Judgment RANGANATH MISRA, J. (1) THESE appeals are by special leave and are directed againstthe common judgment of the division bench in a group of writ applications filed before it challengingthe termination of appointment as Legal Assistants inthe State of Rajasthan. (2) THREE questions mainly came beforethe High court for determination:- (1 Is there a distinction between making financial provision in the budget to meetthe expenses for posts and creation of posts? (2 What exactiy wasthe number of vacancies available to be filled up as required by the ruies? And if recommendation had been received fromthe State public service commission in terms of ruies for regularly filling upthe vacancies, how would appointees under Ruie 30 be dealt with? and (3 Whetherthe persons whose appointments under Ruie 30 have been terminated and who hve availedthe opportunity of getting screened throughthe public service commission in the regular way and hve failed, would still be entitled to daimthe benefit of employment? (3) IN course of arguments before us one more aspect arose as to whether seven ofthe Lagal Assistants recruited inthe year 1982 could be allowed to form thernselves into a group to be continued without being recommended by the public service commission, on the basis of periodic approval of the public service commission to their continuance. (4) FINANCIAL provision inthe budget is made onthe basis of the anticipated expenditure planned onthe basis of expected requirements of the different departments of government. Approval of a lump sum amount inthe budget to meet expenditure underthe head of salary by the legislature does not amount to creation of posts and administrative orders would still be necessary for creatingthe posts uniess they are continuing from before the reasoning adopted by the High court on this score is not acceptable, we do not agree that once provision is made in the budget it becomes obligatory for the State government to fill upthe vacancies and if there be a failure onthe part of the State government to do so, a writ could be issued tothe State government to fill upthe posts. It is relevant to take note of the fact thoughthe High court at one stage indicated that this should bethe legal position, in the concluding portion of its judgmentthe High court has stated that if provision has been made inthe budget andthe posts have been createdthe judgment should be implemented in the manner indicated. It is relevant to take note of the fact thoughthe High court at one stage indicated that this should bethe legal position, in the concluding portion of its judgmentthe High court has stated that if provision has been made inthe budget andthe posts have been createdthe judgment should be implemented in the manner indicated. Obviousiy this meant that the High court was not prepared to overlookthe distinction betweenthe two situations. (5) RUIE 30 of the ruies provides for urgent temporary appointments: "A vacancy inthe service which cannot be filled in immediately either by direct recruitment or by promotion under thse ruies may be filled in bythe Appointing Authority or bythe authority competent to make appointments, asthe case may be, by appointing in an officiating capacity thereto an officer eligible for appointment to the post by promotion or by appointing temporarily thereto a person eligible for direct recruitment tothe service, where such direct recruitment has been provided underthe provisions of thse ruies: PROVIDED that such an appointment will not be continued beyond a period of one year without referringthe case tothe Commission for concurrence, where such concurrence is necessary and shall be terminated immediately on its refusai to concur...." (6) IT is not disputed that the Legal Assistants whose services have been terminated and who are respondentsbefore us were appointees under this ruie. government have madethe order of termination onthe basis that candidates were available onthe basis of regular selection throughthe Commission, It is unnecessary to go intothe question further as we are satisfied thatthe termination in this case wasthe outcome of regular selection. (7) THERE is no dispute thatthe respondents had offered thernselves as candidates beforethe public service commission and have not been successfui. On that footing it has been contended relying uponthe decision of this Curtinthe case of 0m Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, thatthe persons of this category are no more entitled to lay daim onthe basis of termination of their employment under Ruie 30. We agree that the same is the position in law. (8) LT has been stated before us by appellantS counsel that as on today the sanctioned strength of Lagal Assistants is 126: but that is dis- puted on behalfofthe respondents. lt is difficult for us to determinethe exact number and that must be left tothe State government. We agree that the same is the position in law. (8) LT has been stated before us by appellantS counsel that as on today the sanctioned strength of Lagal Assistants is 126: but that is dis- puted on behalfofthe respondents. lt is difficult for us to determinethe exact number and that must be left tothe State government. In the event of there being vacancies inthe sanctioned poststhe same would be available to be filled up under Ruie 30. lt has to be taken note of here that seven of the Legal Assistants were recruited in 1982 under Ruie 30 and have been continuing withthe periodic approval ofthe Public Ser-vice Comminion.the ruie nowhere contemplates regularisation of such recruitment. Under Ruie 30the appointments are bound to terminale in the event provided inthe proviso of the ruie. Therefore, their con-tinuance was not correct the State government shall take immediate steps to fill upthe vacancies as required underthe ruies by sendingthe requisition to the public service commission. On the basis of the determination of the exact number of vacancies,the State government will have aiso to requirethe public service commission to recruit for the remaining vacancies. Until such recruitment is made,the seven Lgal Assistants who have been continuing from 1982 and are not parties to the proceedings may continue. Forthe remaining vacancies (afterthe reserve list is exhausted)the State government is directed to appoint oui ofthe persons who were aiready in service and whose services hve been terminated followingthe ruie indicated bythe High court, namely, those who have put inthe maximum period of service shall be preferred.the State government shall sendthe requisition tothe Public Service Com-mission without delay and we directthe public service commission to give priority to makethe slection as early as possible.the judgment of the High court is modified.the State government shall make temporary appointment as directed above within four weeks.the civil appeals are disposed ofwith no order as to costs.