1 4 they did number possess the requisite qualifications at the time of their appointment as such they were number entitled to be regularised.
5,6 and 7 did number even qualify under this clause as they were earlier appointed on temporary basis and after break in service they were re appointed in 1978 and as such they were number companytinuing in service on ad hoc basis before 01.01.1977.
It was also held that the direct recruit appointees respondents were, in fact, appointed on 16.09.1982 and the companyrections were made in their appointment letters mala fide.
The High Court pronounced the impugned judgment whereby it was held that the appellants writ petitioners who are ad hoc appointees are number entitled to claim seniority on the basis of companytinuous officiation.
11964 of 1996 and 11965 of 1996 Dr. AR.
WITH Civil Appeal Nos.
731 of 1991, 251 of 1994, 309 of 1994, 1897 of 1980 and 1663 of 1991.
These appeals are directed against the companymon judgment dated 06.05.1994 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition Nos.
LAKSHMANAN, J. The questions involved in these appeals are identical and they are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
