ORDER 1. The petitioner Amar Singh is admittedly working with the respondent No. 1 M.P. Rajya Matsya Vikas Nigam and he belongs to backward class i.e. caste 'Gurjer', having passed middle examination which was the requisite qualification for Class-IV post. He was appointed on 1.2.85 and since then he has been working throughout. He has completed about 12 years of service. The employees, who had joined their service before 31.12.88 have to be regularized under the policy of the Govt. The petitioner has annexed the circular of the Govt. dated 9.1.90 (Annexure P-4). His juniors have been regularized ignoring his claim in-spite of several application and representation. A notice was also served upon the respondents but to no effect. He has prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents for regularizing him on the post of Choukidar. 2. The return has been filed by the respondents admitting the aforesaid facts. It has however been alleged that the petitioner was engaged for the work of Choukidar w.e.f. 1.2.85 on daily-wages but was not issued any appointment order and was engaged as casual labour. On the date of his appointment he was more than 30 years hence he was not to be considered eligible for appointment. Consequently, he was not entitled to regularization. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, admittedly he belongs to backward class i.e. 'Gurjer' and on the date of his appointment he was of 31 years of age. Learned counsel referred to Circular No. 1164/2125/1 (3)/61 dated 28th May, 1962 of the General Administration Department, in which the maximum age limit for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe was 35 years and for General Class was 30 years. The other circular relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Circular No. 24/7/1/85 dated 10th January, 1985 of General Administration Department, Harijan/ Adiwasi Cell. He contended that in this circular the benefit of maximum age limit of five year available for the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in direct recruitment was made available to the members of backward class as well. Learned counsel therefore contends that it is wholly incorrect to say that he did not possess the requisite qualification. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that employees, who were appointed after appointment of the petitioner have been regularised. Learned counsel therefore contends that it is wholly incorrect to say that he did not possess the requisite qualification. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that employees, who were appointed after appointment of the petitioner have been regularised. He relied upon AIR 1992 SC 2130 , State of Haryana & others v. Piara Singh & others. In this case the Apex Court considered the question of contingent and work-charged labour. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any regularization because he was more than 30 years of age on the date of appointment and he also urged that in view of the law . laid-down by the Apex Court in AIR 1997 SC 1628 , Ashwani Kumar & others v. State of Bihar & others, as the petitioner at the time of entry in service is in total disregard of the recruitment rules, he has no case for regularization. 5. I have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It may be mentioned at the very outset that the fact of the petitioner that he is a member of the backward class has not been challenged before me and specifically admitted by the respondents in the return. The aforesaid circulars of the Govt. of the year 1985 shows that the benefit of five years extension in the upper age limit, extended earlier to the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe members were extended to the backward class as well This circular dated 10th January, 1985 was admittedly issued before the petitioner was engaged in employment i.e. on 1.2.85. Thus, after this circular he was entitled to the benefit of this circular. It is, therefore, wholly incorrect that the petitioner could not be regularised on account of the fact that he was beyond 30 years of age. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to circular Annexure P-4 of the Government of M.P. which clearly shows that the matter of regularization was considered by the Government and taking a lenient view it was directed that the Class-III and IV employees, appointed before the 31.12.88 be regularised. In this provision there is a specific mention with respect to the manner in which regularization was directed. There those cases were also taken into consideration, where there was no post etc. In this provision there is a specific mention with respect to the manner in which regularization was directed. There those cases were also taken into consideration, where there was no post etc. In view of the fact that the petitioner was a member of backward class and was entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid circular in extension of age, he is entitled to regularization within the meaning of the policy of the Government (Annexure P-4). A bare perusal of the return also shows that the petitioner has been refused for regularization, solely on the consideration that, his age was above 30 years at the time of appointment. I have already said that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the abovesaid circular in the age of 35 years maximum. Therefore the petitioner is entitled for regularization in accordance with the circular Annexure P-4. The authority relied upon by the respondents of Ashwani Kumar (supra) is not applicable in this case, because it has not been challenged that the petitioner's appointment was illegal on any other count. . 7. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (supra), the petitioner cannot be kept in temporary or ad-hoc capacity for long a period. He has already worked for about 12 years. He is entitled to regularise in accordance with the circular Annexure P-4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondents shall pass necessary order regarding regularization of the petitioner in accordance with the Annexure P-4 within a period of 3 months. His regularization shall take effect from the date his immediate next junior was regularised. Ordered accordingly.