5.This challenge, in our opinion, appears to be misplaced and is an afterthought, inasmuch as for the purpose of regularisation, there are other ingredients that have to be available, more particularly, in relation to the service in question, where the post is admittedly a matter of sanction by the University Grants Commission. There is nothing on record to indicate that the University Grants Commission has ever indicated an intention of regularising contract appointments against plan posts. As is evident from the facts brought on record, the respondents-petitioners were admittedly appointed on contract basis from time to time. When the posts came to be sanctioned on plan basis by the University Grants Commission in 2009, then too also, the respondents-petitioners accepted the said appointments without any demur as to their status of appointment. The same was purely temporary and was to last till the sanction of that particular year. This continued and was accepted without any challenge by the respondents-petitioners up to the year 2014. This undisputed position, therefore, nowhere entitles the respondents-petitioners to seek the benefit of regularization, either under any Rules for the time being in force or even on the basis of the judgments that have been relied upon by them.
