TEWATIA, J. ( 1 ) THE short question that arises for conisderation in this writ petition is as to whether the Karnataka Secretariat Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules'), besides providing for recruitment to the posts of First Grade Stenographers, also provided for the determination of the inter-se seniority of the employees so recruited. If so, then, whether the rules in question suffer from the vice of unconstitutionally as being voolative of Art. 16 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on the two unreported decisions of this Court, Shanthayya v. State of Mysore, WP. 1979-1989/66 d/. 24-1-1967. and Shivalingappa v. State of Mysore (2), has canvassed before us that the relative seniority had to be determined from the date of appointment of the concerned employees, even when they happen to be recruited from diverse sources, as in the present case, and in accordance with the quota fixed for the various sources. In order to highlight his above submission, he drew our pointed attention to the following passage from Shivahngsppa's case, WP. 3978/68 d/. 14-4-1971. (supra):"3. As between the petitioner and the promotees, the controversy is directly related to the relative proportion of direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Asst Directors (Technical ). Before 1960, the proportion was two direct recruits to one promotion. By the promulgation of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules in December, 1960 for the first time, the quotas were equalised. By an amendment to the rules brought into force from 16th March, 1965, the proportion was altered to one direct recruit to two promotions. 4. The cadre strength as fixed by the Rules is only three. On that strength, there would be only one vacancy available for direct recruitment. It would appear that another post was created subsequently by an order of the Govt. The clear result would be that the petitioner cannot sustain his claim that any of the respondents, other than the 2nd respondent directly recruited along with him, occupies any vacancy reserved for direct recruits. 5. Once that result is achieved, we fail to under stand how and on what principle of law the petitioner recruited in June, 1965 could claim seniority over persons promoted between 1957 and 1962. The only argument very strongly pressed by Mr. 5. Once that result is achieved, we fail to under stand how and on what principle of law the petitioner recruited in June, 1965 could claim seniority over persons promoted between 1957 and 1962. The only argument very strongly pressed by Mr. Goulay on behalf of the petitioner is that this is a case similar to the one decided by the Supreme court in the case of M, Ervyn Continho v. Collector of Customs ( AIR 1967 SC 52 ). The position there was that the promotional and direct recruitment vacancies were by a circular having the force of law, arranged in a particular order both for purposes of fixing the quota and also for purposes of determining the seniority. But, such is not the position in the present case. All that we have under the Rules of Recruitment is the determination of a certain proportion between direct recruitment vacancies and promotional vacancies. There is no fixation of relative order, nor is there anything to support the case of seniority commencing from a date anterior to date of appointment itself. It may be, in the case of direct recruitment vacancies the Govt may fill them up by promotions made on tenative basis to be replaced by direct recruits when such recruitment is actually made. But it does not mean that in such a case, the direct recruit lor purposes of seniority gets the benefit of the previous occupation of the vacancy by a person provisionally or tentavely promoted thereto. All that happens is that upon a direct recruit being posted to the vacancy, the person till then occupying it on the footing of a provisional promotion gets reverted. " ( 3 ) WE find considerable merit in the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioners. ( 4 ) THERE is no quarrel with the proposition urged on behalf of the respondents that the competent authority has the legal light to frame rules which may provide for the lecruitment to a cadre from various sources in accordance with fixed quota for various sources, as also for fixation of inter-se seniority of personnel so recruited on the basis 01 a roster classifying posts to be filled by personnel drawn from various sources, and the decisions, such as in Merlun Continho v Collector of Customs, Bom, AIR. 1962 SC. 52 and Bishan Samp v. Union of India, AIR. 1974 SC. 1618. 1962 SC. 52 and Bishan Samp v. Union of India, AIR. 1974 SC. 1618. on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondents, deal with cases in which the concerned rules contained express provision for fixing the relative seniority of the personnel (recruited to the cadre from various sources in accordance with fixed quota) on rotational basis in accordance with a roster classifying various posts to be filled by each category employees. But such is not the case here, as would be presently shown. For ease of reference, the relevant rules, at this stage, may be noticed : ( 5 ) THE provisions of the aforesaid rules would reveal that they do not expressly provide for the fixation of inter-se seniority of the recruits from various sources on the basis of 'roster system'. However, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that these rules do so by necessary implication. For finding out as to whether they do so, as suggested, the background of the amendment and the circumstances of the present case shall have to be considered. ( 6 ) THE petitioners are promotees. They were selected to the cadre of first Grade Stenographers long before the date on which respondents nos. 2 to 10 came to be so recruited by direct recruitment. As long a period as 4 years separates the dates of their respective appointments, as would be clear from the seniority 1st (Ext. Cl) which has been sought to be quashed, the relevant portion whereof is as follows : ( 7 ) WE are clearly of the view that the proviso to the rule in question was inserted to provide a guidance for the arrangement of the names of the persons recruited from various sources in the selection list, placing on which were eventually to govern the relative seniority of the employees, if they happen to be appointed on the same date. The reason for inserting the said proviso to the rules in question, to our mind, was to mitigate the discrimination that used to result in the aforesaid circumstances by the application of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Govt Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, which is in the following terms :" Where officers are recruited to any service or a class of posts by promotion and by direct recruitment, the officers directly recruited will take precedence over the promoted officers in case where the date of appointment is the same. " ( 8 ) THIS rule apparently gave an advantage to the direct recruits over the promotees, if they happen to be appointed on the same date by putting all the direct recruits above the promotees. ( 9 ) IF, as we have indicated, the obiect was to mitigate discrimination against the promotees writ large in Rule 3 of the KGS (Seniority) Rules, 1957, then, pn intemretat on nf the said proviso that it had also provided sub silentio for the fixation of the future intense seniority of the recruits from the sources mentioned in the rules on rotational basis, would appear not only to be a strained one. tut one that appeared to. be unwarranted, for such an interpretion would defeat the very purpose behind the insertion of the said proviso, because the suggested interpretation of the proviso would result in according seniority to direct recruits over promrtes, even if the direct recruits happen to be appointed vears after the appoinment of the promotees, while, as already observed, the proviso was intended to curtail the rights of the direct recruits to become en bloc senior to the promotees even if they were appointed simultaneously with the promotees on the same date. ( 10 ) WE are, therefore, of the opinion that the recruitment rules in question only provided for arranging of names of recruits from the three sources mentioned therein and indicated the sequence in which their appointments were to be made at the initial stage of appointment in the pvent of their selection or appointment on the same date, and that it did not provide for the fixation of the relative seniority of the recruits in the cadre in question without reference to their respective dates of appointment. ( 11 ) IT is the admitted case that there had been no direct recruitment made between the year 1982 and 1966, and that direct recruitment, for the first time, was resorted to in the year 1966. It is also clear from the pleadings as well as the impugned seniority list (Ext. Cl) that the petitioner- promotees were promoted in the year 1962, and in any case long before the date on which the direct recruits (Respts-2 to 10) were appointed, and hence, they cannot claim seniority above the petitioners. ( 12 ) THE result is that the writ petition Is allowed. Respt-1, the State govt, is directed to redraw the seniority list in accordance with the karnataka Govt Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, having due regard to their respective dates of appointment and the observations made in this judgment. ( 13 ) IN the circumstances of the case, parties are however directed to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .