ORDER : These writ petitions are taken up for consideration together. The question involved in the writ petitions pertain to regularization of the services of the petitioners as an LDC/Peon/Carpenter/Sanitary Inspectors in the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as "Vishwavidyalaya"). 2. It is not in dispute that decision was taken by State of M.P. to regularize the services of the daily wage employees working on 31-12-1988 acting on policy decision the Vishvavidyalaya also resolved to regularize the services as Lower Division Clerks and Peons. The petitioners were appointed in different writ petitions on the following dates noted against their names :- W.P. 639/97 Petitioner No. 1 Kishan Prasad Mishra 1-12-1982 Petitioner No. 2 S. L. Sharnagat 4-12-1983 W. P. 2703/98 Pancham Singh Thakur 17-5-1978 W. P. 3382/98 Kodulal Vishwakarma 1981 W. P. 5677/96 Rajendra Singh 3-9-1984 W. P. 5678/98 Sampat Lal Tripathi 1-11-1985 W. P. 118/99 Dadan Prasad Goutam 14-4-1879 W. P. 4556/99 Deepak Kumar Khare 1-7-1979 3. In W. P. No. 639/97 Kishan Prasad Mishra petitioner No. 1 possess graduation and English /Hindi Typing examination certificate. Petitioner No. 2 S. L. Sharnagat is 11th pass and possess Hindi/English typing certificate. Both were appointed as casual labour. They were working as Peons; their services were appreciated. The petitioners submit that six junior were regularized; they represented but in vain. The petitioners claim similar treatment with other employees and also regularization as an LDC. In the rejoinder petitioners submit that they have been discriminated with as juniors have been regularized as Peon they have not been regularized even as Peon which is grossly unjust and arbitrary. Juniors namely Hridayanand Singh, Shri B. S. Rajput, Shri Ram Kumar Chorey, Smt. I. Sharma, Shri A. K. Awadhiya, Shri K. L. Bhariya were regularized. 4. In W. P. No. 2703/98 Shri Pancham Singh Thakur is M. A. in Hindi, he also possess Hindi Type writing certificate P/2; he was working in Security Department as Class-IV employee. The respondents have regularized 10 Peons on 18-2-1993 as per order P/7. Juniors have been regularized which is in violation of Article 14/16 of Constitution of India. Petitioner claims regularization as Peon with effect from 18-2-1993 and/or as an LDC as he is qualified for that post. The respondents have regularized 10 Peons on 18-2-1993 as per order P/7. Juniors have been regularized which is in violation of Article 14/16 of Constitution of India. Petitioner claims regularization as Peon with effect from 18-2-1993 and/or as an LDC as he is qualified for that post. Respondent 3 Shakeel Ahmed a junior appointed on 3-8-1983, respondent No. 4 Ram Kishore Chourey appointed on 1-2-1984, respondent No. 5 Gouri Shankar appointed on 12-9-1983 and respondent No. 6 Smt. Aruna Gopal appointed in June 1983 were regularized as Peons whereas petitioner who was working with effect from 17-5-1978 was discriminated with. 5. In W. P. No. 3382/98 Kodulal Vishwakarma is 5th class pass; he has successfully cleared carpentry training; ho was appointed in the year 1981 as daily wage carpenter. On 8-5-1990 he was granted pay scale of Rs. 725-900. He was not paid for work of Carpenter. One post of Carpenter is lying vacant. He is rendering duty of full time Carpenter. But being paid salary of Peon not that of carpenter. Other juniors were regularized as Peon. His case has not been considered. 6. In W. P. No. 5677/98 Rajendra Singh is working as Carpenter w.e.f. 3-9-1984. He is being paid salary of Class IV employee. Respondents 4 to 6 were regularized as Peon then regularised/absorbed as an LDC. Petitioner claims regularization as Carpenter or in any case at least as Peon. 7. In W. P. No. 5678/98 Sampat Lal Tripathi is working with effect from 1-11-1985 as Sanitary Inspector/Supervisor the work of an LDC was also taken from him. He possess qualification required for an LDC; he is 11th pass and possess typing certificate. He claims regularization as Sanitary Inspector/LDC; respondents 6 and 8 were junior to the petitioner were regularized overlooking the claim of petitioner. Respondents 5 and 7 were juniors not even shown in the seniority list but were still regularized. 8. In W. P. No. 118/99 Dadan Prasad Gautam is working with effect from 14-4-1979 as Male Mazdoor; he is working as helper to Carpenter. He possess qualification for the post of an LDC. He is 11th pass and possess typing certificate also. Pay scale of class IV was sanctioned to him on 28-4-1990 as per order P/4. The selection committee met on 16-4-1992 and appointed certain junior persons as Peons. Petitioner claims regularization as an LDC on the strength of his qualification. 9. He possess qualification for the post of an LDC. He is 11th pass and possess typing certificate also. Pay scale of class IV was sanctioned to him on 28-4-1990 as per order P/4. The selection committee met on 16-4-1992 and appointed certain junior persons as Peons. Petitioner claims regularization as an LDC on the strength of his qualification. 9. In W. P. No. 4556/99 Deepak Kumar Khare is working as unskilled worker/ Peon with effect from 1-7-1979; he has served for 23 years; his juniors have been regularized. He claims regularization as Peon/LDC. Petitioner further submits that as per order dated 13-3-1990, 625 posts in the time scale for regularization were created in the pay scale of Rs. 725-900. This order P/26 dated 13-3-1990 was issued pursuant to the direction of the Government. The Government had sanctioned the creation of 625 posts out of non plan expenditure. 10. Petitioner further submits that for the purpose of regularization as per length of service combined seniority list was prepared. In that they were placed above than the persons who were regularized. The Government circular dated 9-1-1990 was adopted by the respondents in 127-129 meeting of the Board of Management. Thus, it was incumbent upon the respondent/university to give effect to the Government circular and the policy contained therein. A combined seniority list was prepared by the respondents for the purpose of regularizing the services of only those daily wage employees who were inducted in the service prior to 31-12-1988. The memorandum dated 9-1-1990 is Annexure P/11 and combined seniority list prepared is Annexure P/12 in the writ petition No. 2703/98. It is further averred that as many as 625 posts under non plan head were created; benefit of the same was not made applicable to petitioner in W. P. 2703/98. The respondents/university took the decision to fill the vacant posts of LDCs from those employees who were working on the post of class IV category and possess the basic qualification for the post of the LDC and it further decided that monthly/daily contingent paid labour inducted upto 31-12-1988 and having basic qualification for the post of an LDC may be regularized on the consequential vacancies of Class IV cadre. For preparation of seniority list based on such a decision the date of passing the typing examination was taken to be the criteria not the total length of service rendered in the Vishvavidyalaya. For preparation of seniority list based on such a decision the date of passing the typing examination was taken to be the criteria not the total length of service rendered in the Vishvavidyalaya. In the rejoinder filed in WP No. 2703/98 this criteria is challenged as arbitrary and it is alleged that University has completely ignored and overlooked the seniority/length of service rendered by the petitioner and the same has not been given any weightage by the University. Thus, many of the senior employees who may have passed the typing examination subsequent to the junior employees have been superseded. Thus, subsequently inducted persons were given march over the senior employees. The action is arbitrary. In the combined seniority list, petitioner in WP 2703/93 Pancham Singh Thakur was placed at Sr. No. 216, Shakeel Ahmed at Sr. No. 254, R. K. Chourey at Sr. No. 282 and Smt. Aruna Gopal at Sr. No. 353. They are respondents No. 3 to 6 in the said writ petition. It is further contended that in the policy decision of the Government contained in memorandum (P/11) dated 9th January, 1990 in para 3.3. it was mentioned that qualification for the regularization has to be taken trade wise and the employees who were in service prior to 1-1-1984 were to be considered first and remaining employees were to be considered later on which indicates that seniority was the main criteria and qualification no doubt was required but for the trade/post concerned. It is alleged that for regularizing as the Peons higher qualification of an LDC was considered; only those peons were regularized as Peons who were possessing the qualifications for an LDC. It is an illegal act; the qualification for peon at the time of induction was class Vth pass and it has never been enhanced and subsequently also for the purpose of regularization a memorandum was issued in the year 1998 in which the qualification of having passed class Vth was mentioned to be necessary. By this action the senior persons who were qualified for the post of Peon were totally ignored and the juniors were regularized as Class IV employees. For the post of Lower Division Clerk also the date of passing the examination was taken to be the criteria which was an illegal and impermissible act. The seniority in service was ignored/overlooked. 11. By this action the senior persons who were qualified for the post of Peon were totally ignored and the juniors were regularized as Class IV employees. For the post of Lower Division Clerk also the date of passing the examination was taken to be the criteria which was an illegal and impermissible act. The seniority in service was ignored/overlooked. 11. The respondents in the return filed in WP No. 2703/98 contends that a decision was taken on 16th April, 1992 by the University to the effect that regular class IV employees who fulfil qualification for the post of an LDC may be appointed on the vacant posts of Lower Division Clerk and such monthly/daily paid contingent labour who fulfil qualification of LDC and were engaged upto 31-12-1988 be regularized on the consequential vacancies of class IV employees. A seniority list was prepared on the basis of attaining the qualification for the post of an LDC and the appointments were made on that basis. A list of 20 persons was prepared; only 16 persons were regularized on the post of peon. It is mentioned in para 12 of the return in W. P. 2703/98 that :- 12. "Re Para 5(F) and 5(G) : In view of the actual need of office work, it was required to fill up some vacant posts of LDCs. and Peons. Accordingly a proposal for the same was put up to the Board of Management of the Vishwavidyalaya in its 127th and 129th meetings. It was decided by the Board in its 129th meeting held on 16-4-1992 that :- (i) the vacant posts of LDCs may be filled up from those Vishwavidyalaya employees who are working on the posts of Class-IV category and possessing the basic qualification for the post of LDC; and (ii) the monthly/daily contingent paid labour engaged upto 31-12-1988 and having basic qualifications for the post of LDC may be regularized on the consequential vacancies of CI-ass-IV cadre. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Board of Management, the list of such monthly/daily contingent paid labour having minimum qualifications for the post of LDC and were engaged upto 31-12-1988 was called for from all units of the Vishwavidyalaya to consider their case for regularization on the consequential vacancies of Class-IV/Peon posts in the scale of pay of Rs. 750-945 in accordance with their seniority. 750-945 in accordance with their seniority. The date on which the candidate monthly/daily paid contingent labour acquired the minimum qualifications for the post of LDC was considered for fixing their seniority. The name of the petitioner Shri Pancham Singh Thakur was also considered while finalisation of the seniority list and the seniority was fixed from the date of his acquiring/possessing the minimum qualifications for the post of LDC and his name was appearing at Sr. No. 31." 12. In case of carpenter W. P. No. 3382/98, it is not disputed by respondents No. 1 and 2 that one post of carpenter is lying vacant in the engineering college of the answering respondent; they contend as and when regular recruitment takes place for the post of carpenter, petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity to apply for the same and his candidature shall be considered by the competent selection committee. They dispute that petitioner was appointed as carpenter. The respondents in their return filed in W. P. No. 4556/99 contends that they did not adopt the memo 9-1-1990 (P/11) issued by the State of M.P. However, they have passed a resolution Annexure R/1 on 16th April, 1992 and it was decided to regularize the services of the employees as Lower Division Clerks and class IV employees and it was decided that only those class IV employees shall be regularized as Peons who possessed the qualification of an LDC. The action cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal in any manner. In WP No. 5677/98, it is contended that post of carpenter and peon are required to be filled by direct recruitment; the daily rated labour cannot be allowed to claim regularization on the post of carpenter or peon. Daily rated labour is not feeder cadre for peon/carpenter nor equal to these posts. The post of LDC is to be filled as per statutes 5, 6 and 7; the petitioners cannot be regularized due to non-availability of the vacancies though petitioners may be qualified for the post of an LDC/other post. The posts which were created of time scale labour is a dying cadre. The respondents also relies on section 27 of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963 which reads as under :- 27. The posts which were created of time scale labour is a dying cadre. The respondents also relies on section 27 of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963 which reads as under :- 27. The Board shall be Executive authority of the Vishwavidyalaya and shall, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by or under the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, exercise, the following powers and perform the following duties, namely :- ........................ (xxii) save as otherwise provided by this Act or the statutes, to approve the appointments of officers (other than 'the Kuladhipati and the' Kulpati) teachers and other servants of the Vishwavidyalaya, to define their duties and conditions of their service and to provide for the filling of temporary vacancies in their posts, ......................... (xxvi) to lay down scales of salaries and conditions of the employment of members of the staff in the various branches of the Vishwavidyalaya and to ensure the observance of the same." 13. They further rely on statute 39 of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Statutes, 1964 which reads as under :- 39. Service Personnel The Vishwa Vidyalaya shall employ such other service personnel other than those hereinbefore mentioned, as may from time to time be needed to carry on the activities of the Vishwa Vidyalaya. The pay scales, qualifications for recruitment, conditions of services and duties to be performed by such service personnel shall be such as may be prescribed by the Board. Such service personnel shall be, under the control of the respective officers concerned of the Vishwa Vidyalaya and shall be responsible to them provided that appeals against punishments and adverse application of service conditions, shall be with the authority, next above the appointing authority." 14. Respondent Vishwavidyalaya contend that the Board is competent authority and vested with the power to lay down the qualification and service conditions and the resolution dated 16-4-1992 has source of power to be treated as valid. Respondent Vishwavidyalaya contend that the Board is competent authority and vested with the power to lay down the qualification and service conditions and the resolution dated 16-4-1992 has source of power to be treated as valid. The condition was not arbitrary, but was based on rational policy decision that at least some number of daily wagers could be given security of job and they further contend that circular issued in the year 1998 requiring qualification of Vth class pass for regularization as class IV employees has no relevance as State of M.P. refused to accord approval to the process of regularization and threatened that no financial aid shall be provided if the regularization was done. 15. Learned counsel's appearing for the petitioners challenges the action on various grounds. First their submission is that seniority has been ignored and violated while making the regularization as an LDC. The seniority list of the qualified persons should have been prepared on the basis of total length of service rendered by an employee whereas the date of acquiring the qualification for the post of an LDC was taken to be the criteria for fixing seniority, thus, junior incumbents were given priority over the qualified senior persons in the matter of regularization. Thus, the criteria adopted for regularization of Lower Division Clerk of fixing of seniority on the basis of date of acquisition of qualification is arbitrary and bad in law. The second part of the submission of the petitioners is that even if they were not to be regularized as an LDC for regularization as Peon which is class IV post, the criteria adopted by respondent that only those employees who were possessing the prescribed qualification for an LDC were to be regularized is bad in law as it has resulted in discrimination; the seniority of the employees who were possessing the qualification for the post/trade of peon was ignored; secondly qualification of LDC which is higher qualification could not be insisted for the purpose of regularization as class IV employee; the qualification for peon is class IVth pass right from beginning; the action is against the memorandum P/11 of the Government and against the basic norms of regularization. The criteria adopted is arbitrary and discriminatory. The criteria adopted is arbitrary and discriminatory. Thirdly the submission is that the regularization ought to have been made of all the employees who were in service upto 31-12-1988 in accordance with the decision of the State Government as contained in memorandum P/11 dated 9-1-1990 and in subsequent memorandums providing for the regularization of such employees by creation of posts. 16. Counsel for the respondents Shri A. G. Dhande and Shri P. N. Dubey submits that decision of the Board is in accordance with law; section 27 and para 39 of the Statutes provide power to the Board to evolve the criteria and for purpose of regularization the proper criteria was evolved; action cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. There cannot be any further regularization for want of availability of the vacant posts and ban created by the Government. It is further contended that some of the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court at the motion stage. Learned counsel has relied on decision in WP No. 5559/98 and WP No. 659/2000. 17. The preliminary objection raised by the respondents with respect to availability of the alternative remedy be examined on priority. 18. In WP No. 5559/98 this Court did not entertain the writ petitions on the ground that since there was no post available direction for his regularization could not be issued which is not the case here and other WP No. 659/2000 was withdrawn. 19. Out of present bunch of writ petitions, Writ Petition No. 639/97, Kishan Prasad Mishra and another vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya and another was admitted on 30-4-1997. WP No. 3382/98, Kodulal Vishwakarma vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya and another was also admitted for final hearing on 18-9-1998. In WP No. 2703/98 notice was issued on 17-7-1998 why the writ petition should not be allowed. In W.P. No. 5677/98, Rajendra Singh vs. JNKVV, Jabalpur and others, WP No. 5678/98, Sampat Lal Tripathi vs. State of M.P. and others and in WP No. 118/99, Dadan Prasad Goutam vs. JNKVV, Jabalpur notice was not only against show cause on admission, but for final disposal also. In W.P. No. 5677/98, Rajendra Singh vs. JNKVV, Jabalpur and others, WP No. 5678/98, Sampat Lal Tripathi vs. State of M.P. and others and in WP No. 118/99, Dadan Prasad Goutam vs. JNKVV, Jabalpur notice was not only against show cause on admission, but for final disposal also. As some of the writ petitions stand admitted and once the writ petitions have been admitted normal rule is that they should not be thrown on basis of availability of alternative remedy; particularly in the instant case the validity of the criteria adopted for regularization is challenged; hence the writ petitions are entertainable and are not being dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Once the petition has been admitted for hearing, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy as held in L. Hirday Narain vs. Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly, AIR 1971 SC 33 , and in Collector of Monghyr and others vs. Keshav Prasad Goenka and others AIR 1962 SC 1694 and number of other decisions. 20. The significant question for consideration is what should have been the criteria adopted by the respondents for the purpose of regularization; whether the seniority should have the criteria ? Whether criteria adopted by Vishwavidyalaya is proper ? 21. Right of regularization emanates from the fact that an employee works for a long period without security of tenure and renders the services on terms which are not befitting. One must have security of tenure. 22. In Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India and others (1988) I SCC 122 in para 9, the Supreme Court held as under :- "Unless a sense of belonging to the organisation engaged in production arises in a workman, he will not put forward his best effort to produce more. That sense of belonging arises only when he feels that he will not be turned out of employment at the whim of the management. It is for that reason that as far as possible security of work should be assured to the employees so that they may contribute to the maximisation of production. It is again for this reason that managements and the governmental agencies in particular should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for an unreasonably long period of time. The employees belonging to skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled classes can be. It is again for this reason that managements and the governmental agencies in particular should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for an unreasonably long period of time. The employees belonging to skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled classes can be. shifted from one department to another even if there is no work to be done in a given place. Our wage structure is such that a worker is always paid less than what he produces, and if any worker remains idly on any day, the country loses the wealth that he would have produced during that day. It is against this background that non-regularisation of temporary employees or casual labour for a long period can be said to be not a wise policy. The respondents are, therefore, directed to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the casual labourers who have been continuously working for more than one year in the Posts and Telegraphs Department." The aforesaid are the considerations on the basis of which right of regularization emanates. The Supreme Court in Gainda Ram and others vs. M.C.D. and others 1988 (1) SLR 327 laid down that seniority should be the criteria for regularization. In para 2, the Supreme Court laid down that :- "Learned counsel for the respondents point out that there are others similarly placed like the petitioners and if an order for regularisation is made, it should provide for regularisation giving preference to those who may be the senior most among lot. In these circumstances, persons working as Clinic Beldar's be regularized against the 43 posts. We make it clear that such regularisation shall be on the basis of total length of service being taken into consideration. If there are others who are senior to the petitioners, they would be entitled to preference in the process of regularisation until the total number of 43 is exhausted and in case there is place to fill up, petitioners shall be regularised against the remaining posts. Those who are entitled to the benefit of the reguiarisation should have service benefits on the basis of the principle contained in the orders of this Court in W. P. Nos. 840-41/1986. Counsel for the respondents wants reasonable time to complete the process. Six months' time is allowed. Those who are entitled to the benefit of the reguiarisation should have service benefits on the basis of the principle contained in the orders of this Court in W. P. Nos. 840-41/1986. Counsel for the respondents wants reasonable time to complete the process. Six months' time is allowed. Such of the petitioners who are regularised will be entitled to salary on the normal monthly basis." 23. In Halli Gowda and others vs. Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. and another 1989 (2) SLR 29 the Supreme Court considered the question of discrimination between the daily rated employees and held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India would be attracted if benefit of regularization has been conferred on daily rated employees from the date of initial employment and such benefit has not been extended to the petitioners. 24. In State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh, and others AIR 1992 SC 2130 , the Supreme Court held as under : "Before parting with this case, we think it appropriate to say a few words concerning the issue of regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees in government service. The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employees by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give away to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary employee. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes. If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularization 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 proper course would be that each State prepares a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularization of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already framed, the same may be made consistent with our observations herein so as to reduce avoidable litigation, in this behalf. If and when such person is regularised he should be placed immediately below the last regularly appointed employee in that category, class or service, as the case may be. So far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of the work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell-say two or three years- a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Govt. of Haryana (contained in its letter dated 6-4-1990 referred to hereinbefore) both in relation to workcharged employees as well as casual labour. We must also say that the orders issued by the Governments of Punjab and Haryana providing for regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees who have put in two years/one year of service are quite generous and leave no room for any legitimate grievance by any one. These are but a few observations which we thought it necessary to make. impelled by the facts of this case, and the spate of litigation by such employees. They are not exhaustive nor can they be understood as immutable. Each Government or authority has to devise its own criteria or principles for regularisation having regard to all the relevant circumstances, but while doing so, it should bear in mind the observations made therein." It was further held by their Lordships that condition insisting for possessing the requisite qualification at the time when the ad hoc appointment is made is a valid condition and passing of prescribed qualification should be insisted only with reference to post on which regularization is to be made. 25. In National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers vs. Union of India and others AIR 1995 SC 1617 , the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines that length of service should be preferred as the main criteria. 25. In National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers vs. Union of India and others AIR 1995 SC 1617 , the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines that length of service should be preferred as the main criteria. In Para 6(6) and 6(8) the Supreme Court laid down guidelines and held that :- "6(6) In the matter of absorption of Railway Parcel Porters on contract labour as permanent and regular Railway Parcel Porters, the persons who have worked for longer periods as contract labour shall be preferred to those who are put in shorter period of work." 6(8) "The absorption and regularisation of the petitioners in the writ petitions, who could be appointed as permanent Railway Parcel Porters shall be done according to the terms indicated above and on such other terms to which they may be subjected to according to the rules or circulars, of the Railway Board as expeditiously as possible, not being later than six months from today, those who have put in longer period of work as Railway Parcel Porters on contract labour getting preference in the matter of earlier appointment." 26. What has been emphasized by the Supreme Court is that preference should be given to a senior employee. In A. Mahudeswaran and others vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others, (1996) 8 SCC 617 regularization was made of various employees as field Surveyors or Draftsman; the subsequent order to re-regularise their services in alternative vacancies was held to be illegal. It was held by Their Lordships that direction to regularize services of the persons in rotational alternative vacancies would create hardship to the senior persons. 27. Rule of "last come first go" is the salutary rule which requires compliance in order to prevent the violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In K.C. Joshi vs. Union of India and others AIR 1985 SC 1046 , the Supreme Court held as under :- "If it is discharge simpliciter, it would be violative of Art. 16 because number of store keepers junior to the appellant are shown to have been retained in service and the appellant cannot be picked arbitrarily. He had the protection of Art.16 which confers on him the fundamental right of equality and equal treatment in the matter of public employment." 28. He had the protection of Art.16 which confers on him the fundamental right of equality and equal treatment in the matter of public employment." 28. In Om Prakash Goel vs. The Himachal Pradesh Tourism AIR 1991 SC 1490 it was held by the Supreme Court that :- "In this context, the learned counsel also questioned the termination order from another angle. In that order it is mentioned that the services of the petitioner are no longer required, therefore, they are terminated. But from the record it is clear that juniors to the petitioner are retained and they are continuing in service. In the affidavit it is clearly mentioned that juniors whose names are given, they are retained in service in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution." 29. In Jarnail Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others AIR 1986 SC 1626 , it was held that :- "In the instant case, ad hoc services of the appellants have. been arbitrarily terminated as no longer required while the respondents have retained other Surveyors who are juniors to the appellants. Therefore, on this ground also, the impugned order of termination of the services of the appellants are illegal and bad being in contravention of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." 30. In Central Welfare Board and others vs. Anjali Bepari (Ms) and Ors. (1996) 10 SCC 133 the grievance was that one junior was allowed to continue. The Supreme Court held that since no junior was regularised in any other scheme, it was directed to continue the petitioner but keeping in mind the overall seniority of all the persons. Dispensing with the service should be on the "last come first go" basis that is the juniormost incumbent has to go first. They would be regularized only when regular posts are available and in accordance with the order of seniority. Thus rule of "last come first go" and regularization in order of seniority are two salutory principles widely accepted and reiterated time and again which are intrinsically linked with each other and inter-dependent. 31. They would be regularized only when regular posts are available and in accordance with the order of seniority. Thus rule of "last come first go" and regularization in order of seniority are two salutory principles widely accepted and reiterated time and again which are intrinsically linked with each other and inter-dependent. 31. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dharmapal and others AIR 1996 SC 3234 emphasized that regularisation should be in order of seniority and held as under :- "In view of the scheme now framed, the appellants are directed to regularise all those who have completed the prescribed period of days, viz., 240 days against the existing vacancies applying the rules of reservation in the order of seniority in the respective categories mentioned in the scheme. Such regularised employees would be entitled to all the regular payment at the scale of pay prescribed to the Central Government employees. Those who could not be regularised are directed to be regularised in the order of seniority as and when vacancies arise. Work would be continued to be taken from them as long as the work exists. Even those who were engaged as daily wage/casual labour, who could not complete 240 days but were required to be retrenched, the procedure prescribed for retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act should be followed. A list of them in the order of seniority should be maintained. Last come first go principle should be followed in that behalf. As and when vacancies arise or need for the work arises, they should be called for work immediately without asking them to get their names sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The daily wage workers/casual workers who are not regularised and taken work from them are entitled to minimum of scale of pay prescribed for that post. In addition to that, they are also entitled to 60% of the DA at Punjab pattern which is being followed in all other cases. The payment to all the candidates whose service are regularised/continuing on daily wage/casual labour shall be calculated from one year prior to the date of filing of the application in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. The appellants are directed to pay the same within a period of four months from today." 32. The payment to all the candidates whose service are regularised/continuing on daily wage/casual labour shall be calculated from one year prior to the date of filing of the application in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. The appellants are directed to pay the same within a period of four months from today." 32. Consensus emanating from the judicial opinion noted above is that total length of service/seniority is the fair criteria for regularization; a person who has served longer has to be given preference; of course he should also be qualified for the post on which he has to be regularized. The decision taken by the respondents/Board ignores the total length of service/seniority by the method adopted by Vishwavidyalaya though the senior persons were qualified on the cut-off date 31-12-1988, but they were placed below in the seniority list prepared on the basis of date of acquiring the qualification which is ex-facie contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of regularization. Thus, the decision of the Board cannot hold the field and cannot sustain under Statute 39 read with section 27 of the Act. Qualifications are laid down for peon and LDC; they were not changed. It was clearly an arbitrary decision. Initially the seniority list prepared by the respondents was on the basis of total length of service of qualified persons; why for the criteria which was proper on the basis of which the list prepared was given a goby is not understandable. In the decision Annexure R/1 taken by the Board, it was not decided that how the seniority was to be fixed for the purpose of regularization as an LDC. It was not decided by the Board that seniority has to be fixed with reference to the date of acquisition of the qualification for post of Lower Division Clerk among the incumbents who were qualified the seniority could only be the criteria for regularization/absorption out of class IV employees. The decision of the respondent/university to the contrary is clearly arbitrary and unfair. It has created inequality between the persons having similar qualifications. The length of the service could be the fair basis for promotion/appointment/regularization as an LDC out of class IV employees. The date of acquisition of qualification cannot make a person higher meritorious. When it is obtained by other person on a future date, he becomes similarly situated. It has created inequality between the persons having similar qualifications. The length of the service could be the fair basis for promotion/appointment/regularization as an LDC out of class IV employees. The date of acquisition of qualification cannot make a person higher meritorious. When it is obtained by other person on a future date, he becomes similarly situated. In that event the seniority in service could be the criteria as emphasized in number of decisions and the seniority list prepared for appointment/absorption as Lower Division Clerk with reference to date of acquisition of qualification cannot be said to be proper as it violates Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and defeats unjustly legitimate expectation of regularization emanating from long service. 33. Second submission is with respect to arbitrariness in regularization as class IV employees. The criteria which was adopted was "such class IV employees/Peons who possess the qualification of an LDC appointed before 31-12-1988 should be regularized". The seniority list prepared by the respondents was on the basis of date of acquisition of qualification of an LDC; thus the junior incumbents were regularized, as Lower Division Clerks ignoring the seniority of others on the basis of having acquired qualification of an LDC which is contrary to the decisions referred to above. 34. Moreover in the matter of regularization as a peon, the seniority should have been the criteria and the qualification for the cadre of class IV employee should have been the criteria not the qualification prescribed for higher post of an LDC. By the action of the respondents as per resolution dated 16th April, 1992 (R/1) senior incumbents duly qualified for the post of peon were deprived of regularization and several year juniors were regularized in an illegal manner. The qualification prescribed for the post of peon which is class Vth pass should have been the basis particularly when the respondents' own case is that post of an LDC is to be filled by direct recruitment not ordinarily by appointment of class IV employees as LDC. Insisting of the higher qualification has deprived of the legitimate expectation and rights of the senior persons who were working on exploitative terms only on the ground that junior higher qualified person was available when the basic qualification is class Vth pass which was the qualification at the time of appointment and remains same even subsequently. Insisting of the higher qualification has deprived of the legitimate expectation and rights of the senior persons who were working on exploitative terms only on the ground that junior higher qualified person was available when the basic qualification is class Vth pass which was the qualification at the time of appointment and remains same even subsequently. The respondent/university devised the criteria for the purpose of regularization of class IV employee as Peon that person having qualification of an LDC should be regularized as a Peon cannot be said to be justified. It was clearly arbitrary; the qualification which is required for class IV employee should have been the criteria and the senior persons should have been preferred. Thus, the decision cannot withstand the test of judicial scrutiny emphasized by the various decisions of the Supreme Court noted above and cannot be termed anything but arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Large number of employees are working for two decades to 15 years; expectation of them was regularization in accordance with spirit of P/11. In the memo P/11 dated 9-1-1990 the qualification for the trade concerned was required not the higher qualification which is also the ratio of the various decisions and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court observance of which is necessary to withstand the test of fairness. 35. Coming to the third and the last submission that whether petitioners are entitled to regularization by giving a direction of creation of posts. It is for the respondent to consider it; no direction can be given by the Court. The University and State of M.P. may consider the matter and take a decision in the light of the decision of Supreme Court in Hindustan Machine Tools and others vs. M. Rangareddy and others (2000) 7 SCC 741 wherein in para 7 the Supreme Court while considering Articles 38(1), 39(e) and 43 of the Constitution of India laid down as under :- "We have carefully considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. This Court, in the case of State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh considered the question of regularization of ad hoc/work charged employees and casual labour. Therein this Court observed (SCC p.153, para 51):- "51. This Court, in the case of State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh considered the question of regularization of ad hoc/work charged employees and casual labour. Therein this Court observed (SCC p.153, para 51):- "51. So far as the work charged employees' and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell - say two or three years - a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Govt. of Haryana (contained in its letter dated 6-4-1990 referred to hereinbefore) both in relation to work-charged employees as well as casual labour." The question of regularisation of casual labour specifically came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Raj Narain Prasad vs. State of U.P. in which this Court, referring to the case of State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh made the following observations: (SCC pp.475-76, para 1) "To put it differently, therefore, the State has prepared as regularization scheme so far as work-charged employees are concerned but has expressed its inability to prepare any such scheme for daily rated/muster-roll employees. We have carefully perused the proposed scheme in regard to work-charged employees and we felt that in clause "D" which talks of regularisation as per vacancies arising in regular posts on the establishment, a modification is necessary, in that, there should be a review of the cadre strength from year to year and based on the past requirement and continuity of work-charged employees, the cadre strength should be increased by a certain percentage of the work-charged employees working over a period of time that may be fixed by the Government so that the pace of regularisation is accelerated and is not the same as obtaining in the past. For example, if 100 work-charged employees have been required throughout a period of time it could reasonably be estimated that even if shedding takes place, a certain percentage of those employees would certainly be retained and a part of them could be absorbed by increasing the cadre strength to that extent. An exercise of review in the cadre strength from year to year, thereafter, becomes necessary because while on the one side the financial difficulties of the State have to be kept in view, on the other side the welfare of the workmen who have served the State on different projects has to be balanced. Concern is also to be shown for those who have worked for a number of years and have become ineligible for any other employment anywhere, be that the private sector or the public sector. Therefore, a balance has to be struck between the two competing interests and that can be struck by a periodical revision of the cadre strength from year to year. We must also impress on the State Government that if work-charged employees have been on the establishment for long periods, the State should be liberal in the matter of revision of the cadre strength so that the benefit of regularisation is available to a reasonably good number of work-charged employees who have been associated with the State Departments for long periods." 36. The post of carpenter is undisputedly lying vacant and the respondents have taken a decision to regularize the services; on the one hand they have regularized the services of class IV employees; out of class IV employees they have appointed certain persons as Lower Division Clerks also and when some of the persons are working as carpenter though the respondents dispute this fact but there is ample material on record to show that Kodulal is at least working as carpenter. There may be some other persons also. In WP 5677/98 petitioner Rajendra Singh also claims that he worked as carpenter and Lower Division Clerk; it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider the case of all eligible employees for regularisation as carpenter as they were working from the time prior to 31-12-1988 which is the cut-off date prescribed under the memos of the Government for the purpose of regularization. 37. 37. The action of the respondent/university to appoint the persons as Lower Division Clerks on the basis of seniority list prepared with reference to the date of acquisition of qualification and the regularization as peons who possessed qualification of an LDC and the action of drawing seniority list of class IV on the basis of date of acquisition of qualification of an LDC is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to prepare the seniority list on the basis of total length of service of all the qualified persons for the post of Lower Division Clerks and make regularization on the basis of seniority. They are further directed to consider the qualification of class IV employees for the purpose of their regularization as class IV employees which is Vth class pass and to regularize them in accordance with their seniority counted on the basis of total length of service. 38. The respondents are further directed to consider the matter of creation of posts/regularization in the light of decision of Hindustan Machine Tools (supra). 39. For the post of carpenter which is admittedly lying vacant all eligible incumbents shall be considered in accordance with law for regularization within four months. 40. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. Cost on parties.