Compliance with statutory provisions and regulations for selection and appointment is necessary before an appointment on a regular basis can be made.

( 1 ). The original applicant before the Central Administrative tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as, the Tribunal ) is the writ petitioner herein. He was appointed as imo Gr, II Doctor on a contractual basis for a period of six months on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 2,200. 00 per month plus usual allowances as admissible. He questioned the said Order by filing an original application before the Tribunal, which was marked as O. A. No. 230 of 1988. The said application was disposed of by an Order dated 03. 06,1993 with a direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear before the Selection Board for consideration for regulanzation subject to their eligibility and in case they were found suitable, they should be regularized subject to availability of vacancies. The respondents were also directed to grant age relaxation to the petitioner to the extent he had rendered services in the respondent Corporation.

( 2 ). The petitioner was not regularized in his service having been found to be over age, as the age limit for appointment as insurance Medical Officer Grade II ( in short, imo Grade II ) in terms of the recruitment regulations was 30 years as on 30. 09. 1997. He was found to be over age despite weightage given to his contractual service in terms of the said Order dated 03. 06. 1993 passed by the Tribunal in O. A. No. 230 of 1988.

( 3 ). Thereafter, the said original application was filed.

( 4 ). The learned Tribunal although rejected the contention, although raised by the petitioner, that his services be regularized, but directed :-

"10. This OA is therefore disposed of with a direction to respondent to grant applicant the same pay scale in which his counterpars, who were initially iccruited on contract basis and were later regu1anzed. are drawing their pay, and (hereafter fix his pay and allowances in that pay scale on par vvith those who were appointed on contract basis immediately after him, but were subsequently regularized. Applicant will be entitled to arrears with effect from the date he filed this OA (22. 2. 99) rounded off to the nearest month i. e. 1. 3. 99 and shall be entitled to annual increments. These payments shall continue till applicant remains in the service of respondents. These directions should be implemented within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The prayer for interest is rejected, as there are no good grounds to grant the same. "dr. Vohra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had been working for a period of 13 years, there was absolutely no reason as to why his services could not be regularized. The learned counsel, drawing our attention to the provisions of Section 17 (3) of the Employees state Insurance Act, 1948 ( in short, the Act ), would contend that for appointment of the regular candidates, consultation with Union Public service Commission (in short, upsc ) is mandatory. It is not so in case of employees, who were appointed on contract basis and continued despite expiry of the contract period. Our attention lias been drawn to two judgments of this court being C. W. P. No. 559 and 95 of 1981 in the case. of director General P. Sarabhai and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and C. W. P. No. 3743 of 1992 decided on 20. 12. 1984 in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) D. Marwah and Ors. v. Employees State insurance Corporation and Ors.

( 5 ). Mr. Narender Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that Section 17 (3) of the Act cannot be said to have any application whatsoever.

( 6 ). Dr. Vohra submitted that the petitioner having rendered long service in equity was entitled to the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner.

( 7 ). Before adverting to the question raised in this writ petition, we may notice that it has not been disputed that the petitioner has continued in service owing t