JUDGMENT : Learned Additional Advocate General has handed over instructions dated 01.09.2022, imparted by Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Academy of Arts Culture & Languages, Shimla. These instructions are ordered to be taken on record. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:­ “i) That the respondents be directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner as Clerk on regular basis forthwith without any further delay. (ii) That the cost of writ petition may kindly be ordered to be paid.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Computer Instructor in the respondent­Academy in terms of the interviews, which were held by the competent authority pursuant to the advertisement issued in this regard in terms of order dated 25.10.1999 (Annexure P­1). He continues to be serving till date against the said post on contract basis. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that leaving other issues aside, a perusal of Annexure P­2 would demonstrate that in the meeting of the Executive Committee of Himachal Academy of Arts Culture & Languages, dated 14.01.2009 (Annexure P­2), in which besides other members, Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh was also present, a decision was taken in the affirmative to fill the posts of Research Assistant, Clerk and Peon. Learned Senior Counsel, thereafter, by referring to the documents appended with the rejoinder which are the Notings obtained under Right to Information Act, has submitted that a perusal of Note­73 onwards (See Page­48 of the Paper Book) would demonstrate that the case of appointing the petitioner against the post of Clerk was duly recommend by the respondent Academy to the Worthy Chief Minister. Notes­74 and 75 as per the learned Senior Counsel demonstrate that Worthy Chief Minister was pleased to give his approval for appointing the petitioner against said post of Clerk. Thereafter, by referring to Note-76, she submitted that a perusal of this Note would demonstrate that after necessary approval was granted by the then Chief Minister for appointment of petitioner against the post of Clerk, it was mentioned in this Note that letter of appointment against the post be issued in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, by referring to Note-76, she submitted that a perusal of this Note would demonstrate that after necessary approval was granted by the then Chief Minister for appointment of petitioner against the post of Clerk, it was mentioned in this Note that letter of appointment against the post be issued in favour of the petitioner. However, the proposal was not taken to its logical conclusion on account of Note­78, wherein it was proposed that the proposal be sent to the Finance Department, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, ignoring the fact that the Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh was a member of the Executive Committee, which had approved the filling up of the posts of Clerk. In these circumstances, learned Senior Counsel submitted that taking into consideration the peculiar facts of this case wherein the petitioner is serving the respondent-Academy on contract basis since the year 1999, a mandamus be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the post of Clerk so that justice is done to him. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that at the time when the petitioner joined the service of the respondent-Academy, he was of twenty nine years old. Today, he is fifty two years old and in case the petitioner is not accommodated, he will not get any Government job as he has already become over age. Therefore, in this background, learned Senior Counsel submitted that taking into consideration the peculiarity of the case, the petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner against the post of Clerk with all consequential benefits. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that at the time of initial engagement of the petitioner on contract basis in terms of Annexure P­1, there was no holding out by either of the respondents that with the passage of time his services would be regularized either as an Instructor or as a Clerk. Learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that it was a conscious decision of the petitioner to accept the offer which was made to him vide Annexure P­1 and as there was no concealment at any stage by the respondents as to what were the terms on which the job was being offered to the petitioner, therefore, now the petitioner cannot pray that his service be regularized against the post of Clerk. Learned Additional Advocate General also argued that even otherwise, as there are Recruitment and Promotion Rules existing, in terms whereof a procedure stands prescribed to fill up the post of Clerk, therefore, the Department intends to fill up this post by invoking the provisions of Recruitment and Promotion Rules and the petitioner is free to apply for the post if he is otherwise eligible. But, simply because he has been serving the Department Since 1999, he does not has any superior right to claim regularization against the said post. Learned Additional Advocate General also relied upon the instructions, dated 01.09.2022, which have been so imparted to him by the Secretary of the Academy and submitted that in terms of these instructions also the petitioner cannot be adjusted against the post of the Clerk as he is an employee of ‘NCPUL’ and the post in issue i.e. the post of Clerk has to be filled in through Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. On these points, learned Additional Advocate General has urged that the present petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith and the instructions which have been today handed over to the Court by learned Additional Advocate General. 6. At the very outset, this Court may observe that on facts, present is a hard case. The petitioner was engaged in October, 1999 against the post of Instructor by the respondent-Academy, as is evident from the consents of Annexure P­1. This appointment was on contract basis. The petitioner continues to serve as such against this post till date on contract basis. The post, against which the petitioner is serving in the respondent­Academy has been provided to the Academy by the Human Resource Ministry of the Government of India. 7. Be that as it may, without entering into other aspects of the matter, it is apparent and evident from the perusal of Annexure P­2, which are the Minutes of the Meeting of Executive Committee of the respondent­Academy, dated 14.01.2009, that approval was granted to fill up inter alia the post of Clerk in the respondent-Academy by the Committee and Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh was one of the members of the Committee. 8. 8. This Court is of the considered view that the reason and the rational as to why the Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is made a member of the Executive Committee of the Academy, is to assess at that stage itself the financial implications of the decision which the Committee is taking. In this view of the matter, there is indeed a question mark, as to whether the decisions of the Executive Committee of the respondent-Academy, in which concurrence of the Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is there in his capacity as a member of the Committee can be made subservient to any subsequent decision of the Finance Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Record further demonstrates that the case of the petitioner for being regularized by way of appointment against this post of Clerk was recommended in affirmative by the Academy and this recommendation was approved by the highest Executive Authority. This is evident from the documents which have been appended by the petitioner with the rejoinder, reference whereto has already been given in the above part of the judgment. Once that was done and that too as far back as in the year 2010, then non-implementation of the same on the ground that permission of the Finance Department is required, appears to be completely unjust and unfair to the petitioner. 9. It is reiterated that as the Secretary (Finance) was a member of the Executive Committee of the Academy, therefore, it is presumed that at the time when the approval was given by the Committee of the respondent­Academy to fill up the post of the Clerk, the financial implication thereof were taken into consideration and therefore, the same subsequently cannot be made subservient to subsequent approval of the Finance Department, more so, when the approval to appoint the petitioner against the post was granted by the highest Executive Authority. 10. 10. Now, coming to the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the appointment of the petitioner was against the post of Instructor and therefore, he cannot be regularized against the post of Clerk and further that the post has now has to be filled in as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that taking into consideration the peculiar facts of this case, it will be in the interest of justice in case an exception is made in the present matter and the petitioner is regularized by way of appointment against the existing post of Clerk, more so for the reason that it is not in dispute that he possesses the requisite qualification to be appointed against the said post. 11. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that at the time when the petitioner joined the service as an Instructor on contract basis, he was twenty nine years of age and today he is more than fifty two years old and is, thus, ineligible to be appointed against any Government post for which the outer age limit fixed by the State is forty five years. 12. This Court is alive to the fact that the post of Clerk has to be filled in by way of Recruitment and Promotion Rules. However, it is also a matter of record that there is on record a recommendation of the respondent­Academy itself to appoint the petitioner against the said post of Clerk which has been approved by the highest Executive Authority. Besides this, the Government itself is following the policy of regularization, in terms whereof, the persons who were appointed may be on daily wage or on contract basis are regularized against the post in question without following the procedure prescribed in Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 13. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the present case, this Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner against the post of Clerk lying with the respondent-Academy, prospectively within a period of thirty days from today. 13. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the present case, this Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner against the post of Clerk lying with the respondent-Academy, prospectively within a period of thirty days from today. It is made clear that as the order is being passed in the peculiar facts of the case, therefore, the petitioner will not lay any claim with regard to his past service rendered with the respondent­Academy and he should be satisfied with the prospective appointment against the post of Clerk. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.