JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Assistant Lecturers in the Chandigarh Administration who were appointed on ad hoc basis during the period 1985 and 1986. The petitioner have claimed that though their appointment has been described as ad hoc appointment, they are entitled to be treated as regular Lecturers (College Cadre) in Education Service Class II with effect from the date they were recruited and appointed though in terms of the appointment letter such appointment was made on ad hoc basis. 2. Prior to the division of the State of Punjab into the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the post of Lecturer in colleges in the former State of Punjab was treated as a Class III post and appointment to the said post was governed by the Punjab Subordinate Education Service Rules, 1937. Class 11 posts in the former State of Punjab did not fall within the purview of the Punjab Public Service Commission. After the division of the State of Punjab in 1966, the Punjab Rules of 1937 were continued in force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and appointment to the post of Lecturer in the Union Territory of Chandigarh continued to be made in accordance with the Punjab Rules of 1937. In the new State of Punjab the Punjab Rules of 1937 were replaced in 1976 and under the Rules of 1976 the post of Lecture was treated as a Class II post falling within the purview of the Punjab Public Service Commission. There was no similar change in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the Punjab Rules of 1937 continued in force. Appointments after 1976 on the post of Lecturer in the Union Territory of Chandigarh were being made by adopting the procedure of inviting nominations from employed it exchanges and/or an advertisement issued by the Administrator in leading newspapers in consultation with the college concerned and selection was made by a duly constituted selection committee consisting of the Education Secretary, Director of Public Instructions (DPI) Colleges, Experts in the subject and the Principal. Under the erroneous belief that consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) was necessary under the Rules for the purpose of regular appointment on the post of Lecturer, the orders Of appointment contained the condition that the appointment was made on ad hoc basis. This practice had been continuing since 1977. By notification dated September 14, 1990 published in Chandigarh Administrative Gazette dated February 21, 1991, the Chandigarh Educational Service (6roup-C- gazetted) Government Arts and Science Colleges Rules 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1990 Rules') were published. Under sub-rule (ii) of Rules 1, the 199d Rules came into force with immediate effect but under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 1 Class 11 status (Group B) was deemed to have been conferred on lecturers with effect from April 1, 1975. The 1990 Rules apply to posts specified in columns (1) and (2) of the Schedule to the Rules and such other post as may be included in the Schedule from time to time. The post of Lecturer in various subjects mentioned in the Schedule fall within the ambit of the 1990 rules. As regards the method of recruitment, age limit and other qualifications Rule 4 prescribes that the same shall be as specified in columns (5) to (14) of the Schedule to the rules. 3. After making of the 1990 rules and prior to their publication in the Gazette, a letter dated January 9, 1991 was addressed by the Education Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, to the UPSC, wherein, after referring to the rules, it was stated : "You were, earlier requested to consider the cases of regularisation of service of the ad hoc lecturers appointed by the Chandigarh Administration in various Government Colleges for which this Administration has already placed requisition with your office vide this Administration Letter No. DPI-UT-C2- 12 (170)83 dated 21st April, 1988. A further request was made vide this office letter of Even No. dated 29th November 1988 for the relaxation of the age of in respect of their service subject to a maximum of 10 years. They were appointed on the basis of recommendation by Selection Committee which includes an expert from the Punjab University, Chandigarh. These Lecturers fulfil the qualifications prescribed by UGC. There are not 123 Lecturers working with the Chandigarh Administration and most of them are working for the last 6-7 years. They were appointed on the basis of recommendation by Selection Committee which includes an expert from the Punjab University, Chandigarh. These Lecturers fulfil the qualifications prescribed by UGC. There are not 123 Lecturers working with the Chandigarh Administration and most of them are working for the last 6-7 years. A considerable hardship would be caused in case their services are terminated now. Some of them have become overage and are not likely to get employment elsewhere. You are, therefore, requested kindly to consider the claim of these Lecturers for regularisation of their services and convey your decision in the matter at the earliest." It appears that no action has been taken in pursuance of the said request till now. 4. Shri P.K. Goswami, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that since the appointment of the petitioners (and other persons similarly situate) on the post of Lecturer was made in accordance with the procedure that was followed for regular appointment on the post of Lecturer under Punjab Rules of 1937, which were in force at that time, the appointment of the petitioners should be treated as regular appointment even though in the letter of appointment it is described as being ad hoc in nature. In support of this submission, Shri Goswami has also pointed out that the petitioners have been given salary, increments, housing allowance, housing facilities, medical leave, maternity leave, leave travel concession, ex-India leave, long leave, earned leave and other perquisites/facilities of service while they have been working as Lecturers ever since their appointment. It has also been submitted that many of the Lecturers, who have been described as Lecturers appointed on ad hoc basis, have been discharging the duties of Head of Department in their respective departments of the colleges in which they re (sic) working and are performing various duties of Registrar (Examination) and others, which posts are meant to be filled by Lecturers with at least 10 years experience. These facts are set out in the additional affidavit of Kanwaljeet Kaur Dhillon filed on behalf of the petitioners and have not been controverted by the respondents. 5. These facts are set out in the additional affidavit of Kanwaljeet Kaur Dhillon filed on behalf of the petitioners and have not been controverted by the respondents. 5. In view of the facts mentioned above it appears that the appointment of the petitioners and other Lecturers in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, who were appointed on ad hoc basis during the period 1977 till the publication of the 1990 rules, though described as an ad hoc appointment, is really an appointment on regular basis made in accordance with the procedure that was required to be followed for making a regular appointment under the Punjab Rules of 1937 which were in force at that time. The said appointments have been described as being ad hoc in nature on the erroneous impression that consultation with the UPSC was necessary after 1977 for making regular appointment on the post, Since the Punjab Rules of 1937 had continued in force, consultation with UPSC was not required for the post of Lecturer which continued to be a Class II post till the publication of the 1990 Rules on February 21, 1991. It is no doubt true that as a result of the retrospective effect given by Rule 1(iii) of the 1990 Rules Class II status (Group B) has been conferred on Lecturers with effect from April 1, 1975 and as a result the post of Lecturer has to be treated as Class II post with effect from April 1, 1975 and the said post has cone under the purview of the UPSC by virtue of the UPSC (Consultation) Regulations, 1958 which only exclude Class III and IV posts from the purview of the UPSC. the said retrospective amendment cannot, in our opinion, have the effect of depriving the petitioners of their right of having been substantively appointed on the post of Lecturer prior to the coming into force of the 1990 Rules on February 21, 1991. the said retrospective amendment cannot, in our opinion, have the effect of depriving the petitioners of their right of having been substantively appointed on the post of Lecturer prior to the coming into force of the 1990 Rules on February 21, 1991. Since we are of the opinion that the appointment of the petitioners on the post of lecturer was made under the Punjab Rules of 1937, which were in force at that time, and the said appointment, though described as being ad hoc in nature was a regular appointment, the petitioners and other Lecturers similarly situate would not be affected by the retrospective effect given by Rules, 1 (iii) of the 1990 Rules so as to require the appointment of the petitioners to be regularised in consultation with the UPSC. 6. The writ petition in accordingly allowed and it is directed that the appointment of the petitioners and there Lecturers similarly situate who '.sere appointed prior to the publication of the 1990 Rules on February 21, 1991, though described as being ad hoc in nature shall be treated as a regular appointment and the said Lecturers shall be given the benefits accruing to them on that basis. We do not express any opinion as regards appointments on the post of Lecturer that were made after coming into force of the 1990 Rules on February 21, 1991. No costs.