The practice of appointing persons on ad hoc basis on posts ranging from Class IV to Gazetted nomenclature and the evil of continuing these arrangements either with or without formal extensions dehors the Rules, beyond the prescribed period of nine months and/or against the terms of initial orders of such appointment, seems to have been followed unabatedly by the Government and its various functionaries since long. It appears that there was a ban imposed by the Government on such appointments for some period with effect from 29th December, 1988 to 28th July, 1989. However, record reveals that even during the period of ban various functionaries of the Government made ad-hoc appointments. Ultimately, in terms of Government Order No. 1220-GAD of 1989 dated 11th September, 1989, it was ordered that all ad hoc appointees to non-gazetted posts recruited from time to time till 29th December, 1988 and who were continuing as on the date of issue of the aforesaid Government order, i.e., 11th September, 1989, be treated to have been appointed on regular basis on probation or trial, as the case may be, with effect from the date of issue of the Government order, dispensing with reference of posts held by them to the Service Selection Board or the District Level Committees in the case of Class IV posts. In respect of those of the appointees who had been appointed during the period of ban, it was ordered that their cases should be submitted to the Chief Minister through General Administration Department for orders. However, in respect of Gazettes Officers, it was ordered that these posts should immediately be referred to the Public Service Commission for selection. The Government order also envisaged relaxation of qualification and age bars. It may be relevant to notice here that appointment on ad hoc basis to Government service is permitted by Rule 14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956"). This Rule was amended on 28th July, 1989 by the Government in terms of SRO 291 reference to which shall be made at appropriate place in this judgment. It would be suffice to mention here that the aforesaid Rule though permits appointment on ad-hoc basis but unambiguously bars continuation of such arrangements beyond the total period of nine months. This Rule was amended on 28th July, 1989 by the Government in terms of SRO 291 reference to which shall be made at appropriate place in this judgment. It would be suffice to mention here that the aforesaid Rule though permits appointment on ad-hoc basis but unambiguously bars continuation of such arrangements beyond the total period of nine months. Record reveals that after 28th July, 1989, the Government and its various functionaries have made further ad-hoc appointments. They have been continued mostly without formal extensions by the concerned authorities. Subsequently, the Government issued order No.1285-GAD of 2001 dated 6.11.2001 based on Cabinet Decision No. 135/11(B) dated 10.09.2001. It was, inter alia, ordered that all ad hoc appointees to non-gazetted posts "recruited" from time to time beyond 29.12.1988 till the date of issue of the order, who were still in service, be considered for regularization after completing seven years of continuous service from the date of appointment, dispensing with reference of posts held by them to Service Selection Board subject to certain conditions prescribed in the Government order. This Government order was purportedly issued consequent upon judgment dated 12th February, 1998 passed by one of the learned Single Judges of this Court in SWP No.283/94 titled Uttam Singh v. State of J&K holding that "an adhocee cannot be worse than a daily rated worker" and that the petitioner therein would be entitled to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 providing for regularization of daily rated workers after completion of seven years continuous service. In terms of the Government order, the orders of regularization were required to be issued by the respective Administrative Departments. Before this process could be completed, noticing the correct position of law, as enunciated by the Apex Court and various other Benches of this Court as also the statutory law in force in the State, the Government decided to do away with these ad hoc appointments. As a sequel to achieving this objective, the first step taken by the Government was the issuance of Government order No.1018-GAD of 2003 dated 5th August, 2003 based on Cabinet Decision No.136/9 dated 23.7.2003 adopting the policy of contractual appointments to certain categories of posts mentioned therein and such other posts as may be notified by the Government from time to time. The aforesaid Government order dated 5th August, 2003 may be quoted below. The aforesaid Government order dated 5th August, 2003 may be quoted below. It reads thus: "Government of Jammu and Kashmir General Administration Department Sub: Contractual appointments. Reference: Cabinet decision No. 136/9 dated 23.7.2003. Government order No. 1018-GAD of 2003, dated 05-08-2003. 1. In the public interest, Government have approved the policy of contractual appointment to the following posts: i. Assistant Surgeons; ii. Veterinary Surgeons; iii. Junior Engineer Civil in the Public Works Department and the Rural Development Department; iv. Junior Engineer, Mechanical; v. Junior Agriculture Assistant; and vi. Physical Education Teachers; and such other posts as may be notified by the Government from time to time. 2. Contractual appointments referred to in para 1 above shall be made in accordance with the rules to be notified separately. 3. Pursuant to this policy, sanction is accorded to the constitution of the Committees comprising: (i) Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District; (ii) The Head of the concerned Deptt at the District level for selecting candidates for these posts. 4. Appointment orders shall be issued by the competent authority. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/- (S. L. Bhat ) Principal Secretary to Government." By virtue of the aforesaid order, it was also provided that, as a matter of policy, the contractual appointments be made in accordance with Rules to be notified separately. Simultaneous with the issue of the aforesaid order, Government issued Notification SRO 255 dated 5th August, 2003 promulgating the Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003". These Rules were made applicable to the posts notified vide Government order No.1018-GAD of 2003 dated 5th August, 2003 and to such other posts as may be notified from time to time in the General Administration Department by Government order. These Rules, inter alia, provide that the appointee under the Rules shall be paid a consolidated monthly salary equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale of the post to which he may be appointed and that he shall not be entitled to any other allowances or monetary benefits, whatsoever. These Rules, inter alia, provide that the appointee under the Rules shall be paid a consolidated monthly salary equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale of the post to which he may be appointed and that he shall not be entitled to any other allowances or monetary benefits, whatsoever. Subsequent to the promulgation of aforesaid Rules, The Government, in supersession of earlier Government order No.1285-GAD of 2001 dated 6.11.1001, issued order No.168-GAD of 2004 dated 9th February, 2004 read with the two Government orders both bearing one and the same No. and date, i.e., 237-GAD of 2004 dated 20.2.2004, under the caption `policy relating to ad-hoc appointments. By virtue of the aforesaid Government Order, it has been, inter alia, ordered that all ad hoc appointments made after 28.07.1989 and continued in service till the date of issue of the aforesaid order and also those adhocees, who were appointed by the General Administration Department or with approval from the General Administration Department and continued in service till August 2002 or thereafter, shall be converted into contractual appointments with effect from Ist February, 2004, and these contractual appointments shall subsist till 31st December, 2004 or till selections against these posts are made by the concerned selection agencies, whichever be earlier. It has been further ordered that these contractual appointees shall be required to execute an agreement in accordance with the format appended to the Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules with the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer upto 25th February, 2004 and that if any adhocee / contractual appointee failed to execute the agreement, he shall cease to be in the employment of the Government. The posts held by the adhocees were required to be referred by the concerned Administrative Departments to the competent selection agencies by or before 29th February, 2004, if such posts had not already been referred to the selection agencies, for selection in accordance with the rules. 2. Numerous petitions have been filed before this Court by adhocees, challenging the Government order converting their ad-hoc appointments into contractual appointments and the direction contained therein that such contractual appointees shall be paid a consolidated salary equal to the minimum of the scale attached to the posts held by them with effect from Ist February, 2004. 2. Numerous petitions have been filed before this Court by adhocees, challenging the Government order converting their ad-hoc appointments into contractual appointments and the direction contained therein that such contractual appointees shall be paid a consolidated salary equal to the minimum of the scale attached to the posts held by them with effect from Ist February, 2004. They have sought for quashment of Government order dated 9th February, 2004 together with the corrigendum dated 20th February, 2004 and prayed for a direction to the concerned authorities to regularize their services on their respective posts. Few of these writ petitions, as delineated above, are the subject matter of decision herein. 3. The petitioners herein have been appointed on ad hoc basis either to different non-gazetted or class IV posts. They have given particulars of their respective orders of appointment, the authorities who issued these orders and the allied statement of facts.The fact that some of the adhocees are continuing since the dates just around 28th July, 1989 and some have been appointed thereafter or even after August 2002 is rather clearly admitted in the impugned order itself. Therefore, I need not narrate these facts in this judgment to indicate that the petitioners had, in fact, been appointed on ad-hoc basis and are continuing eversince their respective dates of appointment. However, there are certain aspects pleaded in these petitions, which may have to be referred to and dealt with at appropriate place in this judgment. When these petitions came up for hearing on admission, the learned Advocate General appeared and opted not to file any counter-affidavit. He submitted that out-come of these petitions hinged only on certain settled legal propositions; therefore, he opted to argue the cases without filing any counter-affidavit. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners did not object to that course. By this common judgment, therefore, I propose to dispose of finally all the above-mentioned petitions. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these matters in detail and have carefully gone through the record. I have also heard the learned Advocate General. He also submitted very brief objections in the shape of his submissions. 5. By this common judgment, therefore, I propose to dispose of finally all the above-mentioned petitions. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these matters in detail and have carefully gone through the record. I have also heard the learned Advocate General. He also submitted very brief objections in the shape of his submissions. 5. The first argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that Government order No.1285-GAD of 2001 dated 6th November, 2001 created a right of regularization in those of the petitioners/adhocees who had completed seven years of ad-hoc service. According to the learned counsel, this right of the petitioners could not be taken away, more so, when, according to them, the Government implemented the Government order in respect of some of the adhocees. The learned counsel contended that the impugned order is discriminatory and violative of the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. In order to deal with this proposition it would be advantageous to quote hereinbelow the operative portion of Government order dated 6th November, 2001. It reads: " Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that all adhoc appointees to non-gazetted posts recruited from time to time beyond 29-12-1988 till the date of issue of the order who are still in service be considered for regularization after completing seven years of continuous service from the date of appointment dispensing with reference of posts held by them to Service Selection Board subject to the following conditions, that:-.". From a bare reading of the aforesaid Government order it becomes clear that it related only to those of the ad hoc appointees to non-gazetted posts who were "recruited" from time to time. The word "recruited" assumes importance. Recruitment is a process by which an eligible person is appointed to a public post. It is the first process leading to eventual appointment in a service. To recruit connotes to enlist or to enroll or to appoint an eligible and suitable person by a due process of selection, in an open competition. The word "recruit" embraces the broad principle of ensuring equality of opportunity in the matter of employment to public services and obtaining the services of the most meritorious candidates. A recruit does not include a backdoor entrant. The word "recruit" embraces the broad principle of ensuring equality of opportunity in the matter of employment to public services and obtaining the services of the most meritorious candidates. A recruit does not include a backdoor entrant. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that they were "recruited" or appointed on ad-hoc basis after undergoing any such process. While making their ad hoc appointments, had there been some sort of a fair mechanism, consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, resorted to by the concerned appointing authorities, one could say that the petitioners had been "recruited" on ad hoc basis and, therefore, the Government order dated 6th November, 2001 would apply to them. But there is nothing on record to suggest that any such process was undertaken or that any other person was considered for such appointment alongwith the petitioners by the appointing authorities so as to lend some sort of semblance to the connotation of work "recruit". They have been appointed by just a pick and choose method. The Government order dated 6th November, 2001 relied upon by the petitioners did not envisage considering those of the adhocees for regularisation who had not been recruited. Therefore, it neither conferred any right on the petitioners nor could they be regularized in pursuance thereof. Secondly, the Government order did not envisage regulrisation of the adhocees; it only intended to confer a right of consideration for regularization of the adhocees who had put in seven years continuous service and were still holding their respective posts subject to the conditions laid down therein. The contention of the learned counsel that the Government order created any vested right of regularization is misconceived. Even if it be assumed that Government order dated 6th November, 2001 did create any expectation in any of the adhocees, the basic appointments and their continuation being dehors the rules and the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the Government was within its power to rectify the mistake and to bring its actions in tune with the law and, while doing so, the adhocees were not entitled to any notice, nor are the principles of natural justice attracted in the given situation, moreso when the action of the Government did not attach any stigma on the adhocees. Reference to earlier Government order dated 11th September, 1989, whereby the adhocees recruited upto 29th December, 1989 were treated to have been appointed on regular basis, is irrelevant. The petitioners are claiming their right under Government order dated 6th November, 2001, therefore, the earlier order will not advance their cause. No doubt that the word "recruited" was used in that order also but this Court in these matters is not examining whether those of the adhocees had been appointed in a due process of selection or not. In any case, if a wrong has been committed at one time, that will not justify repeating the wrong the second time or continuing the same in perpetuity. The petitioners cannot complain of any discrimination on that count. 7. The second limb of the argument is that Government order dated6th November, 2001 was implemented in respect of some of the adhocees and, therefore, the Government was bound to implement it in respect of all the adhocees and regularise their services. Doctrine of estoppel applies only in case the orders of appointment are valid in all respects. The appointment of the petitioners/adhocees and their continuation is against the statutory provision and the constitutional requirements. In such a fact scenario, the doctrine of estoppel does not arise and the order seeking to rectify the wrong cannot be said to be violative of Article 311 or Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In any case, Ms. Surrinder Kour, learned counsel for the petitioners in SWP No. 390/2004, sought to support this contention by certain orders appended as annexures "F" to "M" to the writ petition. I have perused these orders. Annexure "F" is an order dated 6th December, 1997 and annexure "G" is an order dated 8th July, 1999. Both these orders are prior in point of time vis--vis the order dated 6th November, 2001. Annexure "H" is just a recommendation dated 9th April, 1997. There is no annexure "I" on record. Annexure "J" is an order dated 18th April, 2002. In this case the concerned had earlier been appointed on regular temporary basis in pursuance of court directions. Annexure "K" is an order dated 21st October, 1998 and, in any case, not related to an adhocee. Annexure "L" is an order dated 28th December, 1998 and again not related to an adhocee. In this case the concerned had earlier been appointed on regular temporary basis in pursuance of court directions. Annexure "K" is an order dated 21st October, 1998 and, in any case, not related to an adhocee. Annexure "L" is an order dated 28th December, 1998 and again not related to an adhocee. Annexure "M" is order dated 13th May, 1999 and not related to an adhocee. By virtue of first two orders (annexures "F" and "G") the adhocees named therein have, in fact, been regularized as Drivers, but the orders pertain to a period prior to Government order dated 6th November, 2001. Therefore, these regularizations cannot be said to have been ordered pursuant to Government order dated 6th November, 2001. In any case, the petitioners are free to challenge these orders and seek their consideration against these posts, if they feel they are eligible for such appointments. They cannot complain of denial of equality of treatment on the basis of these two orders. That being so, the ground of discrimination on that count is not made out. 8. It was next, alternatively, argued that the petitioners, who have put in more than three years of continuous service, have acquired a right to be declared quasi-permanent. In this connection, the learned counsel have referred to Rule 3(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1961. To buttress this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners have cited and relied upon the judgment of one of the learned Single Judges of this Court in Mohd. Yousuf Pukhta v. State of J&K, 1989 SLJ 62. This is one of the vital issues involved in these petitions and is also linked to the first argument advanced by the learned counsel. 9. The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Temporary Service Rules") were promulgated vide Notification No.416-F dated 15th November, 1961. The relevant provisions, which are contained in Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the aforesaid Rules, are extracted below: "1. (1) These rules may be called the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1961. The relevant provisions, which are contained in Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the aforesaid Rules, are extracted below: "1. (1) These rules may be called the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1961. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), these rules shall apply to all persons who hold a civil post under the Government and who are under the rule making control of the Government but who do not hold a lien on any post under the Government or any other State Government or the Central Government. (3) Nothing in these rules shall apply to. -- (a) personnel of Jammu and Kashmir Militia; (b) Government servants engaged on contract; (c) Government servants not in whole time employment; (d) Government servants paid out of contingencies; (e) Persons employed in work charged establishments; (f) Such other categories of employees as may be specified by the Government; (g) Temporary Government servants who have earned pension in respect of their previous military or civil service. Provided that the ex-servicemen who are re-employed after their retirement from army at the age of 45 years or earlier shall not be debarred from the benefits of these rules if they otherwise fulfill the requirements of these rules. 2. In these rules unless the context otherwise requires. -- (a) "Government service" means temporary service under the Government; (b) "quasi-permanent service" means temporary service commencing from the date on which a declaration issued under rule 3 takes effect and consisting of periods of duty and leave (other than extraordinary leave without allowances) after that date; (c) Deleted; (d) "temporary service" means service against a temporary post and officiating service in a permanent post under the Government. 3.(1) A Government servant shall be eligible for being declared as quasi-permanent if he has been in continuous Government service for more than 3 years in a Department which is not as a whole temporary: -- (a) employees may be declared quasi-permanent against permanent posts or such temporary posts which have been in existence for 3 years or more; and (b) against such temporary posts transferred from plan to non-plan establishment which have been in existence for three years or more on non-plan establishment. (c) No person may be declared quasi-permanent against a plan post." From a bare perusal of the aforesaid Rules, among other things, it emerges that: (i) in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 1, except the categories specified in sub-rule (3), the Temporary Service Rules apply to all such persons who "hold a civil post"; (ii) in terms of clause (f) of sub-rule (3), the Government has power to bring out of the purview of these rules such other categories of employees as may be specified; (iii) the Rules do not prescribe for temporary appointments; (iv) in terms of Rule 3(1), if a person has been in continuous Government service for more than 3 years, he shall be eligible for being declared as quasi-permanent. (v) sub-rule 3(1)(a) confers a discretion on the competent authority to declare an employee as quasi-permanent against a permanent or a temporary post. Though a relevant question arises whether an adhocee holds a civil post, yet, at first, I deem it appropriate to deal with the argument of the learned counsel that Rule 3(1) of the Temporary Service Rules, 1961 has created a vested right in those of the adhocees who have been in continuous ad hoc appointment for more than three years for being declared as quasi-permanent employees. 10. The Temporary Service Rules, 1961 do not prescribe for temporary appointments. Temporary appointments are provided under and governed by Rule 14 of the Classification, Control and Appeal, 1956. Rule 14 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956 was amended vide Notification No. 291 dated 28th July, 1989. Prior to its amendment, it read as under: "14. Temporary appointments. -- (1) Where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen and could not have been foreseen, to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category and the making of an appointment to such vacancy in accordance with these rules would involve undue delay, excessive expenditure or administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with these rules temporarily until a person is appointed in accordance with these rules but such temporary appointment shall in no case exceed three months on each occasion. (2) Every appointment made under sub-rule (1) together with all the particulars relating to the persons so appointed, namely, the date of appointment, the duration of the vacancy and the period or periods, if any, for which the same person had previously held a post borne on the cadre of the same service, class or category, the nature of the emergency or inconvenience and the reasons for the appointment shall be reported without delay to the Minister-in-charge, if the order is passed by a lower authority. (3) A person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall be replaced as soon as possible by a member of the service or a candidate qualified and considered fit to hold the post under these rules. (4) A person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall not be regarded as a probationer in such service, class or category, or be entitled by reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to future appointment to such service, class or category." The amended Rule 14 of the Classification Control and Appeal Rules reads as under: "14. Temporary appointments. -- (1) Where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen and could not have been foreseen, to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of service, class or category and the making of an appointment to such vacancy in accordance with these rules would involve undue delay, excessive expenditure or administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with these rules temporarily with the prior approval of the Chief Minister in Co-ordination until a person is appointed in accordance with these rules but such temporary appointment shall in no case exceed three months on each occasion and not more than nine months in all. (2) A person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall be replaced as soon as possible by a member of the service or a candidate qualified and considered fit to hold the post under these rules. (3) A person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall not be regarded as a probationer in such service, class or category, or be entitled by reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to future appointment to such service, class or category." (Underlining supplied) 11. (3) A person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall not be regarded as a probationer in such service, class or category, or be entitled by reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to future appointment to such service, class or category." (Underlining supplied) 11. As is seen, the pre-amended Rule 14 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956 envisaged continuation of an adhocee until a person was appointed in accordance with the Rules. Cases could be conceived that an adhocee was continued for more than thee years. A protection of deemed eligibility for being declared as quasi-permanent, subject to the conditions as mentioned in Rule 3A, was carved out in respect of such adhocees in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Temporary Service Rules, 1961. However, whereas the pre-amended Rule 14 did not prescribe any limitation on the total period an adhocee could continue, the amended Rule 14 expressly bars continuation of an ad-hoc appointment beyond the period of nine months. There is no other provision on the subject either in the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules or the Temporary Service Rules, 1961. Therefore, Rule 3(1) of the Temporary service Rules, 1961 has to be read together with Rule 14 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. Reading the two provisions together, since the continuation of ad hoc appointment beyond nine months has been expressly barred, as a necessary implication, the deemed eligibility that was envisaged by Rule 3(1) of Temporary Service Rules, 1961 becomes redundant. In other words, Rule 3(1) of the Temporary Service Rules, 1961 has no application to persons appointed on ad-hoc basis. Continuation of a person beyond nine months, dehors the express provision of Rule 14 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, will not alter the aforesaid legal implication. Consequently, no authority can exercise the discretion of declaration as quasi-permanent conferred under Rule 3 (1)(a) of Temporary Service Rules, 1961 on such authority vis--vis a person appointed on ad hoc basis under the amended Rule 14 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956. It be further seen that Rule 3(1) says, " a Government servant shall be eligible for being declared as quasi permanent". Government service has been defined to mean temporary service, which in turn has been defined to mean even officiating service in a permanent post. It be further seen that Rule 3(1) says, " a Government servant shall be eligible for being declared as quasi permanent". Government service has been defined to mean temporary service, which in turn has been defined to mean even officiating service in a permanent post. It is not shown by any of the petitioners that he has been rendering officiating service against a "permanent post". Even if it were assumed that the petitioners have been officiating against permanent posts and that Rule 3 has still any application to ad hoc appointees, it is axiomatic from a reading of Rule 3(1) that it lays down only the eligibility criterion of such an employee for being considered to be declared as quasi-permanent. If an ad-hoc employee fulfilled the eligibility criterion as laid down in Rule 3(1), that fact by itself would not create a right, muchless a vested right, in him to be declared as quasi-permanent. Such an employee had to fulfill other conditions and the competent authority had to be satisfied that the employee at the time of entry into such service possessed the minimum service age, qualification, required standard of character and antecedents etc. The competent authority had also to issue a declaration regarding his suitability, work and conduct during the past period of temporary service. In any case, Rule 3(1) does not envisage creation of any right in such an employee to be declared as quasi-permanent. The relevant provision, i.e., sub-rule 3(1)(a) confers only a discretion on the competent authority to declare an employee eligible under sub-rule 3(1) of the Rules as quasi-permanent. It is only if it were shown that the competent authority had, in fact, exercised this discretion in favour of similarly circumstanced person or persons, as the petitioners, that the petitioners could make a grievance of denial of equal treatment or seek an equal treatment. That is not the case; the petitioners herein have not brought anything on record to show that any of the ad-hoc appointees engaged after 28th July, 1989, the date when Rule 14 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules was amended, has been declared as quasi-permanent under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Temporary Service Rules, 1961. 12. That is not the case; the petitioners herein have not brought anything on record to show that any of the ad-hoc appointees engaged after 28th July, 1989, the date when Rule 14 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules was amended, has been declared as quasi-permanent under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Temporary Service Rules, 1961. 12. Coming again to the first argument of learned counsel for the petitioners as to their position being similar to the adhocees governed by Government order dated 11th September, 1989, the adhocees appointed prior to 28th July, 1989 were governed by the pre-amended Rule 14 which, in its relevant texture, was entirely different from the amended provision of Rule 14. Therefore, it cannot be said that the two sets of adhocees - one governed by the pre-amended provision and the other governed by the amended provision - constitute one class. Where the appointments are governed by two different sets of Rules, with two different relevant textures, the appointees would not constitute one single class. The two stand on two different footings and, therefore, constitute two different classes. Judgment in Mohd. Yousuf Pukhta v, State of J&K (supra), cited and relied upon by the learned counsel, is not attracted herein. Firstly because that judgment related to an adhocee governed by the pre-amended Rule 14; secondly that judgment is a judgment per incurium because the Honble Judge had failed to take note of the settled position of law, as enunciated by the Apex Court holding the field; thirdly, the provisions of Temporary Service Rules, 1961 were not directly involved therein nor referred to in the judgment and fourthly the petitioner in that petition was a Peon working in the Department where 25% of the posts of Junior Assistants were reserved for in-service candidates. The petitioner therein was otherwise eligible and entitled to be promoted to the post of Junior Assistant as an in-service candidate. Therefore, the judgment does not help the petitioners herein. Similarly, the judgment in Raj Nath v. State of J&K, 1993 KLJ 410 is not applicable because that case basically pertained to daily rated workers and, in any case, there was a direction contained in that judgment to the Government to frame a policy which was put in place by the State Government by virtue of SRO 64 of 1994. Similarly, the judgment in Raj Nath v. State of J&K, 1993 KLJ 410 is not applicable because that case basically pertained to daily rated workers and, in any case, there was a direction contained in that judgment to the Government to frame a policy which was put in place by the State Government by virtue of SRO 64 of 1994. Consequently, I am of the view that the Temporary Service Rules, 1961 have no application to the case of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the argument advanced by the learned counsel that the petitioners have acquired a right to be declared as quasi-permanent under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Temporary Service Rules, 1961 is misconceived and untenable. Since I have come to the conclusion that the Temporary Service Rules, 1961 are not attracted to these cases, I need not go to the point whether the petitioners can be said to be holding civil posts. 13. It was also contended that since the appointees have continued beyond the prescribed period of nine months for years together, therefore, the limitation on the period of ad-hoc appointments prescribed by Rule 14 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956 should be deemed to have been waived and consequently the petitioners should be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis. In other words, the argument is that the Government should be deemed to have acquiesced to the situation and Rule 14 should be deemed to have been relaxed in their favour. In this behalf, it would be suffice to say that there is no provision of deemed relaxation contained in either the Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992 or the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956, nor is the concept of deemed appointment recognized by any law. 14. It was next argued that the Government and its various functionaries in terms of the initial orders of appointment of the petitioners fixed the terms of employment, including payment of salaries attached to these posts. It was contended that once the terms of employment were settled and acted upon, they formed part of the service contract and could not be changed behind the back of the petitioners. It is settled law that a temporary employee does not have any right to continue beyond the prescribed period of employment. It was contended that once the terms of employment were settled and acted upon, they formed part of the service contract and could not be changed behind the back of the petitioners. It is settled law that a temporary employee does not have any right to continue beyond the prescribed period of employment. Continuation on ad-hoc basis beyond the prescribed period does not vest any right in the adhocee to continue. (See Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao, (1996) 7 SCC 499; Committee of Management, Vasanta College for Wiomen v. Tribhuwan Nath Tripath, (1997) 2 SCC 560 and Food Corporation of India v. Thaneswar Kalita, (1995) 3 SCC 342. Such an employee does not have the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution, except where the action attaches a stigma on his character and antecedents. His services are terminable at any time, without assigning any reason. As a necessary corollary, the terms and conditions of his engagement governing each and every aspect of the employment are subject to change by the Government without notice. The Government, in terms of its executive power under Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, can regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to such service and posts. Such power includes fixation of remunerations. In the present case, instead of terminating their services, the Government in terms of the impugned order, as a matter of policy, has ordered to convert them into contractual appointments, entitled to consolidated monthly salary equivalent to the basic pay of the post. I am of the opinion that, in this manner, the Government has exhibited an exemplary fairness; instead of removing and throwing these adhocees on the roadside, it has decided to sustain them for a further period of almost one year or till a regular selection is made. Further, reliance by the petitioners on the orders of appointment on ad hoc basis to canvass that the same constituted a contract of service and this contract was, therefore, binding on the Government tantamounts to axing their own legs at knees. Enforcement of these orders would mean that these adhocees ought to be out since long. 15. Further, reliance by the petitioners on the orders of appointment on ad hoc basis to canvass that the same constituted a contract of service and this contract was, therefore, binding on the Government tantamounts to axing their own legs at knees. Enforcement of these orders would mean that these adhocees ought to be out since long. 15. It may also be observed that these adhocees do not stand on the same pedestal as the regularly appointed persons, though the two may be holding one and the same kind of post or performing one and the same nature of job. The difference in the nature of appointment by itself makes them a different class. The concept of equal pay for equal work is applicable only where the two constitute one and the same class and, therefore, it is not attracted in the present case. Consequently, the petitioners also cannot claim the protection of Articles 14 and 16 vis--vis the regularly appointed persons. Equality is for a class, that is to say that those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to equal treatment. The guarantee of equal treatment does not imply that same Rules should be made applicable to all persons inspite of difference in their circumstances and conditions. It is settled law that the principle of equality does not absolutely prevent the State from making differentiations between persons. The State has the power of classification on the basis of distinction between the regularly appointed persons and the adhocees now converted into contractual appointments. I am of the opinion that this classification is founded on an intelligible differentia, distinguishing between the petitioners and the regularly appointed persons and this differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved, i.e., to settle these ad-hoc appointments in accordance with law and to have due adherence to the mandate of law. 16. A related argument was advanced that conversion of the posts as envisaged by Rule 3 of the Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003 tantamounts to amending the relevant Rules governing these Services under which these posts have been created which is not permissible unless the relevant Rules governing the respective Services are amended. Rule 3 of the Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003 and Government order No.1018-GAD of 2003 dated 5th August, 2003 mentioned therein are not under challenge in these petitioners. Rule 3 of the Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003 and Government order No.1018-GAD of 2003 dated 5th August, 2003 mentioned therein are not under challenge in these petitioners. However, it may be observed that Rule 4 of the Contractual Appointments Rules, 2003 makes it manifest that the object of the Rules is not to change the substantive nature of these posts or to alter the pay structure prescribed therefore in the relevant Rules. The Rules also do not envisage altering or circumventing the regular selection process prescribed by the relevant Service Rules for making appointment against these posts borne on the cadre of respective Services. Contractual appointments prescribed by the Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003 is as good a temporary measure as ad hoc appointments under Rule 14 of the Classification, Control And Appeal Rules, 1956 with the prescribed difference in entitlement to wages and tenure of appointment. These Rules are not intended at changing the basic structure of the posts and their scales of pay or the mode of regular selections prescribed thereunder. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Rules have the effect of amending the relevant Service Rules governing the Services on which these posts are borne. It is for an individual, desirous of seeking government job, to decide whether he should opt for being selected for contractual appointments on consolidated salary or to wait for regular selections against the posts with full prescribed salary under the relevant Rules. 17. Lastly, referring to various judgments of the Apex Court in All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers Association v. State of Manipur, AIR 1991 SC 2088; Jacob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority, AIR 1990 SC 2228; State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130; Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 2833 and the judgment of one of the learned Single Judges of this Court in Raj Nath v. State (supra), the learned counsel submitted that, owing to the fact that most of the adhocees have been in continuous service for over 13 years and have settled in their lives, it would be harsh, unreasonable and unfair on the part of the State if they are deprived of their livelihood. According to them, equity was in favour of the petitioners, especially so when, in similar circumstances, the Government has put about 417 employees, in regular scales of pay. According to them, equity was in favour of the petitioners, especially so when, in similar circumstances, the Government has put about 417 employees, in regular scales of pay. In this connection reference was made to Government order No.556-Edu of 2002 dated 11th April, 2002 and Government order No.383-Edu of 2003 dated 4th April, 2003 forming annexures "Y" and "Z" to the first writ petition herein. It was submitted that the action of the respondents in this background was discriminatory and, therefore, a direction be issued to the Government to formulate a policy to regularize the services of the petitioners. Mr. A. H. Naik, learned Advocate General, on the other hands citedand relied upon Suraj Prakash Gupta v. State of J&K, (2002)10 SCC 158. 18. It is not disputed that the Government in terms of Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir has the power to make Rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to such services and posts. Under this executive power, the Government has framed the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Contractual Appointment Rules), 2003. These Rules are quoted in extensio hereunder: "1. Short title and commencement. -- (1) These rules may be called the Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003. (2) They shall come into force at once. 2. Definitions. -- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires. -- (a) `appointing authority means the authority competent to make appointments in respect of posts under relevant Service Recruitment Rules; (b) `Form means the agreement form appended to these rules as form `A; (c) `Government means the Government of Jammu and Kashmir; (d) `Post means the posts under the Government against which appointment is to be made under these rules; (e) `Selection Committee means the committee constituted under rule 6 of these rules; and (f) `Words and expressions used in these rules but not defined shall have the same meaning as assigned to them in the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. 3. Application of the Rules. -- These Rules shall apply to the posts notified vide Government Order No.1018-AD of 2003 dated 05.08.2003 and to such other posts as may be notified from time to time in the General Administration Department by Government Order. 4. Appointment under these rules. 3. Application of the Rules. -- These Rules shall apply to the posts notified vide Government Order No.1018-AD of 2003 dated 05.08.2003 and to such other posts as may be notified from time to time in the General Administration Department by Government Order. 4. Appointment under these rules. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rule or order for the time being in force relating to the method of recruitment and conditions of service for recruitment in any service, or to any post, under the Government, the appointing authority may appoint persons to the posts notified under Rule 3 on contract basis initially for a period of one year or till regular selection is made in accordance with the rules of recruitment governing the respective posts, whichever is earlier. Provided that the appointment under these rules shall not entitle the appointee to any preferential claim for regular appointment under normal process of selection. (2) The services of an appointee under these rules shall be terminable before the expiry of the contractual period with one months notice, from either side, or on payment of one months salary in lieu of notice by the appointing authority. (3) The appointee under these rules shall have to execute an agreement with the Government on the prescribed form appended as Form `A to these Rules. 5. Eligibility. -- Eligibility for appointment shall be the same as is for the post prescribed under the rules of recruitment. 6. Selection Committee. -- The Selection of candidates shall be made by a selection committee comprising of: (1) Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District Chairman; (2) The Head of the concerned Department at the District level - Member Secretary. 7. Mode of Selection. -- (1) The Selection Committee shall invite applications for recruitment under these rules in their respective Districts. After assessing the merit of the candidates in a fair and transparent manner, the Selection Committee shall prepare a select list which shall not exceed the number of vacancies so advertised and furnish the same to the appointing authority within a period of 15 days from the date of selection. (2) The appointing authority shall issue appointment orders strictly in accordance with the select list furnished by the Selection Committee within a period of 7 days positively keeping in view the reservation provided under the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 1994. 8. Salary. (2) The appointing authority shall issue appointment orders strictly in accordance with the select list furnished by the Selection Committee within a period of 7 days positively keeping in view the reservation provided under the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 1994. 8. Salary. -- (1) The appointee under these rules shall be paid a consolidated monthly salary equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale of the post to which he may be appointed: Provided that the consolidated salary of a Degree holder Junior Engineer will be equivalent to the basic pay of the post of Junior Engineer plus eight increments. (2) An appointee shall not be entitled to any other allowances or monetary benefits, whatsoever. 9. Posting of the appointee. -- An appointee under these rules shall have to work at the place and against the post to which he has been appointed and shall not be eligible for transfer from the place of posting. 10. Conditions of service. -- In the matter of age, qualification, discipline, conduct and other allied matters an appointee under these rules shall be governed by the recruitment rules besides other rules, regulations and orders in vogue in the State Civil Services in general Provided that there shall be no ratio system between degree and diploma holders while making appointment by engineering service. By order of the Governor." Rule 3 of aforesaid Rules, i.e., the applicability clause, says that these Rules shall apply to the posts notified vide Government order dated 5th August, 2003 and to such other posts as may be notified from time to time in the General Administration Department by Government Order. Rule 7 prescribes the mode of selection and such selection is required to be made by the Selection Committees constituted for each District of the State. Rule 4 states that the contractual appointment shall last initially for one year or till regular selection is made in accordance with the rules of recruitment governing the respective posts, whichever is earlier. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 an appointee under the Rules is required to execute an agreement with the Government on the prescribed form. 19. Coming to the impugned order dated 9th February, 2004, it is not shown to have been issued pursuant to Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 an appointee under the Rules is required to execute an agreement with the Government on the prescribed form. 19. Coming to the impugned order dated 9th February, 2004, it is not shown to have been issued pursuant to Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules. It is based on Cabinet Decision No.27/2 dated 25th January, 2004 adopting a policy relating to settlement of ad hoc appointments. Even if it is assumed that by virtue of the impugned order, the ad-hoc appointments of the petitioners have been converted into contractual appointments in pursuance of Rule 3 of the Rules and, therefore, does not constitute a policy, even that course was available to the Government since appointments of the petitioners were not governed by any Rules or a valid Government order, their term of appointment under Rule 14 of the Classification, Control and Appeals Rules, 1956 having come to an end long back. In normal course, as per the aforesaid Rules, the adhocees, even for contractual appointment, were required to face the due process of selection as prescribed and described above. The adhocees have not been made liable or asked to underego this process. As a matter of policy, the Government has extended to them the benefit of deemed selection inasmuch as they have been ordered to continue on contractual appointment basis upto 31st December, 2004 and have been directed to enter into agreements in the prescribed form. It may be reiterated that under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules, it is only if a person is selected by the prescribed Selection Committee after undergoing the selection process and appointed that he is required to execute the agreement in question. Further, for purposes of this contractual appointment, the condition of eligibility prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules has not been enforced. Since these adhocees, who had no right to continue against the respective posts, could not even be appointed on contractual basis dehors the Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003, the Government has taken a policy decision to extend such a benefit to them. The "policy" has to be read in that context. Therefore, it is imaginable why the order has been issued as a matter of policy - lest the contractual appointments of the adhocees, dehors the Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003 as well, should be challenged by eligible candidates desirous of seeking such contractual jobs. The "policy" has to be read in that context. Therefore, it is imaginable why the order has been issued as a matter of policy - lest the contractual appointments of the adhocees, dehors the Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003 as well, should be challenged by eligible candidates desirous of seeking such contractual jobs. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that to that extent the Government has been fair and reasonable enough in extending this benefit to the adhocees. Before proceeding further I deem it relevant to quote hereunder paragraph 12 onwards of the impugned order: "12. Whereas the entire issue was considered by the Government in the light of the general directions of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Suraj Prakash Gupta and others, the directions passed by the Honble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the cases referred to above and Rule 14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 vis--vis their implication and it was decided that the Government order No.1285-GAD of 2001 dated 6.11.2001 is to be revoked and a comprehensive policy laid down for settlement of these adhoc appointees. Now, therefore, in supersession of Government Order No.11285-GAD of 2001 dated 6.,11.2001 it is hereby ordered as under: (i) All ad hoc appointments made after 28.7.1989onwards and which continued in service till the date of issue of this order shall be converted into contractual appointments w.e.f. Ist February, 2004, and these contractual appointments shall subsist till 31st December 2004 or till selections against these posts are made by the concerned selection agencies whichever be earlier; (ii) The contractual appointees, referred to in sub para (i) above shall be required to execute an agreement in accordance with the format appended to the Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules (notified vide SRO No.255 dated 5th August 2003) with the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer upto 25th February, 2004. Copies of the agreements shall be sent by the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer to the General Administration Department by or before 5th March, 2004; (iii) If any adhocee/contractual appointee referred to in this order fails to execute agreement in accordance with sub para (ii), he shall cease to be in the employment of the Government; (iv) All posts held by the adhocees shall be referred by the concerned Administrative Departments to the competent selection agencies by or before 29th February, 2004, if such posts have not already been referred to the selection agencies, for selection in accordance with the rules. (v) The selection agencies shall consider the eligible candidates, including the adhocees/contractual appointees referred to in this order as may apply before such selection agencies in accordance with the recruitment and reservation rules. Such of the adhocees/contractual appointees, who may have crossed the upper age limit prescribed for Government service and who may apply before the selection agencies shall also be considered by such selection agencies and their upper age limit shall be deemed to have been relaxed to the extent required for this purpose; (vi) A separate mechanism for selection of candidates against class IV posts held by the adhocees shall be put in place orders for which will be issued by the General Administration Department separately; (vii) Salary shall be released in favour of all adhocees subject to verification of attendance for the period they have worked by the controlling officer; (viii) The adhocees whose appointment would now be on contract shall be paid a consolidated salary equal to the minimum of the scale attached to the pots held by them with effect from Ist February, 2004; (ix) Such of the adhocees whose particulars are not submitted to the General Administration Department, in the proforma forwarded to the Departments vide General Administration Departments letter No.GAD(Adm) 260/2003 dated 5th September, 2003 (copy enclosed) by or before 29th February, 2004 shall also be deemed to be out of employment and would forfeit the dispensation of upper age relaxation for purposes of consideration for selection by the selection agencies. The Drawing and Disbursing Officers of the Departments concerned shall be responsible for conveying the requisite particulars to the General Administration Department by the aforesaid date." 20. The Drawing and Disbursing Officers of the Departments concerned shall be responsible for conveying the requisite particulars to the General Administration Department by the aforesaid date." 20. The object of the aforesaid order is clearly indicated in clauses (iv), (v) and (v) of the operative portion thereof, as quoted above, i.e., first, the posts held by the adhocees have been ordered to be referred to the competent selection agencies by 29th February, 2004. This order has been made applicable to all class or category of posts, including the Gazetted posts, non-gazetted posts and Class IV posts. Such a course is totally lawful and according to the constitutional requirements. Selection of candidates to the three categories of posts, namely, Gazetted posts, non-gazetted posts and Class IV posts, are made by three different agencies, namely, the State Public Service Commission vis-avis the Gazetted posts, the Service Selection Board for non-gazetted posts and District Level Committees for Class IV posts. Under clause (v) it has been specifically said that the adhocees who may have crossed the upper age limit prescribed for Government service and who may apply before the selection agencies shall also be considered by such selection agencies and their upper age limit shall be deemed to have been relaxed to the extent required for this purpose. In this manner, the Government has taken due care that each such adhocee gets a fair opportunity of competing in the selection process. As regards the Class IV employees, it has been ordered that a separate mechanism for selection of adhocees shall be formulated. According to the learned Advocate General, this scheme has not so far been framed and the reason put forth is the enforcement of Model Code of Conduct. I have gone through the judgments cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The latest law on the subject is that the process of recruitment prescribed by statutory rules cannot be bypassed by issuing directions for regularization of the services of the ad hoc employees who had come to the service through back-door entry. Even the leverage extended in extraordinary cases earlier by the Courts by directing the Government to frame a scheme and regularize such employees is not being insisted now. The emphasis of the law, as it exists now, is on entrusting such matters to the concerned selection authority. Even the leverage extended in extraordinary cases earlier by the Courts by directing the Government to frame a scheme and regularize such employees is not being insisted now. The emphasis of the law, as it exists now, is on entrusting such matters to the concerned selection authority. Reference in this regard may be had to J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan, (1994) 2 SCC 630; Dr. Surrinder Singh Jamwala v. State of J&K, (1996) 9 SCC 619; Dr. Meera Massey v. Dr. S. R. Mehrotra, (1998) SCC 88; P. Ravindran v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, (1997) 1 SCC 350 and Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K, 2000) SCC 561. Therefore, I am of the opinion that various directions and decisions taken by virtue of the impugned order, as referred to above, are in line with the mandate of law. 21. However, in clause (v) of paragraph 12 of the order, as quoted above, it is provided that "the selection agencies shall consider the eligible candidates, including the adhocees/contractual appointees." meaning thereby that it would be open to the concerned Selection Agency to invite applications from all eligible candidates. Given the peculiar background in which the adhocees would be required to compete alongwith candidates from the open market, I am afraid if the eligible candidates from the open market, in the event of their applying and seeking consideration for selection against these posts, would really be convinced about the genuineness and fairness of the selection process. The object of the Rules providing for open selection is not only to make open selections and chose the best and suitable candidates on the basis of merit, but also to lend the required tinge of fairness and impartiality to such selections and reasonability to the opportunity of competing therein. Even if an adhocee/contractual appointee is selected on his merits, the course is likely to give rise to doubts about the genuineness of the process shattering the confidence of people in these Selection Agencies and adversely affecting the image and reputation for the impartial and unbiased conduct of these Agencies. That may even lead to casting aspersions on the concerned Selection Agencies or their members. That is likely to give rise to further litigation. That may even lead to casting aspersions on the concerned Selection Agencies or their members. That is likely to give rise to further litigation. Therefore, I am of the view that, the selection process should be restricted only to these adhocees and after the selection process is completed, the remaining vacancies should be advertised for selection from amongst eligible candidates from the open market. This course would avoid further litigation and save the Selection Agencies from avoidable difficulties. In fact, the learned Advocate General made a statement at the Bar that the intention of the Government is to remove the Damocles sword that has been dangling over the heads of these adhocees since long. Therefore, in my considered view the words "candidates, including the", though in consonance with the constitutional requirements, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to avoid further litigation, need to be deleted. I would have rather left it to the Government to consider this aspect of the matter and to issue necessary corrigendum but that may put the Government in some kind of difficulty in future. In order to avoid eruption of future complications for the Government, I think it appropriate to issue necessary positive directions as herein contained. 22. It may be observed here that, referring to Government order No.556-Edu of 2002 dated 11th April, 2002 read with order No.383-Edu of 2003 dated 4th April, 2003, it was strenuously argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Government has adopted double standards. Whereas 417 Class IV employees, who were earlier put on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.1200/- per month, have been put in the regular scale of pay of Rs.2550 - 3200, the Government has denied similar treatment to the petitioners. Perusal of Government order dated 11th April, 2002 reveals that these candidates had been appointed on Class IV posts by various Chief Education Officers in the Jammu province. Director, School Education, Jammu canceled those orders, in terms of order dated 28th June, 1999. The Directors aforesaid order was kept in abeyance by the Government in terms of order dated 5th July, 1999 which order was later on withdrawn. Consequently, the Directors order was given effect to and made operational. Director, School Education, Jammu canceled those orders, in terms of order dated 28th June, 1999. The Directors aforesaid order was kept in abeyance by the Government in terms of order dated 5th July, 1999 which order was later on withdrawn. Consequently, the Directors order was given effect to and made operational. The ousted persons filed writ petition SWP No.2668 before this Court in which a direction was issued on 23rd May 2000 to the Government to draw up a fresh merit list keeping in view the fact that some of the candidates might be on the verge of crossing the age bar. The averment made by the petitioners in SWP No.390/2004 and relied upon by learned counsel Mrs. Surrinder Kour, that the Court quashed their appointments, is not borne out by the record. Consequent upon the aforesaid Court order, in terms of Government order dated 11th April, 2002 a Committee for their selection was constituted and, meanwhile, they were put on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.1200/-. After the Selection Committee formulated its recommendations, they were placed in regular scales of pay in terms of Order dated 4th April, 2003. In nutshell, the action has been taken in pursuance of court directions and not in pursuance of either the impugned order or any other scheme. In the instant case, the Government has decided to formulate a scheme for the selection of Class IV adhocees. Unless that scheme is formulated, the grievance of the Class IV adhocees/petitioner is premature. In any case, it is hoped that the Government, while framing the scheme, would take notice of its own orders so as not to discriminate between the Class IV petitioners herein and the persons involved in the aforesaid Government order. 23. While upholding the impugned order to the extent indicated above, these petitions are, disposed as admitted with the following directions: 1. that the words "candidates, including the" appearing in the opening sentence of clause (v) under paragraph 12 of the impugned order shall be deemed to have been deleted as quashed. The selections from amongst the eligible adhocees, who may apply, shall be made strictly on the basis of merit and suitability in accordance with the rules without being influenced by the fact of the adhocees having been previously appointed or continued on ad hoc basis or on contractual basis. 2. The selections from amongst the eligible adhocees, who may apply, shall be made strictly on the basis of merit and suitability in accordance with the rules without being influenced by the fact of the adhocees having been previously appointed or continued on ad hoc basis or on contractual basis. 2. after the selection process in terms of clause (v) of the order is completed, the remaining posts required to be filled up shall immediately be advertised in normal course under the Recruitment Rules. 3. it is likely that, on account of the filing of these petitions before this Court and their pendency, or for any other reason, some of the adhocees/contractual appointees might not have executed the required agreements. The Government shall appropriately extend the dates of execution of such agreements by all such categories of adhocees and the other relevant dates for submission of the requisite particulars to the General Administration Department by the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officers as provided in various clauses of the order. 4. in any case, the selection process as envisaged by clause (v) referred to above shall be completed within five months from the date of this judgment and the remaining posts shall immediately thereafter be put to open selection by the respective Selection Agencies according to Recruitment Rules. 5. while framing the scheme for selection of Class IV adhocee/contractual appointees, the Government shall take note of the observations and directions made hereinabove. 6. in future the Government and its various functionaries shall ensure that no ad hoc appointment is made dehors Rule 14 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956 and in no case such arrangements are continued beyond the prescribed period of nine months. In the event any authority continues an ad hoc appointee beyond nine months, the wages to be paid to the adhocee beyond the period of nine months shall be recoverable from the person of that authority.