JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner and some other persons were appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDC) on the basis of the recommendations made by the selection committee on purely temporary basis for the period ending 31.12.1989 vide order dated 21.11.1989 (Annexure 1). According to the order of appointment, the petitioner and other persons concerned were to pass the typing test within the period prescribed and the services of the appointees were to come to an end automatically if no orders extending the services were passed. Vide order dated 29.12.1989 (Annexure. 2), the services of the petitioner were extended for a further period of three months and he was transferred to Devasth .n Department of the State of Rajasthan, and was relieved from the office of the Election Commissioner on 1.1.1990 as per order Annexure-3. On 2.1.1990, the petitioner reported himself in the office of the Devasthan Department and submitted his joining report (Annexure.4). Vide order dated 22.3.1990 (Annexure 5), the services of the petitioner were extended for a further period of three months and, vide order dated 9.5.1990 (Annexure 6), his services were further extended for a period of six months and, thereafter, vide order dated 15.11.1990 (Annexure 7), his services were extended so as to continue till further orders. He was sent on election duty vide orders dated 25.11.1992 (Annexure 8) and was relieved from the Devasthan Department for joining his election duty vide order dated 27.11.1992 (Annexure 9). While be was on election duty, order dated 6.1.1993 (Annexure 13) was issued by the Devasthan Department stating that the petitioner's appointment being temporary and not regular, his services were terminated with immediate effect. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition on the ground that in terms of the notification dated 12.10.1992 (Annexure 12) he was to be given three chances to pass the performance test to be conducted by the Head of the Department concerned within a period of three years in accordance with the syllabus prescribed and he having not been given the said chances, the order terminating his services is bad. 2. 2. The writ petition along with the stay application was put up before the Court on 20.1.1993 when the writ petition was admitted and notice of the stay application was issued to the respondents and, in the meanwhile, the operation of the impugned order (Annexure 13) was stayed and the stay having continued, the petitioner has continued to work in the department. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. 3. Although the case was fixed for orders on the stay application, with the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, I have heard the case on merits as it was pointed out to me that if the petitioner is entitled to get the chances for passing the performance test there is no likelihood of the department conducting the test as long as the writ petition is pending. 4. The notification (Annexure 12) has been issued for amending sub- rule (9) of rule 25 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff :Rules, 1957 (the Rules) and reads as under. " l . After the existing sub-rule (9) of Rule 25 of the said rules, the following sub-rule (10) shall. be added, namely: "(10) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 7, all persons appointed as LDCs on ad-hoc basis or on daily wages basis during the period from 1.1.1985 to 31.3.1990 and are still working as such on the date this amendment comes into force shall be appointed on regular basis on availability of vacancy subject to the condition that they pass a performance test conducted by the 1-lead of the Department concerned within a period of three years in accordance with the syllabus prescribed in part IV of Schedule 1. Such persons shall be allowed three chances to pass the said test to be availed within a period of three years. Provided that if a person fails to pass the said test in three chances to be availed within period of three years, he shall be liable to be removed from services." 5. Such persons shall be allowed three chances to pass the said test to be availed within a period of three years. Provided that if a person fails to pass the said test in three chances to be availed within period of three years, he shall be liable to be removed from services." 5. Bare reading of the above said not cation shows that if a person had been appointed as LDC on ad-hoc basis between the period from 1.1.1986 to 31.3.1990 and was continuing in service on the date of the notification and the regular vacancy was available he has to be given chances to pass the performance test to be conducted by the Head of the Department concerned in accordance with the syllabus prescribed in Part-IV of Schedule - 1 of the Rules. 6. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as LDC between the above said period and was continuing in service till after the date of notification (Annexure 12). It is also not disputed that the appointment given to the petitioner was on ad- hoc basis. In such circumstances, if any regular vacancy was available in the department the petitioner was to be given three chances in accordance with notification (Annexure 12) for passing the performance test prescribed in part-IV of Schedule -1 of the Rules and if he passed the same he was to be appointed on regular basis and it was only when he failed to pass in the above said three chances that his services could be terminated. It is not the case of the department that no regular vacancy was available when the services of the petitioner had been terminated vide Annexure -13 and it is not disputed that no test was conducted in accordance with the notification (Annexure 12). The order (Annexure 13), terminating the services of the petitioner, therefore, is bad and is liable to be set aside. 7. Consequently, while allowing the writ petition, I quash the order dated 6.1.1993 (Annexure 13), terminating the services of the petitioner, and direct that the Head of the Devasthar. The order (Annexure 13), terminating the services of the petitioner, therefore, is bad and is liable to be set aside. 7. Consequently, while allowing the writ petition, I quash the order dated 6.1.1993 (Annexure 13), terminating the services of the petitioner, and direct that the Head of the Devasthar. Department should conduct the necessary tests in recordance with the notification (Annexure 12) and, if the petitioner passes the test in the chances mentioned, in the notification, he should be appointed in the department on regular basis and, if he falls to pass the test in the above said chances, his services can be terminated. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.Petition allowed. *******