Dr. Saikia, CJ. 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Veenu Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Rajneesh Oswal, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. By consent of the parties, both these appeals are taken up for final disposal, as the issue raised in both the appeals is common, based on almost similar facts situation. 3. Judgment and order dated April 10, 2007, rendered by the Writ Court in SWP no. 1520/2004 is under challenge in both these Letters Patent Appeals. 4. The appellants herein were engaged by the Board of School Education vide its order no. 483-B of 2004 dated June 23, 2004 to do Desk Job for a transitory period of 60 (sixty days) on consolidated salary of Rs. 1900/- per month providing that the initial engagement should be extended from time to time depending on the need and satisfactory accomplishment of the Job. 5. These engagements were challenged by the writ petitioners-respondents herein on the ground that appointments were bad, illegal and in total violation of established norms of service jurisprudence. The Writ Court by the impugned judgment and order accepted the writ petition and quashed the engagements of all the appellants holding that engagements of appellants were unjustified and unwarranted inasmuch as no administrative fairness was displayed in making such engagements. 6. Being aggrieved by findings recorded by the learned Single Judge so as to cause disengagement of the appellants, these appeals have been preferred. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The entire records so placed before us by the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents have also been closely scrutinised. 8. On thorough examination of the records, it is found that no norms as required and necessary under the law have been followed for such selection. Even the recommendation of the Interview Committee, as has been recorded in its order dated 483-B of 2004 dated June 23, 2004, have also not been found in the record. Moreso, the recommendation made by the Committee also did not reflect any marks given by the Committee against those candidates. Besides, we find no other records to demonstrate that appellants were adjudged better in merit to the other candidates. 9. Mr. Moreso, the recommendation made by the Committee also did not reflect any marks given by the Committee against those candidates. Besides, we find no other records to demonstrate that appellants were adjudged better in merit to the other candidates. 9. Mr. Sethi, learned Senior counsel has forcefully submitted that all the appellants had duly appeared in the interview and they got selection in the due process in accordance of law. As regards non-marking to show the merit of the appellants, it is further submitted that if no marks were being given, it is not the fault of the appellants, who have been duly engaged on their proper interview. 10. On careful examination of the records, we are disinclined to approve the submissions of the learned Senior counsel. 11. Having considered the impugned judgment, we fully agree with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in arriving at the impugned decision. For better appreciation of the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment, we feel it necessary to reproduce the relevant portions of the same which are as under: "Perusal of the selection record of the Board of School Education indicates that interview for engagement of persons for Desk and Menial Jobs had been conducted by a Committee constituted of M/s. H. K. Gupta, Joint Secretary Administration, I. K. Kotwal, Accounts Officer and Chand Rani, Joint Secretary Administration, on 26th /28th of February, 2004 when out of 103 candidates applying for the Desk Job and 300 candidates applying for the Menial Jobs, only 87 had appeared for the Desk Job and 230 for the Menial Jobs. The selection records contain a copy of order No. 483-B of 2004 dated 23rd of June, 2004, a note sheet shown to have been singed on 10th June, 2004 and an unsigned list of candidates who had applied for the Desk/Menial Jobs in the Board of School Education with some notings on the list of 24th of February, 2004. There is nothing in the records to indicate as to how the Committee had assessed the merit of the candidates who had appeared before the Committee on 26th and 28th of February, 2004. The Board of School Education does not appear to have prepared any criteria for selection of candidates for the Desk and Menial Jobs. There is nothing in the records to indicate as to how the Committee had assessed the merit of the candidates who had appeared before the Committee on 26th and 28th of February, 2004. The Board of School Education does not appear to have prepared any criteria for selection of candidates for the Desk and Menial Jobs. It is not discernable from the records as to how the selection would recollect the individual rating of the candidates who had appeared in the interview on 26th and 28th of February, 2004, on 10th of June, 2004, i.e. after a period of more than three months when they had prepared a note for its onward transmission to the retiring Chairman of the Board of School Education. The records of the Boards Education depict a dismal picture indicating an unfair approach of the Board and its Selection Committee in playing with the aspiration of those who had competed for the Desk Job and Menial Jobs pursuant to issuance of Notification dated 17.2.2004. The records of the Board of School Education further demonstrate that the Board has exceeded the quota of posts which were required to be filled up from the candidates belonging to Jammu District. Only one candidates Ms. Shamma Bhat, respondent No. 10, a resident of Poonch had been selected whereas the candidates who had appeared form other Districts had been ignored consideration for selection. I am thus constrained to hold that the selection of private respondent Nos. 4 to 10 was unjustified for there is no records to indicate their having been adjudged better in merit to the others who had competed in the interview. Approval accorded by respondent No.3, the then Chairman of the Board of School Education, who was at the verge of retirement too demonstrates that the selection had been unfair. Unfairness in any form whatsoever breads discontent, spreading outrageous and, at times, rebellious ripples thereby polluting individual minds and ultimately affecting the society adversely. Administrative heads and Selection Authorities owe a duty to the public to act fairly. Their actions are thus required to be transparent, fair and objective. Decisions taken by the authorities at the verge of retirement, are seen with suspicion by the public. Administrative heads and Selection Authorities owe a duty to the public to act fairly. Their actions are thus required to be transparent, fair and objective. Decisions taken by the authorities at the verge of retirement, are seen with suspicion by the public. The authorities are, therefore, required to act in such a manner that the confidence of public is not shaken in the Institutions which have to decide about the recruitment of millions of unemployed youth in the Country. Yet another thing which come up for discussion at the time of hearing of this petition was that the respondent-Board of School of Education had been continuing the engagements meant only for a transitory period of 60 days and it was admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the engagement of the private respondents was still continuing. This appears to be device employed by the Board of School Education to continue causal/temporary, engagements thereby sacrificing the Rules, Guidelines and Instructions governing engagement of permanent, temporary or causal employees. Casual, adhoc or temporary engagements cannot be a substitute for regular employment de hors the Rule sin force governing such recruitment and appointments. Causal, ad hoc or temporary engagements are permissible only for a short period. These engagements, cannot be continued beyond the prescribed period lest these engagements may deprive all those who may be entitled to seek permanent employment to these positions in accordance with the Rules. Engagement of private respondents beyond a period 60 days too is thus unjustified. Appointment order of private respondents incorporating a clause that their engagements would be extendable on the basis of their satisfactory performance, was contrary to what was contained in the Notification of the Board of School Education. This clause in the impugned Notification is, therefore, un-warranted." 12. The Administrative Authorities in a selection process are duty bound to demonstrate administrative fair play. Transparency, fairness and objectivity must reflect in every action in the selection process, so that the confidence of the public in those Institutions is not eroded. 13. Given facts and circumstances, it may be well said that the present action in the selection to the post of Desk Job lacks such transparency, fairness and reasonableness. That being so, we can unhesitatingly opine that there is no plausible or cogent ground to dislodge the impugned judgment. 14. Accordingly, both the appeals stand dismissed. 15. 13. Given facts and circumstances, it may be well said that the present action in the selection to the post of Desk Job lacks such transparency, fairness and reasonableness. That being so, we can unhesitatingly opine that there is no plausible or cogent ground to dislodge the impugned judgment. 14. Accordingly, both the appeals stand dismissed. 15. However, in our considered view, the directions given by the learned Single Judge as regards time frame for holding fresh selection for engagement of the persons for Desk Job needs to be extended in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we direct that the entire process of fresh selection, as directed by the learned Writ Court, shall be undertaken and completed within three months from today and till such fresh selection is made, the appellants herein shall not be disengaged. 16. It is made clear that the authority/authorities concerned shall consider the relaxation of age of all the parties appearing and contesting in these appeal proceedings in case of their selection and appointment.