JUDGMENT 1. - All these three writ petitions involve identical facts and common questions of law and, hence, the same arc being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These writ petitions are directed against the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 30th January, 1990, whereby three appeals no. 701/85, 205/85 and 206/85 were decided by a common judgment. 3. On 6th February, 1991, during the pendency of the writ petitions, an amendment was sought in the writ petitions seeking to challenge the validity of Rule 27 (ii-A) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The amendment was allowed on 7th February, 1991 and the amended writ petition was filed on 11th February, 1991. 4. These writ petitions involve a dispute about the qualifications and eligibility for the post of Stenographer Cr. II and the question of seniority on the post of Stenographer Gr. II between the candidates who are already Stenographer Gr. II and those Steno-typists who were inducted as Stenographer Gr.11 from Steno- typist in the Agriculture Department of the Government of Rajasthan. Apart from the challenge to the judgment and order dated 30th January, 1990, passed by the Tribunal, the validity of proviso (7) to Rule 7 and sub-rule (ii-A) to Rule 27 of the Rules is also under attack. 5. The petitioner Mahesh Kumar Sharma passed Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1972 and was appointed as LDC in the year 1974. He has stated that he passed the certificate course of Steno-typing (Hindi) in the year 1976 and was appointed as Stenographer on 31st July, 1976, by the Director, Agriculture, Government-of Rajasthan, Jaipur on ad hoc basis till the availability of the candidates selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. By an order dated 1st January, 1980, the petitioner was given a regular appointment as Stenographer Gr. II under proviso (7) to Rule 7 by the Director, Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 6. Petitioner Paras Ram Kalani is Intermediate of the year 1957. He was initially appointed as LDC in the Agriculture Department in the year 1956. He was then appointed as Stenographer Gr. II in the office of the Director of Agriculture on 1st April, 1967. He was regularly selected for the post of Stenographer Gr. 6. Petitioner Paras Ram Kalani is Intermediate of the year 1957. He was initially appointed as LDC in the Agriculture Department in the year 1956. He was then appointed as Stenographer Gr. II in the office of the Director of Agriculture on 1st April, 1967. He was regularly selected for the post of Stenographer Gr. II under proviso 8(A) to Rule 7 of the Rules and was given a regular appointment as Stenographer Gr. II by order dated 21st June, 1979 from 1st April, 1967. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had passed the test from Bhasha Vibhag. Bhasha Vibhag was conducting the test of steno-typing at the speed prescribed for Higher Secondary by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, as has been stated by the petitioner in para 4 of the rejoinder. 7. Petitioner Shyam Lal entered the Government service as LDC on 23rd August, 1965 in the Agriculture Farm, Durgapura, in the office of the Economics Botanist under the Directorate of Agriculture. At that time, the petitioner was already holding the qualification of 1st Year TDC and, thereafter he completed his graduation in Arts in the year 1967 while he was working as LDC. He was later on confirmed on the post of LDC vide order dated 12th October, 1972 with effect from 14th September, 1972, passed by the Director of Agriculture. By this time, the petitioner was posted as UDC-cum-steno vide order dated 16th August, 1971, passed by the Deputy Director and confirmed by the Director on the same date. The petitioner joined as UDC-cum-Steno on 28th August, 1971. The petitioner has stated that in the month of August, 1971, a notice for holding qualifying test of Stenotypist was issued by the HCM State Institute of Public Administration, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the test is being held in pursuance to the Government orders dated 14th November, 1967 and 21st November, 1970 for the persons who are not having Stenography subject either in the Higher Secondary or Intermediate Examination. According to the petitioner, this test was conducted for 60 words per minute in Hindi Stenography and 20 words per minutes for typing. The petitioner appeared in the said test and was declared successful vide order dated 1st January, 1972. On 1st January, 1980, the petitioner's appointment was regularised as Stenographer Gr.I1 under proviso (7) to Rule 7. According to the petitioner, this test was conducted for 60 words per minute in Hindi Stenography and 20 words per minutes for typing. The petitioner appeared in the said test and was declared successful vide order dated 1st January, 1972. On 1st January, 1980, the petitioner's appointment was regularised as Stenographer Gr.I1 under proviso (7) to Rule 7. Accordingly, the petitioner joined as Stenographer Gr. II on 5th June, 1980. On 27th July, 1981, a provisional seniority list of Stenographers Cr. II, as on 1st January, 1981, was published wherein the names of the petitioners were shown at Sr. No. 22 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma), Sr. No. 28 (Para Ram Kalani) and Sr. No. 42 (Shyam Lal). It is also the case of the petitioners, Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Paras Ram Kalani that the names of the private respondents who have been arrayed as respondents in the writ petitions from Sr. No. 4 to 12, in the case of Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Sr. No. 13,14,17,18 and 19 in the case of Paras Ram Kalani were shown as junior to them in the above provisional seniority list dated 27th July, 1981, as on 1st January, 1981 and thereafter an order was passed on 14th February, 1985, which,has been placed on record as Annexure/5 in the case of Mahesh Kumar Sharma, whereby the persons whose names are mentioned in this order and who were working as Stenographer Cr. 11 and whose names were inserted under proviso (7) to Rule 7 of the Rules as they were already holding the post of Stenographer Gr. II or Steno- typist in temporary or adhoc capacity and were possessing the prescribed qualifications and experience were given substantive appointment as Stenographer Gr. II. In this order, the names of three petitioners were mentioned at S. No. 14, 2 and 4 respectively in pursuance of the amendment made in proviso 7 to Rule 7. By the same order, several per- sons including certain respondents who were working as Stenographer Cr. II or as Steno- typist were also given substantive appointment as Stenographer Cr. 11 with reference to the amendment dated 13th December, 1974 in proviso (7) to Rule 7. On the basis of this order of substantive appointment on 14th February, 1985, an office order dated 14th February, 1985 was issued whereby the seniority list of Stenographer Cr. II or as Steno- typist were also given substantive appointment as Stenographer Cr. 11 with reference to the amendment dated 13th December, 1974 in proviso (7) to Rule 7. On the basis of this order of substantive appointment on 14th February, 1985, an office order dated 14th February, 1985 was issued whereby the seniority list of Stenographer Cr. II was finalised after considering the objections received in response to the provisional seniority list dated 27th July, 1981. This seniority list has been placed on record, in Mahesh Kumar Sharma's case, as Annexure/6. It is against this final seniority list dated 14th February, 1985 that the three petitioners preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal decided the three appeals vide a common judgment dated 30th January, 1990, which has been impugned in these writ petitions. 8. The principal contention which has been raised on behalf of the petitioners in these cases is that Steno-typist or LDC/UDC- cum-steno is not a post in the cadre of the Rules and, therefore, the LDCs or UDCs who knew steno-typing were used as LDC/UDC-cum- steno or Steno-typists and they were paid a special pay of Rs. 25/- per month. This could not give rise to any claim in favour of such steno-typists for regularisation of their services as Stenographer Gr. II and they could not be encadered as Stenographer Gr. II and they could not be the member of the service as Stenographer Gr.II. As such, the induction of such Steno-typist in the cadre of Stenographer Cr. 11 is wholly unjustified and unwarranted. .Submissions have been made in the alternative that even if their induction in the cadre of Stenographer Cr. II is held to be valid, they could not be given the seniority on the basis of combined and continuous length of service, including the service rendered by them as Steno-typist. In order to succeed on these two contentions, the challenge has been thrown to the order dated 14th February, 1985, whereby substantive appointment was accorded to such Steno- typists. Yet another order of the same date i.e. 14th February, 1985, by which the final seniority list was issued and the validity of the proviso (7) to Rule 7, under which the appointments of Steno- typists were regularised as Stenographer Gr. Yet another order of the same date i.e. 14th February, 1985, by which the final seniority list was issued and the validity of the proviso (7) to Rule 7, under which the appointments of Steno- typists were regularised as Stenographer Gr. II and sub-rule (ii-A) of Rule 27 of the Rules which provides for the determination of seniority inter of the persons substantively appointed under proviso 7 to Rule 7 on the basis of continuous length of their service on the post of Stenographer Gr. 11 from Steno-typist. 9. The writ petitions have been opposed by the State Government and the private respondents and certain private respondents have filed their separate replies. The case which has been set up by the respondents in their replies is that they have virtuality rendered services as Stenographers and that they also fulfil the eligibility for regularisation on the post of Stenographer Gr. ll in terms of the amendment made in proviso 7 to Rule 7 and, whereas the services rendered by them as Steno-typist are at par with those rendered by Stenographer Cr. II, they were rightly inducted as Stenographer Cr. II and there is nothing wrong with the amendment in proviso 7 to Rule 7 or proviso (ii-A) to Rule 27 and the criteria with regard to seniority based on total continuous length of service rendered by them. Apart from supporting their claim for regularisation as Stenographer Cr. II and proviso 7 to Rule 7 and proviso (ii-A) to Rule 27, the private respondents have also challenged the qualifications and eligibility of the petitioners. 10. Before we proceed to examine the rival claims set up by the petitioners on the one hand and those of the respondents on the other hand, at the very out set it may be observed that the validity of proviso (7) to Rule 7 and proviso (ii-A) to Rule 27 was not and could not be under challenge before the Tribunal and the same has been challenged in these writ petitions. Moreover, we find that the Tribunal has gone to the extent of examining the qualifications and eligibility of the petitioners at the instance of the private respondents so as to pronounce upon the validity of the basic appointment of the petitioners as Stenographer Cr. Moreover, we find that the Tribunal has gone to the extent of examining the qualifications and eligibility of the petitioners at the instance of the private respondents so as to pronounce upon the validity of the basic appointment of the petitioners as Stenographer Cr. II, whereas the same in respect of the petitioners was not and could not be disputed even by the State Government and the Tribunal has also drawn the tentative seniority list as Annexure/B appended to the order dated 30th January, 1990, forming a part of the judgment. Therefore, we have to examine the whole case on an absolutely new premises. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that nothing observed, held or directed in the Tribunal's order dated 30th January, 1990 would govern the rights of the parties and the directions given in this judgment would govern the rights of the parties and, the judgment of the Tribunal impugned before us will have no legal consequences. 11. The Scheme of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 has undergone various amendments from time to time; so much so that even with the assistance of counsel for the parties, it was with a great difficulty that we were able to keep a track with all these amendments for the purpose of deciding this controversy. Be that as it may, we first propose to make a reference to the scheme of the Rules and the relevant amendments with as much precision as we can. 12. Rule 6 of the Rules provides strength of the ministerial staff, which comprises of the cadre of Personal Assistant and Stenographer and a general cadre consisting of posts as mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 6. However, there is no post such as Steno-typist in the cadre as provided in Rule 6 of the Rules. Rule 6 is reproduced as under, for ready reference: "6. Strength of the staff (1) The strength of the staff shall be such as may be determined by Government from time to time. Provided that the Appointing Authority may leave unfilled or Government may held in abeyance any vacant post without thereby entitling any person to compensation. (2) The staff shall comprise of a cadre of 1(Personal Assistant) and Stenographers and a general cadre consisting of one or more of the following categories of posts as may be determined by Government from time to time. 2. (2) The staff shall comprise of a cadre of 1(Personal Assistant) and Stenographers and a general cadre consisting of one or more of the following categories of posts as may be determined by Government from time to time. 2. (Assistant Registrar, Board of Revenue) 3. (Administrative Officer) Superintendent Grade I 4(Law Editor) 5. (Deleted) 6. (Stock Verifier) Superintendent Grade II 7. (Supervisors) 8. (Deleted) Assistant. 9. (Head Clerks (Office of Head of Department) Head Clerks (Other Offices), Clerks Incharges of Section of Offices; Accounts Clerks; Accounts - Clerks; 10. (Auditor, Local fund Audit Department) 11. (Deleted) Upper Division Clerks; Lower Division Clerks; 12. Junior Auditor, Local Fund Audit Department) Note : Any ministerial post in a subordinate office in a pay scale applicable to any categories specified in sub-rule (2) shall be deemed to be a post in that category for the purposes of these Rules." 13. Rule 7 of the Rules provides for method of recruitment under Part-III of the Rules. Clause (a) of sub-rule(1) of Rule 7 deals with the recruitment to the cadre of Stenographers and proviso(7) of this Rule empowers the Appointing Authority for making substantive appointment to the post of Stenographer Gr.II from the persons holding the same post on ad hoc/temporary basis from a particular date and subject to fulfilling the conditions laid down thereunder. This proviso was inserted in the Rules vide Notification dated 13th December, 1974. According to this Notification, subject to the availability of vacancies appointing authority could give substantive appointment as Stenographer from amongst the persons who were holding the posts of Stenographer Gr.II or Steno-typist either in temporary or ad hoc capacity on 15th Sept. 1972 and whose work is found satisfactory by the Appointing Authority and who hold either of the following qualifications and experience on such date: (a) Graduate from a University established by law in India with Short- hand as one of the subjects or holder of a diploma in Shorthand; or (b) Passed the Higher Secondary Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or an equivalent examination with shorthand as one of the subjects and must have put in two years' service as Stenographer Grade-II or Steno-typist excluding breaks; if any. or (c) Those Stenographers Grade-II or Steno-Typists who have put in two years' service as such on 15/9/1972 in the concerned department, excluding breaks, if any, and who are certified by the Appointing Authority to have worked satisfactorily and who have passed the competitive examination as specified in Part-III of the Schedule-I either in English Shorthand or in Hindi Type-writing. 14. On 3rd April, 1975, a clarification was then issued that a person who has passed Intermediate Examination and has also passed separately shorthand and Typing Examination with a speed not less than what has been prescribed in Higher Secondary Examination i.e. a person holding a qualification higher than Higher Secondary with necessary shorthand and typing examination will also be considered as having fulfilled the qualification mentioned in clause (b) above. 15. Then this proviso to rule 7 was again amended by Notification dated 15th March, 1978, by which the word 'Steno-typist' was deleted with certain other changes and, this amendment dated 15th March, 1978 is reproduced as under; "That nothing in these rules shall preclude the Appointing Authority from making substantive appointment to the posts of Stenographer Grade-II subject to the availability of vacancies from amongst the persons who were holding the posts of Stenographer Grade 11 in the Department concerned or transferred to another Department on or before 1/1/1976 and whose work is found satisfactory by the Appointing Authority and who fulfilled either of the following qualifications on such date; (a) have passed a Degree Examination from a University established by law in India or qualifications declared equivalent with Stenography as one of the papers; OR (b) Have passed Higher Secondary Examination from a recognised Board of Secondary Examination with Stenography as one of the papers or passed the Stenography examination held by the HCM State Institute of Public Administration or Bhasha Vibhag or O and M Examination in Stenography or passed the Diploma Examination held by an Industrial Training Institute. Note:- (1) A recognised School Leaving Certificate/ Diploma obtained prior to the year 1958 shall be considered equivalent to Higher Secondary Board Certificate and shall be considered as having fulfilled the qualification mentioned under Clause (b) of this proviso. (2) The persons having qualifications higher than Higher Secondary Examination with necessary Shorthand and Type-writing examination shall also be considered as having fulfilled the qualification mentioned under clause (b) of this proviso." 16. (2) The persons having qualifications higher than Higher Secondary Examination with necessary Shorthand and Type-writing examination shall also be considered as having fulfilled the qualification mentioned under clause (b) of this proviso." 16. On 15th March, 1978 itself proviso (8) was added to Rule 7 as under: "(8) that persons appointed temporarily as Stenographer Grade II prior to 1/1 /1976 who are not covered under proviso(7) shall be treated as regularly appointed Stenographer Grade II subject to availability of vacancies and on their passing a speed test in Hindi and in English Stenography and in Type-writing of a standard prescribed for the Higher secondary Examination, to be held by an Institution recognised by the Government. Not more than two chances shall be given for passing the said speed test. Such persons who do not appear in/fail in both the aforesaid tests, after promulgation of these rules, shall be liable to be reverted or have their services terminated, as the case may be." 17. Proviso (8-A) to rule 7 was added by notification dated 27th December, 1978 as under: "That the persons appointed temporarily as Stenographers and who have attained the age of 40 years and are not covered under proviso (7) shall be regularly appointed as stenographers subject to availability of vacancies on their passing a speed test in Hindi Stenography and Typewriting or in English Stenography and Type writing, as the case may be, of a standard prescribed for the Higher Secondary Examination to be held by the Appointing Authority. Not more than two chances shall be given for passing the said test." Such persons who do not appear in or fail to pass in both the aforesaid tests after promulgation of these rules shall be liable to be reverted to the post held by them prior to their temporary appointment as Stenographer or in other cases their services shall be terminated, as the case may be." 18. That proviso (7) to Rule 7 was again amended vide Notification dated 23rd May, 1979, by which the word "Steno-typist" was again inserted in these rules and the same is reproduced as under: "That nothing in these rules shall preclude the Appointing Authority from making substantive appointment to the posts of Stenographer Grade-II subject to the availability of vacancies from amongst the persons who were holding the posts of Stenographer Grade-II or the Steno-typist, as the case may be, in the department concerned or transferred to another Department on or before 31/7/77 and whose work is found satisfactory by the Appointing Authority and who fulfilled either of the following qualifications on such date: (a) have passed a Degree Examination from a University established by Law in India or qualifications declared equivalent with Stenography as one of the papers; OR (b) have passed Higher Secondary Examination from a recognised Board of Secondary Examination with Stenography as one of the papers or passed the Stenography examination held by the HCM State Institute of Public Administration or Bhasha Vibhag or O and M Examination in Stenography or passed the Diploma Examination held by an Industrial Training Institute. Note:- (1) A recognised School leaving certificate/ Diploma obtained prior to the year 1958 shall be considered equivalent to Higher Secondary Board Certificate and shall be considered as having fulfilled the qualification mentioned under clause (b) of this proviso." (2) The persons having qualifications higher than Higher Secondary Examination with necessary Shorthand and Type-writing examination shall also be considered as having fulfilled the qualification mentioned under Clause (b) of this proviso." 19. It is clear from the above narration of the relevant provisions of the Rules which are under consideration that the rule relating to the recruitment of Stenographer Gr.1I including qualifications and experience as on a particular date, has undergone changes from time to time as also the insertion and deletion of the word 'Steno-typist". The Government considered the petitioners to be eligible with reference to their qualifications, experience etc. with reference to proviso (7) to Rule 7 and they were given regular appointments more than 10 years ago, on 1st January, 1980. The Government considered the petitioners to be eligible with reference to their qualifications, experience etc. with reference to proviso (7) to Rule 7 and they were given regular appointments more than 10 years ago, on 1st January, 1980. On the other hand, the private respondents who were working as Steno-typist on the relevant dates as per the amendment in proviso (7) to Rule 7 had also been considered to be eligible for substantive appointment as per proviso (7) to Rule 7, amended from time to time and substantive appointment was given to them on 14th Feb.,1985; with reference to the amendment dated 23rd May, 1978 and 15th March, 1978, the petitioners have also been given substantive appointment by the very same order, as would appear from Pt.V of the very same order dated 14th Feb., 1985. We would not now like to go into the question of qualifications, experience etc. at this stage either with regard to the petitioners or with regard to the respondents, lest we would be sitting to unscramble the eggs which have already been scrambled and the settled things would be unsettled and, therefore, we refuse to go into the questions of validity of appointments given by the Government either to the petitioners or to the respondents.Even otherwise, we do not find that keeping in view the history of this service and the fact situation, which was obtaining with regard to the using the services of the clerks as Steno-typists for a long time, the amendments were made in proviso (7) to Rule 7 so as to give regular appointment to them as Stenographer Gr. II i.e. the induction of Steno-typists in the cadre of Stenographer Gr.II is neither unjustified nor arbitrary, or unwarranted and, therefore, we hold that the amendments made in Rule 7 from time to time are in keeping with pace to the exigency of this service and the persons belonging to various categories who have acquired qualifications in conformity with the rules from time to time, or those who were working as Steno- typists if have been regularised and inducted in the cadre of Stenographer-II, the candidates such as the petitioners cannot have any legitimate cause of grievance against the induction of such steno-typists in the cadre of Stenographers and, we hold that the amendment made in proviso (7) to Rule 7 so as to legalise the regular appointment as Stenographer Gr.II do not suffer from the element of arbitrariness nor it can be said to be unjustified rather, these amendments have done justice to the candidates like the petitioners as well as the candidates like the respondents and, through these amendments, in our considered opinion, a balance has been struck between the candidates belonging to two categories and, hence, the challenge to the proviso (7) to Rule 7 cannot be sustained and, we hold accordingly. 20. Now, coming to the question of seniority, we may straightway refer to Rule 27, the relevant portion of which reads as under: "27. Seniority:- Seniority of persons appointed to the lowest post of the Service or lowest categories of posts in each of the Group/Section of the Service, as the case may be, shall be determined from the date of confirmation of such persons to the said post but in respect of persons appointed by promotion to other higher posts in the Service or other categories of posts in each of the Group/Section in the Service, as the case may be, shall be determined from the date of their regular selection to such posts. Provided:- (ii-A) that seniority interse of the persons substantively appointed under proviso (7) to rule 7 shall be determined by total continuous length of their service on the post of Stenographer Grade 11 or Steno-typist; (ii-B) that seniority interse of the persons substantively appointed under proviso (8A) to rule 7 shall be determined by total continuous,length of their services on the post of Stenographer in the subordinate offices:" 21. The provisional seniority list dated 27th July, 1981, as on 1st January, 1981, was decided on the basis of regular appointments as on 1st January, 1981 according to the following criteria: HINDI MATTER 365930 22. The case set up on behalf of the respondents in this regard is that the post of Stenographer/clerk was very much there in the Rules in as much as. by an amendment dated 14th July, 1962 the words "Stenographer-Clerk" were inserted in sub-rule (2) of rule 6 between the words 'Accounts Clerk' and 'Upper Division Clerk' and the Steno-typists were treated as equivalent to Stenographer from 13th December, 1974 by making provision for regularisation of their services on the post of Stenographer with effect from 15th September, 1972 and, this position remained unchallenged upto 15th March, 1978 when the word "Sterio-typist" was deleted from proviso (7) to Rule 7. This deletion was by mistake which was realised and the word "Steno-typist" was again inserted on 23rd May, 1979. It has been contended by Shri Narendra Jain and Shri Prem Asopa that the holders of the post of Steno-typist have been treated as equivalent to Stenographer and such of the persons whose services were utilised as Steno-typists were paid Rs. 25/- per month. It is to be agreed on all hands that the Stenographers Cr.!! were in pay scale No. 11 i.e. 450-10-490-20-770, whereas the pay scale held by the Steno-typists was as that of LDC/UDC with the simple benefit of Rs. 25/- per month more. But that does not bring the pay scale of Stenographer Gr. II and Steno-typist at par; may be that post of Stenographer/Clerk was included in sub-rule(2) between the post of-Accounts Clerk and UDC, as has been stated in the reply to the writ petition on behalf of respondent No.9, internal pages 3 and 4 thereof. But this does not bring the respondents at par. If the LDCs/UDCs were utilised as Steno- typists in consonance with their claim that the duties which they had been dis- charging for a long time were akin to Stenographer Gr.II and on that post they were inducted in the cadre of Stenographer Gr.II subject to certain conditions; but that does not mean that the services rendered by them as Steno- typist even though in a lower pay scale should be treated at par to that of Stenographer Gr.II even for the purpose of seniority. Looking to the services rendered by such candidates as Steno- typist; to give them an opportunity to become regular Stenographer Gr.II is entirely different then to even concede to their seniority over the other set of candidates who were already Stenographer Gr.II. Once a stage comes where the right of a third party is intervened the matters have to be examined on a different footing and more strictly. If the clerical staff having worked as Steno-typist, having got an entry into the cadre of Stenographer Gr. II are given a further benefit to steal a march over the existing Stenographer Cr.!! in the matter of seniority, it is bound to result in discrimination and treating unequals in an equal manner. So far as induction h%to the cadre is concerned, and so long as the rights of existing Stenographer Cr.!! are not affected, the entry of such Steno-typists in the cadre is within the tolerable limits, but when the question of seniority comes, the service rendered by the holders of the post in lower pay scale with a mere special pay of Rs. 25/- p.m. cannot be equated with the services rendered by the Stenographers in the higher pay scale and, therefore, in the matter of seniority as Stenographer Gr.II, the Steno-typists.who have been in- ducted as Stenographer Gr. II cannot be allowed the benefit of total continuous service put in by them including the period during which they worked as Steno- typist. The principle of equality before law, equal protection of laws and equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India means that neither the equals can be treated in an unequal manner nor unequal can be treated in an equal manner and, in case, the equals are treated as unequals and unequals are treated as equals it would be a case of discrimination. In the instant case, we find that the proviso (ii-A) to Rule 27 fails to keep a reasonable classification between the existing Stenographers and the Stenographers who are actually converts from Steno-typists. In the instant case, we find that the proviso (ii-A) to Rule 27 fails to keep a reasonable classification between the existing Stenographers and the Stenographers who are actually converts from Steno-typists. The LDCs/UDCs who had rendered service as Steno-typist, seek to be at par with Stenographer Gr.II forgetting that while working as Steno-typist such candidates were in the lower pay scale and the quality of service rendered and the experience gained by such Steno-typists cannot be equated and cannot be put at par with the quality and the experience gained by Stenographer Gr.II as such. There- fore, the candidates who worked as Steno-typists could hardly be given the full credit of the period for which they have served as Steno-typist for the purpose of gaining seniority as Stenographer Gr. IL In our opinion, proviso (ii-A) to Rule 27 giving the benefits of total continuous length of service as Stenographer Cr.!! or Steno-typist puts the service rendered as Steno-typist at par which really amounts to a great injustice to Stenographer G.II and it is bound to give rise to a heart- burning amongst Stenographer Cr.!! because the persons who had been throughout working in a lower pay scale and who had got chance to work as Steno-typist only because of the exigency of service could not be allowed to steal a march over them and to become senior to them overnight because by operation of some law they have been able to get an entry into the cadre of Stenographer Grade-II. The situation which has precipitated by proviso (ii-A) to Rule 27 does not sound reasonable to any man of common prudence. It does not appeal to reason and, in our considered opinion, it is a clear-cut case in which a glaring hostile discrimination stands precipitated by operating proviso (ii-A) to Rule 27 against the existing Stenographer Cr.!!. In this view of the matter, proviso (ii-A) to Rule 27 does not withstand the challenge of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same deserves to be struck down as it seeks to treat the service rendered as Steno- typist to be at par with that of Stenographer Gr.II. In this view of the matter, proviso (ii-A) to Rule 27 does not withstand the challenge of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same deserves to be struck down as it seeks to treat the service rendered as Steno- typist to be at par with that of Stenographer Gr.II. In our opinion, the State functionaries will be well advised to take steps for appropriate amendment in proviso (ii-A) to Rule 27 which we have held to be unreasonable and which we hereby strike down as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 23. Consequently, these petitions are partly allowed. Proviso (ii-A) to Rule 27 of the Rules is declared to be ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same is struck down as such. It is directed that the seniority list which was finalised on 14th Feb., 1985 shall not be acted upon and given effect to for any purpose whatsoever. After making appropriate and suitable amendment in proviso (ii-A) to Rule 27 of the Rules with regard to the seniority of Stenographer Gr.II and steno-typists, respondents No.1 and 2 would prepare and issue a tentative seniority list inviting objections from all concerned and thereafter finalise the seniority list after considering the objections which may be received against such tentative seniority list. We order that instead of the directions given in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, the directions given in this judgment would govern the rights of the parties for the purpose of seniority and further promotions. 24. The directions given in this judgment shall be carried out as early as possible, but in no case later than a period of six months from the date the certified copy of the judgment is made available to respondents No. 1 and 2 by the petitioners. The petitioners shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the revised seniority list which may be finalised in the light of this judgment. 25. The writ petitions are partly allowed as indicated above, with no order as to costs.Petition partly allowed. *******