in case of Umadevi (Supra), State of Chhattisgarh has formulated a policy for regularization of Class – III and Class – IV employees who have worked more than 10 years and are working on vacant post. In order to regularize their services, State Government has formulate circular dated 05.03.2008 which is specifically meant for Class – III and Class – IV employees. 17. So far as the case cited by learned counsel for petitioner in case of Gopi Sao (supra) decided by the Division Bench of this Court is concerned, in that case also, this Court has categorically held as under: 20 “12. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court, in Sachin Ambadas Dawale (supra) rendered the following opinion: “ “10. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents. It is undisputed that the appointments of the petitioners are as per the policy incorporated in the Government resolution dated 25th of July, 2002 in which it is laid down that the appointments will be on contractual basis and till the availability of the candidates appointed through regular selection process. However, it is important to consider that the petitioners are appointed after following the procedure of issuance of advertisement and conducting interviews by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The Selection Committee constituted as per the Government resolution dated 2nd August, 2003 comprises of highly experienced and technical persons like : (i) Joint Director,Technical Education Department, (ii) representative of women, (iii) Principal of the concerned institution, (iv) representative of backward class, and (v) two Experts of concerned subject. In view of the above facts, it cannot be said that the appointments of the petitioners are back door or illegal. It cannot be said that the petitioners are appointed arbitrarily or haphazardly or clandestinely without issuing advertisement and without giving an opportunity to all the eligible candidates to participate in the selection process. From the record it clearly appears to be an undisputed position that in response to the advertisement several candidates had participated in the selection process 21 and it is the petitioners who were found eligible and suitable for the posts and as such were selected and appointed. It is not the case of the respondents that any illegalities took place during the selection process. 11. We have discussed earlier, that after the tenure of two years of the appointment of the petitioners came to an end, the respondent - Government issued the resolution dated 26th October, 2005 and continued the Lecturers for the further period of two years. It is to be noted that the Government of Maharashtra has stated in the affidavit filed before this Court that it had decided to continue the services of the contractual employees after giving four to five days' break until the candidates selected through MPSC are available and that the Government of Maharashtra had decided to grant 30 days' leave to these employees and had increased monthly package of these employees. These factors show that the posts, in which these employees are appointed on contractual basis, are permanent and full time posts and the services of these employees were required by the Government of Maharashtra to discharge its "constitutional obligation" of imparting education. 12. The contention of the State Government as to whether the posts should be filled on a regular basis or contractual basis is a policy matter and cannot be within the domain of the judicial review of this Court is without substance. The State Government is a "Model Employer" and is obliged to follow the Constitutional Scheme. It is not in dispute that after their selection, the petitioners have worked for a period between 3 years to 10 years. In this respect we may gainfully refer to the following observations of the Hon'ble 22 Apex Court in case of Radha Dubey V/s. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. in the order dated 16th August, 2010 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.CC10388/2010 :- "We are prima facie of the view that appointment of a person on contract basis for an uninterrupted period of ten years amounts to exploitation. The State, as a model employer in a welfare State, is not expected to take advantage of its position and impose wholly unequitable and unreasonable condition of employment on the prospective employees, who do not have the choice but to accept the appointment on terms and conditions offered by the employer. This practice seems to be contrary to the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another versus Brojo Nath Ganguly and another [AIR 1986 SC 1571] and Delhi Transport Corporation versus D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress [AIR 1991 SC 101]." It is to be noted that having observed this, the Hon'ble Apex court in the peculiar facts of the case had directed the respondents to take the petitioners back in service by an interim order. The facts of the present case are almost identical. The Government has extracted the work from the petitioners for years together after they were found eligible and suitable in the selection process, conducted by the Selection Committees, which are constituted in pursuance to the Government Resolution. 13. Insofar as the contention of the respondents that the petitioners were aware that their appointment was for a limited period on contract basis and as such they are not entitled to claim 23 regularization is concerned, the said submission is also without substance. It is not in dispute that during this period i.e. up to 2010 the appointments which were made, were made only through the process by which the petitioners were selected. It is not as if during the said period MPSC was also conducting the selection process simultaneously. It is not therefore as if the petitioners had choice to participate in the selection process through MPSC as well as through the Committees constituted under the said Government Resolution. The petitioners had no choice but to participate in the selection process conducted through the Committees constituted under the said Government Resolution. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. V/s. Brojo Nath Ganguly (AIR 1986 SC 1571) has observed as follows :- ".........Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. The principle deducible from the above discussions on this part of the case in consonance with right and reason, intended to secure social and economic justice and conforms to the mandate of the great equality clause in Article 14. This principle is that the Courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power...... it will apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go 24 without them." It can, thus, be clearly seen that the Apex Court in the said case has held that Article 14 requires that the State action should be right and reasoned and intended to secure social and economic justice and to conform to the mandate of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It has been equally held that when an unfair or unreasonable condition is imposed by the State, the Court can very well strike it down. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case of Delhi Transport Corporation V/s. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others reported in AIR 1991 SC 101(1) has approved the principle laid down in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. V/s. Brojo Nath Ganguly (supra). In that view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contention of the State, on account of whose inaction, the appointments could not be made for a period of more than a decade. The petitioners had no choice but to participate in the selection process as per the said Government Resolution to get the employment. 14. In the facts of the present case, the Government did not hold selection through MPSC for a period of more than 10 years and selected the Lecturers only through the selection process as provided under the said Government Resolution and the petitioners were duly selected through that process. The respondent - State has extracted the work from the petitioners for years together. Now, by efflux of time and on account of the respondent - State not holding the selection process for years together, many of the petitioners have become over-aged and would not be in a position to participate in the selection process through MPSC. It could be clearly seen that the issue before the 25 Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Umadevi & Ors. (supra) was pertaining to the appointments which were made clandestinely and without advertisement and the persons were appointed without following due selection process. The facts of the present case are totally different. In the present case the petitioners have been appointed after the posts were advertised, they were selected in a selection process by Committee of Experts duly constituted as per the said Government Resolution. In that view of the matter, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Umadevi & Ors. (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. The submission of the Government of Maharashtra that whether the posts should be filled in on regular basis or contractual basis is a matter of policy and falls within the domain of the Government of Maharashtra (employer), does not appeal to us. It being an admitted position that the posts, in which these employees have been appointed and continued for a considerable length of time, on contractual basis, are regular and full time posts; the appointments in these posts cannot be at the whims and fancies of the Government of Maharashtra. The State cannot adopt a policy of hire and fire or use and throw. 16. In our view the submissions made on behalf of the respondents relying on the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. (supra) would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. It is undisputed that the posts, in which the petitioners are working, are sanctioned posts. As discussed earlier, the Government of Maharashtra had issued the resolution 26 dated 2nd August, 2003 by which the Selection Committee came to be constituted for the selection of the candidates. The respondents have not disputed that though the petitioners were initially appointed for a fixed term, they are continued in service. It is not disputed that the leave facility is made available by the resolution dated 18th February, 2006 to such employees. The respondents have stated in their affidavit that the monthly pay to these employees has been increased. It is not disputed that the petitioners are having the qualifications required for the posts in which they are working. The respondents have not disputed that the appointments for the teaching posts are taken out of the purview of the MPSC as informed by the communication dated 29th March, 2008. 17. The submission on behalf of the respondents relying on the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Umadevi & Ors. (supra) cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. In above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 3 of the judgment that the States have resorted to irregular appointments, especially in the lower rungs of the service, without reference to the duty to ensure a proper appointment procedure through the Public Service Commission "or otherwise as per the rules adopted" and to permit these irregular appointees or those appointed on contract or on daily wages, to continue year after year, thus, keeping out those who are qualified to apply for the post concerned and depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the post. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Courts should desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such persons and from issuing directions 27 for continuance of those who have not secured regular appointments as per procedure established. In the present case though the petitioners are not selected through MPSC, it is undisputed that the petitioners are selected after the procedure for selection is followed and through the duly constituted Selection Committee as constituted by the Government of Maharashtra. The advertisement was issued before the petitioners were selected and all interested candidates had applied for the posts for which the petitioners are selected. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners have got the employment through back door entry. It cannot be said that the candidates qualified for the posts were deprived of the opportunity to compete for the selection for the posts in which the petitioners are working. In case of Union Public Service Commission V/s. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and Others reported in 2006 (2) SCALE 115 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows :- "Article 16 which finds place in Part III of the Constitution relating to fundamental rights provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The main object of Article 16 is to create a constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in public offices. The words "employment" or "appointment" cover not merely the initial appointment but also other attributes of service like promotion and age of The superannuation etc. appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from 28 eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made. A regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered. Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution (See B.S. Minhas Vs. Indian Statistical Institute and others AIR 1984 SC 363)." The said judgment is considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Umadevi & Ors. (supra).” xxx xxxx xxxx xxx 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the object behind the Uma Devi's decision in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & others v. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in AIR 2018 SC 3589, in the following terms: “8. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) (AIR 2006 SC 1806) was therefore two-fold, namely, to 29 prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid. 9. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3), is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15th November, 2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10 th April, 2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench. 10. The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise – the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This 30 is hardly good governance.” 18. Now coming to the fact in respect of Circular dated 11.01.2017 issued by the State Government and order of Cabinet dated 10.06.2016, though State Government has held that post in which petitioners are working (total number of posts is 532 of Ayurveda Medical Officer) would be left from purview of State Public Service Commission and further since they are working since more than 8 years, their post may not be included in the list to be advertised through State Public Service Commission. The said memo and decision of Cabinet is of no use and cannot be taken as a ground to regularize petitioners on the post of Ayurveda Medical Officer which is essentially a Gazetted post to be filled through regular recruitment process by State Public Service Commission as the post of Ayurveda Medical Officer cannot be compared with the post of Class – III and Class – IV employees. A post which is essentially recruited by following due process of recruitment cannot be filled up by way of passing order of regularization only on the basis that contractual employees are working since long period i.e. of more than 10–15 years. Petitioners cannot be exempted from facing regular recruitment process, on a post which is essentially a post to be filled up through a regular recruitment process. 19. In a similar matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt a matter in the case of Dr. Balbir Singh Bhandari vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 29. In the said case, matter was for the grant of higher pay scale which was subsequently withdrawn by the State of Uttarakhand. While dealing with the aforesaid aspect, some factual aspect of the matter is required to be stated so that the fact, which is identical to the present case, can be looked into. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid case is quoted 31 below:- “2. Few factual aspects need consideration. The undivided Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an order dated 16th June 1988 by which the appellants were appointed on an ad hoc basis in the State Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Service Cadre. The appointments were expressly made for a period of one year or till the State Public Service Commission provides the duly selected candidates. A decision dated 5th February 1998 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh provided that any medical officer working on an ad hoc basis shall be considered for regularisation upon completing continuous and satisfactory service of 8 years. However, it was clarified that the benefit of personal payment should be approved only after their regularisation in service. It was specifically made clear that if any medical officer has completed 8 years of continuous service but has not been regularised, the benefit of the personal pay band will be admissible only after he is regularised. On 2nd December 2000, a decision was made by the government that officers/employees who completed continuous and satisfactory service of 8 years in the same post on or after 1st January 1996 shall be provided a salary increment in the revised pay band. It was also decided that the officers who have been granted the aforesaid benefit and who have completed continuous and satisfactory service of 6 years from the date of getting the benefit of selection grade to a total of 14 years of continuous and satisfactory service shall be approved on the next pay-band or promotional post on a personal basis. It was clarified that the benefit be available to those who have been regularised on 32 xxx xxx the concerned post. xxx xxx 8. We have perused the Government Order dated 5th February 1998, which records that the service rendered by the Medical Officers on an ad hoc basis shall be taken into account for computing 8 years of continuous satisfactory service. However, it also provides that they should be given the benefit of personal pay only after the regularisation of their service. The order issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Ayush, the Government of Uttarakhand, on 4th August 2011 provided that after the regularisation, the ad-hoc services rendered by the Ayurvedic Medical Officers shall be taken into consideration for the grant of personal/promotional pay scale, which is payable on completing 8/14 years of service. It is true that the order dated 7th May 2013 passed by the High Court records the statement of standing counsel for the State of Uttarakhand that the order dated 4th August 2011 conveys the decision of the State Government. In view of this decision, a direction was given by the High Court to consider the cases of the appellants for grant of the next higher scale of pay upon completion of 14 years of service. By the order dated 4th March 2014, while deciding the recall application filed by the State Government, the High Court observed that the decision dated 4th August 2011 was taken by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State and therefore, unless the Cabinet expressly withdraws the same, it will continue to operate. 20. It is in this pretext, Doctors were regularized and they were granted higher pay scale which was subsequently withdrawn and as such, writ petition was filed challenging the said decision of the State of Uttarakhand. 33 21. From perusal of the aforesaid case, it is apparent that Doctors were regularized on the basis of decision taken by Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 05.02.1988 for regularisation of Doctors who were working on ad hoc basis (temporary). In the present matter, there is no decision or circular of the State Government for regularisation of Veterinary Doctors who were appointed on temporary basis and are working since long time. 22. Likewise, in case of Dr. Priyanka Arora vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, reported in 2024 SCC Online Utt 3229. The matter was before the Division Bench to decide the claim of regularisation as sought by Ayurvedic Doctors. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid case is quoted below:- “1. Petitioners were appointed on contract as Ayruvedic Medical Officer in Ayush Department of the State Government on different dates in the year 2010. According to petitioners since they were appointed after selection against sanctioned vacant post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer and they have put in more than 14 years of service, therefore, they have earned a right to be considered for regularisation and they are also entitled to salary in regular pay scale, as is payable to their regular counterparts. Since the State authorities have failed to consider their claim for regularisation and regular salary, therefore, they have approached this Court……. 2. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer has to be made in consultation with State Public Service Commission, therefore, petitioners cannot be considered for regularisation on the post of Ayurvedic 34 xxx xxx Medical Officer. 3. The said submission, however, cannot be accepted, as State Government has framed regularisation Rules in the year 2013. The said Rules make no distinction between posts, which are within the purview of Public Service Commission and those, which are outside the purview of Public Service Commission. As per the said Rules, an employee, who is appointed on Daily Wage, Work Charge, Contract, Consolidated Pay, Seasonal/Ad-hoc basis and who has put in five years continuous service on the date of promulgation of Regularization Rules of 2013, is eligible to be considered for regularisation, if he fulfils other conditions mentioned in the Rules. xxx xxx 5. Based on the said judgment, it is contended on behalf of petitioners that although the Regularisation Rules, 2013 provided for minimum qualifying service of five years for a casual employee to be considered for regularisation, which has now been increased to ten years by a judicial order, however, since petitioners have put in 14 years of service, therefore, they are eligible to be considered for regularisation, in terms of the Regularisation Rules, 2013, as clarified by Coordinate Bench in WPSB No. 616 of 2018. 6. Learned State Counsel fairly submits that the competent authority in State Government can be directed to examine petitioners claim for regularisation in terms of the aforesaid Rules, as clarified by the judgment rendered in WPSB No. 616 of 2018. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Secretary, Ayush Department, Government of Uttarakhand to examine petitioners' claim for regularisation, as per law, within ten weeks from the date of production of 35 certified copy of this order.” 23. In the aforesaid matter, Ayurvedic Medical Officers, who were appointed on contract basis on different dates, have come up for regularisation stating that they were appointed after selection. From perusal of the aforesaid decision of Division Bench, one thing is clear that there is a Regularisation Rules, 2013 framed by the State Government, according to which, persons who were appointed on Daily Wage, Work Charge, Contract, Consolidated Pay, Seasonal/Ad-hoc basis and who have put in five years continuous service on the date of promulgation of Regularisation Rules of 2013 are eligible to be considered for regularisation, if he fulfills other conditions mentioned in the Rules. 24. The present matter is distinguishable from the case of Dr. Priyanka Arora (Supra) as the State Government has framed Rules for Regularisation of employees, in which, there was no discrimination in respect of employees who have to be regularized, but, in the present matter, there is specific circular of the State Government dated 05.03.2008 which is specifically meant for regularisation of Class – III and Class – IV employees. The said circular does not state anything about other employees who are working on ad hoc / work charge or contingency basis, as such, the view taken in the case of Dr. Priyanka Arora (Supra) is different from the present matter. 25. From perusal of the decisions taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Umadevi (Supra), M. L. Kesari (Supra), Jaggo (Supra), Vinod Kumar (Supra), Shripal (Supra), it is quite vivid that Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that employees, who were appointed on ad hoc basis and who have worked for many years cannot be directed 36 to work on temporary basis for a long period. It is akin to bounded labours and appointing laborers, which cannot be permitted in a civilized state. Though petitioners in the present matter are Ayurvedic Medical Officers, but they were appointed on ad hoc basis against vacant post after following due process of law and after verification of their qualifications. They are still working on the said post and their work is still necessitated by the State Government. In the matter of Dr. Balbir Singh Bhandari (Supra) and Dr. Priyanka Arora (Supra), one fact is similar that State Government has come up with a Policy for regularisation on the basis, that the Doctors have worked for a long period and has framed Regularization Rules in the year 2013 itself, as such, in view of the letter dated 11.07.2017 issued by the State Government and in view of the Cabinet resolution dated 10.06.2016, by which State Government has left these Ayurvedic Medical Officers from purview of State Public Service Commission stating that they are working since more than eight years. Since petitioners can only be recruited through regular process of recruitment i.e. to undergo written examination followed by an interview by the concerned Public Service Commission, this Court think it difficult to pass an order of their regularisation. But, in the meantime, this Court also thinks it fit to direct State Government to come up with some concrete proposal / circular for regularisation of these Doctors looking to their earlier requirement and further looking to the fact that services of these Doctors are still required by the State Government and the petitioners are working since long back. 26. In view of the aforementioned observations, this Court deems it appropriate to direct State Government to consider the case of 37 petitioner and to consider regarding framing of Regularisation Rules or any Circular with respect to regularisation of Doctors who are working since more than eight years coupled with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court for regularisation of employees right from Umadevi (Supra), M. L. Kesari (Supra), Jaggo (Supra), Vinod Kumar (Supra), Shripal (Supra). Looking to the fact that petitioners are working since more than eight years, it is entirely upon the State Government to make Rules and to pass Circular for regularisation of these Ayurvedic Medical Officers in terms of letter dated 11.07.2017 issued by the State Government and in view of the Cabinet resolution dated 10.06.2016, as per law within ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 27. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Shayna Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge