1. - Since this appeal is pending for the last ten years, the prayer of adjournment is declined.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Contextual facts depict that pursuant to the advertisement for recruitment of 238 Ayurved Chikitsak on adhoc temporary basis the appellants submitted applications but they were not considered for the appointment. The appellants filed writ petitions which were allowed by learned Single Judge on October 19, 1992 a direction was issued to respondents to consider the appellants for the post of Ayurved Chikitsak treating them eligible for recruitment. While issuing directions learned Single Judge observed that if found suitable the appellants shall be appointed against such posts which were lying vacant. Pursuant to the directions the appellants were given appointment to the post of Ayurved Chikitsak on adhoc temporary basis vide order dated July 9, 1993. The appellants again filed writ petition before learned Single Judge seeking regularisation of their services from 1989 when the persons lower in merit were given appointment pursuant to advertisement dated July 4, 1989. The appellants also prayed that their services be regularised pursuant to the notification dated April 8, 1996. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated March 23, 1998. Against this order that the present appeal has been filed by the appellants.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that pursuant to the directions of learned Single Judge the appellants ought to have been given appointment w.e.f. 1989 itself and they were also entitled for regularisation of their services pursuant to the notification dated April 8, 1996. We find no merit in the submission.

5. The notice dated April 10, 1989 was only a short term advertisement for appointment on purely temporary adhoc basis and the appellants were not considered for the said appointment. Learned Single Judge while allowed the writ petition of appellants directed to consider the appellants for appointment to the post of Ayurved Chikitsak if found suitable they be given appointment on available vacant posts. Learned Single Judge never directed for giving appointment from back date i.e. from the date when persons lower in merit had been given appointment and pursuant to the directions the appellants have already been given appointment vide order dated July 9, 1993. So far regularisation on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak from the year 1989 is concerned, admittedly the post was to be filled in by direct recruitment to be made by RPSC and the appellants had no right for regularisation on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak on the ground of having got the adhoc temporary appointment pursuant to the direction issued by this court. Even the notification dated April 8, 1996 is of no assistance to the appellants, because only those persons who have been given appointment prior to May 5, 1990 and were still in service were to be considered and screened for regularisation. In the instant case both the appellants were not in service as on May 5, 1990.

6. We do not see any illegality in the impugned order of learned Single Judge. The special appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed.

*******