R. C. MANKAD, J. ( 1 ) DIRECTOR of Employee and Training by an advertisement issued on 22/09/1983 invited applications for the posts of Craft Instructors in various subjects who were to be appointed in Industrial Training Institutes run by the Government. Thirty posts of Craft Instructors in Gujarati Stenography for which applications were invited under the said advertisement. Qualifications which were prescribed for the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography were: (1) S. S. C. with Gujarati as a subject (2) Passing of examination held by G. C. C. with speed of 60 words per minute in Gujarati Stenography and 25 words per minute in Gujarati typing and (3) Three years experience as a Gujarati Stenographer after acquiring the above qualifications. Petitioner possessed requisite qualifications except three years experience. Petitioner however applied for the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography in response to the above advertisement and he was called for the interview on 13/11/1983 Petitioner was selected and given appointment as Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography by order Annexure C dated 31/01/1984 Petitioners appointment was upto July 31 198 4/05/1984 the Director of Employment and Training issued another advertisement inviting applications for 16 posts to Craft Instructors in Gujarati Stenography and Craft Instructors in other subjects. Qualifications which were prescribed for the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography were same as in the earlier advertisement except that in the note it was stated that if candidates possessing requisite experience were not available candidates possessing more then one years experience after acquiring the prescribed qualifications would be selected and therefore such candidates would also be eligible to apply. Petitioner again applied for the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography in response to this second advertisement. Petitioner was called for the interview for the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography by letter Annexure H dated 28/06/1984 addressed to the petitioner by the Director of Employment and Training. In this letter it was stated that the candidate selected for the post would be initially appointed on probation for a period of one year. Petitioner was called for the interview for the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography by letter Annexure H dated 28/06/1984 addressed to the petitioner by the Director of Employment and Training. In this letter it was stated that the candidate selected for the post would be initially appointed on probation for a period of one year. It however appears that before selection of candidates could be made in pursuance of the advertisement given in May 1984 petitioner was again appointed as a Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography from the date he took charge of his appointment upto 31/07/1985 under order Annexure I dated 17/08/1984 Petitioner was again selected for the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography after the interviews held on 9/07/1984 in pursuance of the second advertisement issued in May 1984 and he was given appointment upto 31/07/1985 under order Annexure J dated 16/11/1984 It would thus appear that there are two appointment orders appointing petitioner as Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography upto 31/07/1985 one issued in pursuance of the interviews held in December 1983 and the other issued in pursuance of the interviews held in July 1984. It may be recalled that in the interview letter Annexure H dated 28/06/1984 it was stated to the effect that selected candidates would be initially appointed for a period of one year on probation. However by appointment order Annexure J issued on 16/11/1984 petitioners appointment was made only upto 31/07/1985 and not on probation for a period of one year. It is also pertinent to note that though petitioners appointment after selection was to be made on probation for a period of one year the letter of appointment Annexure J dated 16/11/1984 stated that his appointment was purely ad-hoc. After petitioners appointment came to an end of 31/07/1985 under the aforesaid two orders he was given fresh appointment for a period of 29 days on 5/08/1985 Thereafter petitioner was given fresh appointments as Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography for 29 days was issued on 6/08/1986 It may be mentioned here that on 29/09/1985 petitioner had made a representation to the Director of Employment and Training that he should be considered to be regularly appointed. However as pointed out above in spite of this representation made by the petitioner he was given appointment for 29 days each time fresh appointment was made. However as pointed out above in spite of this representation made by the petitioner he was given appointment for 29 days each time fresh appointment was made. Petitioner therefore moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of this petition on 1/09/1986 Petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to make his appointment on permanent basis with effect from 31/01/1984 and to treat his service as continuous from that date with all consequential benefits. Petitioner has also prayed that the action of the respondents in making appointments for 29 days on ad-hoc basis be quashed. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS have resisted the petition on the grounds stated in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in a similar case of one P. H. Vyas (Special Civil Application No. 1423 of 1986 ). It is stated that since the petitioner did not possess requisite experience of three years he was not eligible for appointment to the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography. It was because the petitioner was not eligible for appointment that he was given appointments for 29 days on ad-hoc basis. According to the respondents the Government had framed draft Recruitment Rules for the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography in 1985 and under these Rules candidate who does not have experience of 3 years or more after acquiring the requisite qualifications is not eligible for appointment to the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography and since the petitioner did not possess requisite experience of at least three years as provided in the draft Recruitment Rules he was not eligible for appointment to the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography. It is an admitted position that till the counter affidavits were filed the draft Recruitment Rules were not finalised and they had not come into force. First counter affidavit was filed on 17/03/1989 and the further counter affidavit on 7/08/1989 ( 3 ) IT is difficult to comprehend as to how the draft Recruitment Rules which were framed in 1985 could have any application to the recruitment of Craft Instructors in Gujarati Stenography in 1984 when they were not even in existence. So far as recruitment to the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography is concerned the Rules unless finalised will have no application at all. So far as recruitment to the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography is concerned the Rules unless finalised will have no application at all. But in any case as observed above it cannot have any application to the recruitment made in 1984. As pointed out above petitioner applied for the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography in response to the advertisement issued in May 1984 and he was called for interview in July 1984. In the letter calling the petitioners for interview it was stated that candidates selected for the posts would be on probation for a period of one year. In the advertisement in response to which the petitioner made application it is clearly stated that if qualified candidates with requisite experience of three years was not available candidates having more then one years experience would be considered for selection to the post. In other words requirement regarding three years experience was to be relaxed in case required number of suitable candidates were not available and candidates with more than one years experience were to be considered for selection. Petitioner has given tabularised statement in regard to his experience after acquiring the prescribed qualifications. This statement is at Annexure 2/6 with the affidavit-in-rejoinder of the petitioner. It would appear from this statement which is not controverted that even when petitioners first appointment was made on 31/01/1984 he possessed experience of one of year and seven months after passing the G. C. C. Examination. When the second advertisement vas given in May 1984 petitioner had experience of foul more months. However it cannot be gainsaid that when the second advertisement was given in May 1984 in response to which petitioner had applied for the second time petitioner had experience of more then one year. Since the advertisement itself provided that in case suitable candidates with requisite three years experience was not available the requirement regarding experience of three years would be relaxed and candidates having more than one years experience would be considered for selection petitioner was therefore eligible to be considered to selection. The fact that the petitioner was selected and given appointment after interviews held in July 1984 clearly shows that suitable candidates with requisite three years experience were not available for appointment to the posts of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography and it was therefore that petitioner was selected. The fact that the petitioner was selected and given appointment after interviews held in July 1984 clearly shows that suitable candidates with requisite three years experience were not available for appointment to the posts of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography and it was therefore that petitioner was selected. As already observed above the draft Recruitment Rules of 1985 have no application to the present case and therefore there is no question to the petitioner not being eligible for appointment under the said Rules. Since the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pressed petitioners claim for regularising petitioners appointment with effect from 31/01/1984 which was made in pursuance of the first advertisement of 22/09/1983 it is not necessary to consider the question as to whether petitioner was eligible for appointment on 31/01/1984 because no provision was made for relaxation of the requirement regarding experience in the said advertisement. However so far as the second advertisement of May 1984 is concerned as held above the petitioner was eligible to be considered for the post of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography. It is not disputed that there were and are vacancies in the posts of Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography to be filled upon regular basis. There was therefore no reason or justification to give appointments to the petitioner on ad-hoc basis or for 29 days on ad-hoc basis. As stated in the letter dated 28/06/1984 calling the petitioner for interview petitioner could have been appointed initially on probation for a period of one year. However instead of making his appointment on probation for one year he was appointed on ad-hoc basis upto 31/07/1985 According to the respondents such ad-hoc appointment was made only on the ground the petitioner was not possessing requisite experience of three years under the draft Recruitment Rules which were made in 1985. On the face of it this submission is absurd and devoid of any substance. In my opinion having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case petitioner was entitled to be appointed on regular basis on probation for a period of one year. Petitioner has already worked for more then one year as Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography and his appointment as pointed out above is continued from time to time. It must therefore be assumed that his work was found to be satisfactory. Petitioner has already worked for more then one year as Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography and his appointment as pointed out above is continued from time to time. It must therefore be assumed that his work was found to be satisfactory. ( 4 ) IN the light of the above discussion it must be held that petitioner should be considered to have been regularly appointed with effect from 17/08/1984 - the date on which he was appointed after he was selected in pursuance of the advertisement given in May 1984. The orders appointing him on ad-hoc basis or for 29 days are without authority and these orders deserve to be quashed. Petitioner must be treated to be in continuous service with effect from 17/08/1984 ( 5 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate petitioner as Craft Instructor in Gujarati Stenography and the services shall be treated as regular and continuous with effect from 24/08/1984 (the date on which petitioner resumed duty in pursuance of the appointment made on 17/08/1984 with all consequential monetary and other benefits. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner as stated above within four weeks and pay all the arrears of salary and confer all the benefits monetary or otherwise available to the petitioner as if he was in regular and continuous service from 24/08/1984 within ten weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ of this Court. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (RPV) Petition allowed. .