U. P. SINGH, J. All three writ petitions raise a common question seeking a direction to be issued to the State of Uttar Pradesh to amend the U. P. Regulansation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 19,9 and the amended Rules 1984, so as to entitle the ad hoc employees of the State Government in Class III cadre in various departments, including the petitioners who have put in one or more than one year of continuous service as such to take such benefit. They have further prayed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents District Judge, Moradabad, respondent No. 1 to regularise their services and not to hold the Selection Test Scheduled to be held on 15th of December, 1991 and 22-12-1991 in the Moradabad Judgeship. 2. In writ petition No. 242/6 of 1992 (third writ petition), the sole petitioner Smt. Sarita Bhatnagar has in addition to the prayer mentioned above in the other two writ petitions, further prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 2l^t February, 1992 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition), passed by the District Judge, Moradabad, terminating her services. She has challenged the entire selection dated 22nd February 1992 being illegal and has prayed for a writ of mandamus for treating her in continuous service. 3. Since all these petitions have raised a common question and more or less similar on facts, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. In writ petition No. 37337 of 1991 (first petition) there are five petitioners and in writ petition No. 37340 of 1991 (second petition) there are three petitioners. 5. In short, it may be stated that in the Judgeship of Moradabad the last regular selection for appointment on the post of Class HI cadre was held in the year 1987. Thereafter, since for some reason or the other regular appointments could not be made, certain ad hoc appointments were made. These eight petitioners of the first and second petitions are amongst the ad hoc employees, working as such, since the dates of their respective appointments. Some were appointed in March 1990 and a few in July 1990 The appointments of these petitioners were ad hoc and they were to continue only till the regular selections could be made. These eight petitioners of the first and second petitions are amongst the ad hoc employees, working as such, since the dates of their respective appointments. Some were appointed in March 1990 and a few in July 1990 The appointments of these petitioners were ad hoc and they were to continue only till the regular selections could be made. Thus all these eight petitioners had put in one year and few months of service as clerks in the aforesaid Judgeship at the time of the impugned selection. 6. In the third writ petition, Smt. Sarita Bhatnagar the sole petitioner, was also amongst one of the ad hoc employees, who was initially appointed on 15-12-1988 and continued till 8-12-1989. Thereafter she was appointed as ad hoc copyist in the Court of Additional Munsif Amroha Moradabad, on 3rd July, 1990 and was subsequently, transferred to the main Judgeship of Moradabad on the same post on 12th July, 1990 and since then, she claimed to have worked till 21-2-1992 without any break. 7. On or about 10th August, 1989 an advertisement was issued in Daily Newspaper for holding regular selection in respect of the posts of Class III cadre in the said Judgeship. By another additional advertisement published on 10th February, 1990, the date for submission of application forms was extended upto 31st March, 1990 and the said date was further extended upto 15-11-1990. The selection was again adjourned to 15-12-1991. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, the District Judge, Moradabad, it is contended that due to unavoidable and compelling circumstances, the examination could not be held in time. On 13-7-1991 the accommodation as assured, could not be made available by the P. A. C. authorities. Likewise, on 6-10-1991 the Conference of Judicial Officers was held at Lucknow and, thus, on both these dates the examination had to be postponed on account of the circumstances beyond their control. However, the petitioner could not take any advantage of the postponement of the regular selection and the same will not create any right in favour of the petitioners in terms of their appointment letters. They were appointed purely on temporary basis and their services were liable to be, terminated whenever regular selection was to be made. 9. However, the petitioner could not take any advantage of the postponement of the regular selection and the same will not create any right in favour of the petitioners in terms of their appointment letters. They were appointed purely on temporary basis and their services were liable to be, terminated whenever regular selection was to be made. 9. It may be noticed that the petitioners did not choose to appear at regular examination and, therefore, their services were liable to be termi nated. Apprehending that on account of their non-appearance at the selection test, their services will stand terminated, the eight petitioners of the first and second writ petitions, filed these writ petitions and obtained an order of |stay from this Honble Court on 19-12- 1991 and 20-12-1991 and the respondents were restrained from terminating their services and they were directed to pay monthly salary to the petitioners. 10. In the third writ petition, the services of the sole petitioner Smt, Sarita Bhatnagar stood terminated by order dated 21-2-1992, contain ed in Annexure 10. 11. In the case of Smt. Sarita Bhatnagar, it may be pointed out that she had been appointed purely on ad hoc basis for limited and specific period from time to time. She had not been appointed on temporary basis till regular appointment was made. Therefore, after the expiry of the period of appointment, she ceased to be in service. Therefore, her challenge to the impugned order of termination that she was entitled for an opport unity of hearing and that the report of the Selection Committee should have been furnished to her before termination of her services, is devoid of merit, inasmuch as, after the regular selection was made ad hoc employees could not continues who did not join the test and did not pass it. 12. The petitioners in all these three writ petitions have challenged that the condition prescribing three years service on ad hoc basis for entitl ing an ad hoc employee to the right of regularisation, is arbitrary and un- -reasonable, being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. It was contended that they are entitled to regularisation of their services since they put in more than 240 days of continuous service on the posts in question. It was contended that they are entitled to regularisation of their services since they put in more than 240 days of continuous service on the posts in question. They claimed regularisation of their services on the basis that having put in more than one year of continuous but less three years, they are also entitle to get the benefit of service, the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 and the amended Regularisation Rules of 1984 and the same may be suitably amended and the condition of three years service on ad hoc basis entitling the ad hoc employees to the right of regularisation, be relaxed and made applicable to those ad hoc em ployees also who have put in one or more than one year of continuous service. 13. The provisions of U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules 1979 may be noticed. Rule 4 of the said rules reads : "4. Regularising of ad hoc appointments.-Any person who- (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before January 1, 1977 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules ; (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has complet ed three years service as such, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitably before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. " In view of the Regularisation Rules of 1979 and the amended Rules of 1984, an ad hoc employee becomes entitled to regularisation of his services provided he had been working on the post on that date and had put in three years of continuous service. We do not find any reason how the same can be directed by this Court to be amended so as to include the services of those ad hoc employees who have served of regularisation. We do not find any reason how the same can be directed by this Court to be amended so as to include the services of those ad hoc employees who have served of regularisation. The condition of three years of continuous service cannot be held to be arbitrary or un reasonable and an employee who has completed only one year of continuous service on ad hoc basis would not be entitled to regularisation of his services. 14 The other contention that since the petitioners has served for more than 240 days like the daily wages, are entitled for regularisation under the Government order dated 18-10-1984, is equally fallacious. The said Government order do not relate to ad hoc employees but covers the cases of those, who are appointed on daily wages. It would certainly not mean that the ad hoc employees who completed 240 days, are entitled for regula risation, taking advantage of the aforesaid Government order. Further in view of the Regularisation Rules, quoted above, the regularisation of the ad hoc employee is to be governed strictly in terms of the said Regularisation Rules and, if the petitioners could not fulfil the conditions imposed therein, they would not be entitled for regularisation. 15. The very nature of the petitioners appointment was purely temporary and their services were liable to be terminated whenever regular selection was to be made. In fact the regular selection has now" been made and, therefore, the claim of the petitioners for reguiarisation of their services has come to an end. The petitioners did not choose to appear in the regular examination as well. 16. The decisions relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable in the petitioners case, since those cases are related to daily rated casual labourers and, here, in the present case, the petitioners appointment was on temporary basis against the stop gap arrangement till the regular selec tion was held. Therefore, the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable to cover the petitioners case. 17. It may be stated that there was no legal sanction of appointment in Class III cadre in the Civil Court. Ad hoc appointments were resorted to as a stop gap arrangement to meet out the exigencies. Therefore, the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable to cover the petitioners case. 17. It may be stated that there was no legal sanction of appointment in Class III cadre in the Civil Court. Ad hoc appointments were resorted to as a stop gap arrangement to meet out the exigencies. Merely because the petitioners had put in one or more than one years service, it would not, by itself, give a right to them to claim regularisation of their services. The regular test for recruitment of Class III employees was held in the Judgeship of Moradabad on 15-12-1991 and, for the reasons best known to the peti tioners, they did not appear at the test. Therefore, the District Judge was correct in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regular appointment in the Judgeship on the basis of ad hoc appointment. 18. In the third writ petition, relating to the case of Smt. Sarita Bhatnagar, it may be noticed that she had not rendered continuous service of three years, which was necessary for regularisation of appointment under the relevant rules. In fact, the ad hoc appointee, who has not completed three years continuous service, is not eligible for such regularisation. In her case as well, the District Judge was correct in rejecting her claim for regular employment in the Judgeship on the basis of ad hoc appointment, determined in terms of service contract. She did not continue in service after termination, because she had not obtained stay order from this Honble Court. Her petition (writ petition No. 24276 of 1992) is, accordingly, dismissed and we find no reason to interfere with the order of termination contained in Annexre 10. No order as to costs. 19. In the other the writ petitions, namely, writ petition No. 37337 and 37340 of 1991. the petitioners have continued in service under the order of stay granted by this Court on 19-12-1991 and 20-12-1991 respectively. No order as to costs. 19. In the other the writ petitions, namely, writ petition No. 37337 and 37340 of 1991. the petitioners have continued in service under the order of stay granted by this Court on 19-12-1991 and 20-12-1991 respectively. If, however, they are continuing in service and fulfil the conditions for regula risation of service as envisaged by the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, as amended up-to-date, then they may file their representations for consideration of their case for regularisation of their services and the respondents concerned may consider the same in accordance with the afore said Regularisation Rules as amended upto date. With these directions these two writ petitions No. 37337 of 1991 arid 37340 of 1991 are also dismissed but without any order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. .