JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Divisional Personnel Officer, Allahabad, dated 26-9-1977, informing the petitioner that his appointment was ad hoc against the sports quota and directing him to appear at the mass written examination for recruitment to non-technical class III initial recruitment category conducted by the Railway Service Commission, Calcutta. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are necessary to be noted. The petitioner is a graduate of Allahabad University. On 16th November, 1975, he addressed an application to the Ministry of Railways, New Delhi, stating therein that he was a graduate and he has been participating in extra curricular activities, he has been living in most adverse circumstances and be desperately required a job. Sri J.N. Misra, the Special Assistant to the then Minister of Railways forwarded the petitioner's application to the General Manager, Eastern, Railway Calcutta, alongwith his D.O. letter dated 21-11-1975 stating that he was directed to send the petitioner's application and the Minister for Railways desired that the petitioner may be considered for appointment to class III post against sports quota of Eastern Railway. In accordance with the direction contained in the D.O. letter of the Special Assistant, the General Manager of Eastern Railway issued orders for the petitioner's appointment on 9th December, 1975. The Divisional Personnel Officer, Danapur, issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 7th January, 1976, offering appointment on a temporary post of office clerk in a temporary capacity with a condition that his services were liable to be terminated any time. The petitioner was directed to submit his certificates and to signify his acceptance. The petitioner complied with the directions. Thereupon, the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Danapur, issued appointment letter on 9th January, 1976, appointing the petitioner to the temporary post of clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (RS)and posted him at Moghalsarai, in the Office of the Train Lighting Inspector. Later, on an application made by the petitioner he was transferred to the Northern Railway and posted in Allahabad, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 26-9-1977 issued by the Divisional Personnel Officer intimating him that his appointment was cancelled and he was treated as ad hoc in railway service. Later, on an application made by the petitioner he was transferred to the Northern Railway and posted in Allahabad, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 26-9-1977 issued by the Divisional Personnel Officer intimating him that his appointment was cancelled and he was treated as ad hoc in railway service. He was directed to appear at the next written examination for recruitment to non-technical class III posts conducted by the Railway Service Commission on 9th October, 1977. The notice further stated that if the petitioner failed to appear at the said examination or if he was not selected by the Railway Service Commission, his service would be terminated. The petitioner thereupon filed this petition challenging the validity of the aforesaid notice dated 26-9-1977. 3. Sri S.C. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the petitioner was appointed by the General Manager against the sports quota for which he was specially authorised, his appointment was regular and in accordance with the relevant rules. The Railway Administration had no jurisdiction to cancel his appointment or to direct him to appear at the competitive examination held by the Railway Service Commission. On the other hand, Sri Lalji Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-railway administration contended that the General Manager had appointed the petitioner in class III railway service directly, illegally in contravention of the statutory rules relating to the recruitment of class III railway servants. He referred to various orders issued by the Railway Board authorising the General Manager to make direct recruitment against certain limited number of posts earmarked for various categories and submitted that the petitioner's appointment was made in contravention of those directions. In order to determine the controversy raised by the parties it would be necessary to refer to the service rales and the orders issued by the Railway Board from time to time. 4. The President of India has framed rules under Article 309 of the Constitution regulating the recruitment and other terms and conditions of service of railway servants. Under rule 105 of the Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I, Railway Services have been classified in gazetted and non-gazetted classes. Rules 134 to 158 deal with recruitment, training and promotion of gazetted railway servants. Rules 136 and 137 contain provisions for recruitment, promotion and transfer of non-gazetted railway servants. These rules are in the following terms. 5. 136(1). Under rule 105 of the Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I, Railway Services have been classified in gazetted and non-gazetted classes. Rules 134 to 158 deal with recruitment, training and promotion of gazetted railway servants. Rules 136 and 137 contain provisions for recruitment, promotion and transfer of non-gazetted railway servants. These rules are in the following terms. 5. 136(1). Non-gazetted posts on Indian Railways and other railway administrations shall be filled in either of the following ways according to the relevant recruitment rules of other extent orders, if any:- (i) by direct recruitment. (ii) by promotion: (iii) by transfer of suitable staff, if necessary, from other Government offices. (2) Direct recruitment to Railway Service, Class III, shall be made through the agency of the Railway Service Commission, unless otherwise specially authorised by the Railway Board. 137. Recruitment to Class III and IV Staff. Rules for the recruitment of non-gazetted railway service are contained in Chapter I of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. 6. Rule 136 lays down that non-gazetted posts on Indian Railways shall be filled by three modes by direct recruitment, by promotion of Class IV railway servants and by transfer of other Government Servants. Clause (2) of rule 136 lays down a mandate that direct recruitment to class III railway service shall be made through the agency of the Railway Service Commission subject to one exception that direct recruitment may be made to railway service Class III posts if it is specially authorised by the Railway Board. Rule 137 provides that the rules for recruitment of non-gazetted railway servants shall be the same as contained in Chapter I of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Chapter I of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual contains rules for recruitment and training of class III and class IV railway servants. These rules prescribe qualifications, age and other allied matters. Rule 109 of Chapter I of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter referred to as the Manual) lays down that direct recruitment to fill class III posts on the Indian Railways will be made through the Railway Service Commission sitting at Allahabad, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras or by the Railway Administration where specially authorised by the Railway Board. The rule further remarks areas for which the Railway Service Commission are authorised to make recruitment. The rule further remarks areas for which the Railway Service Commission are authorised to make recruitment. Railway Service Commission, Calcutta, is authorised to make direct recruitment to fill class III posts in Eastern Railway, South Eastern Railway, Chitrunjan Locomotive Works, and Railway Electrification. The Railway Service Commission at Allahabad is similarly authorised to make recruitment for Northern Railway, North Eastern Railway and Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi. Rules 136 and 137 of the Railway Establishment Code read with rules contained in Chapter I of the Manual make it amply clear that direct recruitment to class III Railway Service is permissible only through the agency of the Railway Service Commission except where the Railway Administration is specially authorised by the Railway Board to make direct recruitment. 7. The Railway Board in pursuance of rule 136(2) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I, has authorised direct recruitment to railway service class III Posts. The appointments specially authorised are (i) on compassionate grounds; (ii) against sports quota to the extent the posts are earmarked for the quota provided the candidates satisfy the standards laid down by the Railway Sports Control Board; (iii) appointment for the words of loyal railway staff within the quota of 20 per cent vacancies; (iv) scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates where the Railway Service Commission is unable to fill the reserved quota and there is short-fall and (v) appointment of teachers in railway schools. The Board has authorised the General Managers of the Zonal Railways to make direct appointments to Class III posts against the aforesaid categories subject to the directions issued by it from time to time. Any direction issued by the Railway Board laying down norms assumes statutory character in view of rule 136 (2) and rule 157 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. I. The General Manager has no authority to make any appointment in contravention of the rules and directions issued by the Railway Board and if he makes and direct recruitment to class III posts in contravention of those directions the appointment would be illegal. 8. In the instant case we are concerned with the petitioners appointment against the sports quota, so we would now consider the directions issued by the Railway Board authorising the General Manager to make direct recruitment of sportsman in Class III posts. 8. In the instant case we are concerned with the petitioners appointment against the sports quota, so we would now consider the directions issued by the Railway Board authorising the General Manager to make direct recruitment of sportsman in Class III posts. The Railway Board by its circular letter dated 13th September, 1965 conferred power on the General Manager of Zonal Railways to recruit standing sportsmen in class III service and it earmarked eighteen posts in each Zonal Railway, appointments to which could be made in a year. The Railway Board by its circular letter dated 10th December, 1975, (Annexure B to the counter-affidavit of J.M. Guha) increased the quota for direct recruitment by the General Manager against the sports quota from 18 to 24 per year for Central, Eastern, Northern, Southern, South Eastern and Western Railway while in South Central, North Eastern and North East Frontier Railways the quota of 18 was maintained. The Railway Board directed that out of 24 posts sanctioned for one year for the Central, Eastern Northern, South Eastern and Eastern Railways, four vacancies shall be filled and controlled by the Ministry of Railways. The Railway Board further directed the General Managers to ascertain that the quota fixed for sportsmen is not exceeded in a particular year. The Railway Board has laid down minimum norms for recruitment of sportsmen against the sports quotas, which were communicated to the Railway authorities under a letter of the Secretary, Railway Sports Control Board, dated 29th December, 1975 (Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit of Shri Guha). The Railway Board directed that only those sportsmen shall be eligible for appointment who may have represented in any of the games recognised by the Railway Sports Control Board at a State level, or-equivalent unit in the National Championship in either junior or senior section and may have obtained at least third position, or represented a University in Inter-University Tournaments conducted by the inter-University Sports Board and obtained at least third,position or represented a State Schools Team in the National Gaines for Schools conducted by the All India Schools Games for Federation and obtained at least third position. The sportsmen participating in teams games like hockey, Football, cricket, volleyball, basket ball, Kabaddi, etc. were also eligible for appointment provided that they had obtained fourth position in any of the aforesaid games or tournaments. The sportsmen participating in teams games like hockey, Football, cricket, volleyball, basket ball, Kabaddi, etc. were also eligible for appointment provided that they had obtained fourth position in any of the aforesaid games or tournaments. The norms laid down by the Railway Board as communicated by the aforesaid letter of the Secretary of the Railway Sports Control Board had binding force and the General Manager could not ignore those directions in making direct recruitment to class III posts against the sports quota. The circular letters of the Railway Board further show that the General Manager of Eastern Railways was authorised to make direct recruitment to the extent of 24 persons to class III posts against the sports quota in one year. The petitioner that he was appointed by the General Manager against the sports quota within the strength fixed by the Railway Board. This assertion is vehemently denied in the counter-affidavit of Shri J. N. Guha, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer. He has asserted that the petitioner's appointment was made in excess of the sports quota on the material date and the norms as laid down by the Railway Board to judge the suitability of sportsmen for appointment against the sports quota were not followed and the petitioner did not fulfil the same. The petitioners ascertain that he was an outstanding sportsman is further denied and it has been asserted that the petitioner's appointment was made by the General Manager on extraneous considerations. Shri Khare disputed the correctness of the averments contained in the affidavit of Shri Guha. On his insistance, directed Shri Lalji Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent Railway, produce the original records before the court to ascertain the correct facts. Shri Sinha produced the original records including the recruitment register relating to the recruitment of sportsmen in the Eastern Railway for the year 1975-76. On a perusal of the same, as find that in the petitioner's application addressed to the Railway Minister, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-K to the affidavit of Shri Guha, he had never asserted that he was sportsman of outstanding character or that he had ever represented the school team, University team or participated in any State level tournaments and obtained third or fourth position as laid down by the Railway Board. The petitioner's application was sent to the General Manager of Eastern Railway by Shri J.N. Misra, the Special Assistant to the then Railway Minister under his D.O. letter dated 21st November, 1975. In his D.O. letter, Shri Misra stated that the Railway Minister desired that the petitioner be appointed against the supports quota. On the receipt of the D. O. letter the General Manager treated the direction contained in the letter of Sri, Misra as the direction of the Railway Minister and in pursuance of that order be appointed the petitioner to Class III post against the sports quota. There is nothing on the original record to show that the General Manager obtained any report as to whether there was any vacancy against the sports quota or if the petitioner's appointment would be in excess of the quota fixed by the Railway Board. He further failed to make any enquiry as to whether the petitioner fulfilled the norms laid down by the Railway Board for direct recruitment against the sports quota. In fact no enquiry relating to the petitioner's proficiency in the sports was made by the General Manager before making the appointment. On a perusal of the recruitment register as maintained in the Eastern Railway showing the details of the appointments made against the sports quota in that division for the years 1975-76, we find that the General Manager had appointed 62 persons against the sports quota. Although the Railway Board, had authorised him to appoint only 24 persons, the petitioner's appointment was at SI. No. 32. These facts clearly show that the General Manager appointed the petitioner in excess of the sports quota authorised by the Railway Board without ascertaining as to whether the petitioner fulfilled the norms laid down by the Railway Board for appointment against the sports quota. The petitioner has failed even to place any material before this Court to show that he fulfilled the said norms. The petitioner has asserted that he represented his college in Kabaddi, but that did not make him eligible for appointment against the sports quota. We are therefore of the opinion that the petitioner's appointment was made in contravention of the statutory rule 136 of the Railway Establishment Code Vol. I as well as in violations of the rules laid down by the Railway Board. We are therefore of the opinion that the petitioner's appointment was made in contravention of the statutory rule 136 of the Railway Establishment Code Vol. I as well as in violations of the rules laid down by the Railway Board. The General Manager appointed the petitioner as he considered himself legally bound to carry out the directions contained in the D.O. letter of Shri Misra, and for that reason he did not apply his mind to the question whether the petitioner was eligible for appointment against the sports quota and if there was any vacancy in that quota for the year 1975-76. Shri Khare urged that the General Manager was competent to relax rules and in the instant case while appointing the petitioner he relaxed the rules. He placed reliance on rule 113 of the Railway Establishment Manual. We find no merit in the contention. Rule 157 of the Railway Establishment Code provides that the rules for recruitment of non-gazetted railway servants are contained in Chapter I of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Rule 157 confers power on the Railway Board to make rules for general application to non-gazetted railway servants under their control. The Railway Board has framed rules in exercise of its powers under rule 157 for the recruitment and training of Class III and Class IV railway servants. These rules are contained in Chapter I of section B of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Rule 109 prescribes the method for making the appointment to fill class 111 posts. It lays down that direct recruitment to class III post on the Indian Railway shall be made through the Railway Service Commission. Rule 110 prescribes procedure for advertisement inviting applications for employment. Rule 113 reads as follows: "113. The General Manager or the Chief Administrative Officer may, in special circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax or modify these rules in specific individual cases. They case also issue orders for deviation from these rules in respect of certain categories or on certain occasions provided such relaxations are purely on a temporary long term of permanent alteration of the rules". The above rule empowers General Manager to relax or modify the rules contained in the Railway Establishment Manual in specific individual cases under special circumstances for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The above rule empowers General Manager to relax or modify the rules contained in the Railway Establishment Manual in specific individual cases under special circumstances for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The power to relax or modify rules is not a blanket one, instead it is circumscribed by three conditions which must be fulfilled before that power is exercised. Relaxation cannot be general, it must be in individual case in special circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing. These safeguards have been prescribed to ensure that this power is not exercised arbitrary on extraneous consideration. 9. Rule 113 confers power to relax or modify the rules contained in the Railway Establishment Manual as would appear from the expression "relax or modify these rules" in individual cases. Rule 113 does not confer power on the General Manager to relax or modify the rules contained in the Railway Establishment Code, as the rules contained in the Railway Establishment Code have been framed by the President of India under Article 309 of the Constitution, whereas the rules contained in Railway Establishment Manual have been framed by the Railway Board in exercise of the delegated authority under rule 157. The General Manager could not be invested with power to relax or modify the rules framed by the President of India. The General Manager has no authority in law to make direct recruitment to Class III Railway Service without selection through the Railway Service Commission as contemplated by rule 136, except in cases he is specially authorised to do so. The General Manager could not relax or modify the rules requiring direct recruitment to class III railway service through the Railway Service Commission under Rule 113 of the Railway Establishment Manual. The petitioner has, however failed to place any material before the Court to show that the General Manager exercised his power to relax any of the rules. In the circumstances the petitioner's contention must fail. 10. Learned counsel raised the plea of estoppel and urged that since the petitioner was offered appointment by the General Manager and as the petitioner accepted the employment, the railway administration is now estopped from training the petitioner's appointment as irregular or illegal. The General Manager had the authority to make appointment and the petitioner changed his position by accepting the offer made by the General Manager. We find no substance in the contention. The General Manager had the authority to make appointment and the petitioner changed his position by accepting the offer made by the General Manager. We find no substance in the contention. The doctrine of estoppel is generally based upon the principles of equity. As discussed earlier the petitioner's appointment was made in contravention of the statutory rules framed by the President of India. The Railway Administration or the Union of India is not bound by any unauthorised or illegal action of its officers. The Railway Administration is merely regulating the petitioner's appointment and for that purpose it has asked the petitioner to appear for selection before the Railway Service Commission. In doing so, the Railway Administration is merely complying with the requirements of statutory rules. None of the equities are in petitioner's favour. The plea of estoppel cannot be pressed into service as it is well settled that there can not be any estoppel against the Government in exercising its jurisdictions or in exercising its powers under statutory provisions. No plea of estoppel operates against statute. The plea of estoppel against the Government in exercise of its legislative, sovereign or executive powers cannot be sustained. See Excise Commissioner of U.P. v. Ram Kumar (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2237) and Bihar E.G.F. Cooperative Society v. Sipahi Singh (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2237). 11. Learned Counsel then urged that the action against the petitioner and other similarly placed employees has been taken by the Railway Administration malafide. In support of the plea of mala fide the petitioner has asserted that there are two Unions in the Divisions of Zonal Railways, namely, Railway Mazdoor Union and Railwaymen's Union. The Railway Mazdoor Union is affiliated to the Congress Party, while the Railwaymen's Union is affiliated to Janata Party. There has been political bickering and bitter difference between the two Unions. After the general elections held in March, 1977, the Janata Party came into power and Sri Madhu Dandavate became Railway Minister. As Sri Madhu Dandavate was opposed to Sri Kamlapati Tripathi and to the Railway Mazdoor Union, he is keen to undo all actions of the erstwhile Railway Minister Sri Kamlapati Tripathi irrespective of the fact that the action of the former Minister was good or bad, as a result of which a large number of employees are suffering every day. As Sri Madhu Dandavate was opposed to Sri Kamlapati Tripathi and to the Railway Mazdoor Union, he is keen to undo all actions of the erstwhile Railway Minister Sri Kamlapati Tripathi irrespective of the fact that the action of the former Minister was good or bad, as a result of which a large number of employees are suffering every day. Sri Madhu Dandavate in pursuance of his ulterior motive and in collusion with the Railwaymen's Union decided to cancel all the appointments made during the period 17-2-1976 to 31-3-1977 (the period during which Sri Kamlapati Tripathi was Railway Minister). It was at the instance of Sri Madhu Dandavate, the Railway Minister, that the Railway Ministry and the Railway Board issued directions to the Zonal Railways to cancel the appointments made during the regime of Sri Kamlapati Tripathi and to direct them to apply afresh for appointment to the Railway Service Commission. The direction issued in the Railway Board's circular letter dated 23-7-1977 is in furtherance of the said, policy. 12. The allegations of mala fide have been denied by Sri Madhu Dandavate, the Railway Minister. In his affidavit, he has asserted that when he assumed the office of the Minister of Railways in March, 1977, a number of complaints were received by him from the members of public that a large number of appointments were made in the Railways during the period 1974 to 1977 in contravention of the Rules. This question was raised by the members of Parliament on the floor of the House. He directed the Railway Board to hold investigation into the complaints. The Railway Board submitted its report to him that out of total appointments made during the aforesaid period a large number of them were made under extraneous circumstances in contravention of the Rules. The Railway Board further pointed out that the then Special Assistant and the personal Staff attached to the Minister of Railways and the Deputy Minister of Railways used to issue obit to the General Managers of Railways saying that the Minister desired that "so and so be considered for appointment as such and such". Initially the officials concerned pointed out that such appointments were not covered by any rules and expressed their inability to make appointments but the officials were told that such notes or chits should be treated as orders of the Minister and carried out. Initially the officials concerned pointed out that such appointments were not covered by any rules and expressed their inability to make appointments but the officials were told that such notes or chits should be treated as orders of the Minister and carried out. Thereafter, the Officers of the Zonal Railway made appointments on the chits issued by the then Special Assistant and the other personal staff attached to the Railway Minister without having any regard to the statutory provisions contained in the rules for recruitment in the railway service. Sri Dandavate has further asserted that a policy decision was taken by the Ministry of Railway that those appointments which were made in class III railway service should be referred to the Railway Service Commission to be considered along with other applications but as regards the appointments made in class TV railways service the appointees should get themselves screened along with others by the usual machinery of the Railways. He has further asserted that several burdened appointments made during the period of Sri Kamlapati Tripathi have not been questioned by him and it was only in respect of those appointments which were made contrary to the rules. He has asserted the petitioner's appointment as well as other employees made during the aforesaid period was temporary in nature and it was open to the Railway Administration to terminate their appointments, but on humanitarian grounds a decision was taken by him to give them an opportunity to appear before the Railway Service Commission and if selected such appointments would be regularised. The decision to regularise the appointments was taken bona fide without any political consideration. 13. In view of the affidavit of Sri Madhu Dandavate it is difficult to uphold the plea of mala fide. The decision to regularise the appointments was taken bona fide without any political consideration. 13. In view of the affidavit of Sri Madhu Dandavate it is difficult to uphold the plea of mala fide. As noted earlier, the petitioner and other similarly situated employees appointed during the regime of Sri Kamlapati Tripathi were temporary and if Sri Madhu Dandavate the present, Railway Minister was out to cancel all the appointments made during the tenure of Sri Kamlapati Tripathi he would have issued direction for the termination of the service of the temporary employees including that of the petitioner, but no such step was taken, instead under the direction of the Railway Ministry the Railway Board issued direction for regularising all the appointments of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and they have been given opportunity to appear before the Railway Service Commission. The petitioner's appointment was made in contravention of the statutory rules and a large number of other appointments were also made in similar fashion. The Railway Ministry was therefore, justified in taking a decision to regularise the appointment so that the complaint about discrimination may be removed and equal opportunity of employment may be afforded to other persons also. Article 16 of the Constitution enjoins equality of opportunity in public employments. That right is denied if appointments in public services are made on recommendations and individual approaches denying...? opportunity to others to compete at the selection for recruitment. Rule 136 of the Code and the rules contained in the Manual make provision for recruitment. Rule 136 of the Code and the rules contained in the Manual make provision for recruitment through the agency of the Railway Service Commission through competitive test on merits. Every eligible candidate has an opportunity to appear at the test and selection is made by the Commission objectively. The procedure provided in the Rules for recruitment through open competitive test through the Railway Service Commission is designed to carry out the purpose of Article 16 of the Constitution to give equal opportunity to the citizens for recruitment in railway service. The procedure followed during the period, in question in making appointments on the basis of chits issued by the staff attached to the erstwhile Railway Minister was violative of equality clause enshrined under Article 17 of the Constitution. The procedure followed during the period, in question in making appointments on the basis of chits issued by the staff attached to the erstwhile Railway Minister was violative of equality clause enshrined under Article 17 of the Constitution. The Railway Administration has therefore rightly taken a decision to remove the inequality and provide opportunity of employment to the petitioner as well as to others. The plea of mala fide is without any foundation and it must fail. 14. Sri Khare then urged that the directions contained in the Railway Board's letter dated 23rd July, 1977, directing that the appointments made in class III railway service during the year 1974-75 and 1976 should be treated as ad hoc appointments is illegal as the Railway Board had no jurisdiction to amend the rules with retrospective effect. Rule 157 of the Railway Establishment Code confers power on the Railway Board to frame rules of general application to non-gazetted railway servants. Railway servants belonging to class III service are non-gazetted and the Railway Board had to frame rules in respect of their service conditions. It is now well settled that the circular letters issued by the Railway Board laying down general conditions of recruitment to class III railway service have statutory character. See Union of India v. Israr Ahmed (Second Appeal No. 2639 of 1971) decided on 20th April, 1976. In B.S. Vadehrq v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 118), the Supreme Court held that since under rule 157 the President has directed the Railway Board to make rules for general application to non-gazetted railway servants under their control, the Railway Board have power to frame rules with retrospective effect. In view of this clear authority the petitioner's contention that the Railway had no jurisdiction to amend the rules with retrospective effect cannot be accepted. But even otherwise we are of the opinion that the Railway Board's circular letter dated 23rd July, 1977 does not operate retrospectively. Under the aforesaid letter the Railway Board drew the attention of the General Managers of Indian Railways to rule 136 and opined that if any appointment during the years 1974, 1975 and 1976 has been made in violation of rule 136 it should be treated as ad hoc appointment. Under the aforesaid letter the Railway Board drew the attention of the General Managers of Indian Railways to rule 136 and opined that if any appointment during the years 1974, 1975 and 1976 has been made in violation of rule 136 it should be treated as ad hoc appointment. The letter further stated that if the appointment in class III service has not been made in the specially authorised category or within the quota fixed for each category the same should be treated as ad hoc appointment and the appointee should be directed to apply to the Railway Service Commission. This direction does not operate with retrospective effect. A large number of appointments were made in the railway service in contravention of the rules under the directions of the Railway Minister or members of his personal staff. In order to regularise the appointments so made, and to remove the discrimination the Ministry of Railways took decision as contained in the Railway Board's letter dated 23rd July, 1977. The petitioner was appointed in a temporary capacity on a temporary post. It was open to the railway administration to terminate his services but the Ministry of Railways appears to have taken a compassionate view and it afforded opportunity to the petitioner to appear at the competitive test held by the Railway Service Commission along with others and if selected his appointment would be regularised. The directions contained in the Railway Board's letter merely seek to regularise the illegal appointments and the direction contained therein operates in present. 15. Mr. Khare urged that the directions contained in the Railway Board's letter that the appointments should be treated as ad hoc appointment to a service and if recruitment is made to that service in breach of those rules, the recruitment or appointment could not be treated as valid. The direction to cancel the earlier appointments substantially means that the appointees should know that their appointment is not regular and they should apply against the next employment notice to the Railway Service Commission, so that their appointments are regularised. The petitioner's services have not been terminated even though his appointment has been directed to be cancelled. The direction to cancel the earlier appointments substantially means that the appointees should know that their appointment is not regular and they should apply against the next employment notice to the Railway Service Commission, so that their appointments are regularised. The petitioner's services have not been terminated even though his appointment has been directed to be cancelled. If his services were terminated on account of the cancellation of the initial order of his appointment, then of course the petitioner's grievance could be (sic) but the Railway Board has treated the petitioner's appointment as ad hoc in nature and he has been given opportunity to acquire right to hold the post after selection by the Railway Service Commission. 16. In view of the above discussion we find no illegality in the action taken by the respondents and none of the petitioner's legal right has been violated. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.