S. N. Phiukan, J. — This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.6.94 passed in Misc. Case No.406 of 1994 arising out of Civil Rule No.1932 of 1993. The above Misc. Case was registered on a petition filed by the private respondent under clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitu­tion of India for modification/alteration/cancellation of the stay orders passed on 16.7.93 and 17.9.93 in the main Civil Rule. By the above two interim orders the learned Single Judge directed that the 10 (ten) writ petitioners shall not be ousted from service until further orders and by order dated 17.9.93, it was directed that the above order dated 16.7.93 shall continue. 2. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order relying on the relevant law as well as decisions of the Apex Court vacated both the above two interim orders passed in the main Civil Rule and observed that the persons viz private respondent selected by the Public Service Commission shall be duly appointed in accordance with rules. The learned Single Judge also observed that the ten writ petitioners may be absorbed in the department if possible by sympathetically considering their cases as they were serving in the department for about 4 years. Against the above interim orders the present appeal has been filed. 3. This Court on 15.6.94 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties directed t! e Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Handloom and Textile Department to produce the original records and furnish informations as stated in the said order. It was also made clear that appellants would be allowed to continue in service and however State Govt. may issue appoint­ment letters in favour of the persons who have been selected by the Assam Public Service Commission inserting a condition in the appointment letters that the appointment is subject t the decision in the present appeal. It was agreed to by the learned counsel of all the parties that instead of deciding the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, the main Civil Rule may be taken up by this Court for final disposal. Accordingly, as per direction of this "Court, both the State Govt. and the Public Service Commission produced the records before this Court. Accordingly, as per direction of this "Court, both the State Govt. and the Public Service Commission produced the records before this Court. We, accordingly proceed to decide both the Civil Rule viz Civil Rule No. 1932 of 1993 as well as Writ Appeal No. 232 of 1994 after hearing Mr. DN Choudhury for the appellants-writ petitioners, Mr. DP 'Chaliha, Govt. Advocate, Mr. P. Prasad counsel for the Public Service Com­mission and Mr. DC Mahanta, counsel for the private contesting respondents. 4. An advertisement was issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Handloom and Textile and Sericulture Department on 19.7.89 calling for application for appointment in the post of Senior Inspector of Handloom and Textile. All the petitioners-appellants alongwith others were interviewed by a Selection Committee and a select list was prepared. There after all the petitioners-appellants were appointed under the provisions of Assam Public Service Commission (Ad-hoc) Appointment Rules, 1986. The notification appointing the petitioners were issued on 24 3.90 and 23.5.90 vide Annexure B and C to the Civil Rule. The appointment was purely temporary and under the above Rules. By the first order only one person has been appointed, and by the subsequent orders, fourteen persons were appointed. Petitioners-appellants joined their posts, at different places under the Director of Handloom and Textile, respondent No. 2. It has been alleged by the petitioners-appellants that after joining their posts they were discharging their duties to the best of their abilities and that apart they were also sent for short term training on management of co-operative societies to the Co-operative Training College. However, after serving for one year, their services were terminated with effect from 22.5.91 and they were re-appointed in the same post on the next date i.e. 23.5.91 vide Annexure I and J to the writ petition. It has been alleged that the Govt. of Assam by a letter dated 30.5.91 informed the Secretary, Public Service Commission, respondent No. 4 about the appo­intment of appellants-petitioners and requesting the Commission for taking necessary steps for regularisation of their posts. The grievance of the appellants is that no regularisation did take place. The letter of the State Govt. is at Annexure K to the writ petition. Petitioners-appellants also filed presentations for regularisation of their services without any result- The representations are at Annexure L, M and N to the. writ petition. 5. The grievance of the appellants is that no regularisation did take place. The letter of the State Govt. is at Annexure K to the writ petition. Petitioners-appellants also filed presentations for regularisation of their services without any result- The representations are at Annexure L, M and N to the. writ petition. 5. The Assam Public Services (Ad-hoc) Appointment Rules, 1986 was repealed by a Notification dated 18.5.92 and therefore the curlier appoint­ments of the writ petitioners were converted to appointments under Regulation 3 (f) of the Assam Public Service Commission Regulations, 1951, initially for a period of 4 months which was subsequently extended from time to time and the petitioners-appellants are still continuing in the said post in view of the extension and subsequent stay orders passed by this Court. 6. An advertisement was issued by the Public Service Commission which was published in the newspaper on 9.10 91 calling for applications from intending candidates for filling up the posts of Senior Inspector of Handloom and Textiles which the petitioners-appellants are still holding. Petitioners-appellants also applied in response to the said advertisement and according to the petitioners-appellants it was so done due to compelling circumstances and in the fear of lossing their jobs. The Public Service Commission after holding interview of 72 candidates including the petitioners-appellants prepared a merit list for general category, as well as reserved categories of 16 candidates and also a waiting list of 16 persons for future vacancies. The list was duly sent to the State Govt. and is available at Annexure 1 to the counter filed by the private respondents. In the affidavit filed by the private respondent for vacating the interim stay order, it has been stated that 3 colleague of the appe­llants-petitioners also applied for the post in response to the advertisement issued by the Commission and they were selected. But the present appellants -petitioners though interviewed could not qualify and therefore, they arc estopped from challenging the select list prepared by the Public Service Commission. We may slate here that the private respondents filed the petition for vacating the stay order on the ground that the validity of the select list is going to expire on 11.10.94 and therefore, if the stay continue they would have no enhance for being appointed though selected by the Commission. 7. We may slate here that the private respondents filed the petition for vacating the stay order on the ground that the validity of the select list is going to expire on 11.10.94 and therefore, if the stay continue they would have no enhance for being appointed though selected by the Commission. 7. As admittedly the petitioners-appellants could not qualify in the interview conducted by the Public Service Commission for the post they are holding only point that need our consideration as to whether under the relevant rules they have got right to claim regularisation by a separate procedure under the relevant rule. We extract below the relevant provisions of the Assam Public Services (Ad-hoc) Appointment Rules, 1986, for short the Rules, 1986 and Regulation 3 (f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951, for short the Regulation of 1951. For the present purpose sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 and clause (c) of sub-rule (2)of Rule Sand Rule 5 of the Rules of 1986 are relevant and are quoted below: "3. Ad-hoc Appointment: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any service rules, ad-hoc appointment by direct recruitment to a temporary post created under the Govt. For the present purpose sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 and clause (c) of sub-rule (2)of Rule Sand Rule 5 of the Rules of 1986 are relevant and are quoted below: "3. Ad-hoc Appointment: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any service rules, ad-hoc appointment by direct recruitment to a temporary post created under the Govt. may be made, if it is necessary in the public interest that the appointment should be made immediately and reference to the Commission would cause undue delay:" (Commission has been defined in Rule 2 of the Assam Public Service Commission Regulation) The proviso to said sub-rule runs as follows : "Provided that if the post has been sanctioned for or is likely to last for more than 4 months, the Commission shall as soon as possible be consulted for making the appointment on regular basis as provided for in clause (c) of sub-rule (2) of this Rule." The said clause (c) of sub-rule (2) of this Rule 3 runs as follows : "3.(2) (c) A review of all ad-hoc appointment shall be made by the concerned administrative department within 4 months of initial appoint­ment and whenever it appears that such posts are likely to continue in the public interest for a period exceeding 4 months then a requisition alongwith draft advertisement shall be sent to the Commission within 4 months of initial date of appointment with a request to furnish its recommendation for making the appointment on regular basis without causing undue delay." Rules 5 of the said Rules of 1986 runs as follows : “5.Term of Appointment;-Any appointment made under these rules shall not be continue beyond a period of one year from the date of initial appointment Such appointment shall automatically stands terminated on the expiry of the said period of one year unless terminated earlier." The Regulation 3 (f) of the Regulations of 1951 rung as follows : "3. It shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted in matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and posts or the suitability of the candidates for such appointment, in the following cases, viz : (f) When an appointment is to be made by direct recruitment to a temporary post created in a service if it is necessary in the public interest that the appointment should be made immediately and reference to the Commission would cause undue delay provided that if the posts has been sanctioned for or is likely to last for more than 4 months, the Commission shall, as soon as possible be consulted in all matters mentioned in sub-clause (3) of Article 302 of the Constitution." The Commission has been defined in Regulation 2 of the Assam Public Service Commission. 8. The first point that has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants were appointed after due advertisement and interview under the provisions of the Rules of 1986 and therefore, they are entitled to be regularised in view of the fact that they have put in service for a long period in terms of the said Rules. In the alternative it has been urged that even though their appointment were converted after Rules of 1986 were repealed to appointment under Regulation 3 (f) of the Regulations of 1951 and they have been given extension from time to time, they are entitled to be regularised without going through the process of selection alongwith the fresh candidates by the Public Service Commission. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the private respondent that Rules of 1986 and Regulation 3 (f) of the Regulations, 1951 do not give any right to the present appellants for regularisation and as such they cannot deprive appointments of duly selected persons by the Assam Public Service Commission more particularly, as the present appellants also appeared before the Public Service Commission and they have failed though their three colleagues were selected. Therefore, this Court has to consider the question whether Rules of 1986 though repealed and Regulation 3 (f) of Regulations, 1951 under which the appellants were subsequently appointed give any right to the present appellants to get themselves regularised without going through the regular selection process alongwith other candidates who applied in response to the advertisement in question issued by the Public Service Commission. 9. The intention of framing Rules of 1986 is clear, inasmuch as, the authorities concerned wanted that in case of even ad-hoc appointments by direct recruitment to a temporary posts ail eligible candidates are given equal chance to be selected by a committee consisting of officers mentioned in the said rule viz the Secretary of the Administrative Department, a nominee of the Personnel Department and a senior officer nominated by the Secretary of the Administrative Department. Such ad-hoc appointment is of purely temporary nature and the maximum period next in term of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1986 is one year. This Rule 5 is very emphatic that after the end of one year such appointment shall automatically stands terminated. In fact, in the case in hand also after the period of one year, the services were terminated though re-appointed again. 10. Reading proviso to sub-rule (i) of Rule 3 and clause (c) of sub-rule (2) of the said Rule 3, we are of the definite opinion that if the posts against which a person is appointed on ad-hoc basis is likely to continue for more than 4 months, the Public Service Commission shall be consulted for making appointment on regular basis and for this purpose a review of ail ad-hoc appointment by the concerned department has to be made within a period of 4 months and if it appears that the posts is likely to continue for more than 4 months it is obligatory on the part of the department to send a proper requisition with draft advertisement to the Public Service Commission with a request to furnish the recommendation of the Commission for making appoi­ntment on regular basis. In other words, the above provision of the Rule do not confer any right on the person who were appointed under the Rules on ad-hoc basis, to be regularised, but these Rules cast a duty on the Public Service Commission on the basis of the draft advertisement issued by the department to send regular recommendation for making appointment on regular basis to the department. In otherwords, these Rules of 1986 do not give any right to a appointee under these Rules on ad-hoc basis for consideration for regularis­ation in the post. But if the post is likely to continue for more than 4 months duty is cast on the department to send an advertisement to the Public Service Commission and thereafter make regular appointment on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. 11. As after the Rules of 1986 were repealed and after that the appellants were appointed under Regulation 3 (f) of the Regulations of 1951, let us now consider whether the above Regulation confers any right on the appellants to claim regularisation on the basis of their appointment under Regulation 3 (f). 12. This Regulation 3 (f) of the Regulations of 1951 came up for consi­deration by the Division Bench of this Court in Hemanta Kumar Pegu & others vs. State of Assam, 1988 (1) GLJ 383. The Division Bench considered Regulation 3 (f) and held in paragraph 27 of the judgment that this Regula­tion does not provide a source of power for appointment, but only provides the mode of appointment and that regularise does not connote permanence. The contention that the persons who were appointed under Regulation 3 (f) can be regularised if they are otherwise qualified was not accepted by the Court and it was held that regularisatio ) means making regular appointment by selection irrespective of the question whether the petitioners were already appointed under Regulation 3 (f ) or not. The ratio laid down in the above-decision in our opinion is the correct proposition of law and there is no reason to take a different view. Therefore, in view of the above ratio, we are constraint to hold that merely because the appointments of the appellants were converted to appointment under Regulation 3 (f) of the Regulations of 1951, they cannot claim regularisation due to length of their service. 13. We may note her- that Mr. Therefore, in view of the above ratio, we are constraint to hold that merely because the appointments of the appellants were converted to appointment under Regulation 3 (f) of the Regulations of 1951, they cannot claim regularisation due to length of their service. 13. We may note her- that Mr. DN Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Shashi Kanta Mishra & others vs. State of Bihar, 1987 (Supp) SCC 495. In that case the Apex Court held that due to failure of the Public Service Commission to make; appointment of doctors in spite of orders issued by the High Court, 3 (throe) years back, the Apex Court was obliged to direct the Public Service Commission to complete the examination in every manner and communicate the State Govt. the names of successful candidates by a date fixed by the Apex Court. This decision is not relevant for our purpose as we find from record that though the State Govt. requested for regularisation of the services of the appellants, the Assam Public Service Commission was of the view that there is no provision for such regularisation. In the result, we find no merit in the present writ petition and the appeal and accordingly these are dismissed. Stay order stands vacated. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs.