ORDER M.L. Bhat, J. - Common questions of law and fact are involved in these three petitions. The question for determination in these three petitions is as to whether the petitioners' seniority is to be reckoned from the date of their appointment or in terms of the impugned decision. Therefore, these three petitions are decided by a common judgment. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of these three petitions are briefly summarised. In writ petition No. 20408 of 1988 the petitioner is said to have been appointed as temporary P.M.S. (Provincial Medical Service) Officer on 16-10-1961 against the substantive vacancy in consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission. The petitioner claims that he is working as temporary P.M.S. Officer in the department since the date of his initial appointment. In writ petition No. 1458 of 1989 the petitioners are said to have been appointed as temporary P.M.S. II on 16-10-1961 and 8-10-1963. They are said to have been working against the substantive vacancies. Since then they are continuously working. The petitioner in writ petition No. 6331 of 1989 was appointed as temporary P.M.S. II Officer on 13-9-1962 and he is continuously working on the said post since his initial appointment. The petitioners in writ petition No. 1458 of 1989 seem to have filed a writ petition in this court against the seniority list which, according to them, did not reflect the true position about their seniority. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction that their representation pending before the authorities be considered. The petitioners' representation was decided on 6-9-1988 and it was held that they were ad hoc appointees, therefore, they could not be given benefit of ad hoc appointment with effect from their initial appointment. This is said to have been done by the respondent No. 2 who is said to be junior to the petitioners. 3. Service conditions of the doctors of the Provincial Medical Service (P.M.S.) are governed by the U.P. Medical Services Rules, 1946, which have been amended from time to time. The said rules were modified in consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission by a Govt. order dated 4-10-1961. As a result of this modification M.B.B.S. Degree holders and B.M.B.S. Degree holders of Lucknow University were made eligible for appointment in P.M.S. cadre. A true copy of this G.O. is annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. The said rules were modified in consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission by a Govt. order dated 4-10-1961. As a result of this modification M.B.B.S. Degree holders and B.M.B.S. Degree holders of Lucknow University were made eligible for appointment in P.M.S. cadre. A true copy of this G.O. is annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. The Medical Practitioners having M.B.B.S. or B.M.B.S. degrees were enrolled and registered under the U.P. Medical Act, 1917 and their names appeared in the register maintained by the Registrar, U.P. Medical Council. 4. The petitioners in all the three petitions are B.M.B.S. Degree holders of Lucknow University. They are said to have completed house job and were entitled to be recruited in P.M.S. II Services of the State. A large number of substantive vacancies of P.M.S. II doctors were declared in the year 1961 and in subsequent years. In consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission applications were invited for filling up the said posts and the persons having M.B.B.S. or B.M.B.S. degrees, who had completed nine months practical training in a Teaching Hospital were entitled to apply for being appointed against the said vacancies. The petitioners also applied and were selected temporarily in consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission. The petitioners' temporary appointment is said to have continued by the Governor in exercise of his powers beyond one year term or till such time as their services were required by the State. This is reflected by the Govt. Order dated 4-4-1963, a copy whereof is on the record. The petitioners' temporary appointment continued against the substantive vacancies till 1982. After about 20 years temporary service it is stated that the petitioners cannot be treated as ad hoc appointees for the purposes of fixation of their seniority. The order dated 6-9-1988 by which the petitioners' services are treated as ad hoc is, therefore, said to be arbitrary. mala fide, against law and against the Service rules. 5. In 1964 by virtue of a Govt. Order dated 2-11-1964 the services of P.M.S. I and P.M.S. II officers were merged and a single cadre, namely, Provincial Medical Services i.e. P.M.S. was created. A copy of this order is placed on the record by the petitioners. mala fide, against law and against the Service rules. 5. In 1964 by virtue of a Govt. Order dated 2-11-1964 the services of P.M.S. I and P.M.S. II officers were merged and a single cadre, namely, Provincial Medical Services i.e. P.M.S. was created. A copy of this order is placed on the record by the petitioners. The State Government is said to have directed the Director, Medical & Health Services, to send the seniority list of all the P.M.S. I & II officers as on 31-10-1964 including the temporary officers, but the Director is said not to have obeyed this order. A reminder was sent to the said Director for forwarding the list of P.M.S. officers including temporary officers who were working on 31-10-1964. In the year 1961 a civil list of temporary P.M.S. officers was approved by the U.P. Public Service Commission. In the said list the petitioners in writ petition No. 1458 of 1989 were shown at serial Nos. 519 and 560 respectively. The petitioner in writ petition No. 6331 of 1989 was shown at serial No. 527 in the said list. The seniority of the petitioner in writ petition No. 20408 of 1988 was not reflected in any seniority list. In his case his application for regularisation of his services was rejected and he was shown as on probation in the seniority list of July, 1986. The P.M.S. cadre is said to have been recognised during the year 1973. The petitioners claim that their services were continuing in the new cadre as temporary approved Medical Officers. 6. In 1981 the Service Rules are said to have been amended with effect from 4-10-1961. The petitioners are duly qualified as P.M.S. officers right from their initial appointment. The decision of the respondent that the petitioners were not eligible for appointment in P.M.S. cadre is said to be illegal and arbitrary, which is prayed to be quashed. The petitioners state that they have continued without any interruption in service for about 20 years and they were working against the substantive vacancies. Therefore, the respondent cannot now treat their services as ad hoc from the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners submit that the Ad hoc Appointment Rules of 1979 are not applicable to them because they were never working on ad hoc basis. they were working against the substantive vacancies, though temporarily. 7. Therefore, the respondent cannot now treat their services as ad hoc from the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners submit that the Ad hoc Appointment Rules of 1979 are not applicable to them because they were never working on ad hoc basis. they were working against the substantive vacancies, though temporarily. 7. The petitioners' services are said to have been regularised from 1982. Till that time their services have been treated as ad hoc, which is assailed by the petitioners. They claim benefit of their services from the date of their initial appointment. In the impugned seniority list the petitioners are shown as ad hoc appointees up to 1982 and thereafter they are shown on probation. The petitioners are not given the benefit of 20 years' service and their seniority is, therefore, adversely affected. It is further stated that the respondent No. 2 has influenced the decision because he was himself likely to be affected if the petitioners were given due places in the seniority list. The impugned order dated 6-9-1988 fixing the seniority of the petitioners with effect from 3-8-1982 is said to be illegal, against the Service Rules and against the constitutional provisions. 8. According to the Medical Service Rules of 1946 under which the petitioners were appointed temporarily on substantive; vacancies, their seniority is to be determined from the date of appointment against substantive vacancies. On the aforesaid ground it is prayed that the impugned decision of the Secretary, Medical & Health Services and Family Welfare. Govt. of U.P. dated 6-9-1988, copy whereof is on the record, be quashed and the seniority of the petitioners as directed to be fixed with effect from 3-8-1982 be rectified and the respondent be directed to fix the petitioners' seniority by taking into consideration their services with effect from their initial appointment in P.M.S. cadre and they be given all benefits which are due to them according to the Medical Service Rules. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed in writ petition No. 1458 of 1989 only. Time was granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit in other petitions also but they did not file any counter affidavit in those writ petitions. It is stated in the counter affidavit that around 1961 a large number of posts in Provincial Medical Service were vacant and against those posts medical graduates with M.B.B.S. B.M.B.S. degree were also made eligible for appointment. It is stated in the counter affidavit that around 1961 a large number of posts in Provincial Medical Service were vacant and against those posts medical graduates with M.B.B.S. B.M.B.S. degree were also made eligible for appointment. The respondents; have stated that the petitioners were not appointed on regular basis. they were initially appointed on ad hoc basis. The Governor in consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission Sanctioned the continuity of ad hoc appointments in question. In the appointment letter of the petitioners it was clearly mentioned that their appointment was for one year or till their services were required by the Government or till they are replaced by regular candidates, whichever was earlier. The petitioners' ad hoc appointment is now regularised with effect from 1982. The petitioners are entitled to get their seniority on the basis of their regularisation of appointment with effect from 1982. Being ad hoc appointees their names were not included in the seniority list. Under the Regularisation Rules of 1979 their ad hoc appointment is regularised with effect from 3-8-1982. They will get seniority from the date and not from earlier date as claimed by the petitioners. 10. The main controversy in, the writ petitions is about the petitioners' nature of appointment. Whether they are ad hoc appointees or temporary appointees is to be determined in these writ petitions because if they were ad hoc appointees in 1982 then no fault can be found the impugned order by which the petitioners' seniority is to be reckoned from the date of regularisation of their service. But if they are not ad hoc appointees, then the petitioners seniority is to be reckoned from the date of their initial appointment. 11. The rules of 1946 lay down a method for determining the seniority of the persons governed by these rules. If they are appointed against the substantive vacancies temporarily, their seniority is to be determined from the date of their appointment. The relevant rule in this regard reads as under : "The seniority in the service shall be determined by the date of year of appointment in substantive vacancy provided that if two or more candidates are appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined according to the order in which their names are mentioned in the order of appointment." 12. From reading the appointment order of the petitioners it cannot be presumed that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis, as suggested by the respondents. Moreover, the ad hoc appointment cannot .be continued for indefinite period. It is the case of the respondents also that the petitioners' initial appointment was made against the substantive vacancies which had fallen vacant due to non-availability of the doctors. The respondents do not dispute the eligibility of the petitioners for being appointed as P.M.S. II. It is also not denied that M.B.B.S. degree holders and B.M.B.S. degree holders were both put together and made eligible for being considered for appointment against the post of P.M.S. II. In the case of B.M.B.S. it was necessary that they should have obtained practical training for nine months. There is no dispute about the petitioners having obtained practical training for nine months after having done B.M.B.S. course. The respondents also do not, deny that P.M.S. Classes I and II were merged to gether. There was an integrated class of P.M.S. and the petitioners were eligible for being appointed to the said class of posts on the basis of the Govt. orders. The rules of 1981 framed by the respondent No. 1 are made retrospectively applicable to the petitioners with effect from 4-10-1961. 13. Merely because the petitioners were appointed for one year or for such time till their services were required or were extended from time to time would not make their initial appointment as ad hoc appointment unless it is expressly stated in their appointment orders that their services are on ad hoc basis. The record placed before the court in these writ petitions is replete with a catena of documents which would indicate that the petitioners have been working against the substantive vacancies with effect from their initial appointment and have not been treated as ad hoc appointees. All of a sudden it seems to have dawned on the respondents to treat the petitioners as ad hoc appointees so that their claim with regard to the fixation of their seniority is.closed once for all. 14. Even if the petitioners' services are not regularised, that will not denude the petitioners' to claim the benefit of their continued service from the date of their initial appointment. The regularisation of service was to be done by the State. 14. Even if the petitioners' services are not regularised, that will not denude the petitioners' to claim the benefit of their continued service from the date of their initial appointment. The regularisation of service was to be done by the State. If the State has not chosen to do it, they cannot take advantage of their own wrong by inflicting a severe blow on the petitioners' right so as to deprive them of their continued service of about 19/20 years as P.M.S. officers. By having allowed them to work against the substantive vacancies without any let or hindrance, the respondents cannot be heard to say that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis and their services were governed by ad hoc appointment rules of 1979. The rules of 1979 are not at all applicable to, the petitioners. Under some mistaken notion of law or under some misconception the respondents seem to have applied the rules of 1979 to the petitioners by treating them as ad hoc appointees. The facts, as revealed from the writ petitions, do not suggest that the petitioners' appointment was made on ad hoc basis initially. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioners were appointed against the substantive vacancies which had fallen vacant in 1961 and the State Government made appointments against the vacancies from time to time with a view to render medical service to the people who would otherwise have been deprived of the said service. The State seems to have discharged its duty in arranging medical facilities for the general public and in consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission appointed the petitioners against the substantive vacancies on different dates. Such a course could be followed by the State in public interest. The respondents now want the court to believe that the State had initially appointed the petitioners on ad hoc basis. The attempt of the respondents, therefore, seems to be not actuated by good faith. 15. The petitioners' length of service from the date of their initial appointment to 1982 cannot be discarded to satisfy the whim of bureaucrats in the State Government. It will be unjust to hold that 19/20 years of petitioners' continuous service against the substantive vacancies shall go waste and at a later stage they will be considered to be ad hoc appointees. It will be unjust to hold that 19/20 years of petitioners' continuous service against the substantive vacancies shall go waste and at a later stage they will be considered to be ad hoc appointees. There is no reason for accepting the contention of the respondents that the petitioners' appointment was ad hoc and they continued for 19/20 years on ad hoc basis and have not acquired any right whatsoever on the basis of the length of their service. 16. The petitioners have attributed the illegality done in fixing their seniority to the respondent No. 2. Looking to the totality of the circumstances which were demonstrated at the Bar it seems that some one in the State hierarchy has tried to use his ingenuity to harm the petitioners. The Medical Service Rules, 1946 do apply to the petitioners. These rules have been amended from time to time but the basic rule with regard to the determination of seniority has remained unchanged. It says that seniority is to be determined from the date of appointment in substantive vacancy. The appointment may be temporary or permanent. But if it is against the substantive vacancy the year of appointment is determinative for fixing the seniority under the rules. 17. The learned counsel for the State argued that the petitioners were ad hoc appointees. Therefore. they were given benefit of 1979 rules and their appointments were regularised with effect from 1982 and from that date they are entitled to be given seniority and not from the date of initial appointment because that was ad hoc. This submission is self-defeating in as much as one cannot be oblivious about the initial order of appointment of the petitioners. At no place the initial order of appointment suggests that the petitioners' appointment was on ad hoc basis. In the absence of express declaration in the order to that effect the petitioners' initial appointment cannot be treated as ad hoc appointment. It was next contended that a large number of P.M.S. officers are likely to be affected if the petitioners' seniority is ordered to be refixed. Those officers are not before the Court and in their absence no order of fixation of seniority can be passed as the persons likely to be affected by any order in this case are not parties to the writ petitions. 18. Those officers are not before the Court and in their absence no order of fixation of seniority can be passed as the persons likely to be affected by any order in this case are not parties to the writ petitions. 18. The submission about the necessary parties not being before the court and the relief not being available to the petitioners in the absence of necessary parties is also not well founded. This court would not fix the seniority in this judgment. It would only lay down the guidelines on which the seniority is to be fixed. While fixing the seniority the respondents have to issue notice to all those. who are likely to be affected by refixing the seniority of the petitioners and they are to be heard by inviting objections from them. In case the petitioners' length of service from initial appointment is taken into consideration, the officers, who are appointed at a later date even on regular basis, may have no grievance about the fixation of seniority of the petitioners by taking into consideration the length of their service from the date of their initial appointment. However, the State respondent would be bound to hear all the affected persons before the final seniority list is reframed, if the petitioners succeed in these writ petitions. Therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to hear the persons, who are likely to be affected by this order. This order only lays down the principle regarding the fixation of seniority and nothing beyond that. Therefore, the writ petitions are not bad because some parties, who are likely to be affected are not before the Court. 19. In P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P., reported in 1987 UPLBEC 624 : 1987 Lab IC 1307, the Supreme Court lays down that the temporary employees are entitled to the benefit of entire period of service for the purposes of determining inter se seniority along with the appointees to permanent posts. This benefit, however, is not available to ad hoc employees. This benefit, however, is not available to ad hoc employees. In Narendra Chadha v. Union of India, reported in 1986 UPLBEC 373 : 1986 Lab IC 590 the Supreme Court was of the view that the ad hoc promotees to fill several vacancies, which were allocated for direct recruits, continuously worked for 15/20 years and as such were held entitled to get their seniority considered from the date of their officiation to permanent post and while determining their promotion date of their continuous officiation and the length of their service has to be taken into consideration. In Jia Lal Jain v. State of U.P., reported in 1986 UPBEC 760 a Single Bench of this Court has held that seniority inter se has to be determined with reference to the date of appointment and not from the date of confirmation. In Union of India v. G. N. Tiwari, reported in (1986) 1 SCC 89 : 1986 Lab IC 679 the Supreme Court was dealing with I.A.S. Cadre post but the principle laid down about the seniority in that case will be of great help in this case also. The period for determining the seniority is to be reckoned from the date of temporary appointment to the post by the State Government and not from the date of approval by the Government. In G.P. Doval v. The Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., reported in 1985 UPLBEC 4 : 1984 Lab IC 1304 the Supreme Court has held that the rule of seniority being determined by the period of continuous officiation of service has to be taken into consideration for determining the seniority and seniority is not to be determined from the date of substantive appointment. 20. In the light of the aforesaid authorities it emerges that the length of service from the initial appointment is determinative for fixing seniority. Even if the petitioners' service was not confirmed, the period of their service from initial appointment cannot be ignored for the purpose of determining the seniority of the petitioners. The rules of 1946 lay down a correct principle for determining seniority of those employees, who were working against the substantive vacancies and they were not appointed on ad hoc basis. The petitioners, as already held, cannot be treated to have been appointed on ad hoc basis. The rules of 1946 lay down a correct principle for determining seniority of those employees, who were working against the substantive vacancies and they were not appointed on ad hoc basis. The petitioners, as already held, cannot be treated to have been appointed on ad hoc basis. They have continuously served against the substantive vacancies from the date of their initial appointment and were eligible to hold the posts. In the case of some of the petitioners their appointment was made in consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission and in the case of some of the petitioners their services have not been regularised but that will not affect their seniority on the basis of length of service from the date of their initial appointment. The rules of 1979, which are applicable to ad hoc appointees, do not apply to the petitioners. Consequently their seniority cannot be fixed from 1982 but it has to be fixed from the date of their initial appointment and the entire period from that date has to be taken into consideration for fixing their seniority. The impugned decision of the Secretary, Medical & Health Services and Family Welfare, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow dated 6- 9-1988 is legally bad and against the Service Rules and the provisions of the Constitution. The said decision is liable to be set aside and cannot be sustained. 21. For the reasons stated above the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned decision of the Secretary. Medical & Health Services and Family Welfare, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow dated 6-9-1988 is quashed. The respondents are directed to fix the seniority of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment in P.M.S. cadre and give them all the service benefits which are due to them after fixing their seniority. The respondents are further directed that while fixing seniority of the petitioners all those, who are likely to be affected by the guidelines given in this judgment shall be given an opportunity of being heard by inviting objections from the concerned employees. The seniority of the petitioners shall be fixed within four months from the date of presentation a copy of this judgment before the respondents in accordance with law and in the light of the guidelines given in this judgment.