The requisition notice dated 10/11/2005 for filling up four posts of Lower Division Clerk (hereafter referred to as the Clerk) in the office of the Command Area Development Authority, Manipur, (hereafter referred to as the CADA) is under challenge. The petitioners have sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the same and one for mandamus to direct the respondents to consider their cases for regular appointment thereto. I have heard Mr. S. Jayanta, Sr. Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Ibohal, learned State Counsel for the official respondents. A brief outline of the pleaded facts would be necessary to better comprehend the rival submissions. The petitioners' claim to have been appointed as Clerk on adhoc basis for a period of three months in the office of the CADA by order dated 1/7/1999 of the Additional Chief Engineer, CADA, Government of Manipur. Their services were thereafter extended from time to time. They claim that the petitioner No. 2 and 4 are members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community respectively and that the petitioner No. 3 is a member of the Other Backward Class. In between they had approached this Court with WP(C) 872/2000, WP(C) 1487/2001 and WP(C) 48/2001 wherein this Court by various orders had restrained the State respondents from ousting them from their posts unless those were filled up on regular basis. With the lifting of the ban on direct recruitment in the State of Manipur by the office memorandum dated 24/9/2005, the State respondents have initiated a move to fill up the posts held by the petitioners, according to them, without considering their cases in accordance with law. Following an agitation by the adhoc appointees in general resenting against non regularization of their services, organizations such as Joint Administrative Council of All Manipur Trade Union Council (for short referred to as the JAC) and All Manipur Government Employees Organization took up the issue with the Government with a demand to postpone the process. Thereafter on 23/6/2001, the representatives of the JAC held a meeting with the Chief Minister of the State wherein it was unanimously settled to meet the demand of regularization of adhoc appointees. The petitioners have asserted that following such a consensus, a memorandum of understanding was also signed by the parties on 26/6/2006 embodying the charter of demands inter alia for regularization and service protection of genuine adhoc employees by holding special DPC. The petitioners have asserted that following such a consensus, a memorandum of understanding was also signed by the parties on 26/6/2006 embodying the charter of demands inter alia for regularization and service protection of genuine adhoc employees by holding special DPC. In between, by the impugned requisition notice, the Additional Chief Engineer, CADA, requested the Additional Director, Employment Exchange, Government of Manipur, to sponsor suitable number of candidates for the four posts of LDC in CADA held by the petitioners. The petitioners have asserted that the form notifying the vacancies did not adequately disclose the qualifications required of the general candidates. Further it did not mention about the reservation of posts for scheduled casts and scheduled tribes. Thereafter a written test was held on 25/6/2006 followed by a typing test for the post on 5/7/2006. The viva voce test has also been held on 15/7/2006. The petitioners have contended that they did not participate in the process in view of Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26/6/2006. In an additional affidavit filed by the petitioners, they have furnished the particulars of the filled up posts in the cadre of LDC in CADA as follows. “i) Ms. K. Binasakhi Devi (General), ii) Ms. Th. Purnima Devi (General), iii) Ms. M. Ibetombi Devi (General), iv) Ms. Th. Sunita Devi (General), v) Mr. H. Gunewhwor Singh (General) and vi) Mr. A.S. Ahao (ST).” They have maintained that the cadre constitutes of 10 posts and that Mr. Ahao, an ST candidate, has voluntarily retired from service on 1/6/2006. They have, therefore, pleaded that out of 10 posts, 5 posts are occupied by the general candidates on regular basis. The process initiated by the requisition notice, according to them, therefore, is violative of the Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1979, whereunder one post each for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe are essentially required to be reserved out of four posts sought to be filled up. The petitioners in the meantime have submitted several representations, the last two being dated 6/3/2006 and 19/6/2006 before the Additional Chief Engineer (CADA), Government of Manipur, Imphal, however, to no avail. Mr. Jayanta, learned Sr. The petitioners in the meantime have submitted several representations, the last two being dated 6/3/2006 and 19/6/2006 before the Additional Chief Engineer (CADA), Government of Manipur, Imphal, however, to no avail. Mr. Jayanta, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the above has emphatically urged that the exercise initiated by the impugned requisition notice being in flagrant contravention of the Rules, it is liable to be adjudged illegal, null and void. No provision for reservation in the posts involved having been made for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates, the process is per se illegal and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. The impugned action of the respondents in endeavoring to fill up the posts held by the petitioners being in derogation of the letter and spirit of the settlement set down in the memorandum of understanding dated 25/6/2006, the same lacks in fairness and transparency and is, therefore, liable to be adjudged ineffectual, null and void. In support of his submissions, Mr. Jayanta has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Hoshiar Singh versus State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 2606. In reply, Mr. Ibohal has urged that as the petitioners, being adhoc employees in public posts, have no subsisting right to claim regularization without subjecting themselves to a process legally prescribed, no interference with the exercise nearing its completion is warranted at this stage. I have carefully considered the rival submission. Indubitably the petitioners have been appointed on adhoc basis for a limited term, which had been extended from time to time, their continuing in the post sought to be filled up in the same capacity. As it is, in law, they cannot claim regularization in their posts automatically without their suitability being decided by a legally sanctioned procedure. It is not their case that they had been appointed on adhoc basis initially following a process of selection. Logically, therefore, the State respondents cannot be said to have acted beyond the parameters of their authority in initiating the process for filling up the said post on regular basis. The petitioners admittedly have not offered their candidature and did not participate in the ongoing process. The written test, typing test and the viva-voce have already been conducted. Understandably, therefore, the process is at its culminating stage. The petitioners admittedly have not offered their candidature and did not participate in the ongoing process. The written test, typing test and the viva-voce have already been conducted. Understandably, therefore, the process is at its culminating stage. Truly the form notifying the vacancies accompanying the requisition notice dated 10/11/2005 does not indicate the extent of reservation for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates against the posts. However, mere omission to mention about the same per se would not introduce an incurably vitiating illegality so much so to strike down the process on that count. This is more particularly in view of the statutory obligation of the State respondents to scrupulously observe the mandates of the Rules in filling up the posts. The relevant extract of the memorandum of understanding pertaining to item 3 of the charter of demand and the understanding between the state and the agitating organizations is set out herein below for ready reference. Sl. No. Charter of demand Understanding arrived at. ….. …... 3 Regularization of services, protection of genuine adhoc employees by holding special DPC. Regularization of casual/muster roll and work charge employees. Matter would be looked into within the parameters of law and the State policy. In view of the tone and tenor of the understanding qua item No. 3 of the charter of demand as well it is not possible to deduce any contempt by the State to regularize the petitioners services dehors a process acknowledged in law. The decision of Hoshiar Singh, supra, pressed into service on behalf of the petitioners to highlight the impermissibility of relaxing the conditions of eligibility recited in the advertisement to favour some of the participating candidates is of no relevance for the present adjudicative pursuit. Apparently, the process under challenge had been initiated on 10/11/2005. Though the petitioners have claimed to have submitted representations in between, they are unduly delayed in approaching this Court. As noticed hereinabove, the process in which eligible candidates have participated bonafide is almost complete. Judicial interference at this stage therewith, in my view, would be inappropriate. The prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the process therefore cannot be acceded to. As the petitioners are as on date continuing in their post on adhoc basis, I do not feel persuaded to issue a writ of mandamus as well directing their regularization without undertaking a process legally prescribed therefor. The prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the process therefore cannot be acceded to. As the petitioners are as on date continuing in their post on adhoc basis, I do not feel persuaded to issue a writ of mandamus as well directing their regularization without undertaking a process legally prescribed therefor. The above notwithstanding, having regard to the pleaded factual background, demonstrative of interactions between the Government and the agitating organization, espousing the cause of the adhoc employees of the State, resultant memorandum of understanding dated 25/6/2006 and the particulars furnished by the petitioners vis-à-vis the cadre strength of LDC in CADA and the filled up posts coupled with the omission on the part of the respondents to satisfy the percentage of reservation, in my considered opinion, it would be in the interest of justice and equity that the State respondents be directed to take a conscious decision on the petitioners' representations having regard to the above distinctive features of the case before finalizing the process for filling up the posts involved. Ordered accordingly. The petitioners shall submit a copy of the writ petition along with the additional affidavit and a certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 2 so as to enable him to do the needful. Needless to say that the said authority would interact with the other State authorities for appropriately resolving the issue. As a public process is waiting its finalization, the respondent authorities would take a decision as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than two weeks from the date of submission of the above documents by the petitioners. The petition stands closed in the above terms. No costs.