ORDER
S.R. Nayak, J.
1. The writ petitioner in writ petition No. 13066 of 1995 being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 11.9.1997 has filed this writ appeal.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was initially appointed as lecturer in English on 9.12.1990 on temporary basis and as a stop gap arrangement. When he was serving as lecturer in English on ad hoc basis the college administration issued a notification dated 12.6.1995 calling for applications from the eligible candidates for the post of lecturer in English. At that stage the petitioner filed writ petition No. 13066 of 1995 praying for mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not regularizing his services as lecturer in English as illegal, and in issuing the notification dated 12.6.1995 without reserving the post of a lecturer in English to Scheduled Caste community as illegal and violative of Article 15 of the Constitution and for a consequential direction to the respondents to regularize his services.
3. The writ petition was opposed by the respondent authorities contending that the initial appointment of the petitioner itself was irregular and not in accordance with rules and regulations governing the recruitment to the post of lecturer in English inasmuch as the petitioner did not possess the prescribed educational qualifications and the procedure adopted in his appointment was also not in conformity with the statutory rules laid down in G.O.Ms. No. 525, dated 29.11.1983.
4. The learned Judge, on consideration of the rival contentions and finding as a matter of fact that the petitioner did not possess the prescribed educational qualifications in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 525, dated 29.11.1983, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal by the writ petitioner.
5. The law relating to regularization of services of ad hoc and temporary employees is fairly well settled by catena of decisions of the apex court and this court. The three Judges bench of the apex court in ASHWANI KUMAR v STATE OF BIHAR, held that the court before directing regularization of services of ad hoc/temporary employee should see that two pre-conditions co-exist. Those two pre-conditions are: (i) that the appointment is against a clear vacancy in the sanctioned post; and (ii) such appointment is made after following the rules or regulations governing the post in question. The apex court, in the same judgment, went further and opined that even in the case where these two pre-conditions co-exist, concerned ad hoc or temporary employee cannot seek mandamus to regularize his service as a matter of course or as of right and whether such a relief should be granted or not will be very much within the domain or discretion vested in the court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the individual case. In the premise of these well settled principles governing the relief of regularization when we look at the facts of this case it should be held that the petitioner has utterly failed to make out any case and is not entitled to the relief of regularization. Admittedly the petitioner did not possess even the prescribed educational qualifications for the post of lecturer in English when he was appointed as lecturer in English on ad hoc basis on 9.12.1990. It is also the contention of the respondent authorities that apart from non-eligibility of the petitioner even the procedure adopted in appointing him as lecturer in English on ad hoc basis was also contrary to the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 525, dated 29.11.1983. Therefore, both the pre-conditions are absent in the instant case and, therefore, no mandamus would lie to the respondent authorities to regularize the service of such person. It is equally well established that under no circumstance mandamus would lie to do something in breach of public law and if the court were to issue the direction as sought for by the petitioner it would tantamount to the court directing the respondent authorities to do something in breach of public law.
6. In the result and for the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in the writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.