be made by the appellants. The referred case had been of different fact situation and peculiar circumstances, inasmuch as the appellants therein were appointed as Special Police Officers under Section 17 of the Police Act, 1861 and they were working as Bank Guards and daily wages were being paid to them. The recruitment of Special Police Officers had been made in the background of unrest and terrorism prevailing in the State of Punjab at the relevant point of time. The Hon'ble Court found that the process of selection adopted in identifying the appellants was not unreasonable or arbitrary having regard to the pressing need for obtaining the services of the persons who had some experience and training in handling an extraordinary situation of dealing with armed miscreants. It was also noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the services of such persons were later on being utilized by the Banks and in the totality of the circumstances, it was found that creation of new posts was not going to create any financial burden on the State as various Banks, at whose disposal their services were placed, had agreed to bear the financial burden. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh's case (supra), of course, referred to Constitution Bench decision in Uma Devi's case (AIR 2006 SC 1806) but observed that in the said case of Uma Devi, the Court was dealing with the appointments made without following any rational procedure, as envisaged in the Scheme of public appointments, and in that context, held that regularization of employment of such person, which was made
