JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 22/3/2014 by which earlier order dated 28/9/2013 has been withdrawn and the petitioners have been required to clear the selection in terms of the stipulation made in condition no.1 of their appointment order dated 21/5/2013. 2. Shri Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that at the time of initial recruitment on the post of Stenographer had undergone the rigour of regular selection, like any other process of selection that may take by way of direct recruitment and therefore the order dated 28/9/2013 was rightly passed granting relaxation to the petitioners from the requirement of qualifying short hand examination in the direct recruitment as per the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 amended upto January 2013 (for short, the "Rules of 1986"). Learned counsel submitted that such appointments made in the past also are being continued since 2002. Learned counsel has referred to communication dated 1/5/2013 (Ann.1) by which applications were invited from serving employees of the different courts, who possessed eligibility and knowledge of stenography and typing in Hindi and English and thereafter they were subjected to written as well as type test. Mention of Rule 23(3) of the Rules of 1986 in the appointment order dated 21/5/2013 was therefore superfluous and the order dated 28/9/2013 was therefore rightly passed. 3. Perusal of the impugned-order dated 22/3/2014 indicates that when the matter of regularisation of petitioners under Rule 23(3) within four months of their appointment was brought to the notice of the High Court, the High Court did not find the order in conformity with the Rules of 1986 and in fact opined that such regularisation was made in breach of the condition of the aforesaid rules. District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan served upon the petitioners notice on 6/3/2014 and 11/3/2014 and thereafter petitioners submitted reply to the aforesaid notices. Their reply was considered by the administrative committee. It was thereafter that the order of regularisation dated 28/9/2013 has been recalled by the impugned-order dated 22/3/2014. 4. District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan served upon the petitioners notice on 6/3/2014 and 11/3/2014 and thereafter petitioners submitted reply to the aforesaid notices. Their reply was considered by the administrative committee. It was thereafter that the order of regularisation dated 28/9/2013 has been recalled by the impugned-order dated 22/3/2014. 4. Rule 23(3) of the Rules of 1986 inter-alia provides that a vacancy which cannot be filled in immediately either by direct recruitment or by promotion may be filled in by appointing authority by appointing temporarily thereto a person eligible for direct recruitment or by appointing thereto an official eligible for appointment to the post by promotion. There is a rider in the proviso to that sub-rule that such appointment shall not be continued beyond the period of one year. Appointment of the petitioners was therefore in the nature of stop gap arrangement and it was made for a period of six months. Unusual method adopted by regularising their services vide order dated 28/9/2013 was therefore rightly not approved by the High Court on administrative side. Impugned-order has been passed after due appreciation of the facts afore-stated after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Petitioners cannot claim their appointment of stop gap arrangement under Rule 23(3) of the Rules of 1986 to regular appointment by way of direct recruitment. Contention that candidates appointed in the same manner in 2002 are being continued on being regularised is a matter, may attract attention of the District Judge or High Court on administrative side but a writ cannot be issued directing perpetuation of illegality on that ground by entertaining claim of the writ petitioners to regularise them without requiring them to undergo the regular process of recruitment envisaged in the Rules of 1986. 5. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******