Judgment :- Nainar Sundaram, J: These four writ appeals are directed against the common order of learned single Judge, in and by which he disposed of two writ petitions. Respondents 4 and in W.P.No.8125 of 1982 are the appellants in W.A.No.1214 of 1988. The petitioners W.P.No.8125 of 1982 are respondents 1 and 2 in W.A.No.1214 of 1988. Respondents 1 in W.P.No.8125 of 1982 are respondents 3 to 5 in W.A.No.1214 of 1988. Respondents 5 7 to 12 are respondents 6 to 12 in W.A.No.1214 of 1988. Respondents 6, 7, 12, 15, 16 20 in W.P.No.8126 of 1988 are appellants in WANo.1215 of 1988. The petitioners in W.P.No. 8126 of 1988 are respondents 1 to 6 in W.ANo.1215 of 1988. Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No. 1826 of 1988 are respondents 7 to 9 in W.A.No.1215 of 1988. The other respondents W.P.No.8126 of 1988 are respondents 10 to 25 in W.A.No.1215 of 1988. W.A.Nos.199 200 of 1990 have been preferred by respondents 1 to 3 in each of the writ petitions, making the petitioners and the other respondents, respondents in these two Writ Appeals propose to refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petitions. W.P.No.8125 of 1982 related to the services of Geophysical Assistants in Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Services Ground Water Wing of the P.W.D. W.P.No.8126 of 1982 related to services of Geological Assistants in the same service. It is not necessary to dwell minute service details of these personnel except to state that all of them got inducted the services pursuant to appointments under Rule 10(a)(i)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Services Rules - General Rules. It must be stated that all of them were and fully qualified and eligible to be inducted into the services. Their inductions into the services were at different points of time, and they have earned different tenure of services told that the maximum tenure of some of the personnel range to 14 years. regularise their services with effect from their date of joining duty was legitimately and felt and ultimately by G.O.Ms.No.349, Public Works Department, dated 7.3.1980, a concrete shape, when it was directed that a special test be conducted by the Public Service Commission exclusively for these personnel, namely, temporary and Geophysical Assistants, who are already working in the Ground Water Wing refer to the relevant proceedings preceding G.O.Ms.No.349, Public Works Department, 7.3.1980. On 2.3.1978, the Chief Engineer, Ground Water, Public Works addressed the Government as Follows: "PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT From: Thiru C.A.Srinivasan, B.E.,F.I.E., Chief Engineer (Ground Water) 10-A, Dhandapani Street, T.Nagar, Madras - 600 017. To: The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Fort St.George, Madras-600 009. Letter No.A.2/5890/78, dated 2.3.1978. Sub: Establishment - T.N.ES.S. - Ground Water Wing - P.W.D. - Special Selection for the regu-larisation of Geological Assistants and Geophysical Assistants - Requested. Ref: i. G.O.Ms.No.1924, P.W.D., dt. 24.12.77. ii. G.O.Ms.No.1925, P.W.D., dt. 24.12.77. iii. G.O.Ms.No.152, P & A.R (Personnel M.) Department, dated 10.2.1978; ------- In the G.O. first cited, the Government in the P.W.D. have framed the ad hoc governing the posts of Geological Assistant and Geophysical Assistant in the Ground Water Wing, P.W.D. In the G.O. second cited, the Government have issued orders bringing the above mentioned posts within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and suitable amendment to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission - Regulations 1954, has also been issued in the G.O. third cited. 2. I enclose two lists showing the details of Geological Assistants and Geophysical Assistants who are now working in the Groundwater Wing under the emergency provisions of the rules. These incumbents have been recruited through the Professional and Executive Employment Office, Madras, with effect from the dates noted against their names. 3. In view of the facts that these candidates are working in the Ground Water Wing long time without any break and the experience gained by them is very much useful for intensive, scientific, systematic investigation of the Ground Water potential in the Nadu State, I consider that the services of these candidates should be utilised -for the better working of the Department. Accordingly, I recommend that the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission may please be approached to conduct a special selection for the regularisa of the services of these candidates after conducting a competitive oral examination. 4. In this connection, I have to state that most of the Departmental candidates have specially trained in Ground Water Techniques in Courses conducted by this Department other agencies. The continued services of these candidates will greatly facilitate accelerate the investigation programme which is time bound and the work is programmed and be completed by 1980. 4. In this connection, I have to state that most of the Departmental candidates have specially trained in Ground Water Techniques in Courses conducted by this Department other agencies. The continued services of these candidates will greatly facilitate accelerate the investigation programme which is time bound and the work is programmed and be completed by 1980. Hence, this selection may be restricted to the Geological Assistants and Geophysical Assistants who are already working in the Ground Water Wing, P.W.D., under the emergency provisions of the rules. 5. I request that the commission may please be addressed for conducting the special selection at a very early date so that the services of the existing personnel may regularised in their respective categories with effect from the date of their joining duty in Ground Water Wing." 2. Acting upon the above letter, the Government addressed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 15.7.1978 as follows: To: The Secretary, TNPSC, Madras - 600 002. (W.C.). Sir, Sub: Establishment - Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service - Public Works Department - Ground Water Wing - Special selection for recruitment of Geological Assistants and Geophysical Assistants - Suggestion. Ref: From the Chief Engineer (Ground Water), Letter No.A2/5890/78 dated 2nd March, 1978. ----- I am directed to enclose a copy of the letter cited wherein the Chief Engineer (Ground Water) has suggested that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission may be requested hold a special selection for recruitment for the purpose of regularisation of services of temporary Geological and Geophysical Assistants in the Ground Water Wing of the Public Works Department. 2. The ad hoc rules for the posts of Geological Assistants and Geophysical Assistants issued only in December, 1977 and the posts were brought within the purview of the only in February, 1978. In the meantime 68 persons (46 Geological Assistants Geophysical Assistants) have been working in the Department in a temporary capacity some of them have put in long years of service. It has been represented that it hardship to them, if they are asked to appear before the TNPSC along with the candidates from the open market and run the risk of being not selected. Besides, the Department will lose the experience gained by the Officers in these essentially technical posts. It has been represented that it hardship to them, if they are asked to appear before the TNPSC along with the candidates from the open market and run the risk of being not selected. Besides, the Department will lose the experience gained by the Officers in these essentially technical posts. circumstances, Government would request the TNPSC to hold a special Test exclusively departmental candidates who have put in not less than one year of service as on and who are qualified under the Rules, on the analogy of the Special Test ordered G.O.Ms.No.440, Public Works, dated 12.2.1971 in respect of Junior Engineers/ Supervisors. 3. I am to request that the views of the Commission on the above suggestion obtained and communicated to the Government at an early date. “ 3. It is true that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had been registering a dissent with regard to holding of a special test for the purpose. But this aspect is relevant for deciding the issue now before us. The Chief Engineer, Ground Water, Works Department, again addressed a letter on 25.4.1979 to the Government, relevant portions of the said letter are found at paragraphs 8 to 10 as follows: “8. In this connection, I have to state that the candidates whose names are furnished statements are working in the Ground Water Branch for a long time without any break the experience gained by them is very much useful for the systematic, scientific, investigation of Ground Water potential in Tamil Nadu. Most of the departmental candidates have been specially trained in Ground Water techniques in various courses conducted Department and other Agencies. The continued services of these candidates will facilitate and accelerate the time bound programme of Ground Water investigation Department. Moreover the candidates who were within the age limit at the appointment, have now become overaged; unless their services are regularized Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission after conducting a special selection, they will very precarious position as they will not be able to get any appointment in the Government Service. This contingency arises only due to the belated receipt of approved ad hoc respect of these posts in the Ground Water Branch. The record of services of candidates is found to be satisfactory. 9. This contingency arises only due to the belated receipt of approved ad hoc respect of these posts in the Ground Water Branch. The record of services of candidates is found to be satisfactory. 9. In the circumstances, I recommend that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission please be approached to conduct a special selection exclusively for the regularization services of the candidates from the date of appointment as furnished in the statements conducting a competitive oral examination. 10. I request that the commission may please be addressed at a very early date matter so that the services of the existing personnel may be regularised in their respective categories with effect from the date of their joining duty in the Ground Water Branch their inter re-seniority may also be fixed by the Commission with reference to the reservation.” 4. The Government made the last and the final say on the subject by directing the holding special selection exclusively for departmental candidates. What weighed with Government in coming to that conclusion can well be gleaned from the following passages G.O.Ms.No.349, Public Works Department, dated 7.3.1980: “It will be a hardship to these Geological and Geophysical Assistants, who have put years of service, if they are now asked to appear before the Service Commission along the candidates from open market and run the risk of not being selected. The Department will also lose the experience gained by these Officers in these essentially technical posts. -------- The Government have carefully examined the proposal of the Chief Engineer (Ground in his letter first read above and the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission its letter third cited above. They consider that the object of holding special recruitment the regularisation of temporary services of the Geological and Geophysical Assistants working in the Ground Water Wing in view of their past experience. They have, therefore, decided to hold special selection exclusively for the departmental candidates." Thus it was declared that it will be a hardship to these Geological and Geophysical Assistants who have put in long years of service, if they should be asked to appear before the Nadu Public Service Commission along with the candidates from open market and risk of not being selected; and the Department would also lose the experience gained these Officers in these essentially technical posts. It was also declared that the object holding special recruitment was for the regularisation of temporary services of personnel. The Government in substance implicitly accepted the recommendations Chief Engineer, Ground Water, Public Works Department to give regularisation to personnel with effect from their date of joining duty. It was only with this end in view, process of selection through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was chalked was not the intention of the Government that there should be a fresh appointment after selection. Regularisation of the temporary services was the prime most and the objective of the selection process, which had become a formal process for a formal Then the selection process through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was through and without any omission all the temporary personnel got selected. But the arose because in the list of candidates prepared by the Tamil Nadu Public Commission on 1.8.1982, a ranking has been given stating that appointments should made in the order of ranking. Since the intention was that this ranking should and would adhered to, while fixing the seniority of these personnel, the petitioners were obliged come to this court by filing the writ petitions seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus quash the list of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission dated 1.8.1982 and to direct State of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to refix the seniority respect of the petitioners in accordance with the date of appointment in the services as It must be noted here that the ranking given in the list dated 1.8.1982 impugned in petitions has completely done away with and ignored the seniority of the petitioners, basis of their tenure of temporary service, and has given them a low ranking. 5. The learned single Judge assessed the grievances of the petitioners and he found question that could relevantly arise for consideration is as to whether the selection Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission would amount to a fresh recruitment or the was only for the purpose of regularising the temporary services of the personnel. 5. The learned single Judge assessed the grievances of the petitioners and he found question that could relevantly arise for consideration is as to whether the selection Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission would amount to a fresh recruitment or the was only for the purpose of regularising the temporary services of the personnel. The single Judge referred to pronouncement of the Supreme Court in G.P.Doval v. Chief Govt, of U.P., A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1527: 1984 Lab.I.C. 1304: (1984)1 Lab.L.N 547: (1984)4 S.C.C. 329 , amongst other pronouncements and after opining that the selection by the Nadu Public Service Commission was only for regularisation of the services of the temporary personnel and hence the services of such personnel even during such tenure could forgotten for the purpose of fixing the seniority, allowed the writ petition in the following terms: "In the result, these writ petitions are allowed and the lists of candidates selected appointment as Geological Assistants and Geophysical Assistants in the Ground Water of the Public Works Department in the Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service quashed so far as the ranking of seniority is concerned and the Tamil Nadu Public Commission is directed to refix seniority with reference to the date of continuous officiation of these candidates in the temporary service as Geological Assistants/ Geophysical Assistants." As already noted, these four writ appeals are directed against the common order learned single Judge. 6. The proposition that is being pressed forth by Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the concerned respondents in the writ petitions, who are the appellants Writ Appeals W.ANos.1214 and 1215 of 1988, followed by Mr.K.Ravirajapandian, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for appellants in W.A.Nos.199 and 200 of 1990, that when an incumbent is initially appointed to a post on ad hoc basis and as a stop arrangement and not according to rules, the officiation in such post cannot be taken account for considering the seniority. Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel draw our attention to Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, General Rules to say that the seniority of a person in service should be determined the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Tamil Public Service Commission. Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel draw our attention to Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, General Rules to say that the seniority of a person in service should be determined the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Tamil Public Service Commission. Mr.S.Govindswaminathan, learned senior counsel appearing the petitioners, would counteract this submission made on behalf of the concerned respondents in the writ petitions, appellants before us, by stating that when the appointments were not made, by following the procedure laid down by the rules instant case the rules had come to be framed only after all the persons got inducted into services - and the appointees continued in the posts uninterruptedly till their services regularised, the period of officiating service should be counted. 7. The facts of the present case certainly cannot be lost sight of while we try to appreciate and apply any rule togovern the fixation of seniority. It has been always countenanced each case will depend upon its facts and circumstances. All the personnel had the benefit appointment only under Rule 10(a)(i)(i). They had their appointments at different points time and in that they have had earned the tenure of service or experience from respective dates of their appointments. All the personnel got selected without a exception through the process of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. All of have been absorbed by way of this process. It is true that the. list published by the Nadu Public Service Commission says that the selectees shall be appointed only in the indicated in the list. That could be only viewed as a declaration satisfying a formality, could have no meaning at all to the practical features of the case, and certainly legitimately deserves to be ignored as arbitrarily and cruelly, doing away with and cutting the valuable service rendered by these personnel in the past. It would be a different matter, if someone from the open market also competed and got selected. The whole process thought about and executed only to regularise wholesale the Rule 10(a)(i)(i) appointees prior proceedings cannot be omitted to be looked into. It was declared that regularisation would be effective from the date of their joining duty in Ground Water Wing. In the present case, all stood on par with each other in that all of them were Rule 10(a)(i)(i) appointees. It was declared that regularisation would be effective from the date of their joining duty in Ground Water Wing. In the present case, all stood on par with each other in that all of them were Rule 10(a)(i)(i) appointees. The process of selection through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was thought only to absorb these personnel originally inducted into service under Rule 10(a)(i)(i) could only view the selection process done by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission a process of regularising the personnel already in service and not as a fresh process making selection to the posts and appointing them as fresh appointees or new entrants. Here, we find that there was no person coming from the open market and getting selected, which process was intentionally and meticulously avoided, because the process of selection through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was thought of and executed as a one only to mete out justice to the personnel already inducted into a service under Rule (a)(i)(i). Hence, it is not possible to obliterate the tenure of service put up by personnel, while they did function pursuant no their appointments under Rule 10(a)(i)(i). The intention had been made very clear, though not in express language, but in a language, portent enough to convey that meaning, in the proceedings preceding the selection process that there should not be any arbitrary cutoff of the service tenure of the personnel on question of seniority. 8. In N.K.Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2151: (1977)1 S.C.R. 1037 , been countenanced that, "Seniority, normally, is measured by length of continuous, officiating service... the actual easily accepted as the legal. This does not preclude a different prescription, constitutionality tests being satisfied." In K.B.Shukla and others v. Union of India and others, (1979) U.J. (S.C.) 396, it has countenanced that, "a rule prescribing the length of service rendered by the person as the main criterion fixation of seniority is infinitely the best one since it ensures fairness and equable treatment guaranteed by Art.16". 9. 9. In Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 41:1980 Lab.I.C. 1155: (1980)4 S.C.C. 326: (1981)1 Lab.L.J. 140, this is what has been set down with reference to significance to be annexed to temporary services and the injustfica-bility of arbitrary cruel cutting off, of long years of service: "We must emphasise that while temporary and permanent posts have great relevancy in regard to the career of government servants, keeping posts temporary for long, sometimes by annual renewals for several years, and denying the claims of the incumbents on the that their posts are temporary makes no sense and strikes us as arbitrary, especially both temporary and permanent appointees are functionally identified. If, in the course, a post is temporary in the real sense and the appointee knows that his tenure exceed the post in longevity, there cannot be anything unfair or capricious in clothing with no rights. Not so, if the post is, for certain departmental or like purposes, temporary, but it is within the keen of both the Government and the appointee temporary posts are virtually long-lived. It is irrational to reject the claim of the ‘appointee on the nominal score of the terminology of the post. We must also emphatically that the principle which has received the sanction of this pronouncements is that officiating service in a post is for all practical purposes of seniority good as serving on a regular basis. It may be permissible, within limits, for government ignore officiating service and count only regular service when claims of seniority come it, provided the rules in that regard are clear and categoric and do not admit ambiguity and cruelly arbitrary cut off of long years of service does not take place or functionally and qualitatively, substantial difference in the service rendered in the two of posts. While rules regulating conditions of service are within the executive power State or its legislative power under Proviso to Art.309, even so, such rules have reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust if they are to survive the test of Arts. 14 and Of course, an appointee to a permanent post acquires certain rights which one who temporary post cannot claim. While rules regulating conditions of service are within the executive power State or its legislative power under Proviso to Art.309, even so, such rules have reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust if they are to survive the test of Arts. 14 and Of course, an appointee to a permanent post acquires certain rights which one who temporary post cannot claim. Nevertheless, when the post is riot purely temporary or of short duration or of an adventitious nature, the holder of such temporary post be degraded to the position of one who by accident of circum-stance or for a fugitive occupies the temporary post for a fleeting term. We must make this distinction not only truthful to the facts of service life but also to do justice to those who have otherwise rendered long and satisfactory work in the Irrigation Department. In short, while we do a distinction between permanent and temporary posts, when we come to the dimension mere seniority, we whittle down the difference considerably. A post of short duration, a few months, is different from another which is terminologically temporary but is for ten or more years under the head ‘temporary’ for budgetary or other, technical Those who are appointed and hold temporary posts of the latter category are also members of the Service provided they have been appointed substantively to that temporary post. 10. The principle has been reiterated in the subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in G.P.Doval v. Chief Secy. Government of U.P., A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1527: 1984 1304: (1984)1 Lab.L.N. 547: (1984)4 S.C.C. 329 . There, in that case, due to exigencies service, the Khandsari Inspectors were recruited to that post pending regular through Public Service Commission. Their appointment was subsequently approved Public Service Commission. But, a provisional seniority list was drawn up on the principle the length of continuous officiation reckoned from the date of selection approved Public Service Commission in respect of each employee belonging to the cadre officiating service rendered by the Inspectors prior to their confirmation by the Public Commission was totally ignored, while determining their seniority. It was held Supreme Court that the provisional seniority list of Khandsari Inspectors prepared reckoning their officiating service from the date on which the approval/selection was made the Public Service Commission in respect of each member of the service was clearly of Art.10 of the Constitution of India. It was held Supreme Court that the provisional seniority list of Khandsari Inspectors prepared reckoning their officiating service from the date on which the approval/selection was made the Public Service Commission in respect of each member of the service was clearly of Art.10 of the Constitution of India. In the context of the above case, it was observed;” Now if there was no binding rule of seniority it is well settled that length of continuous officiation prescribes a valid principle of seniority. The question is: from what date the is to be reckoned? It was urged that any appointment of stop gap nature or pending selection by Public Service Commission cannot be taken into account for reckoning seniority. In other words, it was urged that to be in the cadre and to enjoy place in the seniority list, the service rendered in a substantive capacity can alone be taken into consideration find it difficult to accept this baid and wide submission. Each case will depend upon its facts and circumstances. If a stop gap appointment is made and the appointee appears before Public Service Commission when the latter proceeds to select the candidates and is selected, we see no justification for ignoring his past service. At any rate, there is no justification two persons selected in the same manner being differently treated." 11. Coming to Rule 35(a), relied on by Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned senior appearing for the concerned respondents, appellants in the writ Appeals, W.A.Nos.1214 1215 of 1988, there is a dispute even with reference to, in what contingency that rule be applied. The view, on this point taken by a bench of this Court in E.Paripooranam another v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, (W.A.No.1203 of 1986 and W.P.Nos. The view, on this point taken by a bench of this Court in E.Paripooranam another v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, (W.A.No.1203 of 1986 and W.P.Nos. and 10545 of 1986, judgment dated 7.7.1987), can be best appreciated, if the relevant passages from the said pronouncement are extracted as hereunder: "Now it appears to us that on the facts of the present case, neither the contesting respondents nor the State Government can call in aid the provisions of Rule 35 of the only material part of Rule 35 is clause (a) of that rule which reads as follows: seniority of a person in a service class or category or grade shall unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the rank obtained by him in the approved candidates drawn up by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or appointing authority, as the case may be, subject to the rule of Reservation where it The date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins irrespective of his seniority." Who is an approved candidate is specified in Rule 4. The material part of Rule 4 reads follows: ‘ All first appointments to a service or class or category or grade thereof state or subordinate, whether by direct recruitment or by recruitment by transfer or by promotion shall be by the appointing authority from a list of approved candidates. Such list shall be prepared the prescribed manner by the appointing authority or any other authority empowered Special Rules in that behalf. Where the candidates in such list are arranged in their order preference application to the service shall be made in such order. ‘The proviso to Rule not relevant for our purpose. From a reading of Rule 35(a) with Rule 4 it appears to us the scope of these rules is restricted to cases where appointments are made for the time in accordance with the selection made by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission accordance with the list of approved candidates drawn by the Tamil Nadu Public Commission. Rule 35. could not have been properly invoked by the State Government, they desired to pass an order of regularisation. Rule 35. could not have been properly invoked by the State Government, they desired to pass an order of regularisation. The very concept of order of regularization that the period of temporary service has been converted into a period of regular service deeming fiction is introduced that those persons whose services had been regularised retrospectively must be treated for all purposes as being in regular service from the from which their services have been regularised. In other words, the period of temporary service has been converted into a period of regular service. Such appointments therefore, be said to be made for the first time in accordance with the requirements of 35 read with Rule 4". We can as well follow the above ratio, as we are bound to. But, there is no need for express arty positive opinion of ours on this question because even if Rule 35(a) apply, this is a fit case, where the Government should act relaxing the rule, to avoid results. In this connection, we will be in order if we recapitulate the following principle countenanced in Narender Chada v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 638:1986 Lab.I.C. (1986)2 S.C.C. 157 : (1986)1 S.C.J. 307: (1986)1 Lab.L.N 665: "But in a case where; persons have been allowed to function in higher posts for 15 years with due deliberation, it would be certainly unjust to hold that they have no claim to such posts and could be reverted unceremoniously or treated as persons belonging to the service at all, particularly where the Government is endowed with the power to relax the Rules to avoid unjust results." 12. The selection being only for regularisation of the persons already employed temporarily, they having had got into the services under Rule 10(a)(i)(i). it is not possible to forget tenure of service put by them anterior to the regularisation. This selection is a formality adopted to regularise and nothing more. All who were 10(a)(i)(i) appointees got selected they are in service. In such a contingency, the norm that should be reasonably and adopted is that while fixing their seniority, the tenure of services rendered by them their induction into service under Rule 10(a)(i)(i) should be counted. This selection is a formality adopted to regularise and nothing more. All who were 10(a)(i)(i) appointees got selected they are in service. In such a contingency, the norm that should be reasonably and adopted is that while fixing their seniority, the tenure of services rendered by them their induction into service under Rule 10(a)(i)(i) should be counted. The very concept order of regularisation is the period of temporary service has been converted into a period regular service and a deemed fiction is introduced that those persons whose services been regularised must be treated for all purposes as being in regular service from the from which they were initially appointed. In other words, the period of their temporary services has been converted into a period of regular service. 13. We must record here that other pronouncements were cited by the learned counsel appearing for the concerned respondents, appellants in the Writ Appeals W.A.Nos.1214 and 1215 of 1988 on the general proposition that where the appointment has been only on ad hoc basis and not according to the rules and made stop gap arrangement officiating service cannot be taken into account for fixing the seniority. (i) Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, 1990 S.C. 1607; (ii) D.N.Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1990)2 S.C.C. 553 ; Masood Akhtar Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1990)4 S.C.C. 24 . The propositions countenanced in the above pronouncements could be viewed for adoption only to cases having similar facts and raising similar contingencies. Any proposition as has got to be understood only in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case not de hors them, as countenanced in G.P.Doval v. Chief Secy. Govt of U.P.,A.I.R 1984 1527:1984Lab.I.C. 1304: (1984)1 Lab.L.N.547: (1984)4 S.C.C. 329 . Any proposition as has got to be understood only in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case not de hors them, as countenanced in G.P.Doval v. Chief Secy. Govt of U.P.,A.I.R 1984 1527:1984Lab.I.C. 1304: (1984)1 Lab.L.N.547: (1984)4 S.C.C. 329 . As already noted, we find a case where all the personnel got drafted into service only on temporary basis only to regularise their services from the dates of their joining duty in Ground Water the special test was directed by the Government to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Service Commission and all of them without any exception got selected and at the juncture of fixing the seniority, it is not possible to hang on to the ranking given by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission ignoring the long tenure of service of the concerned personnel, which, as we have already noted, in some cases run upto fourteen years. If the ranking as given in the list prepared by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has got to be adhered to, certainly, inequitable, arbitrary, and cruel cutting off of long years of service would take place. That was never the intention and there cannot be a change of the intention much to the chagrin and prejudice of the petitioners. We do not think that we can shut our eyes to the facts of the case and apply any other rigid rule as such. For all these reasons, we are obliged to dismiss these Writ Appeals and accordingly we dismiss them. We make no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.