JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. These writ petitions have been filed by various employees who are stated to have been appointed in the Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden & Research Institute under the aegis of the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment, a society formed by the Government and under its exclusive control. 2. For ease of reference, the facts and circumstances highlighted in W.P.(C) No. 32784 of 2023 are referred to. There are three petitioners in this writ petition. They contend that they were appointed as Office Assistants in the 2 nd respondent Institute pursuant to various notifications inviting applications for walk-in interviews for appointment to the post of Office Assistant. The said notifications issued by the 2 nd respondent have been produced as Exts.P1 to P6. It may be noted that, in these notifications, the maximum age limit prescribed for applicants was 40 years as on 01.01.2013. 3. The petitioners state that, since there were more than 100 applicants, a written test was conducted, in which 20 candidates were declared qualified and subsequently called for interview, as evidenced by Exts.P7 and P8. Thereafter, pursuant to the appointment orders dated 01.04.2013 (Exts.P9 to P11), the petitioners were appointed on a “contract basis”. The said appointments were made for specific periods and were extended from time to time, as evidenced by Exts.P12 to P15. 4. The petitioners further point out that, in the year 2015, the Government, based on a recommendation from the 4 th respondent, decided to convert three posts of Typists into Office Assistants, while simultaneously abolishing the remaining three posts of Office Assistants. At that stage, in 2015, even before the completion of three years of service, the petitioners submitted Ext.P17 representation to the Government seeking regularisation of their services. 5. Pursuant to directions issued by the Government, the Director of the 2 nd respondent issued Ext.P18 recommendation proposing the regularisation of the petitioners. Based on this, the Member Secretary of the 4 th respondent also addressed the Director of the 2 nd respondent, informing that, the President of the Society has directed to take appropriate action. 6. It is pertinent to note that Ext.P19 was issued on 29.02.2016, and on the very same date, by Ext.P20, the 2 nd respondent regularised the services of the petitioners along with three other individuals (totalling six persons) as Office Assistants, though without retrospective effect. 7. 6. It is pertinent to note that Ext.P19 was issued on 29.02.2016, and on the very same date, by Ext.P20, the 2 nd respondent regularised the services of the petitioners along with three other individuals (totalling six persons) as Office Assistants, though without retrospective effect. 7. However, the petitioners state that the matter took a U-turn when the Member Secretary of the 4 th respondent Society, by Ext.P23 communication dated 04.04.2016, sought an explanation from the Director of the 2 nd respondent regarding the regularisation of the six Office Assistants. Following this, the Director submitted a reply by Ext. P26. Thereafter, in its Executive Committee Meeting held on 26.09.2016, the 4 th respondent concluded that the regularisation granted to the petitioners and the other three individuals was irregular and decided to cancel the same, as reflected in Ext.P31. 8. At that juncture, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.33653 of 2016 before this Court seeking to challenge the decision taken by the Executive Committee as above, at Ext.P31. 9. A detailed counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the 2 nd respondent in the said writ petition, and the same has been produced in the present writ petition as Ext.P32. By Ext.P33 judgment dated 17.11.2022, this Court considered the rival contentions and issued the following directions: “ 7. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that, in view of the fact that the petitioners had been appointed on a contract basis after following a procedure of selection and since they have admittedly been continuing in service for long periods and are being granted all benefits including benefits of pay revisions, which are extended to regular employees, I am of the opinion that the request of the petitioners for regularization has to be considered in accordance with the law by the Government. 8. The contention of the petitioners that they are not back door entrants and that they had been appointed on contract basis after a due selection and therefore, their cases are not covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi and others [ 2006 KHC 507 ] and also requires to be considered by the Government. There will accordingly be a direction to the Government to take up the request of the petitioners for regularization, taking note of the affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent in WP(c) No.33653 of 2016 and as also after considering the contentions of the petitioners that they are not back door appointees. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 10. On the basis of the above, the petitioners contend that the Government considered the matter pursuant to Government Order dated 29.09.2023, produced as Ext.P35, and ultimately found no fault with the decision taken by the Executive Committee. It is challenging the said order (Ext.P35) that the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.32784 of 2023. 11. The other writ petitions have also been filed by the respective petitioners, who were more or less employed in a similar manner by the 2 nd respondent, seeking to challenge the very same Government Order produced as Ext.P35. 12. I have heard Sri. Pirappancode V.S.Sudhir, Sri. T.C. Suresh Menon, Sri. Anil Kumar M. Sivaraman, as well as Sri.B.Krishna Mani, the learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions. I have also heard Sri. C.K.Karunakaran, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent in W.P.(C) No.32784 of 2023, Sri. N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader, Sri. Riji Rajendran, the learned Standing Counsel for National Transportation Planning and Research Centre, Sri.C.K.Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Forest Research Institute, as well as Sri.P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 13. The short issue arising for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the ultimate findings rendered by the Government in Ext.P35 order are sustainable or not. 14. The Government, while issuing the order at Ext.P35, found that the 2 nd respondent was authorised to make regularisations in accordance with the norms prevailing in the 4 th respondent. Similarly, the Government found that the appointments of the petitioners were not made pursuant to a transparent procedure. 14. The Government, while issuing the order at Ext.P35, found that the 2 nd respondent was authorised to make regularisations in accordance with the norms prevailing in the 4 th respondent. Similarly, the Government found that the appointments of the petitioners were not made pursuant to a transparent procedure. It was further found that the petitioners were not in a position to substantiate their claim that they were not appointed through a “backdoor entry.” On that basis, the Government ultimately concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors v. Umadevi and Ors [ AIR 2006 SC 1806 ] . It is noted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government, contending that the cancellation of the regularisation as above was strictly in tune with the applicable norms. 15. At the same time, this Court notes that, in the earlier round of litigation, by Ext.P33 judgment, it was categorically found that the request of the petitioners for regularisation requires to be considered in accordance with law by the Government, on the basis of the admissions made by the 2 nd respondent. 16. At this juncture, Sri. C.K. Karunakaran, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, pointed out that even in the previous round of litigation, two statements had been filed before this Court specifically asserting that Service Rules were in force in the 2 nd respondent and that, on that basis, the appointments of the petitioners herein were irregular. Therefore, according to him, when the Government was directed to consider the matter and pass a fresh order, in the second round of litigation, the 2 nd respondent is justified in contending that the appointments were not in accordance with the said Rules. 17. Therefore, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the appointments in question were made in accordance with the applicable Service Rules. 18. True, as rightly contended by Sri. C.K. Karunakaran, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, the Service Rules provide a detailed procedure for appointment to various posts, including those on a contract basis. In light of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the view that Sri. C.K. Karunakaran would be justified in contending that the appointments of the petitioners were irregular. 19. C.K. Karunakaran, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, the Service Rules provide a detailed procedure for appointment to various posts, including those on a contract basis. In light of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the view that Sri. C.K. Karunakaran would be justified in contending that the appointments of the petitioners were irregular. 19. At the same time, this Court takes note of Ext.P25 Government Order concerning the extension of the benefits of the 9 th State Pay Revision to the employees of the 4 th respondent, under which the 2 nd respondent is functioning. In the said Government Order, it is categorically stated that the Service Rules and Regulations of the 4 th respondent are yet to be approved by the Government. Similarly, in the Government communication dated 25.11.2023, produced as Ext.P54, it is also categorically stated that the formulation of Special Rules with respect of the 4 th respondent is under consideration. 20. From the aforesaid documents produced along with the writ petition, I am of the opinion that the appointments of the petitioners would not be subject to the Service Rules relied upon by Sri. C.K. Karunakaran, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent. 21. When that be so, the question arises as to whether the prayer for regularisation made by the petitioners herein requires consideration by the Government with reference to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi (supra). The learned counsel for the petitioners also sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand [ 2026 KHC OnLine 6078 ] 22. In the above judgment, the Apex Court held that the State should be treated as a model employer. With reference to the aforesaid principle, the Apex Court considered the claim made by the appellant therein and has considered the following question: “13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam [2025 SCC OnLine SC 221] and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India [ (2024) 9 SCC 327 ], this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularisation to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularisation upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.” Therefore, the Apex Court ultimately held that there is a distinction between an “illegal appointment” and an “irregular appointment.” As regards an irregular appointment, there is no dispute that the question of regularisation can be considered by the Government. True, as pointed out by Sri. C.K. Karunakaran, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, in the case at hand, the petitioners sought regularisation within a period of three years from their engagement. However, even in such a situation, the Apex Court had directed the matter to be considered by the Government, taking note of the fact that the appointments were not a case of “backdoor entry.” As already found, in the present case, the appointments of the respective petitioners cannot be regarded as “backdoor entry,” since, as noticed earlier, they were made pursuant to a selection process, as evidenced by Exts.P1 to P6. 23. When that be so, in my opinion, the ultimate consideration made by the Government while issuing the impugned order at Ext.P35 does not appear to be correct. 24. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the matter requires re-visit at the hands the Government. To facilitate this, the impugned order at Ext.P35 would stand set aside. The Government is directed to reconsider the issue with specific reference to the observations in the judgment as well as the principles laid down in Jaggo v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826] and Bhola Nath (supra). Fresh orders shall be passed after hearing all affected parties, within a period of five months. These writ petitions are disposed of as above.