ORDER 1. THE ORDER DATED 21-10-1997 MADE BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IS UNDER CHALLENGE IN THIS APPEAL. 2. THE APPELLANTS WERE APPOINTED ON TEMPORARY BASIS IN THE YEAR 1973. THEIR SERVICES WERE REGULARISED WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1977 BY ORDER DATED 30-11-1992. THEREAFTER, THE APPELLANTS MADE A REPRESENTATION IN DECEMBER 1992 TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER CLAIMING REGULARISATION FROM THE DATE OF THEIR D INITIAL APPOINTMENT INSTEAD OF 1-4-1977. THE DEPARTMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 26/27 -10-1993 ACCEPTED THE REPRESENTATION OF THE APPELLANTS AND REGULARISED THEIR SERVICES FROM THE DATE OF THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER DATED 26/27-10-1993 WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE DEPARTMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 4-9-1996, ON THE ADVICE OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND REGULARISED THE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANTS IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 30-11-1992. IN THE E CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 4-9-1996 REGULARISING THEIR SERVICES WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1977. HENCE, THEY FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS, CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES REGULARISING THEIR SERVICES WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1977 WAS PERFECTLY VALID AND STATED THAT THE EARLIER ORDER REGULARISING THEIR SERVICES FROM THE DATE OF THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENT WAS A MISTAKE AND WAS CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. AGGRIEVED BY, AND NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT ORDER, THE APPELLANTS ARE BEFORE US. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS CONTENDED THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN CONSIDERING THE APPELLANTS APPOINTMENT ON AD HOC BASIS AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THEY WERE APPOINTED ON TEMPORARY BASIS WITH THE CONSENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT; THEY HAVE BEEN SERVING FOR A LONG TIME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE ORDER DATED 26/27-10-1993 REGULARISING THEIR SERVICES FROM THE DATE OF THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENT IN THE YEAR 1973 WAS CORRECT; ALTHOUGH, IT WAS STATED THAT THE REGULARISATION WAS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BUT NO SUCH INSTRUCTIONS WERE PLACED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL CITED A FEW DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENTS MADE SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL CITED A FEW DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENTS MADE SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEN THE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANTS WERE REGULARISED WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1977, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS PLEADED AND THE MATERIAL THAT WAS PLACED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. 5. FROM THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE APPELLANTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY WERE APPOINTED PURELY ON TEMPORARY BASIS AND THEIR SERVICES COULD BE TERMINATED AT ANY TIME WITHOUT NOTICE. THE ORDER OF REGULARISATION OF THEIR SERVICES DATED 30-11-1992 READ WITH 26/27-10-1993 ITSELF TAKES NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANTS WERE APPOINTED ON AD HOC BASIS. WE MAY ALSO STATE HERE ITSELF THAT THE APPELLANTS WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS ORDER TO CLAIM THAT THEIR SERVICES WERE REGULARISED FROM THE DATE OF THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENT BUT THIS VERY ORDER, AS ALREADY NOTICED, SPEAKS OF THEIR AD HOC APPOINTMENT. THE ORDER DATED 4-9-1996 BY WHICH THE REGULARISATION OF SERVICES OF THE APPELLANTS WAS MADE WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1977 AND WITHDRAWING THE ORDER DATED 26/27-10-1993 ALSO SHOWS THAT THE APPOINTMENT WAS A STOPGAP ARRANGEMENT, FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD AND FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT. THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THIS ORDER READS: "AFTER GOING THROUGH ALL THE RECORDS CONCERNED, I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SERVICES REGULARISED FROM THE DATE OF INITIAL APPOINTMENT ARE CONTRARY TO THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTIONS AND THE OFFICE ORDERS ISSUED VIDE NO. 12916/6NGE-I DATED 26/27-10-1993 FOR THE SAME, ARE HEREBY WITHDRAWN. THE SERVICES ARE HEREBY REGULARISED FROM THE CUT-OFF DATE AS PER THIS OFFICE LETTER NO. 13566-75/6NGE DATED 30-11-1992." 6. FROM THE PARAGRAPH, EXTRACTED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED IN REGARD TO THE REGULARISATION OF THE SERVICES. WE MAY ALSO NOTICE THAT THE APPELLANTS DID NOT GIVE MATERIAL PARTICULARS OR MAKE AVERMENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT TO CONTEND THAT THEIR APPOINTMENTS WERE NOT MADE ON AD HOC BASIS, THEY HAVE BEEN IN SERVICE FOR A LONG TIME AND THAT THERE WERE NO INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN REGARD TO REGULARISATION OF THEIR SERVICES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIES UPON A DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN RUDRA KUMAR SAIN V. UNION OF INDIA1 WHICH, IN OUR VIEW, HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, PARTICULARLY WHEN NECESSARY AVERMENTS WERE NOT MADE IN THE WRIT PETITION TO APPLY THE SAID DECISION. SIMILARLY, THE DECISION IN L. CHANDRAKISHORE SINGH V. STATE OF MANIPUR2 ALSO IS OF NO HELP TO THE APPELLANTS, EVEN TAKING NOTE OF WHAT IS STATED IN PARAGRAPH 15 OF THE JUDGMENT, TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN. THIS CASE DEALS WITH THE PERSONS WHO ARE APPOINTED ON PROBATION OR ON OFFICIATING BASIS. HERE ALSO, THE SAME IMPEDIMENT OF LACK OF PLEADINGS COMES IN THE WAY OF THE APPELLANTS. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DELHI WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL COMMITTEE V. R.K. KASHYAP3 ALSO DOES NOT ADVANCE THE CASE OF THE APPELLANTS IN ANY WAY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS, IN PARTICULAR, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARAGRAPH 26 OF THIS JUDGMENT. THIS COURT HAS STATED IN THE SAID PARAGRAPH THAT IN CASE ALL THE ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES WERE NOT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES IN THE MATTER OF DETERMINING SENIORITY, MERELY THE BASIS OF LENGTH OF SERVICE OF CERTAIN PERSONS CANNOT CONSTITUTE THE BASIS FOR FIXING SUCH SENIORITY. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE APPOINTMENTS OF THE APPELLANTS WERE MADE PURSUANT TO ANY RECRUITMENT RULES ON REGULAR BASIS. IT IS ALSO NOT SHOWN TO US THAT BEFORE THEY WERE APPOINTED, ANY ADVERTISEMENT WAS MADE INVITING THE APPLICATIONS FROM B ALL ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES. THIS BEING THE POSITION, THIS VERY PARAGRAPH ON WHICH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS RELIES, GOES AGAINST THE APPELLANTS. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF WHAT IS STATED ABOVE, THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE SAID ORDER DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE BY THIS COURT. 8. THE CIVIL APPEAL IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.