JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar, J.-Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 2. The application was earlier heard and notices were issued on the respondent-workman and the same was served, but nobody appears on behalf of the workman. In that view of the matter on the last date, on the request of the court, Mrs. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate agreed to argue the case as amicus curiae on behalf of workman. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a reference was made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-2, Dhanbad and the reference case was registered as case no. 113 of 1996. The reference was as under "whether the claim of the union that Sri Sagar Hari has worked as dispensary clerk eligible for regularization of service as Dispensary Clerk is legal and justified'? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" 4. Answering the reference learned Tribunal passed the following award "that the claim of the union that Sri Sagar Hari is working as Dispensary Clerk and therefore eligible for regularization as Dispensary Clerk is legal and justified. The management is directed to regularize the concerned workman as Dispensary Clerk from the date of reference i.e. 11.10.1996 with full back wages and consequential relief within three months from the date of publication of the award in the Gazette of India." 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the finding of the learned Tribunal is absolute bad in law and fact of the case and only fit to be quashed in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that it is admitted case that the workman, Sri Sagar Hari was appointed as a sweeper on 7.10.1971 and placed in Technical Sup. Grade-H with effect from 1.6.1978 when he was further graded as Technical Sup. Grade-G with effect from 1.7.1991 under S.L.U. and it is submitted that the workman never worked as Dispensary Clerk and he was working only as a ward boy and there is no question of his regularization in the clerical grade for which minimum qualification as per the norms of the company and cadre scheme is matriculation. Grade-G with effect from 1.7.1991 under S.L.U. and it is submitted that the workman never worked as Dispensary Clerk and he was working only as a ward boy and there is no question of his regularization in the clerical grade for which minimum qualification as per the norms of the company and cadre scheme is matriculation. As such the direction of the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of the document, Ext.-W-1 and considering that he has worked for the job of dispensary Clerk from 1983 till the date of award and hence he is entitled to be regularize on the post of dispensary Clerk is bad in law and fact of the case and fit to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment reported in "(1996)9 SCC page 619 in the case of Dr. Sundar Singh Jamwal & Anr. vs. State of J&K & Ors." wherein it was held that although the appellant was recruited on ad hoc basis and had been continuing as such and have worked for about 13 years of service, hence, they are entitled for regularization of service and this was not accepted in view of the judgment of "J&K Public Service Commission vs. Dr. Narindra Mohan reported in (1994)2 SCC page 630" and it was held that now it is settled principle of law that recruitment to the service should be governed by the appropriate statutory rules. Under the rules the regular appointment to the post shall be made by the Public Service Commission, consequently the ad hoc appointment would only be temporary appointment de hors the rules, pending regular recruitment without conferring any right to regularization for service. Learned counsel has also relied upon a decision reported in "2003(3) SCC page 485 in the case of Chanchal Goyel vs. State of Rajasthan", in which case also the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on the earlier judgment of "J&K Public Service Commission vs. Dr. Narindra Mohan reported in (1994)2 SCC page 630" came to a finding that the appointment of appellant which was purely temporary in nature till proper selection is made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission does not give any right of appointment under the principle of legitimate expectation as such, it is submitted that petitioner cannot be regularize against the rules. 7. Learned counsel for respondent appearing as amicus curiae, Mrs. 7. Learned counsel for respondent appearing as amicus curiae, Mrs. M.M. Pal has supported the cases relied by the petitioner, since in all those cases, workman were either appointed on ad hoc basis or appointed temporarily till their regular appointment is made by public service commission, but in this case the workman, Sri Sagar Hari, who is the permanent employee of the company and appointed as such, on 7.10.1971. Thereafter, he was promoted on Technical Sup. Grade-G post with effect from 1.7.1991 and during the trial of the case before the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-2, Dhanbad the workman proved the order passed by the management dated 19.12.1983 which was marked as Ext.-W-1 where in it was written that since Mr. P.N. Sharma, the Dispensary Clerk at Amlabad Colliery was suffering from paralysis and not fit for performing his duty as Dispensary Clerk, the respondent-workman was allowed to assist him and after the death of Mr. P.N. Sharma in 1988 thereafter Dy. C.M.E., Amlabad Project by, Ref. No. BCCL: 88, AMED dt. 12.7.1988 directed him to look after the store work temporarily till arrangement is done. It was also directed to see the medical officer in the morning and night shift with regard to requirement of medicine. The said order marked as Ext.-2 and on the basis of Exts. W/1, W/2 and considering the fact that even during the argument of the aforesaid reference case petitioner was working as clerk in the medical store and thereafter, he worked continuously for more than 17 years since, 1988 and as such learned Tribunal rightly directed the management to regularize the service with back wages waiving the regulations which requires minimum qualification as matriculation. Since, it is now settled principle of law that workman has worked on a higher post for which he is not qualified to the satisfaction of the company, then he is entitled to be regularized on the said post. Learned counsel (amicus curiae) for the workman has relied on the judgment reported in "A.I.R. 2001 (vol. Since, it is now settled principle of law that workman has worked on a higher post for which he is not qualified to the satisfaction of the company, then he is entitled to be regularized on the said post. Learned counsel (amicus curiae) for the workman has relied on the judgment reported in "A.I.R. 2001 (vol. 3) Supreme Court page 706 in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors.", wherein it has been held that "in spite of eligibility clause in the scheme that worker should possess prescribed qualification at the time of their appointment-workers working in post for long number of years without complaint, by itself sufficient qualification-long experience is equitable with such qualification-Eligibility clause need to be modified and eligibility condition relaxed in favour of such worker". As such the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal suffers from no illegality and in accordance with law. Hence, there is no merit in the application and it is fit to be dismissed. 8. After hearing both the parties and considering the arguments as aforesaid, it is clear that the rules and judgment relied by the learned counsel for petitioner-management is with regard to the appointment which are ad hoc and temporary in nature and whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that if a person is appointed as ad hoc and temporary basis awaiting regular appointment by either the Public Service Commission or some other scheme, then he cannot claim regularization of his service after long work, but in the instant case I find that the worker is the permanent employee and it appears from Ext.-W-1 that the worker was directed to assist as Dispensary Clerk from before the death of P.N. Sharma, the then Dispensary Clerk and after the death by Ext.-W-2, workman was directed to work on the said post and till the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal dated 5.9.2005, he was still working. As such, even in this writ application there is no averment by the petitioner that presently the respondent is not working as Dispensary Clerk. In that view of the matter, the case of the respondent is fully covered by the judgment in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors. As such, even in this writ application there is no averment by the petitioner that presently the respondent is not working as Dispensary Clerk. In that view of the matter, the case of the respondent is fully covered by the judgment in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors. and since, respondent is working for more than 20 years as Dispensary Clerk and as such the eligibility clause for the post of dispensary clerk which is said to be matriculation has become equitable with the long satisfactory service. 9. In that view of the matter, the instant writ application is dismissed without having any merit.