Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.This judgment will dispose of five Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 17763 of 1999, 396, 1701, 8377 and 9627 of 2002. Even though, a large number of other writ petitions were also listed along with these five petitions, in absence of verification of facts of individual cases, we are confining this judgment to these five petitions only as main arguments have been advanced in the said cases. A separate order is being passed for listing of the remaining writ petitions.

2. In all the writ petitions, prayer made is identical i.e. to direct the State to frame a policy of regularisation, to stay recruitment process for regular appointments and to maintain status quo about services of the petitioners.

2.1 In CWP No. 396 of 2002, the petitioners are school teachers and as per Annexure P.1 dated 13.10.1997 annexed to the writ petition, one of the petitioners, Jatinder Singh was appointed as Mathematics Master on contract basis for 89 days on a consolidate salary and he was directed to report for duty to Head Master, Government Girls High School Prithla. It is stated that except petitioner No. 1, other petitioners (five in number) had been working for the last more than four years prior to the filing of the writ petition filed on 7.1.2002 while petitioner No. 1 had been working for the last six years. It is stated that the petitioners were called for interview after they had applied in pursuance of an advertisement for appointment on ad hoc/contract basis and on selection, the petitioners joined the service. Vide DB judgment of this court dated 17.4.1998 in Polu Ram v. State of Haryana, 1998(4) RSJ 152, condition incorporated in appointment letter limiting appointment to 89 days on consolidated salary was declared unconstitutional and the State was directed to allow the petitioners to work till availability of regularly selected candidates, giving liberty to terminate their services on the ground of unsuitability/unsatisfactory performance/on abolition of posts on the principle of last come first go apart from directing payment of regular pay scales from the date of their appointment. It is stated that for the last more than 20 years, selections have been made in the State of Haryana on ad hoc basis out of names registered with employment exchange by a selection committee and persons so selected and appointed were regularised as per regularisation policy which has been in force from time to time right since 1980 but after the policy issued on 7.3.1996 which does not cover the petitioners, no further policy was issued though a promise had been made to issue such a policy. The petitioners have crossed the prescribed age for entry into service and action of not framing any regularisation policy was arbitrary.

2.2 Facts in CWP No. 1701 of 2002 are almost identical to the facts in CWP No. 396 of 2002. The petition has been filed by 14 school teachers working as S.S. Master, Math Masters and Science Masters. Case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were selected by a Departmental Selection Committee at State level after names of the petitioners were sponsored by the employment exchange and petitioners were working since 21.3.1994 and though from time to time, regularisation policies have been framed the petitioners are not covered by any regularisation policy though they are similar to those who are covered by the regularisation policy. In press reports Annexures P.4 and P.5 dated 4.4.1998 and 5.4.1998, statements were made by the ministers that regularisation policy will be framed. Subsequently, vide press report dated 25.10.1999, it was announced that 13000 persons will be recruited as teachers after removing the persons working on ad hoc basis. Advertisement dated 14.11.1999 was issued inviting applications for the posts of lecturers (School cadre). Number of vacancies advertised are about 800. Further advertisement dated 14.11.1999 has been issued for recruiting about 3000 masters. The proposed recruitment adversely affects rights of the petitioners as some of the petitioners have crossed age limit of 40 years and eligibility pattern has been changed.

2.3 CWP No. 17763 of 1999 has been filed by 344 teachers employed in different Government Schools. Their case is that they were appointed on ad hoc basis after being sponsored by employment exchange and after selection by the District Level Selection Committee and have been continuing in their job since 1994 though in the years 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997, various posts were advertised by Subordinate Services Selection Board/Haryana Staff Selection Commission, the petitioners applied but no Selection was made and now fresh advertisement dated 14.11.1999 has been issued dissolving Staff Selection Commission. It is stated that earlier, there was Subordinate Services Selection Board which was replaced by Haryana Staff Selection Commission which has since been dissolved and about 6500 posts have been advertised. Selection procedure is the same by which the petitioners have already been selected.

2.4 CWP Nos. 8377 and 9627 of 2002 have been filed by Instructors/Language teachers in Industrial Training Institutes numbering 13 in both the petitions. Their case is that they were appointed on ad hoc basis after selection by selection committee and after their names were sponsored by employment exchange and had been working since 1995. Vide advertisements dated 19.1.2000 and 21.5.2000, process of regularisation of posts held by the petitioners was initiated and various regularisation policies were framed from time to time. No regularisation policy has been framed after 31.1.1996. Since qualifications have been amended w.e.f. 31.3.1998 various petitioners have been rendered ineligible and advertisements for regular recruitments issued earlier have been withdrawn and fresh advertisements have been issued.

3. Stand of the respondents in case of school teachers in CWP Nos. 396 of 2002, 1701 of 2002 and 17763 of 2002 is that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc/contractual basis due to administrative exigencies as stop-gap arrangement and since Government had initiated action for making regular recruitment, the State could not be required to frame regularisation policy.

3.1 Further stand of the respondents (as per written statement in CWP No. 1701 of 2002) is that after policy dated 7.3.1996 for regularisation, efforts were made to fill up all vacant posts only through regular recruitment which could not succeed due to pending litigation. Advertisements were issued from 1994 to 1996 for 1645 posts of Math and Science Masters but the said process was challenged and finalisation of result was stayed. The service rules were revised and a fresh advertisement dated 14.11.1999 was issued taking out the posts from the purview of the Staff Selection Commission, revised criteria has since been upheld vide judgment of this court dated 23.5.2001 in Jawahar Lal Goel v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 15885 of 2000. Affidavit dated 2.3.2002 has been filed stating that in CWP No. 6249 of 1994, stay was granted on 17.5.1994 which petition was disposed of on 19.1.1996. In CWP No. 7692 of 1998, declaration of final result of advertisement dated 7.11.1996 was stayed. Similar stay order was passed in CWP No. 6370 of 1999, CWP No. 3692 of 1998 was dismissed on 25.8.1998 but CWP No. 7692 of 1998 was still pending. Rules were amended on May 12, 1998 and fresh process of recruitment was started which was challenged in CWP No. 15885 of 2001 which has been dismissed on May 23, 2001. Selections pursuant to certain advertisements where there was no stay have already been made. Vide affidavit dated 4.3.2002, it was stated that ad hoc appointments are banned and policy of the Government was not to allow continuation of adhocism and all vacant posts are to be filled up by regular recruitment process. However, contractual appointments could be made.

3.2 Respondent Nos. 3 to 84 have been added on their request claiming to have been regularly selected as school teachers during the pendency of this petition.

3.3 Stand of the respondents in the case of instructors/language teachers in Industrial Training Institutes (CWP No. 8377 and 9627 of 2002) is almost identical to the stand in relation to school teachers. It is stated that petitioners had no right to continue after availability of regularly selected candidates. It is also stated that since the petitioners have continued in service by virtue of interim orders, they could not plead that they had rendered long service to claim regularisation. It is also stated that qualifications for recruitment have undergone a change by virtue of Haryana Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department Field Officers (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 which have been upheld. Respondent Nos. 3 to 29 were added on their own request claiming that they had been selected by the Haryana Staff Selection Board pursuant to advertisement dated 19.1.2000 for which result was declared in November 2002. It is stated that out of 101 persons recommended, 57 have already joined but because of stay granted in favour of the petitioners, the said respondents have not been able to join and were not being appointed.

3.4 We tried to ascertain the statistical data relevant for decision of these cases, namely total number of ad hoc employees, total number of vacant posts, total recruitments already made on regular basis and number of persons who have not been able to join. We are proceeding on the basis of such information as has been furnished. Learned counsel for the State mainly relied on affidavit dated 2.3.2002 (Para II) where number of posts advertised from time to time is mentioned. The figure comes to about 5000. According to para 15 of the writ petition, number of posts to be filled up was about 13000 while according to Annexure P.4, news item, abut 6500 ad hoc teachers were working. In CWP No. 1701 of 2002, 82 persons who claim to have been regularly selected have sought to become party while in CWP No. 9627 of 2002, 27 persons have applied for being added as parties on the ground that they have been regularly selected and have not been able to join. Most of the employees working have completed more than five years of service and large number of them are working since 1994. Reference has been made to stay order granted on 17.5.1994 which continued till 19.11.1996. After the said date, there has been no stay against appointment but only against declaration of final result. Apart from 109 persons who have been added as parties who claim to have been regularly selected, it is not shown that there are any other persons who may have been regularly selected but may not have been able to join or where process of regularisation may have been finalised but results may not have been declared.

4. Shri G.K. Chatrath, learned Senior Advocate appearing in CWP Nos. 396, 8377 and 9627 of 2002 and connected petitions contended that appointment of the petitioners cannot be held to be back-door appointments and they are fully eligible and qualified; their names were taken from the employment exchange; the posts were advertised, giving equal opportunity to all eligible persons; the petitioners were subjected to selection process and were selected and after working for six/seven years, the petitioners could not be removed from service without there being any policy whatsoever to regularise them. Mr. Chatrath mainly relied on law laid down in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 [LQ/SC/1992/511] , Jacob M. Puhuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority and others, AIR 1990 SC 2228 [LQ/SC/1990/563] and Dharwad P.W.D. v. State of Karnataka, 1990(2) SCC 396. Learned counsel also referred to judgments in Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and others, JT 2001(2) SC 16 [LQ/SC/2001/180] ; Bharatiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. UOI and others, AIR 1987 SC 2342 [LQ/SC/1987/714] , Dhirendera Chamoli v. State of U.P., AIR 1986(1) SC 637, Inder Pal Yadav and others v. UOI and others, 1985(2) SC 248, U.P. Income Tax Department Contingent v. UOI, AIR 1988 SC 517 [LQ/SC/1987/819] , Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Union v. P.L. Singh and others, AIR 1988 SC 519 [LQ/SC/1987/824] , Chief Conservator of Forests v. J.M. Kandhare, 1996(1) SLR 56, Karnataka State Pvt. College v. State of Karnataka, 1992(2) SCC 229; R.K. Sain v. UOI, JT 2000(9) SC 299 [LQ/SC/2000/1262] ; HMT v. M. Rangareddy, 2001(1) SCT 262, Raj Narain Parsad v. State of U.P., 1998(8) SCC 476, State of H.P. v. Umedh Ram Sharma, 1986(2) SCC 68, Arun Tewari and others v. Z.M. Shikshak Sangh and others, JT 1997(9) SC 593 [LQ/SC/1997/1582] ; Ku Srilekha Vidyarthi v. State of UP and others, JT 1990(4) SC 211 [LQ/SC/1990/571] and Government of Tamil Nadu v. G. Mohammed Ameenudeen, JT 1999(9) SC 173 [LQ/SC/1999/245] .

4.1 Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing in CWP No. 17763 of 1999 and 1701 of 2002 apart from adopting the submissions of Shri Chatrath, submitted that various posts of Masters/teachers/lecturers (School Cadre) were advertised by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana Staff Selection Commission in the years 1994-95, 1996 and 1997 but no selection was made. Now the Government has dissolved the Staff Selection Commission and a fresh advertisement dated 14.11.1999 for filing up 6500 posts has been issued and according to the said advertisement, selection is to be made by District level committee almost in the same in which the petitioners have already been selected. He submitted that services of such temporary teachers who have worked for several years could not be terminated when such teachers had been appointed after undergoing process of selection. He places reliance on the judgments relied by Shri Chatrath and judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Lecturers Forum v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1993(4) SLR 262, judgment of the Supreme Court in Rabi Narayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa and others, 1991(2) SCC 559. He also submitted that there are sufficient vacancies to accommodate persons selected and the petitioners. He also relies on 1999(4) SCC 62 (sic), Arun Kumar Rout v. State of Bihar and others, 1998(9) SCC 71, Indian Petrochemicals Corporation v. Shramik Sena and others, 1999(6) SCC 439 and P. Mohan Reddy v. E.A.A. Charles and others, JT 2001(3) SC 1 [LQ/SC/2001/435 ;] ">JT 2001(3) SC 1 [LQ/SC/2001/435 ;] [LQ/SC/2001/435 ;] . He also submitted that stand that regular selection could not be made on account of stay; could not be accepted as stay was against finalisation of the result only and could not be used as an excuse for not making selections. He submitted that wherever Government wanted to make regular selections, regular selections have been made. He submitted that fresh process of selection has been started only on account of change of government. He also submitted that reply filed to affidavit dated 2.3.2002/4.3.2002 shows that large number of ad hoc appointments are still being made. He submitted that for certain categories, no selection process was initiated at all like Math Teachers, Science Masters and female social studies teachers. Shri Puneet Bali, learned counsel for the petitioners adopted the submissions of Mr. Chatrath.

4.2 Shri Surya Kant Sharma, learned Advocate General, Haryana submitted that regularisation could not be ordered irrespective of availability of vacancies when regular selections were being made. Ad hoc/temporary employees could not make a claim for regularisation when regularly recruited employees had become available. He also submitted that case of an employee continuing under order of the court is to be distinguished from a case where no steps are taken for regularisation. He referred to affidavit dated 2.3.2002 in CWP No. 1701 of 2002. He also relies on judgment of this court dated 23.5.2001 in CWP No. 15885 of 2000 wherein revised criteria for short-listing was upheld and on judgment in Arundhati v. State of Maharashtra, 1994(5) SLR 234 wherein even nine years service was not held enough for regularisation. Further reliance is placed on decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 [LQ/SC/1992/511] (supra), M.S. Haque v. Union of India, JT 1993(2) SC 265 [LQ/SC/1993/151] , J&K PSC v. Narinder Mohan, AIR 1994 SC 1808 [LQ/SC/1993/1054] ; P. Ravindaran v. U.T. Pondicherry, 1997(1) SCC 350 and Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. and others v. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao etc., 1996(1) SLR 805. He also submitted that regularisation was a concession for which a direction could not be issued by the court and relied upon Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, 1992(5) SLR 86, Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Samaresh Bhowmick and others, 1999(3) RSJ 416; Asif Hameed and others v. State of J&K and others, AIR 1989 SC 1899 [LQ/SC/1989/308] ; Meera Messay v. S.R. Mahrotra, AIR 1998 SC 1152.

4.3. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the selected candidates who have been added as respondents in CWP No. 9627 of 2002 submitted that his clients applied as per advertisement dated 19.1.2000 for which interviews were held in July 2002 and result was declared in November 2002 but because of the order of status quo, his clients were not being appointed. He submitted that ad hoc employees had no right to compel the Government to regularise them. Reliance is placed on Sanjay Kumar v. HUDA, 2000(2) SCT 715 (P&H); The State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha and others, 1973(2) SLR 137. He submitted that appointment letter itself shows that appointment was till regular employees became available. He submits that concession was not a right as held in K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty and another v. The State of Mysore, 1967 SLR 198 [LQ/SC/1966/290] and no mandamus could be issued to regularise ad hoc employees as held in Tech. Executive (Anti Pollution) Welfare Association v. Commissioner of Transport Deptt. and another, 1997(2) SLR 506 and K. Shekar v. V. Indiramma, 2002(2) SCT 381. Mr R.K. Malik, appearing for the selected candidates i.e. respondent Nos. 3 to 84 in CWP No. 1701 of 2002 relied on E. Ramakrishan and others v. The State of Kerala, 1997(1) SLR 581 and Dr. Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan, 2003(3) SCC 485.

5. The petitioners contend that their services cannot be terminated as they were qualified and eligible at the time of their appointment. They were subjected to a selection process. It is stated that if for nine years, selection process has not been finalised, the petitioners cannot be thrown on road at this stage when there are sufficient vacancies to accommodate the petitioners as well as persons selected so far.

5.1 Contentions on behalf of the State are that merely by making appointment on stop-gap basis, the State does not owe any obligation to the persons appointed and policy of the State is to terminate the services of all persons appertained on ad hoc basis and to substitute them by regularly selected persons.

6. Following questions fall for consideration :

(i) Whether a direction for framing a policy for regularisation can be issued in the circumstances

(ii) Whether persons termination of services of the petitioners will be justified

(iii) Whether persons regularly selected or to be selected can be denied appointments on the ground that ad hoc employees are working.

6.1 Before answering the above questions, a brief reference to the case law on the point, to the extent necessary, may be made.

6.2 Both the parties have placed their strong reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in Piara Singhs case. In the said case, a large number of ad hoc employees were appointed who continued to work for number of years and though various policies for regularisation were made, direction was issued by this court to treat employees as regular numbers of service on completion of one year/two years ignoring notional and permissible breaks in service, rejecting the contentions that an employee should be in service on a particular date, should have been sponsored by employment exchange and the posts should not be within the purview of Service Selection Board. Rights of employees governed by Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the extent they had better rights under the said law were left undisturbed, while disapproving blanket direction of this court, the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines but the main case was disposed of in terms of policy decision dated 6.4.1990.

6.3 The Apex Court observed that ordinarily speaking, the creation and abolition of a post is the prerogative of the Executive. Court comes into play to ensure observance of fundamental rights and statutory provisions. Concern of the court is to ensure rule of law and to see that executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees. A person should not be kept in a temporary or ad hoc status for long. Referring to earlier decisions in Dharwad and Jacob, it was observed that court has to act with due care and caution. Taking a pragmatic approach (Paras 10 to 12), the policy which was approved by the Apex Court provided for regularisation of employees who had worked for two years in ad hoc category and four years in work-charged category apart from certain other categories, it was observed that regular recruitment was the normal rule but where ad hoc appointments are made an ad hoc employee should be replaced by a regularly selected employee as early as possible and such an employee should be normally drawn from the employment exchange. Normally, a qualified person should be appointed if for any reason, ad hoc employee continues for fairly long spell, his case for regularisation subject to his eligibility and his record being satisfactory, consistent with reservation policy must be considered and a scheme must be framed. Para 25 (of the AIR) is extracted below :

"Before parting with this case, we think it appropriate to say a few words concerning the issue of regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees in Government service.

The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employees by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary employee.

Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.

Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly.

An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes.

If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State.

The proper course would be that each State prepares a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already framed, the same may be made consistent with our observations herein so as to reduce avoidable litigation in this behalf. If and when such person is regularised he should be placed immediately below the last regularly appointed employee in that category, class or service, as the case may be.

So far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell - say two or three years - a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for that person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Government of Haryana (contained in its letter dated 6.4.90 referred to hereinbefore) both in relation to work-charged employees as well as casual labour.

We must also say that the orders issued by the Governments of Punjab and Haryana providing for regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees who have put in two years/one year of service are quite generous and leave no room for any legitimate grievance by any one.

These are but a few observations which we thought it necessary to make impelled by the facts of this case, and the spate of litigation by such employees. They are not exhaustive nor can they be understood as immutable. Each Government or authority has to devise its own criteria or principles for regularisation having regard to all the relevant circumstances, but while doing so, it should bear in mind the observations made herein."

6.4 In Chief Conservator of Forest (supra), the Apex Court approved the view taken by the Industrial Court that employees who have worked for 5-6 years, were entitled to be treated as regular employees. The decision in Piara Singh (supra) was followed. In Gujarat Agricultural University (supra), the Apex Court approved the direction of the Industrial Court to regularise services of those workers who had completed 10 years of service. In Piara Singhs case, right to be considered for regularisation after long period of service was recognised. Reference was also made to judgments in Dharwad, HMT and other decisions.

6.5 Since judgment in Bharatiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch, Chamoli and U.P. Income Tax Department, Delhi Municipal Karamchari (supra) are prior to Piara Singh and relevant principles have been discussed in Piara Singh, the said judgments need not be discussed further. In Karnataka State Pvt. College (supra), the Apex Court considered the issue of ad hoc appointments and particularly those made through backdoor to the detriment of eligible meritorious candidates. While observing that the same could not be encouraged, it was observed that the fact that the State took lot of time in making regular selections and had been regularising ad hoc employees could not be ignored. Directions were issued that services of temporary teachers who had worked for three years may not be terminated and they may be absorbed as and when regular vacancies arose. Judgment in R.K. Sain (supra) does not have any direct relevance to the issue with which we are concerned. In HMT (supra), the Apex Court considered the question whether direction of the High Court to frame a scheme for absorbing employees who have worked for more than five years was justified. Referring to Articles 38(1), 39(e) and 43 of the Constitution, it was held that direction to frame scheme for regularisation did not warrant any interference. It was, however, clarified that regular work force could be reassessed and absorption of casual workers will be subject to fulfilment of eligibility qualifications. In Raj Narain Parshad (supra), the court observed that State had to show concern for welfare of workers particularly those who had worked for a number of years and had become ineligible for any other employment. In Government of Tamil Nadu (supra), a direction was issued to frame a scheme to absorb employees who are recruited in the Census work so that they do not lose employment as well as their position in the queue in the employment exchange as a result of retrenchment.

6.6 Lecturers Forum (supra) is a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court mainly based on judgment in Piara Singh (supra). In Rabi Narayan Mohapatra (supra) it was observed that in order to make the existing educational set up effective and efficient, it is necessary to do away with adhocism in teaching appointments. It was further observed that those who had completed one or more year as ad hoc teachers may be considered for regularisation. In Arun Kumar Rout (supra), it was observed that even when a person was not appointed by a regular process, it will be just and proper in the circumstances to regularise such persons having regard to their satisfactory service and they are not guilty of fraud and sharp practice and they are not lacking exquisite qualifications. It was made clear in the said judgment that the order in that case will not be treated as a precedent. Indian Petrochemicalss case (supra) is on different facts. P. Mohan Reddys case (supra) has hardly any relevance for the issue involved in the present case.

6.7 Reference may now be made to decisions relied upon by the counsel for the respondents. In Dr. M.A. Haque, the claim for seniority of ad hoc doctors over regularly selected doctors was rejected. In Arundhatis case (supra), claim of a dentist for regularisation on the ground that he had rendered nine years of service was rejected on the ground that regularisation of Class II post was not permissible without recruitment being made through Public Service Commission. It was held that mere long service could not override the law of recruitment. J&K Public Service Commission case (supra) is also the case where statutorily recruitment was permissible only through Public Service Commission. In P. Ravindran (supra), the court rejected the plea for regularisation to the posts of lecturers, observing that "practice of regularisation except in extraordinary cases by directing the Government to frame a scheme and regularise Class III and Class IV services", has been deprecated. Reference was made to J&K Public Service Commission (supra). As already observed, the said decision like the decisions in M.A. Haque and Arundhati is distinguishable not being cases of Class III and Class IV employees. Cases of Class III and Class IV employees have been considered by the Apex Court in Piara Singhs case (supra). The decisions relied upon by the counsel for the respondents to the extent of holding that regularisation of ad hoc employees was not permissible relate to Class I or Class II posts. Hindustan Shipyard (supra) is a case of regularisation of medical officers. Regularisation was declined following judgment in M.A. Haque (supra), in Pushpa Srivastava (supra), employment of the employee was purely ad hoc for six months and it was held that she could not seek a direction for regularisation on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court in Jacobs case (supra) where a rule itself provided for regularisation after completion of two years service. It cannot be held that direction for framing a scheme for regularisation could not be issued when large number of employees have been allowed to work for years which issue is dealt with in other judgments of the Apex Court referred to above. In Indian Airlines (supra), there was a scheme for regularisation of casual employees and without setting aside the said scheme, directions were issued by the High Court for regularisation contrary to the provisions of the scheme. In that case, it was held that such a direction was not justified. The said judgment has no application to the present case. In Asif Hameed (supra), it was observed that while exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, court does not function as an appellate court nor directs and advises executive in matters of policy about matters which lie within the sphere of legislature or executive "provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers." In that case, a direction to bring a legislation was issued which was disapproved by the Apex Court. The said judgment has no application to the present case. In Meera Messay, the Apex Court was concerned with the question of regularisation of University teachers. It was observed that regularisation of ad hoc teachers excludes other eligible persons and affects teaching standards of University. It was observed that every institute especially University should not create a situation so that they have to condone their own illegality by regularisation. The said judgment also does not help the respondents. The respondents have created a situation whereby they failed to make regular selections within reasonable time. On facts, principle laid down in the said judgment is not applicable to the present case.

6.8 In Sanjay Kumar (supra), a Division Bench of this court following judgment in Piara Singh held that when there was a policy for regularisation, the court could not amend or modify the same. Observations made by this court are in the context of a reasonable and fair policy already in existence. In Subhash Chander Marwaha (supra), it was observed that exigencies of services gave no right to candidates for appointment and that no mandamus could be issued without there being a statutory duty. It has already been made clear that when employees worked on Class III/Class IV posts for a long period and process of regularisation is unduly delayed, a case may be made out for framing a policy of regularisation as held in Piara Singh. In Rajalakshmiah (supra), it was held that a concession could not be claimed as of right and merely because the Government granted some indulgence could not be a ground for claiming a right. The said judgment is not applicable in the situation with which we are concerned. In Technical Executive (supra), it was held that the Central Administrative Tribunal could not give directions to lay down policy or to give direction for promotional avenues. The said judgment cannot be held to have overruled the view taken in Piara Singhs case or other judgments laying down that court could direct framing of a rational policy where employees worked for long periods in Class III or Class IV posts. The judgment is, therefore, distinguishable. K. Shekhar (supra) is a case relating to the appointment of an Additional Professor in a hospital which was a Class I post. In that case, though a temporary tenure post was advertised, by corrigendum, post was made permanent. It was held that post should have been readvertised so as to give fair notice to all respective candidates regarding nature of vacancies. The said judgment is distinguishable and is not applicable on the issue with which we are concerned. In Ramakrishna (supra), wherein in spite of 14 years of service, the employees were not regularised on the ground that recruitment was required to be done according to Public Service Commission norms as per Article 320 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in the said judgment distinguished the earlier judgment in Piara Singh on facts. The judgment is by two Honble Judges and it was not held that observations made in Piara Singhs case will no longer hold the field. In Dr. Chanchal Goyal (supra), the question related to regularisation of medical officer in a Municipal Council and in that context, observations were made that once a regularly selected candidate became available, the ad hoc employee had to be replaced.

7. We now take up for decision questions posed in para 6 above.

7.1 Reference to the above case law shows that principles relevant for these cases have been laid down in Piara Singhs case. As held therein, normal rule is regular recruitment through a prescribed agency. This implies that if on account of exigencies of service, an ad hoc/temporary employee is appointed, he is to be replaced by a regularly selected employee as early as possible and if he is not selected, his services can be terminated. It was further held that if for any reason, ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, authorities must consider his case for regularisation if he is eligible, he is qualified and his service record is satisfactory and proper course would be that a scheme for regularisation is prepared for such employees. These observations have been distinguished while dealing with the cases of Class I and Class II posts or other sensitive posts where on account of nature of appointments, continuing ad hoc appointees by way of regularisation would harm public interest. Mere delay in making regular appointments is not always conclusive. Mere holding of post for a long period also does not by itself confer right to seek regularisation. At the same time, if ad hoc employees are continued for a long period, appointments made on ad hoc basis are out of eligible and qualified persons, their service record is satisfactory and their appointment is not contrary to relevant rules, court may not itself frame a policy or direct regularisation but can certainly direct framing of a policy for regularisation. Long service rendered by such employees is a relevant circumstance which cannot be ignored. There cannot be any strait-jacket principle but overall situation has to be looked into in the right of principles laid down in the above judgments.

7.2 In the present case, ad hoc recruitment made are not shown in any manner to be contrary to rules when made nor it is shown that at the time of appointment, the petitioners were not eligible or qualified. It cannot thus be said that no direction is called for framing a policy for regularisation. It is not shown that there will be any qualitative difference in parameters for selection which are proposed to be followed and whether it will be for the betterment or efficiency of the Administration to terminate services of employees who have actually worked for more than five years, having been subjected to a selection process and being fully qualified at the time of appointment, when their service record is satisfactory. It is also not shown that how slight modification in the qualifications that may have been made in service rules will materially affect working of the employees who have already been working for the last several years and who are at par with employees who have already been regularised under the earlier policies. It is also not shown that employees are guilty to fraud and sharp practice in getting employment or that respondents are not at all responsible in allowing the employees to work for a long period and in not making regular selection within reasonable time. It is also not shown that sufficient large number of regular employees are available who can replace existing employees working on ad hoc basis.

7.3 Principles of fairplay are inherent in Articles 14, 16 and 21 and persons who render service even on ad hoc/temporary basis for a fairly long period and required to be considered on rational basis. Even though, court may not issue any blanket direction for regularisation except where a very long service is rendered, court cannot ignore the realities of life and injustice or hardship which may be suffered by a person who has worked for several years by abrupt termination of services. To enforce fundamental rights (Under Articles) 14, 16 and 21, the court can require a public authority/State to formulate a rational policy meeting the standards of fairness and though it primarily has to be left to the executive to decide what will be a fair policy but if the stand of the executive is not to frame any policy, such stand has to be disapproved and direction issued to either formulate a fair policy which may not render persons who have rendered sufficient service without any remedy and which may not enable the Administration to remove persons working since years and then to appoint fresh candidates.

8. For the above reasons, we hold that a case is made out for issuing a direction to frame a policy for regularisation and blanket termination of existing ad hoc/temporary employees will not be justified. Regularly selected candidates have to be appointed as per directions in the next para.

9. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions :

A. The State of Haryana will frame a rational policy within six months for regularisation of ad hoc employees laying down parameters about length of service, eligibility for regularisation and treatment to be given to the past service. The said policy will include at least those employees who have rendered five years of service as on 31.3.2003.

B. The State will be free to take appropriate decision about the appointment of 109 persons regularly selected and adjust them either against existing vacancies or otherwise subject to direction A.

C. Finalise number of vacancies that still be available after working out the scheme as may be framed as per direction A and make regular selections on the said posts in accordance with law.