JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 are directed against the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, rejecting the writ petitions filed by the appellants-original petitioners seeking directions on the respondent–Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to give them appointments on any suitable post as per the advertisement. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The appellants are working in different departments of the State Government either as contractual employees or fixed pay employees on Government nominated agencies, which are engaged for doing the work of the Government in different departments. Some of the appellants are also working under the respondent–Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on contractual basis. The respondent-Corporation issued an advertisement dated 31.12.2015, inviting applications for filling-up the posts of Assistant Senior Clerks, Assistant Head Clerks and Office Superintendents. Accordingly, all the appellants filled their online applications for various posts. The recruitment process was not proceeded further in view of some litigation filed before this Court. Ultimately, the appellants filled their applications and they passed the examinations and accordingly, the candidates who have passed the examination were found suitable for 223 posts of Assistant Senior Clerks, 128 posts of Assistant Head Clerks and 115 for the posts of Office Superintendents. 3. All the appellants have succeeded in the recruitment process till the stage of issuance of appointment orders. The respondent - Corporation ultimately on 30.09.2019, appointed only 26 candidates to the post of Assistant Senior Clerks, 42 candidates to the post of Head Clerks and 53 candidates to the post of Office Superintendents by publishing the select list on 30.09.2019. Since the appellants were not offered any appointment, they inquired from the Corporation and on an inquiry, it was found that they were not selected for the reason that they did not satisfy the requisite experience. Hence, they were constrained to file the writ petitions. Before the learned Single Judge, a stand has been taken by the respondent-Corporation that the experience of the appellants on various posts cannot be considered, as they were working on contractual basis on fixed pay. The learned Single Judge has found favour with the reasons assigned by the respondent-Corporation and has rejected the writ petitions. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with Mr. The learned Single Judge has found favour with the reasons assigned by the respondent-Corporation and has rejected the writ petitions. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with Mr. Vinod M.Gamara, learned advocate for the appellants, has submitted that the advertisement does not refer that the candidate must have the exclusive experience of regular employee, and it does not mention that the experience gained by the employees like the appellants on the contractual or fixed pay posts, cannot be considered. It is submitted that so far as the other requirement of experience in Semi-Government or Government Boards is concerned, no objection has been raised. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta has referred to the Regulation of the Municipal Corporation governing the appointment to the posts of Senior Clerks, Head Clerks and Office Superintendents being RGN No.494- 2015-16, and submitted that the same also refers to the administrative experience and there is no Rule or Clause which excludes the experience secured by the candidates, who are working on contractual basis. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas appearing for some of the appellants has submitted that all the relevant documents were produced by the appellants at the time of recruitment process and were scrutinized, and ultimately, the names of the appellants figured in the select list, however, the appellants are not selected only for the reason that they are having experience of working on contractual posts. He has submitted that when the applications of the candidates were scrutinized, and they were short listed, the candidates, who were not possessing requisite experience as well as the educational qualifications, were excluded from the select list. However, he has submitted that the appellants were not excluded which proves that the Corporation had no objection with the experience gained by the appellants. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta and learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas have pointed out that all the appellants are possessing the administrative experience and in case, the Corporation contends that the appellants are not having the administrative experience, then the respondent-Corporation has appointed the persons, who are conductors in the services of the Corporation. It is submitted that thus, if the respondent-Corporation has appointed persons like Conductors, who would not in fact possess any administrative experience, then the appellants are far better suited to the posts since all of them are having the administrative experience. It is submitted that thus, if the respondent-Corporation has appointed persons like Conductors, who would not in fact possess any administrative experience, then the appellants are far better suited to the posts since all of them are having the administrative experience. In support of their submissions, they have referred to the list produced by the Corporation itself pointing out the experience of each and every candidate, including the appellants. Thus, it is urged that the learned Single Judge fell in error in rejecting the writ petitions by holding that the administrative experience should be on regular post and the experience rendered by the candidate on contractual basis on administrative post, cannot be considered eligible for the appointment. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION : 7. In response, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for the respondent - Corporation has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be quashed and set aside, as the same is appropriately passed. He has referred to the Clause of experience incorporated in the advertisement as well as the Regulation (RGN No.494) of 2015-16, in support of his submissions and has submitted that the same categorically provides that a candidate applying directly for the aforesaid post, should have administrative experience of 5 years or 7 years on a regular post and the experience rendered by the candidates on contractual post cannot be considered. Hence, it is submitted that after the select list was prepared, when it was realized by the Corporation that all the appellants were having the experience on contractual posts, their appointment orders were not issued. It is submitted that the Conductors, it appears that some mistake has occurred in issuing appointment to the conductors, 5 in number, and he would ask the respondent-Corporation to take necessary steps with regard to their appointment. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION : 8. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The sole issue, which falls for consideration before us is that, whether the administrative experience rendered by the appellants on contractual basis on the post, on which they are working, can meet with the requirement of the advertisement issued by the Corporation for filling-up the posts of Assistant Senior Clerks, Assistant Head Clerks and Office Superintendents or not. 9. The sole issue, which falls for consideration before us is that, whether the administrative experience rendered by the appellants on contractual basis on the post, on which they are working, can meet with the requirement of the advertisement issued by the Corporation for filling-up the posts of Assistant Senior Clerks, Assistant Head Clerks and Office Superintendents or not. 9. The objection to the appointment of the appellants, which has been raised by the Corporation before the learned Single Judge and their affidavit-in-reply for denying the appointment to the appellants is relating to their lack of administrative experience on regular posts. Their experience on contractual posts having fixed pay is held to be invalid in view of the criteria of Regulation being (RGN No.495)2015-16, and also as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement. 10. The facts, which are established from the pleading, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.12.2015 issued by the Corporation to fill-up 61 posts of Office Superintendents, 66 posts of Assistant Head Clerks and 277 posts of Assistant Senior Clerks, the appellants applied for the respective posts. The experience mentioned in the advertisement against the posts refers as “any administrative experience in Government or semi-Government or Board/Corporation”. For Assistant Senior Clerks it is 5 years, for Assistant Head Clerk as 7 years and for Office Superintendent as 10 years. The experience Clause of the advertisement, more particularly Clause No.5 reads as under:- “5. As demanded in the advertisement, the experience gained after obtaining educational qualification/degree shall only be considered as valid, and any prior experience will not be considered in any circumstances. At the time of document verification, the candidates shall produce the certificates issued by the concerned establishment having inward/outward number and date. The offer letter or appointment letter will not considered as only proof for the purpose of experience, however, any orders issued by the establishment granting increments or promotion, proof of pay or any other supportive proof, the same will be considered as valid for the purpose of experience upon due verification.” 11. Thus, the requirement of the advertisement is that a candidate must have an ‘administrative experience’ of respective number of years in order to become eligible for the posts in question. The experience prescribed in the advertisement is in line with the Regulation-RGN No.494 issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Legal) Ahmedabad laying down the eligibility criteria qua experience. Thus, the requirement of the advertisement is that a candidate must have an ‘administrative experience’ of respective number of years in order to become eligible for the posts in question. The experience prescribed in the advertisement is in line with the Regulation-RGN No.494 issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Legal) Ahmedabad laying down the eligibility criteria qua experience. There is no distinguishing feature mentioned either in the advertisement or in the Regulation, stipulating that the experience of a candidate gained on a regular post shall only be considered, and not the experience gained as a contractual employee. It is not in dispute that in the applications filed by the appellants, they have mentioned about their experience of contractual posts/fixed pay, and also the establishment in which they are working. They have accordingly, mentioned the capacity in which they were working as contractual/fixed pay employees in the respective Boards, Government organization or Corporation. Their applications were accepted and they were allowed to participate in the recruitment process. Ultimately, they cleared the examinations, and a select list was published by the Corporation, which included their names. The details of each of the appellants is given as under: Letters Patent Appeal No. 584 of 2022 (Sahayak Senior Clerk) Sr. No. Name of the Appellant Application No. Passed Examination of Serial No. of the appellant in the chart produced by AMC Work Experience Years of Experience with page Nos. of relevant certificates 1 Dave Vaishali Narhariprasad 2827 1763 Sahayak Senior Clerk And also Head Clerk 1 (Page No. 150) Computer Operator at Taluka Panchayat Unjha, Assistant Program Officer at DRDA Mahesana and District Program Co-originator-MIS at DPO Surendranagar and DPO Mahesana. 7 Years 3 Months, 27 Days (Still continued) 2 Mehta Janakkumar Dineshbhai 1960 Sahayak Senior Clerk 31 (Page No. 116) Accountant cum data entry operator at Primary Health Center Daloli and Junior Accountant at DRDA Ahmedabad. 7 Years, 2 Months, 14 Days (Still continued) 3 Patel Himanshu Navinchandra 2362 Sahayak Senior Clerk And also Head Clerk 45 (Page No. 118) Technical Assistance (Administrative) at Gujarat Council of Science City, Department of Science and Technology. 7 Years, 2 Months, 14 Days (Still continued) 3 Patel Himanshu Navinchandra 2362 Sahayak Senior Clerk And also Head Clerk 45 (Page No. 118) Technical Assistance (Administrative) at Gujarat Council of Science City, Department of Science and Technology. 7 Years, 6 Months, 9 Days (Still continued) 4 Parmar Indrajit Kanubhai 1494 Sahayak Senior Clerk 24 (Page No. 116) Accountant cum computer operator at Primary Health Center Tansad 5 Years, 7 Months, 22 Days (Still continued) 5 Modi Sanjaykumar Ganapatlal 86 Sahayak Senior Clerk 03 (Page No. 114) Accountant cum computer operator at Community Health Center Kheralu. 6 Years, 1 Months, 0 Days (Still continued) 6 Barot Harsh Nitinkumar 1408 Sahayak Senior Clerk 22 (Page No. 115) Taluka Level Executive at Taluka Panchayat Mahesand and Assistant Program Officer at DRDA Mahesana. 5 Years, 3 Months, 23 Days (Still continued) 7 Balat Prakashkumar Ravjibhai 759 Sahayak Senior Clerk 17 (Page No. 115) Accountant cum computer operator. 7 Years, 9 Months, 13 Days 8 Jadav Sunil Rameshchandra 1696 Sahayak Senior Clerk 26 (Page No. 116) Senior Account Assistant at Primary Health Centre Chithoda and WDT Accountant at RFO Santalpur and District Watershed Development Unit Patan. 6 Years, 5 Months, 17 Days (Still continued) 9 Solanki Yogeshkumar Hamirbhai 266 Sahayak Senior Clerk 08 (Page No. 114) Assistant (Junior Clerk) at Metropolitan Magistrate Court Ahmedabad and Assistant (Data Entry) at Consumer Education Research Center, Ahmedabad 8 Years, 1 Months, 3 Days 10 Prajapati Vijaykumar Kantilal 1924 Sahayak Senior Clerk 46 (Page No. 118) Assistant Cooriginator at WASMO (Water and Sanitation Management Organization) 8 Years, 1 Months, 3 Days 11 Malvad Jesingbhai Bhagabhai 1586 Sahayak Senior Clerk 47 (Page No. 118) Accountant cum computer operator at Primary Health Centre Ditvas, Taluka : Kadana. 6 Years, 7 Months, 25 Days (Still continued) 12 Shailesh Bavandasbhai Ramanuj 2775 Sahayak Senior Clerk And also Head Clerk 41 (Page No. 117) Assistant Manager at Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority and Junior Executive/ Assistant Manager at Gujarat Institute of Disaster Management 7 Years, 10 Months, 19 Days (Still continued) 13 Mohammadari f Mohammadha nif Shaikh 2932 Sahayak Senior Clerk 49 (Page No. 118) Accountant cum computer operator at Primary Health Centre Munpur, Taluka : Kadana and Taluka Accountant at Taluka Health. 6 Years, 11 Months, 27 Days (Still continued) Letters Patent Appeal No. 769 of 2022 (Sahayak Senior Clerk) Sr. 6 Years, 11 Months, 27 Days (Still continued) Letters Patent Appeal No. 769 of 2022 (Sahayak Senior Clerk) Sr. No. Name of the Appellant Applic ation No. Passed Examina tion of Serial No. of the appellant in the chart produced by AMC Work Experience Years of Experience with page Nos. of relevant certificates 1 Hardik Upendrakumar Trivedi 1028 Sahayak Senior Clerk Not named in chart produced by AMC Clerk Cum Computer Operator at Wadhwan Nagarpalika. 10 Years (Still continued) Letters Patent Appeal No. 1056 of 2022 (Sahayak Senior Clerk) Sr. No. Name of the Appellant Appliction No. Passed the Examination of Serial No. of the appellant in the chart produced by AMC Work Experience Years of Experience with page Nos. of relevant certificates 1 Maheta Pooja Snehalkumar 171 Sahayak Senior Clerk 04 (Page No. 114) Administrative Assistant at District AIDS Prevention and Control Unit, Mahesana. 7 Years 6 Months, 36 Days 2 Chandrashree Rajan Engineer 128 Sahayak Senior Clerk 05 (Page No. 114) Junior Assistant at Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad 4 Years, 9 Months Letters Patent Appeal No. 1552 of 2022 (Senior Clerk) Sr. No. Name of the Appellant Appliction No. Passed the Examination of Serial No. of the appellant in the chart produced by AMC Work Experience Years of Experience with page Nos. of relevant certificates 1 Joshi Rajeshbhai Indravadbhai 396 Sahayak Senior Clerk 13 (Page No. 115) Administrative Assistant cum Computer Operator at Balo; Gram Panchayat, Mahesana 6 years, 3 months, 13 days (Still continued) 2 Chauhan Hasmukhbhai Dalaji 808 Sahayak Senior Clerk 20 (Page No. 115) System Analyst at District Watershed Development Unit, Banaskantha Palanpur under Gujarat State Watershed Management Agency (GSWMA) 5 years, 7 months, 13 days Letters Patent Appeal No. 1163 of 2022 (Sahayak Senior Clerk) Sr. No. Name of the Appellant Application No. Passed the Examination of Serial No. of the appellant in the chart produced by AMC Work Experience Years of Experience with page Nos. of relevant certificates 1 Mansuri Zahidmahmad Janmahmad 1965 Sahayak Senior Clerk 32 (Page No. 116) Worked in the Watershed Team, Krushi on contract basis from 08/10/2007 to 05/07/2014 at the Gujarat State Watershed Management Agency (GSWMA), Sabarkantha – Himatnagar. Thereafter worked at the I.C.D.S. Society, Lakhtar, Surendranagar as the Block Coordinator (Nutrition Health Mobilizer) from 07/07/2014 to 31/07/2017 . From 21/09/2017 till now working at the District Mineral Foundation, Surendranagar as the District Coordinator. Thereafter worked at the I.C.D.S. Society, Lakhtar, Surendranagar as the Block Coordinator (Nutrition Health Mobilizer) from 07/07/2014 to 31/07/2017 . From 21/09/2017 till now working at the District Mineral Foundation, Surendranagar as the District Coordinator. 8 years, 2 months, 23 days 2. Dantani Rachanaben Rameshbhai 2070 Sahayak Senior Clerk 34 (Page No. 116) Worked as Data Entry Operator at the Income Tax Department, Ahmedabad from 01/04/2009 to 31/03/2017 Worked as Data Entry Operator at the Het-Chit Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. from April 2017 to March 2018. At present working with the Income Tax Department, Ahmedabad for urgent official work 6 years, 8 months, 30 days Letters Patent Appeal No. 1158 of 2022 (Sahayak Head Clerk) Sr. No. Name of the Appellant Application No. Passed Examination of Serial No. of the appellant in the chart produced by AMC Work Experience Years of Experience with page Nos. of relevant certificates 1 Harshadkumar Chhanalal Parmar 203 Sahayak Head Clerk Not named in chart produced by AMC Admin and H.R.Executive at Health Branch Indian Red Cross Society Ahmedabad. 9 years, 4 months, 25 days Letters Patent Appeal No. 1175 of 2022 (Sahayak Senior Clerk) Sr. No. Name of the Appellant Appliction No. Passed the Examination of Serial No. of the appellant in the chart produced by AMC Work Experience Years of Experience with page Nos. of relevant certificates 1 Pintubhai Philipbhai Khristi 2642 Sahayak Senior Clerk Not named in chart produced by AMC (1)Administrative Assistant cum Computer Operator at Shetra Gram Panchayat, Kheda (2) Field Investigator survey and data collection at Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation Government of India. District: Vadodara. 6 years, 11 months, 13 days (Still continued) Letters Patent Appeal No. 1457 of 2022 (Sahayak Senior Clerk) Sr. No. Name of the Appellant Appliction No. Passed the Examination of Serial No. of the appellant in the chart produced by AMC Work Experience Years of Experience with page Nos. of relevant certificates 1 Geerishkumar Palajeebhai Rathod 1542 Sahayak Senior Clerk Not named in chart produced by AMC (1) Project Co-Ordintor Programme and Administrative work at Vishva Vikas Foundation with the support of District Health Society, Surendranagar. (2) Social mobilizer IRD Branch Taluka Panchayat Botad. (3) Counsellor CHC Ranagadh. Surendranagar. 10 years, 4 months, 14 days (Still continued) Letters Patent Appeal No. 836 of 2023 (Sahayak Senior Clerk) Sr. (2) Social mobilizer IRD Branch Taluka Panchayat Botad. (3) Counsellor CHC Ranagadh. Surendranagar. 10 years, 4 months, 14 days (Still continued) Letters Patent Appeal No. 836 of 2023 (Sahayak Senior Clerk) Sr. No Name of the Appellant Appliction No. Passed the Examination of Serial No. of the appellant in the chart produced by AMC Work Experience Years of Experience with page Nos. of relevant certificates 1. Parmar Dharmistha Muljibhai 2845 Sahayak Senior Clerk 42 (Page No. 117) Worked as CBHV under the Urban Health Society at Chandkheda Community Health Centre from 25/09/2006 to 30/11/2008 on contractual basis. Thereafter worked as LinkWorker at Chandkheda Urban Health Center Health Department of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation from 01/12/2008 to 14/04/2012 . Thereafter worked as Sanitary Inspector from 05/07/2012 to 02/07/2015 at urban Health Center, Kapadwanj. Thereafter worked as TB Health Visitor at City TB Centre, NTEP Subcommittee, The Urban Health Society from 22/07/2015 to till date. 9 years, 3 months, 6 days 12. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer that after the applications were received by the Corporation, they were scrutinized, and the names were shortlisted. Accordingly, the Corporation published the lists containing 498 candidates for the post of Assistant Clerks, 394 candidates for the post of Assistant Head Clerks and 319 candidates for the post of Office Superintendents. After shortlisting, the appellants were permitted to appear for the examination to be conducted online by the respondent-Corporation on 02.12.2018. It is pertinent to note that while shortlisting the candidates, the Corporation has excluded the names of those candidates who did not fulfill the criteria of experience and educational qualification however, the experience of the appellants was not found objectionable. At the time of shortlisting stage, it was always open for the Corporation to debar the appellants in further recruitment process, but they did not do so and allowed them to appear till the final stage. Thus, the appellants had the legitimate expectation, that they were not excluded for want of experience, and were also allowed to further participate in the recruitment; and after clearing all the stages, they would be offered appointments. 13. The appellants passed the online examination. Thereafter, a select list was published of 223 candidates for the post of Assistant Senior Clerks, 128 for the post of Assistant Head Clerks and 115 for the post of Office Superintendents, who had cleared the examination. 13. The appellants passed the online examination. Thereafter, a select list was published of 223 candidates for the post of Assistant Senior Clerks, 128 for the post of Assistant Head Clerks and 115 for the post of Office Superintendents, who had cleared the examination. The names of the appellants found place in the select list, and they were called for physical verification of their documents from 17.06.2019 to 24.06.2019. 14. Ultimately, on 30.09.2019, the Corporation published a final select list of 26 candidates to the post of Assistant Senior Clerks, 42 candidates to the post of Head Clerks and 53 candidates to the post of Office Superintendents. In this final select list, the names of the appellants did not appear and hence, they were constrained to approach this Court by filing the captioned petitions before this Court. 15. Since, it was contended by the appellants that the Corporation has appointed its employees de hors the criterion of experience, the Corporation along with the affidavit has produced the list of 26 such candidates who were serving in the Corporation. On a perusal of the list of 26 candidates, it is noticed by us that 17 Bus conductors are appointed on the advertised posts. Out of 17 Conductors, 5 Bus Conductors have the experience as Bus Conductors only and no experience on administrative side. Whereas, all the appellants are better placed than the Conductors, so far as administrative experience is concerned. The main reason, which was contended before the learned Single Judge for denying the appointment is that their experience on contractual basis, on a contractual post, cannot be considered for fulfilling the criteria of administrative experience as per the regulation as well as the Clauses of the advertisement. As noted hereinabove, neither the regulation RGN No.494, nor the Clause of the advertisement debars or excludes those candidates, who possess experience of working as contractual or on fixed-pay employees. 16. It is very interesting and curious to note that all the candidates, who are selected on the posts for which the advertisement was issued, are appointed on contractual basis. As noted hereinabove, neither the regulation RGN No.494, nor the Clause of the advertisement debars or excludes those candidates, who possess experience of working as contractual or on fixed-pay employees. 16. It is very interesting and curious to note that all the candidates, who are selected on the posts for which the advertisement was issued, are appointed on contractual basis. The appointment orders issued to the selected candidates and the conditions mentioned therein reflects that in fact, these candidates are appointed on contractual basis on the post for which the advertisement was issued on fixed-pay for a period of 3 years initially, for Class-III employees and for Class-IV employees and they are appointed on contractual basis for 5 years. Thus, on one hand, the respondent-Corporation has denied the appointment to the appellants on the pretext that their experience on contractual posts cannot be considered and on the other hand, the Corporation has appointed the selected candidates on contractual basis. Neither the advertisement Clause, nor the regulation exclude those candidates, who have gained experience on their respective posts in the Semi-Government organizations or Boards or Corporation for which they were engaged on contractual basis. Thus, in absence of any clarification issued in the advertisement and in wake of the fact that till the final stage, the appellants were permitted to appear in the selection process and having cleared the same, it was not open for the respondent-Corporation to exclude them from offering the appointments. 17. It is not the case of the Corporation that the appellants while filling in their application forms have suppressed their experience. On the contrary, on a perusal of their applications, it is found that they have specifically stated their experience on contractual basis or on fixed-pay and the Corporation at the first instance, after scrutinizing and shortlisting their application forms could have rejected the same on the ground that they are not fulfilling the criterion of administrative experience. However, such objection was not taken till the final stage of the recruitment, which was initiated by the advertisement dated 31.12.2015 and was finalized by final selection on 30.09.2019. Even after 4 years, the appellants were not informed that they would not be appointed to the said posts, since they possess experience as contractual employees. 18. However, such objection was not taken till the final stage of the recruitment, which was initiated by the advertisement dated 31.12.2015 and was finalized by final selection on 30.09.2019. Even after 4 years, the appellants were not informed that they would not be appointed to the said posts, since they possess experience as contractual employees. 18. Thus, we find that the learned Single Judge fell in error in rejecting the writ petitions filed by the appellants seeking appointments in the respective posts for which they had applied. It is trite that a candidates whose names are found in the select list, have no indefeasible right to get appointment, but the Court cannot shut its eyes to the illegality committed by the recruitment agency or the employer in denying the appointment. The Court can always set aside the action of the employer or the recruitment agency in case, it is found that the appointments are denied on an arbitrary and illegal grounds. In the present case, the Corporation has acted in an absolutely arbitrary manner in debarring the appellants from the appointments on the ground, which was neither stipulated in the advertisement nor in the regulations. Till the final stage of selection, they were never informed that they would not be appointed on the posts only because they had gained their experience while they were working as a contractual employee. The Corporation has not doubted the Certificates produced by the appellants, as and when they were called for. We also find that the Corporation has acted in discriminatory manner by appointing the Bus Conductors on the posts of Senior Clerks on by considering their experience gained as Conductors, as an administrative experience. 19. In view of the aforesaid analysis and the discussions, we are inclined to set aside the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. The action of the respondent- Corporation in denying the appointments to the appellants is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-Corporation is directed to appoint the appellants on suitable posts for which they had applied. The data, which is produced on record shows that many posts are still vacant and no fresh recruitment process has been undertaken by the respondent- Corporation for filling-up such posts. The respondent Corporation shall issue the similar appointment orders which are issued to other selected candidates. 20. The data, which is produced on record shows that many posts are still vacant and no fresh recruitment process has been undertaken by the respondent- Corporation for filling-up such posts. The respondent Corporation shall issue the similar appointment orders which are issued to other selected candidates. 20. It is clarified that the appellants shall not be entitled to any benefits prior to the date of appointment except seniority, and they shall not claim any benefits prior to the appointment orders. The intervening period shall be treated as notional for all purposes including the pay fixation. It is further clarified by us that the present judgment is confined only for the appellants, who are before us since they are diligent and have continued their legal battle against the Corporation for all these years. The present judgment and order will apply only in their cases and no other candidate will have any right to claim appointments on the basis of the present judgment and order. The Corporation is directed to issue appointment orders within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the writ. In case, the appointment orders are not issued within the time specified by this Court, the appellants shall be entitled to arrears from such date. 21. Letters Patent Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. All the connected Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly.