By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the three petitioners Lecturers in Hindi, Assamese and English have been serving by now. for almost over a decade, seek to challenge their non regularisation of service, and pray for quashing the advertisement No. 10 of 1990 as issued by the State Public Service Commission of Assam on 11.10.90 filed as Annexure 7 to the petition, and a direction to the respondents to regularise the petitioner's services. 2. Basic facts leading to the presentation of this petition are : The petitioners possess the requisite qualifications for being appointed as Lecturers. Petitioner Dr. Veneeta Kashyap holds a Master's Degree in Hindi Literature securing higher second class, from Allahabad University and also 'possesses Doctorate. The petitioner No.2, Mrs. Gayatri Kandali obtained her BA (Hons) in Assamese in First Class from Dibrugarh University, and later Master of Arts from Gauliati University, securing higher Second Class. The petitioner No.3. Smti Sikha Dutta. Did her HSSLC in 1964, securing third position in order of merit. She completed her BA (Hons) in English Literature followed by MA in higher Second Class from Gauhati University. She also possesses a Bachelor's degree in Music. All of them started their career as Lecturers in the State Music College, initially on remuneration per lecture basis in September, 19b5 vide Annexure A. On 22.12.87, an advertisement Annexure B, was issued by the Director of Cultural Affairs, respondent No.3 inviting application for the post of Lecturers in Hindi, Assamese, English and Sitar. The petitioners applied for the post, they were interviewed, and on the basis of recommendations made by the Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose, the petitioners were appointed as Lecturers as per order dated 20.6.89 (Annexure C), although it was temporary but it was extended from time to time, the last notification issued in this behalf is dated 9.4.91, Annexure E, which is reproduced below : "In continuation of this department's Notification No.ECA 112/87/70 dated 6.11.90, the term of appointment of the following persons as Lecturers of State College of Music, Assam, Guwahati, under Rule 3(1) of the Assam Public Service ^ (Ad hoc) Appointment Rules, 1986, is here by extended for a further period of 4 (four) months with effect from 24.2.91 to 23.6.91, i.e., date of expiry of the previous terms of appointment or till regularisation by Assam Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier. (1) Mrs. (1) Mrs. Sikha Dutta, Lecturer in English. (2) Mrs. Gayatree Kandali, Lecturer in Assamese. < (3) Dr. Veneeta Kashyap, Lecturer in Hindi. . Sd/- Bireswar Barua Secretary to the Govt of Assam Cultural Affairs Department." 3. By an advertisement dated 10.10.90 as published in local press (Annexure 7) the State Public Service Commission called for applications for the posts of Lecturers. The petitioners also applied for the same and were legitimately ' expecting call letters for interview as they were already in service and were duly qualified which was proposed for 12/13th of June, 1991. Since the petitioners, contrary to their legitimate expectation did not receive any call letter, they approached this Court with the present petition, filed on 7.6.91. A Division Bench of this Court, while issuing Rule by order dated 10.6.91, also stayed the holding of interview in respect of the posts of Lecturers in Hindi, Assamese and English. By subsequent order dated 13.6.91, after bi-party hearing, the respondents were restrained from removing the petitioners from service. 4. Despite service of notices the respondents having sought time to file counter as back as 25.6.91, have not chosen to file any return or counter, in the circumstances the averments made by the petitioners have remained , uncontroverted and can be deemed to have been admitted, (see AIR 1983 SC 2952). 5. Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to note, as very rightly pointed out, with all detachment and complete fairness by Mr. Goswami, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the State College of Music is not governed by UGC norms even the pay scale of Lecturers is a'-o not as per UGC ; norms. Inviting attention to a letter dated 29th May, 1991, Annexure G, addressed by the Director, Cultural Affairs to the Education Secretary, (copy endorsed to APSC), he submitted that UGC norms were not applicable, but without solely banking upon on it too heavily on this negative aspect he boldly contended that the petitioners fully satisfied the requirements of prevailing UGC norms when the advertisement Annexure F was issued by the State Public Service Commission ; op 10.10.90, laying down the qualifications for the posts of Lecturer as per UGC norms albeit wrongly. His argument is two fold. Firstly, the UGC norms do not apply and in case they are held to be applicable, the petitioners did posse'ss the qualifications as per UGC norms. 6. His argument is two fold. Firstly, the UGC norms do not apply and in case they are held to be applicable, the petitioners did posse'ss the qualifications as per UGC norms. 6. Since the State College of Music was not within the purview of UGC and the staff not being paid according to UGC norms, there could be no question of applying UGC norms as regards qualifications of the Lecturers, as is evident from Annexure G. The prevailing UGC norms are contained in a letter dated 7.12.87, Annexure H, issued by the Director of Public Instructions of the State addressed to all Principals of Govt Aided Colleges. The minimum qualifications for college teachers as modified by the UGC are as under : "(a) Second class Honours graduate in respective subjects distinguished graduate (i.e. 50% marks) (b) (i) 47.5% of marks in Language/Literature subjects and (ii) 50% marks in other subjects in post graduate examination." 7. The petitioners as Language teachers do possess the above qualifications as per UGC norms, then prevailing. The denial of opportunity to the petitioners to be called for interview, for the posts of lecturers in Hindi, Assamese and English cannot be justified an any count. They were undoubtedly wrongly denied this opportunity. 8. The core concept of developing service jurisprudence, is fair play in action, free from arbitrariness and caprice with functional focus on social justice. It is simply unconscionable and inexcusable that academic excellence and talent should continue to be exploited in the name of ad-hocism for years together in instant case for almost six years, that too, to begin with on Rs.30/- per lecture and what is the reward ? After six yers service, not even allowed an interview, for the posts, that too on erroneous application of UGC norms. The petitioners are undoubtedly entitled to it, if necessary, age bar to be relaxed for that purpose. 9. Learned Govt Advocate appearing for the respondents at this stage submitted that the whole process should be started de novo. The petitioners without any loss of time approached this Court at the critical juncture when the interviews were to be held just a day or two after. The interim order of stay was passed in presence of the learned Govt Advocate yet, in spite of notice and knowledge, the respondent State has not choosen to file any return or counter affidavit, so also the APSC. The interim order of stay was passed in presence of the learned Govt Advocate yet, in spite of notice and knowledge, the respondent State has not choosen to file any return or counter affidavit, so also the APSC. Starting a de novo process would mean ignoring the petitioners claim for absorption and regularisation, while it cannot be denied that the petitioners must fulfil the condition of eligibility and compete with others for which they were really prepared and approached this Court without any loss of time. It was five years back on 10.6.91 that the following orders were passed, followed by yet another order on 13.6.91. "10.6.91.........Meanwhile, interview in respect of the three posts of Lecturer, namely English, Assamese and Hindi, in the State College of Music Assam in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Secretary, Assam Public Service Commission, is stayed. 25.6.91 : Respondents are granted a month to file counter. Interim order passed en 10.6.91 and 13.6.91 shall continue until further order." Even after five years the respondents have not choosen to file any return or counter affidavit. I am conscious of the legal maxim, "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit" (An act of the Court shall prejudice no man). 10. The Supreme Court, dealing with the case of temporary University Lecturers in Sushma Sarma vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1985 SC 1367 , a case arising of Rajasthan University Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturer) Act, 1979, preceded by an Ordinance of 1978, condoned the break in service considering it is intentional gaps. Petitioners continued on ad-hoc basis for almost six years prior to the above interim order, and by now over a decade, cannot be lightly brushed aside. Petitioners continued on ad-hoc basis for almost six years prior to the above interim order, and by now over a decade, cannot be lightly brushed aside. In L. Robert D'Souza vs. The Executive Engineer, Southern Railway & another, AIR 1982 SC 854 , while dealing with Rule 2501 the Supreme Court observed : "We would be guilty of turning a blind eye to a situation apart from being highly unethical, wholly contrary to 'constitutional philosophy of socio-economic justice if we fail to point out that Rule 2501 which permits a man serving for 10, < 20, 30 years at a stretch without break being treated as daily rated servant, is thoroughly opposed to the notions of socio-economic justice and it is high time that the Railway administration brings this part of the provision of the Manual and antediluvian, in conformity with the Directive Principles of State Policy as enunciated in Part IV of the Constitution." 11. Dr. AK Jain vs. Union of India, (1987) Suppl SCC 497 was the case of ad-hoc Assistant Railway Officers Class II in the Railways, who were initially appointed during August, 1983 to July, 1986 for six months and they were being allowed to continue for a period of 4 years. Their services were terminated for failure to avail of three chances for selection through UPSC. The department contested their claims to regularise in such circumstances, the Supreme Court directed as follows: "(1) The services of all doctors appointed either as Assistant Medical Officer or as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers on ad-hoc basis upto October 1, 1984 shall be regularised in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission on the evaluation of their work and conduct on the basis of their confidential reports in respect of a period subsequent to October 1,1982. Such evaluation shall be done by the Union Public Service Commission. The doctors so regularised shall be appointed as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers with effect from the date from which they have been continuously working as Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divisional Medical Officer......." • (3) All-Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divisional Medical Officers working on ad hoc basis shall be paid the same salary and allowances as Assistant Divisions! Medical Officers on the revised scale with effect from January 1, 1986. The arrears shall be paid within four months. Medical Officers on the revised scale with effect from January 1, 1986. The arrears shall be paid within four months. (4) No ad hoc Assistant Medical Officers/Assistant Divisional Medical Officers who may be working in the Railways shall be replaced by any newly appointed AMO/ADMO on ad hoc basis in any zone the existing ad hoc AMO/ADMOs who are likely to be replaced by regularly appointed candidates shall be given preference. (5) If the ad hoc doctors appointed after October 1, 1984 apply for selection by the Union Public Service Commission the Union of India and the Railways Department shall grant relaxation in age, to the extent of the period of service rendered by them as ad hoc doctors in the Railways." Dr. AK Jain's case again been followed in a recent judgment as reported in (1993) 2 SCC 213 (Dr. MA Haque & others vs. Union of India & others). 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the respondents are directed to regularise the petitioners services and as a step towards such regularisation, they shall be interviewed, by the State Public Service Commission along with such other candidates who had applied for the posts of Lecturers in response to the advertisement Annexure F, if found fit for being called for interview and are still desirous of the same. The petition stands finally disposed as indicated above. There shall be no order as costs.