JUDGMENT : (Judgment of the Court was made by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.) 1.All these appeals have been preferred by the State. It is aggrieved by the orders allowing the writ petitions, whereby the order passed by the Government in G.O.(Ms).No.247, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 08.11.2022; and G.O.(Ms).No.248, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 08.11.2022, were quashed, insofar as posts occupied by Guest Lecturers are concerned. All these writ appeals are disposed of by this common judgment, as the issues involved in all the appeals are similar. 2.Considering the challenge raised in the writ petitions, we are not setting out the facts in each of the cases. We are giving out the broad facts, which led to the filing of the writ petitions. 3.For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as the writ petitioners and the respondents. 4.The writ petitioners are working as Guest Lecturers in Government Arts and Science Colleges, including 14 Government Constituent Colleges. All of them had been appointed pursuant to selections made at the college level. The appointments were made on the basis of the reports submitted by the Selection Committees formed at the college level. A few of the selections were conducted through “Walk In Interviews”. All the petitioners have been working for five years and above. A few of them have put in more than a decade and a half of service as Guest Lecturers. The Government has been ousting them from service in May of every year, only to re-appoint them just before the commencement of the next academic year. 5.Guest Lecturers are all University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as “UGC”) qualified. They claim to possess the necessary qualifications to be appointed as Assistant Professors in terms of the applicable regulations issued by the UGC. They formed an Association for the purpose of addressing their grievances. Individually and through the Association, these Guest Lecturers have constantly moved the Government for regularization of their services. 6.Considering their plea, in and about 2020, the then Hon’ble Minister in charge of Higher Education made an announcement on the floor of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Tamil Nadu. He stated that a “special test” will be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as “TRB”) for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors, from amongst the Guest Lecturers, working in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Collegiate of Education. He stated that a “special test” will be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as “TRB”) for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors, from amongst the Guest Lecturers, working in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Collegiate of Education. He also stated that those who were successful in the said test would be regularized and would be appointed to the vacancies in the regular post. 7.Acting on this announcement, proposals were sought from the concerned authorities. The Director of Collegiate Education had already sent proposal to this effect on 26.11.2018 and 14.08.2019. The Director proposed that those who possess minimum requisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor as per the existing UGC norms may be regularized. He had also stated that this regularization be confined to 1146 Guest Lecturers. After considering the proposal of the Director, the Government decided to regularize the services of Guest Lecturers, working in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Collegiate of Education, subject to certain conditions. It notified 1146 vacancies earmarked for regularization of Guest Lecturers. This was as per G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 21.03.2020. 8.The first condition that was imposed was that the original recruitment process should fulfill the norms of an “open competitive process”. The number of posts, as recommended by the Director, was accepted. It was decided to earmark the regularization in two phases. To speed up this process of regularization, a committee consisting of the following authorities was constituted:- (i)Director of Collegiate Education; (ii)Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Teachers Recruitment Board; (iii)Joint Director of Collegiate Education, (Planning & Development); (iv)Joint Director of Collegiate Education (Finance) and (v)Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education. 9.The regularization was to be made on the basis of the procedures contemplated as per G.O.(Ms).No.412, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 07.12.2009, G.O.(Ms).No.32, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 08.03.2013 and Government Letter No.20575A/F2/2011, dated 27.06.2012. The Director of Collegiate Education was called upon to provide experts from Government Colleges to be members of the interview panels. A similar direction was given to the Department of Higher Education for identification of subject experts from the Tamil Nadu State Universities. The Directorate of Collegiate Education was also called upon to compile a list of all qualified Guest Lecturers as per UGC norms. The process of regularization was to be carried out in a transparent manner after following due procedure of law. The Directorate of Collegiate Education was also called upon to compile a list of all qualified Guest Lecturers as per UGC norms. The process of regularization was to be carried out in a transparent manner after following due procedure of law. If a candidate was successful, the services would be regularized from the date of appointment, with no claim from the date of original appointment as a Guest Lecturer. The selection of Guest Lecturers was to be based on the total marks obtained by them in the interview process, with no emphasis on seniority for the number of years of service rendered. The assessment by the aforesaid five-panel committee was deemed to be the “special test” announced by the Hon’ble Minister on the floor of the House. The Government was cautious enough to state that rule of reservation would be followed. 10.Pursuant to this order, the Director of Collegiate Education addressed the Principals of all Government Arts and Science Colleges, including 14 Government Constituent Colleges, by way of a proceeding in R.C.No.15867/D2/2018, dated 12.02.2021. By this proceeding, the Director called upon the Principals to inform the Guest Lecturers, to present themselves with their certificates of educational qualification, experience certificate, before the committees that had been created for two zones for verification. 11.While this process was going on, an appeal was taken up for hearing before the Supreme Court in Dr.K.Ragu and others Vs. Dr.N.Elumalai and others in Civil Appeal No.4351 of 2016 dated 07.04.2022 . This case did not relate to Guest Lecturers but dealt with the claim of employees, who had been appointed under Rules 10(a)(i) and 10A of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “1955 Rules”). The Supreme Court, by a judgment dated 07.04.2022, directed that a recruitment process be undertaken by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “TNPSC”) after due advertisement. It further directed that those who had been appointed under Rules 10(a)(i) and 10A of the 1955 Rules be granted the benefit of age relaxation. In addition, the TNPSC was also called upon to give the additional weightage of marks corresponding to their years of experience. Till the process of selection is concluded, the Rules 10(a)(i) and 10A appointees were directed to continue in service. In addition, the TNPSC was also called upon to give the additional weightage of marks corresponding to their years of experience. Till the process of selection is concluded, the Rules 10(a)(i) and 10A appointees were directed to continue in service. 12.On 08.11.2022, the Government passed three orders, in G.O. (Ms).No.246, Higher Education (F2) Department; G.O.(Ms).No.247, Higher Education (F2) Department and G.O.(Ms).No.248, Higher Education (F2) Department. 13.In G.O.(Ms).No.246, Higher Education (F2) Department, the Government dispensed with the method of awarding weightage for teaching experience and qualification in interview, and decided that recruitment should be made through a competitive written examination. It also fixed the manner in which the marks must be given for the written examination, as well as, for the interview. This Order also fixed the composition of the interview board. 14.In G.O.(Ms).No.247, Higher Education (F2) Department taking note of the order passed in Dr.K.Ragu ’s case, in supersession of all the previous orders, including G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 21.03.2020, it was decided that Guest Lecturers should be given a one-time relaxation to participate in the written competitive examination. The marks to be awarded for experience and interviews was also fixed by the said Government Order. 15.In G.O.(Ms).No.248, Higher Education (F2) Department, 08.11.2022, the Government decided to revive 4000 posts of Assistant Professors in the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education Services, that had been lying vacant for more than three years. It directed the TRB to cancel the earlier notification issued in TRB Notification No.12/2019, for direct recruitment of 2331 posts of Assistant Professors issued on 28.08.2019 and 04.10.2019. It also directed the TRB to issue a fresh notification for direct recruitment to 4000 posts of Assistant Professors. The manner of recruitment was through written competitive examinations as directed in G.O.(Ms).No.246, Higher Education (F2) Department. It also directed that those who had already applied under the earlier notifications issued by the TRB on 28.08.2019 and 04.10.2019, need not apply afresh and that their existing applications would be considered. 16.Acting on these three orders, the TRB also issued a notification on 14.03.2024 to fill up 4000 vacancies for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Government Colleges of Education. 17.Writ Petitions were filed challenging G.O.(Ms).No.247, Higher Education (F2) Department and G.O.(Ms).No.248, Higher Education (F2) Department by the Guest Lecturers. 16.Acting on these three orders, the TRB also issued a notification on 14.03.2024 to fill up 4000 vacancies for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Government Colleges of Education. 17.Writ Petitions were filed challenging G.O.(Ms).No.247, Higher Education (F2) Department and G.O.(Ms).No.248, Higher Education (F2) Department by the Guest Lecturers. Apart from seeking to quash these two Government Orders, a writ of mandamus was also sought to direct the Government to regularize the petitioners, who are working as Guest Lecturers, in terms of G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department, 21.03.2020. 18.When the matter came before the learned Single Judge on 02.04.2024, applying the verdict in State of Bihar and others Vs. Mithilesh Kumar , (2010) 13 SCC 467 , he held that the norms of selection cannot be altered after the commencement of the selection process and that the Rules prescribing qualification, which were amended during the continuation of the selection process, would have only prospective operation. Consequently, he quashed G.O.(Ms).No.247, Higher Education (F2) Department and G.O.(Ms).No.248, Higher Education (F2) Department, both dated 08.11.2022, insofar as they relate to the 1146 posts earmarked under G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department, 21.03.2020. He also issued a mandamus directing the Government to continue the selection process in terms of G.O. (Ms).No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department, 21.03.2020, and to complete the same within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Following this judgment, the other writ petitions also stood allowed. Challenging these orders, the present writ appeals. 19.We heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan; Mr.G.Mutharasu; Ms.Selvi George; Mr.E.Martin Jayakumar; Mr.Louis and Mr.S.Kumaradevan for the respondents. 20.When the appeals were taken up for admission, Hon’ble the Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State had submitted that the Government would examine the issue at the highest level and that there was a possibility of the order passed by the learned Single Judge being complied with. This statement was recorded. A direction was issued that till the time a decision was taken, the Government should keep 1146 posts vacant. Insofar as the remaining posts are concerned, it was directed that the Government was free to proceed. Subsequent to this submission, the appeals suffered several adjournments. This statement was recorded. A direction was issued that till the time a decision was taken, the Government should keep 1146 posts vacant. Insofar as the remaining posts are concerned, it was directed that the Government was free to proceed. Subsequent to this submission, the appeals suffered several adjournments. 21.On 28.01.2026, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that, in all, there are 7198 posts of Assistant Professors, as on today, lying vacant in various Government Arts and Science Colleges. Taking note of the number of vacancies, as an interim measure, the following directions were given:- “a)That there shall be a direction to the appellant State Government / Higher Education Department to proceed with the filling up of vacancies of Assistant Professors of at least 4000 as originally proposed, excluding 1146 posts earmarked for Guest Lecturers as well as 146 posts earmarked for Assistant Professors who are working presently in University Constituent Colleges converted as Government Colleges. b)In this regard, if a clarificatory note is filed on behalf of the State Government / Higher Education Department giving such a clarification in the teeth of G.O(Ms)No.231, dated 06.10.2025, based on which, the further course of action can be decided and suitable orders can be passed by this Court. c)In order to make such a compliance, and to file such clarificatory note as indicated herein above, we grant two (2) weeks time to the appellant State Government as well as the Higher Education Department.” 22.Pursuant to this direction, an additional affidavit was filed on 04.02.2026. By this affidavit, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department has stated that the Government had issued, G.O.(Ms).No.231, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 06.10.2025. This was in supersession of G.O.(Ms).No.248, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 08.11.2022. By this Order, it was submitted that the Government had directed the TRB to cancel the earlier recruitment notification issued on 14.03.2024, calling for applications for 4000 posts. Further, permission had been accorded to the TRB to issue a fresh notification for 2708 posts of Assistant Professors, excluding 1146 posts earlier earmarked for Guest Lecturers in Government Arts and Science Colleges and 146 posts earmarked for Assistant Professors working in University Constituent Colleges converted as Government Colleges. The 2708 posts were directed to be filled through a written competitive examination. 23. The 2708 posts were directed to be filled through a written competitive examination. 23. Acting upon the Government Order dated 06.10.2025, it was submitted that the TRB had also issued a fresh notification on 16.10.2025 to fill up 2708 posts. Written examinations were conducted on 27.12.2025. It was further stated that the Government would take necessary steps to fill up the remaining 1292 posts by following the method of written competitive examination through the TRB in the next cycle of recruitment. 24. Mr.P.Kumaresan urged that all the writ petitioners were appointed only as Guest Lecturers at the collegiate level. He pointed out that the Government had taken a policy decision, at the highest level, to recruit 4000 Assistant Professors in the Government Arts and Science Colleges. He urged that it has been decided to adopt the process of competitive written examination to fill up these vacancies. He adds that the Government has decided to follow the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Dr.K.Ragu ’s case, cited supra even with respect to Guest Lecturers. The Government had taken this decision, as the process of competitive written examination, would pave way for a fair and transparent recruitment process and to avoid any backdoor entry. He added that, unless and until, the best among the qualified persons are selected, the students would not get the cream of the resources available in the market. 25. Mr.P.Kumaresan further submitted that the total number of applications that were received by the TRB for the present process of recruitment is 42064. Hence, he urged that this Court to allow the appeals and permit the process of recruitment for the 1292 posts through written examination. 26. The learned Senior Counsel as well as the counsel for the respondents, in unison, submitted that the rules cannot be changed once the process of recruitment has commenced. They pointed out that as late as on 20.12.2024, the Supreme Court had directed regularization of persons, who have been in the post for decades and that since the Government had taken a decision to regularize the services of the Guest Lecturers by resorting to G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department, 21.03.2020, this Court, applying the aforesaid principles, should confirm the order of the learned Single Judge and direct the process of regularization be completed, as done by the learned Single Judge. They urged that the writ petitioners have been employed for decades and they have been carrying on duties with utmost diligence and responsibility, and that if they are called upon to undergo the process of a written competitive examination, it would be unfair to them. 27.We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and gone through the records in detail. 28.At the outset, we have to note that it is not in dispute that all the writ petitioners had been selected only through a college level recruitment and not a State level recruitment, as is required by law. 29.The issue presented before us is whether the Guest Lecturers, who have been so employed, have a right to be regularized, when the process has been through a college-level notification. In order for G.O. (Ms).No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department dated 21.03.2020, to apply, each of the original recruitment process should have followed an open competitive process. This is as per clause 3(i) of the aforesaid Government Order. What is meant by open competitive process? 30.First, an open competitive process must commence with a widely published and circulated advertisement. This is necessary so as to enable all potential participants to be notified of such recruitment. The advertisements should have been so circulated, that it is publicly known. 31.Secondly, in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India , all those who are qualified should have been given an equal opportunity to apply. 32.Thirdly, the process of selection must have been objective one. The criteria for selection should be based on qualification, skill and experience. Marks should have been secured in an examination, rather than a “pick-and-choose” method. 33.Lastly and most importantly, the entire process should have been carried out in a transparent and independent manner, which is known to all the applicants, at the earliest point of time. 34.Based on years of administrative experience, it is now come to stay that the initiation of recruitment to Government posts is by an open competitive written examination. It is only based on the marks secured in such examination, the candidates are ranked according to their performances. If we keep this principle in mind, then, none of the Guest Lecturers can claim that they have participated in an open competitive examination which was merit based. 35.The manner of their selection was through a selection committee at the Collegiate level. If we keep this principle in mind, then, none of the Guest Lecturers can claim that they have participated in an open competitive examination which was merit based. 35.The manner of their selection was through a selection committee at the Collegiate level. It was not governed by any rules or regulations, as was and is being done in the recruitment process initiated by the TRB. Unless and until, an open competitive examination is conducted, fair opportunity would not be available to all the participants. The participants would not be facing a level playing field. Such a process, through selection committee at the college level, leaves it open for the re- introduction of the “Patronage System” that was in vogue before standards for recruitment were adopted. Atleast from the time the Macaulay Committee submitted its report in 1854, “Patronage System” had lost its relevance and selection for candidates is based on thorough knowledge of the subject concerned and not on a superficial one. 36.If this Court were to accept the plea of the Guest Lecturers that, as they have been selected by the Committees at the college level and hence, it amounts to an open competitive process, we would be diluting the principles which have been evolved by the Supreme Court through the years, calling upon institutions to follow a transparent and merit- based selection process. The purpose of having an open competitive process for public post is because such a process ensures fairness, integrity and legality to the appointments of those being recruited to public posts. 37.The second issue is whether regularization can be claimed as a right, as is being claimed by the writ petitioners. We immediately recall the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (III) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . In paragraph No.48 (SCC report), the Supreme Court declared the position of law as follows:- “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. 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. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 38. The law that flows out of this judgment are as follows: a) An employee appointed on contractual basis cannot claim equality with a regularly recruited employee; b) Daily wagers, temporary and contractual appointments are not in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; c) Such employees do not have a right to claim regularization in service; d) An appointment consistent with the constitutional requirements of Articles 14 and 16 alone can be treated as regular appointment. 39.If the principles set forth above are applied to the facts of the present case, we are not in a position to agree with the writ petitioners that their process of original recruitment was an open competitive one and hence, in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India . Further, they do not possess an enforceable right entitling them to claim regularization. 40.At this stage, we would like to point out the difference between regularization and recruitment. Recruitment is a legal, formal competitive method of entering service. Regularization is at best a remedial measure adopted for those already working in temporary or irregular capacity. A recruitment is a rule based process of filling up substantive vacancies. Regularization is a process to confer permanent status on existing temporary or contractual staff like Guest Lecturers. The goals of recruitment and regularization also differ. In case of a recruitment, it is merit-based through an open competitive process, whereas, regularization aims in correcting the irregular appointments made. While recruitment is a statutory method approved by constitutional norms for public employment, regularization is not a mode of recruitment. In public service, the governing rules are the constitutional framework like Article 309 of the Constitution and the statutory rules made by the Government. Recruitment ensures transparency and merit through advertisements given wide publicity, assessments by Public Service Commissions and by specialized agencies like the Teachers Recruitment Board. If a recruitment commenced as per the statutory rules are completed, it gives a legitimate expectation to the party to seek for an appointment. This is totally absent in case of regularization. Regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is hence that the Courts have consistently held, an appointment made without any sanctioned post or in complete violation of the rules cannot be regularized. Regular appointment follow due process. This in itself makes a fundamental difference between a regular appointee and one claiming regularization. Constitutional Courts or Tribunals cannot bypass statutory requirements and give directions for regularization especially when the State revises its policy of a regularization. Procedurally flawed appointments cannot be regularized in order to grant employment rights. At best, regularization is entitled to correct administrative oversights or irregularities. They are not meant to sanction appointments made in contravention of established legal procedures. Constitutional Courts or Tribunals cannot bypass statutory requirements and give directions for regularization especially when the State revises its policy of a regularization. Procedurally flawed appointments cannot be regularized in order to grant employment rights. At best, regularization is entitled to correct administrative oversights or irregularities. They are not meant to sanction appointments made in contravention of established legal procedures. 41.If the case of the writ petitioners are accepted, we would be giving a go-by to the necessity for public authorities like the State of Tamil Nadu to strictly follow statutory process, which, if adhered to, would ensure all appointments are legally and validly made. It has been settled by the Supreme Court that mere receipt of benefits such as salary or provident fund contributions do not equate to legal appointment status or entitlement. Public authorities are duty bound to adhere to specific laws and regulations that govern the appointment of Government employees. As will be seen later, these processes ensure transparency, meritocracy and adherence to legal standards. Any deviation from these procedures, in fact, renders the appointment itself invalid. 42.The learned Single Judge, in the order impugned, had held that since the manner of appointment had been through selection committee by making paper advertisement and following the rule of reservation, they can be treated as having gone through the process of selection as is required by law. We do not agree with the conclusion that the recruitment of the Guest Lecturers was done in a transparent manner. All the advertisements were at College level and not at a State level. Few of the advertisements that have been produced before us point out that they were mere “walk-in” interviews. The nature of the selection process for Assistant Professors require a State-wide publication and not as done in the present case. The publications had been made only by the colleges individually. It was so done in order to tide over the difficulties which were presented at that time. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A.Singamuthu, (2017) 4 SCC 113 , such casual employments were meant only to serve the exigencies of administration. The publications had been made only by the colleges individually. It was so done in order to tide over the difficulties which were presented at that time. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A.Singamuthu, (2017) 4 SCC 113 , such casual employments were meant only to serve the exigencies of administration. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that, as the Guest Lecturers had been in the post for a long period of time, calling upon them to appear for a written examination amounts to changing the norms of selections once the process has commenced. 43.We are of the view that the learned Single Judge, following the principle laid in A.Singamuthu ’ s case, cited supra, should have appreciated that long continuous service confers no right of regularization, which if carried out, would cause huge financial implications on the public exchequer. 44.In fact, all these aspects had been taken note of in Dr.K.Ragu ’s case, wherein the Court had pointed out that appointees, at the time of their appointment, were aware that their posts were temporary. For the mere fact that they continued for a long period of time would not confer them a right of regularization. The same situation also prevails in the present case. 45.The learned Single Judge was of the view that since the rules of the game had been changed while the process of regularization was ongoing, it falls foul of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar and others Vs. Mithilesh Kumar , cited supra 46.The case in State of Bihar and others Vs. Mithilesh Kumar , arose under the following circumstances: 46(a).In 1998, the State of Bihar initiated two vocational training trades. This was for persons with disabilities at the Kamla Nehru Social Service Institute for Handicapped and Rehabilitation Training Center, Patna. The writ petitioner, Mithilesh Kumar, had applied for the post of Assistant Instructor. The recruitment had been duly advertised by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC). He was found eligible. He successfully cleared the interview and was recommended for appointment by BPSC. Shortly after the interview, the State of Bihar decided that the training of persons with disabilities should be trained professionally through Non-Governmental Organizations in place of Instructors/Assistant Instructors. Citing this change in policy, the State of Bihar requested the BPSC not to recommend of any further candidates. He successfully cleared the interview and was recommended for appointment by BPSC. Shortly after the interview, the State of Bihar decided that the training of persons with disabilities should be trained professionally through Non-Governmental Organizations in place of Instructors/Assistant Instructors. Citing this change in policy, the State of Bihar requested the BPSC not to recommend of any further candidates. Mithilesh Kumar, being armed with the recommendation of BPSC, approached the Patna High Court. A learned Single Judge and a Division Bench of that Court directed the State to appoint Mithilesh Kumar to the post of Assistant Instructor. 46(b).Aggrieved by the said orders, State of Bihar approached the Supreme Court. While dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the State is empowered to change the recruitment policy at any time, but such change should apply only prospectively. They cannot adversely affect those candidates who have already been selected under the original process of recruitment. It was also held that once the selection process commences under the established Rules, to ensure fairness and to prevent arbitrary administrative action, they have to be maintained till the conclusion. It declared that a candidate in a merit list does not have indefeasible right to appointment, but this does not mean the State can adopt a mid-process policy change to the detriment of a validly selected candidate. It distinguished the judgment in Umadevi (III) ’s case, pointing out that Mithilesh Kumar’s case was a formal recruitment process for a sanctioned post and not a case of regularization of adhoc or casual employees. 47.The first ratio in this case is that once the process of recruitment to a regular appointment has been completed and candidates have been identified and selected, a subsequent change in policy will not take away their right. The second one being the process of recruitment cannot be compared with the process of regularization. 48.We fail to understand how Mithilesh Kumar ’s case apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case, none of the writ petitioners have gone through the process of regular recruitment. It was only on the basis of long service, they claimed regularization. To compare regular recruitment with regularization, is akin to comparing oranges with apples. 48.We fail to understand how Mithilesh Kumar ’s case apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case, none of the writ petitioners have gone through the process of regular recruitment. It was only on the basis of long service, they claimed regularization. To compare regular recruitment with regularization, is akin to comparing oranges with apples. 49.We called upon the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners to produce the final selection list that had been prepared pursuant to the process that had been initiated under G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department, 21.03.2020. All of them submitted that the process was underway and that no final list of selected candidates had been published by the Government. This shows that the regularization process that was initiated in G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department, 21.03.2020, has not been concluded. While this was being undergone, the Government changed its policy. Hence, Mithilesh Kumar’s case where the candidate was armed with an order recommending his selection by the BPSC cannot be equated with a case where only the process of regularization had commenced but no final selection had been completed. 50.We will now turn to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners. 51. Y.V.Rangaiah and others Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and others, (1983) 3 SCC 284 51(a).The case arose before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal with respect to the preparation of a promotion panel for Sub- Registrars Grade-II in the Department of Registration and Stamps in Andhra Pradesh. Under the existing Rules, the Department of Registration had to prepare a promotion panel year-on-year in September. This process was not conducted for the year 1976. In 1977, the Rules were amended, changing the criteria for promotion. When the panel was subsequently prepared for the year 1976, the amended rules were applied and not the rules which were in force when the panel ought to have been prepared. The Supreme Court held that vacancies must be filled according to the prevailing rules at the time the vacancy arises, and it is not open to the State to apply the rules in force when the selection or appointment process actually takes place. 51(b).Immediately, we should point out that this judgment cannot be held to be a binding precedent, due to a subsequent verdict of the Supreme Court. Rangaiah ’s case was rendered by a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. 51(b).Immediately, we should point out that this judgment cannot be held to be a binding precedent, due to a subsequent verdict of the Supreme Court. Rangaiah ’s case was rendered by a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider this very aspect in State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Raj Kumar and others , (2023) 3 SCC 773 . A Three Judge-Bench held in paragraph No.28 (SCC citation) that the observations made in Rangaiah ’s case, cited supra, do not reflect the correct position of law. After analyzing a catena of cases, the Supreme Court held that where there is no statutory duty cast upon the Government to prepare panels, as in Rangaiah ’s case, a candidate has a right to be considered only as per the existing Rules and the Government is entitled to take a conscious decision about filling of vacancies in terms of the subsequent rules framed. 51(c).Even if we were to apply the view in Rangaiah ’s case to the facts of the present case, it would still not help the writ petitioners. The Guest Lecturers, who do not have a right to be regularized in the service, cannot demand that their process of regularization must be only in accordance with G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department, 21.03.2020, and not as per Government Orders issued on 08.11.2022. Admittedly, there are no statutory rules in force for regularization of Guest Lecturers. It is due to a benevolent policy, adopted in 2020, by an executive order, the process of regularization commenced. The Government has decided to change this policy on regularization. It cannot be compared with recruitment under statutory rules in force. 52.The second judgment relied upon is Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others, (2001) 10 SCC 51 . 52(a).Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) issued a recruitment notification dated 20.09.1995 calling upon eligible persons to apply for the posts of Drivers and Conductors. 10 persons applied for the same. A driving test was conducted on 27.11.1995. They were successful in this test also. They were thereafter called for a personal interview on 26.07.1996. On the very same day, a selection list was also published. 10 persons applied for the same. A driving test was conducted on 27.11.1995. They were successful in this test also. They were thereafter called for a personal interview on 26.07.1996. On the very same day, a selection list was also published. In the mean time, on 24.06.1996, a circular was issued by the MSRTC enabling the Selection Committee to award 25% marks during the time of interview, instead of 12.5% marks as per the earlier circular dated 04.04.1995. Therefore, the petitioners challenged that the circular dated 24.06.1996 as illegal and sought to set aside the selection list so published on the basis of the interview conducted on 26.07.1996. The High Court held that the circular dated 24.06.1996 is illegal and also set aside the selection list issued on 26.07.1996. 52(b).Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the manner of recruitment was not governed by any statutory rules. It had been gone about only on the basis of circulars. After an analysis of the circulars dated 21.08.1980, 23.01.1995 and 04.04.1995, the Court concluded that no written test was prescribed for Drivers. It also held that the circular dated 24.06.1996, is not illegal. Since the driving test had already been concluded on 27.11.1995, the said circular would not govern the ongoing selection process. It criticized MSRTC for leaving the applicable criteria in a nebulous state, but did not interfere with the said circular as there was no evidence of malafide or bias. Invoking the principles of balance of equality, the Court declined to re-open the entire selection process, which would result in a disruption of services of drivers, who were already selected and appointed. Instead, it directed the writ petitioners be favourably considered based on their performance and marks in the driving test and interview, subject to their medical fitness. 52(c)This judgment too, in our opinion, does not apply to the facts of the present case. This is because, the process of selection had not been completed as per G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department, 21.03.2020. It had only commenced, and no final selection list had been published, thereby creating a right in favour of applicants. The Government is entitled to change its policy on regularization especially when it is informed by a judgment of the Supreme Court (Dr.K.Ragu’s case). 53. The next judgment is K. Manjusree Vs. It had only commenced, and no final selection list had been published, thereby creating a right in favour of applicants. The Government is entitled to change its policy on regularization especially when it is informed by a judgment of the Supreme Court (Dr.K.Ragu’s case). 53. The next judgment is K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2008) 3 SCC 512 . 53(a).In this case, the State of Andhra Pradesh had called for applications from qualified persons for 10 posts of District & Sessions Judge (Grade II). When the notification was issued, the Rules only required a minimum qualifying mark for the written examination. The High Court passed Resolutions on 24.07.2001 and 21.02.2002, prescribing the criteria for selection of candidates. According to these resolutions, out of the total marks of 100, 75 marks were allotted for written examination and 25 marks for the interview. By a Resolution dated 30.11.2004, 100 marks were prescribed for written examination, instead of 75 marks. These changes were made after the written examination and interviews were concluded. Consequently, the marks for the written examination were proportionately scaled down so as to maintain the ratio of maximum marks in written examination and interview as 3:1, instead of 4:1. The change also introduced a criterion of minimum qualifying mark for the interview also. On account of such change, there was a re-shuffling of the selection list. The new requirement that a candidate should secure a minimum percentage in the interview had been introduced after the process of interview had been concluded. 53(b).The Supreme Court held that the scaling down of written marks was acceptable, as it resulted only, in a mere arithmetic correction of the marks already secured. The Court declared the introduction of minimum marks to be secured in the interview was illegal, as this criteria for selection, was changed after process of selection had concluded. 54.To complete the narration, the correctness of the view taken in Manjusree ’s case was doubted on the ground that the principle laid down by it runs contrary to an earlier decision in State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 . The matter was referred to the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pratak Vs. Rajasthan High Court, (2013) 4 SCC 540 . The Bench held, the decision of K.Manjusree (supra) was considered a good law, not in conflict with Subash Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 . The matter was referred to the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pratak Vs. Rajasthan High Court, (2013) 4 SCC 540 . The Bench held, the decision of K.Manjusree (supra) was considered a good law, not in conflict with Subash Chander Marwaha (supra). 55.For the purpose of this case, Manjusree ‘s verdict would not apply, for the same reason as in the previous judgment, that the process as per G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department, 21.03.2020, has not yet been concluded and hence, the same cannot be made applicable. Further, changes in recruitment rules cannot be equated with change in policy of regularization. 56.The next judgment is Sivanandan C.T. and others Vs. High Court of Kerala and others, (2024) 3 SCC 799 . 56(a).This case is more or less similar to K.Manjusree ’s case. The Kerala High Court had issued notification for selection of District and Sessions Judges in the year 2015. As per the Recruitment Rules prevailing in the year 1961 and a Full Court Resolution of that High Court of the year 2012, no minimum cut off marks had been fixed for the viva-voce. The selection was to be based on the aggregate of the marks secured in the written examination and in the interview. After the written examination and viva-voce were concluded, the Administrative Committee of the High Court introduced a qualifying cut off marks even for the interview. On account of such new criteria, several candidates who had secured high marks were excluded. Hence, they challenged the same before the Supreme Court. 56(b).The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Administrative Committee of the Kerala High Court was in contravention of the statutory 1961 Rules that were in force at the time of the 2015 examination notification. As the decision of the Administrative Committee departed from the expected course of preparing merit list, it was struck down. The Supreme Court found that candidates have a legitimate expectation that the process of selection would follow the Rules notified at the starting of the process and the same cannot be modified once the process itself has been concluded. 56(c).Having come to the conclusion that the selection process was illegal and arbitrary, the Supreme Court did not set aside the process of selection nor it directed the writ petitioners, who had secured marks, to be issued with orders of appointment. 56(c).Having come to the conclusion that the selection process was illegal and arbitrary, the Supreme Court did not set aside the process of selection nor it directed the writ petitioners, who had secured marks, to be issued with orders of appointment. 56(d).The ratio of this case shows that the manner of recruitment had started under statutory rules and was proceeded on that basis. After the conclusion of the selection, the Rules were given a go-by and the decision of the Administrative Committee was given effect to. In the present case, none of the petitioners can claim that the original process of their appointment is traceable to any statutory Rules. They were appointed by the selection committees at the college level, which is not contemplated by the applicable Recruitment Rules. They had been appointed as Guest Lecturers only on account of administrative exigencies. They cannot compare themselves with the petitioners in Sivanandan C.T. ’s case. Further, the process of regularization is not traceable to any statutory rules. It is at best based on a Government Order issued on the basis of a policy. Such policy is capable of being revised. 57.The same position prevails in the case of Union of India and others Vs. A.Saravanakumar and another in W.A.(MD).No.898 of 2020 dated 25.01.2021 . In the year 2015, a recruitment notification had been issued calling for applications for eligible candidates for several posts. 30 posts have been earmarked for persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. A.Saravanakumar, the writ petitioner was one such candidate. He obtained 40 marks. While those, who had secured lesser marks than him, were selected on account of the addition of five extra marks for the experience they gained as Ex-Trade Apprentices. The extra five marks have been granted on the basis of a circular issued by the Ministry of Defence on 09.05.2016, in line, with the amendment to Section 22 of the Trade Apprentices Act . Hence, A.Saravanakumar presented a writ petition. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and issued a mandamus directing that A.Saravanakumar be issued with an order of appointment. On appeal, a Division Bench held that on the date of issuance of the recruitment notification, the Rules in force would have to be followed, and not a subsequent clarificatory circular issued by the Ministry of Defence. 57(a).This case too will not apply to the facts of the present case. On appeal, a Division Bench held that on the date of issuance of the recruitment notification, the Rules in force would have to be followed, and not a subsequent clarificatory circular issued by the Ministry of Defence. 57(a).This case too will not apply to the facts of the present case. The regularization process as G.O.(Ms).No.56, Higher Education (F2) Department, 21.03.2020, is not one initiated pursuant to any Statutory Rules, but is a decision of the Government. It decided to do so even though the writ petitioner had been appointed not in a manner known to law, but had been in service for a long period of time. Such a Government Order cannot be treated on par with the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India . Hence, this judgment too will not apply to the facts of the case. 58.The next judgment is Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1533. 58(a).In that case, a recruitment notification had been issued on 21.02.1991. The writ petitioners had undergone a process of selection involving written tests and viva-voce interviews and were then selected to the posts of Accounts Clerk. They sought for regularization by way of representation to the Divisional Railway Manager in 1999. The said representation was not considered. Hence, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of an original application. The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that their appointments were temporary and for a specific scheme. This view was upheld by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Challenging the same, they preferred a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court. 58(b).The Supreme Court set aside the orders challenged and directed that the case of the appellants be considered for regularization in their respective posts. It was factually found in paragraph No.5 that the selection process that was undergone by the appellants mirrored that of a regular recruitment and thus, constituted a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. 58(c).Furthermore, it was found that the appellants had been considered for promotion by a Departmental Promotion Committee and that there was nothing in the initial order of appointment which indicated the temporary nature of their roles. On this ground, the Bench distinguished the Constitution Bench judgment of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (III) and others cited supra. 58(c).Furthermore, it was found that the appellants had been considered for promotion by a Departmental Promotion Committee and that there was nothing in the initial order of appointment which indicated the temporary nature of their roles. On this ground, the Bench distinguished the Constitution Bench judgment of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (III) and others cited supra. It held that as the selection process involved written tests and interviews, they would not fall under the category of “back door” entry. The analysis of the judgment shows that the appellants were given the benefit of consideration for regularization on account of the fact that their initial process of recruitment was itself as if it was for a regular appointment. It is no one’s case that the initial appointment of the Guest Lecturers had gone through a process similar to the case of those in Vinod Kumar ’s case. 58(d).In any event, this case would not apply to the facts of the present case, since the Guest Lecturers are now seeking a direction that the State of Tamil Nadu should not proceed with the process of recruitment for filling up a whopping number of 4000 vacancies out of the total number of vacancies for 7000. For the mere fact that they have been working as Guest Lecturers in Government Arts and Science College, including Government Constituent Colleges, does not give them an indefeasible right to prevent the State from going through the process of regular recruitment for substantive vacancies. 59.Insofar as the view in Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 , is concerned, the petitioners herein cannot claim parity with the petitioners therein. 59(a).The petitioners in that case were all Class-IV employees. Majority of them belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, performing the work of Khalasi. An Assistant Professor cannot be compared with a Khalasi. On that short point, on the nature of work as well as the social status to which the petitioners belonged in that case, the writ petitioners cannot be compared with the persons in Jaggo ’s case. 60.We have to point out that the present state of affairs has come about only on account of the failure of the State of Tamil Nadu in not going for a regular recruitment of Assistant Professors. Good teachers, as it is said, are architects of the future. 60.We have to point out that the present state of affairs has come about only on account of the failure of the State of Tamil Nadu in not going for a regular recruitment of Assistant Professors. Good teachers, as it is said, are architects of the future. Students spend more time with their teachers than with their parents. Teachers serve as a primary influence on a student. Students rely upon the teachers not only for their academic success but also for character development. They are not simple tools of knowledge transfer. They have to play an important role of a mentor and also be an example for their students to follow. It is the teachers who recognize the potential of the students. A good teacher fosters curiosity and encourages a student to continue on the path that is pointed out by the teacher, long after he / she has left the institution, and in some cases, till the end of their lives. 61.This Court strongly deprecates the practice adopted by the State of Tamil Nadu in appointing Guest Lecturers to attend to the important function of teaching basic Arts and Science and Technology subjects to students. Lots of Courts’ time had been wasted on such litigations. The Guest Lecturers are rightly anguished on account of the State dragging its feet in making regular appointments. 62.Mr.P.Kumaresan argued that, as many as 7000 posts of Assistant Professors are vacant in the State of Tamil Nadu in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Collegiate of Education. Yet, the Government has taken a decision to fill only 2708 posts. When as many as 42,064 qualified persons have applied for the posts, to restrict the recruitment only to 2708 posts is unfortunate. There is a vast scope for selecting the 4000 Assistant Professors as originally planned by the Government. Yet, the Government has taken a decision to fill only 2708 posts. When as many as 42,064 qualified persons have applied for the posts, to restrict the recruitment only to 2708 posts is unfortunate. There is a vast scope for selecting the 4000 Assistant Professors as originally planned by the Government. Hence, while allowing the appeals, we issue the following directions:- (i) The Government shall give appropriate directions to the Teachers Recruitment Board to notify an additional 1292 posts for recruitment in addition to the existing notification issued on 16.10.2025; (ii) With 42,064 persons having applied and the Government having accepted that it has the financial capacity to recruit 4000 Assistant Professors, from and out of the applicants, as per the original notification dated 16.10.2025, these posts must be filled up by following an open competitive process; (iii) Insofar as the writ petitioners are concerned, following the verdict in Dr.K.Ragu and others Vs. Dr.N.Elumalai and others, in Civil Appeal No.4351 of 2016, dated 07.04.2022 , the Teachers Recruitment Board while issuing a fresh notification, shall grant a maximum of 15 weightage marks to the Guest Lecturers depending upon their years of experience; (iv) As a few of them have worked for long period of time and more, the notification will also grant them age relaxation. This age relaxation and weightage marks would not only apply to the recruitment notification initiated pursuant to G.O.(Ms).No.231, Higher Education (F2) Department, 06.10.2025, but also to the next process of selection; (v) A further recruitment notification has to be issued within a period of six (6) months from today; (vi) Till the time of issuance of fresh recruitment notification and completion of selection process by using orders of appointment, the Guest Lecturers must not be ousted from service. 63.The positive mandamus given by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. It amounts to recognition of a right to regularization. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petitions will stand dismissed with the above directions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.