M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition the only question of law that arises for consideration is as follows: whether a person who has rendered service in the Defence Department of the Central Government is entitled to count the said service for the purpose of seniority in a post in the State service after his direct recruitment to such post after selection by the Public service Commission, under R. 6a of the Karnataka Government Servant's (Seniority) Rules, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Seniority Rules ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner joined the defence service as an Emergency Commissioned Officer during National Emergency. He was serving in the Indian Army till September 1967. He was holding substantive post of Captain in the army and was acting as a Major which was a, Gazetted Class-I post under the Central Government. After his demobilisation from the Army, he was given an appointment on the establishment of the National Cadet corps Service under Ministry of Defence, Government of India (herein- after referred to as the NCC ). In the ncc he was holding the substantive rank of Lieutenant till 21-6-1. 972 which is also said to be a Class-I Post. ( 3 ) THE Public Service Commission of this State invited applications for selection and appointment to Class-1 and ii posts in the Karnataka State Civil services. A combined combetative examination for recruitment of Gazetted Probationers was held by the Public Service Commission. ( 4 ) THE petitioner applied for selection as he was eligibl to compete in the competetive examination. He was selected for Class-I post. Thereafter by Notification dated 6th June 1972 (Ext. A), the petitioner was appointed as Commercial Tax officer in the Commercial Taxes Department of the State Government. The petitioner made a, representation to the State Government requesting them to fix his seniority under R. 6a of the Seniority Rules taking into account the service rendered by him in an equivalent post in the Defence department of the Centra] Government. The request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was regularly recruited under the normal method of recruitment and therefore R. 6a of the seniority Rules was not attracted. Aggrieved by the said decision the petitioner has presented this writ petition. The request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was regularly recruited under the normal method of recruitment and therefore R. 6a of the seniority Rules was not attracted. Aggrieved by the said decision the petitioner has presented this writ petition. ( 5 ) SRI N. Santhosh Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as the petitioner was already holding a Class-I Post in the defence Department to a Class-I post in the service of the State Government, he was entitled to count the service rendered by him in the Defence Department of the Central Government for purpose of seniority in the State Service. Rule 6a of the Seniority Rules on which he placed reliance in support of his contention reads as follows: ,"the transfer or appointment of an officer of the Defence Services, an All India Service or a Civil service of the Union or the civil Service of any other State to any equivalent class or grade of service in the State Civil Services shall not be treated as first appointment to that class or grade of service for purpose of seniority; and the seniority of an officer so transferred or appointed shall be determined with reference to his first appointment to the class or grade or service or services, to which he belonged prior to such transfer or appointment. " ( 6 ) HE invited my attention to the conditions of eligibility in the advertisement according to which! persons who had served as Emergency Commissioned Officers or Short Service commissioned Officers were among the persons who were eligible for selection. A copy of the advertisement which prescribed that condition of eligibility for recruitment vide para 3 thereof was also produced at the time of hearing. ( 7 ) THE wording of Rule 6a of the seniority Rules clearly indicates that for counting of the service rendered by a person, either in the Defence Service or an All India Service or a Civil services of the Union or the Civil Service of any other State, in any equivalent class or grade, of the State service such person holding any one of those posts should have been transferred to a corresponding post in the state Civil Service. In other words the holding of such post itself should have consituted the basis for appointment in the State Civil Service. In other words the holding of such post itself should have consituted the basis for appointment in the State Civil Service. In the present case, the petitioner was neither transferred from the Defence Department to the State Civil Service nor he was appointed just because he was holding a post in the Defence Service. He was one of the applicants along with several others to the Karnataka public Service Commission. Because, he was successful in the competitive examination, he was selected and he was one among the several persons who were selected. The appointment order indicates that 8 persons were selected and appointed as Commercial tax Officers and arrangement of their names is also indicated in the appointment order which is as follows: "sriyuths" 1. M. Narayana Reddy. 2. R. Nagaraja. 3. P. A. Mithra. 4. G. Rabinathan. 5. R. Vazeer Ahmed sayeed. 6. A. Seetharam. 7. A. N. Hampiholi. 8. P. A. Sathyanarayana. " therefore, the seniority of the petitioner stands determined by Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules which provides that the appointing authority should determine the Seniority of directly recruited candidates on the basis of the ranking assigned in order of merit by the Public Service Commission or other authority making the selection. The appointing authority has no power to alter the arrangement of names made by the Public Service Commission or any other selecting agency. This question is concluded by the decision of this court in the case of M. Savithri v. State of Mysore, (1972) 1 Mys. L. J. 45 ( 8 ) THE circumstances under which rule 6-A would be attracted is also discernible from Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Rules. While there are special Rules regulating recruitment to various posts in the various services of the State Government, rule 16 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (which is similar to Rule 16 of the 1957 Rules which were repealed by the 1977 rules) provides that under special circumstances appointment to a post in the State Civil Services can be made by transfer. The relevant portion of the rule reads as follows:"16. The relevant portion of the rule reads as follows:"16. Relaxation of Rules relating to appointment and qualifications.- notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post, the Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing- (a) appoint to a post- - (i) an officer of the Defence Services, an All India Service or a Civil service of the Union on the Civil service of the any other State:"thte above rule indicates that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the state Government can make a departure from the provisions of the Regular recruitment Rules and appoint an officer in the Defence Service, All india Service or a Civil Service of the union, or the Civil Service of any other State to a post in the service of the State. Earlier to introduction of rule 6a of the Seniority Rules there was no provision for regulating seniority of a person so appointed, and it had to be determined in each case in consultation with the Public Service commission as provided in Rule 8 of the Seniority Rules. Obviously, It is only for the purpose of providing for fixation of seniority of persons so appointed, Rule 6a was incorporated into the Seniooty Rules. The petitioner was neither transferred nor appointed on the basis that he was already holding a post in the Defence Department of the Central Government. Just like any other candidate who was competing before the Public Service commission, he was selected for appointment of Class-I Post and thereafter on the basis of such selection he was appointed. Therefore, his ca. se is squarely governed by Rule 5 of the seniority Rules. The contention of the petitioner if accepted, would result in the alteration of the rank assigned by the Public Service Commission which is impermissible as held by this Court in Savithri's case (1 ). ( 9 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, I make the following order: (i) Rule discharged. (ii) Writ Petition dismissed; (iii) No costs. --- *** --- .