JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Seniority, the perennial irritant, amongst services comprising of directs and promotees, has been journeying through higher courts every now and then ; the most frequent visitor being the engineering services of the country - Central or State. But no single service of any State has to its credit like engineering service of U. P. Public Works Department, at least three Supreme Court decisions and span of decades with finality of seniority list of Assistant Engineers, the basic cadre of the service, still under-challenge. Although much of the distance was covered in between Bhuleshwar Das v. State, AIR 1981 SC 42 and P. D. Agarwal v. State, 1987 SC 1646 : 1987 UPLBEC 624 (SC) yet fresh route of attack was attempted to be carved out by those Assistant Engineers who were appointed, initially, as ad hoc but selected latter by Public Service Commission, primarily, for violation of quota prescribed for the two sources of recruitment, namely, those selected from Commission and described as 'D' and others promoted from subordinate service 'P' or appointed temporarily as ad hoc etc. and failure to rotate them in accordance with law. Even 'D' were not spared and grievance was made for assigning seniority not on merit but working or date of joining. 2. Even though submissions were long wielded and vast expanse was attempted to be covered, but the legal issued raised against 'P' and 'D', or own batch, can be reduced to as to whether the principle of relating back 'P' to the year of vacancy for which the Commission approved them could be a rationale or legal jugglery be made applicable to direct selectees. And whether the merit placement by Commission, adhered normally by the department and departed exceptionally, could be disturbed in favour of those who were working from before as ad hoc either on equity and fairness that in serving the department they lost their energy and strength as compared to freshers but gained in efficiency and experience or because their date of entering into service was prior to those selected with them or they were entitled at least to benefit of working from the date they were selected as against those who joined latter after medical etc. To put it factually could the petitioners, who were appointed as ad hoc Assistant Engineers in 1972 and 1976 but were selected by Public Service Commission in competitive examination held in 1978, claim that their seniority should be reckoned over promotees working as such, from 1970 onwards but approved by Commission in 1980 by applying the principle of relate back and allotting the year for which approval should be deemed to have been granted. In nutshell the claim against 'P' was that either reckon seniority of both 'D' and 'P' from the date one was appointed and other approved or ignore ad hoc of both. And if one is related back to year of vacancy then apply the .same yardstick. For batch mate the basic premise was founded on date of announcement of selection in September, 1978 and their actual working from before whereas joining of freshers from 1979. 3. Relating back to the year of vacancy is a concept in service law associated with promotees as they are promoted temporary, officiating or ad hoc subject to approval by the departmental selection committee or the Commission as the case may be, and once they are approved which may take time for various reasons it is related back to avoid any prejudice in a service where recruitment is from two sources direct and by promotion. For instance an officer is promoted in 1970 but his papers for approval are placed before Commission due to procedural delay or other reason in 1980 or the departmental selection committee does not meet till 1980 and he is approved in that year when truly speaking his papers should have been placed before the appropriate authority in same year and the approval should have been granted or refused in that very year. How to bridge this gap ? Not by ignoring the service rendered but by being just and fair as that injustice may not take place to those who may suffer not for any fault of their but because of procedural delay either in the department or the authority empowered to grant approval. That is why the principle of relating back promotees to the year of vacancy has received approval of courts. In effect by fiction it is deemed that the officer stood approved on the date it was due. That is, from the date vacancy arose and the officer was found suitable. That is why the principle of relating back promotees to the year of vacancy has received approval of courts. In effect by fiction it is deemed that the officer stood approved on the date it was due. That is, from the date vacancy arose and the officer was found suitable. Otherwise a direct appointee who enters into service much latter may become senior over a promotee who was appointed much earlier and was fit to be approved. In G. P. Dovel v. State, AIR 1984 SC 1547, it was held that if a rule for determining seniority provided continuous officiation or date of first appointment followed by confirmation, then once confirmation is made and the service till then is uninterrupted it relates back to the date of the order of first appointment. In Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee v. R. K. Kashyap, AIR 1989 SC 278 , even ad hoc appointment made after considering eligible candidates resulting in regularisation was held to be within length of service for determining seniority. Concept of including period of continuous officiation based on rule, and in absence of rule on general principle proceeds on fairness of including the period during which the officer served without any flaw and reckon him senior over those who came in service latter. 4. Can this principle apply to 'D' that is those who are selected by Public Service Commission ? Direct Selection is normally held for existing or future vacancy. The existing vacancy for which selection is held may be coming down from before. But that cannot entitle an appointee or selectee to claim that he should be deemed to have been selected to such vacancy and to have entered into service by extension of fiction to the year when vacancy arose. How many vacancies out of the existing or likely to arise were to be filled in a particular year, is in discretion of Government. No one can claim that since vacancies were existing it shall be deemed that examination was held for those vacancies. Advertisements issued themselves cut across the argument as the normal language used is "Vacancy may increase or decrease." Competitions for the posts advertised are usually open to one and all satisfying the eligibility criteria. Selection and appointment results into entry of service. It cannot be taken back to any date prior to to it. Advertisements issued themselves cut across the argument as the normal language used is "Vacancy may increase or decrease." Competitions for the posts advertised are usually open to one and all satisfying the eligibility criteria. Selection and appointment results into entry of service. It cannot be taken back to any date prior to to it. Relate back in case of such appointees if confined after confirmation or even otherwise to the date when officer was placed on probation. But by no rationale it can be stretched to the date from which vacancy was existing. 5. Misgiving appears to have arisen due to erroneous understanding of observations in some of earlier decisions of Supreme Court. But a close analysis of these decisions unmistakenly demonstrates the hollowness of claim. And even if some assistance could be derived it stands watered down in latter decisions Reckoning of seniority from date of confirmation or appointment against substantive vacancy succumbed under pressure of justice and fairness to length of service including the period served as temporary or even ad hoc. And distinction between temporary and permanent in a cadre was obliterated for determining seniority. In sixtees and early seventees, some decisions rendered on own facts invited some observation by the Hon'ble Court but in view of clear and explicit laying down of law in eightees particularly in A. Janardan v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 769 and its reiteration thereafter in decision after decision left no doubt about legal position. For instance, ratio in Merjn Cenlino v. Union, AIR 1967 SC 53, wherein the Hon'ble Court while repelling contention of promotees that the expression 'is filled' should be construed to mean till actually appointed otherwise it shall be violative of Article 16 observed that the circular in providing that directs shall be placed above promotees resulting in placing directs who entered into service latter over promotees was not violative of any constitutional guarantee and vice if any arose because recruitment were not made for many years. The Kon'ble Court in fact was being just to directs as due to non-selection the promotees had been appointed much in excess of their quota Similarly the decision in Govind Dattarey v. Chief Controller of Imports and Export., AIR 1967 SC 839 where directs recruited latter were adjusted against their quota which was in occupation of promotees pending selection, rendered on facts of own case, even if assumed as laying down principles which can be stretched in favour of directs have lost much of their strength due to definite shift in subsequent decisions revolving round length of service temporary or permanent as determinative of seniority. Even B. S. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 2627 where inter se seniority amongst officers could be determined on dates other than the date of appointment was held in S. B. Patvardhan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 2051 to be understood in the context it was made. Moreover, the principle for determining seniority under Rule 23 of the U. P. Rules having been finally adjudicated upon in P.D. Agarwal v. State, 1687 SC 197o : 1987 UPLBEC 624 (SC) to be length of service to be reckoned from the date of appointment substantively either against temporary or permanent vacancy the opposite parties could not have deviated from it. In this question was raised but no specific answer was given. But the 'D' then appointed in 1962 were given seniority from 1960 which gave an occasion for petitioners to claim that they were entitled for fixation of their seniority from the date the vacancy arose. This would, it was urged, result in uniform application of seniority to 'D' and 'P'. But whatever might have been trend till sixtees and early seventees there was a clear departure from late seventees when S. P. Patvardhan distinguished V. B. Badami and emphasised importance of continuous officiation and length of service for determining seniority. And there was no deviation or modification of it rather it became more clear and pronounced in years to come (Baleshwar Das, 1981 SC 62 ; R.D. Agrawal, 1987 SC 1676 : 1987 UPLBEC 24 (SC) Delhi W. S. and S. Disposal Committee. 1987 SC 272. And there was no deviation or modification of it rather it became more clear and pronounced in years to come (Baleshwar Das, 1981 SC 62 ; R.D. Agrawal, 1987 SC 1676 : 1987 UPLBEC 24 (SC) Delhi W. S. and S. Disposal Committee. 1987 SC 272. Another significant development was growth of equality doctrine in relation to seniority between 'D' and 'P' Injustice generated by reckoning those seniors who were not even born in service before one who was promoted, may be few or many years before resulted in courts extending Article 14 to seniority. The first impact of it was felt when in A. Janardan v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 769 the Hon' ble Court while determining seniority of M. E. S. prepared on and earlier constitutional bench decision in Bachha Singh v. State, AIR 1973 SC 441 , held that any rule of seniority has to satisfy the test of equality of opportunity enshrined in Articles 14 and 16. The principle of relating back 'D' or keeping vacancies reserved for future incumbents was found to be violative of Article 14. It was observed by Hon'ble Court that time had come to recasts service jurisprudence as extremely undesirable and unjust situation was prevailing due to precedents "mainly person already rendering service as promotee had to go down below or person who comer, into service decades after the promottee enters the service and who may be school ton if not in embroyo'. The injustice thus highlighted in Janardon's case (supra) went on gaining strength in decision after decision in O. P. Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1595 ; P. Doval v. State, AIR 1984 1527 and P. S. Mahal v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1291 . Whatever doubt remained was dispelled in G. S. Lamba v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1019 where specific plea of Union that vacancies allotted to each source were being carried forward for years and that when carried forward vacancies were filled the recruits were given deemed date for seniority relatable to the coming into existence of the vacancy for that source did not come to rescue of directs as it would have been gravely unjust and unequitable to promotees. It was reiterated in P. K. Goswami v. State, AIR 1985 SC 1605 . It was reiterated in P. K. Goswami v. State, AIR 1985 SC 1605 . In view of these pronouncements and developments of law it is very difficult to accept that principle of relating back to the date of existence of vacancy can be the basis for allocation of 'D' in seniority list. 6. Nor can the period served as ad hoc be included against own batch mates for determining seniority as it may be violative of Article 14 against persons similarly situated, namely, all those who were selected alongwith such persons in similar examination on same eligibility criteria but belonging to another department or even freshers. In A.I.R. 1984 SC (sic) it was held that merit placement should not be disturbed. Moreover, seniority under Rule 23 has to be determined from the date of appointment. And the date of appointment of ad hoc working from before is the same. Date of joining may be different. But seniority both under rule and even otherwise is determined from the date of appointment or merit placement and not by joining. Legally or even constitutionally the claim of petitioners, therefore, that even the 'D' are entitled to be related back to the year of vacancy for determining seniority even promotees or inclusion of period served as ad hoc engineers against own batch mates, does not appear to be well-founded. 7. Yet the issue that survives for consideration is if the seniority list is vitiated for violation of quota or rota rule provided for by rule 23 of the Rules. Earlier there was no quota. Recruitment under Rule 5 of Rules of 1936 to the cadre of Assistant Engineers was both from direct selection and promotion. Proportion had to be decided by the Government. In 1961 office memorandum issued provided for quota from the two sources. The provision was incorporated in rules when they were amended in 1971 and were made effective from 1962. The amended rule 23 provided the method for relating the 'D' or 'T' and 'P'. Its validity was upheld in Baleshwar Das v. State, 1981 SC 42. In P. D. Agarwal v. State, A.I.R. 1987 SC 1646, Ratio from two sources was held not to be arbitrary. The amended rule 23 provided the method for relating the 'D' or 'T' and 'P'. Its validity was upheld in Baleshwar Das v. State, 1981 SC 42. In P. D. Agarwal v. State, A.I.R. 1987 SC 1646, Ratio from two sources was held not to be arbitrary. In G. S. Lamba v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1985 SC 1019 it was observed that it was open to Government while constituting a service to provide for recruitment from more than one source and also reserve quota from each source. But if the quota rule breaks or it is unreasonably departed from and breaks down under its own weight it may be against doctrine of equality to give effect to it. Such deviation or breaking was neither whispered in the petition nor debated. Rather the State in its stand has emphasised that quota has been adhered to strictly, so much so that if after relating one with other in accordance with quota vacancies were left and officers of one or other category were not available than the remaining were put en-block. But even then no promotion or selection was made in excess of quota. From the seniority list it appears that the promotees and directs have been rotated as provided. For instance, in 1970-71 out of 31 promotees approved in 1980 for vacancies of 1970-71, 11 were rotated against directly selected by Commission in 1970. This rotation finds place from serial No. 548 to 591. And 20 P' were rotated against 6 D' appointed in 1971 from serial No. 592 to 671. Since there were no other 'P' for 1970-71 remaining 27 D' were put enblock from 672 to 698. Similarly some 'F' were put en block in 1971-72. Therefore, neither the quota to rule broke down nor rotation made in pursuance of it has resulted in injustice or violation of equality. 8. Error or omission, however, on claim advanced on behalf of petitioners may be considered under three heads one general, other in placement of 'P' and last in denial to 'D' their respective places both against 'P' and 'D' or 'T' 9. It was vehemently urged that the tentative seniority list of 1982 having been prepared on sound principles there was no occasion to alter or amend or even deviate from it. The argument is not only devoid of any substance but misconceived. It was vehemently urged that the tentative seniority list of 1982 having been prepared on sound principles there was no occasion to alter or amend or even deviate from it. The argument is not only devoid of any substance but misconceived. Seniority under Rule 23 as it stood before amendment was to be reckoned from date of appointment in service. The rule was amended in 1971 under which seniority could be determined from date of substantive appointment. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the list of 1982 was prepared on the rule as it stood amended in 1983 and 1971. But since the aforesaid amendments were struck down and the opposite parties were directed to prepare seniority list on length of service from the date of appointment against temporary or substantive vacancy, the entire basis on which earlier list was prepared disappeared and it had to be recast on ratio laid down in Agarwal's decision. No exception can be taken to it. Rather any other principle would have vitiated the test. That is why the two opposite parties 'P' who in 1982 list were shown at serial No. 995 and 1093 and were placed below petitioners moved up in seniority list and have been placed at serial No. 797 and 986. Earlier their placement was from the date of substantive appointment, namely the date on which Commission approved them but it was altered in view of Agarwal's decision and they were placed according to year of allotment by Public Service Commission, namely from 1973 and 1976 reckoning the date from when they were working as ad hoc. In doing so the opposite parties do not appear to have committed any error of law or fact. Mistake in respect of 'P' was mainly founded on relating them back to the year of vacancy. It was alleged that 'D' having been selected by Commission in 1978 for vacancies existing from 1972-73, 1974 and 1975 could not have been placed alongwith 'P' whose approval in 1 79-80 should be taken as their date of recruitment. It was pointed out considering merit placement of petitioners in 1978 selection they were entitled to related back to the vacancy existing from 1972. Since it was not done, it resulted in discrepancy inasmuch as 'P' approved in 1979-80 have been placed at serial Nos. 992, 996, 10J0, 1004, 1008 etc. It was pointed out considering merit placement of petitioners in 1978 selection they were entitled to related back to the vacancy existing from 1972. Since it was not done, it resulted in discrepancy inasmuch as 'P' approved in 1979-80 have been placed at serial Nos. 992, 996, 10J0, 1004, 1008 etc. against the temporary vacancies of 1979-80, whereas petitioner No. 1 who placed on merit list dated 25tli September, 1978 at serial No. 1 has been placed at serial No. 993 determining his seniority from the date of appointment on 9th August, 1979. Similar mistakes were claimed to have been repeated for all those who were working from before. The submission proceeds on misconception of applicability of principle of relate back to 'D' and T, the fallacy of which has been discussed at length earlier. In the counter-affidavit it has been explained that the rules do not contemplate any quota for ad hoc engineers. And rightly as cadre being of permanent and temporary engineers the rate of quota could be worked out only for such persons. For the persons mentioned at serial No. 992 etc. referred earlier it is stated that these persons were working as ad hoc from as long back as 1970 and 1972 but since they were approved by Commission for 1979-80 they have been assigned placement in seniority list from 1st July, 1979. And since 'D' was appointed in August, 1979 he has been placed lower to 'P'. Since the placement is in accordance with settled law, there appears no error in it. Further it has been stated that names of all those ad hoc engineers including petitioners who were working from 1970 were sent for approval before Commission. Those found suitable were approved and given seniority from that date. Since petitioners were not approved nor they appear to have taken up examination held for 'D' in 1970, 1971 or 1972 and they were selected only in 1978, they cannot claim any seniority from back date. Moreover, selection of 'D' was undertaken by Commission on intimation of existing or future vacancies. Such selection was meant for open market. Therefore, any person selected in such competition could not claim benefit of stop-gap or ad hoc period in view of Agarwal's case. The stand in the counter-affidavit being founded on the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be objected to. Such selection was meant for open market. Therefore, any person selected in such competition could not claim benefit of stop-gap or ad hoc period in view of Agarwal's case. The stand in the counter-affidavit being founded on the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be objected to. Nor can any objection be taken to ad hoc promotees being given seniority from the date vacancy arose. It has been explained in the counter-affidavit that ad hoc promotions were made of only those persons from subordinate service who were in field of eligibility and were not beyond their quota. Each year, it is stated, that promotions were made taking into account the existing vacancy and quota of promotees and their names were sent to commission for approval, But the delay took place in Commission which was adversely commented in earlier decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2449 of 1980. Apart from it the placement of any officer, it if stated, has not been done from the date he was granted ad hoc promotion. But from the date the Commission found such officer suitable against vacancy. Similar provision exists in rule 8 of U. P. Promotion Rules and Government Orders issued in 1984 and 1985. Procedure followed by Commission of relating back promotee irrespective of any rule has already been held to be fair and reasonable. Continuous ad hoc working resulting in regularisation of persons promoted after considering their merit has been held in Delhi W. S. Disposal Committee v. R. K., AIR 1989 SC 278 , to be in accordance with law and seniority has to be related back to the date of ad hoc promotion, Therefore, mention of work ad hoc for promotees was not of much consequence. Since promotion was in accordance with rules, all officers who were in field of eligibility within their quota and Commission granted approval from the date they were recommended or from the date the vacancy existed or from the date they were found suitable against vacancies existing from before they shall be deemed to have been appointed to service from that date and their placement does not suffer from any error. 10. Mistake in placement of 'D' or 'T', as after Shukla Committee report direct selection was held for temporary post only, various defects were pointed out. 10. Mistake in placement of 'D' or 'T', as after Shukla Committee report direct selection was held for temporary post only, various defects were pointed out. For instance, it was urged that length of service from date of continuous officiation was followed in respect of certain 'D' of 1971 and 1978 but it was denied to others. In respect of those selected in 1978 it was urged that those ad hoc who were working from before should have been placed over 106 others who were freshers. And those who joined much latter than 1979 that is in 1981 etc. should have been placed still lower. Attempt was made to take advantage of eight persons fro/w 1978 placed at serial No. 1362 to 1370 much below others of the same batch. Principle by foregoing that some should not have been placed higher in the list at serial Nos. 996, 997, 998, 1005, 1006 etc. It was also urged that this very principle was followed in 1971 batch as well. But it was not adhered to in respect of other batches and majority of 1978 batch. Each of the so-called defects have been satisfactorily explained in the counter-affidavit. It is averred that one of the principle which has been consistently followed by Department is that if any officer of one batch after selection and appointment does not join for long and delay was not explained satisfactorily, then such officer was placed at the bottom of list irrespective of his merit placement. That is what happened to against persons of 1978 batch. Since they joined late and they could not explain satisfactorily their delayed joining they were placed at bottom of list. To say the least a very reasonable and proper criteria was adopted. That is rule 2 of amended rule 23 as well. For instance, a person selected and appointed alongwith other on 1st January, 1989 is given the appointment letter and does not join for two years due to his own fault he cannot claim that he should be placed over others working from before on basis of merit placement. Not only this, none of those persons who were shown lower in seniority have made any grievance. Not only this, none of those persons who were shown lower in seniority have made any grievance. The placement of such persons could not furnish ground for claiming that since merit was not adhered for eight persons, it should not be adhered for others As regards 1971 batch it is averred in the counter-affidavit that selection in pursuance of examination held for this batch was intimated in 1972-but the appointment letter could not be issued due to administrative reasons till 1974. In the meantime another batch joined in 1973. But as officers of 1971 batch were prevented from joining till 1974 not due to any mistake of their part they were placed over 1973 officers on general principle of earlier batch being senior to subsequent batch. Fair indeed other way round would have been unjust. Even those officers who did not join for long due to their fault were placed at bottom of list. For instance, serial Nos. 710 to 754 are those officers of 1971 who joined in 1974 without delay, were placed over 1973 batch. But those at serial Nos 810 to 819 having joined with undue delay were placed at bottom of list. Therefore, even though petitioners cannot have any grievance against 1971 batch yet even assuming that they could favour the principle applied was not only reasonable but just and fair. No parallel or similarity can be drawn between petitioners who were working as ad hoc before 1978 and the principle on which batch of 1971 were joined in 1954 given seniority over 1973 batch. Similarly, the claim that merit placement by Commission should not have been determined on length of service has already been discussed earlier and found to be without any merit. In Jitendra Kumar v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1984 SC 1858 the Hon'ble Court deprecated practice of Government of disturbing merit placement. Therefore, except to the limited extend for instance delayed joining without sufficient cause may result in disturbance otherwise seniority should be determined according to merit placement. And the placement of petitioners own batchmates higher in the seniority list in accordance with merit obtained by Commission cannot be said to be erroneous. 11. Therefore, except to the limited extend for instance delayed joining without sufficient cause may result in disturbance otherwise seniority should be determined according to merit placement. And the placement of petitioners own batchmates higher in the seniority list in accordance with merit obtained by Commission cannot be said to be erroneous. 11. For violation of quota rule and non-adherence rota it was urged that even though quota rule was observed strictly while placing 'P' in seniority list but it was denied to 'D' The anxiety to be fair to 'P' was argued to be so keen that several places have been left for subsequent adjustment such as 1375, 137'J 1383, 1387 and 1391. Reference was also made to enable placement for instance at serial Nos. 339 to 383, 416 to 500, 543 to 548, 689 to 698, 699 to 708, 756 to 800, 857 to 991 and 1089 to 1370 and it was urged to be against rules. It was submitted that quota was not adhered for 'D' for determining to their seniority as was clear from placement of an officer at serial No. 710. Although the officer was of 1971 batch as was clear from the appointment letter issued in February, 1974 yet he was placed below 'P' 1972-73. In the counter affidavit it has been explained that recruitment or selection from either source has always been adhered to the quota fixed for each source. And in no year or at any point of time selection or promotion was made in excess of quota. It is further averred that even those ad hoc appointees who were regularised under 1979 regulations rules have been initiated in the seniority list because of the Government orders issued in 1980 and 1985 such officers have been placed at serial Nos. 1165, 1181, 1186, 1229, 1251, 1272, 1286, 1305, 1334, 1338 and 1339 with their colleagues already selected is the first selection and their seniority was determined from the date of order of appointment. In respect of serial Nos. 1378 to 1399 it is averred that they have been placed in the list as they too were appointed with same orders namely May, 1980 and October, 1985 and omission of their names would have led to discrepancy which stands avoided as they shall be given seniority in their own quota amongst 'P'. In respect of serial Nos. 1378 to 1399 it is averred that they have been placed in the list as they too were appointed with same orders namely May, 1980 and October, 1985 and omission of their names would have led to discrepancy which stands avoided as they shall be given seniority in their own quota amongst 'P'. The explanation for vacant places is that those selected against vacancies of 1980-81 to 1984-85 are to be adjusted with 'D' of those years. And since candidates of 1980-81 to 1985-86 are to be placed in second part of the seniority list, therefore, candidates selected in 1981 and 1982 under Regularisation Rules, 1979 were necessary to be shown in the list. For enbloc placement it is stated that it had to be resorted to in those years where after rotating 'D' and 'P' officers of one of the other source remained then they had to be put enbloc. 12. Enbloc placement due to absence of officers of one or the group in particular year does not violate quota rules. Normally it should not be resorted to but if there is no way out then enbloc placement is neither arbitrary or illegal. In NKS Chauhart v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1977 SC 251, it was held that, quota rule does not inevitably invoke the application of the rota rule. The impact of this position is that if sufficient number of direct recruits have not been forthcoming in the years since 1960 to fill in the ratio due to them and these vacancies have been filled up by the promtees, latter direct recruits cannot claim "deemed" dates of appointment for seniority in service with effect from the time, according to ratio or turn, the direct recruits vacancy arose'. Law being thus enbloc placement could not be said to be violative when the placement were within quota. Factually facts are better than the case decided by Hon'ble Court. In V. B. Dipin v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1980 SC 1561, it was held. "The important principle is that so long as the quota rule remains neither promotees can be allotted to any of the substantive vacancies of the quota of direct recruits nor direct recruits can be allotted to promotional vacancies. 13. In V. B. Dipin v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1980 SC 1561, it was held. "The important principle is that so long as the quota rule remains neither promotees can be allotted to any of the substantive vacancies of the quota of direct recruits nor direct recruits can be allotted to promotional vacancies. 13. From a perusal of list it is clear that enbloc placement has been resorted both for 'D' and 'P' But that was not against quota. Therefore, the placement while adhering to quota deviating in ratio due to unavoidable necessity explained satisfactorily cannot be said to contrary to law. Vacancies existing in a service cannot be permitted to remain unfilled even when persons of other category were not available because when they selected or promoted their seniority shall be affected. That would be unjust and against interest of service. Nor can be enbloc promotions or placements within quota can be disturbed at instance of those who were not in existence when placement was made that they having been born now should be related and placed above those enbloc promotees by taking them to the date of placement by applying principle of quota and rota on a back date. Law does not help and equity stares in their face. 14. For those reasons this petition fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.