(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in letter No.39314/P2/2022-1, dated 05.01.2024, on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent, arbitrary and unconstitutional and further direct the respondents 2 to 4 to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of their inception into service with all consequential service as well as monetary benefits within a time period stipulated by this Court to retain the recognization granted by the first respondent AICTE for the year 1994 to 2023.)

Common Order:

These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 05.01.2024 passed by the third respondent and consequently directing respondents 2 to 4 to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his/her initial appointment, with all consequential service and monetary benefits, within a time frame stipulated by this Court, so as to retain the recognition granted by the first respondent, AICTE, for the period from 1994 to 2023.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present batch of Writ Petitions are that the petitioners have been working as Lecturers at the respective Government Polytechnic Colleges, viz., the fourth respondent herein, for varying periods. When the petitioners submitted representations seeking regularization and absorption, the third respondent rejected the same vide the respective impugned orders, challenging which the present Writ Petitions have been filed.

3. The petitioners were appointed on different dates. For ready reference, the Writ Petition Numbers, names of the petitioners, their qualifications, dates of initial appointment, dates of appointment on consolidated pay, and the total length of service from the dates of their initial appointment, as stated in the respective affidavits, are set out in the tabular column hereinbelow:-

“table”

4. Though these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by way of a common order, for the sake of discussion, the facts in W.P.No.17780 of 2024 are taken into consideration.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner in W.P.No.17780 of 2024 was appointed in the fourth respondent Polytechnic College on 10.07.1996, pursuant to G.O.(Ms) No.732, Education Department, dated 10.07.1985. Since then, he has been functioning as a Lecturer for almost 25 years. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that specific duties were assigned to the petitioners. He would also submit that, in order to run a Polytechnic College, it is mandatory for the third respondent to maintain the prescribed teacher-student ratio, which is inspected by the AICTE. At the time of such inspection, the third respondent would represent the petitioners as regular employees, and based on such representation, recognition would be granted to the Polytechnic College.

                          5.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that, though the petitioners were appointed on a part-time basis, they were appointed against sanctioned posts and have been functioning only in such posts. He would also submit that the petitioners were appointed by the respective Principals after publication of the requisite notification in the newspapers. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 05.01.2024, rejecting their claim for absorption, is liable to be interfered with, and the petitioners seek regularization.

6. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 and would contend that the petitioners were appointed on a part-time basis and were paid remuneration at the rate of Rs.200/- per hour for theory classes and Rs.100/- per hour for practical classes, subject to a maximum limit of Rs.10,000/- per month. Their services were utilized during the periods from June to September and from December to March. Subsequently, they were brought under consolidated pay with effect from 04.11.2019, pursuant to G.O.(D) No.290, Higher Education (11) Department, dated 04.11.2019, and were paid a monthly consolidated remuneration of Rs.15,000/-.

                          6.1. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that there would be a break in service during the month of May every year. Apart from the above, it is his specific submission that the petitioners were not recruited in accordance with the Service Rules and that the Rule of Reservation was not followed. He would also contend that the petitioners were appointed by the respective Principals of the Polytechnic Colleges. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that Lecturers are recruited every year and that the petitioners were given preference in the selection process. In order to facilitate their entry into regular service, the respondents had relaxed the upper age limit up to 57 years, enabling the petitioners to participate in the examination, and had also awarded two additional marks in the written examination as incentive.

                          6.2. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the petitioners would not be prejudiced on account of their long service. He would further contend that the petitioners could only be construed as part-time employees and, since they had been recruited contrary to the Recruitment Rules, they could not seek regularization. It is also the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that, in similar circumstances, this Court had declined to regularize the services of a Lecturer in W.A.No.1063 of 2022 etc. batch, vide judgment dated 20.04.2022. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petitions.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

8. Most of the facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner in W.P.No.17780 of 2024 was initially appointed during the year 1996 against part-time post. Subsequently, he was brought under contractual employment. Though the respondents would contend that there was a break in service, the same was only during the vacation period of the College. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, such a break could only be termed as an artificial break in service.

9. However, the primary consideration relevant for deciding a claim for regularization is whether the initial appointment was irregular or illegal. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the appointments were only irregular, the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the appointments of the petitioners have to be construed as illegal has considerable force for the following reasons:-

                          (i) Admittedly, the Rule of Reservation was not followed;

                          (ii) No wide publicity was given; and

                          (iii) The Recruitment Rules were not followed.

10. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner in W.P.No.17780 of 2024 has been continuously working since 1996. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, if the petitioners are not regularized after such a long period of service, it would affect their right to life. This Court, however, is not in a position to concur with the said submission, in view of the fact that the respondent authority had extended certain benefits to the petitioners by awarding two additional marks to those who were already in service.

11. Furthermore, on a perusal of the counter affidavit, it is seen that the age criterion was also relaxed, and the petitioners who were already in service were permitted to participate in the examination up to the age of 57 years. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the petitioners would not be prejudiced on account of their long service, since the respondent authority had relaxed the upper age limit to enable them to participate in the examination. This Court was also informed that some of the part-time Lecturers had participated in the examination and had been selected. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon G.O.(Ms) No.74, dated 27.06.2013, and would contend that a person who has been in service for more than ten years is liable to be regularized.

12. However, on a close scrutiny of the aforesaid Government Order, it is seen that a distinction has been made between part-time employees and full-time employees. In the present case, though the petitioners were appointed during the year 1996, they were appointed only on a part-time basis and were brought under consolidated pay only in the year 2019. Further, on a close scrutiny of G.O.(Ms) No.74, it is evident that the benefit of regularization was specifically extended only to full-time employees and not to part-time employees.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2025 INSC 998, and would contend that, if ad hocism is allowed to thrive, the administration would become opaque. He would further rely upon the judgment in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2026 INSC 523, and contend that the State cannot be permitted to continue an employee against a sanctioned vacant post under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter abruptly discontinue such engagement, as it would override the constitutional guarantees. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the aforesaid judgments, the crucial aspect that remains unanswered is whether the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts available in the respective Polytechnic Colleges.

14. On perusal of the appointment order of one D.Ramesh Kumar, the petitioner in W.P.No.17780 of 2024, it is seen that he was not appointed as a Lecturer but only as a part-time Instructor. This clearly demonstrates that he was not appointed against a sanctioned post. Even as on date, there is no sanctioned post in the cadre of Instructor. Therefore, when the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts, their mere continuance in service for a long period cannot confer any better right upon them. This position has been clearly enunciated in the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court decision in Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai Vs. R.Govindaswamy, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769.

15. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1063 of 2022 etc. batch, dated 20.04.2022. The said case arose out of a similar claim made by similarly situated persons. When the Writ Petitions filed by such persons seeking regularization were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the aggrieved employees preferred appeals before the Division Bench. The Division Bench confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. For ready reference, the relevant observations of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1063 of 2022 etc. batch are extracted hereinbelow:-

                          “12. It is not in dispute that, Appellants/Writ Petitioners have been employed as part-time Lecturers through Screening Committee. Admittedly, Respondent has recruited regular teaching staff. It is no doubt true that, the Government has given a go-bye to Umadevi's case (supra) and continued the employment of Appellants/Writ Petitioners on temporary basis with break in service during summer vacation.

                          13. It appears that the break in service of the Appellants is an artificial break, as, no course will be conducted in Colleges during summer vacation. Now, we are not going to render a finding as to whether the Appellants should be regularized or not, as admittedly, selection procedures prescribed in G.O.(D) No.290, dated 04.11.2019 have not been followed. However, having extracted work from the Appellants/Writ Petitioners for more than a decade, they shall be given preference over others in the selection process which has already been concluded and that, after cut-off marks, in case any of the Writ Petitioners or all the Writ Petitioners have come within the cut-off date, they shall be given first preference before appointing others, based on the Rules and Reservations.

                          14. Having extracted work from the Appellants for more than a decade, normally, this Court would have granted relief to the Writ Petitioners, had they not been Lecturers. It also needs to be borne in mind that, the role of a Teacher is very crucial in moulding children and youth, who are the future of this nation. Importance and relevance of ensuring appointment of qualified and sincere Teachers cannot be over-emphasized.

                          15. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the Appellants in the case of State of Karnataka vs. B.Suvarna Malini (CDJ 2001 SC 006) may not be applicable to the case on hand, as, in that case, the Court has deprecated the practice of regularization and absorption apart from the fact that, equality before Law does not mean that, things which are different shall be treated as though, they are the same. That apart, in Suvarna Malini's case (supra), there were absorption Rules which are absent in this case. In G.O.Ms.No.290, dated 04.11.2019 referred to by the Respondent, it has been clearly stated that, appointment of faculty is purely on temporary basis. However, under different nomenclatures, Appellants/Writ Petitioners have continued in service for a decade.

                          16. It is also seen that, the Apex Court in Govindasamy's case (supra) has categorically held that, the Court cannot give direction for regularization/absorption unless the employee claiming regularization has been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with law with relevant Rules in an open competent process against sanctioned vacant posts.

                          17. Though the Respondent has vehemently opposed that, apart from preference of marks, no other preference shall be given to employees, moreso, in the light of the observations of the Apex Court, we are not inclined to accept the same, as, Appellants/Writ Petitioners have been working as temporary Lecturers in a sanctioned post. Hence, we are of the view that, first preference shall be given to these employees before accommodating other persons, however, subject to the cut-off marks within within the Rules and Regulations. Preference would mean that, when both are equally placed, preference shall be given to other persons; however, they are entitled to age relaxation.”

16. The Hon’ble Division Bench, after taking into consideration the preference and relaxation extended to the employees, declined to interfere with the rejection of their claim for regularization. The aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present cases. The petitioners herein are similarly situated persons, and the Division Bench, while considering an identical set of facts, had declined to grant regularization, taking note of the preference and relaxation extended to the employees. This Court finds no reason to deviate from the view taken by the Division Bench. Furthermore, as a matter of judicial discipline, the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in an identical factual situation is liable to be followed.

17. On a perusal of the impugned orders, it is seen that, after elucidating the relevant facts, the third respondent ultimately rejected the claim of the petitioners by relying upon the orders passed in the aforesaid Writ Appeal. On a close reading of the reasoning contained in the impugned orders and in view of the discussion made herein above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. Though this Court has sympathy for the petitioners, it is constrained to decline the relief sought for by them in view of the binding precedents referred to above.

18. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.