JUDGMENT Sathiadev. J. 1. All these appeals are preferred against the orders passed on 20.12.1983 in W.P.No. 773 of 1979. WA.No. 61 of 1984 is filed by respondents 4, 5 and 6 in the writ petition and W.A.No. 776 of 1984 is filed by respondents 1 and 2 W.A.No. 835 of 1984 is filed by two persons, who claim to be affected by the said judgment. 2. The crucial point involved in these appeals is, whether Rule 2(14) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules (viz. the Preliminary and the General Rules) (hereinafter referred to as General Rules) is a rule of seniority or not? The learned Judge without assigning the required reasonings had abruptly concluded that a reading of this rule suggests that the date of appointment will be the date of the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Service Commission inviting applications for recruitment, and therefore, the contention of the petitioners is acceptable. Hence, by this manner of conclusion arrived at, more than one writ appeal had come to be filed against the said order. 3. Petitioner in W.P.773 of 1979 claims as follows: He is presently working as Assistant Engineer in the Highways and Rural Works Department. He is a B.E. Graduate and joined as temporary Junior Engineer on 26.3.1971. On 22.9.1973 Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter called as commission) issued a notification inviting applications for appointment as Junior Engineer (now redesignated as Assistant Engineers) in the Tamil Nadu Public Works Department and Tamil Nadu Highways and Rural Works Department. In each department, three hundred posts were to be filled up and nearly 1200 persons had applied for appointment, and interviews were held between October and December, 1974. The final list of selected candidates to be appointed as Junior Engineer was issued by Commission's Bulletin No. 24 dated 16.11.975. He was placed No. 5 in the list for Highways and Rural Works Department. Under Rule 23(a) of the Rules, he was confirmed. The post of Junior Engineer was redesignated as Assistant Engineer by G.O.Ms. No. 294, P.W.D. dated 22.2.1977. Assistant Engineer formed the last category of Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service as ordered in G.O.Ms. No. 496, P.W.D. dated 17.2.1971. After 1971, direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers was made only by the Commission. Under Rule 23(a) of the Rules, he was confirmed. The post of Junior Engineer was redesignated as Assistant Engineer by G.O.Ms. No. 294, P.W.D. dated 22.2.1977. Assistant Engineer formed the last category of Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service as ordered in G.O.Ms. No. 496, P.W.D. dated 17.2.1971. After 1971, direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers was made only by the Commission. He is entitled to be promoted to the next category of Assistant Divisional Engineer from and out of the list of Assistant Engineers. In between 1971 and of the selection made in his batch, no other recruitment was made by direct recruitment. The Engineering personnel in the Highways Department are governed by two service Rules viz. (1) The Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service and (2) The Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Subordinate Service. Supervisors, who are diploma-holders are the first category in subordinate service as per rules, supervisors who are diploma-holders are entitled to be promoted after completing 10 year's of services. In 1971, Part-time B.E. Degree Course was introduced, and the first batch of Graduates came out in November, 1974. Some of the Diploma-holders in this Department joined the course and obtained Degrees, and they caused the second respondent to consider their case earlier while making promotions on the basis of their obtaining degree qualification. Second respondent issued G.O.Ms No. 288, P.W.D., dated 13.1978 in consultation with the commission, which lays down that the Supervisors, now known as Junior Engineers on acquiring Degree qualification, would become eligible to be appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Highways Engineering Service, and it also lays down as to how the seniority has to be fixed while making such appointment of the said Junior Engineer as Assistant Engineer with the then working Assistant Engineers in the service. It was also directed that such Junior Engineers, who have acquired Engineering Degrees and transferred to State Service, be assigned the ranks below that of the Assistant Engineers selected by the commission in that year in which Junior Engineers acquired degree qualification. Even though only after consultation with Commission, they could have been appointed, an amendment was issued based on G.O.Ms. No. 915, P & A.R. (Personnel-M) dated 9.8.1978 that the Commission need not be consulted in relation to their recruitment, appointment, promotion, transfer etc. Even though only after consultation with Commission, they could have been appointed, an amendment was issued based on G.O.Ms. No. 915, P & A.R. (Personnel-M) dated 9.8.1978 that the Commission need not be consulted in relation to their recruitment, appointment, promotion, transfer etc. It is reliably understood that the first respondent has prepared a list of Assistant Engineer to be promoted as Divisional Engineers, which includes Assistant Engineers directly recruited and recruited by transfer. He had not followed G.O.Ms. No. 228, P.W.D., dated 1.3.1978. The year of direct recruits selected will be relevant year and first respondent had taken it as 197S instead of 1973 i.e. the year in which the notification was published by the commission calling for applications. Those who have been recruited by transfer having acquired B.E.Degree only in 1974, will have to be placed below the directly recruited Assistant Engineers who got selected by virtue of the Commission's notifications dated 22.9.1973. It is by virtue of Rule 2(14), the right of petitioner having been thus secured, first respondent had failed to apply the said rule and also G.O.Ms. No. 288, P.W.D. dated 1.3.1978 correctly, and therefore, this writ petition was filed. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 have taken the stand that there was no recruitment to the category of Junior Engineers (Redesignated as Assistant Engineers) between 1971 and 1974. Petitioner was only temporarily appointed in 1971 and regularisation was confined only to temporary service, and he was not confirmed in the post, till he was selected by the Commission. Junior Engineers redesignated as Assistant Engineers have been clothed with Gazetted status from 17.2.1971. Fixation of seniority in the instant case is governed by G.O.Ms. No. 288, P.W.D. dated 1.3.1978, in that, a supervisor acquiring an Engineering Degree and getting redesignated as Assistant Engineer has to be assigned the rank below the last Junior Engineer (now redesignated as Assistant Engineer) selected by the commission in the year in which he acquired the qualification. Petitioner was selected by the commission only in 1975 based on the approved list sent by the commission as published in its Bulletin dated 16.11.1975; and in the meanwhile, the Junior Engineers having acquired the B.E. qualification in 1974 itself, were all placed below the 1972 list in directly recruited commission candidates as found in G.O.Ms. No. 288, P.W.D., dated 1.3.1978. No. 288, P.W.D., dated 1.3.1978. As for Rule 2(14) is concerned, it does not stipulate any rule of seniority and the issue of the notification by the commission cannot be treated as the year of selection. It only defines the expression "Direct recruitment" for the purpose of deciding the eligibility of candidate, who is already in service, to be admitted to direct recruitment. In Rule 2(1), "appointed to a service" having been defined, it is only when he discharges for the first time in a post borne on the cadre of such service or commences the probation, instruction of training prescribed for members thereof, a candidate could be held to have been appointed to service. Hence, Rule 2(14) cannot be relied upon for inter seniority to be fixed between those recruited direct and recruited by transfer. 5. Learned Government Pleader for the State and learned Counsel Mr. R. Thiagarajan for some of the appellants, submit that it was by a wrong understanding of the scope and ambit of Rule 2(14), and so no reasons had been given for the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge, the said rule had been erroneously held as a rule of seniority, thus the established practice in the preparation of inter-se seniority list in service, is being dislodged by such a decision. 6. Learned Counsel Mr. N.S. Sivam, appearing for the writ petitioner lays considerable emphasis on Rule 2(14) and claims that, unless it is read as a seniority rule, it would have no relevance to services rules. Having fixed a crucial date, for fixing the seniority of those recruited, direct, and being fully aware that the process of selection by commission takes a long time; it is a rule which is intended to confer a status regarding placement of candidates selected by commission with reference to the year of notification. 7. Having fixed a crucial date, for fixing the seniority of those recruited, direct, and being fully aware that the process of selection by commission takes a long time; it is a rule which is intended to confer a status regarding placement of candidates selected by commission with reference to the year of notification. 7. Rule 2(14) reads as follows: A candidate is said to be "recruited direct" to a service, class, category or post when in case his appointment thereto has to be made in consultation with the commission, on the date of its notification inviting applications for the recruitment and in any other case, at the time of his first appointment thereto, he is not in the service of the Government of India or the Government of a State: Provided that for the purpose of this definition a person shall be deemed to be not in the service of the Government of India or the Government of the State- (i) if a period of five years has not elapsed since his first appointment to a service of the Government of India or the Government of a State; or (ii) if he belongs to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes; It is one of the definitions in Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and placed in Part I, of preliminary Rules. Part II of the Rules are General Rules, and Rule 35 therein is the rule relating to fixation of seniority. If there is any special rule framed for a particular service prescribing a different method of determining seniority, then Rule 35 would have no application or would stand modified to the extent required. Rule 2 of General Rules states that if any provision in the General Rules is repugnant to a provision in the special Rules applicable to any particular service, then the latter shall prevail over the provisions of the general rules. It is straightway thus clear that a definition in a rule, cannot be treated as a substantive rule. Hence the attempt of the writ petitioner to read Rule 2(14) as a substantive rule, is not permissible. For the purpose of fixing seniority, anyone of the definitions to the extent relevant could be read into that. The claims that Rule 2(14) by itself is a substantive rule is nothing but a misreading or Rules. Hence the attempt of the writ petitioner to read Rule 2(14) as a substantive rule, is not permissible. For the purpose of fixing seniority, anyone of the definitions to the extent relevant could be read into that. The claims that Rule 2(14) by itself is a substantive rule is nothing but a misreading or Rules. Rule 2(1) defines "appointed to a service" as follows: A person is said to be "appointed to a service" when in accordance with these rules or in accordance with the rules applicable at the time, as the case may be, he discharges for the first time the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or commences the probation, instruction of training prescribed for members thereof. Explanation: The appointment of a person holding a post borne on the cadre of another service or to discharge the current duties thereof does not amount to appointment to the latter service; In so far as recruitment to service is concerned, it could be by "promotion" as found in Rule 2(13) or it could be "recruited direct" as found in Rule 2(14) or "recruited by transfer" as defined in Rule 2(15). As to what is the purpose or purport of Rule 2(14), the words used there in will have to be understood by ascribing the ordinary meaning. It starts by stating that a candidate is said to be "recruited direct" to a service, if his first appointment thereto is to be made in consultation with the commission. Petitioner to be appointed as Junior Engineer since redesignated as Assistant Engineer, had to apply to the commission, whenever a notification is issued to fill up the permanent posts. It is admitted case that it could be done only by consultation with the commission in so far as direct recruited persons are concerned. In such of those posts for which consultation with the commission is not required and when direct recruitment could be resorted to in the later part of this definition, it is stated that at the time of the first appointment to a service, he shall not be in the service of Government of India or a Government of State, subject to what are contained is the proviso, which applies to both the categories. Therefore, the first part of this rule deals with two types of appointments that could be made to a service, class, category or post viz., (1) those instances in which direct recruitment could be made only in consultation with the commission, and (2) those instances in which, without such consultation, a direct recruitment could be made. 8. As for the first type of recruitment, "on the date of its notification" inviting applications for recruitment, candidates have to satisfy requirements in the proviso to this rule. There are two aspects in the proviso; They being (1) a period of five years should not have lapsed since his first appointment to a service of Government of India or the Government of a State, or (2) he belongs to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class. This being a deeming provision, if a person already in service in Government of India or Government of a State applies for appointment by direct recruitment when applications are called for by the commission, he should not have put in more than five years of service on the date of the notification inviting applications for recruitment. It is for this purpose of computing the period of service and to find out the eligibility of those who apply for a post; this definition exists in the rules. Equally, for the first appointment made without the need to consult the commission as found in the latter part of the rules, he should not have put in more than five years of service on the date of his first appointment, as defined in Section 2(1). Hence the definition is intended to find out the eligibility of a person already in service in Government of India or Government of a State with reference to the date on which applications are called for by the commission or with reference to the date of his appointment, if done without the consultation of the commission. Hence, in essence, it is a definition relating to eligibility to apply, and not at all referable to fixation of inter-se seniority between those "recruited direct" and "recruited by transfer. 9. Hence, in essence, it is a definition relating to eligibility to apply, and not at all referable to fixation of inter-se seniority between those "recruited direct" and "recruited by transfer. 9. The contention of learned Counsel for the writ petitioner that though actually joining duty in the substantive post had taken place only after the list was issued by the commission on 16.11.1975, it must be deemed that his temporary services are to be included from the date of inviting applications for appointment, if accepted, would lead to considerable anomalies and unseemly claims. Calling for applications by commission never confers any vested right to any post. If the crucial date about entry into service is deemed to have started from such a date, inspite of being actually appointed to a service as defined under Rule 2(1) after two or three years of the said date; it would lead to a claim being made that he would be entitled to salary and emoluments from the date of notification, whether he had discharged the duties of a post or not. Entry into service could be fixed only as defined in Section 2(1) i.e. only on and from the date when he discharges for the first time the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or commences the probation, instruction of training prescribed for members thereof. Fixation of any earlier date, as if he was a member of a service for determination of seniority, is a concept un-known to Service Rules and Laws. As for clause (ii) of proviso to Rule 2(14), if a candidate is a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class and if he was in the service of Government of India or State Government, irrespective of the length of service, it must be deemed that he was not in such service and could apply to be recruited direct by the commission, in such of those posts for which consultation is necessary; and in other cases, he could be appointed in Tamil Nadu Services, and it would then be treated that he was "recruited direct", only on the date of his first appointment to the Tamil Nadu Service. Even though he might have been earlier serving in any other services for purposes of these Rules, in both instances he would be treated only as a candidate "recruited direct" from the date of his first appointment in the concerned service, to which the General Rules apply relating to seniority, Rule 35 of the General Rules apply and in relation to it, Rule 2(14) does not require to be read for fixing inter-se seniority. In such of those instances where Special Rules are framed, Rule 2(14) being a rule relating to eligibility and totally inconsistent with seniority, it does not require to be read as part of any such seniority rule. 10. Hence it has to be held, that Rule 2(14) is only a definition relating to the concept of who is re-cruited direct with reference to the rules, and not a substantive rule, and that it relates to circumstances under which a candidate is eligible to claim as "recruited direct" and that it has no relevance or applicability for ascertaining inter se seniority. It is not a rule of seniority at all. As the learned Judge had not considered this rule in the proper perspective, the Judgment under appeal is hereby set aside. 11. Though learned Counsel Mr. Thiagarajan, had referred to the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander , Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab and Palanivelu, S.P. v. Registrar. High Court of Judicature, Madras 1984 W.L.R. 578, they do not refer to this rule of a similar rule and as they deal with the aspect of when a person is considered as having been appointed to a service, they are not referred to in detail as part of this Judgment. 12. Hence, all these appeals are allowed. No costs.