Hansaria, J.- The petitioner, an educated lady, got herself trained to hold a post of Assistant Teacher in Lower primary / Junior Basic / Upper Junior Basic Schools of Manipur. The training was in pursuance of a Government decision to see that the educated youths are successfully employed. The petitioner completed her training in the academic year 1973-74. She duly appeared before a D. P. C. (Departmental Promotion Committee) and her name did find place in the second list recommended by the D. P. C. on 28.1.77. Her name is at serial No. 27 of that 1 st. Respondents No. 5 and 6 found their places at 29 and 30 of this 1st. Respondent No. 7's name 5s not to be found in any of the three lists prepared by the D. P. C. The petitioner came to be first appointed by an order dated 30.11.77. So she found her entrance in the Goverment service on 30.11.77. The second appointment order is dated 8.11.78 and this was to take effect till the return of a teacher from training. To her misfortune, in January, 1980 also she was appointed in the post of "substitute teacher" though respondents No. 5 and 6 were fortunate to be regularised with effect from 5.1.79 and 24.4.79 respectively. As a regular vacancy took place, the peti­tioner approached the authorities to appoint her in that vacancy so that sue could be assured of her livelihood. She had moved even the Chief Minister on 27.6.78 to appoint her on regular basis but her voice did not perhaps reach the Chief Minister, On the Chief Minister did not think it fit to grant the relief. But respondent No 7, whose nuns did not find place in any of the lists of the D. P. C., as already noted, was appointed on 30.10.80 in a regular post through on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner had herself prayed for appointment against that post but her prayer was refuted on the ground, as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition of respondents No. 1 to 4, that the validity of the recommendation of D. P. C. hid expired by that time. Thinking that she would not get relief at the hands of the authorities, she knocked the door of this Court by filling her petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 26.11.80 when she was aged about 29 years of age as per her affidavit. Thinking that she would not get relief at the hands of the authorities, she knocked the door of this Court by filling her petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 26.11.80 when she was aged about 29 years of age as per her affidavit. After the filing of the petition, she however came to lose her job from 13.12.1980. 2. According to the State, respondents No. 5 and 6 were appointed on regular vacancy because the D.P.C. list was not based on merit and so considering the suitability of the candidate, these respondents were so appointed. As to respondent No. 7, the averment is that his appointment was only ad-hoc. 3. Shri R.K. Nokulsana Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the D.P.C.'s lists have to be taken as per order of merit though it has not been specifically so stated. We find that in the first list the D.P.C. had clearly stated that the selection had been made "after giving proper assessment of the candidates." The learned counsel also refers us in this conne­ction to General Principle 4 as finding place in Annexure to Article 26 of the Civil Service Regulations at page 52 of the 11th edition of Chaudri's Compilation. That principle states that in order to obviate difficulties of determining the relative seniority of direct recruits, the selecting authority should indicate the order of merit at the time of selection. Though nothing specific was stated by the D.P.C. that their list was in order of merit, we are inclined to think that this was so. In any case, we are not fully satisfied about the appointment of respondents No. 5 and 6 on regular basis "on consideration of the suitability", as we would have thought that suitability aspect has to be adjudged by a body like the D.P.C. to take cars of "pick and choose" often resorted to by the appointing authorities. 4. The important question is whether the petitioner can be granted any relief now after she has ceased to be in service. 4. The important question is whether the petitioner can be granted any relief now after she has ceased to be in service. Before adverting to this aspect, we may state that we have noted with displeasure that respondent No. 7 should have been appointed on a regular post, may be on ad-hoc basis, though her name was not at all in the lists of the D.P.C. The stand taken by the State that the petitioner could not be appointed to that post as the validity of the D.P.C.'s recommendation had expired is believed by Annexure A/14, by which an ad-hoc appo­intee of 1974 was regularised in 1981. The learned Senior Govt. Advocate states that it is a solitary and one swallow does not make a summer. That may so, but let it be remembered that a pitcher, nay even an ocean, it filled by drops, and one seed germinates a full tree - one idea ignites the whole nation. Then, an employer like the State cannot act with vengeance or however favour on selected few. It seems this State is really plagued with ad-hoc appointments and it is high time for the authorities to sort out this matter to the satisfaction of all concerned. Appointment of somebody beyond the list even on ad-hoc basis makes mockery of the exercise of selection. The fact that it is ad-hoc has no relevancy when many persons from the list await their turn for appointments. To by-pass the list in the guise of giving ad-hoc appointment is a malafide use of power. It smacks of favouritism at the back of which may lie corrup­tion. In these days of large scale unemployment, such actions -become almost revolting and forces people to take to streets to ventilate their grievances. The State has, therefore, to veiw these matters seriously and it has to put its house in order before it is too late. It has to note the writing on the wall and act with speed and sincerely to give clean administration to the people. 5. The learned Senior Govt. Advocate states that there it no regular vacancy now and the petitioner has also crossed the age of 30 years which is the upper limit for appointment to Government service as stated in the Government Notification No. 1/16/72-S dated 12.10.1972 at Annexure B/3. 5. The learned Senior Govt. Advocate states that there it no regular vacancy now and the petitioner has also crossed the age of 30 years which is the upper limit for appointment to Government service as stated in the Government Notification No. 1/16/72-S dated 12.10.1972 at Annexure B/3. In this conne­ction we have noted communication No. 1/8/81-S (DP) dated 30.4.81 which has stated that in determining the qualifying age for ad-hoc employees for the purpose of regularisation, their age on the first appointment on ad-hoc shall be reckoned. This Court had occasion to refer to that Notification in C. R. No. 11 of 1982, which was disposed of on 28.4.82. 6. As to the over-age of the petitioner by now, we will first say that she was not above 30 when she had approached this Court. If her case could not be taken up for final hearing before to-day, we do not think if we would be justified in denying the relief because of law's delay. It is well-known that no party should suffer for any lapse on the part of the Court. This apart, we have noted that as per the aforesaid communi­cation dated 30.4.81, the qualifying age has to be reckoned from the date of first appointment. The learned Senior Government Advocate contends that may apply for those ad-hoc appointees who have continued in employment. But if the petitioner had to discontinue, this was not due to any fault of hers. It was rather the action of respondents No. 1 to 4 in not making her available the regular vacancy which had occurred which led to the cessation of service. Further, the notification dated 12.10 72 (Annexure B/3) speaks of "entrance into the Government services of all categories of Class III and IV posts under the State Government". We do think that the petitioner did enter the service when she was below the age of 30 years. 7. Because of all the above, we would direct respondents 1 to 4 to re-appoint the petitioner in a regular vacancy if it exists; if not, then in the first regular vacancy which would occur after today. If respondent No. 7 has continued in service, the petitioner would be employed in the post held by her as that is a regular post, and respondent No. 7 could be absorbed in any other post, if available. 8. If respondent No. 7 has continued in service, the petitioner would be employed in the post held by her as that is a regular post, and respondent No. 7 could be absorbed in any other post, if available. 8. The petition is allowed as aforesaid. May we say before parting that while dealing with the appointment of teachers, who play a very vital role in building up the future of a nation, the Government has to be extra cautious in following the Rules which are framed to be complied with and not to be violated, Needless to say that teachers would not be putting their hearts in training up younger generation if they nurse genuine grie­vances and are constantly under fear of being driven out of employment for no fault of theirs.