JUDGMENT 1. - Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the instant writ petitions, they were heard analogously and are being disposed by a common order. 2. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed their termination order dated July 29, 1987. This court during the pendency of the writ petition has stayed the termination order and the petitioners have been working as usual. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent State Government In exercise of the powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India has issued a Notification dated October 12, 1992 whereby sub-rule (10) has been inserted in Rule of the Rajasthan Sub-ordinate Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1957 (in short the Rules of 1957), wherein it has been provided that notwithstanding the provisions contained in Rule 7, all such persons appointed as L.D.Cs. during the period from. 1.1.1985 to 21.3.1990 have been allowed three chances to appear in the departmental test to be conducted by the Departmental Head of the concerned department and upon passing of the said test, the services of such persons shall be regularised upon the occurrence of a vacancy and only upon the failure of such persons to pass the test, his services shall be terminated. The petitioner Ashok Kumar amended the writ petition in pursuance of the said Notification and in addition to relief sought in the writ petition it was also prayed that a direction he issued in the name of the respondents to provide the petitioner the benefit of the said Notification dated October 12, 1992 and the respondents be further directed to hold the departmental test forthwith and regularise the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 3. The respondents in their reply averred that the petitioners were appointed purely on temporary basis without following the due process and as their appointment orders were illegal their services have been rightly terminated. 4. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. Admittedly the petitioners were appointed on the post of L.D.Cs. between the period 1.1.1985 to 31.3.1990 and they are governed by the Notification dated October 12, 1992, which inserted sub-rule (10) in Rule of the Rules of 1957, wherein it has been provided that notwithstanding the provisions contained in Rule 7, all such persons appointed as L.D.Cs. Admittedly the petitioners were appointed on the post of L.D.Cs. between the period 1.1.1985 to 31.3.1990 and they are governed by the Notification dated October 12, 1992, which inserted sub-rule (10) in Rule of the Rules of 1957, wherein it has been provided that notwithstanding the provisions contained in Rule 7, all such persons appointed as L.D.Cs. during the period from 1.1.1985 to 31.3.1990 have been allowed three chances to appear in the departmental test to be conducted by the Departmental Head of the concerned department and upon passing of the said test, the services of such persons shall be regularised upon the occurrence of a vacancy and only upon the failure of such persons to pass the test, his services shall be terminated. The petitioners have been working with the respondents in pursuance of the interim order passed by this court and they are entitled to the Notification dated October 12, 1992. In view of the said Notification the impugned termination orders of the petitioners cannot be allowed to remain in force. 5. Result of the foregoing discussion is that both the writ petition stand allowed. The impugned termination orders of the petitioners shall stand set-aside and the respondents are directed to hold departmental test of the petitioners forthwith in pursuance of the Notification dated October 12, 1992. Costs easy.Writ Petitions allowed. *******