Service Law – Regularization – Despite being appointed for what was termed a temporary or scheme-based engagement, the appellants have been continuously working in these positions from 1992 till the present, spanning a period exceeding 25 years- The Tribunal’s judgment negated the appellants’ plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed – High Court dismissed the challenge against Tribunal judgment – Allowing Appeal, SC observed: Essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement -The judgement in the case Uma Devi distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case- The appellants are entitled to be considered for regularization in their respective posts. The respondents are directed to complete the process of regularization within 3 months from the date of service of this judgment.