Honble GARG, J.–This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 9.5.2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 30.3.2002 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director Research, Directorate of Research, Rajasthan Agricultural University) by which the services of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from 31.3.2002 with the expiry of project the quashed and set aside. (2). The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- i) That on the recommendations of Selection Committee, the petitioner was appointed on the post of skilled helper on adhoc basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 900/- through order dtd. 15.11.90 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner) under the Scheme named as ``Promotion of Research and Development on Hybrid in Selected Crops on Maize, Pearl Millet and Cotton. ii) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner worked on the post of skilled Helper till 10.3.99 and services of the petitioner were terminated through order dtd. 10.3.99 (Annex.2) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) Directorate of Research, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner) on the ground of completion of aforesaid project. iii) Further case of the petitioner is that on the very same day through order dtd. 10.3.99 (Annex.3) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) the petitioner was appointed on the post of Skilled Helper at the fixed pay of Rs. 900/- per month at Agricultural Research Station, Sri Ganganagar under the project named Genetic Improvement of Gossypium Arboreum for fibre quality parameters, High yield and insect pest resistance. iv) Further case of the petitioner is that since he was working with the respondents for last 12 years, therefore, he submitted a representation (Annex.4) to the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) for regularisation of his services. v) Further case of the petitioner is that the representation (Annex.4) was forwarded by the Associate Director, Research to the Respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) with a recommendation to regularise the services of the petitioner. vi) Further case of the petitioner is that the Board of Management had passed a resolution dtd. v) Further case of the petitioner is that the representation (Annex.4) was forwarded by the Associate Director, Research to the Respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) with a recommendation to regularise the services of the petitioner. vi) Further case of the petitioner is that the Board of Management had passed a resolution dtd. 11.2.98 (Annex.5) regarding regularising the services of various persons appointed on ad hoc/casual/fixed pay basis by screening them through Screening Committee. vii) Further case of the petitioner is that the Senior Cotton Breeder vide his letter dtd. 3.8.2000 (Annex.6) requested the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) Directorate of Research) to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Agriculture Supervisor. viii) That the respondent No. 1 (Registrar Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner) vide his letter dtd. 29.12.2000 requested the Associate Director, Agricultural Research Station, Sri Ganganagar to furnish a list of employees working on casual/adhoc/contract basis. The Associate Director, Agricultural Research Station, Sri Ganganagar submitted detailed information with regard to the employees working on casual/adhoc/contract basis through letter dtd. 6.1.2001 (Annex.7) in which name of the petitioner stood at serial No. 3. ix) Further case of the petitioner is that through impugned order dtd. 30.3.2002 (Annex.8) passed by respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground of completion of aforesaid project. x) Further case of the petitioner is that after the order dtd. 30.3.2002 (Annex.8) was passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research), the petitioner approached the Senior Cotton Breeder who in turn apprised the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) through communication dtd. 26.3.2002 (Annex.9) that the petitioner had worked for 12 years under the respondent - University and he further recommended that his services may be adjusted on some other post so that his services may be utilized in Cotton Improvement. Further more, the Associate Director (Research), Agricultural Research Station) had himself requested the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) through communication dtd. 2/3.4.2002 (Annex.10) to adjust the petitioner on the vacant post of Agricultural Supervisor. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer. (3). In this writ petition the order dtd. Further more, the Associate Director (Research), Agricultural Research Station) had himself requested the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) through communication dtd. 2/3.4.2002 (Annex.10) to adjust the petitioner on the vacant post of Agricultural Supervisor. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer. (3). In this writ petition the order dtd. 30.3.2002 (Annex.8) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) has been challenged and the learned counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions: i) That since the petitioner had worked under the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) Directorate of Research) for last more than 12 years and has now become over-age for getting employment in any other Govt. department, therefore, on equitable ground, termination of services of the petitioner is bad in law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ii) That not only this, the persons who have worked on casual basis for a long period, their services should not be terminated abruptly and their services should be regularised. iii) That since throughout his service career, the services of the petitioner were found satisfactory, therefore, in view of these circumstances, termination order dtd. 30.3.2002 (Annex.8) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) cannot be sustained. Hence, the writ petition be allowed. (4). A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their main case is that this writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner had alternative remedy available to him before the forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Apart from this, since the petitioner was an adhoc employee, his services stood terminated with the expiry of project on 31.3.2002. It has further been submitted by the respondents that since in his appointment orders dtd. 15.11.90 (Annex.1) and 10.3.99 (Annex.3) there was a condition that his service would come to an end automatically after expiry of the project, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the writ petition. (5). I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. (6). There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner was first appointed through order dtd. 15.11.90 (Annex.1) passed by respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) on the post of Skilled Helper at fixed pay of Rs. (6). There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner was first appointed through order dtd. 15.11.90 (Annex.1) passed by respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) on the post of Skilled Helper at fixed pay of Rs. 900/0 per month and he worked up 10.3.99 when his services were terminated through order dtd. 10.3.99 (Annex.2) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research). (7). There is also no dispute on the point that through order dtd. 10.3.99 (Annex.3) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) Directorate of Research), the petitioner was again appointed on the post of Skilled helper at the fixed pay of Rs. 900/- per month at Agricultural Research Station but under different project. Thus, i) On the same day i.e. on 10.3.99 when the services of the petitioner stood terminated, he was given another appointment but in different project. ii) The fact remains that the petitioner was under the employment of respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) from 15.11.90 to 30.3.2002. (8). There is also no dispute on the point that the petitioners work was found satisfactory and i.e. why his case for regularisation of services was recommended from time to time by superior authorities. (9). There is also no dispute on the point that in the appointment order dtd. 15.11.90 (Annex.1) and order dtd. 10.3.99 (Annex.3), there was a condition that services of the petitioner shall stand terminated automatically with the completion of the project. (10). There is also no dispute on the point that before passing the impugned order dtd. 30.3.2002 (Annex.8), the petitioner was not given any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. (11). There is also no dispute on the point that before passing the order dtd. 30.3.2002 (Annex.8) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) Directorate of Research), the petitioner was not informed in writing that the project under which the petitioner was given appointment was going to expire. (12). There is also no dispute on the point that through letter dtd. 30.3.2002 (Annex.8) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) Directorate of Research), the petitioner was not informed in writing that the project under which the petitioner was given appointment was going to expire. (12). There is also no dispute on the point that through letter dtd. 3.4.2002 (Annex.10) written by the Associate Director (Research) Agricultural Research Station, Sri Ganganagar) to the respondent No. 2 (Director Research), Directorate of Research), a request was made to adjust the petitioner on the vacant post of Agricultural Supervisor as the petitioner had worked for about 12 years in above two projects and his work was found satisfactory. (13). The question for consideration is whether in the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order Annex.8 dated 30.3.2002 by which the services of the petitioner were terminated on the expiry of project can be justified or not. (14). Before deciding this question, it may be stated here that this Court is aware that the Educational Authorities should be left without interference from the Court and other outside agencies in administering their disciplinary jurisdiction over the matters of examinations and appointments. (15). The interference in matters of University through writ jurisdiction should be made only when:- (1) That there is a patent and undoubted violation of a provision in the statute or regulation or ordinance governing the particular subject; (2) That this non-compliance or violation should have directly resulted in a substantial restriction of the service or benefit which a citizen is entitled to get from the University; and (3) That the direction or relief sought should be such that it should not add to the inconvenience suffered by the public at large, disproportionate to the injustice or inconvenience that is sought to be remedied. (16). In the present case, as already stated above, the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis and he remained in the employment of the respondents as such for more than 12 years. (17). (16). In the present case, as already stated above, the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis and he remained in the employment of the respondents as such for more than 12 years. (17). No doubt a person appointed temporarily on adhoc basis as a rule has no right to the post and further he will have no right to be absorbed in service and thus, as a matter of course, he cannot claim regularisation, but that rule is subject to one exception that if the adhoc/casual/temporary appointments were made and the policy of ad hocism is followed for a long period without filling up those posts on a regular basis then the Courts will interfere. This is because of the simple reason that an employer cannot follow a policy of ad hocism for a long period as it is not sound personnel policy and would lead to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In this respect, the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Rattanlal vs. State of Haryana (1), may be referred to. (18). Apart from this, I am clearly of the opinion that when a person is allowed to function for more than 12 years even on adhoc basis, it would certainly be unjust to hold that he has no sort of claim to the post which he was holding. (19). The Honble Supreme Court in Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2), has observed that if a person possessing requisite qualifications is allowed to continue in service for fairly long period, his appointment cannot be said to be stop-gap or fortuitous or ad hoc. (20). It may be stated here that in the present case, there is no dispute on the point that the petitioner is having requisite qualifications for the post for which he was appointed and the impugned order by which his services were terminated, was not passed on the ground that he was not doing his job sincerely and satisfactorily. Therefore, so far as the work performance of the petitioner is concerned, there is no stigma on his park. (21). This Court in Dr. Parvat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Therefore, so far as the work performance of the petitioner is concerned, there is no stigma on his park. (21). This Court in Dr. Parvat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (3), has observed that the regularisation can be made under the statutory rules and in case, there are no rules, the court can issue such a direction if it is satisfied that continuation of the employees for an unreasonable long period on adhoc basis is arbitrary and requires redressal as being violative of the mandate enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution of India to restrain from exploiting the helplessness of the employees. (22). So far as the present case is concerned, since the petitioner is doing the job as Skilled Helper in the employment of the respondents for fairly long period for more than 12 years, therefore, his appointment though on the face of it appears to be adhoc appointment, but it should not be treated as adhoc appointment. (23). Further more, no doubt through order dtd. 10.3.99 (Annex.2) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) Directorate of Research), there was a break in the services of the petitioner, however, on the very same day through order dtd. 10.3.99 (Annex.3), the petitioner was appointed on the post of skilled helper but under different project, but the fact that he was working since 15.11.90 upto 31.3.2002 is well established and the fact that the work of the petitioner was found to be satisfactory is also well established from the letters dtd. 26.3.2002 and 3.4.2002 (Annex.9 and 10 respectively) and the case of the petitioner was recommended for regularisation. (24). Not only this, in my opinion, a workman like present petitioner under the project/Scheme would be entitled to a notice or compensation before his services can be terminated and since in the present case, no notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, from this point of view also, principles of Natural Justice have been violated in this case and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (25). (25). Thus, the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 31.3.2002 vide order Annex.8 dated 30.3.2002 on the ground that the project under which the petitioner was working came to an end cannot be justified and legal right of the petitioner has been infringed by terminating the services of the petitioner from 30.3.2002 and therefore, the impugned order Annex.8 dated 30.3.2002 cannot be sustained. (26). So far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner should have first approached the forum as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is concerned, in my opinion, since the writ petition was admitted in the present case and a reply has also been filed and termination order dtd. 30.3.2002 (Annex.8) appears to be illegal, therefore, it would not be proper now to throw the writ petition and ask the petitioner to seek remedy in appropriate forum especially in the present case when the petitioner had worked for more than 12 years in the employment of the respondents. Therefore, this argument stands rejected. (27). For the reasons stated above, since legal right of the petitioner has been infringed by terminating the services of the petitioner from 31.3.2002 through impugned order Annex.8 dated 30.3.2002, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thus, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order Annex.8 dated 30.3.2002 is liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled to continue in service as Skilled helper in the employment of the respondents. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.3.2002 (Annex.8) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to take the petitioners back in service as Skilled Helper. However, the petitioner will be treated in service from the date he joins the duty and not prior to that. However, so far as question of regularisation is concerned, no direction is given in this writ petition. No order as to costs.