R. K. MAHAJAN, J. By this petition, the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondent No. 1 not to terminate the services of the petitioners as threatened in his letter dated 23rd May 1985 addressed to the Employment Exchange Officer, Muzaffarnagar. It has also been prayed that a direction be issued requiring the respondent No 1 to treat the petitioners as regularly selected candidates to the post of tempo rary registration clerks in view of their selection in accordance with 1979 Niyamawali in 1983. 2. It may be pointed oat at the very outset that the stay order was obtained by the petitioners on 8-8- 1985 suspending the operation of the termination notice dated 26-7-1985. The stay order dated 8-8- 1985 is being quoted below :- 8 "issue notice. In spite of time being granted, no counter-affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances, we suspend operation of the notice dated 26-7-1985 issued to the petitioners. " 3. The petitioners case is that certain temporary posts of registration clerks were created in the district of Muzaffarnagar to cope with the heavy arrears of work load. The names of the petitioners were initially forwarded by the Employment Exchange Officer. Thereafter a written test and inter view was held by a selection committee in accordance With the Subordinate Offices Clerical Direct Recruitment, IVth Amendment, Rules, 1979 (herein after referred to as the Rules ). It is alleged that ten candidates were selected for the district including the five petitioners. Later on, it appears that a decision was taken that instead of offering temporary appointments, the candidate may be appointed as daily wages. The appointment letters were issued on 4-3-1983 accordingly. However, later on, the department decided to offer temporary appointments to all the candidates and issued letters of appointment as such on 2-9- 1983. The petitioners have alleged that though the posts were temporary but extended from year to year. Later on, it appears that on the instruction of the Inspector General (Regis tration), their appointments were dispensed with. They were advised to get their names registered in the Employment Exchange Office and fresh selection would be held. 4. On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavit has been filed. It is alleged that twenty-eight posts were created as daily wages in December, J982 vide Annexure-SC A-l to the supplementary counter- affidavit. They were advised to get their names registered in the Employment Exchange Office and fresh selection would be held. 4. On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavit has been filed. It is alleged that twenty-eight posts were created as daily wages in December, J982 vide Annexure-SC A-l to the supplementary counter- affidavit. It may be added that there were ten substantive posts lying vacant for routine grade clerks but these posts were not filled in as no regular selection could take place. Only 28 posts of daily wages were filled in after holding selection. The requisition letter of the 28 posts was sent to the Employment Exchange and the appointments so given were upto 31st March, 1983 to cope with the heavy arrears of work load. In the appointment letters, it was also made clear that they were not being appointed against the temporary posts. It appears that later on the work could not be finished and a request was made for the extension of these posts of daily wages to the I. G. Registration and the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. However, the said request was turned down as there was no budget for these posts after March, 1983. It is also alleged that the appointments were not found in accordance with the rules and later on, I. G. Registration wrote a letter to the District Registrar that the appointments were not made in accordance with rules and the procedures may be followed. In para 8 of the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is also alleged that the petitioners were called in person on 21-5-1985 by the District Registrar and he advised them that they may get themselves registered with the Employment Exchange, so that when regular selection takes place, they may get the benefit of their past service. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, Sri Murlidhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that no reason was assign ed for dispensing the services of the petitioner after due selection. 6. The services of the petitioners were dispensed with in May, 1985 whereupon this writ petition was filed and the stay order was granted on 8^-8-1985. The petitioners are continuing in service under the Courts orders for about eleven years. 6. The services of the petitioners were dispensed with in May, 1985 whereupon this writ petition was filed and the stay order was granted on 8^-8-1985. The petitioners are continuing in service under the Courts orders for about eleven years. The petitioners have no control over the early disposal of the case on account of heavy dockets in the court and nobody can be punished for a state of thing over which he has no control. The petitioners with the passage of time, must have become over age and they may not be able to get service in other place. They have heavy responsi bility of children and members of family. It would be unreasonable and arbitrary if they are kicked off from the job. It would also be unfair to deprive them of the right of livelihood provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In fact, nothing has been brought on record to show that they were part of the so-called irregularities in the selection. No cogent evidence has been brought on record to convince us that there were irregularities in the selection. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that even if the petitioners were appointed on daily wages and since they put in more than eleven years service, it would be not fair to terminate them and their services may be regularised in accordance with law and the ratio of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Shyamnand v. State of Bihar, reported in 1995 (Supp) (3) SCC 365, where their Lordships have ruled out that an ad hoc appointee, having put in a long period of service, in that case the candidates selected by the Public Service Commission being available at this stage in view of the length of service and availability of the number of unfilled posts, the ad hoc appointee could be allowed in the discretion of the department to continue in one of such posts, of course, subject to selection etc. Even age relaxation, if necessary be also directed to be given for the purpose. 8. Even age relaxation, if necessary be also directed to be given for the purpose. 8. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of Khagesh Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration, reported in JT 1995 (7) SC 345 : 1996 (i) LBESR 113 (SC), is quoted with the advantage as under: " (1) The petitioners or other similarly placed persons who were employed as Registration clerks on daily wages basis prior to October 1, 1986 shall be considered for regularisation under the provisions of Rule 4 (P (ii) and they have completed three years continuous service. The said period of three years service shall be computed by taking into account the actual period during which the employee had worked as Registration clerk on daily wages basis. The period during which such an employee has performed the duties of Registration Clerk under paragraph 101 of the Manual shall be counted as p^rt of service for the pur pose of such regularisation. (2) In the event of appointment on regular basis on the post of Registration Clerks, the petitioners or other similarly placed persons who had worked as Registration Clerks on daily wages basis may be given one opportunity of being considered for such appointment and they be given relaxation in the matter of age requirement prescribed for such appointment under the Rules. (3) The subordinate Service Selection Commission while making selection for regular appointment to tie posts of Registration Clerks shall give weightage for their experience to the Registra tion Clerks who have worked on daily wages basis and shall frame suitable guidelines for that purpose. " 9. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respon dents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioners in accordance with rules as well as in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, as quoted above, in the case of Khagesh Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration (supra ). Petition allowed. .