JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - The petitioner in these connected petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution claim relief for the issue of a mandamus directing the District Judge to regularise the petitioner's appointment on ad hoc basis into regular appointment in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment(On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules,1979. 2. These petitions relate to Kanpur Judgeship. The petitioners in all these petitions were appointed by the District Judge on ad hoc basis on the posts borne on the cadre of grade 11I Ministerial Staff.Appointment to a post in grade III of the Ministerial staff in the subordinate courts is regulated by statutory rules. A regular appointment in grade III of the Ministerial staff is made only after selection in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the statutory rules.Ad hoc appointments are made in the interest of work when selected candidates are not available. The Government of Uttar Pradesh framed the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On posts of Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, providing for regularisation of ad hoc appointees on their fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein. These 1979 Rules were amended in 1984.The petitioners claim that since they possess the requisite qualifications prescribed under the rules and as they have been continuously working in the Judgeship for more than three years, they are entitled to regularised on the post held by them. 3. On behalf of the petitioners, it was urged that before offering appointment to the persons selected at the examination the petitioner claim for regularisation should have been considered by the District Judge in accordance with Regularisation Rules of 1979 as amended in1983. The District Judge committed an error in terminating the services of some of the petitioners on the declaration of the result of the examination. Before we consider the submission made on behalf the petitioners, we think it necessary to refer to the fact leading to the filing of these petitions. 4. One Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, an outsider, filed Writ Petition No.3971 of 1982 challenging the validity of the competive examination held by the District Judge. On 7-4-1982, this Court passed the following order :- "Issue Notice. 4. One Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, an outsider, filed Writ Petition No.3971 of 1982 challenging the validity of the competive examination held by the District Judge. On 7-4-1982, this Court passed the following order :- "Issue Notice. We direct that until further orders respondent No. 2 (District Judge) may proceed with the selection of the candidates but he shall not declare the result thereof" On 27-1-1983 A. N. Verma, J. vacated the stay order and passed the following order : "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length I vacate the interim order passed by this Court on 7-4-1982.However, if in pursuance of the impugned examinations appointment sare made, the same shall be subject to final orders which may be passed by this Court on the hearing of the writ petition. A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner today on payment of requisite charges." On 24-5-1983 A. N. Verma, J. passed the following order: "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I direct the District Judge, Kanpur, to declare the result of the examination held in the year 1981 for the posts of clerks/typists in the Civil Courts at Kanpur within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order to the District Judge." 5. On 26th July, 1983 the District Judge, Kanpur, declared the result of the competitive examination held in the year 1981. The lists of the successful candidates was to remain in force for a period of one year from 25th July, 1983, i. e. upto 25th July, 1984. 6. On 29th July, 1983 Lala Rain Katiyar and Dinesh Kumar Tewari filed W. P. No. 8624 of 1983. They were ad hoc employees and they apprehended that their service may be terminated on the declaration of the result.On 1st December, 1983, this Court passed the following orders : "Issue notice. The Standing Counsel was granted time in August, 1983, to file counter-affidavit, but till today no counter-affidavit has been filed. They were ad hoc employees and they apprehended that their service may be terminated on the declaration of the result.On 1st December, 1983, this Court passed the following orders : "Issue notice. The Standing Counsel was granted time in August, 1983, to file counter-affidavit, but till today no counter-affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances we direct that the petitioner's service will not be terminated until further orders." The District Judge, Kanpur, made an enquiry from the High Court and on 25th June, 1984, the Additional Registrar directed him to dispense with the services of the persons working on ad hoc basis except those who may have completed three years' service by June 30,1984, or whose termination had been stayed by this Court on judicial side. The District Judge was permitted to appoint persons from the approved list on the basis of the competitive examination held in the year 1981. 7. On 30th June, 1984, the District Judge prepared three lists. List 'A' of class III ad hoc employees, who had completed three years service or who had obtained stay orders in the writ petitions. This list contained the names of 24 persons. The District Judge extended the term of appointment of these persons upto 31st July, 1984. List 'B' contained the names of successful candidates for appointment in the Kanpur Judgeship on the basis of the competitive examination held in 1982. List 'C' contained the names of 41 persons, who had not completed three years service on 30th June, 1984, and whose term of employment was not extended.The District Judge direct that their appointment would automatically cease. 8. The order of the District Judge dated June 30, 1984, was again challenged, by Durga Prasad Tewari and 34 others, the ad hoc appointees of list 'C', by means of Writ Petition No. 8331 of 1984. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of R. M. Sahai and J. N. Dubey, P.passed the following order on 23rd October, 1980 : - "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of R. M. Sahai and J. N. Dubey, P.passed the following order on 23rd October, 1980 : - "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. We direct that till further orders of the Court, the operation of the order passed by the District Judge, Kanpur, dated 30-6-1984 shall remain suspended and the petitioners will be permitted to function as copyist in the posts which are vacant except the posts over which 17 persons have already been appointed and who have taken charge." In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Court Durga Prasad Tewari and other 34 petitioners were all permitted to continue in service even though they had not completed three years of service on ad hoc basis and they had not been successful at the selection held for making regular appointments. 9. Pratap Narain Gupta who had appeared at the examination held in 1981 and was successful therein but who could not be appointed on regular basis also filed Writ Petition No. 9206 of 1984 claiming relief for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the District Judge dated June 30, 1984, and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the District Judge, Kanpur, to appoint the selected candidates in place of ad hoc appointees and also to terminate the services of' ad hoc appointees. Lala Ram Katiyar and two other ad hoc appointees working in the Judgeship of Kanpur filed Writ Petition No. 8624 of 1983 claiming issue of a mandamus directing the District Judge to regularise their service as their names were included in List 'A' prepared by - the District Judge on June 30 1984. 10. Tb c admitted facts show that in Kanpur Judgeship a number of persons had been appointed on ad hoc basis by way of stop-gap arrangement.They have been working on ad hoc basis. The competitive examination for selection of suitable candidates in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the statutory rules was held in September, 1981, but the result could not be declared on account of the interim order passed by this Court. The competitive examination for selection of suitable candidates in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the statutory rules was held in September, 1981, but the result could not be declared on account of the interim order passed by this Court. After the interim orders were modified the results were declared, as a result of which some of' the selected candidates weir appointed but the ad hoc appointees obtained further interim order from this, Court as a result of which they have continued in service and all those who have been selected at the selection held in 1981 could not be appointed. The ad hoc appointees claim that since they fulfil the require conditions as prescribed by the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules. 1979, as amended by the notification dated March 23, 1984, they are entitled to be regularised in service in preference to those who have been selected at the competitive test held in 1981. 11. It appears that in most of the departments of State of Uttar Pradesh regular selections could not be held for one reason or the other and a large number of persons were appointed on ad hoc basis to carryon the day to day work. Such appointees continued in service for a considerable period of time. In order to grant them relief the Governor,in exercise of his power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution,framed the U. P. Regularisation of' Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. These Rules were enforced on May 14, 1979. Rule 4 of the Regularisation Rules is as under : - "4. In order to grant them relief the Governor,in exercise of his power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution,framed the U. P. Regularisation of' Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. These Rules were enforced on May 14, 1979. Rule 4 of the Regularisation Rules is as under : - "4. Regularisation of ad hoc appointments :- (I) Any person who- (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before January 1, 1979, 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 he, after lie 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 this record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rulesor orders." Rule 8 provides that the services of a person who is not found suitable, shall be determined forthwith. The above rules contemplate regularisation of a person who was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before January 1, 1979. and was continuing in service on ad hoc basis on May 14, 1979, the date of commencement of the rule. Clause (iii)of Rule 4 contemplates that ad hoc appointee would be entitled to regularisation if he had completed three years service the date of the commencement of the rule or if he completes three years service even thereafter shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his record and suitability. It further lays down that if an ad hoc appointee fulfils the requisite qualifications as prescribed by Rule 4 his services shall be regularised before any regular appointment is made in accordance with the relevant service rules. 12. The benefit of the aforesaid rules was not available to those who were appointed after January, 1979. The Governor with a view to grant benefit to those appointed after January, 1979, made amendment to the aforesaid rules. On March 23, 1984, the Governor amended the afore- said rules by adding Rule 9 after Rule 8 of the Regulation Rules. Rule 9 as added is as under :- "9. The Governor with a view to grant benefit to those appointed after January, 1979, made amendment to the aforesaid rules. On March 23, 1984, the Governor amended the afore- said rules by adding Rule 9 after Rule 8 of the Regulation Rules. Rule 9 as added is as under :- "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 Post Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Amendment Rules, 1984." Rule 9 extended benefit of regularisation to ad hoc appointees who may have been directly appointed on or before May I, 1983, provided they were continuing in service on the date of commencement of the amending rule viz. 23rd March, 1984. In other words, the benefit of regularisation as conferred by Rule 4 of 1979 rules has become applicable to all those who may have been appointed on or before May I, 1983,provided they were continuing in service on 23rd March, 1984. 13. The question then arises when the ad hoc appointees should be deemed to have completed three years service. Clause (iii) of Rule4 of 1979 lays down that a person who was appointed on ad hoc basis before 1st January, 1979, or who completes three years of service shall be considered for regular appointment. Rule 9 lays down that the provisions of Rule 4 (iii) shall apply mutatis mutandis to persons directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before May, 1983, and continuing in service on March 23, 1984. The effect of this amendment is that a person who may have completed three years service on March 23, 1984,or who may complete three years service even later on would be entitled to be considered for regular appointment. No such person has, however,any legal right to regular appointment as of right to regular appointment as of right. An ad hoc appointee is entitled to be considered for regular appointment provided lie possesses requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time he was appointed on ad hoc basis and further if his record is satisfactory and lie is found otherwise suitable for regular appointment. An ad hoc appointee is entitled to be considered for regular appointment provided lie possesses requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time he was appointed on ad hoc basis and further if his record is satisfactory and lie is found otherwise suitable for regular appointment. If the ad hoc appointee has completed three years of service as contemplated by the rules but he does not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed under the relevant rules for regular appointment and if his record is not satis factory and if lie is not otherwise suitable, he is not entitled to be regularised, The rules further contemplate that if an ad hoc appointee fulfil, the requisite qualifications prescribed in the rules and if his record is satisfactory and is otherwise found suitable he shall be considered and appointed before any regular appointment is made to any such vacancy. 14. On behalf of the respondents, it was urged that some of the petitioner shad appeared at the examination held in the year 1981 and they remained unsuccessful and as such they are not entitled to be regularised in service. We find no merit in the contention. The Regularisation Rules as disclosed above make it amply clear that it the conditions set forth in the Regularisation rules as fulfilled by an ad hoc appointee it is incumbent on the appointing authority to consider his case for regularisation in service before offering appointment to any direct recruit. The mere fact that some of the petitioners were unsuccessful at the examination does not affect the legal position. Moreover, in the instant case the question does not arise as the examination was held in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by the Rules for recruitment of Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Officers, 1950, and not in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, as amended by the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment (Amendment) Rules, 1969. Inwrit petition No. 3961 of 1982 (Akhilesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U. P.), we have quashed the examination held in September, 1981,and as a result of which those who were successful at the said examination had no legal right for appointment. Inwrit petition No. 3961 of 1982 (Akhilesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U. P.), we have quashed the examination held in September, 1981,and as a result of which those who were successful at the said examination had no legal right for appointment. In the circumstances there will be no difficulty for the District Judge in considering the cases of ad hoc appointees for regulation in accordance with the Regularisation Rules and in the light of the observations made in the above noted writ petition, 15. Partap Narain Gupta, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9206 of 1984,who was successful at the selection held in 1981. Claims relief for the issue of a mandamus' directing the District Judge, Kanpur, to appoint him in place of ad hoc appointees. Since we have quashed the examination held in September, 1981 at which Pratap Narain Gupta was selected for appointment, he is not entitled to any relief. 16. Shri M. Katju, counsel for the petitioner Pratap Narain Gupta,then challenged the validity of Regulation Rules. He urged that the Regularisation rules ate violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as those rules practice discrimination in matters relating to appointment.He urged that these rules authorise backdoor entry to the public service to the detriment of those who appeared at the selection held in accordance with the relevant service rules. To support his contention, he placed reliance on Ramendra Singh v. Jagdish Prasad, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 885.In that case, appointment of temporary Overseers was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Having considered the Supreme Court Judgement carefully we are of the opinion that the facts involved in Ramendra Singh's case are quite different. In that case certain Sub-Overseers, were appointed as temporary Overseers, in violation of the statutory service rules, although those persons did not possess the requisite educational qualifications. Their results were declared later on, and thereafter by executive orders their services were regularised with retrospective effect, namely, from the date of their initial appointment. In that case certain Sub-Overseers, were appointed as temporary Overseers, in violation of the statutory service rules, although those persons did not possess the requisite educational qualifications. Their results were declared later on, and thereafter by executive orders their services were regularised with retrospective effect, namely, from the date of their initial appointment. As a result of which those who were selected by a committee constituted under the relevant service rules became junior to them.They challenged the gradation list which was quashed by the High Court and the judgement of the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court.The validity of the rules framed by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution providing for regularisation of qualified persons working on the post was not considered. 17. The regularisation rules as discussed earlier are not executive in nature, instead they are legislative in character having the force of law. Rules do not regularise the services of all ad hoc appointees in a blanket manner, instead they provide for regularisation only if the ad hoc appointees fulfil the requisite qualifications prescribed in the service and their work and conduct as ad hoc appointees has sat is factory and they are otherwise found suitable for appointment.The Regularisation Rules were framed by them to grant benefit to those who have been working on ad hoc basis for a number of years. The object and purpose of the rules as contained in the Government Order dated March 23, 1984 (a copy of which was produced before us) was to obviate the hardship which would be caused to the ad hoc appointees. In this connection it was stated that in a number of Government offices regular selection could not be held and in the interest of work ad hoc appointments were made and the persons so appointed were large in number and they have been working for a considerable period of time. It would not be in public interest to remove such a large number of employees from service and direct them to appear at the selection, most of them would be disqualified as during their continuance as ad hoc appointees they crossed the age limit prescribed for Government Service. Having regard to those facts the Government with a view to grant relief to such ad hoc appointees framed the Regularisation rules. Having regard to those facts the Government with a view to grant relief to such ad hoc appointees framed the Regularisation rules. The object as stated in the Government order has a reasonable nexus with the purpose which is sought to be achieved. The Regularisation rules did not confer any arbitrary or blanket power of Regularisation. 18. In Prabodh Varma v. State of U. P., A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 167,the validity of the U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers) Ordinance, 1978, was considered. Under the Ordinance the services of teachers who were not appointed in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act were sought to be regularised. The regular teachers appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder had gone on strike as a result of which the cause of education was suffering. In order to meet the situation, a large number of persons were employed as teachers without following the provisions of the Act and the Regulation framed thereunder. When the regular teachers joined their duties, the Governor issued the aforesaid Ordinance to regularise the services of ad hoc teachers. The striking teachers challenged the validity of the Ordinance. Persons who were candidates for appointment in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations also challenged the Ordinance. One of the grounds raised by them was that it was violative of Articles 14 and16 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the writ petitions but the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and uphold the validity of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the reserve pool teachers formed a separate and distinct class from other applicants for the posts of teachers in recognised institution. The differentia which distinguished the class of reserve pool teachers from the class of other applicants for the posts of teachers in recognised institutions was the service rendered by the reserve pool teachers to the State.The Supreme Court further held that the above differentia bore reasonable and rational nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved by the Ordinance.It was held that Ordinance was not discriminatory and it did not off end Articles 14 of 16 of the Constitution. 19. 19. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution dd lint prohibit classification.hose persons who were employed on ad hoc basis in the interest of Government work constitute a separate class than those who are candidates for appointment by selection. The criteria for regularisation of ad hod appointees is on the basis of their continuous and satisfactory service rendered by them. The two classes of persons do not form the same class and as such the contention that Articles 14 and 16 are violative is misconceived. The preferential treatment given to adhoc appointees does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.Those who are not in ad hoc appointment are free to compete with those who apply for selection at the examination which may be held in future. 20. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Regularisation Rules are valid and they do not offend Articles 14or 16 of the Constitution. Partap Narain Gupta is therefore not entitled to any relief. His petition is liable to be dismissed. 21. In these suits we allow writ petitions Nos. 8624 of 1983, 8331 of 1984, and 14679 of 1984, and direct the District Judge, Kanpur,to consider the petitioner cases for regularisation in accordance with law. Writ Petition No. 9206 of 1984 is dismissed. 22. 'There will be no order as to costs.