JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by seven petitioners for mandamus directing the respondents to regularise their services in accordance with R. 9 of U.P. Regularisation of ad-hoc appointments (on posts outside the purview of Public Service Commission) (Amendments) Rules, 1984. 2. The petitioners were appointed as Lekhpals on ad hoc basis on the dates noted against their names : 1. Rajendra Prasad, petitioner No. 1 - 11-3-81 2. Ram Chandra, petitioner No. 2 - 12-11-80 3. Subarati, petitioner No. 3 - 11-9-80 4. Ram Narain, petitioner No. 4 - 6-10-82 5. Ram Shanker, petitioner No. 5 - 19-3-82 6. Ajai Shanker, petitioner No. 6 - 12-11-82 7. Surendra Prasad, petitioner No. 7 - 18-3-82 3. On 22nd Feb., 1984 and 2-6-1984 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Meja, District Allahabad, terminated the services of the petitioner in accordance with the Board's order No. 9051/4-10-82 dated 20th Mar, 1983. They had been terminated as they were on ad hoc basis. On 11-10-84, this petition was filed for the relief of quashing their termination order and for mandamus to regularise them. 4. On May 14, 1979, the State of U.P. made U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. R. 4 of the aforesaid Rules provides :- 4. Regularisation of ad hoc appointments- (1) Any person who- (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before Jan. 1,1977 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules; (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment; and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service as such, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. 5. R. 8 of the Rules deals with the service of a person appointed on ad hoc basis who is not found suitable or whose case is not covered by R. 4(i) shall be terminated forthwith and on such termination he shall be entitled to receive one month's pay. On 23rd Mar. 1984, the State of U.P. made amendments to the aforesaid Rule. On 23rd Mar. 1984, the State of U.P. made amendments to the aforesaid Rule. By this amendment after R. 8 of 1979 Rules, the following R. 9 was inserted : 9. The provisions of these rules shall apply mutatis mutandis, also to any person directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before May 1, 1983 and continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) (Amendment) Rules, 1984." 6. Under this Rule, a person appointed on ad hoc basis on or before May 1, 1983 is entitled to be regularised if he fulfils qualifications mentioned in the main Rule of 1979. In other words, for deriving the benefit of this Amending Rule, it is necessary, as was laid down by 1979 Rules, that a Government employee has before 1983, completed three years service. In the instant case, none of the petitioners had completed three years service on the date of termination. Counsel for the petitioners urged that as the petitioners had been working on the appointed date, they were entitled to the benefit of R. 9 of the Amending Rules. With this submission, we find ourselves difficult to agree. In the counter affidavit, the allegations made are that the petitioner's services were terminated on 24-2-1984 and 2-6-1984 and 2-6-1984 by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Meja. 7. R. 9 had been inserted in the Ad hoc Regularisation Rules, 1979. It lays down that the provisions of these Rules shall apply mutatis mutandis to any person appointed on or before May 1, 1983 and continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the Amending Rules, 1984. The words "mutatis mutandis" read in the context would mean that with the necessary changes in points of detail, matters or things are the same as dealt with in Ad hoc Regularisation Rules, 1979. The meaning of this expression given in the Black's Dictionary is as follows :- With the necessary changes in points of detail, meaning that matters or things are generally the same, but to be altered when necessary, as to names, offices, and the like". 8. In our view, for getting the benefit of the Amending Rules other qualifications required by the Rules of 1979 are necessary to fulfil. 8. In our view, for getting the benefit of the Amending Rules other qualifications required by the Rules of 1979 are necessary to fulfil. This Amending Rule cannot be taken advantage of by a person who had not completed three years service on May 1,1983. None of the petitioners had completed three years. We are unable to accept that R. 9 will apply on its own and the main rules had not to be read at all for getting the benefit of the same. In that event the court would not be given the meaning of words "mutatis mutandis" used in R. 9. The object behind it was not that a person who had only one day's service before May 1, 1983, would be treated as a regular employee. The intention was to give its benefit to the persons who had completed three years service before the aforesaid date i.e. 1-5-1983. 9. An ad hoc appointee has no right to the post because by its very nature it is a stop gap arrangement until a regular arrangement is made. In that case the incumbent holds a very precarious tenure. His termination will not be dismissal or removal. 10. The second point of the petitioners was that persons junior to them had been retained and, as such, the order was illegal. Counsel also urged that their termination was without any rhyme or reason. In the counter affidavit, the allegations have been denied. It has been stated that no one junior to the petitioners has been retained or sent for training. We are satisfied from the counter affidavit that the assertion of the petitioners is not correct. For rhyme or reason, it will suffice to point out that the petitioners are ad hoc appointees, hence their services could be terminated at any time. 11. In the result; The writ petition is dismissed summarily. 12. Prayer made for leave to the Supreme Court is refused as we are unable to find that the present writ petition involves any substantial question of law of general importance needing to be decided by the Supreme Court.