S. N. Phukan, J.- By this common judgment and Older we propose to dispose of Civil Rule Nos. 660 and 1096 of 1991 as these two petitions were heard analogous. The first writ petition has been filed by six persons and the second one by five persons. Briefly stated the facts areas follows : The Government in the Depart­ment of Welfare of Plains Tribes and Bakward Classes, Dispur issued Memo. No. TAD/SW/23/80/170 dated 3rd November, 1990 to the Director of Social Welfare and Probation, Assam, Gauhati directing that the necessary vacancies in the post of Lower Division Assistant-cum-Typist in the ICDS project may be filled up from persons having registration in the Employment Exchange with requisite qualification. As this letter is of importance we quote below the substance of the letter. "It is desired by the Minister, Social Welfare that a few posts of LDA-cum-Typist should be recruited on ad-hoc basis to fill up existing vacancies in the ICDS projects. The candidates to be appointed should have registration in employment exchange with requisite qualification. I am, therefore, directed to request you to take necessary action accordingly and to regularise the appointment as per Rule 6(5) of the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967." Consequent to the letter by two office orders, 18 persons were appointed temporarily as Lower Division Assistant-cum-Typist on ad-hoc basis for a period of two months with effect from the date of their joining subject to regularisation in due course. It was specifically stated in the order that the appointments were purely temporary and may be terminated without assign­ing any reasons thereof. On 9th January, 1991 the District Social Welfare Officer, Sonitpur at Tezpur issued letters to all the petitioners terminating their services on the expiry of the above period of two months. The order contained in the letter is available in the Civil Rule No. 660 of 1991 marked as Annexure 4. In the said writ petition a W.T. message has been annexed as Annexure 5 by which the District Social Welfare Officer, Sonitpur,Tezpur was directed not to extend the services of the persons who were appointed for a period of two months. Being aggrieved. the present two petitions have been filed. A counter has been filed on behalf of the State Government justifying the action taken. We have heard Mr. Medhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J. Singh, learned Government Advocate. Being aggrieved. the present two petitions have been filed. A counter has been filed on behalf of the State Government justifying the action taken. We have heard Mr. Medhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J. Singh, learned Government Advocate. The relevant sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967 and the note appended thereto is quoted below : "6. Recruitment to the service shall be made by the appointing authority according to the procedure laid down below- (5) Lower Division Assistant (a) By direct recruitment on the basis of a competitive examination to be conducted by the Deputy Commi­ssioner at the beginning of each year unless otherwise directed by the Government in this behalf; Provided that in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, United Khasi-Jaintia Hills the recruitment shall be made through the Employ­ment Exchange in such manner as may be directed by Government from time to time. Note ;-At the beginning of each calendar year the Deputy Commissioners shall call for applications to fill up temporary vacancies of any kind which are likely to occur in course of the year in their respective establishments. On receipt of applications by a specified date, a test shall be held and a list of all candidates suitable for appointment to the posts of Lower Division Assistants shall be prepared in order of merit by the Deputy Commissioner. The list shall remain valid for one year unless it is exhausted earlier and one such list shall be prepared every year. The Deputy Commissioner shall make all appointments during the year from such a select list. The syllabus for such tests shall be as specified in the Schedule I." The first point urged by Mr. Medhi is that as in the appointment letter there was a condition that "subject to regularisation in due course"' the petitioners are entitled to continue in the posts till the examinations are held in accordance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 6. Mr. Medhi urged that the termination order was passed in view of the change in the Government, namely, imposition of President's Rule. On the otherhand, Mr. J. Singh, learned Government Advocate has urged on behalf of the State that as the appointment was for two months, the petitioners have no locus-standi to agitate the matter in the Court. In support of his contention Mr. On the otherhand, Mr. J. Singh, learned Government Advocate has urged on behalf of the State that as the appointment was for two months, the petitioners have no locus-standi to agitate the matter in the Court. In support of his contention Mr. Medhi has drawn our attention to the relevant portion under the sub-head 'Non-statutory decisions' at page 561 of the Administrative Law by Wade (Fifth Edition). We have perused the relevant portion and we find that according to the learned author Certiorari can be issued to enforce even mere administrative instructions if there is a violation of any Executive Rules framed or the order is of arbitrary nature. Mr.Medhi has also drawn Our attention to the land-mark decision of the Apex Court in Ramana vs. I. A. Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 wherein it was laid down that the Court can interfere in exercising writ jurisdiction any executive decision if the decision is arbitrary. There cannot be any dispute on the above proposition of law. From reading sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967 we find that a duty has been cast on the Deputy Commissioner to prepare a list for direct recruitment to the post of Lower Division Assistant on the basis of a competitive examination and the validly of the list is for one year. The order of the State Government dated 3rd November, 1990 which was issued under direction of the Minister is clearly in violation of the above Rule and applying the argument advanced by Mr. Medhi we are of the opinion that this order is not tenable in law inasmuch as it violates the statutory provision contained in the sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the above Rules. We may also state here that according to the counter filed the above order of the State Government has teen rescinded. We may also note that the petitioners got their appointment for two months as a result of the above letter. Mr Medhi has also drawn our attention to the Assam Public Services (Ad-hoc) Apparent Rules, 1986. Mr. Medhi has fairly stated that these Rules are not applicable in the cases in hand but on verification of the said Rules we find that even for ad-hoc appointment the selection has to be made after due advertisement and interview by a Board in accordance with the said Rules. Mr. Medhi has fairly stated that these Rules are not applicable in the cases in hand but on verification of the said Rules we find that even for ad-hoc appointment the selection has to be made after due advertisement and interview by a Board in accordance with the said Rules. In the cases in hand according to the direction contained in the letter dated 3rd November, 1990 the appointments were to be made from persons whose names were registered in the Employment Exchange and there was no direction for advertisement and holding of interview. Mr. Medhi has stated that there are about 10 lakhs of unemployed persons in the State and we are of the opinion that the method suggested by the Government for appointment to the posts contained in the letter is absolutely arbitrary inasmuch as fair chance was not given to all the persons similarly situated. Mr. Medhi has submitted that Provident Fund Contribution and contri­bution for Group Insurance Scheme were deducted from the salaries of the petitioners. In this connection, the learned counsel placed reliance in a decision of the Apex Court reported in P.F Inspector, Guntur vs. T.S. Hariharan, AIR 1971 SC 1519 . Mr. Medhi's contention is that provident fund can be ded­ucted only if an employee is regularly appointed. We are of the opinion that this ratio is not applicable to the cases in hand inasmuch as even if there were deductions of provident fund and contribution to the Group Insurance it can­not be applicable for ad-hoc appointment which was only for two months. We may note here that in the counter the State Government has denied deductions towards the General Provident Fund and Group Insurance. According to Mr. Medhi if the examinations would have been held as per sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 in time, the petitioners would have got a chance to appear in the examination. Mr. Singh, learned Govt. Advocate has catego­rically stated that the examinations will be held in accordance with the above Rule and the delay is due to another set of Rules namely Subor­dinate Services Selection Board Rules, 1991. Mr. Singh has further assured that no ad-hoc appointment shall be made in future and appointment to the post in question shall be made only from the select list that would be prepared after holding competitive examination as laid down in sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Rules. Mr. Singh has further assured that no ad-hoc appointment shall be made in future and appointment to the post in question shall be made only from the select list that would be prepared after holding competitive examination as laid down in sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Rules. This statement of the learned Govt. Advocate shall form part of this order and the Government is directed to act accordingly. It is needless to say that if any tests are held the petitioners will be at liberty to take their chances by appearing in the said test. Before we part with the record we may also note that according to the petitioners even after termination of their services after the above period of two months two persons have been appointed on ad-hoc basis and the name of one person has been given. This has been denied in the counter and as such we need not enter into this aspect of the matter. We are unhappy of ad-hoc appointment made in public services of the State when there is specific Rules and direct that the test shall be held in accordance with the said Rules. With the above observations and directions, both the petitions are disposed of. No costs. The interim stay orders stand vacated.