In this bunch of spe cial appeals judgment dated 8-9-1997 passed by the learned single Judge has been questioned by which Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19071 of 1995 and four others writ petitions were finally disposed of. Petitioner in the aforesaid five writ peti tions are Junior Engineers serving in Al lahabad Development Authority on ad hoc basis for several years. They claimed regularisation of their services as Junior Engineers and payment of regular salary. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 8-9-1997 disposed of the writ petitions by the following orders: "in the aforesaid view of the matter, the nature of exercise in regard to the selection in making ad hoc appointments on regular basis for filling up the substantive vacancies in the posts of Junior Engineers which has been under taken by the respondent Development Authority cannot be sustained in law. " 2. In the result the questions framed in the earlier part of this judgment are decided accordingly. 3. Vide an interim order of this Court, the implementation of the result of the selection held for making ad hoc ap pointment on regular basis had been stayed. The entire proceedings culminat ing in the declaration of the result referred to hereinabove which had been stayed being manifestly illegal and vitiated in law deserves to be and are hereby quashed. 4. The respondent Authority shall now proceed to fill up the substantive vacancies in question expeditiously in ac cordance with law and taking into con sideration the observations and directions indicated hereinabove. 5. In the circumstances, however, it shall be ensured that till the exercise of regularisation in accordance with law is completed as directed hereinabove and the vacancies in question are filled up, the services of the Junior En gineer/petitioners who were in service on 10-2-1992 with three years service to their credit by that date and are still continuing to be in service, shall not be dispensed with and they will be entitled to the payment of salary/wages etc. in the same manner as provided to the Junior Engineers in the case of Ram Kishan (supra) by the apex Court. 6. The reliefs claimed in the writ peti tions except to the extent indicated above shall stand refused. 7. The writ petitions are disposed of finally with the directions and observa tions indicated hereinabove. There shall however, be no order as to costs. 8. 6. The reliefs claimed in the writ peti tions except to the extent indicated above shall stand refused. 7. The writ petitions are disposed of finally with the directions and observa tions indicated hereinabove. There shall however, be no order as to costs. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order Junior Engineer who were selected for regular appointment by the order of the State Government dated 22-7-1997 have challenged the order in special appeals. State Government has also challenged the order dated 8- 9-1997 by filing separate special appeals. Some of the writ petitions have also challenged the order of the learned Single Judge by filing separate special appeals challenging that part of the order by which their other reliefs have been refused. 9. Before entering into consideration of the questions raised before us challeng ing the order of the learned Single Judge it is necessary to mention brief facts in which the present controversy has arisen. The facts are that State Government in exer cise of its power under Section 4 of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) constituted various development authorities for different towns which were declared as development areas under Sec tion 3 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act contained provisions for providing staff to such development authorities. Section 5 is being reproduced below: "5. Staff of tm Authority.- (1) The State Government may appoint two suitable persons respectively as the Secretary and the Chief Ac counts officer of the Authority who shall exer cise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed by regulations or delegated to them by the Authority or its Vice- Chairman. (2) Subject to such control and restrictions as may be determined by general or special order of the State Government, the Authority may appoint such number of other officers and employees as may be necessary for the efficient performance of its functions and may determine their designations and grades -. (2) Subject to such control and restrictions as may be determined by general or special order of the State Government, the Authority may appoint such number of other officers and employees as may be necessary for the efficient performance of its functions and may determine their designations and grades -. (3) The Secretary, the Chief Accounts Of ficer and other officers and employees of the Authority shall be entitled to receive from the funds of the Authority such salaries and al lowances and shall be governed by such other conditions of service as may be determined by regulations made in their behalf 15-A. Creation of Centralised Services.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 5 or in any other law for the time being in force, the State Government may at any time, by notification, create one or more development Authorities Centralised Services for such posts, other than the posts mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 59, as the State Government may deem fit, common to all the Development Authorities and may prescribe the manner and conditions of recruitment to and the terms and conditions of service of per sons appointed to such service. (2) Upon creation of a Development Authorities Centralised Service, a person seiv-ing on the posts included in such service immedi ately before such creation, not being a person governed by the U. P. Palika (Centralised) Ser vices Rules, 1966 or serving on deputation, shall, unless he opts otherwise, be absorbed in such service; (a) finally, if he was already confirmed in his post, and (b) provisionally, if he was holding tem porary or officiating appointment. (3) A person referred to in sub-section (2) may, within three months from the creation of such Development Authorities Centralised Ser vice communicate to the Government in the Housing Department, his option not la be ab sorbed in such Centralised Service, failing which he shall be deemed to have opted for final or provisional, as the case may be, absorption in such Centralised Service. (4) Suitability of a person absorbed provisionally; for final absorption in a Develop ment Authorities Centralised Service, shall be examined in the manner prescribed and if found suitable he shall be absorbed finally. (4) Suitability of a person absorbed provisionally; for final absorption in a Develop ment Authorities Centralised Service, shall be examined in the manner prescribed and if found suitable he shall be absorbed finally. (5) The services of an employee who opts against absorption or who is not found suitable for final absorption, shall stand determined and he shall, without prejudice to his claim to any leave, pension, provident fund or gratuity which he would have been entitled to be entitled to receive as compensation from the Development Authority concerned, as amount equal to- (a) three months salary, if he was a per manent employee; (b) one months salary, if he was a tem porary employee. Explanation.-Tor the purposes of this sub-section the term salary includes dearness allowance, personal pay and special pay, if any. (6) It shall be lawful for the State Govern ment or any officer authorised by it in this behalf to transfer any person holding any post in a Development Authorities Centralised Service from one Development Authority to another. 10. Section 5-A mentioned above, was inserted by amending the Act w. e. f. 20-10-1984, which provided for creation of development authority centralised ser vices for such posts as the State Govern ment may deem fit, common to all the development authorities and to prescribe by rules the manner and conditions of recruitment to and the terms and condi tions of the services of persons appointed to such services. The State Government in exercise of powers under Section 5-A of the Act made rules known as the U. P. Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules. 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which came into force on 25-6-1985. Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules provided the categories of the posts in cluded in the cadre of centralised services. The post of (Awar Abhiyanta) Junior En gineers was one of such services men tioned against item No. 3 with the heading engineers. Rule 8 of the rules provided for sources of recruitment to the pasts of Junior Engineers, which services are men tioned in Schedule II, which provides that the post be filled in by direct recruitment only through Public Service Commission. Rule 18 provided for the manner of recruitment through Public Service Com mission. II. The development authorities, however, appointed from time to time various persons as Junior Engineers on daily wage/work charges contract basis. Rule 18 provided for the manner of recruitment through Public Service Com mission. II. The development authorities, however, appointed from time to time various persons as Junior Engineers on daily wage/work charges contract basis. As these Junior Engineers appointed in the manner stated above were continued for long time, they were agitating the claim before the State Government for regularisation of their services. Stale Government by the letter dated 11-10-1989 addressed to Vice Chairman of all the development authorities in the State directed that as a matter of settlement. State Government has taken decision that those daily wage employees who have worked for 240 days in every year be kept on regular salary. The Development Authorities were also required to submit the demand to the Government within 15 days. By the letter dated 8-1-1992 it-was also communicated that daily wage employees who satisfied the aforesaid re quirements are being considered for regularisation and their services may not be dispensed with during this period. As long time elapsed and the services of such Junior Engineers were not regularised, the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers working under the Gha/iabad Develop ment Authority approached Honble Supreme Court by filing writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. These writ petitions were disposed of finally with the directions to regularise them. The order dated 21-2-1991 is being reproduced below: "these petitions are under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on behalf of an act of engineers classified as Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers working under the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA for short) on basis of daily wages. It is stated that the Assistant Engineers are paid at the rate of Rs. 60/- per day while the Junior F. ngineers are being paid Rs. 40/- per day and the conditions of employment are such that on holidays they are not paid and if they are absent on any day they loss the wages. It is pointed out that some of the petitioners have been in employment on such terms for three to four years and all their attempts to have regularisation of their services have borne no fruit. Mr. O. P. Rana, Counsel appearing for GDA took some time to take instructions when the matter was last heard and concrete sugges tions have been made available by both the sides today. Mr. O. P. Rana, Counsel appearing for GDA took some time to take instructions when the matter was last heard and concrete sugges tions have been made available by both the sides today. After hearing Counsel for the parties to dispose of these four writ petitions by making the following directions: (1) Both categories of petitioners shall now be taken as temporary employees of GDA from 1st March, 1991, with liberty to the Authority to screen the petitioners and other similarly situated who have not come before the Court but are working under the authority1 in regard to their qualifications as also suitability. (2) The Assistant Engineers shall be paid feed pay of Rs. 2,1501- and the Junior Engineers Rs. 2,500/- per month. (3) The appointments on temporary basis shall be against the particular projects under taken by GDA subject to the condition of employment in any other project if available, on completion of the one project. These Engineers have to be adjusted against available work in other projects to that their services may be con tinued. (4) In the event of any particular Engineer working for more than one year in one or more projects in terms of the above term, in the case of an Assistant Engineer, there would be an increment of Rs. SO/- and a similar increment of Rs. 40/-for a. lunior Engineer per annum. (5)mr. Rana has been fair enough to indicate that apart from the fixed pay subject to annual increment as indicated above, these petitioner shall be entitled to the normal perks and other allowances excepting D. A. admissible to similar category of officers employed under GDA. We are told under Uttar Pradesh Rules recruitment on regular basis is to be through Public Service Commission. We direct the Authority to lake steps through the State of Uttar Pradesh to retain reguiarisation of the petitioners as far as possible, preferably within nine months from now so that by the end of the year the process of reguiarisation may, as far as practicable be completed. The State of Uttar Pradesh is represented before us and Counsel appearing for it has been put to notice of the order. The State of Uttar Pradesh is represented before us and Counsel appearing for it has been put to notice of the order. At the time of reguiarisation the period spent on duty shall be adjusted against the age prescription and the Public Service Commission would take into ac count the past service to consider if any weightage should be given and performance under the Authority may be taken into account for such purpose. Mr. Rana has assured us and we believe it shall be worked out in terms of our order that vacancies arising hereinafter shall be given to the petitioners already who are in employment. Steps for reguiarisation may be taken by the Authorities within three months from now. The Vice-Chairman of the Authority is authorised to comply with our order and make such direction as may be necessary to implement. At the re quest of Mr. Rana the process which is con templated by our order may be completed from 1st May, 1991 givipg benefit of the order from 1st March, 1991. These writ petitions are disposed of ac cordingly. No costs". 12. After the aforesaid order Honble Supreme Court also passed orders dated 15-7-1991. 4-9-1991, 7-1- 1992, 8-10-1992, 7-12-1992, 13-1-1993 and 26-2-1993 on various applications filed by the parties. However, for the present controversy the order dated 4- 9-1991 is very relevant and it is being reproduced below: We have heard Counsel for the parties. On February, 21,1991 in Writ Petition No. 853 of 1990, after hearing the petitioners therein as also the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Respondent No. 1 we make an order witch,inter alia, directed: "the State of Uttar Pradesh is repre sented before us and Counsel appearing for it has been put to notice of the order. At the time of reguiarisation the period spent on duty shall be adjusted against the age prescription and the Public Service Commission would take into ac count the past service to consider if any weightage should be given and performance under the Authority may be taken into account for such purpose. " There is not dispute before us at present that the Ghaziabad Development Authority has regularised the petitioners from daily wage basis to monthly-based employment. The question is one of recruitment into U. P. Development Centralised Service. " There is not dispute before us at present that the Ghaziabad Development Authority has regularised the petitioners from daily wage basis to monthly-based employment. The question is one of recruitment into U. P. Development Centralised Service. For that purpose we understand that there are a set of rules and recruitment is through the State Public Service Commission. Our direction on February 21, 1991, is obviously not in tended to require reguiarisation op posite/contrary to the rules in force. We intended to condone the age qualification, by requiring previous employment to be taken into account and we left to the State Public Service Commission to consider whether on the basis of the past service and performance credit could be given to the petitioners when they became can didates for reguiarisation. 13. LA. No. 7 of 1991 has been filed which calls in question a part of our direc tion. This application for clarification is dismissed as there is nothing to be clarified. 14. LA. No. 9 of 1991 is dismissed as the relief claimed is the same as in W. P. No. 833 of 1991 which we propose to deal with separately. 15. LA. No. 8 of 1991 is an applica tion of the Junior Engineers which is covered by our order in the main writ peti tion since disposed of. We have already fixed their monthly remuneration at Rs. 1750/- per month taking into account their entitlements otherwise, we do not think we should therefore with that order now. Once they regularised on being selected they would be entitled to their grade pay-scale. This application is, therefore, dis missed too. Writ Petition No. 833 of 1991 16. Issue notice making it returnable in four weeks. No interim exparte order. " 17. It appears that Junior Engineers serving in other development authorities also approached this Court by filing writ petitions under Article 226, which were also disposed of finally with similar direc tion to the State Government to consider Junior Engineers for reguiarisation. During this period State Government amended Rules by U. P. Development Authorities Centralised Services (III Amendment) Rules, 1992 and inserted Rule 20-A w. e. f. 10-2-1992 providing for regularisation of ad hoc appointment. During this period State Government amended Rules by U. P. Development Authorities Centralised Services (III Amendment) Rules, 1992 and inserted Rule 20-A w. e. f. 10-2-1992 providing for regularisation of ad hoc appointment. As Rule 20-A is very relevant for resolving the controversy involved in these appeals, it is being produced below: "20-A-Regularisation of ad hoc appoint ment.- (1) Any person who- (1) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before October 1, 1986 and is continuing in service, as such on the date of commencement of these Rules; (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed under Rule 14 for regular appoint ment at the lime of such ad-hoc appointment, and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous service, shall be considered for appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his service record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordnace with the provisions contained in these Rules. (2) In making regular appointment under these Rules reservation for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and other categories shall be made in accordance with the orders of the Government in force at the time of recruit ment. (3) For the purpose of sub-rule (1), the Government shall constitute a selection com mittee and consultation with the Commission shall not be necessary. (4) An eligibility list of the candidates, shall be prepared and arranged the names of the candidates shall be in order of seniority as deter mined from the date of order of their ad hoc appointment by the appointing authority and if two or more persons are appointed together, from the order in which their names are arranged in the said appointment order. The list shall be placed before the Selection Committee along with their character rolls and such other service records pertaining to them, as may be considered necessary to judge their suitability. (5) The Selection Committee shall con sider the cases of the candidates on the basis of their records referred to in sub-rule (4 ). (6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates, the names in the list being arranged in order of seniority, and forward it to the Government. (5) The Selection Committee shall con sider the cases of the candidates on the basis of their records referred to in sub-rule (4 ). (6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates, the names in the list being arranged in order of seniority, and forward it to the Government. (7) The Government shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of this rule, make appointment from the list prepared under sub-rule (6) of this rule in order in which their names stand in the list. (8) Appointment made under sub-rule (7) shall be deemed to be made under relevant provisions contained in Rule 25. (9) A person appointed under this rule shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of order of appointment after selection in accord ance with this rule and shall, in all cases, be placed below the persons appointed in accord ance with the procedure for direct recruitment contained in Part V of these rules prior to the appointment of such person under this rule. (10) If two or more persons are appointed together under this rule, their seniority interest shall be determined in the order mentioned in the order of appointment. (11) The services of a person, appointed on ad hoc basis who is not found suitable or whose case is not covered by sub-rule (1) of this rule shall be terminated forthwith and on such termination, he shall be entitled to receive one months pay. " Sub-rule (3) of Rule 20-A clearly provided that for the purposes of regularisation under sub-rule (1), the Government shall constitute selection committee and consultation with the com mission shall not be necessary. However, matter was referred to Public Service Com mission on 5-1-1993, but Commission by letter dated 16-5-1994 declined to give opinion in the matter of regularisation on the ground that it is beyond its purview. 18. State Government by order dated 10-9-1996 addressed to all the develop ment authorities of the State required to submit the list of such Assistant En gineers/junior Engineers who have com pleted three years service on 1-3-1996 and they worked satisfactorily for 240 days in each year as the matter for their regularisation is under consideration before the State Government. 18. State Government by order dated 10-9-1996 addressed to all the develop ment authorities of the State required to submit the list of such Assistant En gineers/junior Engineers who have com pleted three years service on 1-3-1996 and they worked satisfactorily for 240 days in each year as the matter for their regularisation is under consideration before the State Government. It was fur ther required that information should be based on record and concerned Assistant Engineers/junior Engineers must be in ac tual service and complete information mustreach by 20-9-1996. 19. By another letter dated 4-2-1997 addressed to all Vice Chairmen of Development Authorities of the State re quired to submit the lists of all Junior Engineers who have worked for 240 Days. The letter, whieli is very relevant for the present conlroveby, is being reproduced below: ------- Hindi ---------- 20. State Government then con stituted a screening committee, which in terviewed the Junior Engineers serving in the development authorities of the State and whose names were forwarded to the State Government for consideration. The screening committee interviewed the can didates on 21, 22 & 23-2- 1997 and sub mitted its report to the State Government, The State Government accepted the report by the order dated 22-7-1997 which has been quashed by the learned Single Judge. 21. Learned Single Judge for decid ing the writ petitions pending before him formulated following questions, which have been decided by the impugned order: (1) Whether the proposed regularisation is in fact regulansation of irregular appointments as contemplated under the law and required to be done under the direction of the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Ram Kishan (supra) which is sought to be implemented by the Slate Government? (2) Whether the proposed regularisation of an irregular appoint ment is in accordance with statutory rules regulating the appointment of irregular appointments? (3) Whether the statutory rules regulating the appointments of irregular appointment is enforceable as it stands or any part of it suffers from any constitution al infirmity which can be severed removing the offending part, if any, and the petitioners arc entitled to get their ser vices regularised under the Rules? (3) Whether the statutory rules regulating the appointments of irregular appointment is enforceable as it stands or any part of it suffers from any constitution al infirmity which can be severed removing the offending part, if any, and the petitioners arc entitled to get their ser vices regularised under the Rules? While answering the aforesaid ques tions learned Single Judge has held that appointments of Junior Engineers by various development authorities were under second proviso to sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 59 of the Act and the power contemplated therein could not be curtailed or abridged by the Rules. Learned Single Judge has further held that cut off date provided in sub-rule (1) of Rule 20-A of the Rules i. e. 1-10-1986 is arbitrary and has been fixed in mala fide exercise of power which suffers from vice of discrimination. Learned Single Judge has further held that entire process of regularisation taking the cut off date as 4-2- 1997 for the purposes of making ad hoc appointments on regular basis is manifestly illegal and stands vitiated in law. It has been held that zone of consideration for employees appointed on ir regular basis shall remain confined only to such employees who had completed or as the case may be after they had completed three years services by 10-2-1992 Le. the date of enforcement of Rule 20-A in ques tion and were continuing in service on that date. Only such of the irregular employees will be entitled to be considered for regularisation as envisaged under Rule 20-A of newly inserted Rule. No other ap pointed on irregular basis accepting those as indicated heremabove is to be treated to be entitled for regularisation of his ser vices. 22. We have heard Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, Shri S. K. Chaturvedi and Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants who have been selected by the screening committee for being ap pointed as ad hoc Junior Engineers on regular basis and Shri H. N. Singh and Shri S. C. Budhwar, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Ashok Mehta, learned Chief Standing Counsel, and Shri J. N, Sharma, for Al lahabad Development Authority in opposi tion. We have also heard Shri Ashok Mehta on behalf of the appellant- State in special Appeal filedagainstthejudgment of learned Single Judge and Shri H. N. Singh and Shri S. C. Budhwar for the respondents. We have also heard Shri Ashok Mehta on behalf of the appellant- State in special Appeal filedagainstthejudgment of learned Single Judge and Shri H. N. Singh and Shri S. C. Budhwar for the respondents. Shri H. N. Singh and Shri S. C. Budhwar, Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Vinod Sinha and Shri S. K. Pandey have addressed us for the petitioner-appellants in special Appeals filed by the petitioners against the judgment of learned Single Judge and Shri J. N. Sharma and Shri Ashok Mehta for the respondents. 23. Shri Ashok Mehta, learned Chief Standing Counsel also placed before us the entire record relating to the screening com mittee which carried out the selection of the candidates for being appointed as ad hoc but on regular basis. After considering the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, in our opinion, following ques tions require determination by us for deciding this bunch of special appeals:- (1) What is the exact nature of ap pointments of Junior Engineers in development authorities of the State? Can they not be termed ad hoc appointee? (2) Whether the appointments of Junior Engineers, not being in accordance with the provisions of Centralised Service Rules, they cannot be regularised under Rule 20-Aof the Rules? (3) Whether the exercise for regularisation could be legally carried out de hors Rule 20-A of the Rules and ignor ing procedure provided therein? (4) Whether Rule 20-A suffers from any illegality and constitutional infirmity as held by Learned Single Judge? (5) Whether the alleged regularisa tion could be again for appointment on ad hoc basis though on regular basis? (6) Whether the exercise carried out for regularisation of the Junior Engineers being under orders of Honble Supreme Court observance of Rule 20-A was not necessary? (7) Whether the procedure adopted by the screening committee for selecting candidates for regularisation was illegal and Arbitrary and is liable to be quashed being in contravention of the procedure provided in Rule 20-A of the Rules? (8) Whether the judgment of Learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside as it has been passed without affording any oppor tunity of hearing to the Junior Engineers who had been found suitable and selected for appointment on regular basis and as they were not parties in writ petitions decided by Learned Single Judge? (8) Whether the judgment of Learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside as it has been passed without affording any oppor tunity of hearing to the Junior Engineers who had been found suitable and selected for appointment on regular basis and as they were not parties in writ petitions decided by Learned Single Judge? (9) Whether the impugned judgment of Learned Single Judge cannot be sus tained and is liable to be set aside as Learned Single Judge entered into the questions of validity of Rule 20-A and selection proceedings for which there were no pleadings and challenge in the writ petitions? (10) Whether the judgment of Learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside as Learned Single Judge failed to consider and decide the question of illegal termination of the petitioners by Al lahabad Development Authority, which was specifically challenged by the petitioners? (11) To what relief, if any, the present appellants are entitled to in present spe cial appeals? Before we proceed to consider aforesaid questions it shall be appropriate at this stage to mention the facts, which we have notified on perusal of record sub mitted before us by learned Chief Standing Counsel. The screening committee con stituted by the State Government con sisted of following members: 1. Principal Secretary, Awas Vikas Vibhag,u. P. 2. Commissioner Awas Vikas Vibhag, U. P. 3. Special Secretary Vigilance, and 4. Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur Development Authority. Special Invitees: 1. Shri O. K. Mittal, Managing Direc tor, U. P. Land Development Corporation Limited, and 2. Shri M. S. Tyagi, Chief Town Plan ner (Retd ). The Screening Committee in its proceedings has observed that orders of Honble Supreme Court dated 21-2-1991 and 4-9-1991 and order of Honble High Court dated 7-1-1992 are binding and regularisation of Junior Engineers is necessary. Then it has observed that regularisation is not possible under the provisions of Centralised Services Rules, 1985 as amended in 1992. No reason, how ever, has been assigned as to why the regularisation is not possible under the provisions of Centralised Services Rules. In this report it has been further observed that there are total 616 sanctioned posts of Junior Engineers out of which 331 posts are being occupied by appointments made on substantive basis. Besides above 119 (p)Banda posts are occupied by ad hoc Junior En gineers appointed after 1-10-1986. 8 posts are occupied by! In this report it has been further observed that there are total 616 sanctioned posts of Junior Engineers out of which 331 posts are being occupied by appointments made on substantive basis. Besides above 119 (p)Banda posts are occupied by ad hoc Junior En gineers appointed after 1-10-1986. 8 posts are occupied by! Junior Engineer ,appointed on ad hoc basis before 1-10-1986. Thus, total 127 posts are occupied by ad hoc appointees. Total posts already oc cupied are 458. 3 Junior Engineers who were removed from services by Moradabad Development Authority are continuing in service on the basis of inter im order passed by the Court. Thus after excluding 461 occupied posts 155 posts are available for the purposes of regularisa tion. 20 posts of Junior Engineers, which have been requisitioned by U. P. Land Development Corporation on deputation basis, have also been taken into account by the committee. Thus, decision was taken to select 175 persons for regularisation. Out of the aforesaid not more than 50% have been reserved for Scheduled Castes. Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes. As per lists submitted by different develop ment authorities total number of Junior Engineers working on daily wages/work charge/contract basis were 455. The break up for the same is as under: (a) Ghaziabad appointment between 1986 to 1991. (b) Gorakhpur appointment between 1987 to 1990. (c) Meerut appointment between 1986 to 1991. (d) Dehradun appointment between 1989 to 1991. (e) Allahabad appointment between 1985 to 1990. (f) Varanasi appointment between 1986 to 1991. (g) Lucknow appointment between 1985 to 1991. (h)Kanpur appointment between 1982 to 1983. (i)Nainital appointment in the year 1985 (j) Chitrakoot appointment in the year 1993. (k) Bulandshahr Khurja 1 appointment in the year 1989. (l)Barcilly appointment in theyear 1983. (m) Ayodhya appointment between 1989 to 1993. (n) Haridwar appointment in the year 1993 (o) Moradabad appointment in the year 1991. (p) Banda appointment in the year 1989. (q)Jhansi appointment in the year 1986. (r)Agra appointment between 1982 to 1990. Total 24. However, only 453 candidates were interviewed on 21, 22, 23- 2-1997. The criterion adopted by the aforesaid committee was that they fixed 100 marks for fixing grade awarded to the candidates interviewed. The breacked up of 100 marks was as under: 1. For essential qualification for the post 30 marks 2. Additional/special qualification- 10 Marks: 3. Total 24. However, only 453 candidates were interviewed on 21, 22, 23- 2-1997. The criterion adopted by the aforesaid committee was that they fixed 100 marks for fixing grade awarded to the candidates interviewed. The breacked up of 100 marks was as under: 1. For essential qualification for the post 30 marks 2. Additional/special qualification- 10 Marks: 3. Period of work under development authority-2 marks par year with maxi mum limit of 10 marks; 4. Knowledge of subject/group dis cussion/practical 30 ; 5. Service Record-10 Marks and 6. Personality test-10 marks. On the basis of marks secured the following grading could be awarded- (i) 80 and above. . . . . . . A+ (ii) 70 to 79. . . . . . . a (iii)65to69. . . . . . . B+ (iv) 60 to 64. . . . . . . b (iv) Below 60. . . . . . . c 25. From the perusal of record it is clear that procedure adopted by the screening committee for selecting can didates to appoint on regular basis is ert-titled different from the criterion prescribed under Rule 20-A (i) (iii ). In clause (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 20-A it has been provided that any ad hoc appoin tee who satisfies the conditions provided shall be considered for appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available, on the basis of his service record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rules. Justification for this devia tion given in the report is that regularisa-tion of Junior Engineers is not possible under Centralised Services Rules in other words under Rule 20-A. Learned Chief Standing Counsel during his arguments submitted that any appointment made by the development authority after 25- 6-1985 is illegal and without competence and such appointments can never be regularised. It has been submitted that under Rule 20-A benefit of regularisation can be granted to the ad hoc appointee who were appointed by the competent authority i. e. State Government prior to 1-10-1986. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-Junior Engineers who have been selected by the screening com mittee also submitted that Rule 20-A of the Rules is not applicable and the regularisation has been done under the orders of Honble Supreme Court. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-Junior Engineers who have been selected by the screening com mittee also submitted that Rule 20-A of the Rules is not applicable and the regularisation has been done under the orders of Honble Supreme Court. It has also been held that the appellants from different class having orders in their favour from Honble Supreme Court. 26. From the aforesaid it is clear that pivotal question for decision on of these ap peals is as to whether Rule 20-A could be applicable to the Junior Engineer serving in development authorities on daily wages/work charge/contract basis. Learned Single Judge answered this ques tion by saying that these appointments were made by the development authorities in exercise of power conferred on them by second proviso to sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 59 of the Act. We have minutely examined the provisions contained in Sec tion 59 and, in our opinion, second proviso to sub-sections (3) and (5) could not be pressed into service for these purposes. Plain language used in second proviso in dicates that it conferred power on the authority to take any work from such of ficers and other employee of Nagar Maha Palika and Improvement Trust as it thinks proper and such officers arid employees shall be under obligation to discharge such duty/function. The word employ used in both the provisos is for the purposes of assigning particular work or duty and not appointment. The legislative intent is clear from the fact that second proviso similarly worded has been placed both after sub- sections (3) and (5) as they deal with the officers and employees of dif ferent bodies. If the legislature intended to confer power of appointment on develop ment authority mentioning of it at one place would have been sufficient. Use of words such officers or other employees in second proviso clearly indicates that it refers to the officers or other employees mentioned in the first proviso and sub-sec tions (3) and (5) of Section 59 of the Act. Thus, the view taken by learned Single Judge cannot be approved. 27. Use of words such officers or other employees in second proviso clearly indicates that it refers to the officers or other employees mentioned in the first proviso and sub-sec tions (3) and (5) of Section 59 of the Act. Thus, the view taken by learned Single Judge cannot be approved. 27. Now it has to be seen, under which provisions contained in the Act or the Rules appointment of Junior En gineers on daily wage/work charge/con tract basis can be justified sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Act (quoted above) provides that subjects to such control and restriction as may be determined by general or special order of the State Government, the authority may appoint such number other officers and employees as may be necessary for the efficient per formances of its function and may deter mine other designations and grades. Thus, sub-section (5) of Section 2 conferred a plenary power on the development authority to appoint such number of other officers and employees as may be necessary for efficient performance. However, exer cise of this power is subject to control and restrictions put by the State Government. Now it has to be seen how the State Govern ment reacted in respect of these appoint ment. Reaction of the Government may be ascertained from various orders issued from time to time referring to these appoint ments. Some of which are given below: (1) The State Government vide letter dated 11-10-1989 addressed to all the development authorities directed that as the matter of settlement State Govern ment has taken decision that those daily wage employee who have worked for 240 days in every year be kept on regular salary. The development authorities were also re quired to submit the demand to the State Government within 15 days. (2) Second order in this connection is Government Order No. 4277/11-5-90, DA/395/a/90 dated 16/17- 10-1990. By this order State Govenrment directed that work charge staff may be employed to the extent of 1 % of the total cost of scheme. (3) By Government Order dated 30-12-1991 (Annexure-3 to the supplemen tary affidavit filed in Special Appeal No. 969 of 1997) the State Government took notice of the appointment, saying that development authorities have made large number of irregular appointments which will create problem in future. (3) By Government Order dated 30-12-1991 (Annexure-3 to the supplemen tary affidavit filed in Special Appeal No. 969 of 1997) the State Government took notice of the appointment, saying that development authorities have made large number of irregular appointments which will create problem in future. The development authorities were required to submit following informations: (a) How many posts are sanctioned in each cadre of centralised and non-Centralised services? (b) Details of officers and employees of different cadre already working against the sanctioned posts. (c) The dates of appointment of of ficers and employees appointed by the development authorities. (d) The extent of expenditure on such appointments, in terms of percentage the total cost of the respective schemes. 4. The Government Order dated 8-1-1982 addressed to all the development authorities was to the effect that daily wage employees who have worked for 240 days in every year are being considered for regularisation and their services be not dispensed with. 28. From perusal of the aforesaid let ters which are available on record it is clear that the appointments of Junior En gineers on daily wages were made by development authorities in full knowledge of tke State Government rather they were permitted to make appointments at one stage to the extent of 1% of the cost of project. For further expenditure they were required to submit demand in subsequent letters. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appointments of Junior Engineers made by the development authorities were without any legal authority. Appointments were made for discharge of functions of the development authorities. Even under the Rules the ap pointment of Junior Engineers by the development authorities can be justified though under Rule 2 (ii) appointing authority is Government. Under Rule 25 (4) the appointing authority may make appointments in temporary or officiating capacity from amongst the persons eligible for appointment under these Rules. Such appointments shall not last for the period exceeding one year. or beyond the next selection under the Rules whichever is earlier and where the post is within the purview of the Commission, the provisions of Regulation 5 (A) of the U. P. Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1954 shall apply, Rule 39 provides that the Government may delegate any of its power under these rules to the Vice-Chairman of the development authorities or any other per son, as it deems fit. Thus, under the rules also the Vice- Chairman of the Develop ment authority could make appointment on behalf of the State Government. From the letters mentioned above delegation of power in favour of Vice-Chairman, may be legitimately inferred as Rule 39 does not prescribe any formal procedure for making delegation of power in favour of Vice- Chairman. If the State Government permitted to engage daily wages to the extent of 1% of the cost of project it carried with it the necessary sanction to make appointments. Thus, the plea raised by the learned Chief Standing Counsel that Rule 20-A could not be applicable in case of Junior Engineers of Development authorities appointed by Vice-Chairman cannot be accepted. The aforesaid conten tion raised on behalf of the State Govern ment cannot also be accepted for the reasons that no such plea was raised before Honble Supreme Court at the time the order dated 21-2- 1991 was passed. Honble Supreme Court by the order dated 4-9-1991, on the other hand, made it clear that order dated 21-2-1991 never intended to require regularisation contrary to the rules in force. Similar directions were given by this Court. If such Junior Engineers could not be regularised under Rule 20-A, which was brought on the statute book after the aforesaid orders the State Government ought to have raised this question before Honble Supreme Court. In our opinion, the distinction tried to be raised on the basis of the order of appointment in the facts and circumstances of the case is pure ly technical and has no substance. The Junior Engineers could not be denied regularisation under Rule 20- A. Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of S. K. Verma and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 149. Interpreted word ad hoc employee in following manner: "9. To our mind, the term ad hoc employee is conveniently used for a wholly tem porary employee engaged either for a particular period or for a particular purpose and one whose services can be terminated with the maxi mum of case. The dictionary meaning of ad hoc in Websters New International Dictionary has been given as pertaining to or for the sake of this case alone. In the Random House Dictionary its meaning has been given as for this special pur pose, with respect to this subject or thing. The dictionary meaning of ad hoc in Websters New International Dictionary has been given as pertaining to or for the sake of this case alone. In the Random House Dictionary its meaning has been given as for this special pur pose, with respect to this subject or thing. . . 10. Therefore, having regard to the ordi nary meaning of the term, no distinction can reasonably be drawn between a temporary employee whose services are terminable without notice or otherwise and an employee characterised as ad hoc and employed on similar terms. Indeed, it appears to us that in the gamut of service of law an ad hoc employee virtually stands at the lowest rank. As against the per manent, quasi-permanent, and temporary employee, the ad hoc one appears at the lowest level implying that he had been engaged casual ly, or for a stop-gap arrangement for a short duration or fleeing purposes. " Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & others v. Piara Singh & others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 2130 in respect of work charge employee, daily wage workers and casual labour held in para 19 as under: "19. While we agree that persons belong ing to these categories continuing over a num bers of years have a right to claim regularisation and the authorities are under an obligation to consider their case for regularisation in a fair manner, keeping in view the principles enun ciated by this Court. " From the record it is clear that Junior Engineers involved in present appeals were serving for the last several years. In some cases for more than ten years and they were found entitled for being con sidered for regularisation in accordance with the Rules by this Court as well as by Honble Apex Court. Rule 20-A was in serted in the Rules subsequent to the or ders passed by Honble Supreme Court. The State had full knowledge of the or ders. The State Government cannot now deny that the petitioners/junior En gineers are not entitled for regularisation under the Centralised Services Rules. From perusal of record we have noticed that screening committee ex cluded 127 posts from consideration as they are being occupied by Junior Enineers appointed on ad hoc basis by the tate Government. The State Government cannot now deny that the petitioners/junior En gineers are not entitled for regularisation under the Centralised Services Rules. From perusal of record we have noticed that screening committee ex cluded 127 posts from consideration as they are being occupied by Junior Enineers appointed on ad hoc basis by the tate Government. Out of these 127 posts only 8 posts are such on which appoint ments on ad hoc basis were made before 1-10-1986. If the provisions of Rule 20-A, as they stand, are applied only eight Junior Engineers could be considered for reguiarisation, 119 ad hoc Junior En gineers admittedly, appointed after 1-10-1986 stand in the same position as the Junior Engineers who were petitioners before this Court and before Honble Supreme Court. We do not find any legal and-valid reason for excluding 127 posts from consideration by the screening com mittee. The petitioners/junior Engineers could have been considered along with all the Junior Engineers appointed on ad hoc basis. Another important and related question in this regard is that screening committee has made selection for ap pointment again on ad hoc basis. Another important and related question in this regard is that screening committee has made selection for appointment again on ad hoc basis though on regular basis, thus opening a new head of appointment. This Court and Honble Supreme Court in num ber of judgments have repeatedly said that ad hoc appointee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc appointee. In the present case State Government though bound by the orders of this Court and Honble Supreme Court has selected Junior En gineers for the purposes of again appointing them on ad hoc basis, though Honble Supreme Court was assured that Junior En gineers serving for the last several years shall be given appointment on regular basis. which in other words mean that they shall become Junior Engineers of the cadre of centralised service. Thus, in our view, the selections made by screening committee and confirmed by Sl2?e Government have rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge though reasons for the same may be slightly different. which in other words mean that they shall become Junior Engineers of the cadre of centralised service. Thus, in our view, the selections made by screening committee and confirmed by Sl2?e Government have rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge though reasons for the same may be slightly different. Legal position that when statutory Rule exists for the purposes of regularisation of ad hoc employees it can only be in accordance with the Rules and that on ad hoc employee can be replaced by a regularly selected candidates and not by another ad hoc employee is now well settled by judgments of Honble Supreme Court and this Court. Some of them are being mentioned below: R. N. Nanjudappa v. Thimmaiah and others, AIR 1973 SC 1767. State oforissa v. Sukant, JT 1993 (2) SC579. J, & K. Public Service Commission & others v. Dr. Narendra Mohan & others, JT 1 993 (6) Supreme Court 593; and Suhedar Singh & others v. District Judge, Minapur& others, 1997 (1) ESC655 31. Discussion with regard to the aforesaid aspect of the matter will not complete if the view expressed by learned Single Judge in respect of out of date provided in Rule 20-A of the Rules is not considered at this stage. Learned Single Judge held that cut of date 1-10-1986 fixed in Rule 20-A as arbitrary and illegal on the ground that it is contrary to the policy decision of the State, which was indicated in various letters issued earlier and is flagrant violation of the direction of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishan (supra ). Learned Single Judge held that the cut off date provided should be 10-2-1992 on which date Rule 20-A came in force. Learned Chief Standing Counsel submitted that there was no pleading in any of the writ petitions challenging the cut off date provided in Rule 20-A and the cut off date provided by the State Govern ment in Rule 20-A has been held to be illegal and arbitrary without giving ap propriate opportunity. It is admitted posi tion that in writ petitions there was no pleading challenging the validity of Rule 20-A. Learned Single Judge also noticed this aspect of the matter. However, he opined that validity of Rule 20-A can be gone into even without pleadings. It is admitted posi tion that in writ petitions there was no pleading challenging the validity of Rule 20-A. Learned Single Judge also noticed this aspect of the matter. However, he opined that validity of Rule 20-A can be gone into even without pleadings. The relevant paragraph of the impugned judg ment is being reproduced below: "in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when it is brought to the notice of the Court that the statutory authority has acted with manifest il legality and its action is such which is ex facie vitiated in law and has the effect of defeating or nullyfying the very object of the rule, it becomes imperative for this Court to interfere and pass appropriate orders setting the things right and enforce the rule of law creating a situation where the concerned authorities may rightly discharge theirduties and responsibilities. As observed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case ofchaitanya Kumarv. State ofkamataka, reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 825 when the arbitrariness and perversion is writ large and brought out clearly the Court cannot shirk its duty and refuse its writ. Advancement of the public interest and avoidance of the public mischief are the paramount consideration. As always, the Court is concerned with the balancing of interests. It was further indicated that the Courts are not for perpetuating a public mischief. " 32. Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (supra) in similar circumstances where High Court has held the cut off date as illegal expressed legal position in follow ing words:. "13. No particular attack was made as to this date in the High Court. Consequently the Government of Haryana had no opportunity of explaining as to why this particular date was fixed. Without giving such an opportunity, it cannot be held that the fixation of the said date is arbitrary. What is more relevant is that the High Court has not held that this particular date is arbitrary. According to it, fixation of any date whatsoever is arbitrary, because in its opinion the order must say that. any and every person who completes the prescnoed period of service must be regularised on completion of such period of service. " 33. What is more relevant is that the High Court has not held that this particular date is arbitrary. According to it, fixation of any date whatsoever is arbitrary, because in its opinion the order must say that. any and every person who completes the prescnoed period of service must be regularised on completion of such period of service. " 33. From the aforesaid view ex pressed by Honble Supreme Court it is clear that normally Court should not enter into a question, which has not been pleaded in the writ petition and other side had not got opportunity to meet the ques tion. In the present case, however, it is admitted position that necessary plead ings were not there and the State Govern ment could not place its case before Learned Single Judge justifying the cut off date 1-10- 1986. However, as we are not approving order dated 22-7-1997 confirm ing selection by screening committee, which has been done ignoring Rule 20-A we do not think it necessary to express any opinion about the alleged cut off date. The State Government is bound to implement the orders passed by this Court and Honble Supreme Court by regularising the Junior Engineers serving in different authorities for the last several years. Even 119 Junior Engineers, who were ap pointed by the State Government do not satisfy the conditions provided in Rule 20-A. The State is still continuing them on ad hoc basis. Remaining Junior Engineers who were engineers appointed by Vice Chairman of Development authorities have been found by us holding similar position as Junior Engineers appointed by the State Government. The process of regularisation will have to be taken by the State Government of all the Junior En gineers including the aforesaid 119 Junior Engineers. Thus, we think it proper and just to leave it to the State Government to amend Rule 20-A in such a manner that the order passed by the Apex Court and this Court may be complied with and the date fixed may be reasonable and fair to all the claimants. In the circumstances it is also not necessary for us to enter into the question whether the procedure adopted by the screening committee suffered from any illegality or not? 34. For the reasons stated above question Nos. , 1 to 7 and 9 are decided accordingly. In the circumstances it is also not necessary for us to enter into the question whether the procedure adopted by the screening committee suffered from any illegality or not? 34. For the reasons stated above question Nos. , 1 to 7 and 9 are decided accordingly. Question No. 8: The impugned judgment of Learned Single Judge dated 8-9-1997 has also been questioned by the appellants on the ground that Junior Engineers who had been found suitable and selected for ap pointment on regular basis were not par ties in writ petitions and the order was passed without affording them opportunity of hearing. It is true that before Learned Single Judge the aforesaid Junior Engineers-appellants selected by the screening committee were not parties, however, as in appeals we have heard them at length and exair ined all the questions in detail and we have agreed with the Learned Single Judge that alleged selec tion by the screening committee cannot be sustained we do not think it necessary to remit the question of regularisation for hearing by the learned Single Judge as the order was passed by Honble Supreme Court on 21-2-1991, more than nine years have passed but the question of regularisa tion has not yet been finalised. In the inter est of justice it is necessary to avoid any further delay under these circumstances, in our opinion, the State may be asked to finalise the question of regularisation as early as possible. Question No. 10: This question is relevant in respect of Special Appeal No. 551 of 1997 (arising out of writ petition No. 32437 of 1996), 552 of 1997 (arising out of writ petition No. 4715 of 1996) 553 of 1997 (arising out of writ petition No. 11680 of 1906) 554 of 1997 (arising out of writ petition No. 6114 of 1997) and 555 of 1997 (arising out of writ petition No. 4392. The grievance of the appellants in these appeals is that their services were illegally terminated by the Development Authority, Allahabad on 31-3-1995, 30-4-1994, 31-12-1994, 30-4-1994 and 30-9-1995 respectively, which were challenged by them before the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petitions. However, no finding has been recorded with regard to the question of termination and writ petitions have been decided on the basis of the impugned order dated 8-9-1997. However, no finding has been recorded with regard to the question of termination and writ petitions have been decided on the basis of the impugned order dated 8-9-1997. It has also been sub mitted that orders of termination were passed orally without affording any oppor tunity of hearing and without assigning any reason. It was also submitted that services of some of the Junior Engineers were extended at whims and the attitude adopted was dis criminatory, petitioners-appellants had al ready worked for number of years and they were entitled to continue on the posts. 35. Shri Sharma, learned Counsel ap pearing for Allahabad Development Authority submitted that petitioners were engaged by the concerned Executive En gineers of the project and their services could be terminated without assigning any reason. We have considered the submis sions of the learned Counsel for the par ties. The submission of the learned Coun sel for the appellants is correct that Learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding in any of the aforesaid writ petitions regarding the termination of ser vices of petitioners. For the purposes of regularisation it was necessary that petitioner should have been in service on the crucial date. Petitioners of these writ petitions could not be considered for regularisations until the orders terminat ing their services were quashed by this Court. The substantial question involved in the aforesaid writ petitions thus has not been decided and in the ends of justice it is necessary that the aforesaid writ petitions may be sent back to Learned Single Judge for deciding them afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties. Since the matter of regularisation of services of Junior Engineers shall be considered again by the State Government under our order we hope that this writ petitions shall be decided by Learned Single Judge on merits at an early date. 36. It was also submitted by Shri H. N. Singh that writ petition No. 8300 of 1998 has been transferred from Lucknow Bench to this Court and in this writ petition only selection by the screening committee and upheld by the State Government on 22-7-1997 has been challenged. As we have not approved the selection and the order dated 22-7-1997 has already been set aside the writ petition No. 8300 of 1998 shall also stand decided finally by this order. 37. For the reasons stated above Spe cial Appeal Nos. As we have not approved the selection and the order dated 22-7-1997 has already been set aside the writ petition No. 8300 of 1998 shall also stand decided finally by this order. 37. For the reasons stated above Spe cial Appeal Nos. 792 of 1997,534 of 1997, 543 of 1997,559 of 1997, 560 of 1997,561 of 1997, 562 of 1997, 788 of 1997, 829 of 1997,831 of 1997,968 of 1997,969 of 1997, 970 of 1997,971 of 1997, 972 of 1997,995 of 1997 and writ petition No. 8300 of 1998 are disposed of finally with the direction that State Government shall reconsider the claim of regularisation of Junior En gineers in according with the provisions contained in Rule 20-A of UP. Develop ment Authority Centralised Services Rules, 1985 and in the light of the observa tions made in the order. It is further provided that the State Government shall be at liberty to amend Rule 20-A of the aforesaid Rules suitably so that the orders of Honble Supreme Court and this Court directing regularisation of Junior En gineers may be complied with reasonably and in fair manner. 38. By the order dated 21-2-1991 Honble Supreme Court granted nine months time to complete the regularisa tion. More than nine years have already elapsed. In the circumstances we direct that the matter of regularisation shall be completed within the period of six months from the date copy of this order is placed before the appropriate authority of the State Government. 39. Special Appeal Nos. 551, 552, 553,554 and 555 of 1997 are allowed. The order dated 8-9-1997 disposing of the writ petitions are set aside. The writ petitions shall now be listed before the appropriate Bench for deciding the writ petitions afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties. 40. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. .