ORDER Present Civil Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that petitioner has passed M.Com in the year 2001. It is further pleaded that in the year 2006 petitioner has qualified NET and in the year 2008 petitioner passed M.Phill in commerce. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner served as lecturer college cadre in erstwhile DAV College Daulatpur chowk. It is further pleaded that petitioner is 50% physically handicapped in her right lower limb. It is further pleaded that in the year 2008 HP Public Service Commission notified one post of lecturer in commerce college cadre reserved for Ortho handicapped and the petitioner applied for the same post. It is further pleaded that in the year 2009 petitioner was called for personal interview against Roll No. 3 and she was declared successful and was recommended for appointment as lecturer in commerce college cadre on regular basis against the post reserved for physically handicapped. It is further pleaded that on dated 5.6.2010 instead of giving regular appointment to the petitioner, she was appointed as lecturer in college cadre in commerce subject on contract basis on consolidated salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month. It is further pleaded that on dated 11.6.2010 petitioner joined duties under protest. It is further pleaded that notification dated 5.6.2010 Annexure P8 to the extent that petitioner was appointed on contract basis instead of regular appointment be quashed and set aside. It is further pleaded that respondent No.1 be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on regular basis as recommended by HP Public Service Commission Shimla through its Secretary. Prayer for acceptance of writ petition sought. 2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 pleaded therein that requisition was sent to HP Public Service Commission for filling up 742 posts of lecturers in college cadre in which 92 posts were reserved for persons having disability. It is further pleaded that same were advertised by HP Public Service Commission. It is further pleaded that during the year 2008 government withdrew said requisition from HP Public Service Commission except 92 posts reserved for the disabled persons. It is further pleaded that thereafter government again submitted requisition for filling up 633 posts of lecturers in colleges on contract basis and said posts were advertised by HP Public Service Commission. It is further pleaded that during the year 2008 government withdrew said requisition from HP Public Service Commission except 92 posts reserved for the disabled persons. It is further pleaded that thereafter government again submitted requisition for filling up 633 posts of lecturers in colleges on contract basis and said posts were advertised by HP Public Service Commission. It is further pleaded that 92 posts reserved for person with disability. It is further pleaded that six names were recommended by HP Public Service Commission for the appointment of lecturer college cadre out of handicapped person. It is further pleaded that before offering appointment to handicapped candidates government had already offered appointments to number of candidates as lecturer in various subjects on contract basis in college. It is further pleaded that if regular appointment was given to the handicapped persons then regular candidate would become senior. It is further pleaded that thereafter administratively it was decided to offer the appointment to the handicapped candidates on contract basis. It is further pleaded that claim of the petitioner is not justified. Prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought. 3. Per contra separate reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 pleaded therein that HP State Public Service Commission through its Secretary Nigam Vihar Shimla advertised 73 backlog posts of lecturer college cadre reserved for persons with disabilities. It is further pleaded that nine applications were received by HP Public Service Commission. It is further pleaded that on scrutiny six candidates were provisionally admitted including petitioner and were called for interview on dated 30.7.2009 and 31.7.2009. It is further pleaded that HP State Public Service Commission through its Secretary Nigam Vihar Shimla recommended appointment for the post of lecturer college cadre vide Annexure R2/A. It is further pleaded that petitioner was recommended by HP State Public Service Commission through its Secretary in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- Prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought. Petitioner also filed rejoinder and re-asserted the allegation pleaded in the civil writ petition. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of HP State Public Service Commission and also perused entire records carefully. 5. Petitioner also filed rejoinder and re-asserted the allegation pleaded in the civil writ petition. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of HP State Public Service Commission and also perused entire records carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in the present writ petition: (1) Whether respondent No. 1 i.e. State of HP through F.C-cum-Secretary Education to the Government of HP could not appoint the petitioner contrary to advertisement and contrary to recommendation of HP Public Service Commission Shimla in public post as alleged? (2) Relief. Finding upon Point No.1. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner was recommended for the post of lecturer college cadre in commerce class-I gazetted in the pay scale of Rs 8000-13500 by HP Public Service Commission vide letter No. 3-33/2007-PSC(R-I) 22429 issued in the month of September 2009 in the reserved vacancy of disabled person in the category of Ortho handicapped and respondent No.1 State of HP through F.C.- Cum-Secretary to the Government of HP is not legally competent to appoint the petitioner on contract basis as per notification No. EDN-A-B(1)18/2009 dated 5.6.2010 is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that Public Service Commission vide advertisement No. 10 of 2008 dated 4.12.2008 invited application from disabled person. It is proved on record that Public Service Commission on dated 4.12.2008 advertised 73 posts for disabled persons out of which 32 posts were reserved for blind persons, 30 posts were reserved for deaf and dump persons and 11 posts were reserved for Ortho handicapped persons for different subjects. It is proved on record that one post was reserved for Ortho handicapped in commerce subject. It is proved on record that petitioner in compliance to the advertisement of HP Public Service Commission applied for the post of lecturer college cadre in commerce. It is proved on record that HP Public Service Commission vide letter No. 3-33/2007-PSC(R-1) 22429 issued in the month of September 2009 recommended the name of petitioner Ms Ruchy Sharma for the post of lecturer college cadre in commerce subject in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-. It is proved on record that HP Public Service Commission did not recommend the appointment of petitioner on contract basis. 8000-13500/-. It is proved on record that HP Public Service Commission did not recommend the appointment of petitioner on contract basis. It is proved on record that HP Public Service Commission recommended the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis. It is proved on record that thereafter Government of HP Department of Higher Education vide Notification No. EDN-A-B(1)18/2009 dated 5.6.2010 posted petitioner Ms Ruchy Sharma as lecturer in commerce college cadre on contract basis and consolidated salary was fixed at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month. It is proved on record that petitioner joined the service under protest. It is held that Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Higher Education was not legally competent to appoint the petitioner contrary to the recommendation of the HP Public Service Commission and contrary to the advertisement. There is no evidence on record to prove that advertisement was given by HP Public Service Commission for the said post on contract basis. There is no evidence on record that recommendation was sent by HP Public Service Commission for appointment of petitioner on contract basis. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that administratively it was decided to offer the appointment to the petitioner on contract basis in order to avoid the seniority of lecturers in various subjects who were already appointed by the respondents is rejected for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that person appointed to a post on ad hoc basis cannot have any lien on the post. See AIR 1989 SC 696 titled Harbans Misra and others Vs. Railway Board and others. It was held in case reported in AIR 1994 SC 1808 titled J&K Public Service Commission etc. Vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan and others that ad hoc employee should be replaced as expeditiously as possible by direct recruits. It was held in case reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 363 titled Dr. Kashinath Nagayya Ibatte Vs. State of Mharashtra and others that candidates working on ad hoc basis have to give place to regular appointee. It is well settled law that ad hoc appointment is temporary appointment pending regular recruitment. It was held in case reported in AIR 1992 SC 2070 titled Director Institute of Management Development UP Vs. Kashinath Nagayya Ibatte Vs. State of Mharashtra and others that candidates working on ad hoc basis have to give place to regular appointee. It is well settled law that ad hoc appointment is temporary appointment pending regular recruitment. It was held in case reported in AIR 1992 SC 2070 titled Director Institute of Management Development UP Vs. Smt Pushpa Srivastava that appointment on contractual basis is only for a limited period and after expiry of period of contract post comes to an end. It was held in case reported in AIR 1996 SC 3194 titled Y.H Pawar Vs. State of Karnataka and another that seniority is to be determined with effect from the date on which the employee is regularized. It is proved on record that appointment of the petitioner was regular appointment. It is proved on record that HP Public Service Commission has recommended regular appointment of the petitioner from handicapped category. It is held that respondent No.1 was not legally competent to give appointment to the petitioner contrary to the recommendation of HP Public Service Commission by way of administrative direction. It is also held that administrative direction cannot be given qua the appointment in a public post contrary to the notice of advertisement and contrary to the recommendation of HP Public Service Commission as per Constitution of India. It is held that administrative direction given by respondent No.1 is contrary to the advertisement notice and contrary to the recommendation of HP Public Service Commission. It is also proved on record that advertisement of regular appointment of lecture in commerce was not withdrawn qua handicapped persons by HP Public Service Commission by way of subsequent advertisement till date. Point No.1 is decided in favour of petitioner. Relief: 8. In view of the above stated facts it is held (1) That words appointment on contract basis as per contractual amount of Rs.12,000/- per month mentioned in Notification No. EDN-A-B(1)18/2009 dated 5.6.2010 is illegal and same is ordered to be deleted and quashed with immediate effect and words regular appointment in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- is ordered to be incorporated qua petitioner only with immediate effect in Notification No. EDNA- B(1)18/2009 dated 5.6.2010. (2) It is further held that petitioner will also be entitled for all consequential monetary benefits in accordance with law. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. (2) It is further held that petitioner will also be entitled for all consequential monetary benefits in accordance with law. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. All miscellaneous application(s) are also disposed of.