JUDGMENT : I.M. Quddusi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri. P.K. Srivastava and the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner No. 1 which is an organization of daily wage employees working in the office of opposite parties No. 1 and 2, i.e., in the department of labour, Government of U.P. have sought relief for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the regularisation of the members of the Petitioner before making any fresh selection on the post of Instructors in various Industrial Training Institutes and further commanding the opposite parties to allow them to continue on their posts till they are considered for regularization in accordance with U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1979'). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the members of the Petitioner are working on daily wage basis as Instructor in various Industrial Training Institutes. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the case law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Khagesh Kumar and others Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others, (1995) 4 SCC 182 Supp by which the judgment and order dated February 8, 1995, passed by Division Bench of this Court was upheld by the Apex Court with the following directions: (1) The Petitioners or other similarly placed persons who were employed as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis prior to October 1, 1986, shall be considered for regularization under the provisions of Rule 4 (1)(ii) and they have completed three years continuous service. The said period of three years service shall be computed by taking into account the actual period during which the employee had worked as Registration Clerk on daily wage basis. The period during which such an employee has performed the duties of Registration Clerk under paragraph 101 of the Manual, shall be counted as part of service for the purpose of such regularisation. The period during which such an employee has performed the duties of Registration Clerk under paragraph 101 of the Manual, shall be counted as part of service for the purpose of such regularisation. (2) In the event of appointment on regular basis on the post of Registration Clerks, the Petitioners or other similarly placed persons who had worked as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis, may be given one opportunity of being considered for such appointment and they be given relaxation in the matter of age requirement prescribed for such appointment under the Rules. (3) The Subordinate Service Selection Commission while making selection for regular appointment to the posts of Registration Clerks, shall give weight age for their experience to the Registration Clerks who have worked on daily wage basis and shall frame suitable guidelines for that purpose. (4) If any of the Petitioners or other similarly placed persons was required to perform the duties of Registration Clerk as an Apprentice under paragraph 101 of the Manual, he may submit a representation to the appropriate authority setting out the full particulars of such employment within three months and the concerned authority, after verifying the correctness of the said claim, shall pass the necessary order for the period he is found to have so worked on the post of Registration Clerk. The said payment shall be made within a period of three months from the date of submission of the representation. 5. The above quoted case related to the persons employed on daily wage basis as Registration Clerks in the Registration Department of the Government of U.P. and the question of their regularization was involved before the Division Bench of this Court. In that case, a number of writ petitions were filed in this Court by the employees who were working as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis for their regularization and for the quashing of Press Notification inviting applications for appointment on the posts of Registration Clerks. Many of these writ petitions had been disposed of by learned single Judges of this Court and special appeals against these judgments were pending before the Division Bench while other writ petitions were pending for disposal before learned single Judges. In large number of cases interim orders had been passed directing that the Petitioners in the writ petitions may be allowed to continue in service during the pendency of the writ petitions. In large number of cases interim orders had been passed directing that the Petitioners in the writ petitions may be allowed to continue in service during the pendency of the writ petitions. One such writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3721 of 1990, Majeed and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) filed at the Lucknow Bench of this Court had been allowed by a learned single Judge and the SLP (Civil) No..../93 (C.C. No. 121212 of 1991) filed against the said judgment was dismissed on the ground of delay by this Court by order dated August 10, 1993. All the special appeals and writ petitions that were pending in the High Court at Allahabad as well as at the Lucknow Bench, were taken up and were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by the impugned judgment dated 8.2.1995. 6. The contention of Sri. P.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that following the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case of persons appointed on daily wage basis as Clerks in the Registration Department, the Petitioners of the instant writ petition, who were also appointed on daily wage basis, are entitled to get similar relief. 7. Learned standing counsel has submitted that earlier there were no rules in respect of regularization of daily wagers but subsequently, the regularization rules of daily wagers including Group 'C' as well as Group 'B' have come into force vide Notification dated 9.7.1998, in which inter alia it has been provided that any person appointed on daily wage basis on or before 29th June, 1991, on Group 'C' posts and was continuing as such on the date of enforcement of those Rules, i.e., 9.7.1998 and has possessed the minimum requisite qualification to hold that post, and if temporary or permanent vacancy was available on that post, would be considered for regular appointment on the basis of his suitability before making any regular appointment in accordance with relevant service rules. Therefore, his contention is that in case the members of the Petitioners were not appointed on or before 29.6.1991, they would not be entitled to get their regularization even if any vacancy is in existence. 8. It may be noticed that first of all the Rules of Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments came into force on 14th May, 1979, in which it was provided as under: Rule 4. 8. It may be noticed that first of all the Rules of Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments came into force on 14th May, 1979, in which it was provided as under: Rule 4. Regularisation of ad hoc appointments.-(1) Any person who: (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before January 1, 1977 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules ; (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment ; and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be after he has completed three years continuous service, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. (2) In making regular appointment under these rules, reservation for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Other Categories, shall be made in accordance with the orders of the Government in force at the time of recruitment. (3) For the purpose of Sub-rule (1), the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee and consultation with the Commission shall not be necessary. (4) The appointing authority shall prepare an eligibility list of the candidates, ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………arranged in order of seniority as determined, from the date of appointment an…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………d, if two or more persons are appointed together, from the order in which their names are arranged in the said appointment order. The list shall be placed before the Selection Committee along with their character rolls and such other records, pertaining to them, as may be considered necessary to judge their suitability. (5) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of their records referred to in Sub-rule (4). (6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates, the names in the list being arranged in order of seniority, and forward it to the appointing authority. 5. Appointments. - The appointing authority shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, make appointments from the list prepared under Sub-rule (6) of the said Rule in the order in which their names stand in the list. 6. 5. Appointments. - The appointing authority shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, make appointments from the list prepared under Sub-rule (6) of the said Rule in the order in which their names stand in the list. 6. Appointment be deemed to be under the relevant service rules, etc.-Appointments made under these rules shall be deemed to be under the relevant Service Rules or orders, if any. 7. Saving.-(1) A person appointed under these rules shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of order of appointment after selection in accordance with these rules and shall, in all cases, be placed below the persons appointed in accordance with the relevant service rules, or as the case may be, the regular prescribed procedure, prior to the appointment of such person under these rules. (2) If two or more person are appointed together, their seniority inter se shall be determined in the order mentioned in the order of appointment. 9. The above said Rules were amended from time to time. First amendment was made on 22.3.1984 in which it was provided that a person who was appointed on ad hoc basis on or before 1.5.1983 and is continuing on the date of enforcement of the amended Rules, would also get benefit of the Regularisation Rules of 1979. The said provision is quoted as under: 9. The provisions of these rules shall apply, mutatis mutandis, also to any person directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before May 1, 1983 and continuing in service as such as the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (On Posts Within the Purview of the Public Service Commission), (Amendment) Rules, 1984. 10. The second amendment in the rules came into force on 7.8.1989 in which it was provided that the any person directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before 1.10.1986 and continuing in service as such on the date of enforcement of the said amendment, would also get benefit of the Regularization Rules of 1979. The said amendment is quoted as under: 10. The said amendment is quoted as under: 10. Extension of the rules.-The provisions of these Rules shall apply mutatis mutandis, also to any person directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before October 1, 1986 and continuing in service as such, on the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc Apointment (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission)(Second Amendment) Rules, 1989. 11. By the third amendment Rules, 2001, Rule 4 was amended as under: 4. Regularisation of ad hoc appointments.-(1) Any person who: (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before June 30, 1998 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Regulari-sation of Ad Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commis-sion)(Third Amendment) Rules, 2001 ; (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment ; and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant rules or orders. (2) In making regular appointments under the rules, reservations for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Other Categories shall be made in accordance with the orders of the Government in force at the time of recruitment. (3) For the purpose of Sub-rule (1) appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee. (4) The appointing authority shall prepare an eligibility list of the candidates, arranged in order of seniority, as determined from the date of order of appointment and if two or more persons are appointed together from the order in which their names are arranged in the said appointment order, the list shall be placed before the Selection Committee along with the character rolls and such other records of the candidates as may be considered necessary to assess their suitability. (5) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of their records referred to in Sub-rule (4). (5) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of their records referred to in Sub-rule (4). (6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of the selected candidates, the names in the list being arranged in order of seniority, and forward it to the appointing authority. 12. It is also to be noticed that when the Rules for regularization of daily wagers came into force, i.e., On 9th July, 1998, the third amendment of U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment Rules had not come and only the second amendment had come into force, according to which any person appointed on ad hoc basis on or before 1.10.1986 and continuing in service on the date of commencement of Second amendment Rules, shall also be entitled to be considered under the Regularisation Rules. Therefore, for the persons appointed on ad hoc basis prior to 1.10.1986, the cut off date was provided, i.e., 1.10.1986, meaning thereby that if a person was appointed directly on ad hoc basis on or after 1.10.1986, he was not eligible for consideration under the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 as amended upto second amendment Rules, 1989 but the Legislature enforced U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'C' Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 for regularization of daily wage employees who were appointed as such before 29.6.1991. Thus, this rule was available only for those daily wagers who were appointed before 29th June, 1991 and not for those who were appointed on or after 29.6.1991. In other words the benefit, which was provided to daily wagers in 1998 Rules for their regularization, was not available to any such person appointed on ad hoc basis on or after 29.6.1991. 13. Now, the question has arisen as to whether the persons appointed on monthly basis on ad hoc basis, can only be termed as ad hoc employees or the persons appointed on daily wage basis against any vacancy, can also be termed as appointee on ad hoc basis. In this regard mention of the word 'ad hoc' is necessary to be considered. In Wharton's Law of Lexicon and Legal Laxim by Hon'ble Mr. In this regard mention of the word 'ad hoc' is necessary to be considered. In Wharton's Law of Lexicon and Legal Laxim by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.C. Desai, the Former Chief Justice of this Court, Hon'ble A. Subramanyam Aiyar of this Court and Jagdish Lal Author of "Companys Act" jointly released the book published by Delhi Law House which is called Venkataramaiya's Law Lexicon, according to which the word 'ad hoc' has been defined as under: Ad hoc.-The word "ad hoc" has been defined in Webster's New International Dictionary, Vol. 1, 2nd Ed., as, "pertaining to or for the sake of, this case alone ; and of a hypothesis or reason adduced to explain a phenomenon or class or phenonmena, and having no other application by which its validity and significance can be tested." Similarly, this word has been given the following meaning in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Latest Unabridged Edition: Ad hoc: for the particular end or purpose at hand and without reference to wider application or employment (a special number appointed ad hoc according to the problem under consideration.) Ad hoc: Adj.: made, established, acting or concerned with a particular and or purpose (a coordinated policy instead of ad hoc decision)(an ad hoc commission of inquiry) Appointments made for a particular purpose at hand without reference to wider application or employment would fall in the category of appointments on ad hoc basis. Such appointments must be considered in the context of the services under the rule-making control of the Governor: Narendra Bahadur Srivastava v. Public Service Commission, U.P. (1971) 2 SLR 414 at 418 (All). Ad hoc promotion.-They were ad hoc in the sense that they were to be officiating ones. For, they were subject to any subsequent reorganization, which would be necessary when the proposed rules are promulgated. The phrase "ad hoc" has another significance. When, for instance, consultation with the Union Public Service Commission is necessary for filling a particular post, the Government is given power to make an ad hoc appointment for a fixed period of one year beyond which it cannot last without consultation with the Union Public Service Commission-Som Nath v. Union of India (1973) 1 SLR 737 at 742 (Del). 14. In Grolier New Webster's Dictionary the word 'ad hoc' has been described as under: "ad hoc".-exclusively for some understood special purpose. 15. 14. In Grolier New Webster's Dictionary the word 'ad hoc' has been described as under: "ad hoc".-exclusively for some understood special purpose. 15. Besides above, the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (2000) 8 SCC 25 , has interpreted the word 'ad hoc' in paragraph 19, which is reproduced as under: If an appointment is made to meet the contingency arising on account of delay in completing the process of regular recruitment to the post due to any reason and it is not possible to leave the post vacant till then, and to meet this contingency an appointment is made then it can appropriately be called as a "stop-gap" arrangement and appointment in the post as "ad hoc" appointment. It is not possible to lay down any strait-jacket formula nor give an exhaustive list of circumstances and situation in which such an appointment (ad hoc fortuitous or stop-gap) can be made. 16. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite parties it has been stated that the posts of Instructors in G.I.T. Is., are within the purview of Commission and as per existing provisions contained in Annexure-C-1 annexed thereto, the recruitment of Instructors in different trades is required to be confined to candidates selected and recommended for appointment by the Commission only. Since the process of selection by the Commission was likely to take time, it was decided to engage Instructors on daily wages possessing prscribed qualifications for the post. The appointing authority of the Instructors was the Additional Director (Administration) but in order to facilitate appointment at local level, Principals of G.I.T. Is. were authorized by the authorities to engage daily wage Instructors from amongst candidates sponsored by the local Employment Exchange so that training work in the G.I.T. Is. could continue. The alleged selection committee for the selection of daily wage Instructors was not parallel to the Commission and therefore, selections made by such local selection committee cannot bestow any right on the Instructors selected on daily wages for regularization or continuance on the job. 17. could continue. The alleged selection committee for the selection of daily wage Instructors was not parallel to the Commission and therefore, selections made by such local selection committee cannot bestow any right on the Instructors selected on daily wages for regularization or continuance on the job. 17. In fact, the post of Instructors in the department in question is outside the purview of the Public Service Commission but was within the purview of the Subordinate Services Selection Board, which is also evident from the Government order dated 13.6.1990, which has been annexed as Annexure-C.A.-1 to the counter-affidavit. But, vide Government order dated 28.12.1997, the Subordinate Service Selection Board was abolished vide U.P. Ordinance No. 16 of 1997 and therefore, the post of Instructor had also come out of the purview of the Selection Board. 18. In view of the plea taken in the counter-affidavit by the opposite parties it is clear that the appointment of the members of the Petitioners was made against the post of Instructors but on daily wage basis and therefore, appointments were made to meet the contingency arising on account of delay in completing the process of regular recruitment and it was not possible to leave the post vacant till regular selection. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rudra Kumar San (supra) has held that such appointment can appropriately be called as a "stop-gap" arrangement and appointment in the post as "ad hoc" appointment. 19. In the case of Khagesh Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 17 held as under: 17. The Petitioners can claim regularization only if they satisfy the requirements of the said provisions. They should have been directly appointed on ad hoc basis before October 1, 1986, they should have possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment and they should have completed three years continuous service. It has been urged on behalf of the Petitioners that some of the Petitioners had been working as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis since much before October 1, 1986 and they would be entitled to be considered for regularization under the Regularization Rules. These provisions are applicable only to an appointment made on ad hoc basis. It has been urged on behalf of the Petitioners that some of the Petitioners had been working as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis since much before October 1, 1986 and they would be entitled to be considered for regularization under the Regularization Rules. These provisions are applicable only to an appointment made on ad hoc basis. Though the High Court has held that the appointment of the Petitioner on daily wages basis was not an ad hoc appointment, we are not inclined to take that view and we will proceed on the basis that the appointment of the Petitioners was such an appointment. The question, which survives is whether any of the Petitioners who had been appointed as Registration Clerk on daily wage basis prior to October 1, 1986, can be regarded as having completed three years continuous service. Since the order of the Governor sanctioning appointment on the posts of the Registration Clerks on daily wage basis imposes a limitation that such appointment shall in no case exceed three months during the course of a financial year, there are long breaks between the various period during which the Petitioners were employed as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis. In Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361 , this Court has laid down that for the purpose of counting three years continuous service for the purpose of regularization of artificial breaks in service for short period/periods created by the employer could be ignored but "if there is a gap of more than 3 months between the period of termination and re-appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of 3 years period" (at page 363). In view of the said decision for computing three years period of continuous service for the purpose of Rule 4 (1) (iii) of the Regularization Rules, the period of break in service which was longer than three months has to be excluded and only the period which during the Petitioners actually worked can be counted. In view of the said decision for computing three years period of continuous service for the purpose of Rule 4 (1) (iii) of the Regularization Rules, the period of break in service which was longer than three months has to be excluded and only the period which during the Petitioners actually worked can be counted. In case any of the Petitioners was employed as a Registration Clerk on daily wage basis prior to October 1, 1986 and after excluding periods of breaks in service which are longer than three months, he has put in three years service, he would be entitled to seek regularization under Rule 4 (1) of the Regularization Rules provided he fulfills the requirement of Clause (ii) of the said Rule. He can move the appropriate authority for such regularization and the said authority will pass appropriate orders after verifying the correctness of the claim of such a Petitioner. The Petitioner who do not fulfil the said condition of three years service contained in Rule 4 (1)(iii) cannot claim regularization on the basis of the Regularization Rules. 20. It is also necessary to mention here that vide advertisement No. 1/2003-04, the Training and Employment Directorate, U.P., Lucknow, has advertised 742 posts of Instructors. 21. Now since the members of the Petitioners are working since a long time and come within the scope of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, as amended by the 3rd amendment dated 20th December, 2001 they are entitled to be considered under those rules before making any regular appointment. 22. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties commanding them to consider regularization of those members of the Petitioner-association who were working on the post of Instructor on daily wage basis prior to 30.6.1998 against the existing vacancies which have come outside the purview of Public Service Commission, before making any regular appointment in accordance with relevant rules, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a copy of this order and till they are considered for regularization, they shall be allowed to continue as such.