JUDGMENT B.L. Loomba, J. - The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity of .the orders passed by the U. P. State Electricity Board in granting exemption in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 18 from appearing at the prescribed competitive examination for selection to the post of Lower Division Assistants and for allowing the representations of Respondents 3 to 18 and granting seniority to these respondents as against the petitioners. 2. The undisputed factual position appears like this. The U. P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board) framed U. P. State Electricity Board Headquarters Ministerial Staff Service Regulations, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as `the Regulations') to contain provisions relating to recruitment and conditions of service of the ministerial staff at the headquarters of the Board. As is provided under Regulation 15, selection for recruitment to the posts of Upper Division Assistants, Lower Division Assistants and Stenographers is made on the basis of competitive examination held both for the departmental candidates as also for eligible candidates from the open market. The candidates who stand highest in order of merit are allocated against the posts of Upper Division Assistants while the rest against the lower Division Assistants. Respondents 3 to 18 were appointed as Lower Division Assistants in the administrative wing of the Board's headquarters office in September, 1970 without taking competitive examination as provided in the Regulations. The orders of appointment as regards Respondents 9 to 18 was in the terms contained in the office memorandum, dated September 26, 1970 Annexure 1. It was clearly mentioned therein that the appointment will be purely temporary and liable to termination without notice, it was also added that for regular absorption in the Board's service the appointee will also have to appear in the competitive examination as and when held for recruitment for the post of L. D. A. according to the Board's Regulations. In the orders of appointment issued in favour of Respondents 3 to 8, however, this condition about appearance at the competitive examination for purpose of regular absorption was not contained. A combined competitive examination for 12 vacancies of U.D.A. and 15 L. D. A, was held in June, 1972. The petitioners as also Respondents 3 to 18 appeared in the examination. While the petitioners were selected, the* respondents failed to qualify. A combined competitive examination for 12 vacancies of U.D.A. and 15 L. D. A, was held in June, 1972. The petitioners as also Respondents 3 to 18 appeared in the examination. While the petitioners were selected, the* respondents failed to qualify. Despite their failure to qualify at the competitive examination the respondents were retained in the service of the Board by order, dated May 5, 1973, Annexure 2, which provided that taking a compassionate view such persons were retained in Service as temporary and unapproved L. D. As. on the same terms and conditions as before. It was, however, added that their services will be liable to be terminated in case they failed to qualify in the regular selection at the next competitive examination. In other words, one more opportunity to qualify at the next competitive examination was afforded to the respondents. 3. It appears that on the pleadings and pressure exercised by, or on behalf of, respondents the Board issued another order, dated July 10, 1973. Annexure 3 to grant exemption to the respondents from appearing at the prescribed competitive examination. A condition was, however imposed that they shall be required to pass a test in type-writing showing a speed of at least 25 words per minute in English and 20 words per minute in Hindi. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that this condition of successful appearance at the typing test was also not enforced and the correctness of this statement could not be controverted on behalf of the respondents. This exemption was granted by the Board in exercise of its powers under Regulation 46(2) of the aforesaid 1969 Regulations. With this exemption and by not enforcing the condition of passing the type-writing test, the respondents appointment as L. D. As. came to be treated as regular. 4. The question then was about the seniority of the respondents as against the petitioner who joined in 1972 on the basis of competitive examination as per the Regulations. The respondent's first representation for claim of seniority was rejected by the Board as per the order, dated August 11, 1976, Annexure 4. However, the matter appears to have been pressed further and upon reconsideration, the Board in supersession of its earlier order dated August 11, 19. 6 accepted the representation of the respondents to fix their seniority over and above the approved L.D. As. of 1972. However, the matter appears to have been pressed further and upon reconsideration, the Board in supersession of its earlier order dated August 11, 19. 6 accepted the representation of the respondents to fix their seniority over and above the approved L.D. As. of 1972. Petitioners being aggrieved by this order of seniority to the respondents, dated January 30, 1978 Annexure 5, have filed this writ petition. 5. The main ground of challenge are that the respondents initial appointment was not regular and according to law and upon their failure to qualify at the competitive examination their services ought to have been terminated their retention on compassionate grounds could not validate their appointments ab initio. Secondly, that the exemption granted by means of order, dated July 10, contained in Annexure 3 could, at best, make the appointments regular with effect from that date and in any case, this order could not take retrospective effect. Thirdly the seniority has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Regulations and the respondents could not be made senior to the petitioners who were appointed on regular basis in the year 1972 and the orders of the Board are violative of the provisions of the Regulations and also of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The stand taken by the respondents, as also by the Board, is that it was within the powers of the Board to have granted exemption under Regulation 46(2) of the said Regulations and once the exemption was granted by the Board under this provision, the appointments of the respondents from the very beginning became regular and need to be treated as such. It is also submitted that the respondents could not be denied the benefit of seniority from the date of continuous officiating when the initial appointment though not made according to the Regulations was regularised in exercise of the provisions of Regulation 46(2). 6. Focal point of controversy is as to the scope and extent of the powers of the Board under Regulation 46 of the said Regulations. This Regulation contains a `Savings provision' and is in the following terms: "46. Savings. 6. Focal point of controversy is as to the scope and extent of the powers of the Board under Regulation 46 of the said Regulations. This Regulation contains a `Savings provision' and is in the following terms: "46. Savings. - (1) Nothing in these regulations shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the Board to deal with the case of any person appointed by the Board and governed by these regulations in such manner as may appear just and equitable ; Provided that the case of such a person shall not be dealt with in a manner less favourable to him than that provided in these Regulations. (2) When, in the opinion of the Member Administration, it appears necessary to do so, he may, with the approval of the Chairman order any recruitment or make any appointment to the Service otherwise than in accordance with these regulations, and in the case of any such recruitment or appointment which is not in strict accordance with these regulations, the recruitment or appointment shall be deemed to have been made in relaxation of these regulations." Clause (2) of this regulation is directly relevant because it is under this provision that any recruitment or appointment to the service can be made otherwise than in accordance with these Regulations. The power under this provision can be exercised by the Member Administration with the approval of the Chairman on his forming an opinion that it appears necessary to order any recruitment or make any appointment otherwise than in accordance with Regulations. Under clause (1) of this Regulation power has been reserved in the Board to deal with the case of any person appointed by the Board and governed by these Rules in such manner as may appear just and equitable. The guideline and the basis of exercise of power under clause (1) is that a particular case may be dealt with not strictly in accordance with the Regulations in order to secure the ends of justice and equity. However, the provision contained in clause (2) does not expressly lay down any guidelines for exercising powers by the Members Administration. The only basis as laid down in this clause is that if the Member Administration forms opinion that any recruitment's or appointment is necessary, he may order such recruitment or appointment. However, the provision contained in clause (2) does not expressly lay down any guidelines for exercising powers by the Members Administration. The only basis as laid down in this clause is that if the Member Administration forms opinion that any recruitment's or appointment is necessary, he may order such recruitment or appointment. If it is considered necessary in a particular case to make recruitment or appointment otherwise than in accordance with these Regulation, the Member Administration may do so with the approval of the Chairman. Even in the absence of any express guidelines for exercise of powers under this clause, this has necessarily to be done only when justified to meet a particular situation or urgent nature or emergency and in the interest of the Board. The power cannot, in any way, be exercised in an arbitrary manner and with a view only to secure advantage or benefit to a person or class of persons. This provision is ex facie one of over-riding nature required to be invoked to meet an abnormal situation and it would not be open to the Member Administration with the approval of the Chairman to order any recruitment to be made otherwise than in accordance with these Regulations unless the need for making such order on the face of it appears justified to meet any abnormal situation and in the interest of the Board. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Board submits that this power is exercised by a high functionary of the Board and there is further check upon the power of the Member Administration that he has to obtain approval of the Chairman before making an order under this provision and that by itself should be considered sufficient to raise a presumption that orders would be passed by the Board to meet an abnormal situation and in the interest of the Board. True, that this power can be invoked to pass orders by the Member Administration only with the approval of the Chairman and normally speaking approval shall be accorded by the Chairman only after being satisfied that it is so necessary to do so. However, it is necessary to make out in every case of exercise of this power that, prima facie, it satisfies the condition of real necessity in the interest of the Board. 8. However, it is necessary to make out in every case of exercise of this power that, prima facie, it satisfies the condition of real necessity in the interest of the Board. 8. Another reason canvassed is that since the services of the respondents could not be terminated so exemption had to be granted in their favour. This plea is devoid of merit because the appointments of the respondents were conditional on their qualifying at the next competitive test and on their failure to so qualify, they could be terminated. In any case, this could not be a valid ground for passing order under Regulation 46(2). We are, accordingly, of the view that Regulation 46(2) is not meant to by-pass the procedural requirements of making recruitment through competitive examination except in exceptional or abnormal cases where recruitment/appointment is required to be urgently made in the interest of the Board. To hold it otherwise is to defeat the very object of selecting the most meritorious through competitive examination. 9. Coming to the facts of the present case, the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Board requires to be seen. No where in this counter-affidavit the reasons for involving this provision have been given out. Only thing mentioned in paragraph 12 thereof is that the order under Regulation 46(2) was issued considering the practical aspect of the matter. The point is not elaborated further. Learned counsel for the Board in his oral submission stated only this much that since the respondents had been appointed in the year 1970 in a temporary capacity and had been working to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities it was considered expedient and proper to accord exemption by order, dated July 10, 1973 contained in Annexure 3. This explanation hardly satisfied the requirement underlying the exercise of powers under the said provisions which, as stated above, is meant to be invoked only to meet an abnormal situation when some recruitment/appointment is to be made without following the normal procedure of recruitment urgently in the interest of the Board. 10. In this view of the matter, the order of the Board, dated July 10, 1973 contained in Annexure 3 cannot be said to have, strictly speaking, been issued in proper exercise of the powers and as such the very appointment of the respondents cannot be said to have been made according to law. 10. In this view of the matter, the order of the Board, dated July 10, 1973 contained in Annexure 3 cannot be said to have, strictly speaking, been issued in proper exercise of the powers and as such the very appointment of the respondents cannot be said to have been made according to law. However, we do not propose to quash their appointments because the respondents have continued in the service of the Board for a long period. Moreover, this writ petition is confined essentially to the matter of seniority between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 18. 11. The other limb of the petitioners case is that the impugned order, dated July 10, 1973, Annexure 3, could not have a retrospective effect and was, in fact, not passed retrospectively. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners merits acceptance for more than one reason. Regulation 46(2) as mentioned already contemplates issue of order in respect of any recruitment or appointment otherwise than in accordance with the Regulations before the recruitment/appointment is made. In the present case, no such order was issued before the respondents were appointed. On the other hand, their appointment was made purely in temporary capacity and was liable to termination without notice. In most cases in the order of appointment it was mentioned that for regular absorption the appointees shall have to appear at the competitive examination to be held in accordance with the Regulations. In some cases this condition was, no doubt, not specified in the order of appointment; nevertheless this condition was enforced because, admittedly, all the respondents were required to appear at the competitive examination and they did appear though failed to qualify. Accordingly, the initial appointment of the respondents was not made under Regulation 46(2) and unless the appointments was regularised subsequently, the legal infirmity attached to these appointments continued. It is only on July 10, 1973 that exemption from appearing at the prescribed competitive examination was granted in favour of the respondents and it is only from that date that the legal infirmity can, at best be said to have been waived or cured. As such, the exemption granted under the impugned order, dated July 10, 1973 could take effect only from the dale of the order and not from any earlier date. As such, the exemption granted under the impugned order, dated July 10, 1973 could take effect only from the dale of the order and not from any earlier date. Secondly, the impugned order itself did not mention that the initial appointment of the respondents was to be taken to have been made under Regulation 46(2). On the other band, this exemption contained in writing the condition that the person in whose favour the exemption was granted shall have to pass a typing test. In this view of the matter the exemption granted under the impugned order could not and did not give retrospective effect. The respondents appointment thus could be treated to be regular only with effect from the date of the impugned order, that is from July 10, 1973. 13. In Shitla Prasad Shukla v. Stale of U.P., 1984 U.P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases 461, the question involved was of inter se seniority of teacher. The petitioner when initially appointed did not fulfil the minimum prescribed qualifications. Subsequently, he was granted exemption under 16-E(1) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. In was held that for computing the seniority in the Lecturer's grade, the relevant date would be the date on which e (emotion from prescribed minimum qualifications was granted. The argument that the exemption even if granted after the appointment must, necessarily, relate back to the date of either making of the application for exemption of the dale of appointment was repelled. It was observed that no appointment can be validly made unless the teacher possesses prescribed minimum qualifications or has been exempted under Section 16-E(l) of the Act. The petitioners appointment was held to be valid only from the date on which exemption was really granted. This decision goes to support the view adopted by us. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents then claimed seniority of the respondents on the basis of continues officiation followed by regular appointment upon exemption having been granted under Regulation 46(2) of the said Regulations. We are afraid this submission cannot be accepted. It is now an accepted canon of service jurisprudence that seniority of a person appointed must be reckoned from the date he becomes member of the service. An ad hoc or fortuitous appointment cannot be taken into account for purposes of seniority. We are afraid this submission cannot be accepted. It is now an accepted canon of service jurisprudence that seniority of a person appointed must be reckoned from the date he becomes member of the service. An ad hoc or fortuitous appointment cannot be taken into account for purposes of seniority. See State of Gujarat v. C.G. Desai, AIR 1974 SC 246 and Ashok Gulathi v. B S. Jain, AIR 1987 SC 424 in D.D. Agarwal v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1987 SC 1976, it was held that the period of service rendered by the ad hoc appointees before their service was duly recognised in accordance with the regularisation rules cannot be taken into account in reckoning their seniority in service. Their seniority in service will be counted only from the date when such appointees after regularisation in accordance with concerned rules have become members of the service. 15. In the present case, the very appointment of the respondents and their continuance in service was not according to the provisions of the Regulations referred to above. As such, their appointment and continuance was not valid. Their appointment to the service became valid only from the date on which exemption under Regulation 46(2) was granted, that is, with effect from July 10, 1973. Accordingly, they were not entitled to the benefit of seniority from any date prior to July 10, 1973. The petitioners as also the respondents, admittedly, appeared at the competitive examination' wherein the respondents failed to qualify. After having been granted exemption under Regulation 46(2), they cannot by any justifiable manner claim seniority over those with whom they appeared at the competitive examination and did not qualify. 16. In whatever way the matter is looked into, the order granting seniority in favour of the respondents over the petitioners cannot be justified as reasonably proper and in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations. Relevant provision relating to seniority is contained in Regulation 36. Seniority under this provision is determined according to the date of the order of appointment in the substantive vacancy. The order of such appointment of the respondents would be July 10, 1973, while the petitioners were appointed in 1972. 17. The writ petition as such merits to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed and it is held that the petitioners shall rank senior to respondents 3 to 18 in the cadre of Lower Division Assistants. The order of such appointment of the respondents would be July 10, 1973, while the petitioners were appointed in 1972. 17. The writ petition as such merits to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed and it is held that the petitioners shall rank senior to respondents 3 to 18 in the cadre of Lower Division Assistants. The impugned orders granting confirmations and seniority in favour of respondents prior to, and over the petitioners, contained in Annexures 5, 6 and 7 are quashed. Parties shall bear their own costs.