Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.—The Division Bench of this Court (Bhawani Singh and Devinder Gupta, JJ.) has framed the following points on which the learned Judges have differed and sought the opinion of this Court :—

1. Whether the petitioners were appointed under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1975 and their appointments were regular and valid and not ad hoc/stop gap appointments as contended by the High Court ?

2. Whether the guidelines issued by the High Court for conducting viva-voce test were not superseded after the commencement of the Rules of 1990, and, if so, whether the selections made vide interview dated 7-9-1991 were not proper and violated any of the Rules of guidelines issued by the competent authority? In case it is found that these guidelines have been superseded, whether holding of viva-voce test is a sine-qua-non for proper selection to the posts?

3. Whether the writ petition has become infructuous and the amendment of the writ petition by C. M. P. No. 69 of 1991 could be allowed ?

4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners were entitled to be regularised against the posts which they are holding at present on equitable or legal basis ?

5. Wheth