JUDGMENT : N.H. Bhatt, J. This is a petition by 13 employees employed by the District Panchayat of the District of Panchmahals. The order of retrenchment so to say, Annexure-E to the petition, dated 11-6-74 is under challenge, under which these petitioners, who were duly appointed as Supervisors in the Public Works Branch of the Panchayat in consultation with the Panchayat Service Selection Board, had been sought to be relieved. The grievance of the petitioners was that though they were senior to respondents Nos. 4 to 19 and though they were otherwise entitled to the posts, they were retrenched and respondents Nos. 4 to 19 were sought to be unduly discriminated favourably. This court had admitted this petition and had also granted interim relief against their retrenchment or discharge. The petition has been resisted on behalf of all the respondents, except respondent No. 4, who has bidden good-bye to the service. 2. A few facts require to be stated. The District Panchayat, Panchinahals has been running various branches and one of the Branches is the Public Works Branch. There is one common cadre of Junior Engineers, Supervisors-and Overseers, but with different initial starts in the time scale. The persons possessing recognised degrees in Civil, Mechanical or Electrical Engineering are appointed in the pay scale of Junior Engineers. Those who passes a recognised diploma in any one of the three branches of Engineering are posted in the grade of Supervisors and in that cadre there are Overseers also, who get the pay for Overseers. Though these initial pay rates are different, the cadre is treated as one because of the common duties to be performed by them. In other words, after entry into the stream, all are treated alike as members of one unified service. Ever since the making of the Gujarat Panchayats Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967 and even prior thereto, both during the regime of the Panchayat administration and before and to be exact since 1957, the cadre of Junior Engineers and Supervisors and Overseers was there in public administration. The Sub-branch of Overseers came to be constituted by the departmental promotions from the cadre of mistries with 15 years' service or Technical Assistants with 5 years' experience. The Sub-branch of Overseers came to be constituted by the departmental promotions from the cadre of mistries with 15 years' service or Technical Assistants with 5 years' experience. The Sub-Overseers and Technical Assistants and Mistries, who had passed the professional examination prescribed for Overseers or who held diplomas or degrees of non-recognised institutions also were entitled to be promoted as Overseers. This appears to be the practice at least since the year 1957 when the State of Gujarat and prior to its formation, the State of Bombay were holding in their charge the Public Works Department, which partially, on the establishment of the Panchayat Raj, came to be allotted to the charge of the Panchayats. The same system continued to apply even after the panchayats came to be established with effect from 1-4-63 and this could be clearly had from the Government's letter dated 1-7-63, the copies of which were endorsed to all District Development Officers. I would quote paragraph 2 of the said Government letter, which has been taken on file. "The former cadre of Overseers in this department has been split up to 3 cadres viz. Jr. Engineers, Supervisors and Overseers. For the time being, it has been decided that no more than 10% of the total posts of Jr. Engineers, Supervisors and Overseers should be filled in by promotion as Overseers of Sub-Overseers, Technical Assistants and Mistries having the following qualifications." 3. In order to enable the Panchayats to carry on its newly assigned functions in the Public Works Branch, certain Junior Engineers, Supervisors and Overseers had come to be allocated. So were allocated Technical Assistants also, who because of that Government letter dated 1-7-64 and thereafter under the Gujarat Panchayats Services Classification and Recruitment Rules, 1967 were entitled to be considered for promotion as Overseers in the cadre of Junior Engineers, Supervisors and Overseers. After the Gujarat Panchayats Services Classification and Recruitment Rules came into force, the appointments to this cadre obviously were required to be made as per the provisions of the Recruitment Rules and in consultation with the Panchayats Service Selection Board. Though the Recruitment Rules came to be framed only in the year 1967 and came into operation with effect from 14-7-67, the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board (Consultation; Rules, 1964 and the Gujarat Panchayats Service Selection Board (Functions) Rules, 1964 were holding the field with statutory force behind them 4. Though the Recruitment Rules came to be framed only in the year 1967 and came into operation with effect from 14-7-67, the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board (Consultation; Rules, 1964 and the Gujarat Panchayats Service Selection Board (Functions) Rules, 1964 were holding the field with statutory force behind them 4. The petitioners, as Annexures A to the petition shows, are all holders of a diploma in Engineering and they had come to be appointed with the approval and consultation with the Service Selection Board. The appointment of some of them appears to have been subsequently regularised. Petitioners Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are such persons whose appointments are presumably made under the Schedule relating to Public Works Branch read with clause (b) of Rule 4 of the Gujarat Panchayats Service Selection Board (Consultation) Rules, 1964. The said rule 4 reads as follows ; - "4. Appointments, promotions and transfers The advice of the Board shall be obtained in respect of appointments and transfers (from State Service to Panchayat Service) to the posts mentioned in Schedule 1 Part I, and in respect of promotions to the posts mentioned in Schedule I, except : (a) where the period of appointments is not likely to exceed three months, or (b) where temporary appointment and promotions for a period exceeding three months are required to be made immediately on administrative grounds : Provided that in the case of a temporary appointment or promotion referred to in clause (b) the Panchayat concerned shall, however, notify the same to the Board immediately and shall get it regularised by obtaining the advice of the Board under this rule." The regularity of appointments of these petitioners, is not in controversy. Ever since the date of their assumption of office, they had been working in the cadre as Supervisors. As said above, their services were sought to be dispensed with by the order, Annexure I and their grievance is that respondents Nos. 4 to 19 were liable to be hit first as the persons either not regularly appointed or persons appointed subsequent to them. The challenge in respect of these respondents Nos. 4 to 19 can be divided into two categories. The petitioners alleged that respondents Nos. 4 to 19 were liable to be hit first as the persons either not regularly appointed or persons appointed subsequent to them. The challenge in respect of these respondents Nos. 4 to 19 can be divided into two categories. The petitioners alleged that respondents Nos. 4 to 14 were wrongly promoted as Overseers or, at any rate, their promotions being purely ad hoc and not regularised by the Panchayats Service Selection Board, they could not prevail over the petitioners' continuance in service. With respect to respondents Nos. 16 to 19, who are all admittedly duly selected and appointed and in whose respect the consultation with the Board was there, the challenge was that their being appointed subsequently, they could not claim precedence over the petitioners. Now as far as the challenge against the continuance of respondents Nos. 4, 7, 13, 14 and 19 is concerned, it does not survive. Respondent No. 4 has gone out of the field for good. The respondents Nos. 7 and 13 are shown to have been promoted as Overseers before their allocation to the Panchayat Service and, therefore, their appointment as Overseers prior to their allocation is not competent, because under Sec. 206 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, allocated employees' earlier rights and privileges remain in tact and un-affected despite allocation to the Panchayat Service. Mr. Anand, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, on being apprised of the orders of appointment of these respondents Nos. 7 and 13 was fair enough not to press his clients claim against them. The challenge against respondent No. 14 also does not survive because as stated by the District Development Officer in his affidavit, paragraph 6, this original Technical Assistant, who was promoted as an Overseer only in the year 1972, was again reverted as a Technical Assistant. Respondent No. 14 being reverted as a Technical Assistant could not have any precedence on the basis of his promotion as an Overseer in the year 1972. Mr. Anand, however, stated before me under instructions from his clients that respondent No. 14 had obtained a stay order from a civil court against his reversion and consequently his case will be required to be considered along with the case of respondents Nos. 5 to 13 at the proper time. The contention of the petitioners against respondent No. 19 also is not sustainable because he is in the quota of Junior Engineers. 5 to 13 at the proper time. The contention of the petitioners against respondent No. 19 also is not sustainable because he is in the quota of Junior Engineers. 5. As said by me above, there is a common cadre of Junior Engineers, Supervisors and Overseers, and the 1967 Rules themselves lay down that out of the total number of posts, 40 per cent of the posts are to be manned by Junior Engineers and the rest by Supervisors and Overseers. Respondent No. 19 being one of 11 Junior Engineers, out of the available strength of 26 posts, cannot be the subject matter of challenge at the hands of the petitioners, all of whom are in the sub-class of Supervisors in the cadre. Though he was appointed subsequent to the petitioners, he would have his lien, on the quota system, on the 40 per cent meant for Junior Engineers and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any precedence over him also. 6. This brings me to the challenge of the petitioners against respondents Nos. 5 to 14. The appointment orders of all respondents Nos. 5 to 14 could not be procured by the petitioners, but they had produced at Annexure B, the dates of promotion of these respondents. They are certainly on or after 1-8-65. Respondents Nos. 5 to 14 had come to be promoted to the post of Overseer in the year 1965, 1966 or 1967 February, that is, before the Panchayats Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967 came into force. At page 48, there is the appointment order, that is the promotional order of respondents Nos. 4, 6, and 5 and at p. 48A, there is the promotional order of respondents Nos. 11, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 respectively. The learned advocate for respondents Nos. 5 to 13, Mr. Zaveri, had brought it to my notice during the course of the pronouncement of this judgment that the order dated 2nd July/August, 1965 in respect of the respondents Nos. 4, 6 and 5 was not the complete order and he, therefore, submitted a full copy of the order, which is taken on record and is placed at p. 48B. The order in respect of respondents Nos. 4, 6 and 5 was not the complete order and he, therefore, submitted a full copy of the order, which is taken on record and is placed at p. 48B. The order in respect of respondents Nos. 4, 6 and 5 at p. 48B very clearly shows that the appointments made with effect from 1-8-1965 were subject to the Gujarat Panchayats Service Rules and were made subject to the approval of the Panchayats Service Selection Board. The order in respect of respondents Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 at p. 48A of the record shows that theirs were ad hoc promotions with the clear statement in the order itself that they were appointed for specified works and that they were liable to go back to their original positions on the said works being over. As the order only of respondents Nos. 13 and 14 is hot there on the record and as the respondents and the District Panchayat also, though called upon by me, were not in a position to produce those original orders, I thought it reasonable to assume that their promotions also must be ad hoc and in all probabilities might be for some specified works and by way of stop-gap arrangements and also might be subject to the Gujarat Panchayats Service Selection Board (Functions) Rules and (Consultation) Rule. These respondents Nos. 4 to 14 could have produced those orders as respondents Nos. 4, 6 and 5 have been able to produce at p. 48B. the copy of the order. That having not been done, it is reasonably assumed that their appointments were ad hoc and to meet certain relief works. Mr. Zaveri had also given me one order in English purporting to be dated 2-12-66 and pertaining to respondents Nos. 6, 10, 11 and 12, that is the posting order or rather a transfer order. 7. Mr. Zaveri on the basis of that order, the operative part of which reads as follows, wanted to advance one argument, which I instantly deal with: "The Supervisors and Overseers posted in Panchmahals District Panchayat against the posts created for them are hereby ordered to be taken up from 1-12-66 against the clear vacancy of the sub-division shown below on temporary establishment. They should however continue to work in sub-divisions where they are working at present. Name & Description Sanctioned post of sub-division Where working 6. They should however continue to work in sub-divisions where they are working at present. Name & Description Sanctioned post of sub-division Where working 6. Shri N. S. Dinga Overseer Scarcity sub-division Jhalod M.I.W. Sub-Division GDA 7. Shri S. V. Patel Overseer -do- -do- 8. Shri R. M. Dave Overseer -do- -do- X X X 11. Shri R. F. Patel Overseer M. I. Sub-dn. No. 1 Jhalod -do- Mr. Zaveri, on the strength of the order now produced at page 48B in respect of respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and in the light of above quoted order dated 1-12-66 in respect of respondents Nos. 6, 10, 11 and 12, urged that the respondents should be deemed to have been promoted in clear vacancies and, therefore, permanently posted. It is difficult to agree with the submission made by Mr. Zaveri. A man appointed ad hoc may be asked to work in some clear vacancy, but thereby his appointment does not cease to be ad hoc or temporary. Moreover, the above quoted order itself speaks of a clear vacancy "in the temporary establishment." So it cannot be said that there was a final and conclusive appointment of these respective respondents. Similarly, Mr. Zaveri's argument that the respondents' appointments in the vacancies occasioned by the resignation of some people would confer on the concerned respondents a right to the post also is difficult to be entertained. As said above, these were all ad hoc appointments by promotion and obviously irregular appointments, and those who are appointed ad hoc or temporarily and subject clearly to the provisions of other Rules cannot claim any right to the post or claim any precedence over the persons, who are appointed in the ordinary course after due compliance with the requisites of law. 8. In this connection, the petitioners' allegation in the petition also calls for some note. It was an accidental or fortuitous circumstance that these respondents, the Technical Assistants in the State's service, came to be allocated to the Panchayat service. Many colleagues of theirs and even senior to them in the cadre of Technical Assistants under the State, are continuing under the State's service as such. The respondents however want to enlarge their prospects by the accidental circumstances of their allocation. Many colleagues of theirs and even senior to them in the cadre of Technical Assistants under the State, are continuing under the State's service as such. The respondents however want to enlarge their prospects by the accidental circumstances of their allocation. This is only an incidental reference supporting the submission of the petitioners that their promotions were purely ad hoc and were made in order to meet exigencies of famine situation and consequential relief works that were required to be done in the years 1966 and 1967. 9. Though the 1967 Recruitment Rules were not by then born, the Panchayats Service Selection Board (Consultation) Rules and (Function) Rules were already on the statute book in the year 1964. Rule 4 of the Consultation Rules made the advice of the Board compulsory in respect of appointments and transfers to the post mentioned in Schedule I part I and in respect of promotions to the post mentioned in Schedule I. The said Rule also provided for contingencies like the temporary appointments and promotions likely to exceed three months and those not likely to exceed three months. The proviso made it clear that in the case of temporary appointment or promotion, for a period exceeding three months, it was compulsory to get the said sections regularised "by obtaining the advice of the Board under this Rule." It is now no longer in controversy before me that no such advice was sought before appointments nor was any regularisation attempted at by the District Panchayat. Mr. Zaveri, the learned advocate for the respondents, however, urged that it was no fault of these respondents and it was the sheer inaction or indifference on the part of the concerned District Development Officer. He, therefore, implored that this sort of apathy of the Administrative officer should not work to the detriment of the respondents. As far as the expression of hope is concerned, Mr. Zaveri's clients, the respondents herein, deserve to be sympathised with, but there is no material on record to show that those promotions that were initially made were intended to last for more than three months. For want of any assistance either from the District Development Officer or from the respondents in that connection, no definite blame can be laid at the doors of anyone. For want of any assistance either from the District Development Officer or from the respondents in that connection, no definite blame can be laid at the doors of anyone. However, the fact is that, ever since their promotions in the year 1966-67, all these respondents are continuing in that promotional post. In those circumstances, it was expected of the administrative officer, the District Development Officer, to have solicited the advice of the Board and, if the respondents so think fit, they can still request their administrative head to move in the matter. This judgment would not come in their way in moving the said Officer or in the way of the said officer in seeking regularisation. 10. Mr. Zaveri, further, urged that this sort of advice of the Board contemplated by the law was not mandatory, but being recommendatory in character, did not invalidate the promotions. Reliance in this connection was sought to be placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal, Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912 , the ratio of which came to be reiterated by the the Supreme Court in the later decision in the case of Ramgopal Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 158 . These judgments relate to Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India. The cases that arisen were in respect of disciplinary actions taken against public servants without seeking the advice of the concerned Service Commission. In this context, the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal (supra) has observed as follows: "Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution does not confer any rights on a public servant so that the absence of consultation or any irregularity in consultation, should not afford him a cause of action in a court of law, of entitle him to relief under the special powers of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Supreme Court under Article 32. It is not a right which could be recognised and enforced by a writ. On the other hand. Article 311 of the Constitution has been construed as conferring a right on a Civil Servant of the Union or a State, which he can enforce in a court of law. It is not a right which could be recognised and enforced by a writ. On the other hand. Article 311 of the Constitution has been construed as conferring a right on a Civil Servant of the Union or a State, which he can enforce in a court of law. Hence, if the provisions of Article 311 have been complied with he has no remedy against any irregularity that the State Government may have committed, not to comply with the provisions of Article 320(3)(c)." After making the said observations, the Supreme Court went ahead to observe as follows:- "That does not amount to saying that it is open to the Executive Government, completely to ignore the existence of the commission or to pick and choose cases in which it may or may not be consulted. Once relevant regulations have been made under the proviso to Article 320 they are meant to be followed in letter and in spirit and it goes without saying that consultation with the commission on all disciplinary matters affecting a public servant has been specially provided for, in order, first, to give an assurance to the services that a wholly independent body not directly concerned with the making of orders adversely affecting public servant, has considered the action proposed to be taken against a particular public servant, with an open mind ; and secondly, to afford the Government unbiased advice and opinion on matters vitally affecting the morals of public services. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Executive Government when it proposes to take any disciplinary action against a public servant, to consult the commission as to whether the action proposed to be taken was justified and was not in excess of the requirements of the situation." The case reported in AIR 1970 SC P. 158 ( 1969 SLR 429 ) also dealt with Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution, that deals with disciplinary proceedings in absence of consultation with the State Public Service Commission in terminating the services. It was reiterated that consultation with the Service Commission did not afford any cause of action to a citizen because no right of a citizen was thereby violated. 11. Relying on the analogy of these judgments, Mr. Zaveri submitted that consultation with the Panchayat Service Selection Board is not such an irregularity or illegality as would vitiate the order and make it void ab initio. 11. Relying on the analogy of these judgments, Mr. Zaveri submitted that consultation with the Panchayat Service Selection Board is not such an irregularity or illegality as would vitiate the order and make it void ab initio. As a matter of broad proposition of law, it could be so stated but when the orders in question are specifically made with clear cognizance of the requirement of law and when the respondents themselves were promoted ad hoc and also on the ground that their ad hoc appointments also were subjected to being regularised by the Services Selection Board, it is not open either to the District Panchayat or to the concerned respondents to urge that this requirement should be ignored. Nothing has been brought to my notice to show that this ad hoc character of initial appointment had changed its character in the meantime. As noted by me above, they were temporary promotions effected only to meet the scarcity works, but curiously enough the Administrative Head of the District Panchayat allowed the persons to continue. Even the respondents do not seem to have brought to the notice of the concerned authority that the important condition made at the time of their ad hoc promotion should be complied with so that they may not suffer in future. 12. The view which I have expressed above finds its support in the judgment the of Bombay High Court in the case of State of Bombay v. Dr. N.T. Advani, A.I.R. 1963 Bombay 13. There it has been observed as follows, after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 912:- "the fact that while making the appointment of the employee the procedure of referring the matter to Public Service Commission was not followed does not make the order appointing him invalid order nor is the order subject to sanction being accorded by the Public Service Commission thereafter, when the order itself does not make its operation subject to the sanction of the Public Service Commission". (Emphasis by me) When the initial order itself makes the appointment subject to its being in accordance with the Panchajat Service Selection Board Rules and when the respondents themselves accepted that promotional posts with the clear understanding about the necessity of requirement, an altogether different situation arises. (Emphasis by me) When the initial order itself makes the appointment subject to its being in accordance with the Panchajat Service Selection Board Rules and when the respondents themselves accepted that promotional posts with the clear understanding about the necessity of requirement, an altogether different situation arises. In cases like this, non-compliance with even the recommendation of the Service Selection Board would go to show that no right to the post is created. As against that, the petitioners, who had come to be regularly appointed, would certainly have a right to the post subject to other exigencies of service. They cannot be made to suffer despite their holding the right to the post vis-a-vis the concerned respondents, who have no right to the post. In this view of the matter, respondents Nos. 5 to 14 cannot have any precedence over the petitioners. Respondent No. 14 in particular had come to be promoted in the year 1972 and has been even reverted. As per the above decision of mine, he will not be entitled to claim precedence over the petitioners. 12-A. Mr. Zaveri in this connection had stated that as these respondents No. 4 to 14 were permitted to appear at the departmental examination meant for the cadre of Junior Engineers, etc., it must be assumed that their initial ad hoe appointments were converted into full- fledged appointments. No basis is laid down for this and there is no such presumption available on the basis of their being permitted to appear at the departmental examination. Regular appointment orders would have certainly been issued if there had been formal appointments. Similarly, Mr. Zaveri's contention that the petitioners should be deemed to have been promoted against the 10 per cent quota of the overall posts in the cadre is untenable because, for this also, no basis is laid down anywhere. If this specific defence was sought to be raised, It should have been pleaded specifically to afford a reasonable opportunity to the other side to meet it. 13. This brings me to the case of respondents Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18. A curious situation has developed. These respondents had applied for nomination as direct recruits and approval was accorded by the Board in their respect respectively on 22-10-70, 13-10-70,8-1-71 and 24-3-71. 13. This brings me to the case of respondents Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18. A curious situation has developed. These respondents had applied for nomination as direct recruits and approval was accorded by the Board in their respect respectively on 22-10-70, 13-10-70,8-1-71 and 24-3-71. As per the practice provided for by the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board (Function) Rules, requisition is to be made by the concerned Panchayat to the Selection Board in respect of certain posts, which are than advertised, and then the selection takes place. Though these respondents had come to be approved for appointment on the respective dates just now mentioned, for some undisclosed reason they did not either join the post or were not invited to assume responsibilities. Neither these respondents nor the panchayat has chosen to assign the reason for this time-lag between the date of selection by the Board and the date of their de-facto appointments. During this time-lag, these petitioners came to be selected and appointed. In the absence of any reasonable explanation forthcoming even from these respondents, it is reasonable to assume that for some personal reasons of theirs, they had chosen not to join the services and allow others to interpose themselves on the cadre. Long after these petitioners came to occupy their respective position in this hierarchy, the respondents made their appearance on the scene and now they claim precedence over the petitioners on the strength of their earlier credentials granted by the Service Selection Board. Ordinarily, seniority goes according to the continuous officiation and whoever claims seniority on any other basis has to make out a case for it. In this connection, Mr. Anand, the learned advocate for the petitioners, has invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.B. Parwardhan and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2051. There, in paragraph 51 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "We are not unmindful of the administrative difficulties in evolving a Code of seniority which will satisfy all conflicting claims. But care ought to be taken to avoid a clear transgression of the equality clauses of the Constitution. There, in paragraph 51 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "We are not unmindful of the administrative difficulties in evolving a Code of seniority which will satisfy all conflicting claims. But care ought to be taken to avoid a clear transgression of the equality clauses of the Constitution. The rules framed by the State Governments were constitutionally so vulnerable that the administration was compelled to adopt inconsistent postures from time to time, leaving the employees no option save to resort to courts for vindication of their rights. In this process, courts high and low, had to discharge functions which are best left to the expertise of the appropriate departments of the Government. Having struck down certain rules, we do not want to take upon ourselves the task of framing rules of seniority. That is not the function of this court and frankly it lacks the expertise and the date to do so. We however hope that the Government will bear in mind the basic principle that if a cadre consists of both permanent and temporary employees, the accident of confirmation cannot be an intelligible criterion for determining seniority as between direct recruits and promotees. All other facts being equal continuous officiating in a non-fortuitous vacancy ought to receive due recognition in determining rules of seniority as between persons recruited from different sources, so long as they, being to the same cadre, discharge similar functions and bear similar responsibilities." For want of any guidance either from statutory rules or from time-honoured practice and in the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is to be held that respondents Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 were not entitled to claim precedence over the petitioners in the matter of seniority. 14. The result is that the petition is allowed. The order, Annexure I, terminating the services of the petitioners despite the ad hoc employees like the respondents Nos. 5 to 14 and the petitioners' juniors like the respondents Nos. 15 to 18 having been retained in service, is quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.