JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. - Centre for Adult and Continuing Education and Extension (in short called "ACEE" ), Himachal Pradesh University issued advertisement No.A-1/88 for filling up the post of Accounts Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature. He was found suitable for appointment to the post of Accounts Clerk. He was issued appointment letter on 30.11.1988, vide Annexure A-2. Petitioner made representation on 28.6.1993 for including his name in the seniority list of Senior Assistants of the respondent- University. The Registrar of the respondent-University sought certain clarification from the Assistant Director, Adult Education and Extension Programme, vide Annexure A-4 on 9.8.1996. The information was supplied by the Assistant Director to the Deputy Registrar (G.A.D.) on 22/24.8.1996. The re presentation made by the petitioner was rejected on 7/8. 10.1996 vide Annexure A-7. The Executive Council of the respondent-University took a decision to order encadrement of the incumbents of ministerial posts viz. Junior Assistant and Senior Assistant of the Adult, Continuing Education and Extension (hereinafter referred to 'ACEE') in the main cadre of the University at the bottom of the respective cadres with effect from the date of notification. The notification was issued on 9.6.2000. 2. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that the encadrement of the petitioner should have related back to his date of appointment in the year 1988. She also argued that the petitioner , in fact, has been appointed in the respondent-University and not in ACEE. She has also argued that the case of her client was to be considered at par with Sudesh Negi, Prem Lata Verma, Uttam Singh and Yashwant Singh Rana. 3. Mr. Vinod Thakur has vehemently argued that the appointment of the petitioner was in ACEE and not in the University. He also argued that in normal circumstances the petitioner ought to have promoted as Senior Accounts Clerk and not Senior Assistant. He then argued that the decision to encadre the ministerial posts will apply prospectively, i.e. with effect from 9.6.2000. He further contended that the scheme where the petitioner was appointed is temporary scheme, which was initially sponsored upto 1997 and thereafter State Government has given assurance to fund the same. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. He further contended that the scheme where the petitioner was appointed is temporary scheme, which was initially sponsored upto 1997 and thereafter State Government has given assurance to fund the same. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. It is evident from Annexure A-1, copy of advertisement, that the post of Accounts Clerk was temporary in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080. Petitioner has been offered appointment letter on 30.11.1988. His conditions of service, as per condition No. (v), enumerated in the appointment letter were to be governed under the rules and regulations of the Centre for Adult, Continuing Education and Extension, Himachal Pradesh, University. The appointment letter has been issued by the Assistant Director and not by the functionary of the respondent- University. As far as Sudesh Negi, Prem Lata Verma, Uttam Singh and Yashwant Singh Rana are concerned, their appointment letters have been issued by the Registrar, Himachal Pradesh University. Their appointments have been approved by the Executive Council on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee as Coordinator (DCC) Project Officer (Population Education Scheme) and Project Officer (National Adult Education Scheme). Their conditions of service are to be governed by the Himachal Pradesh University Act and the Regulations and Statute framed thereunder from time to time. The conditions of service of the petitioner were governed by the rules and regulations of the Centre for Adult, Continuing Education and Extension. 6. The appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis. It is intriguing to note that though the petitioner has been appointed as Accounts Clerk and has been re-designated as Senior Assistant. The normal stream in the respondent-University is that an incumbent is firstly appointed as Clerk and thereafter Junior Assistant and Senior Assist ant. Senior Clerks are appointed as Accounts Clerk and thereafter promoted as Senior Accountant. It is established from the records placed on record by the parties that the scheme was temporary financed by the University Grants Commission upto 1997. The incumbents who have been appointed under the temporary scheme cannot seek clubbing of their cadre/seniority with the regular employees of the respondent-University. The mode of appointment of the petitioner vis-a-vis employees of the respondent-University is different. The incumbents who have been appointed under the temporary scheme cannot seek clubbing of their cadre/seniority with the regular employees of the respondent-University. The mode of appointment of the petitioner vis-a-vis employees of the respondent-University is different. The service condit ions of the employees of the respondent-University are governed under the Himachal Pradesh University Act and Regulations and Statute framed thereunder and the service conditions of the petitioner were governed under the rules and regulations of the temporary scheme. Respondent-University has now issued notification on 29.4 .2009 whereby the Executive Council has decided to convert the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension as a full fledged Department of Adult Continuing Education and Extension. The Court had directed the respondent- University to decide the representation made by the petitioner vide order dated 6.9.2010. The same was ejected by the competent authority on 26.10.2010. This Court sought information about the appointment of Sudesh Negi, Prem Lata Verma, Uttam Singh and Yashwant Singh Rana. Supplementary affidavit in compliance was filed whereby it was brought to the notice of the Court that the appointments of these incumbents were in the respondent-University. No decision has been taken for their encadrement. 7. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar has also argued that the petitioner is required to be treated as employee of the respondent-University with effect from 30.11.1988 since he is contributing to G.P. F.-cum-gratuity-cum-pension scheme since 1996 after obtaining his option. She also argued that petitioner is contributing to General Insurance Scheme. Merely that the petitioner is covered under the scheme will not make him regular employee of the respondent-University as claimed by him from anterior date. However, the respondent-University has taken a conscious decision for encadrement of the petitioner and similarly situate persons vide notification dated 9.6.2000. The notification dated 9.6.2000 will apply prospectively. In case the contention of Mrs. Ranjana Parmar is accepted, the rights of the persons, who have been regularily appointed in the respondent-University will be put to jeopardy, including seniority. There is no illegality in the order of respondent-University whereby the encadrement has to take place from the date of notification and these persons have to be placed at the bottom of the seniority. It is settled law under the service jurisprudence that the persons who have come from the outside cadre have to be placed at the bottom of the seniority. 8. It is settled law under the service jurisprudence that the persons who have come from the outside cadre have to be placed at the bottom of the seniority. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.