19.In response to the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner that when 11 persons were appointed by converting the post of Junior Assistant in the year 1994, none of them had the required experience and therefore the method adopted in respect of appointment of the said 11 persons can very well be adopted or extended in the case of the petitioner also, the learned Government Advocate would submit that during that time, i.e. in the year 1994 since libraries functioning in the Government Polytechincs were in dire need of hands to handle the library and therefore only as adhoc or temporary basis, those 11 persons, from the post of Junior Assistant, had been converted and posted as Librarian, that to, only as a temporary measure and unless and until they gain experience, they would be treated only as temporary appointees. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate would submit that such temporary measure taken only once, in order to meet out the contingency, cannot be a rule and therefore, the same cannot be expected to be repeated or perpetuated forever. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that since the petitioner admittedly does not have the required experience of two years as Librarian in a technical library and moreover, the Government has decided not to appoint Librarian in the Government Polytechnics as the said category of post, namely, Librarian in the Government Polytechnics being a vanishing category, the question of considering the candidatures like the petitioner from a different service/cateogry of service does not arise and therefore, the request of the petitioner was rightly turned down by the first respondent through the impugned order. Hence, it is justifiable and requires no interference from this Court.
