Sharmila K. and others v. The Non Resident Keralites Affairs (NORKA Roots) and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/21ST JYAISHTA 1935 WP(C).No. 10622 of 2012 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: - --------------- 1. SMT.SHARMILA.K, AGED 25 YEARS, KOSHAM VEEDU, THENARY.P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678 622. 2. SMT.MARY KURIAKOSE, 125B, POCKET C1, MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE III, NEW DELHI-110 096. 3. SMT.SHEEBA.C., POOLAKKAL HOUSE, VADAKKUMURI, KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD-678 001. 4. SMT.MANJU JOHN, T.C.33/860, K.V.HOUSE, TITANIUM.P.O., KOCHUVELI, TRIVANDRUM-695 021. 5. SMT.SUBHEESHA.V.P., MUTHAL VEETTIL, PUTTEKKAD, FEROOKE, KOZHIKODE.673 631. 6. SRI.VIJU.M.A., KUNIYIL, PONMERI PARAMBIL, VILLIAPPALLY VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 542. 7. SMT.REKHA.O.S., 63C, KALA VIHAR, KUNNUKUZHI, VANCHIYOOR.P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 035. 8. SRI.VAISAKH.V., VAISAKH BHAVAN, PANAKKARA VEEDU, MELAMCODE, NEMOM.P.O., TRIVANDRUM.695 020. 9. SMT.SHERIN, VENNEKKATTIL (H), CHATHAMUNDA, UPPADA.P.O., MALAPPURAM-679 334. 10. SRI.K.BADRAKUMAR, KRISHNA BHAVAN, MELEPLAVARA, VENKAVILA, IRINCHAYAM.P.O., NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 561. 11. SRI.H.MANOJKUMAR, HARI BHAVAN, STADIUM ROAD, KALLARA.P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 608. 12. GOPALAN.O., 24, NANGLI REJAPUR, IST FLOOR, NIZAMUDDIN EAST, NEW DELHI-110 013. BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.BIJU SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SMT.V.RENJU SRI.P.ANIYAN SMT.M.A.RAMITHA WP(C).No. 10622 of 2012 (C) 2 RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE NON RESIDENT KERALITES AFFAIRS (NORKA ROOTS) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NORKA ROOTS, NORKA CENTRE, THYCAUD TRIVANDRUM-695 014. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT - NON RESIDENT KERALITES AFFAIRS (B) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM-695 101. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NORKA ROOTS, NORKA CENTRE, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM-695 014. R1,R3 BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SC, NORKA ROOTS ESTT. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10622 of 2012 (C) ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE LIST PUBLISHED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.01/2011/NORKA DATED 24.2.2011. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28.2.2011. - EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF STATE VICE PRESIDENT KERALA PRAVASI SANGHOM DATED 1.7.2011 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.7.2011 TOGETHER WITH THE APPENDED INFORMATION. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF GO(MS)NO.05/2012 NORKA DATED 21.4.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.** ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.10622 of 2012 ---------------------------Dated 11[th] June, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners whose services were regularized in different capacities under the Non Resident Keralites Affairs (NORKA), a Government company registered under Section 617 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 whereby Government decided not to approve the regularization of the petitioners and certain other similarly situated employees under NORKA and seeking consequential reliefs. 2. The facts, in succinct, necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: Initially, NORKA was registered as a society under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 and the said society was dissolved in the year 2002 and in its place a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act was incorporated with 26% of Governmental share in the share capital. Later, on 11.1.2008 the Company was converted as a Government company vide WP(C).No.10622/2012 2 Government order bearing GO(Ms)No.1/2008/NORKA. Some of the petitioners were initially engaged under the first respondent on contract basis and the rest were engaged on daily wage basis. The eight among the petitioners thus commenced their temporary service prior to 16.6.2008 and the rest of them commenced their service only subsequently. While continuing as such under the first respondent Ext.P2 order dated 24.2.2011 was passed by the Government. Evidently, that was an order passed by the Government pursuant to the decision of the Board of Directors of the NORKA-Roots in its meeting dated 23.10.2010 resolving to regularise 21 numbers of its employees who were working on contract basis and creating posts for regularization of such contract employees then working under the NORKA. A perusal of Ext.P2 would reveal that the question of regularization of 21 employees was considered thereunder. Out of the 21 employees recommended for regularisation eight of them were appointed prior to 16.6.2008, the date on which the Government decided to enhance its equity participation in the company to 51.3% and an additional amount of Rs.52 lakhs was released for subscribing the shares and consequently issued GO(Ms) No.4/2008/NORKA. In Ext.P2 it is stated that the appointment of those eight employees who were appointed prior to 16.6.2008 is beyond the purview of instructions issued by the Government in the matter of Government owned companies and a decision has to be taken in the WP(C).No.10622/2012 3 matter of the remaining employees who were appointed on or after 16.6.2008. Ultimately, after examining the matter it was ordered that 16 employees including the eight employees who were appointed prior to 16.6.2008 and who had put in a minimum of two years service in NORKA-Roots be regularized in the service of NORKA-Roots. Subsequent to Ext.P2, the first respondent issued Ext.P3 proceedings dated 28.2.2011 appointing the petitioners and others covered by Ext.P2 in NORKA-Roots with the designation and the scale of pay specifically noted against their names in that order. The impugned Ext.P6 order was passed on 21.4.2012 reviewing the earlier order and deciding not to approve the regularisation of 16 employees who were ordered to be regularized and consequently given appointments as per Ext.P3. This writ petition has been filed in the said circumstances challenging Ext.P6 and seeking further consequential prayers. 3. Manifold contentions have been raised to assail Ext.P6 order and also to substantiate their entitlement to get a declaration as sought for. The core contention of the petitioners is that when once the services of the petitioners are ordered to be regularized as per Ext.P2 and consequential order appointing them in service under the NORKARoots has been issued as per Ext.P3, there is absolutely no justification or reason for issuing Ext.P6 nullifying the effect and impact of Exts.P2 WP(C).No.10622/2012 4 and P3. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that such an action pursuant to the change in the Government is absolutely unsustainable in law. The details of service particulars of the petitioners have been given in Ext.P1 and there is no dispute with respect to such details. The contention of the petitioners is that earlier Government took the decision to regularize the services of the petitioners and similarly situated persons who were working under the NORKA-Roots initially either on contract basis or on daily wage basis, as per Ext.P2 and that decision was made taking into consideration the resolution of the Board of Directors of NORKA-Roots passed in its meeting held on 23.10.2010 for the regularization of 21 employees who were engaged on contract basis after creating the requisite number of posts. Pursuant to the said resolution sufficient number of posts to accommodate such contract employees were created and they were ordered to be regularized. Ext.P2 order itself would reveal that the decision was to regularize such contract employees who had put in a minimum of two years service. According to the petitioners, when once such a decision is taken and consequential orders of appointments were issued, at a later point of time, such regularization cannot be set at naught by another order. As long as they were ordered to be regularized in NORKA by the Government vide the decision revealed from Ext.P2 there is absolutely no reason for reviewing the same and de-regularizing WP(C).No.10622/2012 5 them, it is contended. 4. Counter affidavits were filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 3 jointly filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that NORKA standing order namely, NORKA-Roots Service Rules, came into effect on 2.11.2005 and the appointment and other conditions of service of its employees were regulated by it. It is specifically stated thereunder that since the very incorporation of the society in the year 1998 the employees were appointed either on deputation from Government Departments or on daily wage/contract, basis. The said mode of appointment continued even after its incorporation as company under Section 25 of the Companies Act in the year 2002. Later, in the year 2005, service rules were framed and the first respondent Company in its present form was incorporated in the year 2008. On such incorporation it adopted the service rules framed by the erstwhile company and it would govern the service and other conditions of the employees of the first respondent Company. A scanning of the statements made in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 3 would reveal that the stand of the respondents is that the petitioners were appointed illegally into the service of NORKA-Roots. It is stated therein that going by the Recruitment Rules appointment of permanent employees has to be effected under the NORKA through direct WP(C).No.10622/2012 6 recruitment and that such direct recruitment has to be made after issuing advertisements in newspapers inviting applications or by absorbing persons who are working on deputation. It is stated that petitioners 1 and 2 who were appointed as Junior Executive lack the prescribed qualifications inasmuch as they did not possess MS Word and MS Excel. It is further stated that no records are available to show that petitioners 1 and 2 had undergone courses in MS Word and MS Excel. With respect to petitioners 3 to 9 who were appointed as Assistant under the first respondent, it is stated that they do not have the prescribed qualifications. The contention of the respondents is that the action on the part of the Government in issuing Ext.P2 is nothing but diluting the constitutional mandate of `equality in public employment' and therefore, Government are justified in setting right the mistake by issuing Ext.P6. To buttress the said stand respondents 1 and 3 rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **R.N.Nanjundappa** v. **T.Thimmiah ((1972) 1 SCC 409)** . In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, such illegal appointees could not be regularized in service. It is further held therein that ratification or regularization is possible only of an act which was done within the power and the province of authority. In short, respondents 1 and 3 maintain the stand that the regularization of the petitioners into the service of WP(C).No.10622/2012 7 NORKA-Roots ordered in Ext.P2 and implemented as per Ext.P3 is illegal and therefore, the action on the part of the Government in virtually deregularizing their services after setting right the mistake committed at the earlier instance in and vide Ext.P6 cannot be said to be illegal. 5. The second respondent has also filed a counter affidavit. Essentially, the second respondent attempts to sustain and support Ext.P6 in the counter affidavit. It is the contention of the second respondent that the petitioners were appointed either on contract basis or on daily wage basis. Admittedly, except the eight persons all the others recommended for regularisation were engaged only subsequent to 16.6.2008. It is also evident from Ext.P2 that such employees who were then put in service on temporary basis either on contract or daily wage basis were ordered to be regularized in case they had completed two years of temporary service ignoring the decision of the Apex Court in **Secretary, State of Karnataka & others** v. **Umadevi (3) and others** reported in **(2006) 4 SCC 1** . In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Umadevi (3)** (supra) the petitioners who were working under NORKA on contract basis should not have and could not have been ordered to be regularized and, therefore, the action taken by the Government as per Ext.P6 is perfectly legal and in tune with the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Umadevi (3)** (supra). According WP(C).No.10622/2012 8 to the second respondent, as long as such regularization in Ext.P2 is against the dictum laid down in **Umadevi (3)** (supra) it is liable to be corrected and it is corrected as per Ext.P6 and in such circumstances, there is no basis for the challenge against Ext.P6. 6. Before considering the rival contentions it is only proper and profitable to consider the position of law in the matter of regularization of temporary employees. When regular vacancies in the posts in Governmental Departments or Public Sector Undertakings are to be filled up, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to honour the constitutional mandate and at any rate, filling up of such vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner based on patronage or other considerations. The Hon'ble Apex Court held thus taking note of the orders passed from time to time by Government or other Public Sector Undertakings regularizing the service of the contract and other daily wage employees ignoring constitutional mandate. True that, though regular appointment is a rule to meet certain contingencies, it would be open to the Government or Public Sector Undertakings to engage persons temporarily or on daily wage basis. There is no impediment or interdiction in resorting to such methods, but, such methods could be adopted only as a stop gap arrangement. Inducting persons into the service of Government Departments or Public Sector WP(C).No.10622/2012 9 Undertakings to meet such contingencies and then ordering for their regularization ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Umadevi (3)** case (supra) is to be deprecated. In the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Suga Ram** v. **State of Rajasthan ((2006) 8 SCC 641)** it was held that judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by the Supreme Court cannot be forsaken under any pretext by any authority or Court, not even by the High Court. In the decision in **Jeemon.V.R. and others** v. **State of Kerala and others (2012 (1)** **KHC 397)** I had occasion to consider the right of temporary appointees for regularization and also the impact of de-regularization of illegal regularization. That was a case wherein certain persons were engaged on daily wage basis/temporary basis resorting to the regular method of appointment though they had not acquired the minimum length of service to seek for regularization specifically in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Umadevi (3)** case (supra), more particularly paragraph 53 thereunder. The impugned order therein was passed subsequent to the change in Government on the ground that the order of regularization of the petitioners therein was effected in blatant violation of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Umadevi (3)** case (supra). It was the contention of the petitioners therein that prior to the order of de-regularization, rather, ousting from service they were not put on notice. Essentially, the contention was that such action on the WP(C).No.10622/2012 10 part of the Government in ordering de-regularization was violative of the principles of natural justice and on that sole score itself the orders were liable to be interfered with. After considering the factual matrix and contextual situation obtained in those cases in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Umadevi (3)** case (supra) it was held that the circulars issued contrary to the law laid down in **Umadevi (3)** case (supra) could not be the foundation for claiming regularization in Government service as also in Public Sector Undertakings. In other words, after the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Umadevi (3)** case (supra) there is no scope for issuing any order/circular in the matter of regularization of temporary employees ignoring the law laid down in **Umadevi (3)** case (supra). So also, any circulars or orders which were issued prior to the pronouncement of the decision in **Umadevi (3)** case (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court also could not be given effect to subsequent to the decision as any order of regularization of persons not falling within the exception carved out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 53 thereunder would be violative of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the said decision it was thus held that regularization of daily wage employees/contract workers relying on instructions which will contrary to the dictum laid down in **Umadevi (3)** case (supra) is illegal and liable to be interfered with. On the question of violation of natural justice raised by such persons on the ground of non- WP(C).No.10622/2012 11 issuance of any notice prior to the passing of the orders de-regularizing their services it was held thus:- “Though courts normally interfere with orders passed in violation of principles of natural justice, it could refuse to exercise its discretion of striking down the order if such striking down would result in restoration of an illegal order.” Undoubtedly, two wrongs cannot make a right. In **Sreeja T.A. and Others** v. **State of Kerala and Another (2013 (1) KHC 117)** it was held that when there is nothing on record to show that appointments were made after due process of selection and the regularization was done in undue haste without getting concurrence from Finance Department or the Kerala Public Service Commission the termination of such regularized employees would be proper. It is to be noted that the decision in **Jeemon's** case (supra), to the extent that such illegally regularized employees cannot complain of violation of principles of natural justice and seek for interference on that sole ground, was virtually reinstated by this Court in **Sreeja's** case (supra). The question of entitlement of regularization of temporary employees thus dealt with elaborately in **Jeemon's** case (supra) in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Umadevi (3)** case (supra). In the light of the decision in **Umadevi (3)** case (supra) only those persons who were WP(C).No.10622/2012 12 temporarily engaged or appointed and fall within the exception contained in paragraph 53 of **Umadevi (3)** case alone could be regularized or given permanency in service. 7. A scanning of the contentions of the petitioners would undoubtedly show that there is absolutely no case for the petitioners that their case falls under the exception contained in paragraph 53 of **Umadevi (3)** case. When that be so, the question is how, despite the declaration of law in **Umadevi (3)** case, a decision to regularize persons like the petitioners could have taken. Evidently, it was ignoring the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Umadevi (3)** case that as per Ext.P2 it was ordered to regularize the petitioners and similarly situated persons merely on the ground that by that time they had put in a minimum of two years service. Putting a minimum of two years service by persons who were engaged either on contract basis or on daily wage basis would not and could not confer any right whatsoever on such employees in the matter of regularization in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Umadevi (3)** case. In the light of Article 141 of the Constitution of India such decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court are binding not only on courts but all persons who are dealing with such matters. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that since the decision in Ext.P2 was a conscious decision in the WP(C).No.10622/2012 13 matter of regularization of the petitioners its impact cannot be brought to naught by the Government merely on the ground of change in Government and in violation of the principles of natural justice. As noticed hereinbefore, the contention of the petitioners is that since a conscious decision was taken by the Government as per Ext.P2 it should not have been reviewed. Now, the question to be considered is whether the so called decision in Ext.P2 is a conscious decision. Merely because it was a decision taken after deliberation how can it be said that the said decision was a conscious decision. A decision in order to be said to be a conscious decision it must be one taken after considering all the relevant aspects and all the relevant provisions of law. As noticed hereinbefore, after the pronouncement of **Umadevi (3)** case (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court there cannot be any doubt with respect to the conditions to be satisfied to earn eligibility for regularization. The Hon'ble Apex Court in explicit terms in paragraph 53 of the said decision carved out the exception to the rule laid down thereunder in regard to regularisation to the effect that persons who put in 10 years and who had undergone a selection process, even if the appointment is irregular, alone could be regularized. Going by the decision in **Umadevi (3)** case (supra) there is no question of granting regularization of an appointee on contract basis. In paragraph 43 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the case of contractual appointment the appointment comes to an end at WP(C).No.10622/2012 14 the end of the contract period. In the decision in **Satya Prakash** v. **State of Bihar (2010) 4 SCC 179)** the Hon'ble Apex Court distinguished the terms `irregular appointment' and `illegal appointment' and held that an irregular appointment means an appointment where procedure in selection process was not followed but non-compliance did not go to the root of selection process. In **Satya Prakash's** case (supra) it was found that one time relaxation in paragraph 43 of **Umadevi (3)** case was granted only in favour of irregularly appointed employees subject to the satisfaction of the conditions thereunder. Now, with respect to the conditions to be satisfied to earn eligibility for regularization subsequent to the pronouncement of the judgment in **Umadevi (3)** there is no room for any doubt. A person appointed on contract basis cannot therefore seek for regularization merely on account of continuance beyond the period of contract. The conditions to be satisfied for the purpose of regularization in the case of persons irregularly appointed were considered in paragraphs 55 and 8 of **Umadevi (3)'s** case (supra) and in **Satya Prakash's** case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the scope of consideration in the light of the decision in **Umadvi (3)** and held that the cases of irregularly appointed persons were dealt with by the Apex Court in paragraph 53 of **Umadevi (3)** case and the cases of daily wage employees were dealt with in paragraphs 55 and 8 of the said decision. In the case of the WP(C).No.10622/2012 15 daily wage employees there is no question of any one time relaxation going by the decision in **Umadevi (3)** which was clarified in **Satya Prakash's** case. In the case of such daily wage employees what is permissible is only to allow them to compete in the selection process by giving relaxation. In other words, in the light of the decision in **Umadevi (3)** and the decision in **Satya Prakash** which clarified all the positions in the light of **Umadevi (3)** it is evident that one time relaxation and consequential regularization is permissible only in the case of irregularly appointed employees subject to the conditions in paragraph 53 of the decision in **Umadevi (3)** and in the case of daily wage employees who had not satisfied the conditions in paragraph 53 their claim can be considered only in the light of the observations in paragraphs 55 and 8 of **Umadevi (3)** . In other words, such persons can compete in the regular selection process with age relaxation if they had crossed the age limit. When that be the position, after the pronouncement of the decision in **Umadevi (3)** case a decision can be considered as a conscious decision only if in the matter of regularization of employees the decision is arrived at after considering the decision in **Umadevi (3)** . When a decision is taken not in tune with the dictum laid down in **Umadevi (3)** such decision cannot be construed as a conscious decision taken after considering the relevant position of law in the matter of regularization of employees and in the said context it is relevant to refer to a decision of WP(C).No.10622/2012 16 the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Pinaki Chatterjee** v. **Union of India** ( **2009** **5 SCC 193).** In that case, a circular was issued by the Railways. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that after the decision of the Apex Court in **Umadevi (3)** any circular which would go against the dictum laid down in the said decision could not be given effect to. In such circumstances, taking into account the service particulars of the petitioners the decision in Ext.P6 can only be said to be one taken in tune with the dictum laid down in **Umadevi (3)** and therefore cannot be said to be illegal. In fact, what was done as per Ext.P6 is only setting right of the wrong decision. The sustainability of the contention regarding failure to comply with the principles of natural justice in case of de-regularization of regularized employees has been considered in detail in **Jeemon's** case (supra). Paragraph 18 of the said decision reads thus:- 18. The question now, to be considered is, even in such cases, whether the mere failure to comply with the principles of natural justice can be a reason for interference with the orders cancelling the orders of regularisation passed in total disregard to the law settled in **Umadevi (3)** case. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the orders of regularisation were passed by the previous Government, such orders carrying such decisions should not have been reopened and reconsidered by the subsequent Government. To buttress the said contention, the learned counsel for the respondents rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in **State of Hariyana v. State of Punjab & another** _**[** 2002(2) SCC 507]_ . Emphasis was given particularly to the following:- WP(C).No.10622/2012 17 “...What really bothers us most is the functioning of the political parties, who assume power to do whatever that suits them and whatever would catch the vote bank. They forget for a moment that the Constitution conceives of a Government to be manned by the representatives of the people, who get themselves elected in an election. The decisions taken at the governmental level should not be so easily nullified by a change of Government and by some other political party assuming power, particularly when such a decision affects some other State and the interest of the nation as a whole. It cannot be disputed that so far as the policy is concerned, a political party assuming power is entitled to engraft the political philosophy behind the party, since that must be held to be the will of the people. But in the matter of governance of a State or in the matter of execution of a decision taken by a previous Government, on the basis of a consensus arrived at, which does not involve any political philosophy, the succeeding Government must be held duty-bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job rather than putting a stop to the same.” I am of the view that the case on hand cannot be viewed and considered in that angle for various reasons. Firstly, the question to be decided is whether after the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Umadevi (3)** case, regarding the right of the appointees on contract basis, on daily wage basis or on temporary basis for regularisation in service, the services of the petitioners could have been regularised or not. When that be the question the issue involved in these Writ Petitions arising out of the decision of the Government in cancelling the orders of regularisation would not get any colour of a policy decision. The question is one touching the tenability of the decision cancelling the orders of regularisation issued ignoring the decision in **Umadevi (3)** case which is admittedly binding on all concerned. As already noticed hereinbefore, the petitioners did not have a case that their claim would come within the purview of the exception contained in **Umadevi (3)** case. They do not have a case that their claim for regularisation stood on a different or firmer footing.” WP(C).No.10622/2012 18 In the said circumstances, as long as the petitioners did not satisfy the conditions for regularization in the light of the decision in **Umadevi (3)** case owing to the position of being either an appointee on contract basis or an appointee on daily wage basis or could claim the benefit of the exception set out in paragraph 53 in **Umadevi (3)** case they cannot be heard to contend that they were prejudiced by the nongranting of the opportunity of being heard prior to their deregularization. It is not a case of consideration of the correctness or otherwise of any of their action and what was corrected is only a decision taken in blatant violation of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. If in the light of the decision in **Umadevi (3)** case only one view is possible the mere failure to grant an opportunity cannot be said to be prejudicial to the petitioners as even after such a hearing only one view is possible. As long as the claims of the petitioners are not covered by pragraph 53 of the decision in **Umadevi (3)** case there could not have been an order regularizing them in service. The petitioners did not have a case that they got regularization in the light of **Umadevi (3)** case as their cases and claims fall under the exception given in paragraph 53 of the said decision. A perusal of Ext.P6 would reveal that what was done was de-regularization in the light of the decision in **Umadevi (3)** case and the petitioners would be allowed to continue as per the terms and conditions which were in existence prior to 24.2.2011, the date on which WP(C).No.10622/2012 19 Ext.P2 was passed. Therefore, their right to continue in the service of NORKA-Roots would depend upon the terms and conditions which were in existence prior to 22.4.2011, the date of issuance of Ext.P2. In the said circumstances, the challenge against Ext.P6 has to fail and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS