The State Government against a judgment from the Industrial Court, Satara, granting permanency to respondents initially hired on a temporary basis in various hospital roles. The State contests the decision, arguing that the temporary appointments were not intended for permanency and were made without proper selection processes.

1. Background and Introduction:

   • Temporary appointments made in hospitals due to regular staff absences.
   • Lack of formal selection processes for temporary hires.

2. Legal Arguments and Court's Observations:

   • State's challenge against the Industrial Court's decision to grant permanency.
   • Allegations of appointments as "back door entries" without adherence to constitutional requirements.

3. Judicial Precedents and Case Law:

   • Reference to relevant judgments distinguishing between irregular and illegal appointments.
   • Comparison with cases where regularization was based on proper selection processes.

4. Court's Decision and Conclusion:

   • Evaluation of the Industrial Court's judgment as unsustainable.
   • Petitions succeed; respondents' complaints dismissed.
   • Emphasis on the fiscal burden of multiple individuals occupying one sanctioned post.

5. Order:

   • Setting aside of the Industrial Court's June 19, 2022 judgment.
   • Allowance of writ petitions without costs.

The legal dispute over the permanency of temporarily appointed respondents in government service, focusing on procedural irregularities and constitutional principles.