JUDGMENT 1. 1. All these writ petitions raise common questions for consideration and therefore they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions were working as Legal Assistants in the various departments of Government of Rajasthan on temporary basis. Their services have been terminated by order dated 20th March, 1987 whereby services of 38 Legal Assistants have been terminated. By another order passed on same date services of 3 Legal Assistants have been terminated. 3. The post of Legal Assistant is included in the Rajasthan Legal Service and appointment to the said post is governed by the Rajasthan Legal Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Regular appointment to the post of Legal Assistant is made by direct recruitment after selection through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission'). Under Rule 30 of the Rules provision is made for urgent temporary appointment. The petitioners in these writ petitions were all appointed under Rule 30 of the Rules on urgent temporary basis during the period from 1984 to 1986. The initial appointment of the petitioners was made for a fixed period subject to the condition that it would terminate if regularly selected candidates by the Commission were available earlier. The said appointment of the petitioners has however been continued from time to time. Before the passing of the impugned order it was continued upto 28th February, 1987 and thereafter it was continued upto 20th March, 1987 under the impugned under. The last order whereby appointments of the petitioners were continued upto 28th Feb. 1987 also contained the condition that the said appointment could be terminated earlier if regularly selected candidates by the Commission were available On 23rd December, 1985. The State Government sent a requisition to the Commission for making selection for 50 posts of Legal Assistants. After the receipt of the said requisition, the Commission issued an advertisement inviting applications for direct recruitment to the posts of Legal Assistants. The petitioners also submitted their applications in response to the said advertisement. The Commission sent a select list of 50 selected candidates to the State Government on 17th January, 1987, the names of the petitioners were not amongst the selected candidates. The petitioners also submitted their applications in response to the said advertisement. The Commission sent a select list of 50 selected candidates to the State Government on 17th January, 1987, the names of the petitioners were not amongst the selected candidates. Under the proviso to Rule 24 of the Ruler, it is prescribed that the Commission may to the extent of 50% of advertised vacancies keep names of certain candidates on the reserve list and the Commission may, on requisition recommend the names of such candidates in the order of merit to the Appointing Authority within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Appointing Authority. It appears that the Commission has prepared a reserve list containing the names of 25 selected candidates, but the said list has not yet been requisitioned by the State Government. By order dated 20th March, 1987, 50 candidates who have been selected by the Commission under the select list were appointed on the post of Legal Assistant with effect from 2nd April, 1987. The persons so appointed were required to join the training course at the Harish Chandra Mathur Institute for Public Administration, Jaipur. Out of 50 persons who were appointed under order dated 2th March, 1987 two did not join and only 48 Persons joined the training course and by order dated 19th April, 1987 they were posted as Legal Assistants in the various Departments. On 20th March, 1987 two orders with regard to the termination of services of Legal Assistants who were working on urgent temporary basis were passed. By one order the services of 38 Legal Assistants. including the petitioners in these writ petitions were terminated with effect from 20th March. 1987 and their services were extended from 1st March, 1987 till 20th March, 1987. By another order of the same date the services of 3 Legal Assistants who were employed on urgent temporary basis were terminated and their services were extended from 1st March, 1987 till 20th March, 1987. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 20th March, 1987, terminating the services, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 4. By another order of the same date the services of 3 Legal Assistants who were employed on urgent temporary basis were terminated and their services were extended from 1st March, 1987 till 20th March, 1987. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 20th March, 1987, terminating the services, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 4. A notice was issued to the respondents in these writ petitions requiring them to show cause as to why the writ petitions may not be admitted and allowed and in response to the said notice a reply was filed on behalf of the State The petitioner in C.W. No. 846 of 1987 has filed a rejoinder to the said reply and a reply to the said rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the State Since the questions which arise for consideration in these writ petitions are common, we propose to consider them in the light of the pleadings in C.W. No. 846 of 1987. 5. The learned Addl. Advocate General has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of these writ petitions on the ground that the appointment of the petitioners was only on temporary basis and it was continued only upto 20th March, 1987 and that it came to an end on that date and that the petitioners have no enforceable legal right. In support of his aforesaid submission the learned Addl. Advocate General has placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in (1) S.K. Verma and others v. State of Punjab and others : 1979 (2) S.L.R. 164 , wherein it has been held that an ad hoc employee whose services have been terminated in accordance with the terms of appointment has no enforceable right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In our opinion the said contention urged by the learned Addl. Advocate General cannot he accepted. In (2) The Manager, Govt. Branch Press and another v. D.B. Belliappa : AIR 1979 SC 429 , it was contended before the Supreme Court that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution have no application, whatever to the case of a temporary employee whose services have been terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of service because the tenure or the duration of the employment of such an employee is extremly precarious being dependent upon the pleasure and discretion of the employer State. The Supreme Court rejected the said contention with the following observations : "in our opinion. no such generalisation can be made. The protection of Articles 14 and 16 (I) will be available even to such a temporary Government servant f he has been arbitrarily discriminated against and singled out for harsh treatment in preference to his juniors, similarly circumstanced. It is true that the competent authority had the discretion under the conditions of service governing the employee concerned to terminate the litter's employment without notice. But, such discretion has to be exercised in accordance with reason and fair play and not capriciously. Bereft of rationality and fairness, discretion degenerates into arbitrariness which is the very antithesis of the rule of law on which our democratic polity is founded. Arbitrary invocation or enforcement of a service condition terminating the service of a temporary employee may itself constitute denial of equal protection and offend the equality clause in Articles 14 and 16 (1)." In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court it must be held that even though the petitioners were holding the post of Legal Assistant on urgent temporary basis, they are entitled to challenge the order terminating their services on the ground that it has been passed arbitrarily. 6. In the writ petitions the petitioners have pleaded that there are, in all, 131 posts of Legal Assistants in the various departments of the Government of Rajasthan as specified in Schedule 'A' and that 42 Legal Assistants who have been regularly selected and appointed are there and that after adjusting 48 persons who have been selected by the Commission in the recent selections only 90 posts are filled by regularly selected Legal Assistants and nearly 44 posts of Legal Assistants were available on which the petitioners and other Legal Assistants who were employed on urgent temporary basis could be continued. In this regard it has also been stated that apart from 41 Legal Assistants employed on urgent temporary basis, whose services have been terminated under the orders dated 20th March, 1987, there are 7 Legal Assistants employed on urgent temporary basis who have been working since 1982. In this regard it has also been stated that apart from 41 Legal Assistants employed on urgent temporary basis, whose services have been terminated under the orders dated 20th March, 1987, there are 7 Legal Assistants employed on urgent temporary basis who have been working since 1982. In the reply that has been filed on behalf of the respondents it has been disputed that the total number of posts of Legal Assistants is 134, as claimed by the petitioners, and it has been stated that the total number of such posts was 100 on 23rd December, 1985, as specified in Schedule R/A. It has also been stated that against these 100 posts there are 42 regular appointees and 8 ad hoc appointees who were working since 1987 and after taking into account the aforesaid 50 posts only 50 posts remained available for which the requisition was sent on 23rd December, 1985 and therefore no post of Legal Assistant is available on which petitioners and other Legal Assistants whose services have been terminated by orders dated 20th March, 1987 could be continued In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner in C.W. No. 846 of 1987 it has been disputed that the total number of posts is 100 as claimed in the reply filed on behalf of the State. As regards 42 persons who are claimed to be regularly appointed in the reply it has been stated in the rejoinder that actually 39 persons employed as Legal Assistants are regularly selected and a break-up of these 39 persons has also been given in the rejoinder. According to the rejoinder 17 Legal Assistants are regularly selected persons of 1980, 18 are regular appointees of 1984 and 4 are ad hoc appointees of 1976 who were screened for regular appointment in 1981. Along with the aforesaid Rejoinder certain documents (Ex. 11 to Ex. 15) have been filed by the petitioner to show the discrepancies in the list of posts mentioned in Schedule R/A to the reply of the State. In the reply filed on behalf of the State to the rejoinder it has been stated that the posts mentioned in Schedule R/A to the reply were on 23rd December, 1985 and that some more posts have been created thereafter and that on 12th May, 1987 the total number of posts of Legal Assistants was 108. In the reply filed on behalf of the State to the rejoinder it has been stated that the posts mentioned in Schedule R/A to the reply were on 23rd December, 1985 and that some more posts have been created thereafter and that on 12th May, 1987 the total number of posts of Legal Assistants was 108. In respect of certain documents which have been filed by the petitioner along with the rejoinder, it has been stated in the reply to the rejoinder that the said letters have not been received in the Law Department and therefore no reply could he given in respect of the same. As regards the assertion in the rejoinder that there were only 39 regularly selected Legal Assistants prior to the recent selection made by the Commission, all that has been stated in the reply to the rejoinder is that there are 42 regularly selected Legal Assistants upto 1984, but no specific reply has been given with regard to the averments contained in the rejoinder giving break-up of those regularly selected employees, which shows that the number of such employees is 39. 7. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to show that the figures of total number of posts that have been given in the reply filed by the State as well as the reply to the rejoinder are not correct and for that purpose reliance has plated on the budget proposals for the year 1987-88 placed before the Legislative Assembly which have been approved by the Assembly Thereafter the learned Addl. Advocate General has placed before us a statement showing the posts of Legal Assistants as per the budget proposals. According to that statement Inc total number of posts of Legal Assistants is III. 8. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that there is a dispute between the parties on the actual number of posts of Legal Assistants in the various departments of the State and since this is a disputed question of fact, it should not be gone into by this Court in these writ petitions. 8. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that there is a dispute between the parties on the actual number of posts of Legal Assistants in the various departments of the State and since this is a disputed question of fact, it should not be gone into by this Court in these writ petitions. It is true that a dispute has been raised between the parties with regard to the total number of posts of Legal Assistants in the various departments of the State but we are of the opinion that the said dispute is not of such a nature which cannot be conveniently decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and that this dispute could be easily resolved if the State had placed the relevant material which is in its possession before the Court. By withholding the said material from the Court the State cannot non-suit the petitioners by saying that this is a disputed question of fact which should not be gone into by this Court. 9. In the present case we find that on behalf of the respondents different figures have been given from time to time with regard to total number of posts of Legal Assistant in the various departments. Since the persons selected by the Commission were not available for posting as Legal Assistants till 11th April, 1987, the relevant date for determining the total number of posts of Legal Assistants is 16th April, 1987. The figures given to Schedule R/A to the reply is in respect of posts existing on 23rd December, 1985 and it does not take into account the posts created thereafter. The list of 108 posts, as they existed on 12th May, 1985, that has been filed by the learned Addl. Advocate Genera' does not appear to be correct because it does not include a number of posts for which provision has been made in the Budget proposals for the year 1987-88 and which have been approved by the Legislative Assembly. In these circumstances we do not find it safe to place reliance on the figures in the reply tiled on behalf of the State to the writ petition and in the reply to the rejoinder. In these circumstances we do not find it safe to place reliance on the figures in the reply tiled on behalf of the State to the writ petition and in the reply to the rejoinder. On the other hand we find a reliable basis for determining the total number of posts of Legal Assistants in the Budget proposals which were submitted before the Legislative Assembly for 1987-88 and which have been approved by the Legislative Assembly. From a perusal of the Budget proposals, as approved by the Legislative Assembly we find that the total number of posts of Legal Assistants for which financial sanction has been obtained from the Legislative Assembly is 129 and not III as the State Government has mentioned in the chart filed on behalf of the State. Apart from the aforesaid 129 posts mentioned in the Budget proposals the learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed out that there are some posts which are not mentioned in the Budget proposals, but which have been admitted in the reply filed on behalf of the Mate and in this connection our attention is invited to Schedule R/A filed with the reply which shows that there are two posts of Legal Assistants in the Ground Water Department and one post of Legal Assistant in Jail Department. It has also been pointed out that apart from the posts mentioned in Budget proposals there are certain posts on which Legal Assistants are being sent on deputation to the Corporation and statutory authorities and it has been pointed out that there is one post of Legal Assistant in the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO), on post of Legal Assistant in the Jaipur Development Authority (J.D.A.) one post of Legal Assistant in the Urban Improvement Trust (U.I.T.) Jodhpur and one post of Legal Assistant in the Tribal Development Corporation. In so far as the posts of legal Assistant in the RIICO and J.D.A. are concerned they are included in Schedule K/A filed with the reply. The post of Legal Assistant in U.I.T. Jodhpur has been admitted in the reply to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been stated that the post of Legal Assistant in U.I.T. Jodhpur has been recently created and a regularly selected person has been posted. The post of Legal Assistant in U.I.T. Jodhpur has been admitted in the reply to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been stated that the post of Legal Assistant in U.I.T. Jodhpur has been recently created and a regularly selected person has been posted. With regard to the post of Legal Assistant in the Tribal Development Corporation we find that in the rejeoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner in the civil writ petition No 46 of 1987, reliance has been placed on order No. F.( ) Ra Ja Sa Sangh/Estt/87/278 dated 18th February, 1987 whereby the Managing Director of the said Corporation has sent a requisition to the Law Secretary to appoint some one on the post of Legal Assistant in the said Corporation. The only reply that has been given to the said averment in the reply to the rejoinder is that the said letter dated 11th February, 1987 was never received in the Law Department. In our view there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the aforesaid averment contained in the rejoinder with regard to the letter dated 11th February, 1987 We are therefore, of the opinion that apart from 129 posts mentioned in the Budget proposals, there were 3 other posts and 4 deputation pasts which makes the total number of posts of Legal Assistants as 136. 10. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the posts which are mentioned in the Budget proposals only indicate that financial sanction has been given in respect of these posts but it does not mean that all these posts are actually in existence. The Submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General is that the number of posts which are actually in existence will have to depend upon the administrative orders passed by the various administrative departments for which these posts have been sanctioned and in the absence of such administrative orders it cannot be said that all these Hosts are in existence. In this connection the learned Addl. Advocate General has also, submitted that since the concerned administrative departments have not been impleaded as parties to the writ petition, no finding can be recorded with regard to the total number of posts of Legal Assistants existing in the various departments. In our opinion there is no merit in the contention of the learned Addl. Advocate General has also, submitted that since the concerned administrative departments have not been impleaded as parties to the writ petition, no finding can be recorded with regard to the total number of posts of Legal Assistants existing in the various departments. In our opinion there is no merit in the contention of the learned Addl. Advocate General that the various administrative departments for which the posts of Legal Assistants have been sanctioned in the Budget, should have been separately impleaded as parties to the writ petition and in the absence of the said departments being impleaded as parties to the writ petition, no finding can be recorded by this Court with regard to actual number of posts of Legal Assistants existing in the various departments of the Government The petitioners have impleaded the State of Raj. as respondent in the writ petition. The State is a legal person. The various administrative departments of the State Government have no distinct legal personality. They are all parts of the State & when the State is impleaded as a party it includes all its administrative departments finance the State, as such, is impleaded as a party to the writ petition, it was for the State to place on record the necessary facts with regard to the creation of the posts of Legal Assistants in its various Departments on the basis of the Budget proposals. The petitioners could not be expected nor is it permissible in law, to implead the State separately through each of its various departments as a party to the writ petition. No material has been placed before us by the State to show the number of posts of Legal Assistants which were in existence in the year ending on 31st March, 1987 and the number of new posts of Legal Assistants which are to be created in the current year and which have been included in the Budget proposals. In the reply to the rejoinder it is stated that the total number of posts till 12th May, 1987 was 108. The details of these posts are not given in the said reply. A chart giving the particulars of the costs was filed by the Addl. Advocate General during the course of hearing which indicates the total number of posts as 109. The details of these posts are not given in the said reply. A chart giving the particulars of the costs was filed by the Addl. Advocate General during the course of hearing which indicates the total number of posts as 109. The said figure cannot be accepted as correct because it does not include many posts which are included in the Budget proposals IInd which had been created prior to 12th May, 1987 as would be evident from the order of the State Government (Ex. 12) dated 7th April, 1987 for the creation of 5 posts of Legal Assistants for the circle offices of the Forest Department and the letter (Ex.13) which refers to the order of the State Government dated 17th May, 1986 with regard to creation of two posts of Legal Assistants under the Conservator of Forests, Jaipur. All that has been stated in the reply to the rejoinder with regard to these documents is that these orders have not been received by the Law Department. In these circumstances we have decided to go by the figures given in the Budget proposals with regard to total number of posts of Legal Assistants. After taking into consideration the said 19 posts included in the Budget proposals and the 3 posts which are not included in the Budget proposals but are in existence as per Schedule R/A to the reply and the 4 deputation posts, we have come to the conclusion that the total number of post of Legal Assistants is 136. 11. We may now come to the actual number of regularly selected persons who were holding the posts of Legal Assistants before the recent selection made by the Commission. On that question there is dispute between the parties inasmuch as the petitioners have stated that total number of such regularly selected Legal Assistants is 39 where as according to the State the total number of such regularly selected Legal Assistants is 42. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner in civil writ petition No. 846 of 1987, a break-up of those 39 regularly selected Legal Assistants had been given and according to the said break-up 17 are regularly selected persons of the year 1980. 18 are regularly selected candidates of 1984 and 4 and ad hoc appointees of 1976 who were screened in 1981 and regularly appointed on that basis. 18 are regularly selected candidates of 1984 and 4 and ad hoc appointees of 1976 who were screened in 1981 and regularly appointed on that basis. This makes up the figure of 39. Although a reply to the said rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the State, no reply has been given to the aforesaid break-up given by the petitioners in rejoinder. In these circumstances we find no reason not to accept the figures given by the petitioners in the rejoinder in the civil writ petition "Jo. 846 of 190 and on that basis it must be held that (3) regularly selected Legal Assistants were working prior to the recent selections made by the Commission Including the 48 persons who have joined on the posts of Legal Assistants on the basis of the recent selection made by the Commission, the total number of regularly selected Legal Assistants comes to 8l. After adjusting these 87 regularly selected Legal Assistants, 49 posts of Legal Assistants are available. 12. It has been claimed on behalf of the State that there are 8 ad hoc appointees of the year 1982 who are entitled to preference qua the petitioners who are ad hoc appointees of the years 1984 to 1986. There is a dispute between the parties with regard to this figure also because according to the petitioners there are only 7 such ad hoc appointees and one of them has resigned from service in the reply to the rejoinder it has been stated that one of the 8 ad hoc appointees of 1982 is absent and disciplinary action is pending against him. Even if the case set up by the State is accepted and it is held that there are 8 ad hoc appointees of 1982, who are entitled to preference over the petitioners and other Legal Assistants appointed during the years 1984 to 1986. All posts of Legal Assistants remain available and since there are in all 41 Legal Assistants whose services have been terminated under orders dated 11th March, 1987, all of them could be continued against those 41 posts and there was no reason to terminate their services on the ground that regularly selected candidates by the Commission were available. All posts of Legal Assistants remain available and since there are in all 41 Legal Assistants whose services have been terminated under orders dated 11th March, 1987, all of them could be continued against those 41 posts and there was no reason to terminate their services on the ground that regularly selected candidates by the Commission were available. If that is so, then it cannot he said that the case of the petitioners and other Legal Assistants who were appointed on urgent temporary basis during years 1984 to 1986, is in any way different from the 8 Legal Assistants who were appointed on urgent temporary basis in the year 1982, the services of the 8 Legal Assistants who were appointed on urgent temporary basis in the year 1982 have been continued even after regularly selected candidates by the Commission were available and the only reason that has been given for their continuance in the reply filed on behalf of the State is that the posts were available for those 8 Legal Assistants. This means that the only reason why the services of the petitioners and other Legal Assistants who were appointed in the years 1984 to 1986 were not continued, is that it was thought that the posts of Legal Assistants were not available after the recent selection made by the Commission and, therefore the services of these Legal Assistants could not be continued. In view of our finding reccrded earlier that 41 posts of Legal Assistants are available, after adjusting all the regularly selected candidates and the ad hoc appointees of the year 1982 it must be held that there was no valid reason for not continuing the services of the petitioners and other Legal Assistants who were appointed during the years 1984 to 1986 and the action of the State Government in not continuing their services suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 13. 13. The arbitrariness of the action of the State Government in discontinuing the services of the petitioners and other Legal Assistants, who had been appointed on urgent temporary basis, during the years 1984 to 1985 with collect from 20th March, 1917 is also evident from the fact that the candidates selected by the Commission were not available on 20th March, 1987 and the appointment of 5 candidates on the post of Legal Assistants under order dated 20th March, 1987 was made with effect from 2nd April, 1987 and after appointment these candidates were required to undergo a training course and they were posted only on 15th April, 1987. This shows that the candidates selected by the Commission became available only on 16th April, 1987. 14. For the reasons aforesaid we are of the opinion that the discontinuance of the services of the petitioners and other Legal Assistants who were appointed on urgent temporary basis during the period 1984 to 1986 with effect from 20th March, 1987 under the orders dated 20th March, 1987 was not justice and that the said Legal Assistants are entitled to continued in service till regularly selected candidates for the posts held by them are available 15. At this stage we may make it clear that there is a reserve list of 25 candidates prepared by the Commission and no decision has been taken till now by the State Government as to whether any appointments are to be made on the basis of the said reserve list. At this stage we may make it clear that there is a reserve list of 25 candidates prepared by the Commission and no decision has been taken till now by the State Government as to whether any appointments are to be made on the basis of the said reserve list. In case the State Government decides to make appointments of the persons selected by the Commission and whose names are placed on the reserve list, the Legal Assistants who were holding the posts on urgent temporary basis will have to make way for the Legal Assistants who are a pointed or regular basis on the basis of the reserve list and the State Government would be entitled to discontinue the services of art equal number of Legal Assistants who were appointed on urgent temporary basis outing the period 1984 to 1986 as the number of Legal Assistants who are appointed and who join the service on regular basis out of the persons mentioned in the reserve list, but while doing so the State Government must follow the principle of last come first go and discontinue the services of the junior most amongst the Legal Assistant, appointed on urgent temporary basis. 16. It has been urged by the learned Addl. Advocate General that under proviso (b) to Rule 4 of the Rules, it is in the descretion of the Stare Government to leave a post unfilled and that no direct on can be given by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to the State Government to fill a post. It is true that under proviso (b) to Rule 4 a discretion has been conferred on the State Government to leave a post unfilled, but in our opinion, like all discretionary powers, the said discretion has to be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily. It is not the case of the State that for posts for which regular selectees are not available, there is no work and for that reason they do not wish to fill those posts. It is not the case of the State that for posts for which regular selectees are not available, there is no work and for that reason they do not wish to fill those posts. The only reason which has been given for not continuing the services of the petitioners and other legal Assistants who were appointed on urgent temporary basis during the years 1984 to 1986 is that regularly selected candidates had become available and there are no posts on which the petitioners and other Legal Assistants appointed on urgent temporary basis during the years 1984 to 1985 could have been continued. Since we have found that the said reason is not correct, we do not find any reason why the posts of Legal Assistants which were being held by the petitioners and other Legal Assistants who were appointed on urgent temporary basis during years 1984 to 1986, should remain unfilled till a regular selection for filling these posts is made. 17. Another contention that has been urged by the learned Addl. Advocate General is that under Rule 30 of the Rules; there is the requirement of concurrence of the Commission for continuance of an appointment made on urgent temporary basis beyond a period of one year and that no direction can be given by this Court for continuance in service of the petitioners and other Legal Assistants whose services have been discontinued since the said continuance can only be done after obtain in, the concurrence of the Commission. It is true that under Rule 10 of the Rules the concurrence of the Commission is required for continuance of an urgent temporary appointment beyond a period of one year. Here we find that the services of 8 ad hoc appointee; out of 9, 8 have been continued and they are proposed to he continued even after the regular selection has been made by the Commission. Here we find that the services of 8 ad hoc appointee; out of 9, 8 have been continued and they are proposed to he continued even after the regular selection has been made by the Commission. We have earlier held that the petitioners and other Legal Assistant:, who were appointed on urgent temporary basis during years 1984 to 1986 are in no way different from the 8 ad hoc appointee, of the year 1982 and if the said 8 ad hoc appointees can be continued after obtaining the concurrence of the Commission, there is no reason why similar concurrence of the Commission cannot be obtained in respect of the petitioners and other Legal Assistants whose services have been discontinued and they may not be continued till regular selection is made for the posts held by them. 18. In the result the writ Petitions are allowed and it is declared that the discontinuance of the services of the petitioners and other Legal Assistants who were appointed on urgent temporary basis during the period 1984 to 1986 under orders dated 20th March, 1987 was not justified and they are entitled to continue in service as Legal Assistants till regularly selected candidates for the posts held by them are available. The respondents are directed to pass the necessary orders for continuing in service as Legal Assistants the petitioners and other Legal Assistants who were appointed on urgent temporary basis during years 1984 to 1986, till candidates regularly selected by the Commission are available for appointment on the posts held by the petitioners and other Legal Assistants appointed on urgent temporary basis during the period 1984 to 1986. In case the State Government decides to make appointments on the basis of the reserve list containing names of 25 candidates selected by the Commission in the recent selection, then to the extent of the number of persons thus appointed the services of the Legal Assistants who were appointed on urgent temporary basis during the period 1984 to 1986, may be discontinued by applying the principle of last come first go and the junior most amongst these Legal Assistants will have to make way for the Legal Assistants who are appointed and who join the service on regular basis out of the persons included in the reserve list. It is, however, made clear that in case any of the posts mentioned in the Budget proposals are not in existence and have not yet been created, then no order for continuance in service in pursuance of this order may be made against any such post till the said post is created, but for that purpose also the principle of last come first go will be followed and the services of the junior most amongst the Legal Assistants will not be continued. The necessary orders for continuance of the petitioners and other Legal Assistants whose services were discontinued by orders dated 20th March, 1987 may be passed within a period of 15 days. The parties are left to bear their own costs in these writ petitions.Petition allowed. *******