1. - Preparation of Paper Book in the present case is dispensed with and the appeal is heard on merit at the request of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 19th July, 2000 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Computer Operator by the respondent University in pursuance of Notification issued by the University on 22nd February, 1993 inviting applications for the post of Computer Operator for a period of three months. The qualifications prescribed for the candidates to apply, were that he should have atleast 10+2 (Arts/Science) with Diploma in Computer Science. Such candidate was further required to be examined by a Committee before being appointed.

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid procedure adopted by the respondent University for giving appointment for the temporary period for which the post was advertised, the petitioner was duly appointed on 15.3.93 for a period of three months. However, this appointment continued until filing of the writ petition.

5. It may be noticed that prior to filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner has also approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3902/93 seeking mandamus to the respondents to appoint him on regular basis, which petition was dismissed by this Court on 24th April, 1994 that the petitioner has not acquired any vested right to be appointed on regular basis by giving temporary appointment for three months.

6. Thereafter, the University vide its Resolution passed in the meeting of Board of Management dated 22nd January, 1998 resolved to regularise the services of persons of non-teaching cadre working on adhoc, casual and fixed basis. The relevant resolution reads as under :

"Such persons who have passed the prescribed job test/interview and are found qualified for the post and have been given appointment on Adhoc basis, their services be regularised from the dated of joining the post through a Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor".

7. Armed with this resolution, the petitioner sought intervention by this Court when he was declined regularisation of his services since 1993 on the ground that the petitioner does not hold the qualification for being regularly appointed as prescribed in 1994.

8. The case of the petitioner was that it is a case of regularisation and if his appointment was made after job test and interview and having been found qualified for the post when appointed as temporary then his services are to be regularised from the date of joining the post through a Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor.

9. Relying on the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has made out a case that since he was appointed after notifying the vacancy and having been called for interview by prescribing the qualifications requisite for the post at the time of recruitment having fulfilled all the criterion and found suitable. He was offered appointment on adhoc basis because advertisement was issued for giving appointment only for three months. But, he was given appointment after regular selection on finding him duly qualified and suitable by inviting applications from open market. Such an appointment was regular appointment, though for short term in first instance.

10. However learned Single Judge was of the opinion that under the Resolution the petitioner was required to hold current qualification before his past services could be regularised and therefore, the petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the opinion that this appeal merits acceptance.

12. One has to keep in mind distinction between regularisation and regular appointment. Regularisation is always of past services, whereas a regular appointment refers to appointment in presenti. Appointments which are inherently bad and void being de-hors the