HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 163 of 1997 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal which was filed in the year 1997 by the appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 31.10.1995 passed by the writ court in Writ Petition No.1000 of 1994 by which though the petition was dismissed, a direction was issued to the opposite parties therein to make appointments to the vacant posts in accordance with the directions of the Government Order creating the posts and by following the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules in force, then the adhoc appointments will come to an end at once. Certain other observations were made in the detailed judgment that the appointments on contract basis or on adhoc basis cannot be converted into regular appointments unless the rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India make a provision to that effect and that the Court was not aware that the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc appointment(on posts outside the purview of the Public Services Commission) (Amendment) Rules have so far been extended to the appointments made subsequent to the commencement of these rules, therefore, the unusual practice without support of any Government order or any service under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be legally enforced, however, it was made clear to the opposite parties and to these appointees through the opposite parties that their appointments are not regular and do not confer any right on the appointee to hold the posts and they will continue only Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : S.K.Kalia, Abhay Kumar Ojha, Akshat Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Sanjay Kumar, C.S.C, Shafiq Mirza Alok Sinha And Others .....Appellant(s) U.P.Public Service Tribunal And Others .....Respondent(s) till the regularly selected candidates join the posts, but they shall be eligible to be considered for regular selection alongwith other candidates when these posts are properly advertised and recruitment is made strictly in accordance with the rules referred to hereinabove. The appellants are essentially aggrieved by these observations and the fact that they have been made without they being impleaded as an opposite party in the writ petition that too when the petition of the private respondent was being dismissed. The observations made by the writ court as referred hereinabove were stayed by this Court vide interim order dated 04.07.1997. In the meantime, as claimed by the appellants who were working on contractual/ adhoc basis, their services have been regularized way back in 2002 and appellant no.1 is still in service. Sri Akshat Kumar, learned counsel appears for appellant no.1 only. None appears for the other appellants. However, he informed that services of other appellants had also been regularized, some are working and some are retired. 3. Be that as it may, considering the subsequent events, that is, regularization of the appellants, if it is so, nothing survives in this writ petition, therefore, the observations in the impugned judgment of the writ court referred hereinabove are quashed. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. 5. We make it clear that this order is subject to any dispute or challenge being pending in any court or before any authority regarding the alleged regularization of the appellants, meaning thereby, our order by itself will not confer any rights on the appellants based on any such regularization if it is in dispute or under challenge in any proceedings. October 8, 2025 Shanu/- SPLA No. 163 of 1997 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench