JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities in regularising his services under the NEEPCO. Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'). 2. I have heard Mr. Kataky, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. P. Sharma, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation. 3. The facts, shortly put, are that in the year 1991 the respondent-corporation procured two number of Drilling Jumboos from National Hydroelectrical Power Corporation Limited (for short NHPC) for Rangamati Hydro Electric Project in Arunachal Pradesh. As at the relevant time, there was no skilled crew with the Corporation to operate the said machine, on its request to provide crew with adequate knowledge of Jumboo operation, the NHPC requested the petitioner to join the Corporation. Accordingly, the petitioner, who was at the relevant time, a regular employee with the Hindustan Construction Corporation, accepted the offer and joined the services of the Corporation. Though he was assured of regular appointment as claims the petitioner, he was appointed on a contract basis for a period of one year in the year 1992. As the petitioner had been released by his earlier employer, he had no other alternative but to accept the contractual appointment, under compulsion, and accordingly started discharging his duties as Jumboo Operator since 1992. This contractual services were extended every year and he was granted consolidated pay. This was upto 1995. In 1996 he was appointed as a Crane Operator, also on contract basis for a year, and thereafter his services have been extended. In the year, 1998 a process was initiated by Corporation to fill up some vacancies including that of Crane Operator on regular basis in which the petitioner submitted his candidature, but his case was not considered on the ground that he was not a regular departmental employee under the Corporation. The petitioner who continues as a Crane Operator on contract basis has approached this court with the above grievance. In its affidavit-in-opposition it has been admitted by the Corporation, that after the purchase of the Drilling Jumboo, due to the absence of any trained Operator in the NEEPCO, i.e., the Corporation, the services of the petitioner who was then engaged with M/s. Hindustan Construction Limited were requisitioned and eventually, he was appointed as Sr. In its affidavit-in-opposition it has been admitted by the Corporation, that after the purchase of the Drilling Jumboo, due to the absence of any trained Operator in the NEEPCO, i.e., the Corporation, the services of the petitioner who was then engaged with M/s. Hindustan Construction Limited were requisitioned and eventually, he was appointed as Sr. Operator (Drill Jumboo) on contract basis for a period of one year by order dated 18.4.1992. After the expiry of the initial period of one year, the petitioner's services were terminated, but he was re-engaged for a further period of one year thereafter. This continued till the year 1995 whereafter the petitioner was engaged as EOT Crane Operator for a period of one year by order dated 19.4.1996 again on contract basis. Extensions were granted thereafter, in the post of Crane Operator/Operator. In the year 1998, a process was initiated for filling up vacancies including that of the Crane Operator, the petitioner applied for the said post, but his case was not considered as he was not a departmental candidate. 4. Mr. Kataky, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent Corporation having requisitioned the services of the petitioner to operate as a Drilling Operator at the time of its need, by calling him from M/s. Hindustan Construction Ltd. where he was engaged on regular basis and he having served the Corporation for all these years with efficiency, the inaction on the part of the Corporation in the matter of regularisation of his services is wholly unfair, arbitrary and discriminatory and is liable to be adjudged as such, According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner being eligible and suitable to be regularised in service either in the post of Sr. Operator or any other post including that of the Crane Operator, the authorities of the Corporation have failed in their public duty in omitting to do so without any justification, and therefore the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus as prayed for. Operator or any other post including that of the Crane Operator, the authorities of the Corporation have failed in their public duty in omitting to do so without any justification, and therefore the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus as prayed for. He has further submitted that the petitioner having served the Corporation to the best of his abilities and there being no complaint with regard to the quality of services rendered by him, the respondent Corporation as a model employer as well as an instrumentality of the state is obliged under the Constitution to regularise petitioner's services as claimed by him. 5. Refuting the above contentions Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the Corporation has argued that in view of the terms and conditions of the petitioner's appointment which had been willingly accepted by him, he is not entitled to be regularised in service only because, he had been serving the Corporation on contractual basis for a number of years. He has further pointed out with reference to the relief prayed for in the writ petition that as admittedly, the post of Sr. Operator (Drill Jumboo) is no longer in existence in the Corporation, the question of regularising the services of the petitioner against the said post does not arise. Further, this court would not issue a direction to regularise the services of the petitioner who admittedly is in service purely on contract basis, de hors the recruitment rules of the Corporation. In support of his submissions Mr. Sarma, placed reliance on the following decision :- - Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. Dr. Sambasiva Rao. - Union of India v. Dinesh Kr. Saxena. - R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir. - Director, Institute of Management Dev. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava. 2000 (1) GLJ 402 - Achyut Ch. Pathak v. State of Assam. 6. The contextual facts which are not disputed may be recapitulated at the outset. The service of the petitioner was requisitioned by the Corporation in the year 1991, to operate its Drilling Jumboo machine. He was at the relevant time serving with the Hindustan Construction Ltd. as a regular employee. He was thereafter appointed on contract basis as indicated hereinabove, initially as Sr. Operator Drilling Jumboo and thereafter as Operator. The service of the petitioner was requisitioned by the Corporation in the year 1991, to operate its Drilling Jumboo machine. He was at the relevant time serving with the Hindustan Construction Ltd. as a regular employee. He was thereafter appointed on contract basis as indicated hereinabove, initially as Sr. Operator Drilling Jumboo and thereafter as Operator. Though, the contract service was initially for a period of one year, the same was extended from time to time, and he continues to serve in the said capacity till date. His candidature for regular appointment as Crane Operator was rejected on the ground that he was not a departmental candidate. Thus no assessment with regard to his suitability was made on that ground. The recruitment rules, namely, North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited Recruitment Rules (for short, the Rules) produced by the learned Sr. counsel for the Corporation in course of arguments, inter alia indicate four sources of recruitment under the Corporation, For ready reference the relevant portion of the Rules to the above effect is set out hereinbelow :- (4) Sources of Recruitment : The posts under the Corporation shall be filled in by resorting to one or more of the following methods :- (a) Direct recruitment from outside candidates who meet the prescribed qualifications and experiences, subject to instructions issued by the Central Govt. from time to time. (b) Promotion of existing employees from the lower scales, who meet the prescribed qualifications and experience as laid down separately by the Corporation, (c) Through Employment Exchanges as per provisions of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory notification of vacancies) Act, 1959. (d) Deputation from Central Govt/State Govt. of Public Sector Enterprises and State Electricity Boards. It is clear from the above that direct recruitment from outside candidates is a prescribed mode of appointment. A bare reading of the circular dated 9.2.1998 for the purpose of making appointment to the vacancies including those of Crane Operator would indicate that the same was for appointment by direct recruitment though the consideration was directed to be limited to the departmental candidates. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner was on the ground that he was not a departmental candidate. Having an eye on the prescription of the Rules, this is a departure therefrom. It has therefore to be concluded that the case of the petitioner was rejected wrongly in violation of the Rules. 7. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner was on the ground that he was not a departmental candidate. Having an eye on the prescription of the Rules, this is a departure therefrom. It has therefore to be concluded that the case of the petitioner was rejected wrongly in violation of the Rules. 7. The petitioner continues to serve till date and by this date put 11 years of service. It is noticeable that the Corporation in its affidavit has riot complained about the quality of his services at any point of time. 8. In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court disapproved the direction of the High Court for regularisation of medical officers working on ad-hoc basis, the result whereof was to dispense with the procedure prescribed by the related Rules holding it to be impermissible. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal directed the appellant Corporation to constitute a selection committee in accordance with the Rules for considering the cases of such officers for regularisation by applying the criteria laid down for such appointment on regular basis. It was directed that while making the assessment the selection committee would take into account the record of performance of the said officers while they were working on ad-hoc basis and further if they are facing an age bar a relaxation be granted in that regard. 9. The Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Dinesh Kr. Saxena laid down that employees appointed on contract basis for limited and fixed durations on fixed pay cannot be directed to be absorbed if there is no work available. It was however held with reference to the retrenched temporary employees involved there in and appointed on contract basis that they would have a right to be considered in case they fulfilled the norms prescribed by the recruitment Rules and other departmental circulars and guidelines. 10. In Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. it was held by the Apex Court that where the appointment is on purely on ad-hoc basis and is contractual and by efflux of time the appointment comes to an end, the person holding such post does not have a right to continue therein and cannot claim regularisation of his services. 10. In Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. it was held by the Apex Court that where the appointment is on purely on ad-hoc basis and is contractual and by efflux of time the appointment comes to an end, the person holding such post does not have a right to continue therein and cannot claim regularisation of his services. In that case, the post against which the respondent had been appointed on ad-hoc basis was abolished due to financial constraint, and the Apex Court having regard to the above fact as well as the nature of the appointment held that the respondent was not entitled to regularisation as claimed. Having held so, it was directed that her services be continued for limited period leaving it open to the authority concerned to consider the regularisation of the services of the respondent. 11. This court in Aschyut Ch. Pathak and Ors. (supra) was of the view that long continuance by itself would not be sufficient to regularise the service of an employee unless post duly sanctioned exist and are available to be filled up on regular basis. 12. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law as laid down by the above authorities. However, while applying the same, the attending facts and circumstances of a given case cannot go unnoticed. It is not the case of the respondent Corporation that no sanctioned post of Crane Operator is available to be filled up on regular basis or that the post against which the petitioner is serving as on date is not a duly sanctioned post. No plea has been taken that the Corporation does not intend to fill up the post held by the petitioner on regular basis. Admittedly, the petitioner has been allowed to serve the Corporation on contract basis for all these years. In the above premises in my considered view, the propositions of law as contained in the authorities relied on by Mr. Sarma do not assist the Corporation so much so to deny any relief whatsoever to the petitioner. Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation that the petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions of appointment, he cannot claim regularisation of his services does not appeal to this court. Sarma do not assist the Corporation so much so to deny any relief whatsoever to the petitioner. Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation that the petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions of appointment, he cannot claim regularisation of his services does not appeal to this court. The decision of the Apex Court in R.N. Gosain, Supra dealing with the doctrine of election has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch, there was/is no binding stipulation debarring the petitioner from claiming regularisation of his services while in contract service. It is, therefore, difficult to uphold Mr. Sarma's contention in this regard. The Corporation being an instrumentality of the State, it has to act as a model employer and its actions have to be fair, logical and infrared with reasons and justice. The Corporation having utilised the services of the petitioner for all these years, it is its legal obligation to consider his case for regular appointment to the said post. Needless to say that in doing so it would follow the recruitment Rules as well as the guidelines framed for the purpose. As the service career of the petitioner hangs in balance without any order of regularisation, it is necessary that the Corporation initiates a process as indicated hereinabove as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner, however, would continue in service as on date till a final decision is taken on the basis of a regular process under the Rules. 13. With the above observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.