Judgment 1. THE Rules mentioned above have been referred to the Division Bench by A. K. Sen, J. in view of the questions of public importance involved therein. The petitioners in Civil Rule No. 5165 (W) of 1970, who are lower Division employees in the Government of West Bengal. have challenged as ultra vires certain amendments made with retrospective effect in the recruitment Rules of the clerical services of the West Bengal secretariat as also other notifications, rules and regulations framed under proviso to Article 309 and Article 320 of the Constitution. The ground for challenge, inter alia, is that the said amendments have been made for the specific purpose of regularising the temporary appointments otherwise invalid of about 1100 Lower Division clerks and typists with effect from November 1, 1966. These employees by another Rule framed under proviso to Article 309 of the constitution were also conferred seniority from the said date to the great prejudice of the petitioners. The said employees in their turn have challenged the seniority rule in Civil Rule No. 1330 (W)of 1971 claiming seniority from the dates of their respective appointments. Common questions of fact and law have thus arisen in these two rules which accordingly have been heard analogously and will be governed by this judgment. 2. BY notification No. 2083f/f/is8 (30)54 dated July 21, 1954, under powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution, the governor of West Bengal framed rules for the regulation of recruitment to the clerical establishment of the West Bengal Government Secretariat and its certain other officers. As to lower division clerks, Rule 7 provided the method of recruitment. Rule 7 is as follows: "7. Method of recruitment -Except as provided in rules 8 and 9 of these rules vacancies in the lower Division of the Secretariat and of office to which these rules apply will be filled up by means of a competitive examination to be held by the Public Service Commission, West Bengal." The said Rules are known as "rules for the regulation of recruitment to the clerical services of the Secretariat and certain other offices of the Government of West Bengal" hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules, 1954. Rule 8 provides that a specific percentage of vacancies is to be filled up by the said Public Service Commission, West Bengal, hereinafter referred to as PSC, from candidates qualified in clerkship examination and holding temporary and officiating vacancies for specified years. Rule 9 provides for promotion in specified percentage of assistants to lower division posts in the Secretariat to be made by the department. 3. THE Governor of West Bengal, in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India, framed, by notification No. 2453-F FIS 8 (27) 5/55 dated August 11, 1955, "the West Bengal Public Service Commission (Consultation by Governor) Regulations, 1955" hereinafter referred to PSC Regulations, 1955. Regulation 3 provides as follows: "3. Except in the case of direct recruitment to the services or posts included in the schedule annexed hereto and subject to the provisions of regulation 4 below, it shall not be necessary to consult the Commission with respect to the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) and (b)of Clause (3) of Article 320 of the constitution for any service or post, permanent or temporary, the appointing authority for which is an authority subordinate to the state Government. " Regulation 4 relates to officiating vacancies with which we are not concerned here. The schedule referred to above includes Clerk and Typists in the Secretariat Departments of the government and in some offices of the departments specifically mentioned therein. 4. THE position accordingly is that in respect of appointments referred to in the schedule, the method of recruitment was by means of competitive examinations to be held by PSC. For few years prior to 1967 there was expansion of Government activities due to impact of successive development plans, leading to expansion of Government "offices requiring services of a large number of people. The PSC which held examination once a year could not meet the requirement in full. In interest of public service the appointing authorities made stop-gap arrangements by making direct recruitments of lower division assistants and typists. Due to further ex-pension there was creation of new posts and the stop-gap arrangements continued and increased from time to time and the number of clerks and typists working in the Secretariat and Directorate and not appointed on basis of examination by the PSC was about 1200. A1 these appointments were on temporary basis. Due to further ex-pension there was creation of new posts and the stop-gap arrangements continued and increased from time to time and the number of clerks and typists working in the Secretariat and Directorate and not appointed on basis of examination by the PSC was about 1200. A1 these appointments were on temporary basis. These clerks and typists served government for long and gained experience in the working of the Secretariat and for the above consideration and as their non-absorption would cause great hardship to a considerable number of employees, the Government, also on their representation, took steps for their retention and subsequent absorption in service. A decision was taken by the Government in November 1967 to the effect that such staff recruited otherwise through PSC who had then rendered at least one year's service should be retained in service and treated as regular from November 1, 1966 but PSC appointees as on that date were to be treated as senior to those non-PSC appointees. IN pursuance thereof the Government made amendment to the relevant regulation and rules and issued various notifications. Those relevant are set out chronologically as follows : on 19th December 1967, the Government made the following Regulation : No. 4300-F F 18-28/67 Calcutta The 19th December, 1967. NOTIFICATION In exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India, The Governor is pleased hereby to make the "following regulation, namely- REGULATION It shall be deemed not to have been necessary, notwithstanding anything contained in the West Bengal Public Service Commission (Consultation by Governor) Regulations 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said regulations), to consult the Public Service Commission, West Bengal, with respect to matters specified in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (3) of article 320 of the Constitution in relation to any appointment made before the first day of November 1966 to the posts of clerks and typists included in item 1 of the Schedule to the said regulations otherwise than in accordance with the rules for recruitment to these posts. " By the aforesaid Regulation, the retention in Government service of the persons without consultation with PSC were sought to be ensured. Shortly thereafter the government issued the following memorandum: "no. 556-F FIS-8/68 Calcutta, the 20th February, 1968. MEMORANDUM The question of seniority of temporary clerks and typists who were recruited prior to 1. 11. " By the aforesaid Regulation, the retention in Government service of the persons without consultation with PSC were sought to be ensured. Shortly thereafter the government issued the following memorandum: "no. 556-F FIS-8/68 Calcutta, the 20th February, 1968. MEMORANDUM The question of seniority of temporary clerks and typists who were recruited prior to 1. 11. 66 and who have been deemed, under Finance Department Notification No 4300f dated 19. 12. 67, to have been excluded from the purview of the Public service Commission in relation to their appointment is under consideration by the Government. After careful consideration, the Governor is pleased to direct that clerks and typists whose appointments were regularised from 1. 11. 66 should be deemed junior to any clerk/typist who had qualified in Clerkship and Typists Recruitment Examination prior to 1. 11. 66. The inter-se seniority, in respect of the clerks and typists who are covered by the above notification will, however, be determined on the basis of their length of service in a department or Directorate, as the case may be. " This was followed by the Rule set out below: No. 4471-F. Calcutta, the 8th October, 1869. NOTIFICATION In exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India, the Governor is pleased hereby to make the following rules, namely : RULES 1. These rules may be called the seniority rules for the clerks and typists recruited in the Secretariat and Directorate otherwise than through the Public service Commission, West Bengal on a date prior to the 1st Nov. 66. 2. The Clerks and Typists in the Secretariat and directorates who were recruited otherwise than through the Public Service commission, West Bengal prior to 1st November, 1966 and who were excluded from the purview of the public Service Commission, West Bengal under notification No. 4300-F FIS-28 67 dated the 19th December, 1967 shall be deemed junior to any clerk or typist as the case may be, who had qualified in the clerkship or Typist Recruitment -Examination and were appointed in different secretariat Deptt. and Directorates on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, West Bengal on a date prior to the 1st November, 1966. and Directorates on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, West Bengal on a date prior to the 1st November, 1966. The inter-se seniority in respect of clerks and typists who were covered by the said notification shall be determined on the basis of their length of service in a department or Directorate, as the case may be. " Amendment in the Recruitment Rules was also made by the following notification : "no. 4473-F Calcutta, the 8th October, 1969. NOTIFICATION In exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is pleased hereby to make the following amendment in the rules for the regulation of recruitment to the clerical services of the Secretariat and certain other offices of the government of West Bengal published with this department Notification No. 208f/f/is-8 (30) 54 dated the 21st July, 1954 as subsequently amended (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), namely : AMENDMENT In the said rule, below rule 16, insert the following note namely : "note- Temporary appointments covered by the orders contained in Finance Department notification No. 4300-FFIS-28/67 dated the 19th December, 1967 shall be deemed to have been made with effect from the 1st November 1966 for the purposes of these rules." 6. THE petitioners who were all appointed by the State Government through PSC between 1967 and 1970 moved an application under Article 226 (1) challenging the aforesaid amendments as being violative of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. On this application a Rule being C. R. No. 5165 (W) of 1970 was issued on September 8, 1970, while the above seniority rule was challenged by non PSC appointees and CR. No. 1330 (W) of 1971 war- issued on their application. On August 6. 1974, when the rules were pending, the following notification was issued by the Government : "no. No. 1330 (W) of 1971 war- issued on their application. On August 6. 1974, when the rules were pending, the following notification was issued by the Government : "no. 7659-F--6th August 1974- In exercise of the power conferred by the proviso' to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the governor is pleased hereby to make the following amendments, in the rules for the regulation of recruitment to the Clerical Services of the Secretariat and certain other offices of the Government of West Bengal published with this department notification No. 2083-F/f]is 8 (30)154, dated the 21st July 1954, as subsequently amended which shall be deemed to have always been inserted (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), namely : AMENDMENT In the said rules, below rule 7 insert the following proviso which shall be deemed to have always been inserted namely : "provided that this rule shall not apply or shall not be deemed ever to have applied in the cases of appointments excluded from the purview of the Public Service commission by the regulation promulgated, in Finance Department Notification no. 4300-F, dated 19th December, 1967." Both the Rules came up for hearing on September 5, 1974 when A. K. Sen, J. referred them to the Division Bench as already stated. The government again came up with another notification dated August 14, 1975 which is set out as follows: NOTIFICATION "no. 4300-F, dated 19th December, 1967." Both the Rules came up for hearing on September 5, 1974 when A. K. Sen, J. referred them to the Division Bench as already stated. The government again came up with another notification dated August 14, 1975 which is set out as follows: NOTIFICATION "no. 5683-F-14th August 1975.- In exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is pleased hereby to make the following amendment in the rules for regulation of recruitment to the Clerical Services of the Secretariat and certain other offices of the Government of West Bengal published with this department notification No. 2083-F/f/is-8 (30) 54, dated the 21st July, 1954, as subsequently amended (here in after referred to as the said rules namely : AMENDMENT In the said rules, for the existing proviso to rule 7, substitute the following proviso, namely : "provided that this rule shall not apply or shall not be deemed over to have applied in the cases of appointments excluded from the purview of the Public Service Commission, West Bengal." By the notifications dated August 6, 1974 substituted by notification of August 14, 1975 (the latter notification being made to remove the anomaly in the earlier notification by deleting the date of the Regulation referred to therein) the Recruitment Rules, 1954 were amended with retrospective effect in respect of appointments made prior to November 1, 1966. The result was that non-consultation with PSC in regard to the said non-PSC appointees did not stand as a legal impediment to their being retained in service. As the Government took the decision in November 1967, the benefit was decided to extend to such appointees holding at least one year's service, that is prior to November 1, 1966. 7. IT will be seen that the amendments to Rule 7 of the Recruitment rules 1954 were brought into existence after the rules were issued by this Court. On the oral prayer of the petitioners, we have given them leave to urge the additional grounds contained in pages 118 and 119 of the Paper book impeaching the Amendments made on August 6, 1974. On the oral prayer of the petitioners, we have given them leave to urge the additional grounds contained in pages 118 and 119 of the Paper book impeaching the Amendments made on August 6, 1974. The same grounds are also available against the amendment made on August 14, 1975 and for shortening the litigation, the petitioners have been given leave to urge those grounds in support of their prayers for issuance of appropriate writs quashing the said notifications in addition to those challenged in the petition of motion, which have been fully set out above. 8. MR. Arun Kumar Dutt, learned Counsel for the petitioners in C. R. No. 5165 (W) of 1970, the PSC appointees, contended firstly that the amendment in Rule 7 of the Recruitment rules 1954 made on August 6, 1974 and August 14, 1975 with retrospective effect is not permissible in law. Such amendments in the mode of recruitment of service, it is contended, seriously prejudice the Government servants who are already in public service, affecting their right of equality of opportunity in matters of public employment in respect of promotions and other prospects violating Article 16 and should be so declared by the court. It has been consistently and uniformly held by the Supreme Court as pointed out by Mr. P. K. Sen Gupta and Mr. G. N. Roy, learned Counsel for the State, that the Legislature has the competence to enact laws both prospectively and retrospectively and reference may be made to the decisions in Rai Ram Krishna, and others v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1667 and State of Mysore and another vs. D. Achiah Chatty, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 477. In B.S. Vedera vs. Union of India A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 118, it was held that in absence of any Act of Legislature, rules framed under proviso to Article 309 may have the effect both retrospectively and prospectively subject to the limitations provided in the said article and unless they can be impeached on grounds of breach of Part iii or any other provisions of the Constitution the same must be enforced as if made by appropriate authority. In Raj Kumar vs. Union of India, A.I.R. 1975 S. C. 1116 it was held following earlier decisions that the rules made under the proviso to Article 309 are legislative in character and therefore can be given effect to retrospectively. In Raj Kumar vs. Union of India, A.I.R. 1975 S. C. 1116 it was held following earlier decisions that the rules made under the proviso to Article 309 are legislative in character and therefore can be given effect to retrospectively. In view of the legal position as indicated above, the contention of the petitioner challenging the retrospective effect given to the amendment to Rule 7 cannot be accepted. The same principle will be applicable to the regulation dated December 19, 1967 framed under proviso to Article 320 (3) with retrospective effect excluding appointments to lower division clerks and typists made before 1st November, 1966 from the purview of Public Service Commission. Such regulations are also legislative as its clause (5) indicates and can be made prospectively or retrospectively. 9. THE petitioners however are not precluded thereby from impeaching the regulations or rules for breach of other constitutional or statutory provisions. They have further challenged the validity of the amendments to Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules, 1954 on ground that they cannot be accepted as Rules of recruitment to public service. Mr. Dutt submitted that the impugned amendments are really attempts for regularasation of the appointments non-PSC appointees already made and they are mot rules of recruitment to the Public service for which only authority is given under the said proviso to Article 309., Reference was made to the decision in State of Mysore vs. Padmanabhacharya A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 602 in which the Court was considering a notification made by the Governor under proviso to Article 309. The notification was to the effect that trained teachers in Government service retired from service on attainment of the age of fifty five during a specified period was to be deemed to have been validly retired from service on superannuation notwithstanding anything contained in Note 4 of Article 294 of the Mysore service Regulations. Note 4 provided that such teachers would continue to be in service up to age, of 58 years except those who were not considered by the authority as having a good record of service for retention in service. The Government sought to justify the retirement of teachers whose records of service were not considered by it on the ground inter alia that retirement was validated by the notification referred to above. The Government sought to justify the retirement of teachers whose records of service were not considered by it on the ground inter alia that retirement was validated by the notification referred to above. It was held that the notification could not be said to be a rule regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of public servants contemplated under proviso to Article 309. 10. RELIANCE was also placed on decision in R. N. Nanjundappea vs. J. Thimmaiah, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1767, in which the Supreme Court was considering a Rule purported to have been made under proviso to Article 309. Under this Rule it was provided that the appointment of the respondent as principal of the School was to be deemed to have been regularly made notwithstanding any Rule made under the proviso to Article 309. It was held as follows : "article 309 speaks of Rules for appointment and general conditions of service. regularisation of appointment by stating that notwithstanding any rules the appointment is regularised strikes at the root of" the Rules and if the effect of the regularisation is to nullify the operation and effectiveness of the Rule, the Rule itself is open to criticism on the ground that it is in violation of current Rules. Therefore, the relevant Rules at the material time as to promotion and appointment are infringed and the impeached Rules cannot be permitted to stand to operate as a regularisation of appointment of one person in utter defiance of the rules requiring consideration of seniority and merit in the case of promotion and consideration of appointment by selection or by competitive examination." The Con accordingly declared the rule void. In the case before us, there is; no case of regularisation of any appointment by any Rule framed under proviso to Article 309 as in the cases cited above. The impeached Rule only provides for amendment to Rule 7 of the recruitment Rules, 1954. Rule 7, as we have seen, provide for method of recruitment and lays down that the vacancies will have to be filled up by means of competitive examination to be held by the Public Service Commission, West Bengal. To this Rule there was an amendment providing that the Rule shall riot apply or shall not to deemed ever to have applied to cases of appointments excluded from the purview of the Public service Commission, West Bengal. To this Rule there was an amendment providing that the Rule shall riot apply or shall not to deemed ever to have applied to cases of appointments excluded from the purview of the Public service Commission, West Bengal. The exclusion was made by an amendment to the Regulation brought into force under power conferred by proviso to Clause 3 of Article 320 of the constitution. The amendment provided that consultation with Public service Commission shall not be deemed to have been necessary notwithstanding PSC Regulations of 1955, in respect of matters in Sub-Clauses (a)and (b) of Clause 3 of Article 320 of the Constitution, in regard to the appointments made before the first day of November, 1966 to the posts of clerks and Typists included in item 1 of the Schedule to the said Regulation. Unlike the Rule impugned and struck down as in cases cited above, the amendments to the Rule as also the amending Regulation as we have seen were given retrospective effect. These amendments do not by themselves validate or regularise any appointment but they only give retrospective effect to the relevant rules and regulation with reference to a particular date. Once the Regulation and Rule are given retrospective effect with reference to a particular date, action taken retaining non-PSC candidates in service after that date but before the amendment would be deemed to have been taken under the Rules and Regulation as amended. There could thus be really no question or occasion to validate or regularise any action already ready taken by any regulation under proviso to Article 320 (3) or any rule of service framed under proviso to article 309 by themselves. This is a far cry from a Rule under proviso to article 309 itself regularising or validating the appointment or retirement otherwise invalid under existing Ruled in the cases relied on by the petitioners. Accordingly, it seems to us that if the Government could frame or amend a Rule or Regulation retrospectively, any appointment made in terms of the amended Rule and Regulation would be a valid appointment though it would be otherwise invalid if the amendment was not there with retrospective effect in respect of appointments prior to the relevant date which in the case before us is November 1, 1966. This is not regularisation of the appointment by Rules themselves framed under proviso to Article 309 amending by Regulation under proviso to Article 320 (3. In Raj kumar's case referred to above the appellant a temporary Government servant was dismissed forthwith on June 15, f 971 without payment of pay and allowances of one month at the time of termination as required by the existing rules. These rules were amended retrospectively with effect from May 1, 1965. It was held that the action taken was on a date subsequent to the date on which the amended rule takes effect and the action, being in accordance with the amended rule, is legally a valid action and no validating provision was necessary. 11. MR. Dutt has next submitted that the amendments to the Rules were framed malafide and for the collateral purposes of the validating the appointment otherwise invalid made by the Government in the meantime. A history of the case as we have seen indicates that the Government was anxious to absorb these non-PSC appointees in public interest. Such action was inspired for genuine consideration which have come to light and it was not intended to benefit particular employee or section of employees in the defiance of the Rules. The government accordingly proceeded to amend the relevant Regulation and rule with retrospective effect, which power it had, by framing necessary amendments to the Regulations and the rules with retrospective effect which afforded a reasonable solution to the problem. Care was taken not to prejudice the seniority of PSC appointees as on November 1, 1966, as all non-PSC appointees were made junior to them while the appointees like the petitioners had their appointments after the said date. We do not think that there was any malafide on the part of the Government in proceeding to deal with the situation and the action taken was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. 12. THIS brings us to the last contention raised by the petitioners. It is said that by absorbing these non-PSC appointees in Government service above the PSC candidates who are appointed in 1967 onwards great prejudice has been caused as affecting their prospects in service violating Article 16. We have seen that in the context of the attending circumstances it was decided in November, 1967, to absorb the non-PSC appointees into service. It is said that by absorbing these non-PSC appointees in Government service above the PSC candidates who are appointed in 1967 onwards great prejudice has been caused as affecting their prospects in service violating Article 16. We have seen that in the context of the attending circumstances it was decided in November, 1967, to absorb the non-PSC appointees into service. It was further decided that the non-PSC appointees who had rendered at least one year's service in the Government in the meantime were to be given benefit of the decision and accordingly a dead line of November 1, 1966 fixed. By the seniority Rule framed on October 8, 1969 under proviso to Article 309 it was provided that non-PSC appointees would be deemed junior to PSC candidates appointed in Government service on a date prior to November 1, 1966. There is no dispute that on this fate the petitioners were not at all appointed in government service so that they had no right or claim against the Government at that point of time and tie rule seems to us to strike a fair and reasonable basis for determination of the seniority of the public servants involved as submitted on behalf of the State. As the petitioners were not in service at all on November 1, 1966 they cannot be heard to complain that the adsorption of the non-PSC appointees with effect from the said date though the decision was taken in November 1967 would cause hardship to them affecting their prospects of promotion or other benefits in service, violating Article 16 as they had no right then against the Government. It has not been disputed that the Government had full and absolute power to make unilateral amendment to service rules and they are not manifestly or otherwise unfair and unjust. It has also to be remembered that no government servant has any fixed contractual right in regard to his terms of service and once appointed, the post and office of a Government servant acquire a status and his rig His and obligation are no longer deter mined by consent of both parties but by statutes or Statutory Rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government as has been observed in Rosan Lal Tandon vs. Union of India, A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 1889. These rules or Regulations, as we have seen, do not suffer from any arbitrariness nor can they be considered to be reasonable in the context of the attending circumstances or contrary to any provision of law. We are thus unable to accept the contention of Mr. Dutt that the impugned acts resulting in the framing of Rules and Regulation by the Governments suffered from any violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. 13. THE petitioners have also challenged before us a Notification dated September 25, 1967 (Annexure 'x' to the petition) whereby the employees referred to therein were allowed usual increments in the scale of pay of Lower Division Assistant from the date of their first appointment so long as they are retained in service and the breaks caused in their service were treated as condoned. By this notification, these persons who were admittedly non-PSC appointees were afforded certain financial benefits in regard to their pay and emoluments. We do not understand how this notification affects the petitioners in respect of their prospects in service. We do not think that the petitioners have been able to establish any ground for interfering with the said notification. 14. FOR all these reasons, C. R. 5165 (W) of 1970 fails and is discharged and all interim orders, if any, is vacated. There will be no order for costs in the circumstances. In C. R. No. 1330 (W) of 1971 the petitioners, who are non-PSC appointees retained in Government service on the basis of the above rules with effect in November 1, 1966, challenge the seniority rule made on October 8, 1969 under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Mr. Somendra chandra Bose, their learned Counsel has contended that the appointees in the posts drawn from different sources, PSC candidates and non-PSC candidates, were integrated into one class and their qualifications were the same. The impugned seniority rule, as we have seen, provides that all PSC appointees in service as on the said date will be senior to non-PSC appointees though the seniority inter se among such non-PSC appointees will be on the basis of length of service. Mr. Bose submitted that there was integration on the said date of two classes of Government servants and after such integration there could be no discrimination in respect of seniority by two different standards with reference to their source. Mr. Bose submitted that there was integration on the said date of two classes of Government servants and after such integration there could be no discrimination in respect of seniority by two different standards with reference to their source. Reliance was placed on the decision in the General Manager south Central Railway vs. A. V. R. Siddhanti, A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 1755 in which it was observed that on integration into one class with identical service conditions, the pubic servants cannot be discriminated against with reference to the original source, for the purpose of absorption and seniority. In Siddhanti's case, the Court referred to the principle laid down in roshanlal's case, "according to which once the persons coming or recruited to the service from two different sources in that case promo tees and direct recruits-are absorbed into one integrated class with identical service conditions they cannot be discriminated against with reference to original source, for the purpose of further promotion to the higher grade. 15. IN the case before us, under the existing rules service of non-PSC appointees before the material date i.e. 1st November, 1966 was precarious and the Government had no obligation or authority nor such appointees had any' legal right to be retained and absorb ed in service. The Government could retain them in service only after the amendment of the relevant regulation and rule with retrospective effect while the PSC appointees already had the right to be retained and absorbed in service from the date of their respective appointment. Unlike Siddhanti's case, here is not the creation of an integrated service drawn from two different sources. The PSC appointees already formed a category of service with rights of retention and absorption from their respective appointments while the non-PSC appointees were assimilated to this category with effect from November 1, 1966. They were thus not similarly circumstanced as PSC appointees and accordingly the question of discrimination hardly arises, as "the Constitutional Code of equality and Equal Opportunity is a charter for equals" as was observed in state of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Triloka Nath Khosla A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 1. We have also seen that the date fixed by the authorities had a reasonable and fair basis and cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust. We have also seen that the date fixed by the authorities had a reasonable and fair basis and cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust. Accordingly the seniority rule fixing the seniority of non-PSC appointees from the relevant date against PSC appointees, while preserving their inter se seniority from dates of their appointments, is fair and equitable and do not suffer from any vice or infirmity under the law. The rule accordingly fails and is discharged and all interim order if any are vacated. There will be no order for costs. Rules discharged.