JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Ms. Krovi Tsukru, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both the writ appeals as well as learned counsel, Mr. T.B. Jamir along with Mr. I. Jamir, appearing for the respondents in both the writ appeals. 2. Both the appeals are directed against the common Judgment & Order dated 27.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/38/2023 and WP(C)/39/2023. 3. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.11.2024 directed that the petitioners in both the writ petitions should be regularized from the date of their initial appointment and further set aside the Advertisement No. 05/2023 dated Nil, for filling up the vacancy 23030503311 and 203030502311. However, liberty was granted to the Respondent UPSC to start the procedure of recruitment for the other posts. The appellants, being aggrieved by the said directions have approached this Court by filing the present appeal raising various grounds of objection which are enumerated hereinunder: i. Selection of permanent staff can be made through UPSC only by a process of conducting examination and interviews. ii. The engagement of the respondents in the present appeals in the year 2006 and 2007 were exclusively on terms and conditions that the engagement shall be purely on contractual basis which the Respondents herein have also duly accepted. iii. The question of regularization of the contractual period of the Respondents herein do not arise at all because the Recruitment Rules of 2007 prescribed appointment on deputation only whereas the Recruitment Rules of 2022 prescribes appointment on direct recruitment only. The Respondents further do not meet the various conditions laid down in the Recruitment Rules of 2007 as well as 2022. It was also contended that had the Respondents herein met the conditions of the Recruitment Rules of 2007 or 2022, even also they would have to qualify and compete in the examination/screening/interview test conducted by the UPSC. iv. Further to that it is also contended that the contractual appointments of the Respondents ought not to be regularized as they were not appointed by following the proper selection procedure as per the various conditions of the Recruitment Rules; the Respondents are seeking regularization of the contractual periods against Group A posts (pay Level-11 and 10) not Group C and Group D posts. Group A posts can only be filled up by the UPSC. Group A posts can only be filled up by the UPSC. It is further contended that if regularization is permitted to the Respondents, it would be a backdoor entry into government services and in violation of equal opportunity in public employment. It is further contended that the Respondents never met the conditions of initial Recruitment Rules of 2007 and the amended Recruitment Rules of 2022 and if they are regularized it would open floodgates for other contractual employees all over India. 4. Taking into account the various grounds of objections as mentioned hereinabove to the common Judgment & Order dated 27.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge, we find it relevant to take into account the brief facts which led to the filing of both the writ petitions. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASES: WP(C)/38/2023 5. An Advertisement dated Nil was issued by the Central Institute of Horticulture, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India (for short referred to as the CIH, Medziphema), Medziphema, Nagaland inviting applications for appointment of three Consultants (Technical) on contract basis for a period of one year. The said Advertisement was published in three leading newspapers in North East region and two national newspapers. The petitioner duly applied for the said post of Consultant (Technical) in CIH, Medziphema. Pursuant to the interview conducted by a Selection Committee headed by the Horticulture Commissioner, the name of the petitioner amongst others was recommended by the Selection Committee for engagement as Consultant (Technical), CIH, Medziphema. By an Office Order dated 04.07.2007, the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Horticulture Division issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Hort.) and OSD, CIH, Nagaland, the petitioner was engaged as Consultant (Technical) in CIH, Medziphema, Nagaland on contract basis for a period of one year. Thereupon, the petitioner’s appointment was extended from time to time and last of such Extension Order was issued on 13.10.2022 whereby the petitioner’s services was extended for a further period of six months w.e.f. 11.09.2022 to 10.03.2023. The petitioner thereupon submitted a Representation on 22.02.2023 for further extension of service, which was under consideration. 6. Thereupon, the petitioner’s appointment was extended from time to time and last of such Extension Order was issued on 13.10.2022 whereby the petitioner’s services was extended for a further period of six months w.e.f. 11.09.2022 to 10.03.2023. The petitioner thereupon submitted a Representation on 22.02.2023 for further extension of service, which was under consideration. 6. It is very pertinent to take note of a Letter dated 27.01.2023 issued by the Director i/c, CIH, Medziphema to the Horticulture Commissioner dated 27.01.2023, wherein though the petitioners was engaged as a Consultant (Technical), but the appointment of the petitioners was shown against the sanctioned post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist. 7. The records also reveal that on 03.12.2020, the petitioner along with other members of the Department submitted Representation to the Additional Commissioner (Hort.-Fruit) Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi for absorption of the existing technical and non-technical staff at CIH, Medziphema on the ground that they have been serving on contractual basis for several years since its inception. 8. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the petitioner was hopeful that he would be regularized having rendered 16 years of continuous service, but to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC for short) published an Advertisement No. 05/2023 dated Nil inviting application for direct recruitment, amongst others, to fill up Vacancy No. 23030503311 of 2 (two) posts of Assistant Horticulture Specialist in CIH, Medziphema, one of which is presently held by the petitioner. It is under such circumstances the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C)/38/2023 for setting aside the Advertisement for filling up Vacancy No. 23030503311 as appearing in Item No. 3 of the Advertisement No. 05/2023 in respect of one post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist in CIH, Medziphema and further sought for direction upon the Respondents till such time the petitioner is adjusted and absorbed to the post of Horticulture Specialist in terms with the Letter dated 07.12.2011. 9. The records reveal the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who were the Appellants herein have filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit- in-opposition it is mentioned that the CIH, Medziphema was established on 16.01.2006 with cabinet approval. 9. The records reveal the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who were the Appellants herein have filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit- in-opposition it is mentioned that the CIH, Medziphema was established on 16.01.2006 with cabinet approval. Initially it was proposed to engage Consultants (Technical) on monthly contract basis for a period of one year to take up various development activities of the institute till appointment of regular staff. With the approval of the Ministry, after conducting interview of the temporary members, four numbers of staff were engaged in CIH Nagaland in 2007 on contract basis for a period of one year (on payment of a consolidated amount of Rs.20,000/-) which was renewed from time to time for every six months. It was also mentioned that in the mean time 17 posts were sanctioned by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance vide their ID Note No. F-826/E.Coord.I/2006 dated 23.06.2006 to be filled up on deputation/redeployment basis as per the prescribed Recruitment Rules of 2007 to obtain permanent staff for CIH, Nagaland. 10. Before proceeding further We find it very relevant to take note of the aspect pertaining to the creation of 17 posts for setting up of the CIH in Nagaland by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure which is Annexure-I to the said affidavit. From a perusal of the said document, it reveals that there are no post of Consultant (Technical) sanctioned. On the other hand, there were posts of Horticulture Specialist, Assistant Horticulture Specialist, etc. 11. It is further seen from the affidavit that Recruitment Rules for 17 posts of CIH, Medziphema were notified and after making several attempts no post except the post of Director could be filled up as per the Recruitment Rules. It is categorically admitted that these posts thereupon have been filed up on contractual basis for a period of every 6 (six) months for running the CIH, Nagaland against the sanctioned 17 posts. 12. It is also mentioned that on 10.08.2020, the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance agreed to the revival of the 17 posts of CIH, Nagaland subject to the condition that these posts are filled up on regular basis as per the prescribed Recruitment Rules only. It is under such circumstances all these 16 posts were notified with an inclusion of the Direct Recruitment method to recruit the regular/permanent staff for the CIH, Nagaland. It is under such circumstances all these 16 posts were notified with an inclusion of the Direct Recruitment method to recruit the regular/permanent staff for the CIH, Nagaland. It was also mentioned that as per the direction of the Department of Expenditure the Union Public Service Commission and the Staff Selection Commission were requested to take steps to fill up these posts on Direct Recruitment basis as per the amended Recruitment Rules. 13. An Advertisement No. 05/2023 under Item 3 (Vacancy No. 23030503311) for two vacancies for the post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist, CIH, Nagaland was published by the UPSC to recruit regular staff in CIH, Nagaland as per the Recruitment Rules. In addition to that it is seen from the contents of the said affidavit-in-opposition that it is the specific stand that the petitioner herein was appointed purely on contractual basis, which have been extended from time to time and, therefore, the petitioner has no reasons and cannot, therefore, claim regularization. In that regard reference was made to paragraph 47 of the Judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Versus Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . WP(C)/39/2023 : 14. On 11.05.2006 an Advertisement was issued by the CIH, Medziphema inviting applications for appointment of 5 Consultant (Technical) on contract basis for a period not exceeding 12 (twelve) months for undertaking various activities of CIH, Medziphema. The said Advertisement was duly published in leading newspapers in North-East and various national newspapers on 18.05.2006. The petitioner being qualified applied for the said post of Consultant (Technical) in CIH, Medziphema. Pursuant thereto, interview was conducted by the Selection Committee headed by the Horticulture Commissioner. The name of the petitioner amongst others was recommended by the Selection Committee for engagement as Consultant (Technical), CIH, Medziphema. In pursuance thereto vide Office Order dated 09.08.2006 the petitioner was engaged as a Consultant (Technical) in CIH, Medziphema on contract basis for a period of 6 (six) months. The said period was extended from time to time. 15. On 27.01.2016, an Advertisement was issued by the CIH, Medziphema inviting application for 1 (one) post of Horticulture Specialist and 1 (one) post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist on contractual basis for a period of 6 (six) months in the Office of the Director, CIH, Medziphema on 23.02.2016. The said period was extended from time to time. 15. On 27.01.2016, an Advertisement was issued by the CIH, Medziphema inviting application for 1 (one) post of Horticulture Specialist and 1 (one) post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist on contractual basis for a period of 6 (six) months in the Office of the Director, CIH, Medziphema on 23.02.2016. In response to the said Advertisement, the petitioner participated in the Selection Process held on 23.02.2016 conducted by a Selection Committee headed by the Director, CIH, Medziphema. The petitioner was selected for the post of Horticulture Specialist and accordingly, an Appointment Order was issued on 09.03.2016 to the petitioner for appointment to the post of Horticulture Specialist. 16. The petitioner continued to render his service and the contractual period was extended from time to time and the last of such Extension Order was on 13.10.2022, whereby the period of the petitioner’s service was extended from 25.09.2022 to 24.03.2023. In the meantime, the petitioner on 03.12.2020, along with others, submitted a Representation for absorption of the petitioner on the ground that they have been serving on contractual basis for several years since its inception. Though the Representation was submitted, and it was under consideration, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the UPSC had published an Advertisement No. 05/2023 dated Nil inviting application for conducting recruitment amongst others to fill up the Vacancy No. 23030502311 for 1 Post of Horticulture Specialist in CIH, Medziphema, which was currently held by the petitioner. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner, therefore approached this Court by filing the writ petition, being WP(C)/39/2023. 17. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have also filed an affidavit-in-opposition. A perusal of the said affidavit-in-opposition shows that its contents are pari-materia with the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in WP(C)/38/2023 and as such for the sake of brevity, We do not intend to reiterate the same. DECISION OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE: 18. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2024 observed that the Advertisement No. 05/2023 inviting application to fill up the Vacancy Nos. 23030503311 and 23030502311 was in violation of the principles of natural justice and administrative fair play. The learned Single Judge accordingly quashed the Advertisement No. 05/2023 inviting applications for filling up vacancy Nos. 23030503311 and 23030502311. 23030503311 and 23030502311 was in violation of the principles of natural justice and administrative fair play. The learned Single Judge accordingly quashed the Advertisement No. 05/2023 inviting applications for filling up vacancy Nos. 23030503311 and 23030502311. The respondent UPSC was also granted liberty to start the procedure of recruitment for the other posts. In addition to that the learned Single Judge also directed the appellants herein to regularize the services of both the Petitioners/Respondents in the present Appeal from the date of their initial appointment. We find it relevant to take note of the reasons so assigned by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned Judgment & Order, which is reflected at paragraph nos. 26 and 27 of the impugned Judgment & Order and the same are reproduced herein under: “ 26. Both the petitioners were recruited after an exhaustive process of interview. They have worked continuously for 16/17 years. Their monthly salaries were also increased from time to time. Naturally, they had the legitimate expectations that they would be absorbed into regular service. Both of them are in their 50s. Now, they are not eligible for getting another service at this age. Our country is a welfare State. It is the duty of the State to do good for its citizens. This is an elementary requirement of the guarantee against arbitrary State action which Article 14 of our Constitution adopts. Every act of the State must be reasonable and fair. The State and its Departments in administering the affairs of the country are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal considerations without any iota of abuse of discretion. The policy statements cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively. Unfairness in the form of unreasonableness is akin to violation of natural justice. 27. In the case in hand, the intention of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to fill up the posts of Horticulture Specialists in CIH before regularizing the present 2(two) petitioners in their services is absolutely arbitrary and unfair, as well as against the mandate of our Constitution. Allowing the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to recruit Horticulture Specialists would destroy the lives of the present two petitioners.” SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: 19. Allowing the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to recruit Horticulture Specialists would destroy the lives of the present two petitioners.” SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: 19. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted on the basis of the Grounds of Objection as already mentioned in the previous segments of the present Judgment, We, therefore, do not feel it necessary to reiterate the same. 20. On the other hand, Mr. T.B. Jamir, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents in both the Writ Appeals submitted that a perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Appellants herein in the writ petitions would show that the CIH, Medziphema was established on 16.01.2006. Immediately, thereafter, the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance had sanctioned 17 posts, which included the 2 posts of Horticulture Specialist and 3 posts of Assistant Horticulture Specialist. The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that though Annexure-I to the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the Appellants herein in the writ proceedings mentions about creation of posts, but a perusal thereof would show that the post of Consultant (Technical) was not specifically created. Irrespective of that the Respondents herein were engaged in the year 2006 and 2007 as Consultants (Technical) and were made to work in the capacity of Assistant Horticulture Specialist as the Petitioners were qualified to do so. The learned counsel submitted that though the Petitioners were appointed on contractual basis, but said appointments were made against sanctioned posts of Assistant Horticulture Specialist in the year 2006 and 2007. The learned counsel further submitted that merely by putting the nomenclature as Consultant (Technical) and permitting the petitioners to carry out work as Assistant Horticulture Specialist would not change the fact that the petitioners were actually appointed to the sanctioned post on contractual basis as Assistant Horticulture Specialist. 21. The learned counsel further submitted that merely by putting the nomenclature as Consultant (Technical) and permitting the petitioners to carry out work as Assistant Horticulture Specialist would not change the fact that the petitioners were actually appointed to the sanctioned post on contractual basis as Assistant Horticulture Specialist. 21. The learned counsel further referred to the Communication dated 07.12.2011 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation and submitted that the said Communication relates to both the petitioners wherein it was clarified to the CIH, Medziphema, Nagaland that the petitioners would be entitled to the enhanced rate of remuneration for the post of Technical Consultants at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month as included in the Ministry’s Order dated 14.11.2011 and would continue to be designated as Technical Consultant till their engagement in the CIH or their adjustment against the post of Horticulture Specialist. 22. The learned counsel for the Respondents, therefore, submitted that this very aspect would clearly show that in the year 2011 itself the petitioners were under consideration for being adjusted against the post of Horticulture Specialist. The learned counsel also submitted that the Communication dated 07.12.2011 also would show that taking into account the sanction by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance to only 17 posts, it was directed in the said Communication dated 07.12.2011 that the CIH, Nagaland would not engage at any time personnel in excess of the sanctioned strength of 17 persons. Therefore, these appointments made were against the sanctioned posts. The learned counsel for the Respondents therefore submitted that the very appointment of the petitioners, therefore, though in the name of Consultant (Technical) was against the sanctioned posts. The learned counsel for the Respondents further referred to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bholanath Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2026 SCC ONLINE SC 129. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 23. We have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the materials on record. From the materials on record it is seen that on 23.06.2006, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure had sanctioned 17 posts for setting up of the Central Institute of Horticulture in Nagaland. It included 2 posts of Horticulture Specialist and 3 posts of Assistant Horticulture Specialist. From the materials on record it is seen that on 23.06.2006, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure had sanctioned 17 posts for setting up of the Central Institute of Horticulture in Nagaland. It included 2 posts of Horticulture Specialist and 3 posts of Assistant Horticulture Specialist. The materials on record further show that pursuant to the Advertisement issued in the local dailies and national dailies, various posts of Technical Consultants were filled up on contractual basis which included the petitioners. At the time when the petitioners were appointed they were paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month as remuneration. It is further relevant to mention that though the petitioners’ appointments were contractual for a limited period of 6 months, or one year initially but the same stood extended from time to time. 24. Sometime in the year 2011, a question arose as regards the appointment of both the petitioners as Assistant Horticulture Specialist pursuant to a recommendation made by the Special Committee dated 30.03.2011. The Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi through the Under Secretary issued a Communication on 07.12.2011, wherein it was mentioned inter alia that there was no justification in appointing the petitioners as Assistant Horticulture Specialist as they were working as Consultant (Technical) in higher remuneration as compared to what is payable to the Assistant Horticulture Specialist at that time. It was also mentioned that the petitioners could not be adjusted against the post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist and get higher remuneration and as such the CIH, Medziphema was suggested by the Communication dated 02.05.2011 that the petitioner may continue to work against the post of Consultant (Technical) till the end of their tenure. It was further observed that both the petitioners would be entitled to the enhanced rate of remuneration for the post of Consultant (Technical), i.e., Rs.25,000/- per month as observed by the Ministry’s Order dated 14.11.2011 and would be continued to be designated as Technical Consultant till their engagement in the CIH, Medziphema or their adjustment in the post of Horticulture Specialist. Taking into account the relevance of this Communication the same is reproduced herein under: 25. The records further reveal that the services of the petitioner in WP(C)/38/2023 was continued periodically by granting extension. Taking into account the relevance of this Communication the same is reproduced herein under: 25. The records further reveal that the services of the petitioner in WP(C)/38/2023 was continued periodically by granting extension. On the other hand, the petitioner in WP(C)/39/2023 was, though extended from time to time in the capacity of Consultant (Technical), but subsequently upon his appointment as Horticulture Specialist on 09.03.2016, the petitioner in WP(C)/39/2023 continued to render service as a Horticulture Specialist and his contractual period have been extended from time to time. We further take note of the fact that representation was submitted by the petitioners for regularization/absorption of their services into the regular cadre of the CIH, Medziphema as far back as on 03.12.2020. However, the petitioners’ representation was not considered rather the posts held by them, i.e., the post of Horticulture Specialist as well as Assistant Horticulture Specialist were advertised vide Advertisement No.05/2023. We have also taken note of the Communication dated 27.01.2023 issued by the Director-in-Charge, CIH, Medziphema to the Horticulture Commissioner, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, New Delhi wherein the petitioner in WP(C)/39/2023 has been shown as a Horticulture Specialist against the sanctioned post and the petitioner in WP(C)/38/2023 has been shown as working as Assistant Horticulture Specialist against the sanctioned post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist. 26. The question, therefore, arises before us in the present facts as to whether this Court should interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order or in other words whether the direction passed by the learned Single Judge to regularize the services of the petitioners and set aside the advertisements in respect to one post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist and one post of Horticulture Specialist calls for any interference. 27. Let us first consider as to whether the petitioners herein are entitled for any regularization. The admitted facts as available from the records would show that the petitioners herein were appointed on contractual basis after due selection as far back as in the year 2006 and 2007 and they have already rendered 16/17 years of service. 27. Let us first consider as to whether the petitioners herein are entitled for any regularization. The admitted facts as available from the records would show that the petitioners herein were appointed on contractual basis after due selection as far back as in the year 2006 and 2007 and they have already rendered 16/17 years of service. In this regard this Court finds it relevant to take note of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bholanath (Supra), wherein the Supreme Court formulated at paragraph-8 of the said Judgment two issues of which the Issue No. II pertains to whether the action/inaction of the respondent-State in not recognizing the continuous service of Appellants therein for the purpose of regularization was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 28 . The Supreme Court observed that when employees have continued to discharge their duties on contractual basis for a considerable length of time, it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises that the State would, at some stage, recognize their long and continuous service. It was further observed that repeated extensions granted by the Executive, bolster the hopes and aspirations of such employees to continue in service and refrain from seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding the contractual nature of their engagement. The Supreme Court further observed that under such circumstances, it results in a legitimate expectation. Paragraph-13 of the said Judgment is reproduced herein under: “13. Another facet requiring consideration in the case of contractual employees, such as the present appellants, is the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Where employees have continued to discharge their duties on contractual posts for a considerable length of time, as in the present case, it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises that the State would, at some stage, recognize their long and continuous service. It is in this belief, bolstered by repeated extensions granted by the Executive, that such employees continue in service and refrain from seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding the contractual nature of their engagement.At this juncture, it is thus apposite to advert to the principles governing the doctrine of legitimate expectation as enunciated by this Court in Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, 8 wherein it was held as follows: - “ 63. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings forth the following features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation: 63.1. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings forth the following features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation: 63.1. First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation; 63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise either from an express or implied promise; or a consistent past practice or custom followed by an authority in its dealings; . . . 63.5. Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate action can be taken only when a public authority breaches a promise or deviates from a consistent past practice, without any reasonable basis. . . . 64. The aforesaid features, although not exhaustive in nature, are sufficient to help us in deciding the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation to the facts of the case at hand. It is clear that legitimate expectation, jurisprudentially, was a device created in order to maintain a check on arbitrariness in State action. It does not extend to and cannot govern the operation of contracts between private parties, wherein the doctrine of promissory estoppel holds the field.” It is, therefore, not difficult to comprehend the expectation with which such contractual employees continue in the service of the State. The repeated conduct of the employer-State in expressing confidence in their performance and consistently granting monetary upgrades & tenure extensions reasonably nurtures an expectation that their long and continuous service would receive further recognition.” 29. The Supreme Court further observed in the context of the facts before the Supreme Court that the Appellants therein were engaged into the sanctioned post since the year 2012 and it was only towards the end of the year 2022 that the respondent-State communicated that no further extension of the Appellants’ engagement were likely to be granted. It was observed in that context by the Supreme Court that the said actions were not only vitiated by arbitrariness but also in clear derogation of the equality principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Paragraph nos. 13.2 and 13.3 being relevant are reproduced herein under: “13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the end of the year 2022 that the respondents communicated that no further extension of the appellants’ engagement was likely to be granted. 13.3. Paragraph nos. 13.2 and 13.3 being relevant are reproduced herein under: “13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the end of the year 2022 that the respondents communicated that no further extension of the appellants’ engagement was likely to be granted. 13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is not only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear derogation of the equality principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent-State initially engaged the appellants in their youth to discharge public duties and functions. Having rendered long and dedicated service, the appellants cannot now be left to fend for themselves, particularly when the employment opportunities that may have been available to them a decade ago are no longer accessible owing to age constraints.” 30. Going back to the facts involved in the instant cases, we find that the petitioners having been appointed pursuant to selection procedure in the year 2006/2007 and they having been continued from time to time till 2023 as would appear from the undisputed materials on record. We are of the opinion that the petitioners, therefore, are entitled to their services being regularised and denying such rights to the petitioners would not be in consonance with the equality principles guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. We also find it relevant to take note of paragraph-14 of the Judgment in the case of Bholanath (Supra) which is also extracted hereinunder: “14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows: I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization. II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny. IV. III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny. IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional governance. V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment.” 31. In the backdrop of the above, if We take note of the impugned Judgment & Order, it would show that the learned Single Judge duly considered that it would be unfair on the part of the respondent authorities to not consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and, accordingly, directions were issued to regularize the petitioners in both the writ petitions. We find that the direction so passed by the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the directions so passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bholanath (Supra). Therefore, we do not find any good ground sitting in the capacity of an Intra-Court Appeal to interfere with the direction to regularize the services of the Respondents herein for interference. 32 . We also find that if the petitioners are to be regularized, the consequential effect would be regularization against the sanctioned posts which they are holding presently on contractual basis. Accordingly, the directions so passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the Advertisement No.05/2023 insofar as one post of Horticulture Specialist and one post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist bearing Nos. 23030502311 and 23030503311 were interfered with also do not call for interference. 33 . Be that as it may, We find it relevant to observe that the directions so passed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners should be regularized from the date of the initial appointments is not in consonance with the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bholanath (Supra). 33 . Be that as it may, We find it relevant to observe that the directions so passed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners should be regularized from the date of the initial appointments is not in consonance with the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bholanath (Supra). We find that taking into account the directions so passed at Paragraph-14 (V) of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Bholanath (Supra) that the petitioners would only be entitled to all consequential benefits accruing from the date of the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and not from the date of initial appointment. Accordingly, We modify the directions so passed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment & Order with the following observations and directions. CONCLUSIONS 34. The Judgment & Order dated 27.11.2024 in WP(C)/38/2023 and WP(C)/39/2023 stands modified as herein under: I. The appellants herein are directed to forthwith regularize the services of the Respondents herein against the sanctioned posts to which they were appointed. II. For the sake of clarity we observe that the petitioner in WP(C)/38/2023 shall be regularized against the sanctioned post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist and the petitioner in WP(C)/39/2023 shall be regularized against the sanctioned post of Horticulture Specialist. The Petitioners/Respondents herein shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. III. Advertisement No. 05/2023 is interfered with only to the extent of filling up of the vacancy of one post of Horticulture Specialist in so far as Serial No. 2 (Vacancy No. 23030502311) and one post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist at Serial No. 3 (Vacancy No. 23030503311). The remaining posts advertised in the Advertisement being No. 05/2023 are not interfered with. IV. The process of regularization be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the present judgment. 35. The instant writ appeals are accordingly disposed of.