(2). The appellant was appointed by the Local Self - Government Department. Government of Rajasthan by order of appointment dated 27.11.1974, and posted as Lady Doctor under the Municipal Council, Ganganagar. There was a stipulation in the order of appointment that she was being posted purely on temporary basis for the period of six months or still the candidate selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as `the Service Commission) is available, which is earlier. The working period of the appellant continued to be extended. The appointment was made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 308 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (in: short `the Act) read with Rules 26 and 27 of the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, 1963 (in short `the Rules). Though the appellant was selected by the Service Commission in October 1976 and August 1982 she did not join pursuant to such selection and continued on the basis of the orders of extension issued by the Local Self- Government Department of the Government. On 1.10.1988 appellants services were terminated on the ground that the candidate selected by the Service Commission was available. Challenging such dismissal, appellant filed a writ petition bearing No.3739 of 1988 before the Rajasthan High Court. Interim order of stay was passed on 12.10.1988 by the High Court with the direction that the appellant was not to be relieved from her post if she was not already relieved. Subsequently the interim order was made absolute by order dated 21.3.1989. By judgment dated 5.3.1993. learned Single Judge held that termination of appellants services was illegal since order was passed ignoring of the fact that she had put in 14 years of service. The authorities were directed to adjudge her suitability within a period of one month and regularize her services with all benefits available to a substantively appointed member of the service. The State of Rajasthan filed appeal before the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. In terms of interim orders, the appellant was allowed to continue in the service. But by the impugned judgment dated 11.4.1997. It was held by the Division Bench that the appellant continued merely as a temporary employee on the basis of appointment made under Rule 27 as she had not been selected by the Service Commission in accordance with the Rules. She had no right to hold the post. As noted supra the judgment is under challenge in this appeal.

(3). Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by now she had put in 28 years of service; 14 years by the time the order of termination was passed, and 14 years on the basis of interim directions given by the High Court and this Court. Though her appointment initially was conditional, in view of the long period of service rendered by her. it had assumed permanency and learned Single Judge was justified directing regularization of appointment on a substantial basis. The Division Bench overlooked the salient features and held that the temporary appointment originally made continued to hold field. Reliance was placed on Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P vs. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.) (1). Ashwani Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2), Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch vs. Union of India and Ors. (3). Narender Chadha and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (4), State of Haryana and Anr vs. Rum Diya (5), State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Dr. Deep Narain Tripathi and Ors. (6) to substantiate the plea. It was contended that in all these cases this Court took note of the long period of service rendered and the consequences and the benefits available to the concerned employee who had rendered such service without any blemish. It was also submitted that