B. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who had been 5 Registration Clerk, was appointed/promoted on officiating basis (as a stop gap arrangement) as a sub-registrar vide order dated 8-6-1996 contained in annexure 5 to the writ petition. The terms of the appointment, promotion letter make it clear that the said promotion was only for a period of six months or till the regular selection is made, as per the provisions of U. P. Sub-registrar Service Rules, 1983 (hereinafter called as 1983 Rules)whichever is earlier. Another relevant condition of the promotion letter is that if the work the petitioner for a period of six months is found satisfactory, stamp duty and registration fee received is found 25 per cent over and above the last years receipt, promotion may be renewed for a further period of six months. The petitioner has been reverted back to his original post of registration Clerk vide order dated 6-12-1996 contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner preferred this writ petition. ( 2 ) HEARD Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pratap Gupta, Additional chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. ( 3 ) IN State of Punjab v. Surinder Singh, AIR 1992 SC 1593 the Honble Supreme Court has observed that there is no reason as to why the services of an employee be not governed by the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. ( 4 ) SIMILAR view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. v. S. K. Sinha, 1995 Suppl. 1 SCC 456. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, Shri Khare has vehemently urged that as the recovery of the stamp had been enhanced by more than required percentage as mentioned in the appointment fetter, the respondents were bound to extend the period of promotion atleast for a period of six months, shri Khare has referred to various documents showing that the recovery of stamp is really more than 25 per cent from the last year. He further urged that the petitioner had been promoted under rule 18 of the 1983 Rules. ( 6 ) IN fact the said Rules provide for the modality of appointment by direct recruitment as well as by promotion. Under Rule 8 minimum qualification for appointment on the post of sub-registrar by direct recruitment is LL. He further urged that the petitioner had been promoted under rule 18 of the 1983 Rules. ( 6 ) IN fact the said Rules provide for the modality of appointment by direct recruitment as well as by promotion. Under Rule 8 minimum qualification for appointment on the post of sub-registrar by direct recruitment is LL. F. and the candidates must have good knowledge of Devnagri. Rule 15 provides for the filling up the post by direct recruitment by inviting applications and holding competitive test and interview etc. Rule 16 provides that the post shall be filled up by promotion on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the claim in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh promotion by Selection in consultation with Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1970 as amended from time to time. Rule 18 (1) provides that the appointment can be made either under Rule 15 or 16 and it further provides that before making the appointment a separate list must be prepared of the candidates appointed by direct recruitment and by promotion. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 18 provides as under:18 (4) "the appointing authority may make appointments in temporary or officiating capacity also from the list referred to in Sub-rule (1 ). If no candidate born on these fists is available, he may make appointment in such vacancies from amongst persons eligible for appointments under these rules. Such appointments shall not last for a period exceeding one year or beyond the next selection under these rules, which ever be eadrlier. " ( 7 ) SHRI Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that as petitioner is holding LL. B. degree, he is eligible to be appointed by direct recruitment and he has in fact been selected under that quota, therefore, he cannot be compared with other departmental candidates. The impugned order dated 5-12-1996, by which the petitioner has been reverted back specifically mentions that petitioner is being reverted back as certain persons who had been senior to the petitioner were ignored at the time of appointing the petitioner as sub-registrar. The impugned order dated 5-12-1996, by which the petitioner has been reverted back specifically mentions that petitioner is being reverted back as certain persons who had been senior to the petitioner were ignored at the time of appointing the petitioner as sub-registrar. There is no averment in the petition that this ground of reversion is factually incorrect, nor petitioner alleges any mala fides against any respondents, letter dated 13-5-1996 contained in annexure 3 to the writ petition simply speaks that the post may be filled upon temporary basis by those departmental candidates who may be found eligible as per the provisions of 1983 Rules. ( 8 ) WE are of the considered view that there is no substance is the submission made by Shri khare. Undoubtedly, appointment of the petitioner was made under Rule 18 (4 ). Under this provision, appointment is to be made in temporary or officiating capacity from the lists referred to in Sub-rule (1 ). But, if no candidate borne on the lists is available, appointment may be made amongst the persons eligible for appointment under the rules. In the facts of the case, eligibility criterion is to be considered with reference to Rules 8,10, and 15. Rules 8 and 10 refer to direct recruitment. Rule 8 postulates the requirement of the degree of Bachelor of Laws from a recognised university and Rule 10 mandates that any person to be eligible for direct recruitment should not have attained the age of more than 28 years on January 1 of the year in which requirement is made. Undoubtedly, the petitioner did not fulfil the criterion as regards age. So he was not eligible to be considered for direct recruitment. Rule 16 deals with promotion to the post of sub-registrar. According to this rule, appointment is to be made on the basis of seniority. Undoubtedly, the petitioner was appointed on the footing that he fulfilled the criterion of seniority. In this view of the matter, the case of the respondents to the fact that some officers senior to the petitioner were omitted to be considered in the past while making appointment under Rule 18 (4) and, therefore, their claim requires to be considered in preference to the claim of the petitioner has merit. ( 9 ) THUS, the petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. .