HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO W.A.No.501 of 2010 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Ghulam Mohammed, ACJ) The appellant while working as Junior Lecturer on ad hoc basis in the first respondent-Society was terminated from service on 07.04.1988. Challenging the said termination, he filed W.P.No.3346 of 1990, and the learned Judge of this Court having held that due to afflux of time the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication, dismissed the same on 27.01.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though there was a direction earlier to consider the case of the appellant for regularization of his services as Junior Lecturer in W.P.No.4088 of 1988, the respondents without considering the same terminated him from service. 3. The relevant portion of the order dated 30.06.1988, passed in W.P.No.4088 of 1988, is extracted as under: “Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration it is directed that the petitioners’ services may be regularized provided they fulfill the requirements prescribed in regard to such appointments and they are duly selected by such of the Bodies, who are unauthorized to make selection to the posts of Lecturers. If the petitioners are appointed in accordance with the settled norms of recruitments which may be applicable in this case, it is obvious they will be entitled to an equal status in matters of salary and other attendant benefits from the date of their appointment on par with the regular members of the staff’. 4. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.3346 of 1990, respondent No.2 categorically stated that the appellant was not duly selected by the Selection Committee and as he was appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of 90 days, his services would be terminated after completion of every 89 days of service as per the ad hoc rules of appointment as such his services cannot be regularized. 5. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit that the appellant was not subjected to selection process and was terminated from service in 1988 as per the ad hoc rules of appointment and since the writ petition is of the year 1990, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned, at this length of time. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, ACJ _________________________ NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO, J Date:31.10.2011 sj