R.K. Maoisana, J - In Civil Rule No. 131 of 1989/698 of 1989 and Civil Rule No. 76 of 1992, common questions of law and fact have been raised and there­fore, they have been heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The case of the petitioners in Civil Rule No. 76 of 1992 is thus. The seven petitioners were appointed as Assistant Agriculture Officer/equivalent (for short, AAO) by way of direct recruitment on ad hoc basis in the Agriculture Horticulture and Soil Conservation Manipur (which we shall refer to as the `Department'). The petitioners were promoted subsequently as Agriculture Officer ('AO' for short) on ad hoc basis. Five of them had been regularised and two of them are yet to be regularised. The respondents 7 to 39, were appointed as AAO by promotion on ad hoc basis. They had also been promoted as AO on ad hoc basis in the quota of direct recruits. Under the orders of the Government dated 6.11.79, 29.12. 80, 3.1.81, 9.1.81, 14.1.81, 27.11.81, 3.2.81, 2-7.82, 14.11.86, 23.8.86 and 5,11.88, respective dates of appointment of the petitioners and the 33 respondents (respondents 7 to 39) as AAOs and AOs by promotion on ad hoc basis and regularisation, are as follows : - Petitioners SI. No. Name Date of Appointment /regularisation AAO AAO AO AO (Ad hoc) (Regular) (Adhoc) (Regular) 1. L. Gunendra Singh 17.12.73 17.12.73 6. 11.79 28.10.88 2. L. Ibochou Singh 15.9.74 27.8.75 6.11.79 28.10.88 3. Md. Hafizuddin 6.8.76 7.5.77 6.11.79 28.10.88 4. N. Imo Singh 6.8.76 7.5.77 6.11.79 28.10.88 5. N. Kuber Singh 10.7.75 7.5.77 29.12.80 28.10.88 6. RK Jayantakumar Singh 9.8.77 24.5.80 29.12.80 7. Th. Kaminikumar Singh 6.8.76 24.5.80 29.12.80 Respondents Nos. 7 to 39 1. M. Gojendra Singh 3.2.79 15.3.82 9.1.81 24.5.86 2. Y. Dorendra Singh 27.2.79 15.3.82 9.1.81 24.5.86 3. Tb. Nimaichand Singh 17.10.78 15.3.82 9.1.81 24.5.86 4. L Upendra Singh 12.10.78 15.3.82 9.1.81 24.5.86 5. Md. Abdul Noor 27.2.79 15.382 14.1.81 24.5.86 6. Kh. Jugeshwar Singh 17. 7.79 15.3.82 14.1.81 24.5.86 7. Kh. Lokendra Singh 17. 7.79 15.3.82 14.1.81 24.5.86 8. M. Biren Singh 13.11.78 15.3.82 9.1.81 24.5.86 9. Th. Biren Singh 27.10.78 15.3.82 9.1.81 24.5.86 10. N. Brojendra Singh 11.8.77 15.3.82 3.1.81 24.5.86 11. Y. Jaykumar Singh 27. 2.79 15.3.82 3.2.81 24.5.86 12. Th. Puinabati Devi 17.7.79 15.3.82 3.2.81 24.5.86 13. Ch. Nilamani Singh 30.3.79 15.3.82 14.1.81 24.5.86 14. Kh. Lokendra Singh 17. 7.79 15.3.82 14.1.81 24.5.86 8. M. Biren Singh 13.11.78 15.3.82 9.1.81 24.5.86 9. Th. Biren Singh 27.10.78 15.3.82 9.1.81 24.5.86 10. N. Brojendra Singh 11.8.77 15.3.82 3.1.81 24.5.86 11. Y. Jaykumar Singh 27. 2.79 15.3.82 3.2.81 24.5.86 12. Th. Puinabati Devi 17.7.79 15.3.82 3.2.81 24.5.86 13. Ch. Nilamani Singh 30.3.79 15.3.82 14.1.81 24.5.86 14. T. Subol Singh 27.2.79 15.3.82 9.1.81 24.5.86 15. Thangjam Biren Singh 17.7.79 15.3.82 27.1.81 24.5.86 16. L. Shyamjai Singh 30.3.79 15.3.82 3.2.81 24.5.86 17. W. Ibomcha Singh 17.10.78 15.3.82 14.1.81 24.5.86 18. L. Birjir Singh 6.10.78 15.3.82 9.1.81 24.5.86 19. Ph. Lokendra Singh 6.10.78 15.3.82 9.1.81 24.5.86 20. L. Saratchandra Singh 17.7.79 15.3.82 27.1.81 24.5.86 21. S. Jaintakumar Singh 9. 8.77 15.3.82 3.1.81 24.5.86 22. G. Indramohan Sarma 17. 7.79 15.3.82 3.2.81 24.5.86 23. S. Ranjitkumar Singh 29. 3.79 15.3.82 14.1.81 24.5.86 24. K. Nandababu Singh 6.10.78 15.3.82 9.1.81 24.5.86 25. Y. Ishorchandra Singh 17.10.78 15.3.82 14.1:81 24.5.86 26. S. Nimaichand Singh 17. 7.79 15.3.82 14.1.81 24.5.86 27. N. Shamungou Singh 17. 7.79 15.3.82 3.2.81 24.5.86 28. S. Jugindro Singh 6.10.78 15.3.82 3.1.81 24.5.86 29 L. Kulachandra Singh 9.8.77 15.3.82 3.1.81 24.5.86 30. Th. Gyaneswar Singh 12.10.78 15.3.82 9.1.81 24.5.86 31. G. Shantikumar Sarma 6.10.78 24.5.86 3.1.81 24.5.86 32. A. Mukta Singh 18.11.78 24.5.86 3.2.81 24.5.86 33. K. Raghumani Singh 17.7.79 24.5.86 14.1.81 24.586 3. Under the Recruitment Rules of 1979 for the post of AO in the Department, the method of recruitment was 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. The Rules of 1970 were substituted by the Recruitment Rules of 1980. Under the Rules of 1980, the method of recruitment was 40% by direct recruitment and 60% by promotion. The Rules of 1980 were sub­stituted by the Recruitment Rules of 1988 which came into force wef 29.1.88. Under the Recruitment Rules, 1988 the methed of appointment is 75% by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. 4. Under the Rules of 1980, the method of recruitment was 40% by direct recruitment and 60% by promotion. The Rules of 1980 were sub­stituted by the Recruitment Rules of 1988 which came into force wef 29.1.88. Under the Recruitment Rules, 1988 the methed of appointment is 75% by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. 4. The Government of Manipur issued a Memorandum dated 31.5.86 for regularisation of those ad hoc appointees - " (a) who were appointed upto 31st December, 1984 against vacancies in the direct recruitment quota under Class I and II posts : and (b) who continue to hold their respective posts on adhoc basis on 24th May, 1986; and (c) who fulfil all the requirements excepting age limit laid down under the relevant recruitment rules for appointment to such posts." The Memorandum further states that the regularisation will be wef 24.5.86, the date of decision taken by the Government. Consequent upon the decision of the Government, Manipur Public Service Commission (Exemption & Consultation) Regulation, 1972, were amended in the following terms- “7. It shall not be necessary to consult the Commission in regard to the appointment to Class I and II posts which are to be filled in by direct recruitment and which were filled in by appointment on adhoc basis on or before 31.12.84 which appointment continued till 24.5.86 without being referred to MPSC for holding DPC for regular appointment and when referred to the MPSC where the concerned DPCs are yet to be convened to make its recommendations." 5. Although the petitioners have been in service since before the appoint­ment of respondents 7 to 39 as AAO, the promotion on adhoc basis of the petitioners 1 to 5 as AO was regularised wef 28.10.88 while the petitioners 6 and 7 have yet to be regularised. The respondents 7 to 39, who were appointed on adhoc basis as AAO between 1977 to 1979 and also promoted as AO in the year 1981, were regularised under order dated 5.11.88 wef 23.5.86 along with Jayanta Kumar and Ratan Kumar. A Civil Rule being No. 2172 of 1988/289 of 1989 is now pending before this Court filed by the adhoc AAOs and AOs against the order dated 5.11.88. However, the order dated 5.11.88 was stayed by the Government under order dated 29.11.88. A Civil Rule being No. 2172 of 1988/289 of 1989 is now pending before this Court filed by the adhoc AAOs and AOs against the order dated 5.11.88. However, the order dated 5.11.88 was stayed by the Government under order dated 29.11.88. The Government by another order dated 11.1.89, in continuation of the order dated 29.11.88, cancelled the order dated 5.11.88. The Government again revoked the order dated 29.11.88 and 11.1.89 under order dated 4.1.90 on the ground that the appointment was made on promotion against the direct recruitment quota to meet the urgent need of service of AOs in the Department as an interim arrangement and, therefore, the service rendered by 35 officers (33 respondents and 2 others) prior to 24.5.86 would be deemed to be treated on ad hoc basis by way of direct recruitment. The Government under order dated 26.4.90 reviewed and stayed the order dated 4.1.90 for the reasons given therein. Thereafter, the Government cancelled the regularisation order issued on 4.1.90 under order dated 7.9.90. Under order dated 6.11.90. the Government regularised the ad hoc appointment of Kh Ratan Kumar Singh and A Jayanta Kumar Sarma wef 24.5.86 on the ground that they were appointed under the direct recruit quota out of the 33 respondents, thereby superseding the petitioners. 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State in Civil Rule No.89 of 1991, the Government also took the stand that 33 AOs could never be regularised under the Memorandum dated 31.5.86 as they were promotees whereas the case of the two persons, namely, Ratan Kumar and Jayanta Kumar, was that they were appointed against direct recruit quota. Ultimately, the Government issued notification dated 30.12.91 regularising 33 respondents wef 24.5.86 treating their appointment as direct recruit on ad hoc basis. This order has been challenged in Civil Rule No.76 of 1992. 7. In Civil Rule 131 of 1989/693 of 1989, the thirty three (33) respondents in Civil Rule No.76 of 1989 have challenged the order dated 29.11.89 of the Government of Manipur staying the order dated 5.11.88 under which the thirty three respondents and two others were regularised wef 24.5.86 as well as the order dated 11.1.89 cancelling the said order dated 5.11.88. 8. The question which arises for consideration is whether the respondents 7 to 39 could be treated as direct recruits although they were promotees in the quota of direct recruits. 9. Mr. 8. The question which arises for consideration is whether the respondents 7 to 39 could be treated as direct recruits although they were promotees in the quota of direct recruits. 9. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in Civil Rule No. 76 of 1992, has contended that, if the respondents 7 to 39 are treated as direct recruits and regularisation is made wef 24.5.86, they will supersede the petitioners; that such benefits to 33 respondents would be contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and that no person can be promoted with retrospective effect from a date when he was not borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect others in the service. 10. It is well settled position in law that, where recruitment is from two sources to a service, the quota rule has to be strictly enforced and it is not open to the authorities to meddle with it on the ground of administr­ative exigencies. If any authority is required we may refer to VB Badami vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1980 SC 1561 as well as Sonai Sihimappa vs. State of Karoataka, AIR 1987 SC 2359 . In both the cases, promotees occupied in the quota of direct recruits as direct recruits were not available to fill up the quota meant for them. It has also been held that direct recruits who were appointed within their quota subsequently were entitled to the vacancies within their quota which had not been filled up and they would become senior to the promotees. The promotees would be pushed down" to later years when their appointment could be regularised as a result of absorption in the lawful quota of those years. Promotees cannot claim any right to hold any promotional post unless vacancies fall within their quota. 11. In State of Bihar vs. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, AIR 1991 SC 1243 , it has been held that it is well settled that no person can be promoted with retrospective effect from a date when he was not borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect others. It is well settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court that amongst members of the same grade seniority is reckoned from the date of their initial entry into the service. It is well settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court that amongst members of the same grade seniority is reckoned from the date of their initial entry into the service. Therefore, where certain persons were directly recruited to the post of Assistant Engineer in the quota of direct recruits, subsequent promotion of others to the post with retrospective effect resulting in promotees becoming senior to the direct recruits was impermissible. 12. In view of the above cited case, if the quota rules are violated there may be pushing down of the cadre that is to say, - if promotions have taken place in excess of the quota for promotion pushing down the promotees promoted in excess of their quota, or if direct recruitment is done in excess of the quota for direct recruitment pushing down direct recruits appointed in excess of their quota, would arise. As an outcome of violation of the quota rule, there would be carrying forward of direct recruitment vacancies or promotional vacancies to the next recruitment year for adjustment. 13 There may be a case where quota system had been abandoned by promoting persons by deliberate disregard of quota rules and allowing the promotees to continue for many years, say 15 to 20, in the quota of direct recruits without reversion. In such a case in order to remove unjust and in quitious results which would arise if those promotees are reverted after 15 to 20 years of service, as an exceptional case and without setting a precedent, the Government must be deemed to have relaxed the relevant rules (see Narendra Chadha vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 638 . 14. As regards the regularisation of adhoc appointees or promotees, in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees' Association vs. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396 , the Supreme Court has observed that equal pay for equal work and providing security for service by regularising casual employment within a reasonable period have been unanimously accepted by the Supreme Court as a Constitutional goal to our socialistic polity. The philosophy of the Court as evolved in various cases is not that of the Court but is ingrained in the Constitution as one of the basic aspects and if there was doubt on this, there is no room for that after the preamble has been amended and the Forty-second Amendment has declared the Republic to be a socialistic one. The decisions in AK Jain vs. Union of India, 1987 (Supp) SCC 496, and Desoola Rama Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1988 (Supp) SCC 221 : AIR 1988 SC 857 , indicate that ad hoc appointees can be regularised retrospectively or with effect from the date of their initial appointment, if it is not arbitrary or not violative of Article 14. 15. In Direct Recruit Class - II Engineering Officers' Association vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607 , a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court after considering the earlier decisions, has summarised the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, which were affirmed by the Constitutional Bench, and has also laid down propositions of general application in terms A to K. Proposition A, B and C are thus - "A. Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to Rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. B. If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will he counted. C. When appointments are made from more than one source it is permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different sources, and if rules are framed in this regard they must ordinarily be followed strictly." 16. In Masood Akhtar Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1990) 4 SCC 24 , one of the questions canvassed in that case was whether the seniority was to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment on ad hoc basis. The fact of the case was that the petitioners were direct recruits. In Masood Akhtar Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1990) 4 SCC 24 , one of the questions canvassed in that case was whether the seniority was to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment on ad hoc basis. The fact of the case was that the petitioners were direct recruits. They were appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers "temporarily till further orders for six months or for a fortnight till after the selection of the candidates by the Public Service Commission". However, the appointees were allowed to continue beyond that period of six months and later regularly selected by the Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court has held that, although in the appointment orders the words `ad hoc' were not mentioned the word `temporary' mentioned in the order and the rest of the content of the order, the appointment were as and by way of stop gap arrangement pending regular selection by the Public Service Commission; and that the seniority was not to be counted from the initial stop gap appointment, but from the date of regular selection under the rules And the seniority to be given in accordance with the order of merit fixed by the Public Service Commission. 17. In Keshav Cuandra Joshi vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 284 relying on Masooq Akbtar Khan's case, the Supreme Court has held that when the advertisement or order of appointment indicate that the appoint­ment was only for a limited period, subject to recruitment by the Public Service Commission, the promotion pending direct recruitment by the Commission, were only emergency arrangement pending regular selection by the Public Service Commission, and, therefore, the entire length of service could not be counted for seniority. The Supreme Court has further held that if the ad hoc promotions were de hors the rules, the continuous length of ad hoc service from the date of initial appointment could not be counted towards the seniority till the regular recruits are appointed as they do not become the members of the service. 18. The Supreme Court has further held that if the ad hoc promotions were de hors the rules, the continuous length of ad hoc service from the date of initial appointment could not be counted towards the seniority till the regular recruits are appointed as they do not become the members of the service. 18. In Rajbir Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 518 , it has been held that it is well settled by several decisions of the Apex Court that an appointment against a purely temporary ad hoc or fortuitous post does not entitle the holder of the post to be a member of the service, and as such, such fortuitous or ad hoc appointment does not entitle the holder of the post to get the benefit of the period of such ad hoc or fortuitous service. Neverthe­less, if a person is appointed against a substantive vacancy and is subsequen­tly promoted after holding regular tests and finding them qualified to be promoted and continue on ad hoc basis to hold such posts for 11 years, then, in that case the appointment though made on ad hoc basis has to be taken into consideration in reckoning the seniority of the holder of that basis. 19 In RK Kashyap's case ( AIR 1989 SC 278 ), the Supreme Court has held : "If ad hoc appointment or temporary appointment is made without considering the claims of seniors in the cadre, the service rendered in such appointment should not be counted for seniority in the cadre. The length of service in ad hoc appointment or stop-gap arrangement made in the exigencies of service without considering the claims of all the eligible and suitable persons in the cadre ought not be reckoned for the purpose of determining the seniority in the promotional cadre. To give the benefit of such service to a favoured few would be contrary to the equality of opportunity enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. But if the claims of all eligible candidates were considered at the time of ad hoc appointments and such appointments continued uninterruptedly till the regularisation of services by the Departmental Promotion Committee or the Public Service Commission there is no reason to exclude such service for determining the seniority." In that case appointments were made by considering the eligibility and suitability of the officers then available. It may be noted here that the decisions in RK Kashyap's case ( AIR 1989 SC 278 ) and Narendra Chadha's case ( AIR 1986 SC 638 ) were affirmed by the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit's case ( AIR 1990 SC 1607 ). 20. Regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of appointment. In RN Ranjudappa vs. T. Thimmaih, AIR 1972 SC 1767 , the Supreme Court has held that 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. But no regularisa­tion can be made in violation of the Constitution and rules. 21. In BN Nagarjan vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1676 , it has been held that regularisation is a term calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and is meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to the methodology followed in making the appointments. 22. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cited cases may now be summarised as follows: (i) If an ad hoc appointment is made for a fixed period until the post is filled up on regular basis and followed by regularisation, the seniority shall not be counted from the date of initial appointment as the appointment would be and by way of stop-gap or fortuitous or emergency arrangement pending regular appointment, that is to say,-seniority shall be counted from the date of regularisation and not from the date of initial appointment on ad hoc basis; (ii) The subsequent promotion with retrospective effect resulting in the promotees becoming senior to the direct recruits would not be permissi­ble and, therefore, they cannot be placed above the direct recruits in the list of seniority and they are to be pushed down; (iii) If the ad hoc appointment is made without considering the claims of seniors or all the eligible and suitable, persons in the cadre, to give benefit of such service for the purpose of seniority would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, if the promotion was made after considering all the eligible and suitable persons in the cadre after holding regular test and finding them qualified to be promoted and they continue on ad hoc to hold such post for a number of years against the substantive vacancy, the length of their service on ad hoc basis has to be taken into consideration in reckoning the seniority in the cadre. (iv) If the appointment is made de hors the rules, the continuous length of ad hoc service from the date of initial appointment cannot be counted towards seniority, but in a case like that of Narendra Chadha ( AIR 1986 SC 638 ) continuous service shall be counted towards seniority as an exceptional case and without setting a precedent in order to avoid unjust results. (v) Seniority is to be determined in accordance with the rules or executive instructions and in the absence of the rules and instructions seniority is to be determined by applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit's case ( AIR 1990 SC 1607 ). (vi) Where the recruitment is from two sources to a service, the quota rules have to be strictly enforced and it is not open to the authorities to meddle with on the ground of administrative exigencies. Promotees occupying in the direct recruit quota cannot claim any right to hold any promotional post. The promotees will be pushed down to later years when their appointment will be regularised as a result of absorption in the lawful quota of those years. (vii) Seniority may be determined irrespective of the date of regularisation of ad hoc appointees or promotees by applying the principles of pushing down or pushing up of the officers in the cadre. 23. The corollary of the above principles is that ad hoc appointees or promotees have no right to the post. Therefore, the promotees are liable to reversion and the appointees are liable to go, unless they are regularised in accordance with the rules as a civil servant enters into service from the date of his regular appointment under the rules and seniority is to be counted from the date of his entry into service. Therefore, the promotees are liable to reversion and the appointees are liable to go, unless they are regularised in accordance with the rules as a civil servant enters into service from the date of his regular appointment under the rules and seniority is to be counted from the date of his entry into service. However, ad hoc promotees or appointees may be regularised from the date of their initial appointment or with retrospective effect in the following cases,- (a) Where promotion is made after considering all the eligible can­didates and/or after holding regular test and finding them qualified for promotion; and (b) Where the promotions or appointments are made de hors the rules or by deliberate disregard to the quota rules but they are allowed to continue for many years uninterruptedly, after relaxing the rules to remove unjust and inequatitions results. Provided that, if there exists a clear vacancy in that year of regularisation. 24. Now coming to the case on hand the respondents were promoted on ad hoc basis in the year 1981 against the quota of direct recruits and the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis in the years 1979 and 1980. The policy of the Government of Manipur for regularisation with effect from 24.5.86 relates to ad hoc appointees against the direct recruitment quota. This being the position, the respondents who were promoted in the quota of direct recruits cannot be regularised under the policy as well as quota rules. But, the 33 respondents have been holding the posts for more than 11 years and once they were regularised rightly or wrongly under order dated 5.11.88 and if they are to be reverted to AAOs it would be not only unjust and inequi­table, but also would disturb other AAOs who had been appointed to the vacant posts caused on promotion of the 33 respondents, and as such, their services are to be secured by regularising their employment. This can only be done by relaxing the provisions relating to quota rules, which is permissible under the Recruitment Rules referred to above, by treating the quota of direct recruits as promotional posts for the following reasons. This can only be done by relaxing the provisions relating to quota rules, which is permissible under the Recruitment Rules referred to above, by treating the quota of direct recruits as promotional posts for the following reasons. The promotees cannot be treated as direct recruits where the recruitment is from two sources to a service in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Badami's case ( AIR 1980 SC 1561 ) as well as Sonal's case (AIR 1987 SC 2389), where it has been held that where the recruitment is from two sources to a service, the quota rules have to be strictly enforced and it is not open to the authorities to meddle with on the ground of administrative exigencies. Promotees occupying direct recruit quota cannot claim any right to hold any promotional post. That apart, if the 33 respondents who were ad hoc promotees are regularised treating them direct recruits wef 24.5.86 it would affect the seniority of the petitioners 1 to 5 who were appointed earlier than the 33 respondents and who had been regularised in their lawful quota in the same cadre or grade in the year 1988. Therefore, to give such a benefit to the 33 respondents would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as all the promotees in the same cadre or grade would not be treated equally. 25. The next question which arises for consideration is from which date and year the 33 respondents are to be regularised. The petitioners 1 to 5, who were appointed earlier than the 33 respondents, were regularised wef 28.10.88. The Government took the decision to regularise the 33 respondents on 5.11.88, rightly or wrongly. Therefore, we are of the opinion that if the 33 respondents are regularised wef 5.11.88 it would meet the ends of justice. 26. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that the respondent-1 shall regularise the 33 respondents wef 5.11.88 in the post of AOs. No costs.