( 1 ) PETITIONERS are the products of a stale-mate created mainly in the wake of interim order passed by this court dated 15. 11. 94 in connected CWP No. 4223/94 filed by faculty Association of All India Institute of Medical sciences to ward off application of reservation rule for appointment to faculty post of Assistant Professor in aiims. The order restrained R2-3 from giving effect to proposed reservation in regular appointment to post of assistant Professor and these respondents, in turn, stopped selection process in compliance thereto and resorted to adhoc appointments.

( 2 ) THIS is how petitioners, 91 in number, were appointed on adhoc basis initially for three months and their orders of. appointment clearly stipulated that their appointment would be. subject to the regular appointment and that it would not bestow any claim or right on them to claim regular appointment nor would their adhoc services be counted towards any promotion or seniority or confirmation. Some of these were appointed as far back as in 1994 and some others as late as in 2000. They have accordingly put in varying periods of adhoc service ranging from one year to seven years and are now clamouring for regularisation of their services on the post of Assistant Professor. Are they entitled to it and could respondents 2-3 be directed to regularise their services is the question.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners Mr. Grover was at pains to explain that the petitioners were not back door entrants but possessed requisite prescribed qualifications and merit and were selected by duly constituted selection committee after vacancies were notified by R2-3 to various medical colleges/institutions. They were later appointed though on adhoc basis but against permanent posts and their term was extended from time to time and they were allowed to continue on the post without any break and were discharging the same nature of duties as their regularly appointed colleagues ever since, imparting teaching to both under-graduates and graduates and conducting requisite research, etc. He complained that they were being exploited and their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution infringed by not regularising their services though they were not appointed in breach of any rules or to meet any emergent situation by way of a stop-gap arrangement.

( 4 ) MR. GROVER submitted that petitioners could be treated as a separate class and a scheme prepared to regularise their services as one time action/measure. He alternatively wanted a direction to be issued to respondents in this regard in tune with several Supreme court Judgments wherein adhoc appointees having served for a reasonable period of time were ordered to be regularised. Reliance in this regard was placed by him on Dr. A. K. Jain and others Vs. Union of India and Othora 1987 Supp. SCC 497, Dr. Shaahi Kant Miahra and othera Vs. Stata of Bihar and othera 1987 Supp. SCC 495, Dr. P. P. S. Rawani and others vs. Union of India and Others (1992) 1 SCC 331, Jacob m. Puthuparambil and others Vs. Karala Water Authority and othars 1991 (1) SCC 28, Karnataka State Private College stop-Gap Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka and others 1992 (2) SCC 29 and Baseruddin M. Madari and others vs. State of Karnataka and others 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 111. Respondents stand, on the other hand, proceeds on expected lines. It is explained by them that petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis to meet the administrative and patient care exigency created in the aftermath of interim stay order passed by this court dated 15. 11. 94 in cwp No. 4223/94 as a result of which regular selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor was stopped and adhoc appointments made to ensure that teaching and research activity of the Institute did not suffer.

( 5 ) IT is denied by them that any regular due process of selection was undertaken to select petitioners or that any advertisement was issued to ensure wider particip