V. H. BHAIRAVIA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, in this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for a writ of madamus directing respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in the cadre of Tracers, since they have been selected by the panchayat Selection committee and got appointed. ( 2 ) THE short facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioners are qualified candidates for the post of Tracer and therefore therie names were sent by the Employment exchange to the District Development Officer, Sabarkantha District Panchayat and in response thereto, the petitioners were called for interview by the respondent no. 3. Thereafter written test was also conducted by the respondent no. 3. The petitioners appeared in the said interview and test and after successfully getting through the said examination, the petitioners were further called for oral interview. In oral interview also, the petitoners on getting success, were selected for the post of Tracer by the Panchayat selection committee, consisting of District Development Officer and other officers. Thereafter, selected candidates were appointed as Tracers by the order of the responent no. 3 in pursuance of their selection made by the office of the District Development officer, sabarkantha as per Annexure A. said appointment was in accordance with sec. 203 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961. Further, the condition enumerated in appointment order is that the appiontment being temporary in nature and therefore, the selected candidates have to appear before the Gujarat Panchayat Servics Selection committee and to get themselves selected, and if they failed to do so, their services are liable to be terminated. Accordingly, the petitioners were appointed in the year 1978-79. It is stated that the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Committee invited applications fro the post of Tracer by public advertisement in the year 1980 and in pusuace thereto, the petitioners have also applied for the said post. Petitioners appeared before the Selection committee and have been declared passed and selected fro the post of Tracer has afvertised. It is also stated that in the Select List, the petitioner have been put below from serial Nos. 1 to 15. It has been stated that the petitioner no. 6-Shri R. B. Stwara could not pass in the examination, therefore, his name is not appeared in the Select List. It is also stated that in the Select List, the petitioner have been put below from serial Nos. 1 to 15. It has been stated that the petitioner no. 6-Shri R. B. Stwara could not pass in the examination, therefore, his name is not appeared in the Select List. The posts required to be filled in are only 15 in numbers and that too from the Select List and as the petitioners were put below from Serial Nos. l to 15, the services of the petitioners were sought to be terminated and selected candidates as per Select List from Serial Nos. 1 to 15 were ordererd to be appointed and posted in place of the present petitioners who were holding the said post since 1978-79. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court invoking extra-oridinaray jurisdiction under An. 226 of the Constition and sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner. It is stated that on account of interim order against their termination issued by this court, the petitioners are in service. It has been pointed outly Mrs. Mehta that while containing the ad-interim injunction, the interim relief in favour of petitioner no. 6. was vacated as the petitioner no. 6 could not pass the examination as aforesaid. ( 3 ) MRS. Mehta, learned counsel apparing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that since the appointment of the petitioners is made by Selection Committee legally and validly constituted under Rules 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service selection Boad functions Rules 1964, and that the petitioners have complied with the conditions to appear before the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Committee and thereafter got themselves selected, their services could not be termiated and selected, candidates at Serial Nos. 1 to 1. 5 could not be appointed in their place, though the petitioners are put below in merits. Mrs. Mehta further contended that by laps of about 10 years of services which have been rendered by-the petitioners, on humanitarian ground also, their services could not be terminated. The petitioners, during these. 10 years of service, have already reached upto the over age also and that they have actually. Mrs. Mehta further contended that by laps of about 10 years of services which have been rendered by-the petitioners, on humanitarian ground also, their services could not be terminated. The petitioners, during these. 10 years of service, have already reached upto the over age also and that they have actually. worked and acquired experience also in the department and that the petitioners are fully qualified and eligible for the post question and that they continued on the said post for more than 10 years, their service should not be terminated. In support of this argument, Mrs. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the view taken in the cased of H. C. Puitaswamy and others vs. The honble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and others, reported in A. I. R. 1991 SC. P. 295, wherein it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court that on humanitarian ground, all the appointees are directed to be treated as regularly appointed with all benefit of past service. She has also relied upon the same view taken in the case of State of U. P. and other vs. Sant Lal, reported in A. I. R; 1991 SC Page 1825. I see much force in the arguments of Mrs. Mchta that services rendered by the petitioners in the cadre of Tracer are for pretty long priod of 10 years and the appointment is no an irregular appointment but due process of recruitment rules were followed and as per service condition, they appeared in the examination and got selected and continuity of service of the petitioners cannot be deprived only becasuse they are put below in the merit list. ( 4 ) IF the appoinment order Annexure A is looked into, it clearly appears that only condition is to appear before the Committee and to get selected. There is no such condition that they will be selected and appointed according to the merits. The fact that petitioners appointments are not reqular appointments and since they rendered long service and complied with all service conditions as required by the appointment orders, the petitioners cannot be redered jobless on the flimsy ground that they are not below in merit list This is very absord view taken by the respondents. The fact that petitioners appointments are not reqular appointments and since they rendered long service and complied with all service conditions as required by the appointment orders, the petitioners cannot be redered jobless on the flimsy ground that they are not below in merit list This is very absord view taken by the respondents. The Supreme Court has observed in the case of H. C. Puttaswamy ans others vs. The Honsble Chief Justice of karnatka High Court, Bangalore and others, reported in A. I. R. 1991 SC P. 295, that there is imperative independence of the High Court But the Chief Justive or any other administrative Judge is not an absolute ruler. Nor he is a free wheeler. He mast operate in the clean world of law, not in the neighbourhood of sordid atmosphere. He has a duty to ensure that in carrying out the administrative functions, he is actuated by same principles and values as those of the Court he is serving. He cannot depart from and must remain committed to the constitutional others and traditions of his calling. Thus where the Chief justice of the High Court had disregarded the authority of the Public Service Commission under Rules to make selection of the candidates for appointmenet to posts of clerk in subordinate courts and bye- passed the power of the District Judge to make appointment and he took upon himself the power of both the authorities of making selection as well as appointment in the establishments of the Subordinate Courts, the methodology adopted by the Chief Justice was manifestly wrong and it was boubt lless deviation from the Course of law which the Hight Court has to protect and preserve. All such person appointed by chief Justice are in service for the last 10 years. They are either graduates or double graduates or post graduates as against the minimum qualfication of S. S. L. C. required for second Division Clerks in Chieh cadre they are originally recruited. Some of them have earned higher qualification by hard work during their service. Some of them in the normal courser have been promoted to higher, cadre. They are now overaged for entry into any other services. Most of them cannot get the benefit of age relaxation under R. 6 of the kamataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977. Some of them have earned higher qualification by hard work during their service. Some of them in the normal courser have been promoted to higher, cadre. They are now overaged for entry into any other services. Most of them cannot get the benefit of age relaxation under R. 6 of the kamataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977. Therefore they could not be asked at such stage to appear fro written last and viva voca to be conducted by the Publice service Commission for fresh selection. Therefore on humanitaraian ground all the appointees are directed to be treated as regularly appointed with all benefit of past service. ( 5 ) RECENTLY the Supreme Court has also takten the view in the case of Ashok Kumar sharma and another Versus Chander Shekher And Another with case of State of Jammu and Kashmir Versus Chander Shekjer and anothers reported in 1993 Supp (2) Supreme court Cases P 611, in relevant Para 23 on Page 622 that "what has persuaded me, however, to allow the appeals, is not that there was no illegality in calling the appellants for interview or that the Board was jusified in taking the decision to follow the practice of commission but similar claim of the respondents had been rejected earlier by the High court and by the time it was allowed more than ten years had elapsed since the examination was hel and selection was made. The High Court for this very reason did not enter into the question of eligibility and tried to adjust the equities between the parties by directing that all those candidates, namely, the appellants who were not qualified on the date of application should be placed as junior to repondents who had applied earlier and were qualified. The order of the High Court, in my opinion, is manifestly unjust. Once the elighbility bar was lifted by the High Court, for whatever reason may be as said by it due to passage of time or because of erroneous application of Rule37 of the Public Service commission Rules, the appellants who were subjected to same interview as the repondents and were found better qualified and secured higher marks, could not be placed jurinor to others. The equity does not know the half way. The equity does not know the half way. Once the appellants were held to be eligible may be not srtictly under law but on equitable consideration, then it was wholly unjust to place them junior and under those who in the same examination secured lesser marks. " ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the facts and by. circumstances of the case, and view expressed by the supreme Court, this petition requires to be allowed so far as petitioners nos: 1 to 5 are concerned. The justice should not only be done, but is should also appear to have been done and it should be done in its true sense since the law is not the convict of the court. However, since petitioner no. 6 could not get himself selected in the merit list this petition quapetitioner no. 6 requires to be rejected. ( 7 ) HENCE, petition is partly allowed Rule made absolute so far as petitioners nos. 1 to 5 are concerned. Rule discharged so far as petitioner no. 6 is concerned. No order as to costs. .