JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Both these writ petitions have been filed by one and the same petitioner leading to the same relief. Both are being decided by this common order. 2. Petitioner before this Court claims to have been appointed as an untrained Dental Hygienist under an order of the Chief Medical Officer, Mainpuri dated 25.5.1979 (enclosed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application, which has already been allowed). 3. It is contended that the petitioner continued to function as untrained Dental Hygienist for years together and ultimately in the year 1988 the State Government came out with a policy, for the training, of untrained Dental Hygienist with the condition that such untrained Dental Hygienist should have completed 5 years of service. According to the petitioner three persons were selected, including the petitioner, for such training. However, he was refused admission in the training college only because he had reported two months beyond the prescribed date. 4. The petitioner, therefore, filed writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 27080 of 1993, before this Court with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to complete the training qua the post of Dental Hygienist. In the writ petition no interim order was granted and only counter-affidavit was called for. The writ petition is pending and is being decided today by this Court. 5. In order to complete the narration of facts, it may be stated that the petitioner, after 9 years of the said writ petition, filed second petition, being Writ Petition No. 51115 of 2002 for a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary of the months of September and October, 2002 as and when it falls due. By means of an amendment application filed in the year 2009 i. e. after 7 years of the second petition he came up with a prayer that the order dated 4.9.2002, passed by the respondent, be quashed. The order dated 4.9.2002 is enclosed alongwith writ petition, whereunder the petitioner was addressed as ‘Ward Boy and was informed that his salary is not being released for the period 1.9.2002 to 25.9.2002, as he was absent from duty without application. The petitioner by means of the amendment application made a further prayer that the respondents may be directed to continue to treat him as untrained Dental Hygienist and to pay him salary accordingly. 6. The petitioner by means of the amendment application made a further prayer that the respondents may be directed to continue to treat him as untrained Dental Hygienist and to pay him salary accordingly. 6. On 21.12.2002 an order was passed by this Court that the petitioner shall not be asked to handover the charge of Dental Hygienist and if he continues to work as such, he will be paid salary regularly. Petitioner, on the strength of the interim order, claims to have worked as Dental Hygienist and to have been paid his salary. 7. It is stated today that the petitioner is now due to retire today. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents may be directed to fix his pension and other retiral dues treating him to be Dental Hygienist. For all other practical purposes the writ petition has become infurctuous. It is being explained to the Court that the petitioner had become entitled for regularization under The Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Perview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1989’). 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 10. The order of appointment issued in favour of the petitioner has been enclosed alongwith amendment application and makes an interesting reading. The order records that the name of the petitioner finds mention at serial No. 39 of the list obtained from the Local Employment Exchange and that the Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare U.P., Lucknow vide letter dated 6.4.1979 has directed that since the petitioner is not trained as Dental Hygienist, he may be offered appointment as untrained Dental Hygienist on purely temporary basis and as soon as a trained Dental Hygienist joins, the services of the petitioner shall come to an end automatically. 11. It is with reference to such appointment, the petitioner claims to have continued for decades together. 12. On a pointed query being made by this Court, as to when the petitioner was not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification of the post namely training as Dental Hygienist, how he could be appointed against any post, the counsel for the petitioner could not answer the query. 12. On a pointed query being made by this Court, as to when the petitioner was not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification of the post namely training as Dental Hygienist, how he could be appointed against any post, the counsel for the petitioner could not answer the query. What has been stated is that since the petitioner has been appointed under the letter of the Director, it has to be treated as valid. 13. Such contentions do not appeal to the Court. All officers of the State are bound to comply with the statutory provisions and to ensure that the appointment of a candidate is made strictly in accordance with the rules applicable and one who is possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification of the post, after following the procedure prescribed and not otherwise. 14. From the records of this petition it is further clear that the petitioner was required to undergo training of Dental Hygienist under a letter dated 25th June, 1988, which specifically provided that the petitioner must report at Medical College, Agra for one year’s training. The petitioner did not respond within time and therefore the Principal of the Medical College at Agra informed the authorities vide letter dated 7.11.1988 that the training of Dental Hygienists’ has been started in the month of June, 1988 and against 5 posts so sanctioned, five persons have already been appointed. Permitting the petitioner to undergo the training at this stage would result in uncalled for interference in the training of the others. 15. No action was taken by the petitioner for five years thereafter and it is stated that he kept on making representation. 16. After 5 years he approaches the Court by means of writ petition in the year 1993 for a mandamus being issued directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete his training and this writ petition continued to remain pending for 18 years i. e. till date without any order being passed at any stage permitting the petitioner to complete his training. 17. What follows is that the petitioner all along continued as an untrained Dental Hygienist. Even on the date of retirement he has not acquired the requisite training, which is a condition precedent for being appointed against the post of Dental Hygienist in Government service. 18. 17. What follows is that the petitioner all along continued as an untrained Dental Hygienist. Even on the date of retirement he has not acquired the requisite training, which is a condition precedent for being appointed against the post of Dental Hygienist in Government service. 18. So far as the regularization rules referred by the petitioner are concerned, suffice is to record that he is not covered by the said rules, inasmuch as he was not promoted on the post of Dental Hygienist. It is a case of appointment by way of direct recruitment and therefore the provisions of Rules, 1989, referred to above, would not apply. 19. Under the Rules, 1988 a candidate becomes entitled for regularization only if he was appointed prior to the cut of date mentioned in the Rules, 1988 and was possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification for the post on the date of appointment. As already noticed above, the petitioner is not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification of the post, it is for this reason he was appointed as untrained Dental Hygienist. 20. No relief can be granted to the petitioner. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. Interim order stands discharged. —————