Per Kalifulla, J.:-

1. The petitioners seek for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (Circuit at Jammu) in OA No.628/JK/2003, dated 10.09.2007, in relation to the petitioners, quash the same and direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners by granting age relaxation, other consequential benefits and monetary benefits of reinstatement of service from the initial date of appointment viz., 14.09.1992.

2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that, the petitioners joined the services as Physical Education Teachers (P.E.T.) with Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanganthan on ad hoc basis and were posted at Kendriya Vidyalaya as mentioned in the appointment letter by way of the selection made through the sponsor made by the Employment Exchange in the year 1992.

3. In 1992-93, they filed a writ petition praying for a direction to the respon­dents not to disengage the services of the petitioners and the writ petition was disposed of in the year 1995. When the writ petitions were pending, interim orders were granted by which the petitioners continued in the services of Kendriya Vidyalaya.

4. According to the petitioners, other similarly placed persons filed writ petitions in the year 1996 in SWP No.1692 of 1996, where they claimed regularisation of services which was stated to have been dismissed on 27.11.1998. There was a Letters Patent Appeal against the said order in LPA(SW) No.476 of 1998. During the pendency of the LPA, there was an interim order by which the petitioners were allowed to continue to work "subject to the condition that regular incumbents have not been selected". Based on the said interim order dated 30.12.1998, the petitioners stated to have rejoined the services in the month of January, 1999. The LPA was stated to have been dismissed on 15.03.1999.

5. When the petitioners were removed from services, the petitioners preferred a Review Petition in Rew.Petn.No.19/1999 in LPA No.476 of 1998, where another interim order dated 11.04.1999, was passed allowing the petitioners to remain in service subject to availability of vacancy. The Review Petition was disposed of on 05.05.1999, with a direction that

"if the vacancies are available, the appellants be permitted to continue till regular selection is made as per rules"

.

6. Yet another writ petition was filed by the petitioners along with other ad hoc teachers in SWP No.995 of 1999 on 15.06.1999, with a prayer for confirmation and absorption of their services as PET's against those posts in which they were working from 1992 on the basis of an analogy or scheme formulated by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. According to the petitioners two PET teachers were trans­ferred to the posts in which the petitioners were working and the petitioners were relieved on 18.11.1999.

7. Challenging the said order, the petitioners preferred a writ petition in W.P. No.2566 of 1999, which was stated to have been dismissed.

8. Against the said order, the petitioner and the other aggrieved persons stated to have preferred LPA(SW) No.28 of 2000, which was also dismissed by this Court by an order dated 23.02.2000, with a direction that if any vacancy exist, that can be brought to the notice of the respondents for considering the case of the petitioners. The petitioners were stated to have preferred a representation on 26.02.2000, to the Assistant Commissioner KVS, Jammu Region pointing out the total number of vacancy that existed on the date of representation. The petitioners were able to get an interim order dated 21.02.2000, in SWP No.995 of 1999, with a direction to maintain status quo and the writ petition was ultimately disposed of on 15.03.2001, in which it was directed that

"till the consideration of claims of the petitioners, the service of the petitioners already in service, would not be brought to an end. It would be apt if the petitioners who are not in service, their claims are also consid­ered for being reinstated in case they are eligible."

9. After the disposal of the writ petition in SWP No.99.5 of 1999, by an order dated 17.04.2001, the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan informed that the case of the petitioners was sympathetically considered in pursuance of the order of this Court and that since the existing recruitment policy of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan does not permit such continuance, their claim could not be acceded to. The petition­ers and two others stated to have filed original application in O.A.No.628/JK/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 17.07.2003, along with an application for condonation of delay.

10. Similarly placed other persons slated to have filed a writ petition in SWP No.1977/2001, challenging the order dated 17.04.2001, which was transferred to the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal and renumbered as No.75/2002, which was disposed of on 27.10.2004. The Tribunal while setting aside the order dated 17.04.2001, directed the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to consider the case of the applicants for regularization of their services as per the existing policy of recruit­ment for regular appointments against the existing or future vacancies of Physical Education Teachers by giving relaxation of age for the period for which they have worked on ad hoc basis in the said post, by giving them first preference.

11. The said order was challenged by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and by an order dated 07.07.2005 the writ petition was dismissed. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan was also staled to have been dismissed both on merits as well as on the ground of limitation on 01.05.2006.

12. Be that as it may, the Original Application preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.09.2007, holding that the applica­tion was barred by limitation and that even on merits in violation of the rules, the ad hoc appointment of the petitioners cannot be regularised. The Tribunal also held that in the earlier selection made by the respondents, the petitioners were not successful and that when the All India Selection was made in 1999, the petitioners did not participate in the selection. It further held that there was no scheme formulated for regularisation and therefore the claim made on that basis cannot also be considered. According to the Tribunal the Principal had no authority to appoint any persons on regular basis, that their continuation on the basis of interlocutory orders cannot confer any right to seek for regularization.

13. Assailing the order of the Tribunal, Mr. P.N. Raina, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that when the petitioners and the applicants in O.A.No.75 of 2002, were identically placed, the Tribunal ought to have granted the very same relief which was granted in the order dated 27.10.2004, passed in Transfer Application No.75 of 2002.

14. The learned counsel would contend that especially when the said order was confirmed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal ought to have simply followed the said decision.

15. The learned counsel then contended that in similar circumstances, in respect of certain other teachers in the State of Guwahati, the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court by taking note of the scheme prevailing in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, issued directions for regularization by fixing a time limit and that similar relief ought to have been granted to the petitioners.

16. The further contention of the learned counsel was that after the order dated 17.04.2001, in O.A. No.591 of 2007, the Tribunal having directed the respondents to follow whatever policy which was prevailing in Guahati in respect of Physical Education Teachers appointed in Jammu & Kashmir, if such policy was operational even after the operation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (Secre­tary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC1) and on that basis set aside the order dated 17.04.2001, the said direction of the Tribunal should have been granted to the petitioners as well.

17. As against the above submissions Mrs. N. Goswami, learned Counsel appearing for the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan would contend that immediately after the appointment of the petitioners in the year 1992, by filling writ petitions after writ petitions, Letter Patents Appeals and Review Petitions, the petitioners managed to remain in service till the year 1999 based on interim orders, that such continuance in ad hoc employment would not confer any right in the petitioners to seek for regularization. The learned counsel contended that by an order dated 14.09.1992, the appointment was purely ad hoc for a period of six months, that such ad hoc arrangement was made till the Kendriya Vidyalaya were to fill up the post by regular selection and appointment, that by virtue of interim orders, the respon­dents could not discontinue the ad hoc appointments of the petitioners and that the regular appointees could not be posted in the vacancies.

18. According to the learned counsel as per the rules, there is a selection process prescribed for making appointments to fill up the regular vacancies, that such procedure provides for selection to be made on an all India basis and if the claims of the petitioners were to be countenanced, that would amount to violating the rules relating to filling up of various post in Kendriya Vidyalaya, which cannot be permitted.

19. The learned counsel then submitted that the earlier round of litigations which ended in the dismissal of the SLPs by order dated 01.05.2006, the only direction issued by the order of the Tribunal was to consider the case of the applicants for regularisation as per the existing policy of recruitment for regular appointments as expeditiously as possible by giving the relaxation of age for the period which they worked on ad hoc basis in the post of Physical Education Teacher and by giving them first preference.

20. The learned counsel would contend that the filling up of regular vacancies are as per the existing rules which provides for recruitment to be made on all India basis and by way of selection, that the petitioners not having participated in the selection made in 1999 and having failed to come out successful in the earlier selection process the rejection of the claim made on 17.04.2001, was well justified and the impugned order of the Tribunal in having upheld the order of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan should not be interfered with.

21. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.05.2007, passed in Civil Appeal No.8563 of 2002 with Civil Appeal Nos.8559 to 8562 of 2002, wherein, similar such claim made by certain other teachers in Kendriya Vidyalaya who came to be appointed on ad hoc basis and their claim for regularisation was favourably ordered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, came to be set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by following the decision made in Uma Devi's case and also based on the Rules.

22. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, we find that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners was two fold;

a) In the first place learned counsel contended that when in respect of identically placed employees, the Tribunal granted the relief in T.A. No. 75 of 2002 dated 27th of October, 2004, which order was also confirmed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 01.05.2006 in CC no. 3149/2006, in all fairness, the Tribunal ought to have followed the said decision in the order dated 27th of October, 2004.

b) It was then contended that in pursuance of certain directions issued by the Gauhati High Court, a scheme was framed by the respondents by which the services of similarly placed employees in the State of Asam were regularized, that the decision of the Gauhati High Court was followed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh as well as Madya Pradesh High Court and, therefore, respondents ought to have framed similar scheme to regularize the services of the petitioners.

23. When we examine the above contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we find it relevant to refer to the relevant rule relating to the ad hoc appointment. Rule 9 of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangalhan is relevant for our purpose, which reads as under: -

"9. Ad-hoc Appointment

(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 6 & 7 when an employee included in the select panel is not available or where such a select panel has not yet been prepared and the appointing authority considers it necessary and expedient to do so, a vacancy in any grade of the service may be filled on ad-hoc and temporary basis by the appointment of a person or persons otherwise eligible for appointment thereto;

(ii) For a period not exceeding six months; or (iii) For the period for which a select panel in respect of the particular

post/grade is not prepared as per rule 7, whichever is less. (2) Every appointment under sub-rule (1) shall be made only as a temporary arrangement and no such appointment shall be deemed to confer on the appointee any right or claim to the respective grade/post or to seniority in that grade."

24. Keeping the above rule in mind, when we refer to the order of the appointment issued to the petitioner, the order of appointment was dated 14.09.1992. The same was issued by the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Jammu Cantonment. The said order of appointment was to the post of PET, on ad hoc basis. It referred to an interview held on 28.08.1992 through the District Employment Exchange Jammu (J&K). It specifically mentioned that the ad hoc appointment would be in force till the regular incumbent joins or till March, 1993, whichever is earlier. It also specifically mentions that the said appointment was terminable without any notice and that if the petitioner was willing to accept the offer, he can send his acceptance. It also mentions that he should join before 24.09.1992 at the latest. It reiterated that the offer was purely on ad hoc basis and will not last in any case beyond six months.

25. It is not in dispute that the Principal of the institution was not the appoint­ing authority. The appointment order was dated 14.09.1992 and even before the expiry of six months time, without there being any provocation for the petitioner, he filed a writ petition in this Court in SWP no. 408/1993. In that writ petition there was an interim order by which the petitioner continued till the year 1995 when the writ petition was disposed of. Then the petitioner, along with similarly placed persons, filed another writ petition in SWP no. 1692/1996, seeking for regularization, which was also dismissed by this Court. There was a Letters Patent Appeal, in LPA (SW) no. 476 of 1998 where again there was an interim order dated 30.12.1998, by which the petitioner was allowed to continue to work. That order, however, stated that such continuance was subject to the condition that the regular incum­bents have not been selected. Based on the said order, the petitioner's services, which was terminated earlier, was revived and he was allowed to re-join duty in the month of January, 1999. The Letters Patent Appeal was ultimately dismissed on 15.03.1999 and the petitioner was removed from service thereafter. A review was filed in Review Petition No. 19/1999 where another interim order dated 11.04.1999 was passed by this Court, allowing the petitioner to remain in service subject to the availability of vacancy. In the review petition final order was passed on 05.05.1999 with a direction that if the vacancies are available, the appellants therein should be permitted to continue till regular selection is made as per rules. A fresh writ petition was filed by the petitioner and other ad-hoc teachers in SWP no. 995/1999 on 15.06.1999 for confirmation and absorption of their services as PET's.

26. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of the pendancy of the writ petition, in SWP no. 995/1999, the petitioner was relieved by order dated 18.11.1999. The petitioner filed writ petition challenging the said order in SWP no. 2566/1999, which was dismissed by this Court. The Letters Patent Appeal, in LPA(SW) no. 28/2000, was also dismissed by this Court on 23.02.2000 with a direction that if any vacancy existed it may be brought to the notice of the respondents, who may consider that aspect of the case.

27. Based on the order of the Division Bench, there was a representation dated 26.02.2000 by the petitioner and others, pointing out the number of vacancies that existed and there was no response.

28. In the meanwhile, there was an interim order dated 21.02.2000 in SWP no. 995/1999 with a direction to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing. The said writ petition was disposed of by a final order dated 15.03.2001 wherein it was directed that till the consideration of the claims of the petitioners, their services should not be brought to an end and their claims along with those, who are also not in service, be considered for re-instatement, in case they are eligible.

29. Pursuant to the said order dated 15.03.2001, the petitioners were informed by office order dated 17.04.2001 that, in spite of sympathetic consideration of their representation, the claim of the petitioner could not be acceded to in the light of the existing recruitment policy of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.

30. The petitioner filed OA no. 628/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal along with an application for condonation of delay. By the impugned order the Tribunal, having rejected the case of the petitioner, both on merits as well as on the ground of delay, the present writ petition has been filed.

31. The above facts reveal that after the initial order of appointment dated 14.09.1992, till they were relieved of their services by order dated 18.11.1999, their continuance beyond March, 1993 was only pursuant to interim orders of this Court. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were inducted into service on regular basis nor was it the case of the petitioners that they subjected themselves to the selection process, based on any advertisement made calling for filling up of the posts.

32. As per the rules of the Sangathan, the posts were filled up based on All India basis and by following a definite selection process to fill up the said posts. At the risk of repetition it will have to be stated that on the very first occasion when the petitioner approached this Court, they did not even complete six months period of service on ad-hoc basis.

33. Keeping the above facts in mind, when we examine the correctness of the order impugned in this writ petition, we find that the Tribunal has noted the following facts: -

(a) That there was no scheme available, as claimed by the petitioners;

(b) The recruitment to the post of teachers is made on regular basis after empanelment of the candidates by screening them through multiple objective tests followed by the interview;

(c) Such recruitment is made at the National level after publication of the advertisement of the vacancies in newspapers as well as in the Employment News;

(d) Such recruitments are referable to Rule 6 and 7 of the Appointment, Promotion and Seniority Rules, 1971 and the Education Code of the KVS;

(e) Under Rule 9, ad-hoc appointment is made only for a period not exceeding six months or till the availability of the regularly selected personnel;

(f) The petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc basis though such appointment was from a panel forwarded by the local Employment Exchange;

(g) The appointment was not by way of regular appointment;

(h) The petitioners though took part in an earlier selection, they were not selected on regular basis;

(i) There was a selection in the year 1999 on All India basis and the petitioners, for reasons best known to them, abstain from making any applications or participating in the selection;

(j) The Principal of any single unit was not the appointing authority in respect of a regular post;

(k) Since the post is filled up on All India basis, the seniority is based on the rank obtained in the general selection;

(I) Any violation of the said rule and the regularization of the ad hoc appointees, would cause serious dent to the All India seniority;

(m) The earlier order of the Tribunal dated 27th of October, 2004 in TA no. 75 of 2002 was only a direction to consider the claim for regularization, as per the existing policy of recruitment and, that no acceptable principle was laid down for regularization.

Having noted the above factors, the Tribunal held that the claim of the petitioners cannot be granted as the same would be against the relevant rules.

34. When we peruse the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 27th of October, 2004 passed in TA no. 75/2002, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal in the impugned order, we do not find any well laid down principle or direction, granting the relief of regularization. While setting aside the order dated 17.04.2001, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant therein for regularization as per the existing policy of recruitment for regular appointments against the existing and future vacancies of Physical Education Teachers as expeditiously as possible by relaxation of age for the period for which they have worked on ad-hoc basis in the said post and by giving them first preference. The said direction was also confirmed by this Court in SWP no. 804/2005 as well as by Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 01.05.2006.

35. Going by the said direction of the Tribunal, it cannot be held that there was a blanket direction to the respondents to violate the rules relating to appointment to a regular post and straight away regularize the services of the petitioners. The Tribunal only directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicants therein for regularization as per the existing policy of the recruitment for regular appoint­ment. Therefore, even applying the said direction, there can only be consideration of the claim of the applicants in accordance with the recruitment rules and not in violation of the said rules. The only other direction was to give relaxation in age for the period during which they worked on ad-hoc basis. Therefore, if really the petitioners wanted to avail the same benefit, they could have only staked their claim when any notification was issued by the respondents, calling for applications for filling up of the posts in accordance with the recruitment rules, where, while making the applications, they could have sought for relaxation of their age, considering the service put in by them on ad-hoc basis.

36. It is pointed out by the Tribunal that the petitioners once applied for the posts earlier when notification was issued and that they failed in that selection. Therefore, they cannot be heard to state that there was any mishap on the part of the respondents in considering the claim of the petitioners.

37. It is relevant to keep in mind that as per the recruitment rules, the petitioners have to undergo multiple objective tests, written test followed by interview. When the recruitment rules, provide for such a rigorous test and interview for making the selection, unless the petitioners have come out successfull in the said selection process, there would have been no scope for the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for relaxation of age.

38. It cannot be held that the rules of recruitment should be thrown overboard to consider the claim of the petitioners whose induction in to service itself was in September, 1992 and their continuance beyond six months was only based on the interim orders of the Court. Therefore, either by applying the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 27th of October, 2004 in TA no. 75/2002 or based on any of the directions of this Court, it cannot be said that the petitioners were straight away entitled for appointment on regular basis or by way of regularization of their ad-hoc appointment made in September, 1992.

39. Looked at from any angle, we do not find any permissible claim of the petitioners based on relevant rules or based on any well laid down principles of the earlier orders of the Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We are, therefore, satisfied that everyone of the reason which weighed with the Tribunal to reject the OA was perfectly justified and we do not find any good ground to interfere with the same.

40. When we examine the other contention of learned counsel for the petition­ers, the said contention is mainly based on a direction issued by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in its order dated 13.09.1994 passed in Writ Appeal no. 109/1994 etc. batch.

41. A perusal of the said order disclose that there was an earlier Division Bench direction in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Smt. Latifa Khatun, (1994) GLR 187, wherein a direction was issued to the Sangathan to formulate a scheme of regularization in respect of the employees who were working for long period of time and who were not given regular appointment. Pursuant to the said direction, respondents placed before the Division Bench a scheme of regularization of ad-hoc/part-time teachers of the Sangathan, which contained 9 clauses. The said scheme of regularization was examined and the Division Bench directed the Sangathan to complete the process of regularization as per the scheme by fixing a time limit of three months. The Division Bench also gave an opportunity to any person who would be aggrieved by the decision of the Selection Committee to work out the remedy, if so advised.

42. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out to us that, based on the said Division Bench order of the Gauhati High Court, a Division Bench of the High Covirt of Himachal Pradesh in its order dated 18.04.1995 passed in Writ Petition nos. 159 and 292 of 1994, directed the Sangathan to prepare a similar scheme for considering the case of the petitioners therein for regular appointment as teachers of Kendriya Vidyalayas and till such time a scheme is prepared, they should be continued to remain in the present posts held by them. The learned counsel also placed before us a Division Bench order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.P. No. 535/1991 dated 11.03.1991. In the said decision the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that there had been no regular selection for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rattanlal and others v. State of Haryana and others (AIR 1987 SC 478), holding of the post by the petitioner therein should continue until the selection is made by the appropriate selection committee in the manner prescribed and that petitioner therein should also be permitted to compete for appointment against that post as and when the post is advertised.

43. When we peruse the order of the Gauhati High Court, the provisions contained in the scheme disclose that, in order to get regularization under the said scheme, a candidate should have the required qualification as well as experience, as prescribed under the recruitment rules, that one should have served for at least six months in an academic session at the time when he approached the Court, that the candidate who fulfill the above conditions could be called for an interview by the Selection Committee and the regularization will be made only if they were found fit for the post in which they worked on ad hoc/part-time before approaching the High Court, based on the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the scheme was applicable in respect of those candidates who were working on ad hoc/part-time basis in Kendriya Vidayalayas by virtue of Court orders and by way of one time measure. The scheme also provided that such of those candidates who had approached the Court and were considered earlier, would not be considered under the scheme. The scheme also provided for relaxation in age. The stipulation con­tained in the scheme discloses that it was by way of one time measure and that at least six months experience as an ad hoc/temporary criteria should be fulfilled at the time when the candidate approached the Court. The other relevant criteria is requisite qualification and experience, as per the recruitment rules. With the satis­faction of the above requirements, the candidate has to undergo the selection process for getting regularized. Therefore, even under the scheme, the qualification and experience prescribed under the rules were stipulated as a condition precedent to appear before the Selection Committee and above all, six months experience in the ad hoc post prior to the approach made to the Court should have been fulfilled. Moreover, the scheme was introduced by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan of Gauhati pursuant to an earlier direction issued by the Court in the decision reported in (1994) GLR, 187, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Smti. Latifa Khatun.

44. All the above factors mentioned in the order of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in its order dated 13.09.1994 makes it clear that the scheme was not of universal application to all the Regions throughout the country. Moreover, it was by way of one time measure, taking into account certain special features which were existing prior to the decision rendered and reported in (1994) GLR, 187, by which the scheme was directed to be formulated.

45. Based on the above Division Bench decision, it cannot be held that in every other Region the said scheme should be implemented. When the Sangathan has got its own recruitment rules, it cannot be directed to bypass its rules and formulate a scheme simply for the purpose of regularizing the services of the ad hoc appointees.

46. That apart, even going by the scheme, in the foremost, unless a candidate had six months experience in the ad hoc post before approaching the Court, the benefit of the scheme cannot be extended. In the case on hand, the petitioners, who were appointed in the month not September, 1992, filed their writ petition even before their six months period expired in the month of March, 1993, seeking for their regularization. At the very threshold their claim cannot be equated to the scheme provisions approved by the Gauhati High Court. Therefore, the contention raised, based on the scheme considered by the Gauhati High Court, does not consideration or acceptance.

47. As far as the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is concerned, we do not find any similarity of the said case with the decision of the Gauhati High Court. In the case considered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the candidate was appointed on a temporary basis in a vacancy which was existing. When she approached the Court for regularization, the same was not granted. Subsequently when she again approached the Court, on that occasion it was represented by the respondents that they were not in a position to select a candidate by regular mode of selection and that she cannot be continued against that post. Noting that there was no regular selection for appointment to the post, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed that said candidate should be allowed to continue until selection is made by the appropriate Selection Committee in the manner prescribed and that the candidate before the Court should also be permitted to compete for the appoint­ment against the post as and when the post is advertised.

48. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, therefore, did not give any direction to make the appointment contrary to the prescribed rules. On the other hand it only directed the candidate concerned to compete along with other candidates as and when selection is made for filling up the post on regular basis. Therefore, the said decision also does not support the case of the petitioners.

49. As far as the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court is concerned, in the order dated 18.04.1995, the said High Court has only directed the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to prepare a similar scheme, like that of Gauhati Region, for considering the cases of the petitioners therein for regular appointment as teachers in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, and that till such time a scheme is prepared and the petitioners therein were interviewed, they should continue to remain in the post.

50. Therefore, there was no legal principle laid down in the said order, in order to apply the same to the case on hand.

51. Having regard to our above conclusions relating to the scheme approved by the Gauhati High Court and other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any scope to find fault with the conclusion of the Tribunal in the order impugned in this writ petition.

52. That apart, in the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon by learned counsel for the Sangathan, in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors v. L.V. Subramanyeswara and anr, (Civil Appeal No. 8563 of 2002), we find that in respect of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan itself, Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the claim for regularization of service by such ad hoc appointees, by holding that continuance in service by those ad hoc teachers was thrust upon the Sangathan by orders of the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after making a detailed reference to the Constitutional Bench decision in Umadevi's case, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, held in paragraph nos. 13 and 14, as under:-

"13. It is therefore, not correct to contend that in the aforementioned backdrop of events, respondents satisfy the tests of equality, reservation or rule of law as adumberated in Umadevi (Supra). Reliance placed on para­graph 53 of Umadevi (supra) is also mis-placed. What would be meant by the term irregularity must be understood in the context of the decision of this Court in Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh & Ors (2006 13) SCALE 426). The said paragraph has been explained by this Court in Punjab State Warehousing Corp., Chandigarh v. Manmohan Singh & Anr. (2007(3) SCALE 401).

14. Furthermore, the respondents even did not complete the period of 10 years without intervention by the Court, they would not have been in service for more than 10 years but for intervention of the High Court, they had been continued in service in terms of the interim order passed by the High Court."

53. Applying the said decision to the case oq hand, it will have to be held that the order of the Tribunal was perfectly justified and there is no scope to interfere with the same.

54. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon (2008) 10 SCC1, (Official Liquidator vs., Dayanartd and Others). In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court made a detailed reference to various decision which were considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case and also made a specific reference to the subsequent Division Bench decision of the Supreme Court, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 92, (U.P. SEE v. Pooran Chandra Pandey) and held in paragraph no. 77, as under:-

"77. We have carefully analysed the judgment of the two-Judge Bench (in Pooran Chandra Pandey case) and are of the considered view that the above mentioned observations were not called for. The only issue which fell for consideration by the two-Judge Bench was whether the daily-wage em­ployees of the society, the establishment of which was taken over by the Electricity Board along with the employees, were entitled to be regularised in terms of the policy decision taken by the Board and whether the High Court committed an error by invoking Article 14 of the Constitution for granting relief to the writ petitioners. The question whether the Electricity Board could frame such a policy was neither raised nor considered by the High Court and this Court. The High Court simply adverted to the facts of the case and held that once the daily-wage employees of the society became employees of the Electricity Board, they could not be discriminated in the matter of implementation of the policy of regularisation. Therefore, the two-Judge Bench had no occasion to make any adverse comment on the binding character of the Constitution Bench Judgement in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately made it clear that the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi's case is binding and cannot be violated.

55. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 3 SCC, 250, (State of West Bengal and others v. Banibrata Ghosh and others). The Hon'ble Supreme Court disapproved the direction of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court for regularizing a person who came to be appointed in a leave vacancy, without following the detailed procedure of filling up the vacancy of regular post. In paragraph nos. 19 and 20, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"19. The circumstances under which the earlier approval was granted, were writ large before the Division Bench, firstly, it was by an interim order that the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble D.K. Basu, J.) proceeded to award the approval and a direction to regularise the services of the respondent. The learned Single Judge had not even bothered to quote any rule, under which the respondent was entitled for getting his services regularised. In fact, there is a detailed procedure for filling up the vacancies. This was a case, where that procedure was not followed. The appointment of the respon­dents was merely on the basis of an advertisement for filling up the leave vacancy. He respondent very well knew that it was for he leave vacancy that he was competing with others. Under such circumstances, we fail to know as to what right was there in the respondent to insist on regularisation of his appointment.

20. The Division Bench has further made a rather casual statement in the judgment to the effect that the prescribed procedure for recruitment of teacher, both for leave and permanent vacancies, is substantially the same. We were told at the time of hearing that the respondent was not even registered with the employment exchange, which fact could not be and was not disputed by Shri Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, before us. Again, it must be pointed out that if the advertisement was for a leave vacancy, it would not have attracted substantial number of applica­tions, which would not be the case, if the advertisement was for a perma­nent vacancy. We fail to understand, therefore, as to how, even without referring to the relevant rules or procedure for recruitment of teachers in permanent vacancies, the Division Bench could make such a casual state­ment in its judgment."

The said decision also supports the stand of the respondents. 56. In the decision reported in (2009) 11SCC 448 (Man Singh v. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri and others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the case of a temporary employee in a short term vacancy and the claim for regularization and held as under in paragraph nos. 7 and 8:-

"7. The appellant, indisputably, had been appointed on a periodical basis. He might have continued to work as a peon for a long time but by reason thereof, he did not acquire any indefeasible right to become a permanent employee of the Department.

8. Regularisation of services, as is well known, is impermissible in law. Though belatedly, the respondents had taken steps to fill up the existing vacancies in terms of the recruitment rules and upon following the consti­tutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." Applying the said decision also it will have to be held that the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered and was rightly rejected by the Tribunal.

For all the above stated reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition.

The writ petition, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.