Judgment Shashank Kumar Singh, J. 1. C.W.J.C. No. 3327 of 2000 has been preferred by Dr. Umesh Chandra Singh challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.103 of 1999 dated 15.2.2000 C.W.J.C. No.9956/2000 has been preferred by the Union of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. As such, by order dated 19.1.2001 both the matters were connected and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. By O.A.No.103/99, the Central Administrative Tribunal taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Addl.Medical Officer (AMO) Grade-ll on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 30.5.85 on temporary basis and ad-hoc basis for a period of six months or till the name of regular appointee becomes available from the Union Public Service Commission, whichever was earlier and in view of the fact that the panel from the U.P.S.C. was available and, as the petitioner had also been considered and after taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. A. K. Jain and others V/s. The Union of India and others reported in 1987 Supp. SSC 497 that as the ad-hoc appointee Doctors were placed in two category, i.e. first being those who were appointed up to 1.10.84 and second who were appointed subsequently and as the petitioner had been subsequently appointed, directed that the same ratio as laid down in the above mentioned judgment should be followed in the case of the petitioner also and the Railway shall grant relaxation in age to the extent of the period of service rendered by the petitioner and consider his case at the time of fresh appointment, if the petitioner chooses to apply for such selection before the U.P.S.C. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though admittedly he was an ad-hoc appointee appointed purely on temporary basis but as three chances are to be given to the petitioner before the Union Public Service Commission for consideration for selection and as the petitioner had been given only one chance, as such, two further chances be allowed to him to apply before the U.P.S.C, in case of a vacancy, for further consideration for appointment. 4. 4. As far as the Union of India is concerned, they have challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner had been appointed purely on ad-hoc basis and had been considered by the Union Public Service Commission and had been declared unfit for appointment. The petitioner has also become over age. As such, direction for further consideration should not have been given by the Tribunal in its order. 5. In this regard, counsel for the Union of India has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 765/93; Union of India V/s. Doctor Gyan Prakash Singh as contained in Annexure 8 to C.W.J.C. No. 9956 of 2000 wherein the case of similarly situated persons had been considered by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had also taken into consideration the case of Dr. A. K. Jain (supra) and has held that the direction in the case of Dr. A. K. Jain (supra) cannot be considered in the manner as suggested by the counsel of the appellant before the Supreme Court and as the appellant had been found unfit in the category of 105 Doctors appointed between October, 1984 and November, 1986, as such, he cannot make any grievance against the termination of his service. 6. In these circumstances, as no exception can be made for the respondent, who was found unfit along with some more of his class, consequently the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal was set aside. 7. According to the teamed counsel for the Union of India, the petitioner, who had been appointed subsequently, was considered by the U.P.S.C. and found unfit. As such, his termination order in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Gyan Prakash should have been upheld by the Tribunal. As such, a prayer has been made for modifying the order of the Tribunal so far as it related to re-consideration of the case of the writ petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 3327/2000 for appointment. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners service along with two others by order dated 9.4.92 was terminated with immediate effect on the ground that the persons named therein including the petitioner had been found unfit by the Union Public Service Commission. Ten years have already passed since the petitioners service has been terminated. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners service along with two others by order dated 9.4.92 was terminated with immediate effect on the ground that the persons named therein including the petitioner had been found unfit by the Union Public Service Commission. Ten years have already passed since the petitioners service has been terminated. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Gyan Prakash had already held in a similar case that as an ad-hoc appointee had been found unfit by the Union Public Service Commission, he cannot make any grievance against the termination of his service in those circumstances. 9. In view of the direction of the Supreme Court as laid down in the above case this court has no option but to modify the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 15.2.2000 passed in O.A.No.103/99 to the extent that as the petitioner has been found unfit by the Union Public Service Commission, the termination order has rightly been issued by the Railways and no further opportunity was required to be granted to him. 10. In the result C.W.J.C. No. 3327/2000 in dismissed with the modification as stated above and C.W.J.C. No. 9956/2000 in allowed in part to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 11 I agree.