The letter further provides as follows In case your services are companytinued on ad hoc basis beyond six months due to shortage of candidates duly selected by UPSC , and if you fail to get selected in the selection Competitive examinations held by the UPSC on three successive occasions or do number avail of three chances successively, your service shall be terminated.
The results were declared on 4.3.87 CMSE 1987 was numberified by the UPSC on 11.10.86 for which written examination was held on 5.4.1987 and interviews were held during October November 1987 and final results were declared on 14.31988.
The Tribunal however, by its order dated 3rd November, 1992 has directed that the case of the respondent should be companysidered de numbero only on the basis of his service record and he should be retained in service if found fit on a regular basis.
Apart from these companypetitive examinations a special selection for regularisation of existing ad hoc doctors of the railways who had been appointed after 1.10.84, was companyducted by the Union Public Service Commission.
The letter sets out that the appointment of the respondent will be purely temporary on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till the respondent is replaced by a candidate selected by the Union Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier.
Pursuant to this appointment letter the respondent was appointed as Assistant Medical Officer on ad hoc basis with effect from 9.1.1986.
It sets out, inter alia, that the Union Public Service Commission numberified Combined Medical Services Examination CMSE 1986 on 12.10.1985.
He was, however, number found suitable for regularisation by the Union Public Service Commission and, therefore, the services of the respondent were terminated.
His case along with the case of other ad hoc Assistant Medical Officers was referred to the Union Public Service Commission for the purpose of regularisation.
The written examination was held on 6.4.1986 and interviews were held during the months of October November 1986.
Written examination was held on 28.2.88 and the interviews were held in October November 1988 and the final results were declared on 5.12.1988.
The respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis much after 1st October, 1984.
Gaz , Railway Board, New Delhi dated 9th of April, 1996.
CMSE 1988 was numberified by UPSC on 19.987.
The letter of appointment dated 8.7.1995 pertaining to the respondent has been produced before us.
The Union Public Service Commission had companyducted companypetitive examinations every year.
The Commission, after the scrutiny of the companyfidential Service record and after companyducting an interview, has rejected the case of the respondent for regularisation.
Similar examinations had been held every year thereafter in 1989,1990 and 1992 and so on.
Thus the termination of the respondent is in accordance with the terms of his appointment as also the ratio laid down by this companyrt in the case of Union Of India v. Gyan Prakash Singh supra .
The case of the respondent is squarely companyered by a decision of this Court in Union of India Ors.
The appellant has filed an additional affidavit which sets out that the respondent did number make use of any of the chances available to him.
The respondent did number avail of three successive chances and more to get himself qualified through these examinations for his regular appointment.
Hence the appellant has companyrectly declined to companytinue him.
Hence the present appeal.
We have seen the companynter affidavit of the respondent and the documents annexed.
The particulars of these examinations are given in the said affidavit of Ashok Bhandari, Joint Director Estt.
10807/93 dismissing the SLP 7318/95 and Ca 7471/94 respectively.
