M. S. PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) HONESTY ability and fearlessness are the qualities in a public servant which illuminate public cause attached with the public employment. This is the matter where such qualities appear to have been overlooked while terminating the services of the petitioner who has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against such termination. FACTS IN BRIEF 1 Applications for the post of Depot Manager Class-II on ad-hoc basis in the pay-scale of Rs. 650-1200 were invited by issuing advertisement in Gujarat Samachar dated 29/7/1986 and the petitioner offered himself as one of the candidates for the said post and was called for interview on 4/10/1986. Coming out with flying colours in the interview he came to be appointed as Depot Manager as per order dated 27/1/1987 according to which the petitioner was appointed in the post of Depot Manager (Class-II) in the scale of Rs. 650-1200 for a period of one year or till the time candidate selected by Public Service Commission is available whichever is earlier on ad-hoc basis. ( 2 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order the petitioner joined service on 16/2/1987 and he was allotted a Government quarter as per allotment order dated 25/1/1986. During the tenure of petitioner as a Depot Manager he was sent on various trainings as particularised in para. 3. 2 of the petition and he was granted all the increments due as particularised in para. 3. 3 of the petition. The petitioner was also appointed as Member Secretary in a Committee constituted for the purpose of Write Off of medicines expiry date of which have passed at Central Medical Stores Organisation and the petitioner was much helpful in this regard. The petitioner also found out grave irregularities committed by M/s. Poonam International Ahmedabad and M/s. Prayas Pharmaceuticals Wadhwan City in the matter of supply of drugs worth Rs. 70 lacs and due to the sincere efforts made by the petitioner the Government could recover Rs. 1 lacs which otherwise would have been lost by the Government. The said firms were also debarred form doing business with Central Medical Stores Organisation for 3 years. ( 3 ) THE Director C. M. S. O. directed the petitioner to inspect the stores of Civil Hospital to find out the irregularities in respect of purchase of drugs etc. 1 lacs which otherwise would have been lost by the Government. The said firms were also debarred form doing business with Central Medical Stores Organisation for 3 years. ( 3 ) THE Director C. M. S. O. directed the petitioner to inspect the stores of Civil Hospital to find out the irregularities in respect of purchase of drugs etc. In this connection the Director wrote a letter to the Medical Superintendent New Civil Hospital Ahmedabad. The petitioner carried out the inspection and submitted his report on 18/5/1990 in respect of the irregularities committed by the Hospital authorities. As per information available to the petitioner the Government called for he explanation of the Superintendent of the Civil Hospital regarding such irregularition. ( 4 ) WHILE the petitioner was working as Depot Manager C. M. S. O. made purchases worth Rs. 5 lacs of Chloroquine tablets from M/s. Poonam International Ahmedabad. One Mr. Bhupendra Shah a representative of that firm made demand to certify the bill immediately that is on the same day. As a Depot Manager the petitioner found the goods were not acceptable and therefore he refused to certify the bill immediately and hence said Bhupendra Shah became wild and threatened the petitioner that he (petitioner) would be removed from service within 10 days. The petitioner has reported this episode to the Director C. M. S. O. vide confidential letter dated 19/10/1989. The Director C. M. S. O. also made purchase of B. P. Blade from one M/s. Richie Surgical Ahmedabad. But the supply of material was unaccompanied with sterilisation report which was necessary before acceptance of the goods. Above Mr. Bhupendra Shah who also represented said Richie Surgical Ahmedabad refused to give such sterilisation report saying that it was not necessary. In absence of such report the petitioner refused to accept the goods and again Mr. Bhupendra Shah become wild and threatened the petitioner that he would be removed from service within 2 months. The petitioner reported this episode also to the Director C. M. S. O. vide his confidential letter dated 24/1011989. As a result of such report the Director C. M. S. O. informed the petitioner as per letter dated 2/1211989 that if need be the petitioner should file a police complaint in the above respect. The petitioner reported this episode also to the Director C. M. S. O. vide his confidential letter dated 24/1011989. As a result of such report the Director C. M. S. O. informed the petitioner as per letter dated 2/1211989 that if need be the petitioner should file a police complaint in the above respect. He also communicated to the Deputy Director C. M. S. O. for holding an inquiry into the whole episode and the Deputy Director vide his letter dated 9/3/1990 informed the Director C. M. S. O. that the allegations made by the petitioner against aforesaid Mr. Bhupendra Shah were true. ( 5 ) WITH regard to the positive aspect of his work the petitioner had rendered exemplary services in the State Government. The chart at Annexure-M which briefly indicates the incident with regard to how the petitioner saved Government money to the extent of Rs. 1 lacs in the matter of supply of drugs by M/s. Poonam International and M/s. Prayas Pharmaceuticals and how the petitioner inspected the stores in Civil Hospital Ahmedabad and pointed out the irregularities by a detailed report. It further recites that attention of the Government regarding the quality of the medicines more particularly the tablets Erythromycine Sterate Batch nos. 1363 1471 and 1474 was drawn and later on the said medicines were declared sub-standard with the result that the Government was able to recover Rs. 1. 5 lacs from M/s. Phonix Pharmaceuticals Ahmedabad. During the tenure of the petitioner turnover of Rs. 35 crores was recorded and medicines worth Rs. 18 crores were supplied to various hospitals in the State without any damage and loss to the Government. Further when the petitioner took the charge there was buffer stock of unused medicines worth Rs. 15 lacs. When the petitioner carne across this fact he sincerely tried to see that such medicines were made used to avoid further monetary loss to the Government and ultimately out of that unused buffer stock the medicines worth Rs. 13 lacs were taken in use before its expiry date. By sincere efforts the petitioner could see to the supply of the medicines being made regular. 13 lacs were taken in use before its expiry date. By sincere efforts the petitioner could see to the supply of the medicines being made regular. When the petitioner took charge the suppliers were supplying the life saving and common medicines bearing one year expiry but to avoid monetary loss to the Government the petitioner took keen interest and by sincere efforts of the petitioner the expiry period of 2 years for such medicines could be extended. The petitioner was also appointed as Member Secretary in a Committee constituted for Write Off of expired medicines at C. M. S. O. (Central Medical Stores Organisation) and the petitioner rendered useful assistance in seeing that expired medicines worth Rs. 4 lacs were Written Off. When the petitioner look charge the packings of the medicines were not in proper condition. The petitioner took keen interest to improve the packing conditions. Finally when the petitioner took charge there was no proper facility for storage of the medicines. As a result of the keen interest taken by the petitioner and sincere efforts made by him such facilities could be attached. ( 6 ) WITH regard to the experience it is the case of the petitioner that from 1/8/1983 to 25 that is for a period of about a year and 3 months the petitioner worked as a Chemist in Quality Control Department of Shree Krishna Keshav Laboratories Ltd. Ahmedabad and from 27/12/1984 to 14/2/1987 that is for a period of about 2 years and nearly 2 months the petitioner has worked as Senior Technical Supervisor in Tablet Department of Cadila Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. ( 7 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that inspite of the petitioners experience and services rendered by him as aforesaid he came to be terminated by Government Resolution dated 1/9/1990 issued by the Deputy Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department Sachivalaya Gandhinagar which is the impugned termination order under challenge in this petition. As stated above the challenge to the impugned termination order is to the effect that the same is contrary to the very nature of the appointment illegal and improper as being without reasons contrary to the very appointment order since G. P. S. C. has not selected any candidate and no candidate is available. The impugned order is hit by malafides as stated above and if not factual malafide submits Mr. The impugned order is hit by malafides as stated above and if not factual malafide submits Mr. Shahani L. A. for the petitioner by legal malafides. It is contrary to law and anathema to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India particularly in the context of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of O. P. Bhandari vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. reported in A. I. R. 1987 S. C. p. 111 and the order is accordingly sought to be quashed and set aside with consequential relief of reinstatement and back wages with other benefits. ( 8 ) IT may be stated at this stage that the petitioner has moved a Civil Application No. 774 of 1991 in respect of the quarter allotted to him and following order came to be passed on 14/6/1991 (Coram: B. S. Kapadia J.)"interim relief granted earlier to continue on a condition that the petitioner pays the rent of the premises fixed at Rs. 250/- from 1/9/1990. Arrears of the rent will be paid up within one month from today. If any breach of the condition is committed the interim relief will automatically stand vacated. If any amount is already deducted then that amount will be adjustable. This arrangement is interim arrangement till the decision of the main petition Rule made absolute to the above extent". The interim relief which was so extended was with regard to the apprehended eviction from the quarter No. C/4/72 of Vastrapur Colony at Ahmedabad that is the quarter in question allotted to the petitioner pursuant to his employment. ( 9 ) THE respondent no. 1 has filed affidavit-in-reply through its Under Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department. Referring to the order of appointment in question it is asserted that the appointment of the petitioner was on purely ad-hoc basis and therefore no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated by the impugned order of termination. It is interesting to note that the various facts stated by the petitioner have not been dealt with in the affidavit-in-reply and it clearly appears that there can be no dispute with regard to the facts stated by the petitioner as the same have been supported by various Annexures and documents. However according to the respondent no. It is interesting to note that the various facts stated by the petitioner have not been dealt with in the affidavit-in-reply and it clearly appears that there can be no dispute with regard to the facts stated by the petitioner as the same have been supported by various Annexures and documents. However according to the respondent no. 1 the circumstances in which the petitioner was given appointment and his service was terminated are as under: (1) Recruitment Rules for appointment to the post of Depot Manager C. M. S. O. have not been finalised and they are pending for finalisation before the Gujarat Public Service Commission - respondent no. 3 herein (who has not filed any affidavit-in- reply ). The post of Depot Manager is Class-II post is Gazetted post with the result that the consultation with the Gujarat Public Service Commission is a must before giving any appointment to any person to such a post. Pausing for a moment here it should be stated that this contention is not substantiated by quoting any rule. Assuming that this contention is true it should further be noted that it does not form the part of the appointment order. (2) Recruitment rules for appointment to the post in question have not been finalised but at the relevant point of time it was thought necessary to appoint some-one to the post in question and therefore respondent no. 1 issued advertisement as per Annexure-A to the petition for the post on ad-hoc basis. In pursuance of the said advertisement the applicants were interviewed and ultimately the petitioner was found to meet with the requirements and was given appointment as stated above. At that time it was believed that the recruitment rules for the post in question would be finalised within a short time and therefore appointment was given for one year without consulting Gujarat Public Service Commission. As the recruitment rules have not been finalised yet when the circumstances regarding the appointment of the petitioner were brought to the notice of the Gujarat Public Service Commission Gujarat Public Service Commission objected to such appointment and therefore by the impugned order dated 1/9/1990 services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 3/9/1990. Again it should be noted here that the recommendation of the Gujarat Public Service Commission for termination has not been placed on record. Again it should be noted here that the recommendation of the Gujarat Public Service Commission for termination has not been placed on record. However assuming that such a recommendation was issued the fact remain that the appointment was subject to availability of suitable candidate selected by the G. P. S. C. (3) By efflux of time the petitioners service came to an and upon the expiry of one year from 27 but he was continued thereafter although till upto the petitioners appointment was objected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission in the interest of administration. At this stage it should be noted that it is inconceivable how the petitioners appointment could be found to be against the interest of administration and how his termination could be found to be in the interest of administration in the face of the admitted facts noted above. (4) After the termination of the petitioners service charge of the said post was held by another officer and the respondent no. 1 is not inconvenienced by the present post. It should be at once noted here that such an arrangement would be shocking for the simple reason that it was for public cause that the post was required to be filled in immediately on ad-hoc basis till it was regularly filled in after the recruitment rules are framed and Gujarat Public Service Commission select a regular candidate. It is asserted that as and when the recruitment rules are finalised and application from suitable candidates are invited case of the petitioner would be duly considered to the post in question if he is otherwise eligible for appointment to the post. ( 10 ) WITH regard to various facts alleged by the petitioner it is generally the stand of respondent no. 1 that the petitioner had performed his duties and therefore there is nothing special that could be said about such performance of duties. With regard to the detection of irregularities lapses and cure thereof it is asserted that there were joint efforts of members of the Committee including the Member Secretary. In such circumstances it is the case of the respondent no. 1 that the meritorious consideration pressed into service by the petitioner is irrelevant. Finally it has been asserted that if contractual right is violated the petitioner can very well file a civil suit. The respondent no. In such circumstances it is the case of the respondent no. 1 that the meritorious consideration pressed into service by the petitioner is irrelevant. Finally it has been asserted that if contractual right is violated the petitioner can very well file a civil suit. The respondent no. 1 has therefore prayed for dismissal of this petition with cost. ( 11 ) THE petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder controverting certain new facts with regard to objection from G. P. S. C. It is asserted by the petitioner that the objection was out-dated and it was based on incorrect fact presented to G. P. S. C. The G. P. S. C. had inquired whether the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria that was proposed in the recruitment rules which were at the proposal stage. The respondent stated that the petitioner was not below 30 years of age at the relevant time and was also not having three years requisite experience on the date of advertisement. To this the petitioner has asserted that the advertisement Annexure-A refers to requirement of age to be 35 years whereas in fact the petitioner completed only 30 years. So there was no bar of age as per the advertisement. So far as experience was concerned the petitioner did have requisite experience of almost 3 1/2 years. Besides the petitioner had already gained by that time further experience as Depot Manager the post in question. Thus the objection from G. P. S. C. was quite devoid of merit. In this regard it has been further asserted by the petitioner that the Department had strongly recommended the petitioners case for extension till G. P. S. C. candidate could be made available. There are several employees who continued pending consent/ recommendation from G. P. S. C. and inspite of one time refusal by G. P. S. C. to give consent. In the section in which the petitioner worked (C. M. S. O.) one Shri G. P. Patel has been working as Senior Drug Inspector since more than 8 years without consent from G. P. S. C. Thus the justification for the impugned termination referred to in the affidavit-in-reply is completely an afterthought. In the section in which the petitioner worked (C. M. S. O.) one Shri G. P. Patel has been working as Senior Drug Inspector since more than 8 years without consent from G. P. S. C. Thus the justification for the impugned termination referred to in the affidavit-in-reply is completely an afterthought. ( 12 ) IN the facts of the present case as noted hereinabove and as flowing from the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties the matter can be dealt with into two broad categories: (I) The first category would be the challenge to the impugned termination order: on a look at the appointment order it clearly appears that the ad-hoc appointment is made for a period of one year or upto the time candidate selected by the G. P. S. C. is available whichever is earlier. Word ad-hoc would mean for the special purpose with respect to the subject or thing or pertaining to or for the sake of this case alone or arranged for this purpose. It can thus be seen that the purpose for appointment to the post which is permanent is inbuilt in the appointment order itself. Thus it can reasonably be said that the petitioners appointment to the post in question is for a particular purpose namely for filling in the same till a candidate selected by the G. P. S. C. is available. The nature of the post of Depot Manager in the Central Medical Stores Organisation is such that it might have been even felt by the Government that the post should be filled in for public cause inter-alia to set that sub-standard or expired drugs may not be supplied for being used in the hospitals save at the cost of human life. It is an admitted position that the recruitment rules have not been framed so far so that it has not become possible for the respondent no. 3 - G. P. S. C. to make selection of an eligible or suitable candidate. However it is not that the post in question was filled in by back door method. A public advertisement was issued applications were invited and it was the Selection Committee who after interviewing the candidates selected the present petitioner for the purpose of appointing him to the post however till upto the time a regular candidate is selected by G. P. S. C. for the purpose. A public advertisement was issued applications were invited and it was the Selection Committee who after interviewing the candidates selected the present petitioner for the purpose of appointing him to the post however till upto the time a regular candidate is selected by G. P. S. C. for the purpose. The petitioner was found eligible as per the requirements stated in the advertisement. Thus in the facts of the case it is on the face of it clear that the termination of the petitioner is bad and contrary to the very appointment order since time has yet not become ripe for terminating the petitioner as no candidate is selected by C. P. S. C. for the simple reason that even the recruitment rules have yet not been finalised. ( 13 ) ON behalf of the respondents two decisions of the Honble Supreme Court have been pressed into service; one in the case of Director Institute of Management Development U. P. vs. Pushpa Srivastava (1992) 4 S. C. C. p. 33. In that case by an order dated July 18 1988 the appointment of respondent was extended for a period of three months on the same terms and conditions one of which was that the appointment was purely on ad-hoc basis. On January 29 1989 a fresh office order was made appointing the respondent as Training Executive on contract basis for a period of three months. The consolidated pay was fixed at Rs. 1500/- per month. Even that appointment was also purely on ad-hoc basis and terminable without notice by either side. Next was a similar appointment dated 20 also on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months. Then on 5/1/1990 another ad-hoc appointment was made for a period of three months. Though by efflux of time the appointment came to an end on March 21 1990 the respondent was continued in service beyond the prescribed period. On July 13 1990 respondent submitted a resignation letter which was accepted on July 31 1990 On August 25 1990 despite the acceptance of resignation the respondent made a further request that her services might be continued for some more time. On such request she was appointed on a contractual basis as a Training Executive on a consolidate compensation of Rs. 2 400 per month and this appointment was also purely on ad-hoc basis. On such request she was appointed on a contractual basis as a Training Executive on a consolidate compensation of Rs. 2 400 per month and this appointment was also purely on ad-hoc basis. On January 3 1991 a Committee of the Institute went into the question of abolition of redundant posts. The post held by the respondent was reported to be one of such redundant post. In such report the Committee recommended abolition of such posts including the post of respondent Since the appointment of the respondent was coming to an end at the end of February 1991 she preferred writ petition No. 1041 of 1991 It was held that the appointment was purely ad-hoc and on contractual basis for a limited period Therefore by expiry of period of six months right to remain in post came to an end. Reliance was placed on behalf of the respondent to the case of Jacob M. Puthuparambil vs. Kerala Water Authority (1991) 1 S. C. C. p. 28 Observations appearing at page 46 have been quoted The same need be reproduced here because the facts of the present case would call for consideration thereof:"if any person who does not possess the requisite qualifications is appointed under the said clause he will be liable to be replaced by a qualified person. Clause (iii) of Rule 9 States that a person appointed under clause (i) shall as soon as possible be replaced by a member of the service or an approved candidate qualified to hold the post Clause (c) of Rule 9 however provided for regularisation of service of any person appointed under clause (i) of sub-rule (a) if he had completed continuous service of two years on December 22 1973 notwithstanding anything contained in the rules. This is a clear indication that in the past the government also considered it just and fair to regularise the service for two years prior to the cut-off date. This is a clear indication that in the past the government also considered it just and fair to regularise the service for two years prior to the cut-off date. The spirit underlying this treatment clearly shows that the Government did not consider it just fair or reasonable to terminate the services of those who were in employment for a period of two or more years prior to the cut-off date This approach is quite consistent with the spirit of the rule which was intended to be invoked to serve emergent situations which could not brook delay Such appointments were intended to be stop-gap temporary appointments to serve the stated purpose and not long term ones The rule was not intended to fill a large number of posts in the service but only those which could not be kept vacant till regular appointment were made in accordance with the rules. But once the appointment continued for long the services had to be regularised if the incumbent possessed the requisite qualifications as was done by sub-rule (e) Such an approach alone would be consistent with the constitutional philosophy adverted to earlier. Even otherwise the rule must be so interpreted if the language of the rule permits as will advance this philosophy of the Constitution. If the rule is so interpreted it seems clear to us that employees who have been working on the establishment since long and who possess the requisite qualifications for the job as obtaining on the date of their employment must be allowed to continue on their jobs and their services should be regularised". If the rule is so interpreted it seems clear to us that employees who have been working on the establishment since long and who possess the requisite qualifications for the job as obtaining on the date of their employment must be allowed to continue on their jobs and their services should be regularised". ( 14 ) IN the case of Director Institute of Management Development vs. Pushpa Srivastava (supra) the faces clearly indicate that the post held by the respondent was ad-hoc simplicitor and it came to be abolished as reported to be redundant by the Committee The facts of the present case are entirely and basically different Here the post is permanent scale is prescribed appointment is regularly made and that there has been an open competition and consideration of merits the appointment is ad-hoc for a specified purpose as stated above In my opinion the decision in Pushpa Srivastavas case would not apply to the present case ( 15 ) ANOTHER decision which has been pressed into service on behalf of the respondents is contained in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others reported in (1992) 4 S. C. C. p. 118. Paras. "44 to 49 of the citation need be reproduced since both the learned advocate for the petitioner as also the learned A. G. P. have placed reliance on the same: 44 Before parting with this case we think it appropriate to say a few words concerning the issue of regularisation of ad-hoc/temporary employees in government service. 45 The normal rule of course is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad-hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such situation effort should always be to replace such an ad-hoc/temporary employee by a regular selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected well and good but if he does not he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad-hoc/temporary employee. 46 Secondly an ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad-hoc/temporary employee. 46 Secondly an ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. 47 Thirdly even where an ad-hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. 48 An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes. 49 If for any reason an ad-hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State". ( 16 ) NOW in the instant case as stated above the appointment is not so irregular as can be seen from the appointment order. Though it was ad-hoc it was to a permanent post. Lastly the appointment was ad-hoc but for a specific purpose which was inbuilt in the appointment order itself. Therefore what has been said by the Honble Supreme Court in paras 46 and 47 quoted above should apply. In the present case the charge of the post in question was given to some one not regularly appointed for the post in question but holding some other post. Therefore the petitioners termination simplicitor in view of what is stated above would be bad as being arbitrary on the face of it. ( 17 ) THERE is a further aspect of the matter. In so far as the petitioner is concerned his termination saw the light of the day subsequent to the threatening of Mr. Therefore the petitioners termination simplicitor in view of what is stated above would be bad as being arbitrary on the face of it. ( 17 ) THERE is a further aspect of the matter. In so far as the petitioner is concerned his termination saw the light of the day subsequent to the threatening of Mr. Bhupendra Shah that he would see to the petitioners termination within a week or within a particular time on the two different occasions noted above. It may be seen from the facts stated even by the respondents that someone else is required to hold the charge of the post despite the merits of the petitioner which appear on the face of the facts and circumstances of the petitioners case. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioners termination was called for as in the case of the probationer on the ground of non- suitability. Even when an ad-hoc employee is sought to be terminated on the ground of non-suitability it is proper and necessary that he should be told in advance that his work/performance are not upto the mark. Reference may be made if necessary to the case of Sumati P. Shere vs. Union of India and Ors reported in AIR 1989 S. C. p. 1431. But as the facts indicate the petitioner has displayed a meritorious performance in the discharge of his duties. Thus inevitable conclusion would be that the impugned order appears to have been tainted with arbitrariness and appears to have been motivated by extraneous consideration. It may be noted that there is no administrative exigency which has called for the petitioners termination from the post in question. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents by Mr. Dhaval Dave that the basic nature of the petitioners appointment is ad-hoc. However as stated above it is ad-hoc for the specific purpose which is stated in the appointment order itself that is to say upto the time candidate selected by the G. P. S. C. is available. Therefore it cannot be said that merely because the petitioner was appointed ad-hoc hire and fire can be used against him for no reasons. ( 18 ) MR. Dhaval Dave Ld. A. G. P. submits that even if the reinstatement is ordered no back wages should be awarded. Therefore it cannot be said that merely because the petitioner was appointed ad-hoc hire and fire can be used against him for no reasons. ( 18 ) MR. Dhaval Dave Ld. A. G. P. submits that even if the reinstatement is ordered no back wages should be awarded. Bearing in mind the peculiar facts of the case about the rendition of service by the petitioner as also a short period intervening between the impugned order and the date of this judgment I do not propose to deviate from the usual order of reinstatement associated with back wages. (II) The second category is with regard to regularisation claimed by Mr. Shahani L. A. for the petitioner: mr. Shahani learned advocate for the petitioner made his submissions further for regularisation of the petitioner in the post of Depot Manager. He placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of M. P. Bhojani vs. Director Rojgar and Talim Sanstha reported in 1992 (1) G. L. R. p. 218. In reply Mr. Dhaval Dave Ld. A. G. P. for the respondent-State placed reliance upon the aforesaid two decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpa Srivastava (supra) and Piara Singh and Ors. (supra) respectively reported in (1992) 4 S. C. C. p. 33 and (1992) 4 S. C. C. p. 118. ( 19 ) I am not dealing with the submissions of the rival counsels because of the fact that in the present petition what has been under challenge is termination order and what has been prayed for is back wages and other benefits. However the facts of the present case as dealt with hereinabove indicate that the case of the petitioner should deserve sympathetic consideration as and when the post in question is to be filled in on regular basis. If that stage does not ripe in near future the petitioners service should be considered for regularisation sympathetically and for that purpose it would be open to the petitioner to make appropriate representation. While dealing with regularisation of the petitioners service the aforesaid decisions particularly the decision in the case of M. P. Bhojani (supra) might be borne in mind and for the purpose of pointed attention to be drawn at the stage a portion of para. While dealing with regularisation of the petitioners service the aforesaid decisions particularly the decision in the case of M. P. Bhojani (supra) might be borne in mind and for the purpose of pointed attention to be drawn at the stage a portion of para. 3 of the decision may be reproduced here:"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"in that case the petition was allowed and reinstatement as also regularisation came to be ordered with all consequential monetary and other benefits. ( 20 ) IN the result the petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure-N dated 1/9/1990 by which the services of the petitioner were terminated is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents the concerned respondents in particular are directed to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Depot Manager as it stood on 1/9/1990 that is the date of impugned order with continuity in such post along the back wages and other permissible benefits while making adjustment with regard to the amount deposited pursuant to the order dated 14/6/1991 passed in Civil Application No. 774 of 1991. Such reinstatement shall be made within three weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order and payment of back wages and other benefits shall be made within six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. While working out the back wages reduction in income-tax and consideration of income-tax refund the decision in the case of O. P. Bhandari vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. reported in A. I. R. 1987 S. C. p. 111 be taken into consideration. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to cost. Direct service permitted. Petition Allowed. .