JUDGMENT 1. Sardul Singh, Lecturer Sociology DIET, Basohli has been ordered to be transferred and posted in DIET, Jammu vice petitioner. Later has been ordered to report to Director, School Education, Jammu for further orders of posting immediately. This is Govt. Order No. 1302- Edu of 2000 dated 11.12.2000, copy annexure "D" to the writ petition. This order was partially modified vide government order no. 1317-Ldu of 2000 dated 14.12.2000 which directs the petitioner to report to the Chief Education Officer, Poonch who has been ordered to adjust him (petitioner) against an available post of teacher in the district. In these circumstances, present writ petition has been filed for the grant of following reliefs: - "i) a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order impugned dated 14,12.2000. annexure"E". ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents that while giving the effect to Cabinet Decision No. 165/ 15 dated 21.10.1998 the petitioner be regularised as lecturer w.e.f. the date he was initially appointed as such and to grant him all consequential benefits, as granted to other similarly situated lecturers. iii) writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from lowering the status of the petitioner from the post presently held by him, iv) any other writ, direction or order as this Honble Court deems fit and appropriate be passed in favour of the pensioners and against the respondents". 10. According to petitioner he was transferred and adjusted as incharge Lecturer Sociology in his own pay and grade for a period of 06 months or till the posts are filled up by the DPC, PSC whichever is earlier. This was pur-suantto Govt. Order No. 998-Edu of 1991 dated 15.10.1991 .He claims to have been working against this post since then. A copy of this order is attached as annexure "A" with the writ petition. 11. One Amrik Singh questioned the issuance of this order by means of SWP No. 122 of 97 which came up before the Court No. 28.02.1998. It was finally disposed of in the following terms: - "The official respondents have not filed the objections. The petitioner is challenging the appointment of respondent no. 4 as Incharge, Lecturer Sociology, DIET, Jammu. This order came to be passed on 15.10.1991. The grievances of the petitioner are as under: - i) That when the adhoc arrangement was made in favour of respondent no. The petitioner is challenging the appointment of respondent no. 4 as Incharge, Lecturer Sociology, DIET, Jammu. This order came to be passed on 15.10.1991. The grievances of the petitioner are as under: - i) That when the adhoc arrangement was made in favour of respondent no. 4, his name was not considered. ii) That this adhoc arrangement cannot be permitted to continue for years together. There appears merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is settled law that adhoc arrangement cannot be permitted for years together. As such respondents would take steps with a view to fill the post in question on regular basis. Let this be done within a period of three months. The period of three months would begin from the date of copy of this order alongwith writ petition and annexures thereof are made available to respondent-authorities by the petitioner. In case it is not possible for them to do the needful within aforementioned period, then respondents would be at liberty to seek extension of time. In that eventuality they have to explain each and every days delay. This petition is disposed of accordingly�. Copy of this has been placed on file as Annexure-B 12. Again feeling dissatisfied with the said order annexure B Amrik Singh preferred IPA (WP) 52/98 which was dismissed on 29.5.1998 by the Division Bench. This order is extract herein below: - "Shri K.S. Johal submits that he argued many points before single judge but -they do not find mention in the impugned judgements. Submission is without force. Points urged before the Single Judge have been specifically recorded in the Judgement and decided accordingly in the presence of counsel for both sides. Consequently, appellant cannot be permitted to urge points which were not argued/ pressed before Single Judge". There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly". 13. Record of the case shows that meanwhile Amrik Slngh preferred COA (SW) 142/99. When this COA came up before the court, following order was passed on 21.11.2000. "Two years is so long period for the petitioner to seek implementation of the judgement and yet such delay is being defended, when this fact was pointed out to Mr. Chauhan, he sought time to file supplementary affidavit. So two weeks time is given to the respondents to report compliance. List immediately after two weeks". 14. "Two years is so long period for the petitioner to seek implementation of the judgement and yet such delay is being defended, when this fact was pointed out to Mr. Chauhan, he sought time to file supplementary affidavit. So two weeks time is given to the respondents to report compliance. List immediately after two weeks". 14. In the aforesaid background another government order no. 1302-Edu of 2000 dated 11.12.2000 (supra) which was modified vide Government Order No. 1317 Edu of 2000 dated 14.12.2000 (supra) came to be passed by the government. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner forcefully urges that existence of vacancy is not disputed petitioner is eligible as per rules for filling up the post as per criteria for the same and has averred that for more than nine years he has been allowed to continue. According to him, petitioner was entitled for regularisation in terms of Cabinet decision no. 165/15 dated 21.10.1998. Once this benefit is extended to the petitioner, according to Mr. Singh the impugned order must fail and consquently there is no escape but for allowing the writ petition. Another limb of argument put forth by him as that neither the order in the writ petition nor in the LPA and or CCA directed disengagement of the petitioner as such the first government order annexure D as well as its modification both are not sustainable in the eyes of law. According to him a number of similarly situated candidates have been extended the benefit of Cabinet Decision No. 165/15 dated 21.10.1998. In this behalf, he placed reliance on annexures F,G and H. According to him in the peculiar circumstances of the case, both the aforesaid government orders are unjust, harsh and oppressive besides being arbitrary, therefore being liable to be quashed and set aside. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents on 19.12.2000. They were required to file objections. Notice was made by Mr. Chauhan. According to him there was a positive direction issued by the Court while disposing of SWP No. 122/97 when his clients were required to take steps with a view to fill the post in question on regular basis within a period of 03 months. According to them, vide government order no. Notice was made by Mr. Chauhan. According to him there was a positive direction issued by the Court while disposing of SWP No. 122/97 when his clients were required to take steps with a view to fill the post in question on regular basis within a period of 03 months. According to them, vide government order no. 833-Edu of 2000 dated 02.08.2000, sanction was recorded for regularisation/ promotion of officers of School Education Department as Lecturers+2 schools in the discipline of Sociology. This was as per seniority list in the category of Masters/ Teachers who possessed, post graduation degree on the date when the vacancy arose. As per said Cabinet Decision No. 165/ 15 dated 21.10.98, out of date for regularisation was October. 1998. Further stand of the official respondents is that in the subject of Sociology, only officers up to S.No. 14 out of Post Graduate Masters/Teachers could be regularised. No illegality has been committed by the respondents in the issuance of the impugned government orders and at the same time no right either legal, fundamental or otherwise has been violated regarding which petitioner can make any grievance in this writ petition, Recruitment by promotion of the post of Lecturers according to Sh. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents is strictly in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1992. 17. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the copy of objections filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that petitioner was appointed as Incharge Lecturer as a consequence of Government Order No. 998-Edu of 1991 dated 15.10.1991 (supra). One of the conditions of this sanction was the adjustment of these teachers as IG Lecturers shall be purely on stop gap arrangement and it will not confer any preferential claim or right to the incumbents at the time of selection/ appointment by the DC/ PSC. They will be entitled to the charge allowance admissible under rules. 18. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, learned counsel for the parties were not at varience that promotion could be ordered by referring the matter to Public Service Commission. Admittedly, no such exercise was undertaken in the year 1991 neither, it is the case of the petitioner. In the earlier writ petition SWP 122/97 above respondents were required to take steps to fill in the posts on regular basis. Admittedly, no such exercise was undertaken in the year 1991 neither, it is the case of the petitioner. In the earlier writ petition SWP 122/97 above respondents were required to take steps to fill in the posts on regular basis. This order is not challenged by the petitioner when the respondents failed to comply with the said direction Amrik Singh filed COA (supra). 19. In this background, the petitioner is precluded from making any grievance regarding two government orders of 2000 referred to herein above. Simply because petitioner had been transferred and appointed as Incharge Lecturer vide Annexure A will not confer any right upon him to jump the que and claim further right seeking direction to let him continue more especially when persons above him are available. Incase the plea of the petitioner is accepted, it will require the respondents to firstly bypass the order of the Court and secondly to deprive the persons who are above him in the seniority list being excluded and thus requiring respondents to violate the law. This, cannot be allowed to be done. In this behalf it may be stated that no mandamus can be issued requiring the authority to violate the law or not to follow the same. In this behalf reliance can be placed on the decision in the case of Faridabad CT Scan Centre vs. Director General, Health Services and Others 1997(7) SCC 752. 20. In this view of the matter reliance placed by the petitioner on Cabinet Decision No. 165/ 15 dated 21.10.1998 also does not improve his clients case. No other point is urged. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.