JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur, J.—This is a bunch of writ petitions that have been filed by the doctors (Medical Department) Himachal Pradesh, in this Court. Since the contentions raised in these writ petitions as also disputes are interconnected, we deemed it proper to hear these writ petitions together. It is otherwise also desirable and convenient to dispose of these writ petitions by a common judgment. In order to appreciate and consider the respective contentions of the parties, it is proper to narrate the relevant facts as contained in these writ petitions, separately. CWP No. 288 of 1979—Dr. Jiwan Lal and another v. State of H. P. and others, 2. It is contended by the petitioners that they were appointed as Deputy Directors of Health Services en regular basis and hat the petitioner No, 1 is holding the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services for the last about 4 1/2 years whereas the petitioner No. 2 is holding this post for about 3 1/2 years. It is further contended that the appointment of respondents 2 to 4 as Deputy Directors of Health Services is contrary to the provisions of rule 9(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It is a common contention of both trie petitioners that the appointment of respondents 2 to 4 as Deputy Directors of Health Services is vitiated as they were so appointed in complete disregard of the rights of the petitioners. Inter alia, it has been contended by the petitioners that the Departmental Promotion Committee (D. P. C.) constituted for making the appointment was not properly constituted as one of the members of the Committe was unauthorisedly inducted. According to the petitioners the Secretary (Health and Family Welfare) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has been replaced by the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. As such, it is contended by the petitioner that the constitution of the D. P. C. being illegal, the proceedings of such a committee are vitiated. The petitioners have also contended that the Annual Confidential Reports (A. C. Rs,) of the petitioners were initiated by an officer who was junior to them and was aspirant along with the petitioners for promotion to higher post. Accordingly, it is submitted by the petitioners that such A. C. Rs. could not be taken into consideration for further promotion. The petitioners have also contended that the Annual Confidential Reports (A. C. Rs,) of the petitioners were initiated by an officer who was junior to them and was aspirant along with the petitioners for promotion to higher post. Accordingly, it is submitted by the petitioners that such A. C. Rs. could not be taken into consideration for further promotion. The appointment of respondents 2 to 4 is alleged to have been made in a hot-haste manner immediately after the final seniority list was issued. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of appointment of respondents 2 to 4 as Deputy Directors as also the order appointing respondent No. 2 as Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh. It is further contended that the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Director Health Services is illegal as he did not fulfil the requisite conditions as prescribed under the Rules. According to the petitioners he did not even have the requisite qualifying service. At the same time, it is contended by the petitioners that the post of Director Health Services in terms of the Rules, should have been filled up from amongst the members of Health Service Grade I officers and not from amongst the Specialists. The petitioners have asserted that their reversion from the post of Deputy Directors is illegal and in violation of the conditions of their service as also contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India. CWP No. 289 of 1919-Dr. K Pandeya v. State and others. 3. In this writ petition it is contended by the petitioner that he had been working as Director of Health Services and he has been reverted without passing any reversion order in this behalf. It is further stated that he was on official duty as the Director of Health Services at Delhi from 6th November to 8th November, 1979, and at no stage he had been asked to hand over the charge of the post nor has he done so. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 2 has assumed the charge of the office of the Director of Health Services illegally. It is contended by the petitioner that while issuing his order of appointment as Deputy Director of Health Services along with respondents 2 and 3, he has been wrongly put at Serial No. 2 whereas respondent No. 2 has been put at Serial No, 1. It is contended by the petitioner that while issuing his order of appointment as Deputy Director of Health Services along with respondents 2 and 3, he has been wrongly put at Serial No. 2 whereas respondent No. 2 has been put at Serial No, 1. According to him this is contrary to the provisions contained in rule 9 (4) of the Rules. The petitioner has further contended that he was entitled to be appointed as the Director of Health Services in preference to respondent No. 2. Inter alia it has been further contended by the petitioner that while considering the case of the petitioner for appointment as a Director of Health Services (super-time grade I general) his A. C. Rs. which were initiated by an officer junior to the petitioner, should not have been taken into consideration by the D. P. C. It is further averred that there was a serious contest between the petitioner on the one hand and Dr. S. M. L. Grover (now retired) and respondent No. 2 on the other for the post of Deputy Director and Director of Health Services. As such, according to the petitioner Dr. Grover was biased and prejudiced against the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 is also stated to belong to the group of Dr. Grover. Similarly, it is contended that the D. P. C. constituted to make appointment to the posts of Deputy Directors and Director was not properly constituted as instead of the Secretary (Health and Family Welfare) the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister was inducted as one of the members of the Committee. The petitioner has further contended that the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Director of Health Services has been made in hot-haste and the claim of the petitioner has been ignored. He has also contended that the appointment to the post of Director of Health Services should have been made from amongst the members of the Health Service Grade I (General) and not from the category of Specialists (General). The petitioner has ultimately prayed that the notification appointing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as Deputy Directors of Health Services along with the petitioner and placing the petitioner at serial No. 2 in the said notification be quashed. The petitioner has ultimately prayed that the notification appointing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as Deputy Directors of Health Services along with the petitioner and placing the petitioner at serial No. 2 in the said notification be quashed. Similarly it has been prayed that the notification appointing respondent No. 2 as Director of Health Services be also quashed and it may be declared that the petitioner continues to hold the post of the Director of Health Services and that his reversion is illegal and void. CWP No. 311 of 1979—Dr. R. P. Atreya v. State and others. 4. In this writ petition the petitioner has claimed his seniority on the basis of service rendered by him in Simla Municipal Committee. It is stated by him that he was appointed on regular basis as Medical Officer (T. B.) in the Simla Municipal Committee in the then P. C. M. S. (II) scale of Fs. 250-500. The petitioner having been confirmed in this post on that very day, he stakes his claim to seniority from that date. It is further stated by the petitioner that the T. B. Clinic of the Simla Municipal Committee was taken over by the Himachal Pradesh Government along with the staff the effect from 1-4-1969. It is submitted that at the time of taking over the staff the Government had given an undertaking that their status and pay scales were to be brought/treated at par with the corresponding posts under the Government and that on the employees surrendering entire employers contribution to their respective provident fund together with interest thereon, the entire service rendered by such employees in the Municipal Committee would be counted for the purposes of leave, pay and seniority. It is contended that the petitioner gave his option and accordingly surrendered his entire employers contribution to his provident fund together with interest thereon on 23-1-1971. The petitioner says that his name was sponsored/recommended by the Himachal Pradesh Government to be included in All India Medical Service cadre known as Central Health Service (C. H. S.) which was extended to Himachal Pradesh with effect from 9-9-1^66. The petitioner was appointed as General Duty Officer Grade II (G. D. O. II) in that cadre with effect from 1-4-1968. The petitioner was appointed as General Duty Officer Grade II (G. D. O. II) in that cadre with effect from 1-4-1968. The petitioner states that on his absorption as G. D. O. II instead of G. D. O. I, he made a representation through the Himachal Pradesh Government to the Government of India. The Government of Himachal Pradesh is stated to have recommended his case, and consequently the Government of India appointed him to the post of G. D. O. I, in the C. H. S. with effect from 1-4-1968. The petitioner urges that this grade should have been given to him with effect from 31*3-1952, being the date of his first appointment to a service equivalent to P. C. M. S. (I) or with effect from 9-9-1966 being the date of extension of the C. H. S. The petitioner has also contended that the Himachal Pradesh Health Service (H. P. H. S.) was created in 1974 by virtue of the Rules notified on 19-1-1974. The petitioner opted for his absorption in this Service. He is stated to have made a representation wherein he reiterated the position earlier taken by him. The petitioner also pointed out inherent discrimination in the Rules which were to his disadvantage. The petitioner claims that his seniority has not been correctly determined and that he has been discriminated against in the matters of employment. He has claimed that in the seniority list of grade I officers of the H. P. H. S. circulated on the basis of office memo, dated 21-9-1979, he should have been placed at Serial No. 1 instead of Serial No. 31 as also in the seniority list of such officers circulated with office memo, dated 2-11-1979 (Annexure PH/3). On the basis of his claim that his services should have been counted from the date of his original appointment or at least from the date of the constitution of the C. H. S. he is entitled to other benefits of promotion, pay, etc. The petitioner has also challenged rule 10 (a) (ii) of the Rules and has prayed that the said rule be quashed along with the aforementioned seniority lists. Dr. R. M. Bali v. State and others, [CWP No. 2 of 1980]. 5. The petitioner has also challenged rule 10 (a) (ii) of the Rules and has prayed that the said rule be quashed along with the aforementioned seniority lists. Dr. R. M. Bali v. State and others, [CWP No. 2 of 1980]. 5. The petitioner in this writ petition has stated that he was appointed as T. B. Officer, T. B. Sanitorium, Mandodhar, with effect from 9-4-1955 which was a gazetted class II post, and continued as such till 28-5-1962. The petitioner was appointed as Superintendent T. B. Sanitorium, Mandodhar which was a class I post. After joining the post, the petitioner was selected for appointment on regular basis through the Public Service Commission. The post of Superintendent T. B. Sanitorium which was held by the petitioner was categorised as category D post (C. H. S. Class I Post) The petitioner was confirmed in this post in 1966. The Medical and Public Health Department, Himachal Pradesh Administration, by a notification dated 1-7-1963 had appointed the petitioner as Assistant Director of Health (T. B.) which was a category ‘D post. The petitioner also held the post of District Medical Officer and also certain other posts as indicated in the writ petition. According to the petitioner he was inducted in the C. H. S. with effect from 9-9-1966 and included in the initial constitution of the Service and confirmed in that Service on 9-9-1968. He has alleged that respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed merely on temporary and officiating basis to this Service with effect from 1-11-1966, the date of Reorganisation of the composite State of Punjab and continued as such till 24-1-1974. According to the petitioner, the appointment to the newly constituted H. P. H. S. was to be made with reference to the position already held by the petitioner and the said respondents in the C H.S. The petitioner has asserted that since he was appointed at the initial constitution of the Service in a regular capacity on 9-9-1966 and confirmed on 9-9-1968, he was definitely senior to respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner claims that the inter-se seniority of the petitioner and these respondents in the C.H.S. (Specialists Grade) had to be preserved and could not be disturbed at the time of their absorption in tie H. P. H. S. The petitioner has referred to the relevant rules of the C.H.S. and also H.P.H.S. Reference has also been made to Punjab Reorganisation Act and the protection given to the members of the Service. Inter alia, on these grounds the petitioner has prayed that the seniority list of the cadre of Specialists as indicated under the office memo, dated 2-11-1979 and Annexure PX-1 (containing the list) be quashed and that he be assigned seniority at serial No. 1. Besides other reliefs claimed by the petitioner, he has also prayed that the appointment of Dr. S. P. Kapoor (respondent No. 6) be declared null and void and that the case of the petitioner be considered for the appointment to this post on the basis of his being placed at serial No. 1 in that seniority list. Dr. D. S. Chauhan v. State and others, [CWP No. 48 of 1980]. 6. In this writ petition Dr. D. S. Chauhan has, inter alia stated that on 13-12-1963 the Punjab Public Service Commission, on the request of the Municipal Committee, Simla, advertised the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent, Ripon Hospital, Simla. The petitioner applied and was selected. He joined on 11-4-1964 and was confirmed in the said post on 11-4-1965. On representation made to the Municipal Committee, Simla, the petitioner was given four advance increments. The petitioner was granted the grade of Surgical Specialist, as was granted to the Senior Medical Officers of the Government hospitals in Punjab, and his designation was also changed to Deputy Superintendent cum-Surgical Specialist. The Ripon Hospital, Simla, in which the petitioner was working, was taken over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh by their order dated 1-4-1969. As such, the petitioner along with the hospital staff became the employee of the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Government of Himachal Pradesh by their order dated 17-3-1970 is stated to have written to the Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, that the Government had decided that those employees who had exercised their option to surrender their entire employers contribution to the contributory fund together with interest, could count their service for purposes of seniority. The Government of Himachal Pradesh by their order dated 17-3-1970 is stated to have written to the Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, that the Government had decided that those employees who had exercised their option to surrender their entire employers contribution to the contributory fund together with interest, could count their service for purposes of seniority. The Government also decided that benefit of past service etc., including seniority would be given to such employees as indicated by the Government of India in its order dated 17-7-1954 and 19-2-1955. The petitioner exercised his option and surrendered the entire employers contribution to his contributory provident fund. It is further contended by the petitioner that one of the employees who was serving in the Ripon Hospital filed a writ petition, and on 1-9-1970 the Union of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh through their counsel made a statement at the Bar that the Government had no intention to change the service conditions of the said petitioner or other employees similarly situated The petitioner, by an order dated 4-9-1973 issued by the Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, was posted as Surgical Specialist in the Ripon Hospital, Simla. On 9-1-1979 the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, in consultation with the H. P. Public Service Commission framed rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said rules are known as Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules, 19/4 (the Rules). It is stated by the petitioner that on 11-6-1975 the Government of Himachal Pradesh circulated the provisional seniority list dated 9-6-1975. The petitioner was shown at Serial No. 7 on the general side of Specialists cadre. The petitioner represented against the provisional seniority allotted to him as he had not been given a proper seniority. In the mean time another provisional seniority list as on 1-4-1977 was circulated in which in the G. D. O. (^/Specialists, the petitioners name was shown at serial No. 1 and the date of his regular appointment to permanent post of Specialist was shown as 11-4-1964, Respondents 2 and 3, that is, Dr. S. P. Kapoor and Dr. R. M. Bali respectively, in the said list were shown junior to the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 issued another provisional seniority list on 21-9-1979 showing seniority as on 1-1-1979. S. P. Kapoor and Dr. R. M. Bali respectively, in the said list were shown junior to the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 issued another provisional seniority list on 21-9-1979 showing seniority as on 1-1-1979. In this the petitioners name, in the grade of Specialists, was shown as at serial No. 5 and the date from which his service was counted was shown as 4-1-1968. The petitioner made a representation to the Government. However, final seniority list was issued on 2-11-1979 and the petitioner was again shown at serial No. 5 . and his date of joining was shown as 4-1-1968. It is contended by the petitioner that he is the senior-most Specialist as he was appointed as Specialist on 11-4-1964. The petitioner was prayed for quashing the final seniority list and has prayed that he be assigned 11-4-1964 as his date of appointment and he be placed at serial No. 1 in the seniority list of Specialists. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order appointing respondents 2 and 3 as Deputy Directors and the order appointing respondent No. 2 as the Director of Health Services. He has also prayed for an appropriate order so that the petitioner on the basis of his seniority is considered for the post of Deputy Director and Director of Health Services. 7. The stand taken by the State of Himachal Pradesh as contained in the replies filed to the aforesaid writ petitions may now be summarised. 8. The stand taken by the State in their return filed to C.W.P, No. 288 of 1979 is this. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed to the post of Deputy Director on ad hoc basis and that the appointment to the said post on regular basis is made on the basis of selection and cannot be claimed as of right. Petitioner No. 2 also fully understood that the seniority list was not finalised and hence her posting as Deputy Director was on ad-hoc basis. Such appointments of the petitioners having been made purely on ad-hoc basis, they cannot claim that their appointments were on regular basis. It is not disputed by the petitioner No. 2 that she is junior to petitioner No. 1. Such appointments of the petitioners having been made purely on ad-hoc basis, they cannot claim that their appointments were on regular basis. It is not disputed by the petitioner No. 2 that she is junior to petitioner No. 1. The seniority list had not been finalised and accordingly the appointments to the posts of Deputy Directors and Director had to be made on ad-hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement. Such appointments do not confer any right on such appointees to claim such posts on regular basis. As regards the objection to the constitution of the D. P. C, it is stated that the incumbent of the post of Secretary (Health and Family Welfare) being on leave from 3rd November to 9th November 1979, in his absence the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister was appointed to function additionally as Secretary (Health and Family Welfare) by office order No. 3-11/69-Apptt. dated 2-11-1979. (A copy of the office order has been placed on record as Annexure R. 1/P). Thus the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister did not function as such but acted in his capacity as Secretary Health and Family Welfare. Accordingly it is asserted that the constitution of the D. P. C, was perfectly valid. As regards the allegation that an officer working on ad-hoc basis should be precluded from writing the A. C. Rs. of those who would be competing with those persons for regular appointment, it has been contended that the reports of the petitioners as initiated by Dr. Grover have been duly reviewed, some times with additional remarks for or against, by higher authorities and that the A. C. Rs. written by Dr. Grover were not the only reports taken into account by the D. P. C. Reports by Dr. J. C. Sharma about the work and conduct of the petitioners were not taken into account by the D. P. C. Refuting the allegations of hot-haste, it is stated that since the retirement of Dr. Krishan Swarup in December 1973, the post of Director of Health Services was being manned on ad-hoc basis without a regular incumbent. Similarly the posts of Deputy Directors were also being manned on ad-hoc basis. The Government had always been keen to make regular appointments. But the impediment was the absence of final seniority list. Krishan Swarup in December 1973, the post of Director of Health Services was being manned on ad-hoc basis without a regular incumbent. Similarly the posts of Deputy Directors were also being manned on ad-hoc basis. The Government had always been keen to make regular appointments. But the impediment was the absence of final seniority list. Since this hurdle was crossed on 2-11-1979, the meeting of the D. P. C., took place on 3-11-1979 and appointment orders were also issued on the same day. The promptness with which the Government acted in the matter was actuated only by the intention to make regular appointments to the various posts, as quickly as possible. It is also asserted that the consideration of over-riding importance in the case was that Specialists are necessarily officers possessing post-graduate qualifications whereas G. D. Os. I are, as a rule, graduates only. Taking all the factors into consideration, the rule making authority rightly divided the higher posts equally among the officers of two categories. It is asserted that the order of appointment of respondent No. 2 as a Director of Health Sevices is legal and the claim of the petitioners for being considered for promotion to the post of Director is wholly untenable because they were not Deputy Directors on the date of selection for the post of Director was made and further they could not be considered for this selection because rule 9 (3) of the Rules requires that in order to be eligible for being considered for the post of Director of Health Services, an officer has to be Deputy Director of Health Services. 9. In reply to C.W.P. No, 289 of 1979, besides the submissions already made in the return filed to C. W. P. No. 288 of 1979, the stand taken by the State in this. The promotion orders of the officers mentioned in Annexures PF and PG were issued on the recommendation of a duly constituted D. P. C. There being one post of Director of Health Services, the respondent No. 2, on the recommendations of the D. P. C, has been promoted and that the petitioner could not continue on the said post. The promotion orders of the officers mentioned in Annexures PF and PG were issued on the recommendation of a duly constituted D. P. C. There being one post of Director of Health Services, the respondent No. 2, on the recommendations of the D. P. C, has been promoted and that the petitioner could not continue on the said post. The petitioner was appointed to officiate as Director of Health Services purely as a temporary measure and has no right to hold the post and his reversion to a lower post is strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of his appointment. He has, therefore, no right to challenge this reversion It is pointed out that Dr. Grover was also appointed as Director of Health Services on ad-hoc basis. It is clarified that the petitioner did not join as Deputy Director though orders to this effect were issued on 10-7-1975, presumably because the said appointment was purely an ad-hoc and a stop-gap arrangement. It is submitted that the orders of promotion of respondent No. 2 to the post of Director of Health Services were passed on the recommendations of a duly constituted D. P. C. These orders were issued on 3-11-1979 and have been published in Himachal Pradesh Government Gazette. It it contended that the petitioner has grossly misconstrued the provisions of rule 9 (4) of the Rules. So far as the contention of the petitioner that he being at serial No. 1 in the seniority list of G. D. Os. I and that on that account he was entitled to be promoted as Director of Health Services is concerned, it is contended that the Government decided to supplement the rules by starting the roster with the category of Specialists because the senior-most available on the date of the D. P. C, had put in greater length of qualifying service than the senior-most officer of the H. P. H, S. Grade I similarly situate. On this account it is asserted that the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner have been correctly and legally placed at serial No. 1 and 2 in the seniority list of Deputy Directors and this position has been correctly and legally kept in view by the D. P. C, while considering them for promotion to the post of Director Health Services. As regards the existence of groups among the officers of the Health Department, it has been submitted that the allegations are vague. The petitioners contention that an officer working on ad-hoc basis should be precluded, by the requirement of natural justice, from writing the reports of those who would have been his peers but for such ad-hoc appointment, is not accepted* It is conceded that instructions were issued on the subject as contained in Annexure PH to the writ petition. It is, however, submitted that the spirit underlying these instructions was that an officer should not be entitled to report on the work and conduct of those of his colleagues with whom he may have to compete for regular appointment to the post which he is holding on ad-hoc basis. It is also submitted that the reports of the petitioner as initiated by Dr. Grover have been duly reviewed, some time with additional remarks for or against, by higher authorities. It is further submitted that the reports written by Dr. Grover were not the only reports taken into account by the D. P. C. It is categorically stated that no reports written by Dr. J. C. Sharma about the work and conduct of the petitioner were taken into account by the D. P. C. in making the promotion to the post of Deputy Directors or Director of Health Services. 10. In the return filed by the State to C. W. P. No. 311 of 1979 it is stated thus : The petitioner was appointed in the scale of Rs. 250-500 by the Municipal Committee, Simla. The services of the petitioner were provincialised with effect from 1-4-1968 and at that time he was in the pay scale of Rs. 350-800. On the basis of that pay scale and his length of service he was equated in the C. H. S. as G. D O , I with effect from 1-4-1968 and was given seniority accordingly. The petitioner represented to the Local Self Government Department for his revision of pay scales and the department concerned of the Government revised the pay scale of the petitioner to Rs. 750-1250 with effect from 1-4-1966. It is contended that when the services of the petitioner were taken over by the Himachal Pradesh Government in the Health and Family Welfare Department on 1-4-1968, he was not in the scale of Rs. 750-1250 with effect from 1-4-1966. It is contended that when the services of the petitioner were taken over by the Himachal Pradesh Government in the Health and Family Welfare Department on 1-4-1968, he was not in the scale of Rs. 750-1250 but this scale was sanctioned to the petitioner on 23-8-1974. Since the petitioner got his scale revised from the Municipal Committee Simla subsequently, the benefic of the same could not be given to the petitioner The case of the petitioner for induction in the C. H. S., cadre was sent to the Government of India. The Government of India inducted the petitioner in the C. H. S. cadre as G. D. O. I with effect from 1-4-1968 under communication dated 16-4-1973 (Annexure PB-5 to the writ petition). The H. P. H. S. was created in 1974 by a notification dated 19-1-1974 and every officer of the C. H. S. was given an option either to opt for service in H. P. H. S. or to remain in the C.H.S. A copy of rules is alleged to have been provided to each and every officer including the petitioner and the petitioner opted for service in the H. P. H. S. As such, it is contended, that the seniority of the petitioner had to be determined on the basis of H. P. H. S. Rules and any other condition to the contrary was not relevant in the presence of these Rules. The representations etc. made by the petitioner were not at all relevant in the face of the statutory rules. As the Government of India inducted the petitioner in the C. H. S. cadre as G. D. O. I with effect from 1-4-1968, the State Government cannot disturb the placement finalised by the Government of India. The petitioner was given only the benefit of the revision of pay scales with effect from 1-4-1966, and in case his seniority in the C. H S. is to be determined on that basis it would amount to supersession of his senior Dr. D. S. Chauhan. It is pointed out that the seniority of Dr. Chauhan was fixed under rule 10 of the C. H. S. Rules, and he was treated as Specialist with effect from 1-4-1968. D. S. Chauhan. It is pointed out that the seniority of Dr. Chauhan was fixed under rule 10 of the C. H. S. Rules, and he was treated as Specialist with effect from 1-4-1968. It has been pointed out that at the time the services of the petitioner were provincialised and he tendered his entire employers contribution to his provident fund, it was not known to the petitioner that the Local Self Government Department would subsequently revise his scale of pay with a retrospective effect as the order of revision of his pay scale was passed in August 1974. Since at the time when the services of the petitioner were provincialised in 1968, the petitioner was aware of the rules and his likely seniority to be fixed in the cadre and on that account he is estopped from claiming his seniority on the basis of his original appointment in the Municipal Committee during the year 1952 or with effect from 1-4-1966. 11. In the return filed by the State to the C. W. P. No. 2 of 1980, the case of the State is this. The post of superintendent T. B. Sanitorium held by the petitioner was junior Class 1 post till his appointment to Specialist Grade of C. H. S. with effect from 9-9-1966. It is admitted that respondent No. 5, Dr. S. M. L. Grover (since retired), and respondent No. 6 Dr. S. P. Kapoor, were appointed to the grade of Specialists of the C. H. S. with effect from 1-11-1966 though the Government of India kept the case of seniority still open. The petitioner exercised his option for H. P. H. S. after he was supplied a copy of the Rules. It is submitted that the final seniority to the petitioner and others was assigned under the provisions of the Rules issued on 10-1-1974. It is admitted that the words "whichever is earlier" appearing in rule 10 (a) (i) (ii) and (iii) of the Rules were deleted by amendment. It is contended that the seniority assigned to the petitioner is strictly in accordance with the provisions of rule 10(a)(iii) of the Rules. The claim of petitioner on the basis of his holding the post of Deputy Director of Health Services only on ad-hoc basis, does not entitle him to any benefit in the matter of seniority. 12. It is contended that the seniority assigned to the petitioner is strictly in accordance with the provisions of rule 10(a)(iii) of the Rules. The claim of petitioner on the basis of his holding the post of Deputy Director of Health Services only on ad-hoc basis, does not entitle him to any benefit in the matter of seniority. 12. In the return filed to C.W.P. No. 48 of 1980, it is submitted by the State of Himachal Pradesh, besides the general submissions made and contentions raised in the returns referred to above, that the petitioner was confirmed by the Municipal Committee, Simla on 11-4-1965 and that on his representation he was given four advance increments in the grade. It is not disputed that the petitioner was asked to perform the duties of the Medical Superintendent, Ripon Hospital, Simla. According to the State this temporary arrangement does not confer any right on him to claim the status of Medical Superintendent, it is admitted that the petitioner was granted the grade of Rs. 750-1250 by the Municipal Committee on 31-1966 and his designation was changed to Deputy Superintendent-cum-Surgical Specialist. It is also not disputed that the Municipal Committee Simla subsequently by a resolution dated 13-11-1979 granted the aforesaid scale of Rs. 750-1250 to the petitioner with retrospective effect from 11-4-1964. It is, however, contended that the decision of the Municipal Committee Simla to grant revised scale with retrospective effect after a lapse of 12 years was an after thought aimed at giving undue advantage to him. The seniority list of Specialists was issued on 2-11-1979 and any such decision of the Municipal Committee cannot confer any right on the petitioner in the matter of seniority when it had already been finalised. It is also contended that the Government of Himachal Pradesh by a memorandum dated 18-12-1968 had allowed the service rendered in Municipal Committee to count for the purposes of pension, leave and pay. It is further submitted that by a subsequent order dated 17-3-1970 the service rendered was to be counted for seniority also. But these were only executive orders which were issued prior to the formation of the Rules. Since these rules have statutory force, the executive orders cannot have an over-riding effect. It is contended that the seniority assigned to the Specialists is strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10(a)(iii) of the Rules. But these were only executive orders which were issued prior to the formation of the Rules. Since these rules have statutory force, the executive orders cannot have an over-riding effect. It is contended that the seniority assigned to the Specialists is strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10(a)(iii) of the Rules. According to the respondent the seniority of the petitioner has been assigned correctly, that is, with effect from 4-1-1968, the date from which his services were taken over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is also pointed out that Dr. Chauhan and Dr. Attreya have been given the date of seniority with effect from 4-1-1968, the date from which their services were taken over. 13. Having summarised the case of the petitioners and the stand taken by the State, we now proceed to deal with each contention raised by the parties. The contentions raised by other respondents shall be referred to and dealt with at appropriate stages. 14. The common questions involved almost in all the writ petitions may be categorised as under:— 1. Whether those persons who were appointed on ad-hoc or temporary basis to the posts of Deputy Directors or Director of Health Services can claim any right to such posts on the basis of such appointments? 2. Whether the D. P. C. which was constituted for the purpose of appointment to the posts of Deputy Directors and Director of Health Services in terms of the Rules was properly constituted? 3. Whether those persons who were inducted into the C. H. S. and continued to work as such can claim their seniority on the basis of their being previously members of the P. C. M. S. (I) (with postgraduate qualifications) or being Deputy Medical Superintendent/Resident Medical Officers/Surgical Specialists, Ripon Hospital from the date they were given the scale of P. C. M. S.? 4. Whether the seniority determined of persons in C. H. S. is relevant for determining the seniority in the H.P.H.S.? 5. Whether the A. C. Rs. which were initiated by Dr. Grover or Dr. J. C. Sharma were considered by the D. P. C. while making appointments to the posts of Deputy Directors or Director of Health Services ? If so, what is its effect. 1st Question 15. Shri Kedarishwar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 288 of 1979, submits that the petitioner No. 1, Dr. Grover or Dr. J. C. Sharma were considered by the D. P. C. while making appointments to the posts of Deputy Directors or Director of Health Services ? If so, what is its effect. 1st Question 15. Shri Kedarishwar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 288 of 1979, submits that the petitioner No. 1, Dr. Jiwan Lal, was appointed Deputy Director Health Services in the month of July 1975. It is contended that though the appointment was termed as ad-hoc but the same was regular for all intents and purposes. Similarly, it is submitted that the petitioner No. 2 was also appointed to the post of Deputy Director in the month of January 1976 and it was not indicated in the order of appointment that her appointment was ad-hoc or temporary. As such, it is contended that her appointment has to be treated as on regular basis. It may be pointed out that Dr. S. P. Kapoor was also appointed Deputy Director on ad-hoc basis during the month of July 1975. Certain other petitioners and respondents in these writ petitions also held such appointments for some time. These appointments on ad-hoc or temporary basis were made after the coming into force of the Rules which came into force on 19-1-1974, but the Service, in accordance with such rules, was constituted with effect from 24-1-1974. In case the appointments to these posts were to be made, the same had to be made in terms of Rule 9 (4) of the Rules. It is not the case of any of the claimants that they were appointed in compliance with the provisions of the said Rules. It is also not the case of such claimants that relaxation in the said Rules had been made in their cases in accordance with rule 19 of the Rules as amended by 2nd Amendment Rules, 1976. The amended rule 19 is reproduced as under:— "19. It is also not the case of such claimants that relaxation in the said Rules had been made in their cases in accordance with rule 19 of the Rules as amended by 2nd Amendment Rules, 1976. The amended rule 19 is reproduced as under:— "19. When the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing and in consultation with the H. P. Public Service Commission, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons or posts.- The relaxation having not been made, the holders of such posts on ad-hoc or temporary basis cannot claim the benefit of holding such a post. Otherwise also, the matter of the finalisation of the seniority of the officers of the cadre had been under the consideration of the Government and the matter was not finally determined till the month of November, 1979. During this interregnum the posts could not be filled permanently nor could be left vacant. The only reasonable way out was to make stop-gap arrangements. And this was done by making ad-hoc appointments. As contended by Dr. Pandeya and Dr. S. P. Kapoor, they refused their appointment to this post on ad-hoc basis. The contention of Shri Kedarishwar that the term ad-hoc was not incorporated while appointing petitioner No. 2 (in C.W.P. No. 288 of 1979) as Deputy Director, is of no relevance as she herself does not claim seniority either over Dr. Pandeya or Dr. Jiwan Lal Kapoor. Her appointment for all legal purposes in our view was temporary or ad-hoc. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the appointments of such persons who were appointed on ad-hoc basis as Deputy Directors do not confer any right on them to extend their claim to such posts or seniority on that account, except for computing the prescribed period of experience for promotion and confirmation as contained in "addition of notes" to Rule 9 of the Rules. Question No. 2 16. Now we advert to question No. 2—Whether the D.P.C. was properly constituted or not? Reference may be made to the reply filed on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh (respondent No. I). Question No. 2 16. Now we advert to question No. 2—Whether the D.P.C. was properly constituted or not? Reference may be made to the reply filed on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh (respondent No. I). To recapitulate, the main objection was that instead of the Secretary (Health and Family Welfare), Himachal Pradesh, the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister acted as a member in his place. The State has explained that the Secretary concerned was on leave, and in his absence the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister was appointed to function additionally as Secretary (Health and Family Welfare) by office order No. 3-11-69 Apptt dated 2-11-1979. Therefore, the Committee was properly constituted. It appears that the petitioners were not aware of the aforementioned office order when they raised this objection. Question Nos. 3 and 4 17. Question Nos. 3 and 4 may be discussed together. The contesting petitioners and the respondents in these writ petitions have high-lighted their claims on various communications, representations and certain decisions. Our attention was also invited to various judgments of different High Courts and the Supreme Court. It may be pointed out that the question of seniority assumed vital importance after the Medical Service was constituted from different sources. For our purpose, it will suffice if we begin with the constitution of the C. H. S. 18. The "Central Health Service" was constituted by the Government of India and the rules known as "Central Health Service Rules, 1963" (hereinafter referred to as the Central Rules1, were framed by the President of India in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh was a member of such a Service. These rules were amended by the "Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 1966". The Central Rules came into force with effect from 15-5-1963. By virtue of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, besides other Services, the persons belonging to the Health Service were allocated from Punjab to Himachal Pradesh. Since at that time in Himachal Pradesh there was no other cadre of Health Service than the C.H.S., such allocated employees of the Health Service from Punjab had to be inducted therein. By virtue of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, besides other Services, the persons belonging to the Health Service were allocated from Punjab to Himachal Pradesh. Since at that time in Himachal Pradesh there was no other cadre of Health Service than the C.H.S., such allocated employees of the Health Service from Punjab had to be inducted therein. It may be pointed out that before the Punjab Reorganisation Act, the State of Punjab was not covered by the C.H.S. On the contrary the State of Punjab had its own cadre of Health Service known as P.C.M S. It had two grades—Grade I and Grade II. There were some employees of local bodies who were working as Medical officers in the hospitals run by the local bodies. The question of such employees was also to be considered while inducting them into the C. H. S. Such of the employees who were either allocated from Punjab in pursuance of the Punjab Reorganisation Act as also the employees of the local bodies were given options to become members of the C. H. S. It may be pointed out that it is not the case of any of the officers concerned with these writ petitions that they had not exercised their option for being inducted into the C.H.S. Their only claim is that in the matter of seniority their past service has to be considered. 19. Later, when Himachal Pradesh attained Statehood the Government of Himachal Pradesh constituted the service known as H.P.H.S. As already stated, this Service was constituted under the Rules which came into force on 19-1-1974, but the service was constituted with effect from 24-1-1974. After the coming into force of these Rules, the members of the C.H.S. were asked to exercise their option for their induction into this Service. It is not the case either of the petitioners, or the respondents that they did not exercise their option for being inducted into the H.P.H.S. cadre. The oly point which remains to be determined is as to how their seniority in the said cadre is to be determined. 20. Under rule 4 of the Rules, classification, categories and scales of pay have been mentioned. It is provided that the H. P. H. S. cadre will consist of two wings namely the General Wing and the Teaching Wing. 20. Under rule 4 of the Rules, classification, categories and scales of pay have been mentioned. It is provided that the H. P. H. S. cadre will consist of two wings namely the General Wing and the Teaching Wing. These two wings of service are to be independent of each other and the posts are not inter-changeable at any stage except certain posts. In these Writ petitions we are not concerned with the Teaching Wing. The General Wing consists of six categories and each category consists of the grades as specified in the table. In these writ petitions we are concerned with the categories of Specialists and H. P. H. S. Grade 1. The Seniority amongst the two categories is to be determined separately. 21. The relevant provision, with amendment, regarding determination of seniority, may now be noticed:— "10. Fixation of seniority. (a) The inter-se seniority of departmental candidates absorbed under rules 7 and 8 shall be determined as follows:— (j) ? * * * (ii) Himachal Pradesh Health Service Grade I—From the date of regular appointment having been duly selected by the Union Public Service Commission, Punjab Public Service Commission and Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and or by a regular Departmental Promotion Committee in the following grades :— P. C M. S. I G, D, O. Gr. L (iii) Specialist.—From the date of regular appointment having been duly selected by the Union Public Service Commission, Punjab Public Service Commission and Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and or by a regular Departmental Promotion Comittee in the following grades :— (1) Specialists (C. H. S.). (2) P.C.M.S. I (with post graduate qualifications) (3) Deputy Medical Supdt. Resident Medical Officer/Surgical Specialists Ripon Hospital from the date the scale of P. C. M. S. I was given " 22. As pointed out earlier above, it is not the case either of the? petitioners or the respondent-officers that they were not members of the C.H. S. when the Rules came into force. It is also not their case that they were not inducted into the H.P.H.S. In C.W.P. No. 2 of 1980 Dr. S.M.L. Grover is respondent No. 5 whereas Dr. S. P. Kapoor is respondent No. 6. It is admitted by the parties in this writ petition that Dr. R M. Bali (petitioner) was inducted into the C. H. S. in the regular capacity on 9-9-1966, whereas respondent Nos. S.M.L. Grover is respondent No. 5 whereas Dr. S. P. Kapoor is respondent No. 6. It is admitted by the parties in this writ petition that Dr. R M. Bali (petitioner) was inducted into the C. H. S. in the regular capacity on 9-9-1966, whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were inducted into the said service with effect from 1-11-1966. On this basis it is not disputed that Dr. Bali is senior to respondents 5 and 6 in the C.H.S. Since respondent No. 5, Dr. Grover, has retired from service, he has not chosen (and rightly so) to file any separate reply to the writ petition. However, it is contended by respondent No. 6 that the petitioner is not senior to him. The petitioner as also respondent No. 6 belong to the specialist category. The entire dispute is confined to the interpretation of rule 10(a)(iii), reproduced above. It is contended by respondent No. 6 that he was selected to P.C.M.S. Grade I and was having post-graduate qualification. It is further contended by him that he was entitled to seniority with effect from the date of such selection through the Punjab Public Service Commission, that is 29-1-1965. On the contrary, the petitioner claims his seniority from 1-6-1962 when he was appointed against the post of T.B. Specialist at Mandodhar on ad-hoc basis or from 31-3-1964 when he was regularly appointed after selection by the Union Public Service Commission and had in fact very successfully discharged the duties of a Specialist. It may be relevant to reproduce the unamended rule 10 (a) (iii):— "(iii) Specialist.—From the date of regular appointment having been duly selected by the Union Public Service Commission, Punjab Public Service Commission and Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and or by a regular Departmental Promotion Committee whichever is earlier in the following grades ;— (1) Specialists (C.H.S.). (2) P.C.M.S. I (with post-graduate qualifications). (3) Deputy Medical Supdt./Resident Medical Officer/Surgical Specialists Ripon Hospital from the date the scale of P.C.M.S.1 was given/ (Emphasis supplied). 23. It may be noticed that the unamended sub-rule had the words "whichever is earlier". These were deleted retrospectively by amendment. Why were these deleted? What object was thus sought to be achieved ? Evidently, according to the unamended sub-rule, a person belonging to either of the classes could claim his seniority on the basis of the category to which he was appointed earlier. These were deleted retrospectively by amendment. Why were these deleted? What object was thus sought to be achieved ? Evidently, according to the unamended sub-rule, a person belonging to either of the classes could claim his seniority on the basis of the category to which he was appointed earlier. For instance, if a person is included in the C.H.S. later but was in the P.C.M.S. I (with post-graduate qualifications) earlier, he could base his claim for seniority on his earlier appointment. On the contrary if a person happened to belong to one specific class only, he had to rest content with his appointment in that class. It has to be remembered that seniority was to be fixed in H.P.H.S. Doctors joining this Service were mostly coming from C.H.S. In order to do justice to those doctors who were not members of the C.H.S. but were coming from a local authority or from medical service of Punjab, some provision had to be made. Otherwise doctors with long service to their credit would be put enbloc junior to C.H.S. doctors. In these circumstances the words "whichever is earlier were deleted retrospectively to enable each doctor to have benefit of appointment of that service only from which he was coming to join the H.P.H.S. In other words, if one was coming from C.H.S. he could claim seniority on the basis of that Service only and not on the basis of earlier Service of P.C.M.S. even if he happened to be in that Service earlier. 24. The other contentions which have been raised in respect of the interpretation of this rule will be discussed at a later stage, but so far as the question Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, we are of the view that the seniority as determined in C.H.S. is relevant to determine the seniority in the H.P.H.S. Question No. 5 25. Now we deal with question No. 5 regarding the A.C.Rs. initiated by Dr. Grover or Dr. J.C. Sharma. The State in its reply has stated that the A.C.Rs. initiated by Dr. Sharma were not considered by the D.P.C. So far as the A.C.Rs. initiated by Dr. Grover are concerned, it has been contended that the reports as initiated by Dr. Grover have been revised, sometimes with additional remarks for or against, by higher authorities and that the A.C.Rs. written by Dr. initiated by Dr. Sharma were not considered by the D.P.C. So far as the A.C.Rs. initiated by Dr. Grover are concerned, it has been contended that the reports as initiated by Dr. Grover have been revised, sometimes with additional remarks for or against, by higher authorities and that the A.C.Rs. written by Dr. Grover were not the only reports which were taken into account by the D.P.C. In view of this state of affairs, we are of the opinion that no prejudice appears to have been caused to any of the petitioners while the A.C.Rs. were considered by the D.P.C. at the time of making selection. 26. At this stage it is also relevant to discuss the other contentions that are relevant for the determination of seniority etc. In C.W.P. No. 48 of 1980 advantage is claimed by the petitioner on account of the judgment of P.N. Khanna, J., of the Delhi High Court, Himachal Bench, in C.W.P. No. 88 of 1969. A copy of the Judgment has been filed with the writ petition and is marked as annexure P-15. This writ petition was filed by one Had Nand who was a permanent employee as a nurse-boy in the Ripon Hospital, Simla which was then under the control of the Municipal Committee, Simla. The said hospital was taken over by the Himachal Pradesh Administration as stated earlier. After the taking over, the pay of Hari Nand was reduced. On the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India that the Government has no intention to change the service conditions of Hari Nand or of other employees similarly situated, the writ petition was not pressed. In the present writ petition before us the dispute relates to the fixation of seniority of the persons who were inducted originally in the C.H.S. and later on in the H.P.H.S. Such officers are not being deprived of their pay. On the contrary, their seniority in the C.H.S. Cadre and H.P.H.S. cadre has to be determined on the basis of the statutory rules. As such, the decision in the above writ petition is not relevant for the decision of questions raised before us. 27. The other question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is regarding the interpretation of rule 9(4) of the H.P.H.S. Rules dealing with the appointment to supertime Grade II (General). As such, the decision in the above writ petition is not relevant for the decision of questions raised before us. 27. The other question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is regarding the interpretation of rule 9(4) of the H.P.H.S. Rules dealing with the appointment to supertime Grade II (General). The relevant sub-rule of rule 9 may now be reproduced with advantage; "(4) Supertime Grade-II (General) (i) The posts shall be filled by promotion of (i) H.P.H.S. Grade I officers with not less than 7 years of service in that category ; or (ii) Specialists" grade officers with not less than 5 years of service in that category. The selection will be on the recommendations of a D.P.C. on the basis of merit-cum-seniority of the officers mentioned at (i) and (ii) above on 50; 50 basis keeping in view the nature of duties of the post." There is a contest between the H.P.H.S. Grade I officers and the Specialist grade officers in this behalf regarding the roster. In terms of Sub rule (4) (ii) the selection to super-time Grade II (General) is to be made on the recommendations of the D.P.C. on the basis of merit-cum-seniority of the officers from amongst the officers of these grades on 50:50 basis keeping in view the nature of duties of the post. As already stated, it has been contended on behalf of the State that the Government decided to supplement the rules by starting the roster with the category of Specialists because senior most available on the date of the D.P.C. had put in greater length of qualifying service than the senior most officer of the H.P.H.S. similarly situate. Under rule 21 of the Rules, it has been provided that if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of these rules, the Government may in consultation with the Commission issue such directions not inconsistent with the provisions of these rules, as appear to it to be necessary or expedient, for the removal of the difficulties. In sub-rule (4) of rule 9 it is not specifically provided that the roster will start with a particular eligible grade. As such, difficulty had arisen in the matter. Consequently, as contended on behalf of the State, in exercise of the powers under rule 21, the rules were supplemented. In sub-rule (4) of rule 9 it is not specifically provided that the roster will start with a particular eligible grade. As such, difficulty had arisen in the matter. Consequently, as contended on behalf of the State, in exercise of the powers under rule 21, the rules were supplemented. Accordingly, the roster has been started with the category of Specialists keeping in view the length of qualifying service in each grade. As such, the rule has been reasonably supplemented. We do not think it necessary to go into the question as to whether the H.P.H.S. Grade 1 officers or the Specialists grade officers are senior to each other. All the same, there appears to be an apparent element in favour of the officers of the Specialists grade inasmuch as such officers become eligible for selection to super time Grade II (General) after putting in service of not less than five years whereas the officers of the H.P.H.S. Grade 1 become eligible if they have put in not less than seven years of service in that category. 28. There is still another question raised regarding the fixation of seniority and consequential benefits arising there from on the basis of past service rendered by officers, in local bodies. The contention has been mainly raised by Dr. Attreya in C.W.P. No. 311 of 1979 and Dr. D S. Chauhan in C. W. P. No. 48 of 1980. It is contended that on account of the application of the principle of promissory estoppel, the undertaking given and representation made that the previous service rendered by such officers in local bodies will be computed for giving them seniority, cannot be violated. In this connection, they have referred to certain communications issued on behalf of the Himachal Pradesh Administration and also the Central Government. Reference in this connection may be made to the return filed on behalf of the Central Government in C. W. P. No. 2 of 1980. This writ petition has been filed by Dr. R.M. Bali and it has been contended by him that he is senior to Dr. Grover and Dr. S. P. Kapoor in the C. H. S. Cadre. In the relevant part of paragraph 9 it has been contended on behalf of the Union of India that the inter se seniority of the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 (that is Dr. Grover and Dr, S.P. Kapoor) in the C.RS. Grover and Dr. S. P. Kapoor in the C. H. S. Cadre. In the relevant part of paragraph 9 it has been contended on behalf of the Union of India that the inter se seniority of the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 (that is Dr. Grover and Dr, S.P. Kapoor) in the C.RS. was determined in accordance with the general principles contained in Ministry of Health and Family Welfare letter No. F. 5 (II) I/69-CHS-1 dated 22-7-1967 and it was never disputed by the respondents 5 and 6 at any point of time. Neither Dr. D. S Chauhan nor Dr. Attreya have impleaded Union of India as a party in their writ petitions. As such, the Central Government had no opportunity to contend the allegation of these petitioners. At any rate, these petitioners as also the other officers allocated from Punjab had exercised their options to be inducted into the C. H. S. After exercising such an option it is not open to them to say that they were not governed by these rules. Similarly after the constitution of the H.P.H.S., once the officers opted to be inducted into this Service, they cannot take a somersault and say that they are not governed by the H. P. H. S. Rules. Accordingly the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be applied to the facts of the present cases. 29. Keeping in view the observations already made above, we are of the view that those officers who opted to be inducted into the C.H.S. were governed by the C. H. S. Rules, and out of such officers, those who opted to be inducted into the H. P. H. S. are governed by the H. P. H. S. Rules. We are further of the view that the seniority of the officers in the H. P. H. S. has further to be determined on the basis of their respective seniority in the C. H. S. 30. After we have come to the conclusion that the officers who are governed by the H. P. H. S. Rules in the matter of determination of their respective seniority, it is to be seen whether the petitioners in these writ petitions are entitled to the seniority as claimed by them. It is an undisputed fact that there are two separate seniority lists maintained in respect of the officers G. D. O. Grade I and Specialists. It is an undisputed fact that there are two separate seniority lists maintained in respect of the officers G. D. O. Grade I and Specialists. The final seniority lists of the officers of these two categories were issued on 2-11-1979. Dr. K. Pandeya, Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Smt.) Damyanti Kapoor have been shown at serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. There is no dispute between these petitioners regarding their inter se seniority, and accordingly their seniority has been correctly reflected in the category of G. D. O. Grade I. However, Dr. Attreya in his writ petition has claimed seniority above all these petitioners besides others, in this category. In the said seniority list he is placed at serial No. 31. Dr. Attreya was appointed to G. D. O. Grade I with effect from 1-4-1968, though he claims seniority with effect from 31-3-1962 on the basis of his first appointment to the service equivalent to P. C. M. S. I, and in the alternative with effect from 9-9-1966, being the date of the constitution of the C, H. S. Inspite of the representation made by Dr. Attreya, his seniority was determined on the basis of his appointment to G. D. O. I in the C. H. S with effect from 1-4-1969. As such, his seniority has been correctly reflected in the final seniority list issued on 2-11-1979. 31. In the final seniority list of Specialists Dr. S.M.L. Grover, Dr. S.P. Kapoor, Dr. R. M. Bali have been placed at serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively whereas Dr. D. S. Chauhan has been placed at serial No. 5. Since Dr. Grover has retired earlier, it is not necessary to discuss his case. The dispute regarding seniority remains between Dr. S. P. Kapoor, Dr. R.M. Bali and Dr. D. S. Chauhan. Since Dr. D. S. Chauhan was regularly appointed to P. C. M. S. Grade I with effect from 4-1-1968 and has been inducted into the H. P. H. S. Specialists Grade from that date, his seniority has to be determined on that basis Dr. S.P. Kapoor was inducted into the C. H. S. with effect from 1-11-1966 and Dr. Bali with effect from 9-9-1966. Accordingly their respective seniority in the grade has to be determined from such dates. S.P. Kapoor was inducted into the C. H. S. with effect from 1-11-1966 and Dr. Bali with effect from 9-9-1966. Accordingly their respective seniority in the grade has to be determined from such dates. During the course of arguments we had specifically asked the learned Advocate General to state as to what would be the basis for the determination of seniority in the H. P. H. S. if an officer happened to be previously in the P. C. M. S. Grade I and thereafter inducted in the C. H. S. It had to be conceded by him, and rightly so, that the seniority shall have to be determined on the basis of the seniority in the C. H. S. We are also of the view that it is not the date of the allowing of a grade to an officer, but it is the date on which he is regularly inducted in a particular cadre. 32. In the face of the above observations, the irresistible conclusion that can be legitimately drawn is that Dr. R. M. Bali is senior to Dr. S. P. Kapoor and Dr. D. S. Chauhans seniority is rightly reflected in the Specialists Grade. Consequently the seniority list of the doctors in the Specialists grade has to be accordingly modified. 33. The question that remains to be answered is whether on the basis of the modified seniority list of Specialists, this Court should order the appointment of the officers to super-time grade II (General) and to super-time grade I (General) or not ? We are of the opinion that such a direction cannot be given since this Court shall not exercise the powers of appointing authority. 34. Faced with this situation, we are of the view that the seniority list of Specialists as circulated on 2-11-1979 is liable to be quashed and is to be modified to the aforesaid extent. Similarly, the notifications dated 3-11-1979 appointing Dr. S. P. Kapoor, Dr. K. Pandeya and Dr. R. M. Bali as Deputy Directors [Super-time Grade II (General)] and Dr. S P. Kapoor as Director of Health Services [Super-time Grade I (General)], respectively are also quashed. It is ordered that the State of Himachal Pradesh shall make appointments to these posts on the basis of the modified seniority list as determined above, in comformity with the rules. 35. The aforesaid writ petitions are accordingly finally disposed of. S P. Kapoor as Director of Health Services [Super-time Grade I (General)], respectively are also quashed. It is ordered that the State of Himachal Pradesh shall make appointments to these posts on the basis of the modified seniority list as determined above, in comformity with the rules. 35. The aforesaid writ petitions are accordingly finally disposed of. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. -