Saikia, C.J. — The petitioners on behalf of all the Block Development Officers, shortly ‘the BDOs,’ appointed under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission ( Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1951, shortly ‘the Regulations/ challenge the advertisement bearing No. 18 PSC/S-9/34-85 dated 28th January, 1986 and the addendum thereto No. 31 PSC/E-9/84-85 dated 1st February, 1986 (Annexures C and D) respectively to the petition issued by the Assam Public Service Commission, shortly ‘the Commission,’ and published in the local press dated 30.1.86 and 17.2.86 respectively, and pray for a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or direction for inserting in the impugned advertisement a relaxation clause as to upper age limit, inserting a clause requiring experience in the work, and deleting the power to withhold permission by Depart­mental authority; and for direction not to reject any application on the ground of age limit so as to enable the petitioner and all other similarly appointed BDO’s to sit at the examination to be held by the Commission for selection to the posts of BDOs. 2. The facts are simple. The Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Paochayat and Community Development Department addressed letter PDB.No. 160/77/Pt. 111/154 dated 26.8,82 to the Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Department of Personnel (A) stating, inter alia, that the Panchayat and Community Development Department, shortly the ‘Panchayat Department,’ was in immediate need of 23 BDOs to fill up the posts lying vacant; that the requisition for those posts was not communicated earlier to the Commission for advertisement etc. as a proposal was under consideration for filling up those posts vacant under Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations; that the requir­ement was also not sent earlier to the Personnel Department for taking up with the Commission for inclusion in the advertisement in the combined Competitive Examination, 1982 conducted by the , Commission; and that it had since been decided not to proceed with recruitment under Regulation 3(f) when the combined Competitive Examination, 1982 was already under way. The Personnel Department was accordingly requested to allot 23 officers to Panchayat Department after the results of the Combined Competitive Examination, 1982 became available and to reflect the Panchayat Department requirement to the Commission at that stage itself so that at the time of interview itself consideration for the option of candidates for the posts of BDOs could be ascertained. The Personnel Department was accordingly requested to allot 23 officers to Panchayat Department after the results of the Combined Competitive Examination, 1982 became available and to reflect the Panchayat Department requirement to the Commission at that stage itself so that at the time of interview itself consideration for the option of candidates for the posts of BDOs could be ascertained. A copy of this letter was sent to the Commission requesting that 23 candidates might also be recommended for the posts of BDOs along with the Commission’s recommendation for suitable candidates for other categories of posts on the result of the Combined Competitive Examination. Accordingly the Commission recommended 23 candidates from the list of Category II for filling up the posts of BDOs by the Commission’s letter No. 204/PSC/CCE/8/82 dated 26 7.83. It, however, transpires that despite that recommendation, by Notification No. PDB. 13/81/224 dated 10.10.83 the first batch of 11 BDOs were appointed under Regulation 3 (f) of the Regulation. The Secretary of the Commission, with reference to the appointment of these 11 BDOs under Regulation 3 (f) by his letter dated 12.12.83 addressed to the Secretary, Panchayat referring to the latter’s letter dated 27.8.82. to the Secretary, Personnal with a copy to the Commission stated that the Panchayat Department gave requisition for 23 posts of BDOs to be filled up through the Combined Competitive Examination and subsequently the Personnal Department by their letter dated 13.10.82 confirmed the vacancies of BDOs and requested the Commission to nominate suitable candidates for filling up 23 posts of BDOs and accordingly the Commission recommended 23 suitable candidates along with nominees for other category II posts vide Commission’s recommen­dation letter dated 26.7.83 and, as such, it was not clear to the Com­mission under what circumstances the 11 BDOs were appointed under Regulation 3 (f) in October, 1983 instead of appointing Commission’s nominee to the posts. The Commission’s Secretary clearly expressed that apparently the appointment under Regulation 3 (f) was irregular and the Commission viewed it with displeasure and accordingly desired to be appraised of the actual position in that regard. However, the second batch of 21 BDOs were similarly appointed under Regulation 3 (f) vide Notification No. PDB. 13/81/237 dated 7.6.84. The third batch of 22 BDOs were also similarly appointed vide Notification No. PDB. However, the second batch of 21 BDOs were similarly appointed under Regulation 3 (f) vide Notification No. PDB. 13/81/237 dated 7.6.84. The third batch of 22 BDOs were also similarly appointed vide Notification No. PDB. 21/85/Pt/2 dated 29.1.85 followed by the fourth batch of 5 BDOs similarly appointed under Regulation 3 (f) vide Notification No. PDB. 21/85/22 dated 23.2.85. It is the Commission’s case that there was no reply from the Panchayat Department to its letter dated 12.12.83 when the 2nd to 5th batches of BDOs appointments were made. 3. It transpires that after the 2nd batch of BDOs were appointed, a draft advertisement was prepared and was sent by ths Panchayat Secretary to the Commission along with its letter dated 25.9.1984 (Annexure B to the petition) on the subject of rcgularisation of appointments made under Regulation 3 (f) of the Regulations with reference to that Department’s Notification No. PDB. 13/81/224 A dated 10.10.83 and No. PD3. 13/81/237 A dated 7.6.84 stating, inter alia, that in order to meet emergent need of BDOs while many posts were lying vacant and at the same time no selected candidates from the Commission were available, the Government was pleased to appoint 32 number of BDOs under Regulation 3 (f) giving an account of the increasing need for recruitment of BDOs from time to time in view of implementation of 20 point programmes and anti-poverty schemes, like NREP, RIEGP, IRDP and other schemes. It was fur­ther stated that the Commission earlier did not include BDOs in its advertisement and even so the Personnel Department requested for 23 nominees from the Combined Competitive Examination held by the Commission in 1982 and that as per resolution the Personnel Depart­ment took steps to fill up 50% of the vacant posts of BDOs under Regulation 4 (d) and the balance by direct recruitment. But subse­quently, the Personnel Department was requested to place services of 10 persons from their select list vide letter dated 20.2.84, but the Department could not furnish such list and under the above circums­tances the Panchayat Department had no other alternative but to fill up the 80 vacant posts (48 by promotion from Extension Officers and 32 by direct recruitment) under Regulation 3 (f) of the Regulations, It was further stated that the selection was made by the Government with due consideration to qualifications, age and past experience of the candidates. The Commission was accordingly requested to accord approval to the aforesaid appointments and take necessary steps for regularisation of the appointment of 32 BDOs. A copy of the advertisement, said to have been approved by the Chief Minister of those posts, was also enclosed for ready reference. Otherwise, it was stated in the letter, in the circumstances stated therein the Commission might take steps for regularisation as a very special case. 4. The Draft Advertisement (Annexure-A) said, inter alia: "Age on 1st January 1984 must not exceed 30 years in any case. Upper age limit except otherwise specified in Govt. Resolution issued from time to time is relaxable upto 35 years in case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. The upper age limit will be 40 years in respect of Extension Officers of different Development Departments of the State serving in the Blocks having at least 6 years of experience. There is, however, no upper age limit in case of persons having already appointed under Regulation 3 (f) of the Assam Public Service Commission, provided, otherwise, they are eligible." Among qualification of eligibility it said : ‘The candidates must have preservice training in Panchayati Raj Administration at a recognised Secretaries Training Centre by Government, field experiences of serving in Blocks in appropriate capacity at least for 3 months. The work is arduous in nature. So field of Block level experience in rural areas are essential." 5. Thus, two important points in this Draft Advertisement were that there was no upper age limit in case of persons having already been appointed under Regulation 3(f) and secondly, preservice training in Panchayati Raj Administration and field experiences of serving in appropriate capacity at least for 3 months were essential. This according to the petitioners indicated the objective of regularising the petitioners in their posts. However, no action was taken by the Commission on this Advertisement. It is petitionrs’ case that after the change of the Government in the month of December, 1985 the new Government cherished a misgiving that all appointments under Regulation 3(f) by the previous Congress Government was politically motivated and, therefore, all those appointments were required to be cancelled and this decision was applied in the case of the 58 BDOs including the petitioners. 6. It appears that the Panchayat Department in their No. P.D.B. 13/81/Pt. 6. It appears that the Panchayat Department in their No. P.D.B. 13/81/Pt. V/9 dated 20.1.86 in supersession of their earlier letter dated 17.1.85 furnished a revised Draft Advertisement to the Commission for taking necessary steps to recommend names for the posts of BDOs. In this revised draft advertisement inviting applications for 58 posts of BDOs, the age requirement was stated as follws :- "3. Age of a candidate must not be less than 21 years and more than 30 years on 1.1.1986 for general category of candidates. Upper age limit of the candidates belonging to the Schedule Castes/Tribes is relaxable as per Govt. Notification issued from time to time. As regards caste/Tribi certificate in respect of Schedule Caste/Tribes candidates issued by the authority as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Assam Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (reservation of vacancies in service and post) Rules, 1983 and in Schedule under Rule 4 of the Assam Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Act. 1978 and in resp­ect of OBC candidates including M.O.B.C. candidates issued by the Government under relevant orders in this behalf only will be accepted. 3. 1. There will be a further relaxation of upper age limit for all categories of candidates by 6 (six) years as per Government instruc­tion contained in O.M.No.ABP. 177/85/16 dated 10.9.1985. In paragraph 7 it was stated that candidates would be required to appe­ar in the test and interview to be notified later on at their own expense. Candidates already in service were to apply through proper channel. Thus, in this revised draft advertisement there was no requirement of pre-service training and/or field experience 7. The Public Service Commission thereafter published the impugned advertisement dated 28.1.1986. Hence this petition filed on 18th Februa­ry, 1986. Rule was issued on 19.2.86, in Civil Rule 150/86. In the con­nected Misc. Case No. 214/86, notice was issued on 19.2.86 returnable within two weeks. Therein it was also ordered : "Meanwhile there shall be an interim direction to the 3rd respond­ent to forward the application of the petitioner immediately to the Assam Public Service Commission with remarks, if any. It shall be open to the Assam Public Service Commission to scrutinise the app­lication of the petitioner and satisfy itself whether the application is in order or not including about the qualifications of the petitioner prescribed for the post applied for." 8. It shall be open to the Assam Public Service Commission to scrutinise the app­lication of the petitioner and satisfy itself whether the application is in order or not including about the qualifications of the petitioner prescribed for the post applied for." 8. On 5.1.86 a news item by Staff Reporter was published in the Assam Tribune under the caption "100 BDOs Discharged". It stated : ‘‘The Assam Government today discharged over one hundred Block Development Officers appointed temporarily under Regulation 3 (f) of APSC during the tenure of the former Congress (I) Government, according to official sources. The appointments were allegedly made without following any procedure prescribed for 3(f) appointments. Further the appointments were allegedly made on political consider­ations. In the process, some persons whose age had crossed the presribed age-limit were also appointed...../ The same news was also published in the Sentinel of 6.1.86. This was followed by a telegraphic order by the Agricultural Production Commi­ssioners, Assam dated 11.1.86 directing all Deputy Commissioners, Sub-Divisional Officers and Project Directors to take over cash balance incl­uding .bank accounts operated by such discharged BDOs. The remaining 43 instant petitioners in their writ petitions’ challenged the decision of the State Government reflected in the above news items in the local press reporting discharge of 100 BDOs published as above and the order of the Agricultural Commissioner dated 11.1.86. The decision of the Government and the Order of discharge were not annexed to the petitions However, the Notification No. PDB 13/81/Pt. V/2 dated 16.1.1986 has now been annexed as Annexure-VI to the Affidavit in opposition of Respondents 1,2 and 3. It said. The following persons who were appointed as Block Development Officers under regulation 3(f) of A.P.S.C. (Limitation of Functions) Regulation 1951 vide Govt. Notifications (1) No. PDB. 13/81/224 dt. 10.10.83; (2) No. PDB. 13/81/237, dt. 7.6.84; (3) No.PDB.21/85/ Pt/2 dt. 29.1.85 and (4) PDB. 21/85/22 dated 23.2.85 are hereby dis­charged with immediate effect. They are requested to hand over charge to the seniormost S.O.(P)/W&C of their concerned Blocks/’ The Notification contains the names of 58 Block Development Officers. 9. On perusal of the order in this Notification it is clear that this order does not give reasons for discharging the 58 BDOs as were given in the aforesaid news item. They are requested to hand over charge to the seniormost S.O.(P)/W&C of their concerned Blocks/’ The Notification contains the names of 58 Block Development Officers. 9. On perusal of the order in this Notification it is clear that this order does not give reasons for discharging the 58 BDOs as were given in the aforesaid news item. The petitioners annexed a copy of the letter from the Panchayat Department to the Secretary of the Commission dated 17.6.85 furnishing a revised draft, advertisement for the post of BDOs as per terms and conditions of the draft advertisement for taking steps for advertisements of the posts. By Memo dated 3.8.85 copy of that letter was sent to all BDOs appointed under regulation 3 f). They were requ­ested to submit their applications for candidature for the posts of BDOs would be made by the Commission in due course. 10. In appears, the 100 BDOs through their 37 representatives submi­tted a Joint Memorandum to the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam alleging discrimination, victimisation and vindictive discharge on politi­cal consideration and praying for appropriate relief to save their lives and livelihood. 11. In the writ petitions the petitioners challenged the impugned order dated 11.1.86 for taking over cash and bank balance and the decision of the State Government to discharge the petitioners appointed under regulation 3 (f) and prayed for restraining or forbearing from giv­ing effect to the said decision to discharge the BDOs till expcditiously steps were taken by the Government to regularise their appointments on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission, and to allow them to continue to hold the posts till regularisation was made in accor­dance with law. 12. In Misc. Case No. 12/86 ( Siddhartha Dutta vs. State of Assam ) on122.1.86 order was passed for maintenance of status quo as on that date. In a group of Miscellaneous cases arising out of similar writ petiti­ons this Court by order dated 24.1.86 ordered maintenance of status quo as on that date until further orders on those petitions. It was however made clear that the order would not preclude the Commission from calling applications and finalising the selection as expeditiously as poss­ible. Admittedly, as a result of the aforesaid interim order the petitio­ners are continuing in office. The Commission called for applications as allowed by this order. It was however made clear that the order would not preclude the Commission from calling applications and finalising the selection as expeditiously as poss­ible. Admittedly, as a result of the aforesaid interim order the petitio­ners are continuing in office. The Commission called for applications as allowed by this order. It is stated at the Bar that as many as 18,000 candidates appeared at the examination and are awaiting results. 13. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 150/86, Shri Hemanta Kumar Pegu filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7843 of 1986 with writ Pet­ition (Civil) No. 1024/86 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By order dated 9.3.1987 the Supreme Court vacated its interim order and left the matter to be decided by this Court in Civil Rule No. 150 of 1986. Their Lords­hips, however, made it clear that in disposing of this matter this High Court will "consider the question of experience and trainnig of the petit­ioners who are working as Block Development Officers in the backgrou­nd of the facts and circumstances of the case whether it should or should not be taken into consideration and if taken into consideration what weight and value should be given by the Assam Public Service Commiss­ion. To this experience and to dispose of the matter in accordance with law." It has further been directed that ‘‘Public Service Commission will finalise the selection only after the disposal of the writ petition by the High Court and to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously in view of the urgency of the matter". There were 45 writ petitions One petition has since been withdrawn. As the remaining 44 writ petitions including that of Hemanta Kumar Pegu, involve similar facts and questions of law, they are heard and disposed of together by this common judgment. 14. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 150 of 1986, Shri Hemanta Kumar Pegu in his supplementary affidavit filed on 23.11.87 states that at the time of hearing of Civil Rule Nos. 1263, 1T64, and 1285 of 1986 and Nos. 14. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 150 of 1986, Shri Hemanta Kumar Pegu in his supplementary affidavit filed on 23.11.87 states that at the time of hearing of Civil Rule Nos. 1263, 1T64, and 1285 of 1986 and Nos. 71,72,10!,102,114 of 1987 in regard to appointment of Senior Block Development Officers, it was disclosed by the Government, inter alia, that 134 posts of Senior Block Development Officers at the rate of one post in every Development Block existed out of which 47 Senior Block Development Officers have been appointed and rest are to be filled up by promotion from the posts held by Secretaries, Mahkuma Parishad; Secretaries, Standing Committees and Sub-Divisional Planning Officers ; that it was decided by the Government as a policy that 50% of the posts of Senior BDOs i.e. 67 posts would ‘be from A.C.S. cadre and the balance 67 posts would be from the aforesaid officers; that after this 10 new Block Development Zones have been created giving rise to the figure 134 to 144 and out of these 144 Blocks the Government initially appointed 58 BDOs under Regulation 3 (f) and 42 persons under Regula­tion 4 (d) leaving the remaining 44 posts vacant. 5 out of the 58 BDOs appointed under Regulation 3 (f) have left the Department. According to the petitioners 10 more posts are still lying vacant and there are 18 vacancies at different Mahakuma Parishads and thus the total vacancy amounts to 77. 15. Though the Government issued discharge notices on the 58 BDOs they are continuing in service by virtue of the status quo orders issued by this Court which was given effect to by the Government issuing a notification dated 11.8.87. 5 of them having left, the remaining 53 BDOs’ services have been extended until further orders or till the order of this Court, whichever is earlier from the expiry of last term. 16. 5 of them having left, the remaining 53 BDOs’ services have been extended until further orders or till the order of this Court, whichever is earlier from the expiry of last term. 16. Mr.B.K.Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits, inter alia, that the petitioners have a right to be regularised on the basis of their training and experience in working as BDOs and the Regulations need their regularisation in terms of the Government instruction dated 27.7.64, and without pursuing the method of regularisation prescribed in the said circulated instruction the attempt by the Government to compel the petitioners to apply as fresh candidates for direct recruitment is neither authorised nor permissible under the law inasmuch as the concepts of regularisation and recruitment are distinct and separate. According to counsel, temporary appointments by the State Government are perfectly legitimate and Regulation 3 (f) of the Regulations confers that power and the State Government while appointing the 58 BDOs exercised that power and there was no illegality and irregularity in the appointments. As the Government had not framed any statutory Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution in this regard and otherwise in regard to the functioning of the Commission, Recruitment, and Regulation through the Commission is, according to counsel, to be governed by the instruction which hold the field in absence of Service Rules. Two such instructions are to be found in the Govt. of Assam Hand book of General Circulars (a) Instruction No. A.AP. 196/59/42 dated 27.7.64, and (b) instruction No. ABP. 51/03/l dated 5.2.54 (i964). 17. According to Mr.Das, the Gvernment took all the steps but the Commission did not publish the first draft advertisement on the ground that earlier it sent 23 names selected from the valid merit list but those were not appointed. However, the Government in its letter dated 25.9,84 replied to the Commission explaining circumstances whereunder the appointments had to be made. 18. The impugned advertisement for filling up the posts of aforesaid 58 BDOs by fresh recruitment, counsel submits, is not in accordance with the process prescribed by the Regulations. The regularisation and recruitment, argues Mr.Das, are two separate and distinct concepts in service jurisprudence and regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. 18. The impugned advertisement for filling up the posts of aforesaid 58 BDOs by fresh recruitment, counsel submits, is not in accordance with the process prescribed by the Regulations. The regularisation and recruitment, argues Mr.Das, are two separate and distinct concepts in service jurisprudence and regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. As no Rules have been framed in the instant case the instruction of 1964 should prevail and the Commission having failed to proceed with the Regulations in accordance with the draft advertisement despite repeated reminders the appointment of the petitioners must be deemed to have been taken out of the purview of the Commission. 19. We are unable to accept the above contention as they are submitted. As was held in B.N. Nagarajan & Ors, vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, (1979)4 SCC 507 the words “regular" or ‘‘regularisation" do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointment. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments Further, when rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are in force, no regularisation is permissible in exercise of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162 of the Constitution in contravention of the rules. In Nanjundappa’s case (1972) 2 SCR 799 : (1972) 1 SCC 409 , it has been held that if the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution illegality cannot be regularised. Ratification or regularisation is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. In Kedar Giri v. State of Bihar, (1986) Suppl. SCC 573 the same principle was reiterated and the petitioners were directed to tie put back in the posts they occupied until proper selection in accordance with the rule was made afresh. It was left open to the petitioners to appear at such section. 20. ‘Regular’ according to the Black’s Law Dictionary, means conformable to law. Made according to Rule, duly authorised. It was left open to the petitioners to appear at such section. 20. ‘Regular’ according to the Black’s Law Dictionary, means conformable to law. Made according to Rule, duly authorised. It means governed by or according to rule, law, order etc. To regularize therefore, is to make conform to law; to make regular. Regularization means the act of making regular. ;£l.’ In General Circular No.AAP. 196/59/42 dated 27.7.1964 (Hand Book of General Circulars, Vol.1, page, 83) we find the following procedure for appointments under Regulations 3(e), 3(f) and 4(d) of the Regulations; ".27.1. Whenever any appointment is made under Regulations 3(e) and 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1951 the appointing authorities should invariably send a copy of such appointment order/notification to the Assam Public Service Commission and Accountant General, Assam & Nagaland, Shillong and take immediate steps to regularise the appointment within the period of six months or 4 months, as the case may be, in consultation with the Assam Public Service Commission (if the vacancy) against which the appointment has been made is likely to continue beyond the specified period). The appointing authority should also take urgent steps for forwarding advertisements for the post/posts to the Commission as soon as possible and remind the latter before expiry of the terms of the appointment of persons appointed under the above-mentioned regulation In the event of not getting any response from the Assam Public Service Commission within, the prescribed time they may be reminded once again and the fact also made known to the Accountant General, Assam & Nagaland." The Circular No. ABP. 51/63/1 dated 5.2.54, para 10.2 clearly say that normally appointments made under Regulations 3{e) and 3(f) of the Regulations should be regularised within the time limits specified in the Regulation itself. 22. It is not denied that these circulars are not statutory rules and that no Rule governing regularisation has been framed. At best they are administrative instructions. There is also no dispute as to the proposition that in absence of statutory service Rules the executive instructions of the Government would hold the field as was ruled in Dr. Satyabrata D. Choudhury vs. State of Assam, AIR 1976 SC 487 . At best they are administrative instructions. There is also no dispute as to the proposition that in absence of statutory service Rules the executive instructions of the Government would hold the field as was ruled in Dr. Satyabrata D. Choudhury vs. State of Assam, AIR 1976 SC 487 . Regulation 3 of the Regulations provides that it shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted in matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and posts or the suitability of the candidates for such appointments, in the following cases, namely : 3 (f) When an appointment is to be made by direct recruitment to a temporary post created in a service, if it is necessary in the public interest that the appointment should be made immediately and reference to the Commission would cause undue delay ; provided that if the post has been sanctioned for, or is .. likely to last for more than four months, the Commission shall, as soon as possible, be consulted in all matters mentioned in sub-clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution." This provision speaks of methods of recruitment and the suita­bility of the candidates and is itself amounts to an exception to sub-clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution which says: "(3) The Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted...... Provided that the President as respects the all India Serv­ices and also as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and the Governor, as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of a State may make regulations specifying the matters in which either generally, or in any particular class of case or in any particular circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be consulted.’ 23. The Regulations have been made expressly in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the proposition of law is that in all appointments coming within the purview of the Public Service Commission it shall be consulted except when such consultation is not required under any rules framed under the proviso to sub-clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution. Therefore, the proposition of law is that in all appointments coming within the purview of the Public Service Commission it shall be consulted except when such consultation is not required under any rules framed under the proviso to sub-clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution. Further, in case of such appointments all the pre-conditions prescribed in Regulation 3 (f) have to be fulfilled and it is incumbent on the appointing authority to comply with the requirements as to consultation. 24. There is no doubt that in the instant case the Public Service Commission was not consulted as soon as possible but the State Government took steps with a view to regularise the appointments of the 58 BDOs in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the General Circulars of 1964. 25. Mr. Das’s submission is that after reminding the Public Service Commission and the Accountant General when the Public Service Commission did not advertise, the matter went out of the purview of the Public Service Commission. We are unable to accept this submission. Delay or refusal on the part of the Commission to regularise 3(f) appointments cannot have the effect of over-riding the provisions of the Regulations, far Jess those of Article 320 of the Constitution. The effect of such delay or refusal on the rights of the 3 (f) appointees is, of course a different question. The fact that 23 persons were earlier recommended for the posts of BDOs by the Commission, the Commi­ssion’s stand that unless these 23 names were processed through no advertisement would be. published, could not have been justified if the number of posts to be filled up was more than 23. Nevertheless the Commission has now published its advertisement and the delay in regularisation should not be allowed to affect the petitioners adversely. 26. The main question centres round the differences between the draft advertisement sent by the Government and the advertisement made by the Commission and that too mainly on two points (i) requirement of age, and (ii) the requirement of experience, field service and training. While Mr. Das contends that regularisation must necessarily mean regularisation of tie appointments of the petitioners to the posts so that if they Were to be found otherwise qual­ified and in no way disqualified their appointments must be regularised to the same posts to which they were appointed under Regulation 3 (f). Mr. While Mr. Das contends that regularisation must necessarily mean regularisation of tie appointments of the petitioners to the posts so that if they Were to be found otherwise qual­ified and in no way disqualified their appointments must be regularised to the same posts to which they were appointed under Regulation 3 (f). Mr. Goswami contends that regularisation means making regular appointment by selection irrespective of the question whether the petitioners were already appointed under Regulation 3(f) or not. No benefit or advantage arising out of 3 (f) appointment of the petitioners can be given to them which the fresh recruits would not have. Regularis­ation, it is submitted, refers to the recruitment and not to the appoint­ment. In other words, the age requirement must be the same and there must be no requirement as to experience, field service or training as BDOs. The answers to this question must necessarily depend on the precise meaning of the expression "regularisation". Does it mean regular appointment of the persons alredy appointed to a post under Regulation 3(f) to that post, or making appointment to the post hitherto filled up by appointment under Regulation 3(f) by selection in the prescribed mode allowing open competition to all applicants ? It may be noted $that the Regulation 3(f) does not use expression "regularisation’’ it only speaks of the Commission being consulted. However, Circular No. AAP. 196/59/42 dated 27.7. i 964 directs taking of immediate steps "to regularise the appointment". What are the steps to be taken to regularise the appointment have been prescribed. Circular No. ABP. 51/63/1 dated 5.2. 1954 speaks of appointment made under Regulation 3 (f) "and later regularised through A.P.S.C.". Both these circulars envisage appointments being regularised through the Commission. The regularisation of a particular appointment would necessarily imply a nexus between the person already appointed and the post to which he is appointed, and it may not to that extent, envisage putting the incumbent at par with the other candidates for the post. It was perhaps in this sense in Dhirendra Chaomoli and another Vo. The regularisation of a particular appointment would necessarily imply a nexus between the person already appointed and the post to which he is appointed, and it may not to that extent, envisage putting the incumbent at par with the other candidates for the post. It was perhaps in this sense in Dhirendra Chaomoli and another Vo. State of U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637 their Lordships observed that casual workers must be paid the same salary and conditions of service as class IV employees appointed on regular basis by the Nehru Yuvak Kendras except regularisation which could not be done since there were no sanctioned posts, but their Lordships hoped and trusted that posts would be sanctioned by the Central Government in the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras so that these persons could be regularised. 27. There is no doubt that provisions of the Regulations have to be understood in the context of Article 320 (3) of the Constitution read with the Regulations. Under Clause (1) of Article 320 it shall be the duty of the State Public Service Commission to conduct examination for appointments to the services of the State. Under Clause (3) thereof the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted (a) on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts (b) on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from the service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers ; (c) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a Civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters ; etc. In the absence of the Regulations the above provisions of Article 320 would be applicable. Regulation 3 (f) of the Regulations is in effect a proviso to Article 320 and only in the circumstances provided therein consultation of the Public Service Commission has been rendered unnecessary and the same has to be strictly construed. The pre-conditions prescribed thereunder are that the post is a temporary post created in a service ; it has been sanctioned for or is likely to last for less than 4 months. In these cases consultation of the Public Service Commission has been rendered unnecessary. The pre-conditions prescribed thereunder are that the post is a temporary post created in a service ; it has been sanctioned for or is likely to last for less than 4 months. In these cases consultation of the Public Service Commission has been rendered unnecessary. However, if the post is not a temporary post created in a service or it is a temporary post but has been sanctioned for or is likely to last for more than 4 months, the Commission shall, as soon as possible, be consulted in all matters mentioned in Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution. In other words in all such matters if the post is of urgent necessity consultation of the Public Service Commission must be made. As we have already discussed, Article 320 as well as Regulation 3 (f) speak of consultation and not of regularisation, the expression used in the Government circulars. In view of the above Constitutional position the submission of Mr. Das that the Commission having not acted on the advertisement sent by the State Government the matter was taken beyond the purview of the Commission, is untenable. Mr. Goswami rightly submits that Regulation 3 (f) does not provide a source of power of appointment but only provides the mode of appointment. Regularisation, as we have already noted, does not connote permanence. 28. Whether regularisation is with reference to the recruitment or of that particular appointment has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case in the background of the Rules relevant thereto. In so far as the provisions are concerned if the consultation of Public Service Commission is within the period of four months and the decision is taken soon thereafter there is no reason why consultation should not mean the same thing as in all other eases. However, if the appointment under Regulation 3 (f) is allowed to continue without consulting the Public Service Commission or the Public Service Commission when consulted fails to take any action for reguiarisation and in the meantime Regulation 3 (f) employees have continued in service for considerable period and have incurred disqualification regarding their age or otherwise, equity would not allow these factors to be wholly ignored. It may not, under such circumstances, be open for the State to contend that whatever be the duration of their appointment and the consequence thereof to their detriment they must be treated absolutely at par with the fresh recruits. The State ought not to be allowed to disown its contractual obligation. When the State wanted the petitioners’ services for temporary periods and appointed the Regulation 3 (f) employees and they rendered those services for considerable length of time it would not be permissible for the State to ignore these ‘duration’ and other facts altogether, particularly when either it did not act according to the administrative instructions or had acted but could not obtain the regularisation by the Commission before it was too late. Longer is the duration of 3 (f) appointment, greater would be implied nexus between the incumbent and the post he holds and weaker would be the State’s claim to treat them absolutely at par with fresh candidates. We are pursuaded to make this observation in view of the recent developments in service jurisprudence particularly relating to ad-hoc and casual employees. In Rattanlal vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 43 = AIR 1987 SC 478 where Government appointed ad-hoc teachers at the commencement of an academic year and terminated their services before the commence­ment of the succeeding summer vacation or earlier and continued to do so year after year though it was the duty of the State Government to take steps to appoint teachers in those vacancies according to Rules as early as possible, their Lordships held that the State Government hid failed to discharged that duty in those cases. Their Lordships accordingly said, "We, therefore, direct the State Government to take imme­diate steps to fill up in accordance with the relevant rules the vacancies in which teachers appointed on ad-hoc basis are now working and to allow all those teachers who are now holding these posts on ad-hoc basis to remain in those posts till the vacancies are duly filled up. The teachers who are not working on such ad-hoc basis if they have the prescribed qualification may also apply for being appointed regularly in those posts. The State Government may also consider sympathetically the question of relaxing the qualification of maximum5 age prescribed for appointment to those posts in the case of those who have been victims of this system of ‘ad-hoc’ appointments. The State Government may also consider sympathetically the question of relaxing the qualification of maximum5 age prescribed for appointment to those posts in the case of those who have been victims of this system of ‘ad-hoc’ appointments. If any of the petitioners in these petitions has under any existing rule acquired the right to be treated as a regularly appointed teacher, his case shad be considered by the State Government and an appropriate order may be passed in his case." 29. In Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1636 where services of temporary teachers in Kendriya Vidyalaya were terminated and fresh appointments were given but expressly without any benefit of past services and the teachers’ performance in subsequent years was highly praised, it was held that he was entitled to benefit of continuous service notwithstanding terms to the contrary in his fresh appointment. Their Lordships held that the sanctify of the contract between the parties should not be given a go-bye, but having regard to the subsequent conduct and the quality of appellant’s performance, of which high appreciation was recorded by his superiors, he should be relieved of the disadvantage suffered by him pursuant to that term in his contract of fresh appointment. So also in Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1986 SC 1626 = 1986 Lab I. C. 1086 where services of the petitioners appointed on ad-hoc basis were terminated on expiry of term on basis of adverse remarks and allegation of embezzlement inspite of there being circular of Government for regularisation of services, it was held by the Supreme Court that the termination was by way of punishment and the orders were illegal for no n-compliance of Article 311 (2), the reason being that when an allegation is made by the employee assailing the order of termination as one based on misconduct, though couched in innocuous terms, it is incumbent . on the court to lift the veil and to see the real circumstances as well as basis and foundation of the order complained of. In other words, the Court, in such case, will be the veil and will see whether the order was made on the ground of misconduct, inefficiency or not. on the court to lift the veil and to see the real circumstances as well as basis and foundation of the order complained of. In other words, the Court, in such case, will be the veil and will see whether the order was made on the ground of misconduct, inefficiency or not. In that case the allegation of serious misconduct against the petitioner and also the adverse entries in the service records of those petition is, which were taken into consideration by the Departmental Selection Committee without giving them any opportunity of hearing and without following the procedure provided in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, while considering the fitness and suitability of the appellants for the purpose of regularising their services in accordance with the Government Circular made in October, 1980. 30. The next question is to what extent the experience and in-service training acquired by the petitioners should be considered by the Commission in making the selection ? If it is held that the experience and training must be considered that would put the fresh recruits at a position of disadvantage. If on the other hand it is said that those shall not be considered then the petitioners nexus with the post for so many years will be totally lost and in the grounds stated in the Government’s affidavit, namely, that they were appointed under Regulation 3 (f) without considering their merits qualifications and age but on extraneous considerations and some of them having been related to high ups willsurely go against the petitioners so as to enfeeble their chances of being selected. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the duration for which the petitioners already served as BDOS we are of the view that while their experience and training cannot be directed to be totally ignored and those who do not possess these to be disqualified, it shall be open to the Commission to put such value to these as the Commission thinks it reasonable to do without at the same disqualifying others without such qualifications. In other words, other things remaining equal the . Commission may put such value and weightage on these aspects as it would have done as an additional qualification in other usual cases. 31. In other words, other things remaining equal the . Commission may put such value and weightage on these aspects as it would have done as an additional qualification in other usual cases. 31. As regards some of the petitioners having been over-aged we have been told at the bar that none of the petitioners has that difficulty and those who had it are not before this Court. We accordingly do not like to express any opinion on this question. In case any of the petitioners is sought to be disqualified on this ground it should be left open for him to move this court -for any direction in that regard. 32. For the foregoing reasons we would allow the Commission to proceed with the selection and finalisation of the select list in accordance with law keeping what has been discussed here in above in mind without at the same time being in any way fettered in their discretion in the matter of making the selection according to law. 33. The next question is the validity of the orders of discharge. An appointment under Regulation 3 (f) also has a basic contractual element in it and such appointment also creates mutual rights and obligations between the Government and the incumbent and, therefore, appointment under Regulation 3 (f) cannot be said to be a purely time limited temporary appointment so as to automatically come to an end at the expiry of that period. Till the Commission on consultation recommends the select list and the persons selected are appointed the Regulation 3 (f) appointees are expected to continue to hold the posts If during this period the incumbent is to be deprived of his post it can be done only by complying with the provisions under Article 31 ‘(2). Otherwise, the possibility of a] poin­ting different persons successively under Regulation 3 (f) in the same post and terminating each after a period without ever taking steps to consult the Commission would be possible. Law would n t countenance such a situation. Otherwise, the possibility of a] poin­ting different persons successively under Regulation 3 (f) in the same post and terminating each after a period without ever taking steps to consult the Commission would be possible. Law would n t countenance such a situation. In the instant case the discharge orders were passed after the petitioners came to this court and in its affidavit the Government tried to justify the orders stating that these appointments were mane while 23 persons were already in the select list sent by the Commission; that the petitioners were appointed under Regulation 3 (f) on extraneous considerations and that even their Bio-data were not taken or were not available. These could have been grounds for discharging them but only after giving them opportunities of being heard The statements by the petitioners that they were not given any opportunity of being heard has not been denied and there are no materials to show that the petitioners were in fact heard. However slender it might be the petitioners had the right to continue in their posts until the Commission was consulted, and without consulting the Commission and without the Commission forwarding the selection list and appointments made from that list, the petitioners ought not to have been discharged by the State Government. Such an order could n «t be said to have been envisaged under Regulation 3 (f) or under the terms of appointment We accordingly find ourselves unable to uphold the impugned Discharge orders which are accordingly hereby quashed. The petitioners must, therefore, be deemed to have continued in service as having been appointed under Regulation 3(f) until the Commission is consulted and appointments are made on its reco­mmendations. We feel justified in our conclusion in view of the facts that in the discharge notice (Annexure-6) no reason whatsoever was given why they were discharged. 34. As regards the submission that the discharge order is contrary to the notification bearing No. PDB. 13/84/41 dated 6th February, 1986 extending the services of the 22 BDOs for a further period of 4 months w.e.f. October, 1985 Mr. Goswami points out that this notification was only for the purpose of enabling payments to be made to those BDOs since they continued to serve in those posts. 13/84/41 dated 6th February, 1986 extending the services of the 22 BDOs for a further period of 4 months w.e.f. October, 1985 Mr. Goswami points out that this notification was only for the purpose of enabling payments to be made to those BDOs since they continued to serve in those posts. Copy of the notification was forwarded to the Accountant General Assam requesting him to issue pay slips to the officers and stating that necessary advertisement for the posts had been made through the Commission. We accept this explanation and as we have set aside the discharge orders there should be no complication on this account. 35. We are unable to accept the submission that the appointments under Regulation 3 (f) were not regular as there was already a valid select list pending and the Commission already pointed it out. Even under such circumstances the State Government was not bereft of the power under the Regulations and the persons appointed under Regulation 3 (f) cannot bi denied the rights and obligations acquired by them by virtue of such appointments and the State would not be justified in just ignoring such appointments as to be of no consequence. We also are unable to hold that the discharge orders were not penal in nature but were simpliciter in terms of appointment, AIR 1958 SC 36 ^ AIR 1964 SC 521 and (1984) GLR 500 would not be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. We are also unable to accept the submission that the dis­charge was only a correction of mistake earlier committed by the State Government. There is nothing to show that the appointments were made by mistake. Even if it is accepted that the discharge was only because of illegalities committed in making the appointments it would not obviate the necessity of giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard in compliance with the principles of natural justice, as they had the right to continue until appointments were made to their posts on the basis of selection made by the Commission. The submission that no notice was necessary for discharge is not tenable under the facts and circumstances of the case particularly in view of grounds stated in the Government affidavit. The decisions in AIR 1985 SC 603 , (1982) I SCC 6b4 and IR 1964 SC 1980 would not help the State in this regard. 3 >. The submission that no notice was necessary for discharge is not tenable under the facts and circumstances of the case particularly in view of grounds stated in the Government affidavit. The decisions in AIR 1985 SC 603 , (1982) I SCC 6b4 and IR 1964 SC 1980 would not help the State in this regard. 3 >. The submission that the petitioners having not amended their writ petitions so as to impugn the discharge orders and prays for quashing them, we are of the view that the plea against discharge having already been taken in substance in the petitions as well as in the affidavit-in-reply it could not be said that the petitioners did not challenge the orders of discharge and the same having how been annexed by the State itself we are not inclined to throw out the petition on this ground. 36. Though Mr. Das feebly argued that there was breach of promissory estoppel, after hearing Mr. Goswami and on scrutiny of the letters of appointment and the provisions of Regulation 3 (f) we do not consider it relevant to discuss the provisions of promissory estoppel, more so, when we have already held the discharge orders to be contrary to law. 37. To sum up we hold the discharge orders to be invalid and set those aside, and the petitioners must be deemed to have continued in their posts being appointed under Regulation 3 (f until appointments are made to these posts on basis of selection made by the Commission. 38. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned advertisement which does not mention experience and training as qualifications and also does not relax the maximum age requirement. We have left it opon to the petitioners to move this court if anyone of them is disqualified as over-aged The petitioners having already applied pursuant to our interim order or otherwise, their applications shall ^e considered alongwith those of the fresh recruits, but the Commission still be free to give such value and weighrage to the experience and training of the petitioners as it considers best, other things remaining equal The selections made by the Commission shall be forwarded to the State Government according to law and till appointments are made the petitioners shall continue in service. Those of the petitioners who are selected by the Commission and appointed by the State Government thereafter shall have such rights and obligations as the law envisages. At the same time the State Government ought not to be allowed to deny the right to equal treatment and free competition in services under tie State which are national properties, by simply making appointments under Regula­tion 3 (f ) and allowing them to continue as such with a view to protect them from free competition and. equal treatment. Hence we have left to the Commission to give such value and weightage to the petitioners’ experience and training as it deems best. If any of the petitioners is disqualified on the ground of being overaged it shall be open to him to move this Court for appropriate remedy. This we have ordered in vi-w of the fact that it has been stated at the Bar that none of the petitioners before us is over-aged and the averment has not been denied. For the periods the petitioners have served by virtue of our interim orders they shall be paid the usual salary and allowances as they have been paid prior to orders of their discharge. 39. In the result, with the above observations and directions the petitions and the Rules are disposed of. The connected miscellaneous cases are also accordingly disposed of. The interim orders passed on different petitions shall merge in this judgment. We have the parties to pay and bear their own costs.