Honble SINGH, CJ.–This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated 27.5.2003 rendered in CW 2006/2003 whereby the writ petition of the first respondent was allowed and the order dated 25.4.2003 passed by the second appellant, Mohan Lal University, Udaipur was quashed and both the appellants Vice Chancellor, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University and Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, were directed to take back the first respondent in service as Legal Assistant with all consequential benefits. The appellants were also directed to absorb the first respondent on a regular post from the date when the vacancy arose pursuant to the order of the Honble Supreme Court dated 16.9.1992. By the impugned order the learned single judge also quashed the notice-dated 31.1.2003. (2). The factual matrix of the case is as follows:- (3). The first respondent acquired LL.M. Degree in the year 1977. The Udaipur University, re-christened as Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, appointed him as Assistant Professor of Law in its College of Law, Udaipur on ad hoc basis in the regular pay scale of Assistant Professor. The post also entitled the first respondent to regular annual grade increments, which were consequently given during the course of his service in his capacity as Assistant Professor. Later, in the year 1983 the first respondent was interviewed for the purposes of selection to the post of Assistant Professor on regular basis. The first respondent, however, was not selected and as a result whereof, his services were not continued after 31.5.1983. Thus, the first respondent worked as Assistant Professor from 14.11.1977 until 31.5.1983 in the regular pay scale of Assistant Professor on ad hoc basis in the College of Law, Udaipur University. (4). After a gap of about nine months, the first respondent was again appointed in the appellant University on 23.2.1984 against the post of Legal Assistant but the appointment was liable to be terminated without notice. Subsequently, the post of Legal Assistant was re-designated as Legal Associate by the order of the University dated 19.9.1987. As Legal Assistant/Legal Associate, the first respondent was paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 1, 200/- per month. By the order dated 19.6.1987 the consolidated salary of the first respondent was enhanced to Rs. 1,620/- per month. On 3.3.1990, the University terminated the services of the first respondent with effect from 14.11.1988 on account of the absence of the first respondent from duty. 1, 200/- per month. By the order dated 19.6.1987 the consolidated salary of the first respondent was enhanced to Rs. 1,620/- per month. On 3.3.1990, the University terminated the services of the first respondent with effect from 14.11.1988 on account of the absence of the first respondent from duty. The absence of the first respondent was occasioned by the fact of his having proceeded for undertaking Ph.D. work at University of Delhi. (5). After the first respondent acquired the Ph.D. Degree, he was again appointed by the appellant University on the post of Legal Assistant by its order dated 8.2.1990 on fixed salary of Rs. 2,070/- per month as stop-gap arrangement until 31.3.1991 or till the selection and appointment of a candidate to the post of Legal Associate, whichever was earlier. The appointment of the first respondent as Legal Associate was extended from time to time and the final extension was granted to him until 31.3.2003 After 31.3.2003 his services were not extended, with the result that he ceased to be an employee of the University. In this regard the Registrar of the appellant University by its letter dated 25.4.2003 informed the Dean, College of Law, Udaipur that the term of temporary appointment of the first respondent as Legal Associate has not been extended beyond 31.3.2003. (6). In order to complete the narration of facts, it is necessary to refer to a development which took place as a result of filing of a batch of writ petitions before the Supreme Court by Research Assistants/ Associates on account of refusal of the appellant University to grant to them the scale of Rs. 700-1600 recommended by the University Grants Commission with effect from 1.1.1973. Even though the appellant University had implemented the UGC recommendations and granted UGC scales in the case of members of teaching staff, it failed to grant the benefit of UGC scale to the Research Assistants/Associates. (7). The appellant was also one of the writ petitioners before the Supreme Court. In that batch of writ petitions the Supreme Court rejected the demand of the petitioners for placement in the scale of Rs. 700-Rs. 1600/-. The Supreme Court, however, directed that the Research Associates be allowed a consolidated salary to be worked out by placing them at a basic salary of Rs. 700/- per month, which was the minimum of the scale of Rs. 700-1600. 700-Rs. 1600/-. The Supreme Court, however, directed that the Research Associates be allowed a consolidated salary to be worked out by placing them at a basic salary of Rs. 700/- per month, which was the minimum of the scale of Rs. 700-1600. The Supreme Court also allowed monetary benefits in the form of allowances admissible to regular employees drawing a basic pay of Rs. 700/- per month. The Supreme Court clarified that the appointments will continue to be what they were and the incumbents will not belong to the cadre of Research Assistants merely because their consolidated salary is ordered to be worked out on the minimum of the timescale allowed to a Research Assistant. It was further clarified that they will not be equated with Lecturers/Assistant Professors. They were to continue on the same duties, which they were carrying out including assisting Assistant Professors. The benefit of the revised consolidated salary was made available to them from the date of their appointment as Research Associates On behalf of the petitioners it was urged before the Supreme Court that even though they had put in long years as Research Associates they were still treated as ad hoc employees with no security of service. The Supreme Court, keeping in view the plea of the petitioners, observed as follows:- ``We would leave it to the authorities to consider the feasibility of preparing a scheme whereunder such Research Associates can be absorbed in the regular cadre of Research Assistants as and when vacancies arise. Since the educational requirements, process of selection and job-charts are almost identical such a scheme can be of mutual benefit to the employees as well as the University, the employees getting security of tenure and University getting experienced hands. We would expect the University to examine the feasibility of preparing such a scheme at an early date. (8). Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the appellant University it its order dated 27.12.1999 placed the first respondent in the scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000. The order reads as under:- ``MOHANLAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY: UDAIPUR No. F.196/Estt/Gr.I/MLSU/99/10609-18 Dt. 27/28.12.99. ORDER On the recommendation of a Committee constituted by the Board of Management vide its resolution No. 2(i) dated 27.10.99, the Vice- Chancellor is pleased to allow the UGC Pay Scales of Rs. 2200-75- 2800-100-4000 to Dr. Y.S. Sharma, Legal Associate. 2200-75-2800-100-4000. The order reads as under:- ``MOHANLAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY: UDAIPUR No. F.196/Estt/Gr.I/MLSU/99/10609-18 Dt. 27/28.12.99. ORDER On the recommendation of a Committee constituted by the Board of Management vide its resolution No. 2(i) dated 27.10.99, the Vice- Chancellor is pleased to allow the UGC Pay Scales of Rs. 2200-75- 2800-100-4000 to Dr. Y.S. Sharma, Legal Associate. His salary will be charged against the post of Assistant Professor at the College of Law w.e.f. 9.2.91 with the following conditions:- 1. That his past services prior to 9.2.91 shall not be counted. 2. He will be treated in a scale equivalent to Assistant Professor for the purpose of scale only not for designation. 3. Benefit of the notional increments shall be allowed as per other ad hoc teachers. 4. His appointment will be on ad hoc basis and he will not claim for placement of his appointment as Assistant Professor in permanent capacity. 5. He will be placed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 8000- 275-13500 w.e.f. 1.1.96 and payment of difference be made to him as admissible along with other allowances which is admissible to other ad hoc teachers. 6. This offer is purely temporary/stop-gap arrangement basis or till regular appointment is made in the same manner in case of other ad hoc teachers. 7. He will enter in an agreement through an undertaking on a stamp worth Rs. 10/- signed by sureties p& witness in writing as agreed by him. Sd/- REGISTRAR 27.12.99 (9). In consonance with the requirement of the order-dated 27.12.1999, the first respondent furnished an undertaking. The undertaking reads as follows: ``UNDERTAKING I, Dr. Y.S. Sharma, S/o. Shri Laxman Sharma, Legal Associate, aged 54, resident of Udaipur, undertake follows :- 1. That the pay scale of 2200-75-2800-100-4000 is acceptable to me w.e.f. 9.2.91 as allowed to me in compliance to the recommendations of the committee constituted vide its resolution No. 2(1) dated 27.10.99 of the M.L. Sukhadia University, Udaipur, conveyed to me under order No. F-196/Estt/Gr-I/MLSU/99/10609-18 dtd. 27-28/12/99. 2. That I accept this scale which is equivalent to Asstt. Professor for the purposes of pay scale only. 3. That the benefit of notional increment shall be claimed by me as allowed to other ad hoc teachers in the pay scale of 2200-75-2800-100-4000 w.e.f. 9/2/91. 4. That my appointment shall be on ad hoc basis and I shall not claim for placement as Asstt. Professor in permanent capacity. 5. Professor for the purposes of pay scale only. 3. That the benefit of notional increment shall be claimed by me as allowed to other ad hoc teachers in the pay scale of 2200-75-2800-100-4000 w.e.f. 9/2/91. 4. That my appointment shall be on ad hoc basis and I shall not claim for placement as Asstt. Professor in permanent capacity. 5. That I accept revised pay scale of 8000-275-13500 w.e.f. 1.1.96. That the payment of difference shall however be made to me from 1.1.96. 6. That I accept the post as temporary/stop-gap arrangement basis till regular appointment is made in the same manner as in the case of other ad hoc features (Asstt. Professor). Sd/- Y.S. Sharma 28.12.99. (10). After having allowed the first respondent to draw UGC pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 vide order dated 27.12.1999, the appellant, on 31.1.2003 issued a notice to the first respondent to show cause why excess payment made under the order be not recovered from him. The notice referred to the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.9.1992 by virtue of which it was directed that Research Associates were to be allowed a consolidated salary to be worked out by placing them on a basic salary of Rs. 700/- and allowing them monetary benefits in the form of such allowances as were allowed to regular employees drawing a basic pay of Rs. 700/- per month. On the basis of the directions of the Supreme Court it was pointed out in the notice that the appellant had wrongly allowed and placed the first respondent in the UGC scale of Assistant Professors with effect from 9.2.1991 under a misconceived and erroneous advice, which resulted in excess payment to him. Accordingly, the salary was re-fixed and the first respondent was informed that he was legally entitled to be paid the fixed consolidated salary as Legal Associate at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month with effect from 9.2.1991 and Rs. 8000/- per month with effect from 1.1.1996. The notice called upon the first respondent to show cause within a period of 30 days as to why the order re-fixing his pay may not be made absolute and excess payment be not recovered from him. The first respondent replied to the notice of the appellant on 4.3.2003. (11). 8000/- per month with effect from 1.1.1996. The notice called upon the first respondent to show cause within a period of 30 days as to why the order re-fixing his pay may not be made absolute and excess payment be not recovered from him. The first respondent replied to the notice of the appellant on 4.3.2003. (11). On 25.4.2003 the Registrar of the appellant University informed the Dean, College of Law, Udaipur that the term of temporary appointment of the first respondent was not extended beyond 31.3.2003 as per the decision of the Board of Management dated 21.4.2003. Aggrieved by the communicated dated 25.4.2003 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and show cause notice dated 31.1.2003 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), the first respondent filed writ petition being CW 2006/2003. (12). By the impugned judgment dated 27.5.2003, the learned single judge held that the appellant had infringed the legal rights of the first respondent by not extending his service after 31.3.2003. Consequently, the learned single judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order Annexure-8 dated 25.4.2003. As a sequitur a direction was issued to the appellant to continue the first respondent in service as Legal Associate. The learned single judge also quashed the notice-dated 31.1.2003 (Annexure- 6). The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge has preferred the instant appeal. (13). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. (14). The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the first respondent had no right to hold the post of Legal Associate beyond 31.3.2003, as his services were not extended after that date. It was also submitted that the first respondent was appointed in a temporary capacity without being selected on a regular basis on the recommendation of a Selection Committee. It was pointed out that the terms of appointment of the first respondent postulated that the appointment was made on ad hoc basis and the same was intended as stop-gap arrangement till regular appointment was made. The learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the learned single judge was, therefore, not sustainable and was liable to be set aside. (15). On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent had put in 12 years of continued service in the appellant University as a Legal Associate. The learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the learned single judge was, therefore, not sustainable and was liable to be set aside. (15). On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent had put in 12 years of continued service in the appellant University as a Legal Associate. Learned counsel pointed out that in fact the first respondent had actually served the University since 1977 when he was first appointed as Assistant Professor on ad hoc basis in regular pay scale of Assistant Professor. It was urged that the appellant in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court had regularized the first respondent by placing him in the UGC pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the order dated 27.12.1999 allowing UGC pay scale to the first respondent was not issued under a mistake but was issued pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court to consider the feasibility of preparing scheme where under Research Associates could be absorbed in regular cadre of the Research Assistants. He canvassed that once the appellant had placed the first respondent in the regular scale of pay of Assistant Professor it was a clear indication that the feasibility of absorbing the first respondent in the regular cadre was gone into and effect given to the direction. (16). We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. (17). At the outset, we would like to refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to the question of regularization of services of employees, who may have continued for long period of time in ad hoc/temporary capacity. (18). In State of Haryana & Others vs. Piara Singh & Others (1), which was a matter regarding regularization of services of ad hoc, temporary, work-charge employees etc., the Supreme Court held that where a temporary/ad hoc appointee continued for a long period of time, the Court would assume that there was need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly the Court would direct regularization of his services. The Supreme Court at the same time, held that the Court while giving such a direction, must act with due care and caution. It must first ascertain the relevant facts and must be cognizant of several situations and eventualities that may arise on account of such a direction. The Supreme Court at the same time, held that the Court while giving such a direction, must act with due care and caution. It must first ascertain the relevant facts and must be cognizant of several situations and eventualities that may arise on account of such a direction. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that a practical and pragmatic view should be taken inasmuch as every such direction not only tells upon the public exchequer but also has the effect of increasing cadre strength of a particular service, class or category. The Supreme Court while considering validity of the direction of the High Court to the effect that all those ad hoc/temporary employees, who were continued for more than a year should be regularized, observed that the High Court gave the direction without reference to the existence of vacancy and the direction of the High Court in effect meant that every ad hoc/temporary employee, who has been continued for one year should be regularized, even though : (a) no vacancy was available for him, which means creation of a vacancy; (b) he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, nor he was appointed in pursuance of a notification calling for applications, which means he had entered by back- door; (c) he was not eligible and/or qualified for the post at the time of his employment; and (d) that his record of service since appointment was not satisfactory. The Supreme Court in this regard, observed as follows :- ``Further, there can be no ``rule of thumb in such matters. Conditions and circumstances of one unit may not be the same as of the other. Just because in one case, a direction was given to regularize employees who have put in one years service as far as possible and subject of fulfilling the qualifications, it cannot be held that in each and every case such a direction must follow irrespective of and without taking into account the other relevant circumstances and considerations. The relief must be moulded in each case having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances of that case. It cannot be a mechanical act but a judicious one. Judged from this standpoint, the impugned directions must be held to be totally untenable and unsustainable. (19). The relief must be moulded in each case having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances of that case. It cannot be a mechanical act but a judicious one. Judged from this standpoint, the impugned directions must be held to be totally untenable and unsustainable. (19). Thus, there is no straight-jacket formula by application whereof an ad hoc/temporary or work-charge employee can claim regularization merely on the ground of having continued in service for considerable length of time. (20). In Gujrat Agricultural University vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Others (2), it was held by the Supreme Court that where an ad hoc/daily-wage employee, who is engaged for a short period but his employment continued for several years in that capacity for the financial gain of the employer, the latter is required to regularize the employee, as continuing an employee for considerable period of time is an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer. The Supreme Court by holding so, laid down four conditions subject to which regularization could be ordered : (i) There should be a vacancy ; (ii) the ad hoc/temporary employee or daily-wage worker had worked continuously for several years ; (iii) if no post exists, the quantum of work should justify creation of an equivalent post for regularization of the worker ; and (iv) the ad hoc/temporary appointee or daily-wages worker fulfills the qualifications prescribed for the post. (21). In Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association vs. State of Karnataka (3), the Supreme Court directed that casual and daily-rated employees, who have completed ten years of service in the Public Works Department by 31.12.1989, shall be immediately regularized with effect from 01.01.1990. (22). In Jackob M. Puthuparambil & Others vs. Kerala Water Authority & Others etc. (4), the Supreme Court directed the State of Kerala to regularize the employees, who had been serving for reasonably long period and were possessed of the requisite qualifications prescribed for the posts. In this regard, the Supreme Court inter alia directed as follows:- ``The Kerala Public Service Commission will consider the question of regularization of the services of workers who possess the requisite qualifications but have put in less than one years service, separately. In doing so the Kerala Public Service Commission will take the age bar as waived. In this regard, the Supreme Court inter alia directed as follows:- ``The Kerala Public Service Commission will consider the question of regularization of the services of workers who possess the requisite qualifications but have put in less than one years service, separately. In doing so the Kerala Public Service Commission will take the age bar as waived. If they are found fit they will be placed on the list along with the newly recruited candidates in the order of their respective merits. The Kerala Public Service Commission will be free to rearrange the list accordingly. Thereafter fresh appointments will issue depending on the total number of posts available. If the posts are inadequate, those presently in employment will make room for the selected candidates but their names will remain on the list and they will be entitled to appointment as and when their turn arrives in regular course. The list will ensure for such period as is permissible under the extant rules. The Authority will be at liberty to deal with the services of the workers who do not possess the requisite qualifications as maybe considered appropriate in accordance with law. (23). In Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (5), the Supreme Court took the view that initial minimum qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily-rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them confirmation on their respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. The Supreme Court also was of the view that practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. In the facts and circumstances of that case, lack of educational qualifications was not considered as a bar for regularization in view of the experience gained by the employees for considerable period of time. (24). In Ashwani Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others (6), the Supreme Court took the view that the question of regularizing an incumbent against a post cannot be permitted, if the initial entry itself was unauthorized and was not against any sanctioned vacancy. (24). In Ashwani Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others (6), the Supreme Court took the view that the question of regularizing an incumbent against a post cannot be permitted, if the initial entry itself was unauthorized and was not against any sanctioned vacancy. The Supreme Court held that the question of regularization of the incumbent on such a non-existing vacancy would never survive for consideration and even though such purported regularization or confirmation is given, it would be an exercise in futility. The Supreme Court at the same time held that if on any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration, appointments are made on ad hoc or daily-wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if it is found that the incumbents concerned have continued for a long period of time with or without artificial breaks, and their services are otherwise required by the institution, which employs them, a time may come in the service-career of such employees who are continued on ad hoc basis for a substantial length of time to regularize them, so that the employees concerned can be given security of tenure. But, this was made subject to the condition that entry of such employees must be made against available sanctioned vacancies by following the rules and regulations governing such entry. The Supreme Court also considered a situation in which the question of regularization may arise with regard to an employee whose initial entry against an available vacancy suffered from some procedural flaw, though the person appointing is competent to effect such initial recruitment. In such a case, the Supreme Court was of the view that irregular initial appointment could be regularized and security of tenure made available to the incumbent, provided his initial entry is not found to be totally illegal or in blatant disregard of all the established rules and regulations governing such recruitment. The Supreme Court deprecated backdoor entries for filling up vacancies and inter-dicted the regularization of an employee whose initial appointment is tainted and is in total breach of the requisite procedures of recruitment and specially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of a candidate could ever be effected. The Supreme Court deprecated backdoor entries for filling up vacancies and inter-dicted the regularization of an employee whose initial appointment is tainted and is in total breach of the requisite procedures of recruitment and specially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of a candidate could ever be effected. Such an entry of an employee would remain tainted from the very beginning and no question of regularizing such an illegal entrant would ever survive for consideration. (25). In Rattan Lal & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (7), the Supreme Court while dealing with a case of teachers appointed on ad hoc basis against existing vacancies, did not approve hire- and-fire policy of teachers and it directed filling up of the vacancies in accordance with the recruitment rules. While doing so, the Supreme Court directed the State Government to consider the question of relaxation of maximum age-limit. (26). In Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others (8), the Supreme Court did not grant a direction to regularize a lecturer who had worked temporarily against a permanent post of lecturer for nine years continuously, on the ground that the recruitment rules were required to be strictly followed. (27). In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Suresh Kumar Verma & Others (9), and in CSIR & Others vs. Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain (10), the Supreme Court took the view that the recruitment rules must be followed and appointments of daily-wage employees cannot act as a conduit for regular appointments, as it would amount to backdoor entries, detrimental to efficiency in service and appointments under the Quick Hire Scheme cannot be equated with regular appointments. (28). In Dr. Chanchal Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan (11), it was held by the Supreme Court that unless the initial recruitment is regularized through prescribed agency, there is no scope for a demand of regularization. The Supreme Court noted that terms of appointment of the employee clearly stipulated that the employee was required to make room, once a candidate selected by the Public Service Commission was available. On facts of the case, it was found that though the employee had worked for a number of years, the principle of ``legitimate expectation had no application and her services could not be regularized by overriding the rules. (29). On facts of the case, it was found that though the employee had worked for a number of years, the principle of ``legitimate expectation had no application and her services could not be regularized by overriding the rules. (29). The latest judicial thinking appears to lean in favour of the proposition that regularization of an employee in service merely on the ground of having put in a number of years on ad hoc/temporary basis, cannot be ordered. (30). It seems to us that long years of service on temporary/ad hoc basis may be taken into consideration for purposes of regularizing an employee, provided, (a) The initial appointment was not against the rules. (b) The employee fulfills the prescribed qualifications for the post. (c) The rules permit regularization. (d) On consideration by the prescribed agency, the person concerned is found fit for regularization after following the criteria of regularization. (31). Thus, we are of the opinion that regularization of an ad hoc/temporary employee can be directed, subject to fulfillment of the aforesaid conditions. Referring to the case in hand, it needs to be noted that the Supreme Court in Gopal Krishna Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra), to which the first respondent was a party, had asked the appellants herein, who were respondents in that writ petition, to allow emoluments to the Research Associates to be computed by placing them on consolidated salary including allowances admissible to regular employees to be worked out by allowing them basic salary of Rs. 700/- per month. The Supreme Court also directed the appellants to prepare a scheme whereunder such Research Associates could be absorbed in the regular cadre of Research Associates as and when vacancies arise. The Supreme Court had also pointed out that since the educational requirements, process of selection and job-charts were almost identical, such a scheme would be of mutual benefit for the employees as well as the university, the employees getting security of tenure and the university getting experienced hands. The Supreme Court was also of the view that the University would examine the feasibility of preparing such a scheme at an early date. It appears that the appellant-university had a mind to regularize the services of the first respondent. The Supreme Court was also of the view that the University would examine the feasibility of preparing such a scheme at an early date. It appears that the appellant-university had a mind to regularize the services of the first respondent. This is evident from the fact that the first respondent was placed in the regular pay-scale of 2200-75-2800-100-4000, but subsequently after about more than two years, on 31.1.2003, it issued a notice to the first respondent to show cause, why the excess payment made under the order dated 27.12.99 be not recovered from him. Later on, the appellants re-fixed the salary of the first respondent and he was informed that he was entitled to fixed consolidated salary as Legal Associate at the rate of Rs. 2200/- per month with effect from 09.02.91 and at the rate of Rs. 8000/- per month from 01.01.96. Placing the first respondent in the regular pay-scale might have generated a false sense of security to the first respondent that this was a process, which would ultimately lead to regularization of his services but that was not to be so and his services were not regularized. It cannot be denied that the order of the Supreme Court asked the appellants to work out a scheme for regularization of the Research Associates. We fail to appreciate, how the appellants could ignore the observations of the Supreme Court. Without working out a scheme, it was not proper on the part of the appellants to leave the first respondent high & dry and virtually on the road, when he had served the appellants in two spells of six years and twelve years respectively. The appellants ought to have considered the feasibility of regularization of the first respondent on the post, which he was holding, or against a post equivalent thereto. (32). The learned counsel submitted that just because the first respondent had put in 12 years of service in temporary capacity, it had not given an indefeasible right to him to continue against the post or to entitle him for regularization on such post. In support of his contention, he relied upon various judgments of the Supreme Court, namely :- 1. Dr. Chanchal Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). 2. Kerala Financial Corporation vs. O.K. Murleedharan & Anr. (12). 3. Ramesh Ukawat vs. M.L.S. University (13). 4. State of Punjab vs. Surendra Singh (14). 5. In support of his contention, he relied upon various judgments of the Supreme Court, namely :- 1. Dr. Chanchal Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). 2. Kerala Financial Corporation vs. O.K. Murleedharan & Anr. (12). 3. Ramesh Ukawat vs. M.L.S. University (13). 4. State of Punjab vs. Surendra Singh (14). 5. Madan Lal vs. State (15). 6. Dr. Kirti Rajat vs. University of Jodhpur (16). (33). He also pointed out that in the case of Dr. Chanchal Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the appellant had put in 14 years of service by the time the order of termination was passed and yet the Supreme Court held that having continued merely without being selected by Public Service Commission, no right accrued to her to hold the post. The fact-situation in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the Appellants, was entirely different. In the instant case, there was an order of the Supreme Court, which ought to have been implemented by the appellants. No attempt was made by the appellants to frame a scheme for regularization of the first respondent. Besides, in the case of Dr. Chanchal Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) and other cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Supreme Court did not lay down that services of employees, who had put in long years of service, cannot be regularized even in accordance with the procedure prescribed by rules. (34). The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there is no rule of the University, which could have been invoked to regularize the services of the first respondent. Beyond the aforesaid submission, it has not been shown by any material on record that the University had explored the possibility of framing a scheme, in consonance with the rules. Though, the services of the first respondent could not be regularized without following the procedure prescribed by the rules, at the same time, in view of the various judgments of the Supreme Court, including the direction given in the case of G.K. Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra), a scheme could be worked out, whereby the employees including the first respondent, who had put in long years of service, could appear for selection for the regular post of Research Associate or a post equivalent thereto and appropriate weightage could be given for the services rendered by them. (35). (35). It is significant to note that there is no dispute that the first respondent had put in 12 years of service as Legal Associate before he was informed by a letter of the appellant- university dated 25.4.2003 that the term of his temporary appointment had not been extended beyond 31.3.2003. Even on earlier occasions, after completing his LL.M. Degree in the year 1977, he was appointed as Assistant Professor of Law in the appellant- university on ad hoc basis in the regular pay-scale. He even earned regular annual grade Increments. His services continued in the University upto 31.5.83. Thus, in the first spell, the first respondent worked in the appellant-university for six years. As already noted, after a gap of nine months, he was re-employed by the appellant-university on 23.2.84. Thus, the first respondent worked in the appellant-university for a period of 18 years and even after serving for such a long period of time, he has been sent out unceremoniously without benefit of pension, provident fund and gratuity. An incumbent who is allowed to work for a long period of time, should not be treated in the manner in which the first respondent was dealt with. The first respondent has given his best years of life in the University. At such a late stage in life, after the first respondent has burnt his boats, he will not be eligible for any government service, and he may not be eligible even for job in any other university due to age-bar. It is not the case of the appellants that there were any complaints against the first respondent or he was not a competent teacher. (36). In view of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the various decisions of the Supreme Court, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and direct that the appellants shall consider the case of the first respondent for regularization on following the criteria of selection as per rules. While subjecting the first respondent to the selection process, long years of service put in by him on temporary/ad hoc basis shall be given due weightage. In case he is selected, the date from which he was appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis, shall be the date from which his services shall be regularized. The first respondent shall not be denied regularization on the ground that he has become over-age. (37). In case he is selected, the date from which he was appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis, shall be the date from which his services shall be regularized. The first respondent shall not be denied regularization on the ground that he has become over-age. (37). With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.