A.R. Lakshmanan, J.

The unsuccessful petitioners in O.P. No. 23179 of 1997 are the appellants in this Writ Appeal. This appeal is directed against the judgment of C.S. Rajan J. dated 15th January, 1998 dismissing the petition on the following grounds:

"The petitioners were appointed under R.9(a)(i) of K.S.and S.S.R. for 180 days or till regular appointment through Kerala Public Service Commission or otherwise is made whichever is earlier. The petitioners are now challenging the termination of their service. I do not find any justification to accept the above challenge because the petitioner is bound by the conditions mentioned in Ext. P-1. Having accepted the appointment order along with the conditions, the petitioner cannot now turn round and contend that their services are not liable to be terminated on the expiry of 180 days. Therefore, the Original Petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit."

The said judgment of the learned single judge is challenged in this appeal on the following grounds.

(a) Candidates like the appellants can continue in service till the date of joining duty of Public Service Commission recruits and, as such, the action of the respondents in terminating their services cannot be justified.

(b) Although there is a condition that the tenure of appointment of the appellants was for 180 days or till the Public Service Commission recruits joins duty, there is no jurisdiction to accommodate other provisional hands.

(c) As the termination of service of the appellants is not to accommodate Public Service Commission recruits, the same is against the condition imposed in the order of appointment of the appellants and cannot be justified and is against the principles of natural justice.

2. In support of their contentions, the appellants have cited a recent judgment by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Om Prakash J. (as he then was)and Koshy J. in Writ Appeal No. 2201 of 1997 dated 5th December, 1997 wherein the Bench held that in cases like the instant, the better course would have been to permit the appellants to continue until regularly selected candidates become available from Public Service Commission. The judgment reads thus :

"Appellants are challenging the impugned judgment dated November 10,1997 passed by the learned single judge.

2. The appellants were appointed by order dated 10.4.1995, Ext. P1, as Ophthalmic Assistants in the Health Service Department on a temporary basis under R.9(a)(i) of the KSSR,1958 for a period of one year or till regular hands appointed through PSC join duty, whichever is earlier. Upon expiry of the term of one year, their appointments were terminated.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is averred that appointments of the appellants were rightly terminated upon the expiry of the period of one year for which the appointments were restricted because that contingency happened earlier than the other, namely the availability of the regularly selected candidate from PSC. No doubt, the termination orders are consistent to the terms of the appointment orders.

3 A. It is however further stated in para 8 of the counter affidavit that the appellants are not entitled to continue in service beyond one year, as so many qualified unemployed hands who got registered their names in employment exchanges are waiting for an appointment atleast for admited period. From this plea of the respondents, it is clear that they want to continue different sets of candidates on adhoc basis, which cannot be countenanced. The respondents should not encourage adhocism. Better course would have been to permit the appellants to continue until regularly selected candidates become available from PSC.

4. Our attention has been drawn to another judgment dated 21.11.1997, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 2094 of 1997 arising from O.P. 19150 of 1997. In similar circumstances the Division Bench observed as under:

"We would further direct the first respondent to allow the