JUDGMENT 1. - Preparation of Paper Book in the present case is dispensed with and the appeal is heard on merit at the request of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 19th July, 2000 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Computer Operator by the respondent University in pursuance of Notification issued by the University on 22nd February, 1993 inviting applications for the post of Computer Operator for a period of three months. The qualifications prescribed for the candidates to apply, were that he should have atleast 10+2 (Arts/Science) with Diploma in Computer Science. Such candidate was further required to be examined by a Committee before being appointed. 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid procedure adopted by the respondent University for giving appointment for the temporary period for which the post was advertised, the petitioner was duly appointed on 15.3.93 for a period of three months. However, this appointment continued until filing of the writ petition. 5. It may be noticed that prior to filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner has also approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3902/93 seeking mandamus to the respondents to appoint him on regular basis, which petition was dismissed by this Court on 24th April, 1994 that the petitioner has not acquired any vested right to be appointed on regular basis by giving temporary appointment for three months. 6. Thereafter, the University vide its Resolution passed in the meeting of Board of Management dated 22nd January, 1998 resolved to regularise the services of persons of non-teaching cadre working on adhoc, casual and fixed basis. The relevant resolution reads as under : "Such persons who have passed the prescribed job test/interview and are found qualified for the post and have been given appointment on Adhoc basis, their services be regularised from the dated of joining the post through a Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor". 7. Armed with this resolution, the petitioner sought intervention by this Court when he was declined regularisation of his services since 1993 on the ground that the petitioner does not hold the qualification for being regularly appointed as prescribed in 1994. 8. 7. Armed with this resolution, the petitioner sought intervention by this Court when he was declined regularisation of his services since 1993 on the ground that the petitioner does not hold the qualification for being regularly appointed as prescribed in 1994. 8. The case of the petitioner was that it is a case of regularisation and if his appointment was made after job test and interview and having been found qualified for the post when appointed as temporary then his services are to be regularised from the date of joining the post through a Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. 9. Relying on the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has made out a case that since he was appointed after notifying the vacancy and having been called for interview by prescribing the qualifications requisite for the post at the time of recruitment having fulfilled all the criterion and found suitable. He was offered appointment on adhoc basis because advertisement was issued for giving appointment only for three months. But, he was given appointment after regular selection on finding him duly qualified and suitable by inviting applications from open market. Such an appointment was regular appointment, though for short term in first instance. 10. However learned Single Judge was of the opinion that under the Resolution the petitioner was required to hold current qualification before his past services could be regularised and therefore, the petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the opinion that this appeal merits acceptance. 12. One has to keep in mind distinction between regularisation and regular appointment. Regularisation is always of past services, whereas a regular appointment refers to appointment in presenti. Appointments which are inherently bad and void being de-hors the rules substantively does not invite consideration for regularisation. It is only such of the adhoc, temporary and casual appointments, which are by competent officer and otherwise valid in their inception, that long continuation of such temporary, casual or adhoc services requires consideration of their cases for regularisation on the post. 13. Supreme Court has time and again emphasised necessity of devising the scheme for regularisation of persons, who have continued for long on adhoc, casual and temporary basis without a permanent regular status in the service to avoid any arbitrariness in the matter or public employment. 14. 13. Supreme Court has time and again emphasised necessity of devising the scheme for regularisation of persons, who have continued for long on adhoc, casual and temporary basis without a permanent regular status in the service to avoid any arbitrariness in the matter or public employment. 14. Reference in this connection may be made to State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992(3) SCT 201 (SC) : [ AIR 1992 Supreme Court 2130] and Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1999(1) SCT 573 : [ AIR 1997 SC 1628 ] wherein thee Supreme Court culled out the principle that where the rules permit for giving urgent temporary appointment and the person has been appointed by a competent authority and it is found that the concerned incumbents have continued to be employed for only period of time without any artificial break and the services are otherwise required by the institution which employed them or the cases in which initial entry of the employee is against an available vacancy or the appointment is found to have suffered from some flaw in the procedural exercise though the person appointing is competent to effect such initial recruitment and has otherwise followed due procedure of such recruitment, fall in the category where consideration for regularisation is a constitutional obligation. 15. In Piara Singh's case (supra) while emphasising that even in case where adhoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of exigencies of administration, such appointment should be made consistent with the requirements of Article 16 and that if any temporary employee is continued for a long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State. The Court in such circumstance impressed upon necessity of preparing a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of such employees consistent with the observations made in the judgment referred to above. 16. The Court in such circumstance impressed upon necessity of preparing a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of such employees consistent with the observations made in the judgment referred to above. 16. In Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) the Court pointed out difference between cases where regularisation is permissible on account of long officiation on the post where it is not so the Court pointed out, that in case initial entry is not found to be totally illegal or in blatant disregard of all the established rules and regulations governing such recruitment is a case where regularisation is an obligation by the employer in case such appointment continues for long, but where the appointment of an employee whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach of recruitment his service cannot be made regular by the process of regularisation. 17. It is conforming to this obligation the University has passed a Resolution for regularisation of non-teaching cadre working on adhoc, casual and fixed basis. 18. Therefore, in the context of regularisation of service what is to be seen is that entry in the service at the initial stage is not tainted and by flagrant violation of procedure established by law for giving appointment in public office. 19. Read in that light we find that under the resolution, such cases have been slated for regularisation into four categories. Firstly, the appointment given after passing the prescribed job test and interview and having been found suitable and qualified for the post on adhoc basis. They fall in clause 1 of the Resolution. Their services are to be regularised from the date of joining post through a Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor that is to say in such cases appointment has to be regularised with effect from initial appointment. 20. Clause 2 enlists such cases for regularisation where though the persons possess the prescribed qualifications but have been given appointment on temporary, casual basis without job test and interview. Their services are to be regularised after taking prescribed job test and interview as per rules through Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. In class two of cases appointment has to be made in presenti on regular basis. Such cases are not regularised by dating the appointment to initial entry. 21. Their services are to be regularised after taking prescribed job test and interview as per rules through Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. In class two of cases appointment has to be made in presenti on regular basis. Such cases are not regularised by dating the appointment to initial entry. 21. The other cases where appointment has been made without interview or job test on the basis of having qualified the minimum qualifications as well as regularisation of such persons, who were initially appointed on temporary basis and subsequently, regular after taking their job test and now requesting for regularising their intervening period are deferred for consideration to some future date. 22. It would be apposite to notice distinction between two class of cases referred in clauses 1 and 2 reading together : 1. "Such persons who have passed the prescribed job test/interview and are found qualified for the post and has been given appointment on Adhoc basis, their services be regularised from the date of joining the post through a Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor". 2. Such persons although, fulfil the prescribed qualifications but have been given appointment on adhoc/casual/fixed basis without job test/interview/their services be regularised after taking the prescribed job test/interview as per rules through a Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor." 23. The comparison of two provisions would clearly show that a person who has been appointed after passing job test and interview and found qualified for the post and has been given appointment, obviously was a regular appointment at inception, though appointment was for a temporary period which has continued. Regularisation of service of such personnel is to be made from the date of joining post through such regularisation shall be made through the Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. 24. But, in case a candidate fulfilled the qualifications, but has not been given appointment after passing job test or interview, their services are not regularised with effect from the date of initial service. But, their regular appointments shall take place after taking the prescribed job test and interview as per the rules. 25. In that context the persons, who fall in clause 1, their qualification for the post must refer to the qualification for appointment to the post as on the date of initial appointment. But, their regular appointments shall take place after taking the prescribed job test and interview as per the rules. 25. In that context the persons, who fall in clause 1, their qualification for the post must refer to the qualification for appointment to the post as on the date of initial appointment. In the case of clause 2, as the appointments are to take place only after passing of prescribed job test and interview, the qualifications requisite for a person falling in clause 2, obviously shall refer to qualification on the date the regular appointment shall take place after passing job test or the interview as the case may be. 26. In these circumstances, the benefit of such regular appointment by way of regularisation of persons falling in category 1 cannot be taken away by reading the resolution out of its context, viz. giving effect to Constitution, obligation for regularisation of services which was initially temporary, but continued for long. 27. We have no hesitation in coming to conclusion that clause 1 of the aforesaid Resolution refers to an appointment, which was initially valid and regular offered, which necessarily includes holding of requisite qualifications as on the date of initial appointment and not as on the regularisation. 28. The judgment of the Supreme Court on which the judgment under appeal has been relied on that it has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, also in our opinion, does not relate to the present controversy. In State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shiv Ram Sharma, 1999(2) SCT 599 (SC) : [ (1999) 3 SCC 653 ] , the Supreme Court (was) considering the case where there had been amendment in the rules prescribing eligibility criterion for the purposes of appointment or promotion after the vacancy has been caused. The person claiming appointment to said post was contending that he should be held eligible on the basis of rules before amendment when he had rendered minimum required service for becoming eligible for consideration. It had been contended before the Supreme Court that such right of consideration for appointment or promotion cannot be taken away by subsequent amendment in the rules altering qualification criterion for such appointment or promotion. It had been contended before the Supreme Court that such right of consideration for appointment or promotion cannot be taken away by subsequent amendment in the rules altering qualification criterion for such appointment or promotion. In that circumstances enunciating the principle in the matter of giving regular appointment or promotions to different posts in public service which prescribes appropriate qualification for holding such post, the Court said : "there is no indefeasible right in respondents to claim for promotion to a higher grade, to which qualification could be prescribed and there is no guarantee that those rules, framed by the Government in that behalf, would always be favourable to them". 29. The Court also reiterated that once appointed an employee has no vested right in regard to the terms of service but acquires a status and, therefore, the rights and obligations thereto are no longer determined by the consent of the parties but by statute or statutory rules, which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. The principle of avoiding stagnation in a particular post will not be with reference to the conditions of service as such. Therefore, merely because alteration in the rules hampers the chances of future promotion, it is not in violation of rights of any incumbent. It was not a case in which the Court was considering the case of regularisation or construction of Resolution like present one on which criterion of regularisation is to take place. 30. As we have noticed above the regularisation is always of services, which have been rendered in past and it is the true nature of appointment at the time of initial appointment which becomes relevant to find whether the person is eligible to be regularised or not. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is to be appointed against the existing vacancy after he fulfils the criterion as it exists at the time of such appointment, but his case is and what is envisaged under the resolution also is that service should be regularised as on the date initial appointment was made. Obviously, qualification required for such regularisation shall be as on the date of initial appointment with effect from which he has to be considered regularly appointed on that post. 31. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal is set aside. Obviously, qualification required for such regularisation shall be as on the date of initial appointment with effect from which he has to be considered regularly appointed on that post. 31. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal is set aside. We further allow the writ petition. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in terms of Resolution by considering the qualification requisite for the post as on the date with effect from which services are to be regularised viz. the date of initial appointment. If he is otherwise found suitable by the Screening Committee, his services may be regularised. The exercise may be completed within a period of two months from today.There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******