JUDGMENT : Arijit Banerjee, J. 1. The writ petitioners have challenged a vacancy notice dated December 4, 2021, issued by the respondent no. 3, Andaman & Nicobar Islands Institute of Medical Science (in short ‘ANIIMS’), inviting online application to fill up administrative, paramedical and nursing posts on contract basis in which the members of the petitioner Association are already working on contract basis. There is a further prayer for issuance of a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider regularisation of services of the members of the petitioner Association in the respective posts created on November 14, 2019. 2. The case of the writ petitioners as was argued before me and as would appear from the written notes of arguments filed on their behalf, is as follows:- (a) The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Medical Education and Research Society (in short ‘the Society’), is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands is the President of the governing body of the said Society. (b) ANIIMS is an institution run by the said Society with the object of providing medical education, medical service and undertaking medical research in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. (c) For the purpose of establishing the said medical college as per the guidelines of National Medical Commission (in short ‘NMC’), the said Society initiated the process of recruitment and appointment to various categories of posts. For that purpose, vacancy notices were published by the respondent no. 2 being the said Society. As per the vacancy notices, an aspiring candidate having essential qualification prescribed in the notices, was required to submit his application in the prescribed form. Candidates were to be short listed on the basis of their performance in academic and professional courses. Thereafter, the appointments were to be made. (d) The members of the petitioner Association participated in the said selection process. The successful candidates were appointed on contract basis, in the posts of Section-In-charge, Section Executive, Office Assistant, Store keeper Cum Clerk, Data Entry Operator, MTS / Office Attendant, Duty Librarian, Documentalist, Cataloger, Library Assistant, Library Attendant, Care Taker, Social Worker, Artist, AB Technician, Photographer, Dissection, Hall Attender, Cytotechnologist, Lab Technician, Lab Assistant, OT technician, IT Assistant, OT Attendant, Junior Radiographer, Renal Technician and Staff Nurse. The appointments were made on the basis of the recommendation of the selection committee, initially for a period of one year, subject to extension on mutual consent and satisfactory performance of the concerned candidate. (e) The appointments of the members of the petitioner Association were extended from time to time. (f) Vide order dated March 4, 2020, issued by the said Society, it was recorded that in the meeting held on November 15, 2019, the Executive Council of the said Society had approved creation of 425 posts in ANIIMS in addition to the 107 posts created on November 21, 2014. The details of the new posts created were stated in the annexure to the said order. (g) ANIIMS is a newly constituted institution owned by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration. No posts were created/sanctioned at the time of its commencement in the year 2015. Initially, to make ANIIMS operational, it recruited qualified candidates from open market by issuing suitable advertisements. It followed the guidelines issued by NMC. Members of the petitioner Association having requisite qualification, participated in the selection process and were duly recruited by ANIIMS. (h) Although their appointments were made on contract basis, the members of the petitioner Association rendered unblemished service to ANIIMS. As per the Office Memorandum dated December 31, 2010, which is still in force, ANIIMS should have kept the clause of initial constitution while framing of recruitment rules, as the service rendered by the members of the petitioner Association was and is perennial in nature. Hence, the doctrine of legitimate expectation is attracted. (i) While the members of the petitioner Association were rendering service, a vacancy notice dated December 4, 2021, was published by the respondents, intending to replace them by engaging another set of contractual employees. The present writ petition was filed challenging such vacancy notice. On December 10, 2021, an interim order was passed by this Court restraining ANIIMS from appointing any person on temporary basis in any of the 139 posts that the members of the petitioner Association hold, until further orders. (j) The respondent authorities filed an affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition, wherein, they contended that if the services of the members of the petitioner Association are regularised, the same would be in violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi ’s case. (j) The respondent authorities filed an affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition, wherein, they contended that if the services of the members of the petitioner Association are regularised, the same would be in violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi ’s case. It was further contended that the members of the petitioner Association having accepted the terms of the contractual employment, they cannot now claim regularisation. However, the respondents have admitted that the jobs offered by them are of such a perennial nature that the same can only be filled up after conducting a proper selection process. As such, even contractual employees are appointed through a selection process to ensure that everyone gets equal opportunity. (k) The Office Memorandum dated December 31, 2010, deals with revision of guidelines for framing/amendment / relaxation of recruitment rules which govern the field. Part - (III) of the said guidelines deals with Initial Constitution. It says that in case where new service is formed and the Recruitment Rules are framed for the first time and there are officers already holding different categories of posts proposed to be included in the service on a regular / long terms basis, a suitable ‘Initial Constitution Clause’ may be inserted in the notification so as to count the regular service rendered by such officers before the date of notification of the rules. In the instant case, the members of the petitioner Association were appointed on the basis of a selection process. Posts were created in November 2019. Recruitment rules are yet to be framed. Under such circumstances, the respondent authorities, at the time of framing the recruitment rules should insert a clause therein so as to count the regular service rendered by the members of the petitioner Association before the date of notification of the recruitment rules. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners relied on the following decisions:- (i) Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., reported at (2006) 4 SCC 1 (para 53) (ii) Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India SLP (C) No. 22241-42 of 2024, decided on 30.01.2024 (paras 7- 9). (iii) Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported at (2015) 8 SCC 265. (Paras 14, 16). (iv) Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported at AIR 2018 SC 233 . (Paras 7, 8, 10). v. Union of India SLP (C) No. 22241-42 of 2024, decided on 30.01.2024 (paras 7- 9). (iii) Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported at (2015) 8 SCC 265. (Paras 14, 16). (iv) Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported at AIR 2018 SC 233 . (Paras 7, 8, 10). (v) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers ’ Union, reported at 2024 INSC 199 (Paras 8, 10, 10.2, 11, 11.2, 15, 20, 22 and 23). (vi) Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5014 of 2023 (Admiral D. K. Joshi, the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands & Anr. v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh & Anr., decided on 14.08.2023. (paras 14 and 16). (vii) Division Bench Judgment of this Court in MAT 163 of 2021 in IA No. CAN/1/2021 (Kausik Ghosh & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), decided on 21.06.2023 (Para 40). (viii) Judgment of a single Judge of this Court in WPA 74/2022 (Samir Dhara and Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors.) decided on 25.03.2022, Page No. 38 to 40. (ix) Decision of a single Judge of this Court in WPA no. 271 of 2021 (Shri Subendu Mata & Ors. v. The Hon’ble Lt. Governor & Ors.) decided on 26.07.2022. Para Numbers 45-47. (x) Division Bench Decision in MAT 17 of 2022 (The Hon ’ ble Lt. Governor & Ors. v. Mr. Subendu Mata & Ors.) decided on 14.06.2024 Page No. 59 to 67. (xi) Decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 428/A&N/2017 (Subash and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.) with OA No. 351/A&N/00453/2017 (Rajankam and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.) Page No. 68 to 90. Arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents:- 4. The arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents may be summarised as hereunder:- (a) In view of the interim order dated December 10, 2021, passed on this writ petition, which is still in force, for all practical purposes, today this Court is concerned only with the prayer for regularisation of service of the members of the petitioner Association. However, a prayer for regularisation cannot be made before the Writ Court since the matter would require appreciation of evidence and trial. However, a prayer for regularisation cannot be made before the Writ Court since the matter would require appreciation of evidence and trial. (b) Without prejudice to the preliminary point mentioned above, persons appointed contractually, even for long periods of time but irregularly and not against sanctioned posts, are not entitled to regularisation. In this connection reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (i) Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., (supra), Paras 47, 48, 53 (ii) State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., reported at (2011) 2 SCC 429 . Paras 11, 12 (iii) Union of India & Ors. v. Ilmo Devi & Anr., Reported at 2021 SCC OnLine SC 899, paras 21, 25, 26 (iv) Vibhuti Shanker Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., judgment dated 08.02.2023 Delivered in SLP (Civil) No. 10519/2020, Para 3 (c) Further, a contractual employee has no vested right in respect of any post and he cannot stand in the way of regular appointment in the concerned post. In this connection reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (i) State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, Supra. (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. v. Polu Ram & Anr., reported at (2010) 15 SCC 452. (iii) Man Singh v. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri & Ors., reported at (2009) 11 SCC 448 , paras 7-9. (iv) Union of India & Anr. v. Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors. reported at (2011) 7 SCC 397 paras 15, 22, 23, 25. (v) State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Anita & Anr., reported at (2016) 8 SCC 293 , paras 14 and 15. (d) A writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of a Union. In this Connection reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in the case of T. N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Workers’ Union v. T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. & Ors., reported at (2001) 4 SCC 469 . It was submitted that although this objection was rejected at the interim stage by the order dated December 10, 2021, the same may be sustained at the time of finally deciding the entitlement of the employees to regularisation. A blanket order in favour of the petitioner Association without application of mind to the cases of individual employees, would be erroneous. It was submitted that although this objection was rejected at the interim stage by the order dated December 10, 2021, the same may be sustained at the time of finally deciding the entitlement of the employees to regularisation. A blanket order in favour of the petitioner Association without application of mind to the cases of individual employees, would be erroneous. (e) As regards, the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted as follows:- (i) The judgment in Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Supra is per incurium of earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the Constitution Bench judgment in Uma Devi’s case. (ii) Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar & Ors., Supra, was a case where the employee in question was directed to be reinstated in a sanctioned post. (iii) In so far as the case of Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. (supra) is concerned, it is not clear as to whether or not the employees in question were initially appointed against a sanctioned post. Paragraph 3 of the reported decision would seem to suggest that the employees were appointed as regular employees on a pay scale in the year 2000. The facts of the present case are different inasmuch as the writ petitioners were appointed against a consolidated pay. (iv) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers Union, supra, is a case of discrimination which is not relevant to the present case. Additionally, that case supports the contention of the respondents that the issue of regularisation involves appreciation of evidence and is to be decided by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal/CAT or, by the Civil Court if the remedy before the tribunal is not available. Court ’ s view 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. In my considered view, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter. 6. The members of the petitioner Association were appointed on various dates in the year 2015 on contract basis for a period of one year on a consolidated salary. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. In my considered view, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter. 6. The members of the petitioner Association were appointed on various dates in the year 2015 on contract basis for a period of one year on a consolidated salary. The appointment letters contained clear statements like “the appointment is purely on short term contract basis and this will not confer any claim for future appointment to any post” or “the appointment is for a period of one year subject to extension on mutual consent and satisfactory performance of the candidate” or “the appointment is purely on short term contract basis subject to execution of contract agreement with the under signed and this will not confer any claim for future appointment to any post, etc. In other words, the concerned members of the petitioner Association with open eyes accepted the appointments with full knowledge that it was merely a contractual employment for a specified period of time. 7. It is true that the engagement of the petitioners was extended from time to time on a yearly basis. However, still, they remained contractual employees. A contractual employee cannot claim a vested right in respect of any post and cannot raise any legitimate grievance regarding regular appointment in the concerned post. Even if a contractual employee renders service for a long period of time, he cannot claim any legitimate expectation that his service should be regularised. In this connection one may note the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 47 and 48 of the decision in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, supra, which are reproduced hereunder:- “47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post. 48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. It is stated that the State has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the department concerned on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled.” 8. In Man Singh v. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal Pauri & Ors., Supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the reported judgment observed as follows:- “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. Regularization of services, as is well-known, is impermissible in law. Though belatedly, 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.” 9. In Union of India & Anr. v. Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors., supra, in paragraphs 15, 22 and 23 of the reported judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows:- “15. Bearing in mind the aforenoted principle of law, we may now refer to the decision in Nagendra Chandra [ (2008) 1 SCC 798 ]. It is plain from a bare reading of the said decision that the question which fell for consideration before a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court was as to whether the appointments of the appellants in that case were illegal or irregular. This Court opined that since the appointments made were not only in infraction of the recruitment rules but also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, these were illegal. This Court opined that since the appointments made were not only in infraction of the recruitment rules but also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, these were illegal. It was thus, held that the appellants would not be entitled to get the benefit of the directions contained in Umadevi case [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], which are applicable only to those qualified employees who were appointed irregularly in a sanctioned post. Having come to the conclusion that the subject appointments being illegal, the competent authority was justified in terminating the services of the employees concerned and the High Court was also justified in upholding the same, in our view, the relied upon observation in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment in Nagendra Chandra [ (2008) 1 SCC 798 ] does not appear to be consistent with the ratio of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi case [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ]. In the said decision it has clearly been held that the courts are not expected to issue any direction for absorption/regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wagers or ad-hoc employees merely because such an employee is continued for a long time beyond the term of his appointment. It has also been held that such an employee would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. Therefore, in our opinion, the said observation cannot be said to be an exposition of general principle of law on the point that a long length of service, dehors the relevant recruitment rules for the post, is a relevant factor for waiver or relaxation of any eligibility criterion, including age limit, for future regular selections for the post. Obviously, the observation, general in nature, was made by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, cannot be treated as a binding precedent. It has to be confined to the peculiar facts of that case. 22. Bearing in mind the aforestated legal position, we may now advert to the facts at hand. It has to be confined to the peculiar facts of that case. 22. Bearing in mind the aforestated legal position, we may now advert to the facts at hand. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant portions of offer of appointment issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, to the respondents on 6-8-1999 are extracted below: "The undermentioned candidates who have been applied in response to the advertisement given by this Department in the "Daily Thanthi" and who appeared in Interview conducted by this office on 10-04-99 are offered appointment provisionally in ‘part time contingent casual labourers’ Purely on temporary basis on the basis of payment for the number of hours actually worked in a month. They will be paid Rs. 10/- for every working hour. * * * 3. The candidates should note that they will be asked to work on the basis of the need of the office and there is no guarantee as regards minimum number in a month. * * * 6. The offer of appointment is purely on temporary basis only. In case the work and conduct of the candidates is not found to be satisfactory, their services will be terminated without any intimation/notice. 7. This appointment letter does not confer any right to claim any permanent post in this department and does not also vest any automatic right to be considered for selection to any permanent post in the Department.” * * * 23. It is plain from the terms of the letter of appointment that the respondents were told in unambiguous terms that their appointments were temporary and would not confer any right to claim any permanent post in the department. It is not the case of the respondents that at any point of time, during their engagements with the appellants, a promise was held out to them by the appellants that they would be absorbed as regular employees of the department. In fact, no such promise could be held out in view of the Government O.M. dated 7-6-1988 banning the employment of persons in regular posts.” 10. In State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Anita & Anr., Supra, in paragraph 15 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “15. In fact, no such promise could be held out in view of the Government O.M. dated 7-6-1988 banning the employment of persons in regular posts.” 10. In State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Anita & Anr., Supra, in paragraph 15 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “15. The above terms of the agreement further reiterate the stand of the State that the appointments were purely contractual and that the respondents shall not be entitled to claim any right or interest of permanent service in the Government. The appointments of respondents were made initially for eleven months but were renewed twice and after serving the maximum contractual period, the services of the respondents came to an end and the Government initiated a fresh process of selection. The conditions of the respondents’ engagement are governed by the terms of agreement. After having accepted contractual appointment, the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment. Furthermore, the respondents are not precluded from applying for the said posts afresh subject to the satisfaction of other eligibility criteria.” 11. In view of the aforesaid position in law, a writ court cannot issue a direction for absorption / regularisation of a contractual employee notwithstanding that he/she may have rendered service for a very long period of time. 12. Another relevant issue is whether or not a contractual employee’s initial appointment is in a sanctioned post. Although it is not very clear from the arguments advanced by the parties, it appears that at the time of initial appointments of the petitioners, although the petitioners were made to go through a selection process, the posts in which they were appointed, were not sanctioned posts. It further appears that during the service tenure of the petitioners, sanctioned post of the nature of those held by the petitioners were created by the Administration. However, that may not automatically render eligible the petitioners for absorption since their initial appointments were not against sanctioned post. Even going by the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of the reported judgment held in the case of Uma Devi, (Supra) , an irregular appointment may be regularised if the initial appointment was in a sanctioned post. That does not appear to be the case here. 13. In the case of Vinod Kumar & Ors. Even going by the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of the reported judgment held in the case of Uma Devi, (Supra) , an irregular appointment may be regularised if the initial appointment was in a sanctioned post. That does not appear to be the case here. 13. In the case of Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India, (supra) , the earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, were not brought to the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. I feel impelled to follow the earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. In view of the aforesaid, I am unable to grant any substantive relief to the petitioners. The Court cannot also direct the Administration to create sanctioned posts for regularising the services of the petitioners or to formulate a policy for regularisation of the services of the petitioners. The Court cannot also restrain the Administration from filling up vacant sanctioned posts by following applicable recruitment rules and due process of law and the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India even if that means that the petitioners get no priority and have to participate in the recruitment process for securing regular employment. Needless to say, the petitioners will be at liberty to participate in the recruitment process sought to be initiated by the vacancy notice dated December 4, 2021, subject, of course, to the petitioners satisfying the eligibility criteria. I further clarify that this order will not stand in the way of the Administration to consider the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law. 15. WPA/295/ 2021 is accordingly disposed of. 16. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all the requisite formalities.