Honble MADAN, J.–These six special appeals since have arisen out of common judgment dated 15.9.1995 of the learned Single Judge in three writ petitions having been filed by the doctors, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge while allowing the doctors writ petition Nos. 446/94, 607/94, & 954/94 directed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short ``PSC) to interview the writ petitioner also for the advertised posts without requiring them to go through the screening test. (2). These special appeals are divided in two sets. First three appeals (Nos. 777/95, 778/95 & 779/95) have been filed by the PSC for setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereas by second set of appeals (Nos. 679/95, 680/95 & 775/95) the doctors (who were petitioners in their aforesaid writ petitions) have sought for modification of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge by directing respondents (State of Rajasthan & PSC) to regularise the services of doctors (petitioners) on the post of Assistant Professors by assessing their service records/ACRs, experience etc. as a separate block from the date of their initial appointments on adhoc basis with all consequential benefits. (3). Relevant facts and circumstances in which these appeals have arisen are briefly stated. Admittedly it is the case on behalf of the writ petitioners (for short the doctors) as is evident from their appointment order that on recommendation of the Central Selection Committee, these doctors were appointed on urgent/temporary basis in accordance with proviso to Rule 30(1) of Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (for short Rules, 1962) as Lecturer initially for a period upto 28.2.91 from the date they took over the charge of post at the respective places of their postings or till the regularly selected persons are made available by the RPSC whichever is earlier and their appointments were subject to terms and conditions laid down in the Rules, 1962 or orders issued by the Government from time to time. Similarly it is also not in dispute that these doctors continued in service after their initial appointments till they approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions out of which these appeals arise. (4). The dispute arose when an advertisement came to be issued on 10.12.1993 by the State Govt. Similarly it is also not in dispute that these doctors continued in service after their initial appointments till they approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions out of which these appeals arise. (4). The dispute arose when an advertisement came to be issued on 10.12.1993 by the State Govt. for filing up posts of Assistant Professors in various subjects for regular selection by direct recruitment without giving any preference or weightage to the existing temporary or adhoc doctors like the writ petitioners. However, admittedly they were not denied to apply for these posts under advertisement (supra). Hence these adhoc/temporary doctors who were already in service challenged the advertisement, ibid, by way of aforesaid writ petitions beside claiming regularisation of their service on the basis of assessment of their performance, service record and experience etc. In nut shall, the crux of their grievance was that since they had already been working in service, they should be given benefit of their past services before making appointments on regular selection. Another limb of their grievance was that similar relief should also be granted as has been done in other writ petitions (Nos. 5424/90 & 5425/90) which were earlier filed by Dr. Rajendra Surekha & Dr. Sudhir Bhandari, challenging filling up of the posts of Asstt. Professor (General Medicine) on the ground that the in-service candidates should not be directed to face process of fresh recruitment and their services should be regularised. These petitions of Dr. Surekha and Dr. Bhandari, infact, were dismissed by judgment dt. 11.4.94 as regards claim of regularisation of their service as a result of their past performance as Assistant Professors. (5). Though in the present petitions out of which these appeals arise, the reliefs were sought for:-(a) setting aside advertisement dt.10.12.93 (Annex. These petitions of Dr. Surekha and Dr. Bhandari, infact, were dismissed by judgment dt. 11.4.94 as regards claim of regularisation of their service as a result of their past performance as Assistant Professors. (5). Though in the present petitions out of which these appeals arise, the reliefs were sought for:-(a) setting aside advertisement dt.10.12.93 (Annex. 7) as it does not make any provision for giving preference to the in-service doctors on the basis of assessment of their APARs, seniority, research work, experience & service record; (b) to regularise services of the doctors petitioners by making assessment of their APARs, service records, experience as a separate block; (c) not to make any regular appointment for posts of Assistant Professor in various medical colleges & Associated grounds of Hospital in the State of Rajasthan without first regularising services of the in-service doctors (d) to assign seniority after regularising their services from the dates of their initial adhoc appointment with all consequential benefits, but after having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge laid much Atress upon placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in RPSC vs. Dr. Rajendra Surekha & Ors. (1), which upheld the judgment of the Single Bench (supra) as well as the Division Bench of this Court (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 533/1994 & 492/1994 decided on 8.5.95) by holding that the doctors (petitioners) are entitled for exemption from going through the screening test for the post of Assistant Professors, and it was made clear that the benefit of this exemption shall be extended to only those ad hoc in-service doctors who have put in three or more years of service as Assis- tant Professors. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge under the impug- ned judgment allowed three petitions of the doctors (petitioners) and the RPSC has been directed to interview these petitioners also for the advertised posts without requi- ring them to go through the screening test. Hence these special appeals have been preferred, first three ones by the PSC and rest of three by the doctors (petitioners). (6). Hence these special appeals have been preferred, first three ones by the PSC and rest of three by the doctors (petitioners). (6). During the course of arguments, Sarva Shri A.K. Sharma and Rajendra Soni learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners (for short the doctors) in special appeals though reiterated whatever they have urged in writ petitions but vociferously contended that since the doctors were initially selected by the Central Selection Committee under Rule 30(1) of the Rules, 1962 in the year 1990-91 and onwards against vacant posts and by virtue thereof they have been continuing in service, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge did also permit the doctors for interview before the PSC but since the learned Single Judge did not issue orders for giving seniority to the doctors from the date of their initial appointment as has been given to Dr. Sudhir Bhandari & Dr. Surekha, their only grievance in their special appeals is confined for seeking modification of the impugned judgment dated 15.9.95 for giving them seniority from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits. To substantiate their contentions, learned counsel for the doctors placed reliance upon the decisions in Rudra Kumar Sain vs. Union of India (2), Jai Narain Ram vs. State of UP (3), Rakesh Kumar Singh vs. State or Harayana (4), OP Singla vs. Union of India (5), Shanti Prakash vs. HSEB (6), Narendra Chadda vs. Union of India (7), Gujarat State Dy Xen vs. State of Gujarat (8). The decisions of this Court have also been cited but since they being based on decisions of the Apex Court, their reference will merely be reiteration thereof. (7). The decisions of this Court have also been cited but since they being based on decisions of the Apex Court, their reference will merely be reiteration thereof. (7). Contrarily, Sarva Shri R.P. Singh & V.S. Yadav and S.N. Kumawat, learned Advocates appearing for the State Government and the PSC respectively vehemently urged that though the doctors were selected u/Rule 30(1) of the Rules, 1962 by the Central Selection Committee but this Rule 30(1) does not provide for regular selection and only for urgent temporary appointment on the vacancy in the service which cannot be filled in immediately either by direct recruitment, and in this view of the matter such appointments under Rule 30(1) are merely adhoc temporary one till regularly selected candidates are made available by RPSC and that apart such adhoc temporary appointees cannot be regularised dehors the Rules, 1962 inasmuch as for regularisation candidates must be regularly selected by PSC as per the Rules, 1962. The learned counsel for the PSC also contended that in regular selection which is being open market competition under the service Rules no candidates can be given steal marks over other candidates merely on the basis of experience during their adhoc temporary appointments. He cited the decisions in Kanwar Singh vs. State of Harayana (9). (8). Shri Kumawat has also contended that since the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned judgment exempting the doctors from appearing for screening tests, entirely on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court dt. 5.6.1995 delivered in Dr. Bhandari and Dr. Surekhas cases (supra), but curiously enough this judgment of Apex Court is not applicable to the case of present doctors being based on different set of circumstances of that case only and the doctors are liable to first face the screening test and after having been successful therein they can be eligible for interview, inasmuch as the PSC for such doctors is entitled to conduct screening test as has been held in RPSC vs. Dayamanti (10), MPSC vs. Navneet (11), & J.K. PSC vs. Dr. Narendra (12), because pegging the recruitment in chain system would deprive all the eligible candidates as on the date of inviting applications offending Articles 14 & 16. (9). Narendra (12), because pegging the recruitment in chain system would deprive all the eligible candidates as on the date of inviting applications offending Articles 14 & 16. (9). Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and carefully perused the material on record, in our considered view, it is an admitted position that the learned Single Judge has based the impugned judgment entirely on the decisions of not only the Single Bench affirmed with slight modification by the Division Bench but clarified by the Apex Court in Dr. Bhandari & Dr. Surekhas case (supra), as is evident from the following observations which are being quoted from the impugned judgment:- ``Having considered the submissions and after going through the judgments of the Division Bench and final order of the Supreme Court dated June 5, 1995, I find no substance in the argument of Shri Parihar as all the learned Judges have concurrently exempted the ad hoc appointees from going through the screening test and have directed the RPSC to interview the adhoc appointees without directing them to go through the screening test. Besides this, in my view, no distinction can be made on the ground that the order applies only to the Assistant Professor in General Medicine for the reason that the benefit could not be extended only to one discipline to the exclusion of the candidates of other disciplines when they are similarly situated; the only difference being regarding the subject. (10). Hence we deem it proper to first have a look at those decisions on which the learned Single Judge based the impugned judgment in the present cases. In Dr. Rajendra Surekha & Dr. Sudhir Bhandaris cases (CWP Nos. 5424/90 & 5425/90 decided on 11.4.94) on the basis of analysis of the scheme of the Rules, 1962 the learned Single Judge held that since Rule 30 deals with urgent temporary appointments and this rule is invoked by the appointing authority only when a vacancy cannot be filled immediately either by direct recruitment or by promotion and such temporary appointment under Rule 30 cannot be treated as an appointment made by direct recruitment as envisaged by Part IV of the Rules 1962 which provides procedure for direct recruitment. In our considered view also, a direct recruitment envisaged under the Rules 1962 is the one which is made after following the procedure prescribed in Part IV and not otherwise because Part IV provides for recommendations by the Commission which ultimately constitutes the basis for making a final selection by the Government. In this view of the matter, in the absence of recruitment through the PSC a person cannot be treated as having been appointed by direct recruitment and he cannot become member of the service under the Rules, 1962, inasmuch as a person having not been appointed after following the regular procedure prescribed for direct recruitment cannot be appointed against a substantive vacancy. Thus under the scheme of the Rules, 1962, an appointment made after following the procedure made in Part IV is quite distinct and different than appointment made on urgent temporary basis under Rule 30 by way of constituting a committee known as Central Selection Committee. We affirm the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Dr. Surekha & Dr. Bhandaris case (supra) that merely because an appointment has been made on urgent temporary basis after following the procedure of advertising a vacancy and selection by a Central Selection Committee, it cannot be equated with a selection made by the Commission because selection made for urgent temporary appointment is based on short term advertisement and that apart as is evident from the language of initial appointment order which specifically stipulated in cases of the present doctors also that they are appointed for a specified term or till the availability of the candidates duly selected by the RPSC whichever is earlier. Thus viewed, appointments admittedly made under Rule 30 of the Rules 1962 only on urgent temporary basis in cases of the present doctors also cannot be treated as substantive one in the service as they had not undergone the process of selection as prescribed in Part IV of the Rules, 1962. (11). As regards regularisation of the doctors having been appointed under Rule 30 of the Rules, 1962, in Dr. Surekha & Dr. (11). As regards regularisation of the doctors having been appointed under Rule 30 of the Rules, 1962, in Dr. Surekha & Dr. Bhandaris cases (supra), the learned Single Judge after having discussed plethora of decisions of the Apex Court (which have again been referred to before us) observed as under:- ``However, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, I do not consider it appropriate to give a direction to the respondents to devise a scheme similar to the one contemplated in Rule 7(4) of 1962 Rules, because after their adhoc appointments the petitioners have undoubtedly got an opportunity of appearing before the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and they have not been successful in selec- tion on the basis of merit. The petitioners may not have been found unsuitable but it is certain that more meritorious persons have been selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the year 1989. I refrain from making further comments on the merit of the petitioner because the matter is already under consideration before the Division Bench in the special appeals filed by the petitioner. ``A fresher in the service cannot render services efficiently and the people do not have confidence in him as compared to experienced person. Moreover as against a fresher from the College, a person who has rendered long service has gained practical knowledge by experience of treating the patients of different types. Obviously, in service, he cannot devote himself on academic matters to such an extent as a fresher can. Therefore, there can be little jurisdiction for the existing ad hoc employees to compel them to appear in the screening test in order to acquire eligibility for the purpose of selection. In all probabilities, the existing employees who have rendered long period of service will prove to be poor competitor qua freshers and may in all eventualities be eliminated at the threshold of the process of selection. That situation will certainly be arbitrary and unreasonable. Not only the individual employee would suffer but the people who are likely to be benefited by their service will also suffer. Therefore, it is just and proper to direct that the Public Service Commission shall not require the existing ad hoc appointees who have rendered service of three years or more to appear in the competitive test and screening test. Instead, they should be allowed to face interview straightway. Therefore, it is just and proper to direct that the Public Service Commission shall not require the existing ad hoc appointees who have rendered service of three years or more to appear in the competitive test and screening test. Instead, they should be allowed to face interview straightway. Rule 19 of the Rules 1962 does not envisage holding of screening test, but by the process of interpretation of such type of rules in RPSC vs. Damayanti Dadhich (1983 RLR 473) the word ``screening has been interpreted as permitting the Commission to hold screening test for the purpose of short listing of the candidates to be called for interview. Marks of such tests are not counted for the purpose of determination of merit. Therefore, in my opinion it will be proper to direct the Commission not to subject the candidates (ad hoc appointees) to the process of screening and also direct that they should be called for interview without facing such screening test. ``In the result the writ petitions are dismissed in sofar as claim of the petitioners to be treated as substantive appointees is concerned. However, termination of the petitioners is declared illegal. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service till the availability of the candidates selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The Commission is directed to interview petitioners and other ad hoc appointees who have completed three years or more of service without requiring them to appear in the screening test. (12). Decision of the Single Bench (supra) in Dr. Surekha & Dr. Bhandaris cases was challenged by the RPSC in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 492/94 & 533/94 wherein the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 8.5.1995 holding inter alia that the directions of the learned Single Judge did not violate the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules, 1962, categorically observed as under:- ``A perusal of the language used in Rule 19 by the rule framing authority leaves no doubt that the power of screening for the purpose of short listing of candidates is purely discretionary and not mandatory. The power even under rule 19 is an enabling power given to the RPSC to scrutinise the applications so as to restrict the number of persons to be interviewed. The power even under rule 19 is an enabling power given to the RPSC to scrutinise the applications so as to restrict the number of persons to be interviewed. The RPSC is not under any obligation to screen out any of the eligible candidates in every case but the exigencies may arise where the RPSC thinks it proper for the purpose of restricting the number of persons to be interviewed. The power of screening may be invoked depending on the facts. (13). On the basis of condition stipulated in the advertisement impugned therein, which stipulated that where the RPSC is of the opinion that in case of candidate possessing higher academic qualifications or higher experience, he can be called for interview directly for the post in question without being subjected to the screening test, the learned Division Bench of this Court consisting of one of us (Arun Madan J.) held that it is purely discretionary inasmuch as the RPSC even on the basis of higher qualification or experience may exempt a candidate from the screening test. Further it has been observed as under:- ``Learned counsel for the respondents also assailed the argument advanced by Mr. Parihar regarding the power conferred on the RPSC under Rule 19 regarding scrutiny of applications. The first part of the rule regarding eligibility of the applicants is wholly mandatory and the decision of the RPSC regarding eligibility of the candidates appears to be absolute, whereas the power of scrutiny is absolutely discretionary and has been conferred on the RPSC only for the purpose of restricting number of candidates to be called for interview. This argument also deserves to be accepted and is also one of the primary consideration, on the basis of which we have already held that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is wholly in consonance with rule 19 of the Rules of 1962 and does not violate the same. ``We are also of the view that once it is settled that the vacancies have to be determined yearwise, the selection should also be held by the RPSC separately on yearwise basis. ``We are also of the view that once it is settled that the vacancies have to be determined yearwise, the selection should also be held by the RPSC separately on yearwise basis. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge in directing the RPSC to interview the respondents and other adhoc appointees who have completed 3 years services or more without requiring them to appear in the screening test, has seriously been challenged by the RPSC on the ground that the aforesaid direction is sweeping in nature and also takes away the discretion of the screening for the purpose of shortlisting in case the RPSC so desires. ``....We are of the opinion that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge deserves to be sustained with following modification: ``The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to interview the respondents petitioners, namely Dr. Rajendra Kumar Surekha and Dr. Sudhir Bhandari only, against the vacancies of the year 1990-91 on the basis of their performance and service record relating to their past service as Lecturers in the department of medicine, and declare the results within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment of this Court. Their consideration should not be clubbed with open market candidates, for the reasons which have been enumerated by the learned Single Judge and have been affirmed by us. The appellant, Rajasthan Public Service Commission should start the process of selection for the vacancies of subsequent years i.e. 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 only after interviewing the respondents petitioners against the vacancies of 1991. We further direct that in case the respondents petitioners are selected against the vacancies of 1991 on the basis of their past performance and service record, they would also be entitled to the benefit of seniority altest with effect from 1.04.1990, on which date two posts of Lecturers in medicine were available. (14). Against the aforesaid DB decision, the PSC approached the Apex Court by preferring SLP Nos. 12740 & 12741 of 1995, wherein after hearing the learned counsel for Dr. Surekha and Dr. Bhandari, the Apex Court ordered on 5.6.95 as under:- ``In so far as the direction given by the High Court dispensing with the requirement regarding screening test in respect of respondents Nos. 12740 & 12741 of 1995, wherein after hearing the learned counsel for Dr. Surekha and Dr. Bhandari, the Apex Court ordered on 5.6.95 as under:- ``In so far as the direction given by the High Court dispensing with the requirement regarding screening test in respect of respondents Nos. 1 & 2 and other ad hoc appointees who have rendered service for three years or more in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the direction given by the High Court. We are, however of the view that in the matter of selection for the two vacancies for the post of Lecturers in medicine for the year 1990-91 the appellant Rajasthan Public Service Commission may consider the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 alongwith other applicants who are found eligible for appointment to the vacancies of the year 1990-91 and who have submitted their applications. ``While considering, the Commission will take into account the performance and service record of the applicants who are in government service. Time for consideration extended by four weeks. In the event of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 being selected their seniority will have to be decided by the appropriate authority in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Rules. (15). In another case of Dr. Deepak Verma and another, the RPSC preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12590-12602/96 (from the judgment dated 17.5.96 in SA 253/96, 250/96 & 254/96 of the principal seat of this Court) wherein the doctors who were respondents therein had already been considered & selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in respective specialities and they were also appointed, therefore, the Apex Court did not go into the question raised in the special leave petition but categorically clarified that the directions contained in order dated June 5, 1995 in civil appeals arising out of special leave petitions Nos. 12740-41 of 95 were given in the facts and circumstances of those cases only and the said directions cannot be treated as laying down the law regarding selection for appointment by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission which has to be made in accordance with the relevant rules. (16). 12740-41 of 95 were given in the facts and circumstances of those cases only and the said directions cannot be treated as laying down the law regarding selection for appointment by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission which has to be made in accordance with the relevant rules. (16). Hence, having benefitted by the enlightments derived from the afore quoted judgments/decisions of the learned Judges of this Court as also their Lordships of the Apex Court, after having taken into consideration the scheme of the Rules so also the facts of the present doctors, we are of the considered view that under the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has not at all committed any illegality or error of law in having granted relief confined to the exemption from going through the screening test for the post of Assistant Professors in favour of the doctors who were though appointed on adhoc & temporary basis under Rule 30 of the Rules, 1962 but continued and put in service for three years or more during which no regularly selected doctors were made available by the PSC obviously because of the fault of the State Government and the PSC, which failed to comply with provisions of the Rules, 1962 as to determination of yearwise vacancies under Rule 8A so as to make available regularly selected doctors till adhoc doctors appointed under Rule 30 were continued, inasmuch as Rule 19 of the Rules, 1962 does not envisage holding of screening test as it is meant for the purpose of shortlisting of the candidates who applied for under the advertisement and are to be called for interview for the advertised posts for regular selection process which has also to be undergone by adhoc appointees doctors, despite their having undergone adhoc selection process under the auspices of the Central Selection Committee under Rule 30 of the Rules, 1962, and exempted upon having rendered adhoc services for three or more years. Such screening power is not mandatory but purely discretionary and further under Rule 19 it is an enabling power conferred upon the RPSC to scrutinise the applications so as to restrict or shortlist number of persons to be called for interview. Such power of screening can be invoked depending on the facts of each case and only when any exigency may so arise for restricting number of persons to be interviewed. Such power of screening can be invoked depending on the facts of each case and only when any exigency may so arise for restricting number of persons to be interviewed. Though Rule 30 of the Rules, 1962 does not stipulate fixed tenure of adhoc or temporary service of such appointees doctors but first proviso to this Rule envisages that such adhoc appointment U/r 30 would not be continued beyond a period of one year without referring the case to the PSC for concurrence if necessary and upon its refusal to concur, such appointment should be terminated immediately. Similarly Rule 8A is mandatory as is held in catena of decisions of this Court so also the Apex Court and that being so, determination of vacancies on yearly basis is a must and failure to do so renders the continuation of services of adhoc doctors appointed U/r 30 even beyond one year stipulated under first proviso to its sub-rule (1) which results in multiplicity of litigation compelling the Courts to consider facts of each case for exemption of screening test before facing regular selection in favour of adhoc doctors or appointees U/R 30 who have rendered their services for longer period than stipulated for the faults of appointing or competent authority for want of determination of yearwise vacancies or non compliance of mandatory provisions of the service Rules. Exemption of screening test before facing regular selection does not create a vested right for regularisation of adhoc or temporary service of doctors appointed U/R 30 of the Rules, 1962 without having undergone the regular selection process for the advertised posts. (17). Moreover, process of shortlisting shall not amount to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria given in statutory rules inasmuch as shortlisting is a part of pro- cess of selection. Once the applications are received in response to the advertisement for the advertised posts and such applications are enormous in number with reference to the number of posts available for being filed up then the Selection Commission has no option but to short list such applicants on some rational and reasonable basis. That apart process of selection for recruitment against existing or anticipated vacancies does not create a right to appointment. That apart process of selection for recruitment against existing or anticipated vacancies does not create a right to appointment. In the instant case, the Rules 1962 envisaged the appointment of the doctors for the posts of Lecturers/Assistant Professors which are advertised under the impugned advertisement, only by the process of direct recruitment and further the Rules, 1962 do not provide any power to regularise the services of the doctors appointed on urgent temporary basis under Rule 30 on their selection by Central Selection Committee. Therefore, the direction as sought for regul- arisation of such doctors appointed under Rule 30 will clearly be de hors the law because of the reason also that by virtue of temporary appointment under Rule 30 such adhoc or temporary doctors do not automatically become members of the service under the Rules, 1962, and which provides the mode of recruitment for the appointment to the service by direct recruitment the procedure for which is envisaged under Part IV, which provides for eligibility of the person for recruitment to a post in the ser- vice and further provides for recruitment by selection in the manner indicated against each post in the Schedule attached to the Rules, 1962. Thus a reading of the Rules, 1962 clearly indicates that a person appointed to the service after having undergone selection in the manner indicated under the rules shall be a member of any of the services only upon making recruitment by the PSC and appointment by the State Government, inasmuch as after recruitment by the PSC and appointment by the State Government under the Rules, 1962 such selected person is kept on probation and only on successful completion thereof he becomes a member of the service and then only he gets his seniority from the date of the appointment in terms of the Rules, 1962. (18). In nut shell, the recruitment for the advertised posts or any other posts mentioned in the schedule to the Rules, 1962 and the selection by the PSC is a condition precedent obviously because such posts fall within the purview of RPSC in accordance with the scheme of the relevant service rules read with Article 320(2) of the Constitution of India. In nut shell, the recruitment for the advertised posts or any other posts mentioned in the schedule to the Rules, 1962 and the selection by the PSC is a condition precedent obviously because such posts fall within the purview of RPSC in accordance with the scheme of the relevant service rules read with Article 320(2) of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the doctors (petitioners herein) had not been appointed after selection by the RPSC and as per their appointment orders they were appointed on urgent temporary basis for a fixed term of one year or till the regularly selected candidates were made available whichever was earlier. Since they did not face RPSC for regular selection, nor the Rules 1962 does provide for regularisation in case of their having been selected by the Central Selection Committee for being appointed on urgent temporary basis under Rule 30 automatically nor the term of their appointment under Rule 30 entitles them to hold the post in a substantive capacity, rather their appointment under Rule 30 though through selection by Central Selection Committee was admittedly temporary and adhoc in nature. Thus, it is not all open to any government employee or the present doctors to claim automatic alteration of status by virtue of their selection through Central Selection Committee under Rule 30 without having faced the RPSC for regular recruitment by selection under part IV because such result is not specifically envisaged by some provision in the statutory Rules of 1962. Therefore, unless there is a provision in the statutory rules for alteration of status in a particular situation it is not open to any government employee to claim a status different than that which was conferred upon him at the initial or any subsequent stage of service. (19). Therefore, unless there is a provision in the statutory rules for alteration of status in a particular situation it is not open to any government employee to claim a status different than that which was conferred upon him at the initial or any subsequent stage of service. (19). Even the regularisation of temporary appointment can be effected only in accordance with Rules, 1962 for direct appointment and since the Rules 1962, as analysed above, provided for regular appointment of doctors only after being found suitable by the PSC, the direction as sought for regularisation of these doctors appointed under Rule 30 on temporary basis is totally impermissible, inasmuch as merely because regular appointments had not been made for years together even after their temporary appointments continued for longer period than stipulated period under Rule 30, could not entitled them to regularise without facing the RPSC for regular selection under Part IV of the Rules 1962. That being so, the learned Judges not only in Single Bench so also in Division Bench but also their Lordships of the Apex Court in Dr. Surekha & Dr. Bhandaris cases (supra) by concurrently exempting adhoc appointees from going through the screening test, and declining to the relief for regularisation of such doctors, but directed the RPSC only to the extent of interviewing adhoc doctors who have rendered and put in service for three or more years, without requiring to go through the screening test. This procedure has been followed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment in favour of the present adhoc appointees/doctors (petitioners) in the light of the decision in Dr. Surekha & Dr. Bhandaris cases (supra) which has attained its finality under the judgment of the Apex Court given on 5.6.95 (supra). Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment under appeal warranting any interference by this Court. (20). However, we may add that while making selections by way of direct recruitment there cannot be two set of persons with different eligibility in absence of specific provisions of rules and therefore stand of the learned counsel that appointment cannot be made de hors the Rules, is absolutely correct. (20). However, we may add that while making selections by way of direct recruitment there cannot be two set of persons with different eligibility in absence of specific provisions of rules and therefore stand of the learned counsel that appointment cannot be made de hors the Rules, is absolutely correct. While it is true that those candidates who have rendered years of service in the past should not undergo rigours of screening test by way of relaxation but it cannot by any stretch of imagination be inferred that on the one hand those candidates who have already served as adhoc in different specialities in the past and their services had not yet been made regular by adopting procedure of regular selection under Chapter IV of the Rules, should not undergo screening test alongwith other eligible candidates who are directly called for interview but nevertheless in our considered view only limited benefit, to which they can be held entitled, is that they should be given benefit of exemption from undergoing screening test only in view of their past service performance while all the same it is essential before they are regularly selected, they should and in all probability should not feel shy of determining their eligibility for regular appointment by selection through direct recruitment under Part IV of the Rules, 1962 and all the essential pre-requisites which are required to be observed by other candidates who are directly called for interview if those can be held binding for them, they should equally be made applicable and binding for inservice candidates/doctors duly appointed on adhoc and temporary basis under rule 30 of the Rules, because it would otherwise eliminate any possible apprehension:- (a) preferential treatment extended to them which may otherwise not be construed as back door entry at the costs and expenses of meritorious persons who have to be recommended during selection by the RPSC on the basis of their merit, (b) eligibility conditions as regards candidates who are directly called for interview as per terms and conditions of the advertisement and as per qualification laid down for them under the Rules 1962 should equally be made applicable to the inservice candidates appointed under Rule 30 or otherwise, as they have to compete on the same pedestal with a view to avoid any discrimination. That being so, the Apex Court in its order passed in Special leave to appeal preferred by the RPSC against Dr. Deepak Verma (supra) has specifically clarified that the directions contained in order dated June 5, 1995 in civil appeals arising out of special leave petitions Nos. 12740-41 of 1995 were given in the facts and circumstances of those cases only and the said directions cannot be treated as laying down the law regarding selection for appointment by the RPSC which has to be made in accordance with the relevant rules. However, the present impugned common judgment had already been passed on 15.9.1995 prior to the clarification made by the Apex Court on 7.8.1998 in Dr. Deepak Vermas Special Leave to Appeal (supra). (21). As regards seniority of the present doctors (petitioners) though a catena of decisions have been relied upon by the learned counsel at the bar but we do not enter into all these aspects of seniority in a comprehensive manner here in all these appeals, because question of seniority will only arise upon the regular selection and in the cases of the present doctors (petitioners) who have admittedly not undergone process of regular selection under the Rules, 1962 before they approached this Court and it is only upon the decision of the learned Single Judge, and before which they had also applied for direct recruitment with a view to undergo process of regular selection through RPSC advertisement under challenge, that the RPSC has already permitted such doctors to appear in selection process for regular appointment though subject to final result of their appeals on or about 12.12.95 and their result have also been declared on 20.12.95. Above all, teh Apex Court in its order dated 5.6.95 in Dr. Surekha & Dr. Bhandaris cases (supra) categorically made it clear that only in the event of being selected regularly the seniority will have to be decided by the appropriate authority in accordance with relevant provisions of the Rules. Hence, we refrain from entering into this controversy as to the seniority of these doctors appointed under Rule 30 and who are petitioners in their writ petitions (supra). The seniority of persons or appointees under the Rules, 1962 is required to be adjudged and assigned only in consonance with provisions contained in Rule 31 of the Rules, 1962. Hence, we refrain from entering into this controversy as to the seniority of these doctors appointed under Rule 30 and who are petitioners in their writ petitions (supra). The seniority of persons or appointees under the Rules, 1962 is required to be adjudged and assigned only in consonance with provisions contained in Rule 31 of the Rules, 1962. This Court cannot go beyond or devise any separate system de hors the rules which, itself, would be against the Rules so also the mandate of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we leave the matter entirely to be examined by the appropriate authority under the Rules and in case of any grievance the aggrieved person may resort to recourse by approaching appropriate appellate forum if he is not assigned his desired seniority after regular selection and in consonance with the seniority rules. But no relief can either be granted in these writ appeals nor can be entertained by this Court at this stage, inasmuch as we may also make it clear that direction by the learned Single Judge being duly affirmed by us is not the process of regularisation of their temporary or adhoc appointment made under Rule 30, but allowing them to undergo process of regular selection through direct recruitment as provided for regular appointment under part IV of the Rules, 1962 without requiring and by exempting them to appear in the screening test. Hence, exemption from appearing in the screening test will not in any way give them right or benefit for adjudging seniority by deeming that their temporary services were regularised. The seniority is to be adjudged only upon regular selection but in consonance with and in the light of statutory rules, i.e. Rule 31 of the Rules, 1962 in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. (22). As a result of the above discussion, all these special appeals filed by the doctors and the RPSC are dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge stands affirmed. No order as to costs.