REPORTABLE      

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  3512     OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8510 of 2009]

S. SUMNYAN & ORS.             ... Appellants

Versus

LIMI NIRI & ORS.   .... Respondents   

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The  present  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  

19.02.2009  passed  by  the  Division  Bench  of  the  Gauhati  High  Court,  

whereby the High Court affirmed the judgment and order of the learned  

Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the private respondent No.  

1 herein and holding that necessary correction be made in the seniority  

list of the Civil Engineers and recast the same by accepting the date of  

appointment of the respondent No. 1 as on 02.05.1989 and those of the  

appellants herein from their respective dates of regularization and that the  

ad-hoc period of service rendered by them as Assistant Engineers would

not be counted towards their seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer.

3. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the aforesaid directions issued by  

the  learned  Single  Judge  which  were  subsequently  affirmed  by  the  

Division Bench of the High Court, since by the aforesaid direction they are  

losing the benefit of service period of about two years rendered by them as  

Assistant  Engineers  on  ad-hoc basis  for  the  purpose  of  counting  their  

seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer.   

4. The appellants herein were appointed on temporary and  ad-hoc basis as  

Assistant Engineers [Civil] by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the  

Public Works Department on various dates between the years 1986 and  

1988 on the condition that they would be  regularized  according to the  

Rules  on  the  recommendation  of  a  Selection  Board  constituted  by  the  

Government.  The State of Arunachal Pradesh came to be constituted as a  

separate State of the Republic of India on 20.02.1987. Consequent to such  

constitution,  Arunachal  Pradesh  Public  Service  Commission  was  also  

constituted under Gazette notification dated 29.03.1988.

5. The respondent  No.  1 – Limi Niri  herein  was also appointed  on  ad-hoc  

basis in the year 1988 to the post of the Assistant Engineer with a specific  

condition that he would be regularized according to the relevant Rules on  

the  recommendation  of  the  Arunachal  Pradesh  Public  Service  

Commission. Sometime in the month of May, 1988, an advertisement was

issued  inviting  applications  for  filling  up  the  posts  of  the  Assistant  

Engineers  [Civil]  and  the  Assistant  Engineers  [Electrical]  in  the  Public  

Works  Department  of  the  Government  of  Arunachal  Pradesh.   The  

respondent  No.  1  submitted  his  application  pursuant  to  the  aforesaid  

advertisement. He was found suitable for such appointment as Assistant  

Engineer  [Civil]  and consequently  he  was issued an appointment letter  

dated 19.04.1989 for his appointment with a condition that he shall be on  

the post on probation for a period of two years and that his appointment  

shall not commence before 02.05.1989.   

6. A  provisional  seniority  list  as  on  31.08.1990  of  Assistant  

Engineers [Civil] in the Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department  

was issued and the appellants herein were shown as seniors to the  

respondent no. 1.  In the year 1993, some of the appellants were  

promoted as Executive Engineers on ad-hoc basis and a provisional  

seniority list of Executive Engineers in the Arunachal Pradesh Public  

Works  Department  was  circulated  and  the  names  of  some  of  the  

appellants were shown in the said list of the Executive Engineers.  In  

the  year  1997,  a  further  seniority  list  as  on  31.03.1997  of  the  

Assistant  Engineers  [Civil],  which  showed  the  position  of  various  

appellants  as  senior  to  the  respondent  no.  1,  was  circulated  for  

claims  and  objections.  Some  of  the  appellants  were  thereafter  

promoted  to  the  posts  of  the  Executive  Engineer  and  the

Superintending  Engineer  and  confirmed  in  the  said  posts  and  at  

least one of them is now occupying the post of the Chief Engineer.  

7. The authorities after promoting the appellants to the posts of  

Executive  Engineers  in  between  the  period  from  1991  to  2001  

regularized  the  ad-hoc promotions  in  the  post  of  the  Executive  

Engineer by an order dated 15.02.2001.  A final seniority list of the  

Superintending  Engineers  and  the  Executive  Engineers  as  on  

29.08.2001 was published. Regularization of some of the appellants  

by order dated 15.02.2001 and final seniority list [as on 29.08.2001]  

of  Superintending  Engineers  [Civil]  and  Executive  Engineers  

circulated on 31.08.2001 were never put in challenge by anyone.  

8. In  the  year  2001,  the  respondent  no.  1  herein  filed  the  

aforesaid  writ  petition  against  the  seniority  position  ascribed  and  

shown  in  the  seniority  list  dated  15.03.1999  and  sought  for  a  

direction  that  he  is  senior  to  the  appellants  herein  as  he  was  

regularly selected in 1989 by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service  

Commission.  The  appellants  and the  State  Government  filed  their  

counter affidavit in the said writ petition contending,  inter alia, that  

the  appellants  were  appointed  prior  to  the  constitution  of  the  

Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on 29.03.1988.  The  

appointment  of  Group-B post  in  the  Public  Works  Department  of  

Arunachal  Pradesh  was  guided  by  the  Arunachal  Pradesh

Administration  [Public  Works  Department]  Group-B  Post  

Recruitment Rules, 1983 and the appointment of the appellants was  

made  as  per  the  said  Recruitment  Rules  in  the  absence  of  the  

Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission at the relevant time.  

Their services also were regularized in terms of the said Rules which  

provided  that  a  minimum  service  period  of  two  years,  known  as  

period  of  probation,  was  necessary  for  rendering  service  in  the  

capacity  of  Assistant  Engineer  for  all  appointments  made  by  

Government to these posts since 1980. The services of the appellants  

were  regularized  as  stated  hereinabove  giving  them the  benefit  of  

service from the actual date of their joining the service.  

9. Before  the  constitution  of  the  Arunachal  Pradesh  Public  

Service  Commission  such regularizations  were  given  by convening  

meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committee. However, by the  

time the cases of the appellants could be taken up for consideration  

for regularization of their services on completion of two years period  

of  probation,  the  Arunachal  Pradesh  Public  Service  Commission  

came to be constituted and therefore the cases for regularization of  

the  services  of  the  appellants  were  considered  by  the  Arunachal  

Pradesh  Public  Service  Commission,   which  recommended  the  

regularization of the services of the appellants from the date of their  

initial  appointment.  It  was  also  pointed  out  that  not  giving

retrospective effect to regularization of the services of the appellants  

by Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission would have been a  

deviation  from  the  past  practices  and  that  would  have  caused  

prejudice and grievance amongst the appellants as also disparity in  

application of the Service  Rules.   It  was also pointed out that the  

appellants and the respondents were inducted into the Government  

service through two separately  and different modes of recruitment,  

one taking place  before  the constitution of the Arunachal Pradesh  

Public Service Commission and the other after the constitution of the  

Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission.

10. The learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court took up  

the aforesaid writ petition for hearing and by its judgment and order  

dated  29.04.2005  allowed  the  writ  petition  and  directed  the  

Government of Arunachal Pradesh to make necessary changes in the  

seniority  list  by  recasting  the  same  by  accepting  the  date  of  

appointment of the respondent no.1 as on 02.05.1989 and those of  

the appellants from the respective  dates of their regularization and  

that  the  ad-hoc period  of  service  rendered  by them would  not  be  

counted towards the seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer.  

11. Being  aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  judgment  and  order,  an  

appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court which  

was  heard  accordingly  and  by  a  judgment  and  order  dated

19.02.2009 the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal filed by the  

appellants  and  confirmed  the  judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  

learned  Single  Judge.  Being  so  aggrieved,  the  present  appeal  was  

filed  by  the  appellants  herein  which  was  entertained  and  on  

completion  of  the  pleadings,  we  have  heard  learned  counsel  

appearing for the parties.  

12. Counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants  submitted  before  us  

that  since  the  appellants  herein  were  appointed  prior  to  the  

respondent no.1 in point of time and they were also regularized from  

an  earlier  date,  they  had  been  rightly  shown  by  the  concerned  

Department to be senior to the respondent no. 1. The counsel for the  

appellant further submitted before us that therefore in any view of  

the matter the appointment of the appellants having been made by  

the  State  Government  prior  to  the  constitution  of  the  Arunachal  

Pradesh Public Service Commission and their regularisation on the  

recommendation  of  the  State  Public  Service  Commission  after  

successful completion of two years probationary service, having not  

been challenged by any party, including the respondent no. 1 herein,  

the  High  Court  was  not  justified  in  interfering  with  the  seniority  

position  and  the  length  of  service  rendered  by  the  appellants  in  

counting  the  said  ad-hoc period  of  service  for  the  benefit  of  their  

seniority.  

13. It was also submitted that not only their services rendered as  

temporary and ad-hoc service were recognized and counted towards  

their seniority while regularizing their service as Assistant Engineer  

with a retrospective date of their initial appointment, but even some  

of the appellants, in the meantime, depending on their seniority in  

the  post  of  the  Assistant  Engineer  were  considered  and promoted  

during the period from 1991 to 2001 to the post of the Executive  

Engineer and the Superintending Engineer and one of them was even  

promoted to  the  post  of  the  Chief  Engineer.  However,  despite  the  

aforesaid situation, no objection or challenge was made till 2001. It  

was further submitted that the High Court acted illegally and without  

jurisdiction in setting aside the benefit given to them as far back as  

20.07.1989, although, in the writ petition filed by the respondent no.  

1, the said order was not challenged.  It was also submitted that the  

respondent no. 1 himself not having raised any grievance against the  

initial  appointment  of  the  appellants  as  temporary  and  ad-hoc  

Assistant  Engineers  and  also  having  not  protested  their  

regularization  of  service  on the  recommendation  of  the  Arunachal  

Pradesh  Public  Service  Commission  from  the  date  of  their  initial  

appointment and the said order having become final and binding no  

interference was called for from the High Court on the basis of a writ  

petition.

14. The  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent  no.  1,  however,  

submitted that though the initial appointment of the appellants has  

not been challenged by the respondent no. 1, he is aggrieved by the  

appellants having been given the benefit of seniority for the period of  

service  which  was  rendered  on  temporary  and  ad-hoc basis.  The  

counsel  for  the  respondents  also  submitted  that  since  the  initial  

appointment of the appellants was irregular and de hors the relevant  

Rules, they are entitled to get their seniority only from the date when  

their were regularized by the competent authority  and therefore the  

judgment and order passed by the High Court is just and proper. It  

was also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that had the  

appellants so desired, they could have, as he (respondent no.1) had  

done, submitted their application for being considered as a regular  

appointee pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Public Service  

Commission.  The counsel for the respondents further emphasized  

the  fact  some  of  the  appellants  had  availed  the  said  opportunity,  

which fact would indeed show that they were fully conscious of the  

fact that their initial  appointment was not in accordance with the  

existing rules and that the same was required to be regularized by  

following a proper procedure and therefore their seniority could be  

counted only from the date they were so regularized in the service on  

the basis  of the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public

Service Commission.   

15. In the light of the aforesaid submissions and averments made  

by the counsel appearing for the appellants, the respondents and the  

State  of  Arunachal  Pradesh  and  after  examining  the  documents  

placed on record before  us,  we find that there  is no dispute  with  

regard to the fact that the appellants were appointed as Assistant  

Engineers on purely temporary and  ad-hoc basis. Few of the letters  

dated 2nd April, 1986 issued in the case of some of the appellants are  

placed on record.  

16. A close perusal of the said letters issued shows that a few of  

the appellants had been appointed on 2nd of April, 1986 as Assistant  

Engineers purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis as per the relevant  

terms and conditions. In clause 3 thereof, it was provided that the  

appointments would be on purely temporary and ad-hoc basis until  

regular  appointments  are  made  according  to  the  Rules  on  the  

recommendation of a Selection Board constituted by the Government  

and that aforesaid ad-hoc appointments as Assistant Engineer would  

not entitle any seniority in the cadre of regular Assistant Engineer.  

17. Clause 8 of the said appointment letter, on the other hand,  

stated  specifically  that  his  appointment  as  an  Assistant  Engineer  

would  be  governed  by  the  relevant  Rules  and  Orders  of  the

Government issued from time to time. There is also no dispute with  

regard  to  the  fact  that  at  the  relevant  time  when  the  aforesaid  

appointment  letters  were  issued,  the  service  condition  of  the  

appellants were governed by the Arunachal Pradesh Administration  

[Public Works Department] Group-B Post Recruitment Rules, 1983,  

which is  a set  of  rules  issued in exercise  of  the powers  conferred  

under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said Rules also  

regulate  the  method  of  appointment  to  the  Group-B  posts  in  the  

Public Works Department and also govern the recruitment process of  

the  Assistant  Engineers  [Civil]  in  the  Arunachal  Pradesh  Public  

Works Department. The said Rules provide both direct recruitment  

and promotion as methods of  recruitment.  The said Rules  further  

provide that in case of a failure to recruit by the aforesaid methods,  

transfer  on  deputation  shall  be  employed  and  that  the  period  of  

probation for such appointment would be for two years. The Rules  

laid down further that the Union Public Service Commission was not  

required to be consulted in making the recruitment.  

18. The aforesaid appellants after their recruitment on temporary  

and ad-hoc basis worked on probation for a period of two years and  

on completion of the said period their cases were considered by the  

State Public Service Commission and by an order dated 20.07.1989,  

the  appointment  of  the  appellants  was  regularised  as  Assistant

Engineer [Civil] against direct recruitment quota.  In the said order,  

the  initial  date  of  joining  of  the  appellant  no.  1  to  the  post  of  

Assistant Engineer [Civil] on temporary and ad-hoc basis was shown  

as 04.02.1986 and his date of regularization of appointment in the  

concerned Grade was shown to be as 04.02.1986, whereas, the other  

appellants were also given similar dates, but the fact remains that  

their appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer is shown to have  

been regularized with effect from the date of their initial appointment  

only.   

19.  Several seniority lists were published thereafter, showing the  

names of the appellants as senior to the respondent no.1 and despite  

such  publication,  which  were  of  course  provisional  in  nature,  no  

objection was raised by the respondent no. 1.  A final seniority list of  

Assistant  Engineers  [Civil]  in  Arunachal  Pradesh  Public  Works  

Department as on 01.03.1999 was published on 15.03.1999 through  

an Office Memorandum and in the said seniority list also the names  

of the appellants were shown senior to the respondent no. 1.  In the  

said seniority list also not only the date of their initial appointment in  

the post of Assistant Engineer was shown but also the date of their  

confirmation in the Grade was also shown which was from the date  

of  their  initial  appointment.  When the aforesaid final  seniority  list  

was published, the respondent no. 1 finally filed a writ petition in

2001 challenging the seniority position given to the appellants.   

20. On the 2nd of  March, 2001,  a Gazette  notification had also  

been published which clearly indicates that not only the appellants  

were confirmed in the post of Assistant Engineer [Civil] but they were  

also confirmed in the post of the Executive Engineers [Civil] and at  

least  some  of  them have  since  been  promoted  to  the  post  of  the  

Superintending  Engineer  and  one  of  them  is  at  least  occupying  

become the post of the Chief Engineer. The respondents in their writ  

petition had neither challenged the initial appointment order of the  

appellants  appointing  them  as  Assistant  Engineers  [Civil]  on  

temporary  and  ad-hoc basis  under  the  1983  Rules,  nor  had they  

challenged  the  subsequent  order  passed  by  the  Government  of  

Arunachal  Pradesh  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Arunachal  

Pradesh Public Service Commission regularising the services of the  

appellants  as  Assistant  Engineers  from  the  date  of  their  initial  

appointment.  Not  only  these  orders  were  not  challenged  by  the  

respondent no. 1 in the writ petition filed by him but the subsequent  

orders  of  promotion  of  these  appellants  to  the  post  of  Executive  

Engineers  and their confirmation in the said post,  on the basis of  

their seniority positions counting the  ad-hoc period of service, were  

also not challenged. These orders are therefore final and binding on  

all concerned.

21. As  noted  earlier  by  us,  several  seniority  lists,  although  

provisional in nature, were published in the meantime, showing that  

the benefit  of  ad hoc period had been given to the appellants. But  

these were never challenged by the respondent no. 1 and it was only  

in the year 2001 when some of them were promoted to the post of  

Superintending Engineer  and one of them to the post of the Chief  

Engineer that the respondent no. 1 filed the aforesaid writ petition.  

22. The  High  Court  without  considering  those  facts  have  only  

dealt  with one aspect  which is that the initial  appointment of  the  

appellants to the post of Assistant Engineer was  de hors the Rules.  

The  said  findings  recorded  by  both  the  Single  Judge  as  also  the  

Division  Bench  were  uncalled  for  and  unjustified  for  the  simple  

reason  that  the  appointment  order  itself  indicated  that  their  

appointment would be governed by the Service Rules then existing,  

i.e., the 1983 Rules.   

23. The fact that their services were regularized from the date of  

their  initial  appointment on the recommendation of the Arunachal  

Pradesh Public Service Commission was also totally ignored by the  

High Court.  Thus, these facts coupled with the fact that none of the  

aforesaid  orders  were  challenged  by  the  respondent  no.1,  would  

indicate that the said orders are final and binding on all the persons  

concerned. The High Court ignored the fact that the respondent no. 1

himself was bound by the aforesaid orders.  The respondent no.1 was  

bound by his own appointment orders. The appellants had rendered  

two years of service as Assistant Engineers and at least some of the  

appellants including appellant no. 1 had successfully completed their  

probation period on 01.04.1988 whereas the respondent no. 1 was  

appointed  as  Assistant  Engineer  on  regular  basis  and  put  on  

probation  for  two  years  on  02.05.1989.  Therefore,  when  the  

respondent no. 1 was put on probation, the appellant no. 1 and some  

others  had  successfully  completed  their  probation.  Thus,  for  all  

purposes at all times, the appellants were senior to the  respondent  

no. 1.   

24. Considering the said fact and also considering the precedents  

in the Department that all such employees were regularized from the  

date  of  their  initial  appointment,  the  Government  of  Arunachal  

Pradesh also regularized the services of the appellants in the post of  

Assistant Engineer from the date of their initial appointment and that  

was done on the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public  

Service Commission. The order of regularization having become final  

and  binding  on  all  concerned  could  not  have  been  ignored  and  

implicitly  set aside by the High Court on a ground that the initial  

appointment of the appellants was de hors the Rules, which is totally  

a non-existent ground.

25. There is no denial to the fact that prior to the constitution of  

the Arunachal  Pradesh Public  Service  Commission on 29th March,  

1988  the  appointment  of  Assistant  Engineers  in  the  State  Public  

Works Department was always carried out in accordance with the  

Arunachal  Pradesh  Administration  [Public  Works  Department]  

Group-B  Post  Recruitment  Rules,  1983.   The  appointment  of  the  

appellants as indicated by their initial appointment letters issued in  

1986 indicate that their appointments were governed as per the said  

Service Rules.   

26. Under the said Rules, a minimum service period of two years,  

known as period of probation was considered necessary for rendering  

service  in  the  capacity  of  Assistant  Engineer  for  all  appointments  

made by Government to these posts since 1980.  In all cases since  

1980 and prior to the constitution of the State of Arunachal Pradesh  

as  an  independent  State,  the  services  of  the  incumbents  were  

regularised giving them retrospective effect from their actual/initial  

date  of  joining  in  the  service  and  since  at  the  stage  of  initial  

appointment  of  the  appellants  Arunachal  Pradesh  Public  Service  

Commission was non-existent, the regularization of services of such  

employees  were  given  through  meetings  of  the  Departmental  

Promotion Committees.  By the time appellants completed their two  

years of probationary service period, the State of Arunachal Pradesh

came to be constituted and since Arunachal Pradesh Public Service  

Commission  had  come  into  existence  by  that  time,  the  cases  of  

regularization of the services of the appellants were considered by the  

State Public  Service  Commission and on its recommendation their  

services  were  regularized  after  expiry  of  the  two  year  period  of  

probation giving retrospective effect to their regularization from the  

date of their initial appointment.  

27. It is clearly stated by the State of Arunachal Pradesh that if  

such  a  retrospective  effect  to  regularization  of  the  services  of  the  

appellants by the State Public Service Commission would not have  

been given and if it had deviated from the past practice, the same  

would have caused prejudice and grievance and a disparity in the  

application of the Service Rules as compared to the past cases.  

28. It is, thus, clearly established that the respondent no. 1 was  

inducted into Government service by a separate mode of recruitment  

than  that  of  the  appellants  and  therefore  their  cases  cannot  be  

equated.  The  statement  of  the  Government  of  Arunachal  Pradesh  

that the provisional  seniority lists were  regularly  published by the  

Public Works Department Secretariat from time to time since 1990 to  

1999, with ample time being given to the incumbents to reply against  

any anomaly in the seniority list and that the respondent no. 1 never  

submitted  any  representation  in  that  regard  is  not  disputed.  The

respondent no. 1, therefore, had challenged the established seniority  

position after about 10 years and that too without challenging the  

basic and the fundamental orders of giving the appellants the benefit  

of  regularised  service  from  their  initial  date  of  appointment  as  

Assistant Engineers.  

29. The challenge appears to us to be belated and in this regard  

we would endorse the same view as expressed by this Court in the  

case of Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur & Ors.  

reported  in  (1999)  8  SCC  287  at  para  15  which  is  extracted  

hereinbelow: -

“15. It  is  now  well  settled  that  even  in  cases  of  probation  or   officiating appointments which are followed by a confirmation unless a  contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment  or  on  probation  cannot  be  ignored  for  reckoning  the  length  of   continuous officiating service for determining the place in the seniority  list.  Where  the  first  appointment  is  made  by  not  following  the  prescribed  procedure  and  such  appointee is  approved later  on,  the  approval would  mean his  confirmation by  the authority shall  relate   back to the date on which his appointment was made and the entire  service will have to be computed in reckoning the seniority according to  the length of continuous officiation. In this regard we fortify our view by  the judgment of  this Court in G.P. Doval and Anr. v. Chief Secretary,  Government of U.P. and Ors. [(1984) 4 SCC 329].”

30. The respondents have,  in support of their case,  referred to  

and  relied  upon  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  K.  

Madalaimuthu and Another v. State of T.N. and Others reported in  

(2006) 6 SCC 558.  In order to appreciate the contention raised by  

the counsel appearing for the respondents, we have carefully perused

the  said  decision.  However,  on  a  careful  scrutiny  of  the  said  

judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the said decision is  

distinguishable on facts which are noted hereinbelow.

31. The aforesaid decision was rendered in a fact situation which  

is  altogether  different  from  the  present  one  and  this  would  be  

apparent on a bare perusal of the said decision.  In the said case the  

recruitment of the respondents therein was admittedly  de hors the  

relevant  Recruitment  Rules inasmuch as the said recruitment was  

particularly made under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State  

and  Subordinate  Services  Rules,  1955.   The  said  provision  is  

extracted hereinbelow for a proper appreciation of the situation: -

“10 (a) (i) (1): Where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an  emergency which has arisen to fill  immediately a vacancy in a post  borne on the cadre of a service, class or category and there would be   undue  delay in  making  such  appointment in  accordance  with these  rules and the Special Rules, the appointing authority may temporarily  appoint a person, who possess the qualifications prescribed for the post  otherwise than in accordance with the said rules.”

(emphasis supplied)

32. It  is  clear  from  the  judgment  in  the  said  case  that  the  

respondents  therein  had  been  appointed  under  Rule  10  (a)  (i)  (1)  

which  provides  for  recruitments  in  emergent  circumstances  and  

allows  the  appointing  authority  to  make  appointments  otherwise  

than in accordance with the said Rules. It was in this context that  

this Court held that the respondents therein will get benefit of their

seniority  only from the date  they were  regularized  in the cadre  to  

which they had been appointed.  In the case at hand, however, the  

fact  situation  is  totally  different  on  account  of  the  fact  that  the  

appointment  letters  issued  to  the  appellants  appointing  them  as  

temporary  and ad-hoc  basis  as  Assistant  Engineers  in  the  Public  

Works Department specifically mentioned that the appellants will be  

governed  by  the  Service  Rules  and  also  that  they  would  be  

regularized  according  to  the  Rules  on  the  recommendation  of  a  

Selection Board constituted by the  Government.  We would  like  to  

extract both the aforesaid conditions formulating part of the terms  

and conditions contained in the  appointment  letters issued to the  

appellants: -

“3. This appointment will be on purely temporary and ad hoc basis until   regular  appointment  are  made  according  to  rules  on  the  recommendation of  a selection Board constituted by the Government.  (No increment in time scale will be permissible till their appointment is  regularized.  This  adhoc  appointment  as Assistant Engineer  will  not  entitle any seniority in the cadre of regular Assistant Engineer”

“8.    His  appointment will  be  governed  by  the  relevant Rules  and   Orders of the Government issued from time to time”

33. In that view of the matter there was not only a case of the  

appellants having a legitimate expectation that their cases would be  

considered for regularization by the competent authority but also a  

case  where  the  Service  Rules  were  also  made  applicable  to  the  

appellants. When the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission

(“the  APPSC”)  considered  the  cases  of  the  appellants  for  

regularization  on  completion  of  their  probationary  period  of  two  

years, all the said factors weighed with the APPSC and consequently  

it  was  decided  to  regularize  them  from  the  date  of  their  initial  

appointment.  Therefore,  in the facts of the present case, ratio laid  

down in the case of Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh (supra) would be  

squarely applicable.  

34. We may here also appropriately refer to another decision of  

this  Court  in  the  case  of  G.P.  Doval  v.  Chief  Secy.,  Govt.  of  U.P.  

reported  in  (1984)  4  SCC  329,  wherein  this  Court  held  that  

regularization of the services of a person, whose initial appointment  

although not in accordance with the prescribed procedure but later  

on approved by an authority having power and jurisdiction to do so  

would always relate  back to the dates of their initial appointment.  

Para 13 is, which is reproduced hereinbelow:  

“13. ……………………..If the first appointment is made by not following  the prescribed procedure but later on the appointee is approved making   his appointment regular, it is obvious commonsense that in the absence  of  a  contrary  rule,  the  approval  which  means confirmation by  the  authority which had  the  authority, power  and  jurisdiction to  make  appointment or recommend for appointment, will relate back to the date  on which first appointment is made and the entire service will have to  be  computed  in  reckoning  the  seniority  according  to  the  length  of   continuous officiation. That has not been done in this case……………… ……..”

35. We  may also  usefully  refer  to  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  

Direct  Recruit  Class  II  Engineering  Officers'  Assn.  v.  State     of   

Maharashtra reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715, which reads as follows:

“47. To sum up, we hold that:  (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to  

rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment  and not according to the date of his confirmation…………………………… …….”

36. The other aspect of the matter which is to be noted is that  

when  the  respondents  were  appointed  to  the  service  as  Assistant  

Engineers  on  the  recommendation  of  the  APPSC,  the  said  

appointment was on probation for a period of two years. Some of the  

appellants  had  successfully  completed  their  probation  period  on  

20.07.1989, after their cases had been taken up for regularization by  

the APPSC. Therefore,  when considered from any angle there is no  

justification for  denial  of  the  benefit  of  seniority  to  the  appellants  

from the date of their initial appointment which is also in tune with  

the  legal  principles  laid  down  by  this  Court  as  referred  to  

hereinbefore  and in that view of the matter the aforesaid  decision  

which is relied upon by the counsel appearing for the respondents is  

held  to  be  not  applicable  to  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  

present case.

37. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the orders  

passed by the Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench of the  

High Court. Consequently, the Writ Petition filed by respondent no. 1

in the High Court would stand dismissed.

38. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. There will be no  

order as to costs.  

      ................………………………J.

                                                [ Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ]

........…...........………………..J.                         [ H.L. Dattu ]

New Delhi, April 20, 2010.