JUDGMENT U. C. Srivastava and S. H. A. Raza, JJ. - In these three writ petitions, the petitioners who earlier were Junior Engineers in Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika and later on after coming into existence of Lucknow Development Authority, started working in it as Junior have prayed certain reliefs and have claimed that they belong to Lucknow Development Authority Cadre (hereinafter referred to as the L. D. A.) and are entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Writ Petition No. 1330 of 1983 has been filed by Laxmi Shanker Bajpai and 14 others praying that the order, dated 14-2-1983 passed by the L. D. A. promoting opposite parties 5 to 9 be quashed and a mandamus be issued directing opposite parties 1 to 4 to promote the petitioners to the said post of Assistant Engineer. In Writ Petition No. 3976 of 1986, similar prayer has been made for quashing provisions of Section 5-A(2) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 as amended by U. P. Act No. 19 of 1985 so far as it excludes the absorption of employees belonging to the U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service in the Development Authority and quash the order dated 23-5-1986 continued in Annexure 4. It has been further proved that a mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to give benefit of Section 5-A(2) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the petitioners as well and to consider their promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer in the L. D. A. on the basis of seniority and continuous service as Junior Engineer. Writ Petition No. 4539 has been filed by Laxmi Shanker Bajpai with the prayer that a mandamus be Issued to the respondents to prepare the seniority list of Junior Engineers of U. P. Palikas (Centralised) Service after taking into account the submissions made by them in their representation, dated 5 8-1985 and not to make any promotions on the post of Assistant Engineer on the basis of selection held on or about 17-5-1986 and to consider their case for promotion to the said post. It has been further prayed that a mandamus be issued quashing sub-rule (9) of Rule 21-A of the U. P. Palika (Centralised) Services (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 1984 and to quash the promotion order dated 23-5-1986 contained in Annexure 7 so far as the promotion of respondents Nos. 3 to 11 is concerned. 2. The petitioners to Writ Petition No. 1330 of 1983 were appointed as Junior Engineers in the service of U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service on various dates from 1967 to 1981. The Development Authority in the State of U. P. were constituted in the year 1974 under the said Act. Under Section 59(4) of the Act all the Junior Engineers working on the development side in the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow were transferred to the L. D. A. along with their posts with the stipulation that said post was continued to be filled in by the members of Palika Centralised Service. Section 2(e) of the Act defines the word (development) which reads as under : "Development with its grammatical variations, means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in any building or land, and includes re-development." Section 59 deals with repeal etc. and Savings. In view of Section 59(4) of the Act non-centralised posts connected with the development activities in Mahapalika were transferred to the development authority along with their incumbents. Section 59(9) provides for merger of the erstwhile Trust and it provides that every officer and other employees serving under an Improvement Trust shall be transferred to and shall become an officer or other employee of the Development Authority with such designations as the Authority may determine and shall hold office by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and on same terms and conditions of service as he would have held the same if the Authority had not been constituted It further seems that Section 5(2) of the Act empowered the Development Authority to appoint Additional Administrator and other staff. Section 5 of the Act reads as under : "5. Staff of the Authority. - (1) The State Government may appoint two suitable persons respectively as the Secretary and the Chief Accounts Officer of the Authority who shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed by regulations or delegated to them by the Authority or its Vice-Chairman. Staff of the Authority. - (1) The State Government may appoint two suitable persons respectively as the Secretary and the Chief Accounts Officer of the Authority who shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed by regulations or delegated to them by the Authority or its Vice-Chairman. (2) Subject to such control and restrictions as may be determined by general or special order of the State Government, the Authority may appoint such number of other officers and employees as may be necessary for efficient performance of its functions and may determine their designations and grades. (3) The Secretary, the Chief Accounts Officer and other officers and employees of the Authority shall be entitled to receive from the funds of the Authority such salaries and allowances and shall be governed by such other conditions of service as may be determined by regulations made in that behalf". Under the rules the petitioner continued to be the members of Palika Centralised Service and continued as Junior Engineers working with the Development Authority. Under the rules they were entitled for regularisation but it appears that the matter lingered on. Rule 21 of U. P. Palika Centralised (Service) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), provides as under : "21. Appointment. - (1) On the occurrence of substantive vacancies, the Government shall make appointment to the Centralised Services from the list prepared under Rule 19, and by promotion in accordance with the provisions of Rule 20 : Provided that in case where appointment made both by promotion and direct recruitment, the Government shall make appointment in such vacancies by taking candidates alternately so far as this may be possible from the two lists of promoted and directly recruited candidates. Candidates shall be taken in the order in which they stand in the list and the first candidate taken shall be from the list promoted candidates. (2) The Government may also make appointment in temporary vacancies for a period exceeding six weeks from the persons selected for promotion under Rule 20............... Provided that if no approved candidate is available for such appointment, the Government may appoint a candidate who is eligible under the rules for permanent recruitment to the Centralised Services. The appointments under this proviso shall be subject to the provisions contained in the U. P. Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1954. Provided that if no approved candidate is available for such appointment, the Government may appoint a candidate who is eligible under the rules for permanent recruitment to the Centralised Services. The appointments under this proviso shall be subject to the provisions contained in the U. P. Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1954. The said service Rules were altered by 10th Amendment 1974 The said amendment provided that any person who was directly appointed before 1-5-1983 and was continued in service and possessed requisite qualification shall be considered for appointment. Sub-rule (9) of the said amendment provides that a person appointed under Rule 21 shall be entitled to seniority from the date of order. No seniority list of Junior Engineers was prepared and the petitioner made a re presentation for fixation of his seniority from the date of his initial appointment But it appears that the representation filed by the petitioner remained pending and a seniority list was prepared. The State Government subsequently took a decision to regularise the ad hoc appointments without any reference to the Public Service Commission subject to the framing of rules for the purpose. The crucial date initially was fixed as 1-1-1977 but later on it was changed to 1-5-1983. The appointment of the petitioner was regularised only with effect from 5-5-1987. The petitioner being a member of centralised service was not promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and the persons appointed subsequent to his appointment directly as Junior Engineer or who came through Public Service Commission were promoted. Because of his exclusion the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1130 of 1983 in this court. In the year 1984 the State Government issued an ordinance dated 19-10-1984 known as the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1984 by which Section 5-A was inserted in the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Because of his exclusion the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1130 of 1983 in this court. In the year 1984 the State Government issued an ordinance dated 19-10-1984 known as the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1984 by which Section 5-A was inserted in the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Section 5-A reads as under: 5-A. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 5 or in any other law for the time being in force, the State Government may at any time, by notification, create one or more "Development Authorities Centralised Service" for such posts as the State Government may deem fit, common to all the Development Authorities, and may prescribe the manner and conditions of recruitment to, and the terms and conditions of service of persons appointed to such service ; (2) Upon creation of a Development Authorities Centralised Service, a person serving on the posts included in such service immediately before such creation, shall, unless he opts otherwise, be absorbed in such service : (a) finally, if he was already confirmed in his post, and (b) provisionally, if he was holding, temporary or officiating appointment. (3) A person referred to in sub-section (2) may, within three months from the creation of such Development Authorities Centralised Service communicate to the Government in the Housing Department, his option not to be absorbed in such Centralised Service, failing which he shall be deemed to have opted for final or provisional, as the case may be absorption in such Centralised Service." The Ordinance, as it is, did not make the position clear and it also applied to the Junior Engineers belonging to the Palika Centralised Service for absorption in it. It seems that in order to clarify the position a subsequent ordinance known as the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1985 (U. P. Act No. 10 of 1985), the Uttar Pradesh Planning and Development (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1984 (U. P. Ordinance No. 19 of 1984) was repealed and by sub-section (2) of Section 5-A which was inserted by Ordinance No. 10 of 1985 ; it was provided that only such employees who were working in the Development Authorities on the date of creation of such Development Authorities Centralised Service were to be absorbed in the Development Authorities and not those persons who governed by U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966. Section 5-A (.2) as inserted by Ordinance No. 10 of 1985 is being quoted below : "5-A. (2) Upon creation of a Development Authorities Centralised Service, a person serving on the posts included in such service immediately before such creation, not being a person governed by the U. P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966, or serving on deputation, shall, unless he opts otherwise, be-absorbed in such service - (a) finally, if he was already confirmed in his post, and (b) provisionally is he was holding temporary or officiating appointment." The above two Ordinances No. 19 of 1984 and 10 of 1985 were repealed by the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1985 (U. P. Act No. 19 of 1985). It was thereafter the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 55 of the Act read with Section 5-A of the Act framed the U. P. Development Authorities (Centralised) Service Rules, 1985. Rule 24 of the said Rules provide promotion on the next higher post on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. While Schedule IV to the said Rules provides that a Junior Engineer is entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer if he fulfils the requisite qualifications for the post of Junior Engineer and possesses 10 years, experience of the post . .. It was thereafter that Junior Engineers belonging to the U P. Development Authorities (Centralised) Service have been promoted other posts of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 23-5-1983. 3. .. It was thereafter that Junior Engineers belonging to the U P. Development Authorities (Centralised) Service have been promoted other posts of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 23-5-1983. 3. The petitioners who have challenged the vires of said Act and Rules have further stated that vide order dated 11-3-1983 Sri A. P. Singh, the then Vice-Chairman of L. D A. had appointed one A. K. Khanna Assistant Engineer of U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service on the post of Executive Engineer in the L. D. A. Similarly vide another order dated 23-3-1984 one Hari Narain Dubey who was Executive Engineer in the U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service and was working in the L. D. A. was promoted on the post of Chief Engineer in the L D. A. on the condition that he would resign from the U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service and would opt for final absorption in the service of the Lucknow Development Engineer Service. The order regarding the said Shri H. N. Dube is quite clear. He was to resign from Palika Centralised Service and was to opt for final absorption in the service of Development Authority. The order regarding A. K. Khanna is on the record. In one of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that he has been given seniority in the Development Authority from the date of absorption only. Even if there was some illegality in the appointment of the said A. K. Khanna which is not subject-matter of challenge in these petitions that could not change on effect the legal position or be precedent for any other illegal appointment. It is for the authorities concerned to rectify any mistake if the same can be done. 4. In S. S. Moghe and others v. Union of India, 1981 (3) SCC 271 , it was held that in respect of sources from which personnel to be drawn policy decision in this regard can be taken the time of initial constitution of service. 4. In S. S. Moghe and others v. Union of India, 1981 (3) SCC 271 , it was held that in respect of sources from which personnel to be drawn policy decision in this regard can be taken the time of initial constitution of service. It was further observed in the said case that appointment made in a post on temporary and ad hoc basis without conferring any right to be permanently absorbed in the post if and will made permanent and there being no exclusive order or instruction declaring the post as feeder category for appointment to higher post existing, then in these circumstances appointees have no legal right to claim for being appointed to by promotion to higher post. Thus when the development authority came into existence, it was within the competence of the State Government to provide for initial appointment. Those who were working in U. P. Palika Centralised Service on the development side stood transferred to the development authority and it was open to the development authority to make fresh appointments which it did even before framing of rules. The appointments so made were within its competence and were in no way against law including any rule in this behalf. No assurance was given to the transferred employees in any manner. Promotions to the post of Assistant Engineers were made by the development authority through the agency of Public Service Commission. The State Government took a decision to regularise ad hoc appointments and the crucial date was fixed as 1-1-1977 but later on changed to 1-5-1983. but the petitioner was confirmed in U, P. Paliva Centralised Service along with few others with effect from -5-1987 and not even with effect from 1-5-1983. No explanation for the same including retention of petitioner as Junior Engineer in Development Authority where he was posted under compulsion and promotion of his juniors in Palikas, has been given. 5. but the petitioner was confirmed in U, P. Paliva Centralised Service along with few others with effect from -5-1987 and not even with effect from 1-5-1983. No explanation for the same including retention of petitioner as Junior Engineer in Development Authority where he was posted under compulsion and promotion of his juniors in Palikas, has been given. 5. The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1984 by which Section 5-A was added undoubtedly left some anomaly and it seems that for removing the same the said Ordinance was repealed by another Ordinance No. 10 of 1985 and Section 5-A (2) was inserted which made it clear that those who were working in the development authority on the date of creation of development authorities, centralised service alone will be absorbed and not those who were governed by U. P. Palika Centralised Service. These two Ordinances were repealed by Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1985 and the State Government framed U. P. Development Authorities (Centralised) Service Rules, 1985. 6. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that Section 5-A (2) of the said Act is ultra vires and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the Palika Centralised Service, the employees transferred to the development authorities by operation of law, the two categories existed, one who were working on development side and those who were not working on development side, the development authority being concerned with the development work which has been defined in the Act itself clearly provided those who were working on development side will be absorbed those who were working on nondevelopment side will not be absorbed Section 5(2) of the Act empowered the development authority to appoint additional staff and it provides that subject to the control restrictions as may be determined, it may make such other number of appointments as may be necessary. 7. The two classification mentioned above cannot be said to be unreasonable or without any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by Section 5-A(2) of the Act. Thus the plea raised by the learned counsel fails. 8. 7. The two classification mentioned above cannot be said to be unreasonable or without any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by Section 5-A(2) of the Act. Thus the plea raised by the learned counsel fails. 8. As the opposite parties were employees of the development authority and as such they were promoted to the higher post and the petitioners has not right or claim over the said post of Assistant Engineer as till then they did not belong to the development authority nor were absorbed as such. 9. The petitioner belongs to the U. P. Palika Centralised Service and he has regularised with effect from the year 1987 although he was to be regularised from the year 1983. The petitioner has also prayed in Writ Petition No. 4539 of 1986 for quashing sub-rule (9) of Rule 21-A of the U. P. Palika 21-A of U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1984. The said Rule 21-A of U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules reads as under: "21-A. (1) Any person who - (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before May 1, 1983 and is continuing in service, as such on the date of commencement of these rules ; (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed under Rule 12 for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment; and (iii) has completed or as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous service, shall be considered for appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his service record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the provisions contained in these Rules." (2) In making regular appointment under these rules reservation for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward classes and other categories, shall be made in accordance with the orders of the Government in force at the time of recruitment. (3) For the purpose of sub-rule (1), Government shall constitute a selection committee and consultation with the commission shall not be necessary. (3) For the purpose of sub-rule (1), Government shall constitute a selection committee and consultation with the commission shall not be necessary. (4) The Director of Local Bodies shall prepare an eligibility list of the candidates, arranged in order of seniority as determined from the date of order of their ad hoc appointment and if two or more persons are appointed together, from the order in which their names are arranged in the said appointment order, the list shall be placed before the Selection Committee along with their character rolls and such other service records pertaining to them, as may be considered necessary to judge these suitability. (5) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of the candidates on on the basis of their records referred to in sub-rule (4). (6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates, the names in the list being arranged in order of Seniority, and forward it to the Government and the Director of Local Bodies. (7) The Government or the Director of Local Bodies shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of this rule and sub-rule (l)of Rule 6, make appointments from the list prepared under Rule (6) of these rules in order in which their names stand in the list. (8) Appointment made under sub-rule (7) shall be deemed to be made relevant provision contained in Rule 21. (9) A person appointed under this rule shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of order of appointment after selection in accordance with this rule and shall, in all cases, be placed below the persons appointed in accordance with the procedure for direct recruitment contained in Part V of these Rules prior to the appointment of such persons under this rule." Thus sub-rule (9) of the amended Rule 21-A of the said Rules has been challenged mainly on the ground that the promotions are being made without any seniority list which is illegal and as such the promotions so made of the persons are illegal and that the regularisation of the petitioner could not be done by the Public Service Commission in absence of character rolls and because he if not aware of the result of his representation for regularisation. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that promotion order has been passed without preparing seniority list of the Junior Engineers and those persons have been promoted why were appointed through Public Service Commission. The petitioner represented in this behalf to the Director, Local Bodies but no reply was given to him. It has been motioned that one Devendra Bahadur who joined as Junior Engineer on 29-11-1967 in pursuance of appointment letter dated 16-11-1967 has been promoted though the petitioner is senior to him and similarly several other juniors been promoted. It has also been stated that 113 names were to be considered for regularisation but only six cases were disposed of and 107 cases still remain to be considered for regularisation due to non-availability of character rolls and the petitioner is not aware as to what happened in his matter. 10. Under the amended Rule 21-A the appointments against substantive vacancies are to be made from the list prepared in accordance with Rule 20. Rule 19 provides for the approved list prepared by the Commission under Rule 17. 11. These facts as stated by the petitioner have not been disputed. Rule 8 of the said rules provide the source of recruitment, absorption and promotion and the same reads as under: "8. (1) Recruitment to the various categories of post in the service shall be made from the following sources namely : (1) the post mentioned in Schedule I shall be filled in by promotion from the post specified against each, in the manner laid down in Rule 21 ; (2) the posts mentioned in Schedule II shall be filled in by direct recruitment in the manner laid down in Rule 19. (3) the posts mentioned in Schedule III shall be filled in equally from the sources specified in sub rules (1) and (2) and in the manner mentioned in the said sub-rules so however that the odd post, if any, shall be filled in by promotion ; (4) ..................... 12. The opposite parties instead of proceeding in accordance with the relevant rules have promoted Junior Engineers who were directly appointed through the agency of Public Service Commission and have ignored those who were working on ad hoc basis from a particular date. 12. The opposite parties instead of proceeding in accordance with the relevant rules have promoted Junior Engineers who were directly appointed through the agency of Public Service Commission and have ignored those who were working on ad hoc basis from a particular date. If all the posts were to be filled in by promotion, then obviously both sources were to be seen and promotions could not have been made without preparing seniority list The petitioner who belongs as Palika Centralised Service by operation of law was sent to the Development Authority and it was not a voluntary act. He being still member of that service, had been working in the development authority and belongs to the U. P. Palika Centralised service. As such the opposite part.es were bound to consider his case. He could not have been passed over in the matter of promo-motion. He had a prior right and claim over the promotional post as against his juniors. If he would have been promoted in his service and it was intended to retain him in Development Authority, he could have claimed the very status in the development authority The appointments could have been made only after preparing seniority list as provided in the rules and without preparing seniority lists the appointments could not have been made. 13. The opposite parties have promoted juniors who were appointed through the agency of Public Service Commission and ignored those who were working on ad hoc basis from a particular date or those who were confirmed or compulsorily sent on deputation. If all posts are to be filled by promotion, then its sources are to be seen and the promotions could not be made without preparing a seniority list. The petitioner who belonged to Palika Centralised Service and was confirmed did not go to development authority voluntarily. If the petitioner is sent back from deputation to his parent department, obviously he cannot be deprived of his seniority. In State of Mysore v. M. H. Bellary, AIR 1965 SC 868 , it was observed i "The seniority of an officer on deputation in another department is treated by the rule as equivalent to service in the parent department and it is this equation between the services in the two departments that forms the basis of Rule 50,b). In State of Mysore v. M. H. Bellary, AIR 1965 SC 868 , it was observed i "The seniority of an officer on deputation in another department is treated by the rule as equivalent to service in the parent department and it is this equation between the services in the two departments that forms the basis of Rule 50,b). So long therefore as the service of the employee in the new department is satisfactory and he is obtaining the increments and promotions in that department, it stands to reason that satisfactory service and the manner of its discharge in the post, he actually fills, should be deemed to be rendered in the parent department also so as to entitle him to promotions, which are often on seniority-cum-merit basis. What is indicated here is precisely what is termed in official language the 'next below rule' under which an officer on deputation is given a paper-promotion and shown as holding a higher post in the parent department if the officer next below him there is being promoted." In R. L. Gupta v. Union of India, 1988(2) SCC 250 , it was observed: "Merely because the officer concerned has given his consent to go on deputation at his own risk he should not be allowed to suffer unless there is a specific rule to the contrary or other good reason for it. There is no reason why a deputationist should not be treated as being on probation also in the post field by him in the parent department even while he is on deputation." In that case the question of probation was refused and it was further observed that the petitioner should have been placed on probation on 22-11-1985 even though he was on deputation on that date and on his confirmation he is entitled to maintain his seniority, and that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been on probation from 22-11-1985 and his services shall be regulated accordingly. 14. In the instant case, the petitioner being on deputation, obviously if any person junior to him has been given promotion, the petitioner will also be entitled to get promotion from that date - above him and he cannot be passed over. 15. In view of what has been stated above. Writ Petition No. 1330 of 1983 is dismissed. 14. In the instant case, the petitioner being on deputation, obviously if any person junior to him has been given promotion, the petitioner will also be entitled to get promotion from that date - above him and he cannot be passed over. 15. In view of what has been stated above. Writ Petition No. 1330 of 1983 is dismissed. Writ Petition No. 3976 of 1986 is allowed to the extent that in case the petitioner gets promotion in the Palika Centralised Service on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from a particular date and he is retained in the Development Authority, obviously his status from that date as Assistant Engineer will be given in the Development Authority, Writ Petition N. 4539 of 1996 is allowed in part. The opposite parties are directed to prepare a seniority list, and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. After preparing seniority list, they will make promotions or appointments. In case the petitioner who has already been confirmed in the Palika Centralised Service, he will be given his due place in the seniority list and promotion by virtue of same as if he was not sent to the Development Authority. The seniority list will be prepared and appointments will be made in accordance with seniority list and the observations made in the judgment, within a period of three months. In case same will not be done within the said period, the appointments of various opposite parties belonging to the Palika Centralised Service who have been so promoted, shall be deemed to have been quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs.