WP(C) 6084/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education department. The petitioners whose services have been regularized through a cabinet decision have filed this writ petition claiming retrospective regularization of their ser vices with all consequential benefits. The respective appointment of the petitio ners under regulation 3(f) of the APSC (Limitation and Function) Regulation, 195 1 have been indicated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. Such appointments wer e made during the period from 1991 to 1996. Be it stated here that the petitione rs were appointed as lecturer under the respondents and they have been working a s such. When the petitioners were continuing with temporary appointment under regulation 3(f) of the aforesaid regulation, their services were regularized through a cab inet decision adopted in 2004. Pursuant to such cabinet decision the Annexure-2 series notifications dated 21.2.2004 had been issued regularizing the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 12.2.2004 i.e. the date on which the cabinet decision was taken to regularize the services of the petitioners. According to the petitioners they are entitle to get regularization of their ser vices with retrospective effect i.e. from the respective dates on which they wer e appointed under regulation 3(f). By now the law on the point is well settled t hat ad-hoc period of services cannot be counted towards seniority. Law is also w ell settled that normally regularization is always prospective. Morever, a situa tion may also arise in which the APSC selected candidate may even question the r egularization of services of the petitioners through a cabinet decision inasmuch as under the recruitment rules i.e. Assam Technical Education Service Rules, 19 81 recruitment is only through the process of selection to be made by the Assam Public Service Commission. As per Rule 22 of the said Rules the seniority of the member in a cadre appointed by direct recruitment or by promotion shall be dete rmined in order of merit in the respective select list. In a case from Assam bef ore the Apex Court namely Satyabrata Dutta Choudhury Vs. State of Assam and othe rs reported in (1976) 1 SCC 283 the Apex Court specifically held that the ad-hoc period of service under regulation 3(f) cannot be counted towards seniority. In view of the above, the prayer of the petitioners to grant seniority and/or re gularization of their services with retrospective effect cannot be granted. Cons equently the writ petition is dismissed. Before parting with the case records it is placed on record that what has been d ecided in the instant writ petition is the claim of the petitioners to get retro spective regularization of their services with consequential seniority etc only. If on the strength of earlier regulation 3(f) period of services, the petitione rs are entitled to any other service benefits including counting of the said per iod for pensionary benefits and increments etc. the same will be decided by the respondents in accordance with law. However, under no circumstances the petition ers can claim retrospective regularization and seniority from the dates when the y were appointed under regulation 3(f) of the regulation.