JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - On 5-10-1956 the petitioner was appointed as Malaria Inspector. On 9-5-1958 he was promoted to the post of Sr. Malaria Inspector. In the year 1959 his appointment was approved by U P. Public Service Commission on the post of Malaria Inspector. On November 3, 1967 the petitioner was found suitable for being promoted to the post of Assistant Unit Officer (Non-medical) as a stop gap measure till the candidates selected by U. P. Public Service Commission were appointed to these posts and posted to National Malaria Eradication Programme. In the order of promotion dated November 3, 1967 issued by the Director, name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No. 2. In pursuance of aforesaid order on 11-11-1967 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Unit Officer and to that post he has been discharging his duties since 13-11-1967. 2. Prior to 1978 Malaria programme was in three phases : - 1. Attack Phase Dealt by Asstt. Unit Officer (Pay Scale Rs. 300-500). 2. Consolidation Phase Assistant Malaria (Pay Scale Rs. 300-545). 3. Maintenance Phase Maintenance Officer (Pay Scale Rs. 300-545). 3. In the year 1978 all the three phases were amalgamated and brought into single cadre, with the new designation of Asstt. Malaria Officer (Pay Scale 300-550). The petitioner was not given new designation and post, ceased to exist. All other employees were designated to new post, but the petitioner was allowed to continue on the above post for nine years since 1978. The petitioner made representation to the authorities concerned in that regard. 4. On June 3, 1978 under Malaria modified plan all the Asstt. Unit Officers were designated as Asstt. Malaria Officer in the new pay scale of Rs. 300-550. Some how petitioner's name was omitted. Some of the appointees of 1958 in comparison to the petitioner, who was appointed in October 1956, were designated as Asstt. Malaria Officer. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that his seniority has been altered from time to time against which he made representation to the authorities but the same remain undisposed of. In the seniority list dated 31-10-1987 his name did not find mentioned as Malaria Inspector/Senior Malaria Inspector. According to the petitioner it might be because the department considered him to be confirmed on the post of Asstt. Unit Officer. In the seniority list dated 31-10-1987 his name did not find mentioned as Malaria Inspector/Senior Malaria Inspector. According to the petitioner it might be because the department considered him to be confirmed on the post of Asstt. Unit Officer. On 14-11-1987 the petitioner was served with an order dated 30-10-1987 passed by Additional Malaria Director, U. P. Lucknow, by means of which the petitioner was reverted to the post of senior Malaria Inspector and transferred to district Pilibhit, On 8-12-1987 he filed present Writ Petition which was admitted. On the same day a division bench of this Court stayed the operation of the reversion order dated 30-10-1987 contained in Annexure-8 provided, it has not taken effect to. 6. It was averred in the Counter Affidavit that the State Government vide G. O. Number 2767/XVI-10-142/83 dated 1-8-1984 allowed 50% percent post of Asstt. Malaria Officer to be filed up from amongst Senior Malaria Inspector on the basis of Seniority and suitability and the rests of 50% percent were to be filed up by direct recruitment through Public Service Commission U. P. Allahabad. The post of Asstt. Malaria Officer comes within the purview of Public Service Commission. Reversion of the petitioner was not considered on the basis of Service record. The Commission approved 40 candidates, out of 44 from the eligibility list of general candidate. The petitioner's name did not find mention in the eligibility list. 7. It was further averted that the petitioner was working on the post of Asstt. Unit Officer as a slop gap arrangement, and his promotion was subject to the availability of the selected candidate by the Commission. Under the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner was reverted to his substantive post of Senior Malaria Inspector. 8. It was further averred in the Counter-Affidavit that the objection raised by the against the fixation of his seniority was under consideration and his name would appear in final seniority list of the Senior Malaria Inspector, which at the time of filing Counter-affidavit was under process of preparation. 9. In Para-18 of the Counter-affidavit it was admitted that the petitioner worked on the post of Asstt. Unit Officer for about 20 years. 9. In Para-18 of the Counter-affidavit it was admitted that the petitioner worked on the post of Asstt. Unit Officer for about 20 years. On the Launching of modified plan in the year 1978 vide Government Order dated 9-1-1978 post of Assistant Unit Officer/Assistant Malaria Maintenance Officer was converted into Assistant Malaria Officer and at time all the incumbents working on the post of Assistant Malaria Maintenance Officer were absorbed on the post of Assistant Malaria Officer except five persons including the petitioner. These persons could not be absorbed on the post of Malaria Officer because they did not come in the eligibility list on the ground of seniority. Later on out of five persons mentioned above three persons namely Jamil Ahmad, Habib Ahmad and S. I. Singhal were absorbed on the post of Asstt. Melaria Officer. The two incumbent namely Lalit Kumar Srivastava and the petitioner had not been reverted from the post of Asstt. Unit Officer to Senior Malaria Inspector at that time and they were allowed to continue on stop gap arrangement. Later on Lalit Kumar Srivastava expired and on 30lh October, 1987 the petitioner was reverted from the post of Asstt. Unit Officer to the post of Senior Malaria Inspector because he was working as Assistant Unit Officer on stop gap arrangement. The said arrangement was subject to joining of the approved candidate from the U. P. Public Service Commission. 10. It is the admitted case of the parties that there existed no service rule for appointment and promotion of persons working in the Malaria department. By means of Government Order dated August 1, 1984 the post of Assistant Malaria Officer, which is within the purview of Public Service Commission, was to be filled up by promotion from the departmental candidate as well as direct recruitment with a ratio of 50% each. The post of Senior Malaria Inspector and Malaria Inspector were to be filled up by Selection Committee by departmental promotion. 11. The aforesaid Government Order was issued in the year 1984. The petitioner was appointed as Asstt. The post of Senior Malaria Inspector and Malaria Inspector were to be filled up by Selection Committee by departmental promotion. 11. The aforesaid Government Order was issued in the year 1984. The petitioner was appointed as Asstt. Unit Officer in the year 1967 in the light of Government Order dated 18-12-1959, by means of which only 25% of the posts were reserved for departmental candidate, which were to be filled up by promotion of suitable candidate from the rank of Senior Malaria Inspector who were trained in Malaria-ology having field experience in Malaria for about 5 years and possessed intermediate qualification. Government order dated 1-8-1984 was issued when the petitioner had completed 17 years of services, as Asstt. Unit Officer as well as after the issue of U. P. regularisation of ad-hoc appointment (on the posts within the purview of U. P. Public Service Commission) Rule, 1979. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Asstt. Unit Officer on 3-11-1967 and worked on the said post till he was reverted by means of the order dated 30-10-1987. Although the contention of the petitioner is that he was observed in the regular cadre against the departmental quota of Asstt. Unit Officer on 11-11-1967 that is the date on which he joined on the post of Asstt. Unit Officer by promotion of 25% departmental quota, which has been controverted by the opposite parties, who stated that it was only stop-gap arrangement, it has to be seen as to whether 20 years' working on a post by any stretch of imagination could be termed as stop gap arrangement, ad-hoc or officiating arrangement. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Unit Officer in pursuance of the Government Order dated August 21, 1965, which, has been annexed as Annexure-R. A.-2, after being selected for such appointment on merit by a selection committee. 12. In the supplementary counter-affidavit it has been admitted that in 1978 in pursuance of the modified scheme of Malaria programme post of Asstt. Malaria officers were created. Earlier on that post that is Asstt. Malaria Officer, Asstt. Unit Officers were absorbed. As the petitioner was junior, hence it was not possible to absorb him on the post of Asstt. Malaria Officer. No explanation has been given as to why when he was not eligible to continue, he was not reverted. Malaria officers were created. Earlier on that post that is Asstt. Malaria Officer, Asstt. Unit Officers were absorbed. As the petitioner was junior, hence it was not possible to absorb him on the post of Asstt. Malaria Officer. No explanation has been given as to why when he was not eligible to continue, he was not reverted. On this much has been indicated in the supplementary counter-affidavit that he was allowed to continue on the post of Asstt. Unit Officer as he would be absorbed in future whenever the post of Asstt. Malaria Officer could fall vacant, but for some unavoidable reason, it could not become possible and the petitioner continued to work on the post of Assistant Unit Officer on stop-gap arrangement it was averred in the said affidavit that now some of the vacancies from departmental quota were available and proposal was sent to Public Service Commission for appointment. In the said eligibility list sent to the Commission name of the petitioner finds mentioned at Serial No. 2 and the said list after being approved by the Commission the case of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with the seniority, 13. In the case of Narendra Chadha and others v. Union of India and others reported in 1986 SCC (L & S)-226 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Venkataramia, J. speaking on behalf of the bench indicated : "It is unfortunate that even though the promotes have been discharging their duties to the best of their ability and receiving salary and allowance from the Government for the services rendered by them, it is alleged in the course of the said counter affidavit that what was being paid to them was by way of grace. This statement adds insult to injury. If the Government felt that they were not competent to discharge their duties and they had not been appointed permanently to the posts held by them, it was open to it to revert them to their posts from which they had been promoted leaving it open to them to question the orders of reversion in court. The Government was in need of their services and the petitioners have been holding these posts for nearly 15 to 20 years. The Government was in need of their services and the petitioners have been holding these posts for nearly 15 to 20 years. It is not fair to say at this distance of time that the Government was only keeping them in their posts as a matter of grace." It was further indicated : - It is true that the petitioner were not promoted by following the actual procedure prescribed under Rule 8 (1) (a) (ii) but the fact remains that they have been working in posts included in Grade IV from the date on which they were appointed to these posts. The appointments are made in the name of the President by the competent authority. They have been continuously holding these posts. They are being paid all along the salary and allowances payable to incumbents of such posts. They have not been asked to go back to the posts from which they were promoted at any time since the dates of their appointment. The order of promotion issued in some cases show that they are promoted in the direct line of their promotion. It is expressly admitted that the petitioners have been allowed to hold posts included in Grade IV of the aforesaid services, though on an ad-hoc basis. (See para-21 of the counter-affidavit filed by Shri P. G. Lele, Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms). It is, therefore, idle to contend that the petitioners are not holding the posts in Grade-IV of the two services in question. It is significant that neither the Government has issued orders of reversion to their former posts nor has anybody so far questioned the right of the petitioners to continue in the posts, which they are now holding. It would be unjust to hold at this distance of time that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the petitioners are not holding the posts in Grade IV. The above contention is, therefore, without substance. But, we however, make it clear that it is not our view that whenever a person is appointed in a post without following the rules prescribed for appointment to that post, he should be treated as a person regularly appointed to that post. Such a person may be reverted from that post. The above contention is, therefore, without substance. But, we however, make it clear that it is not our view that whenever a person is appointed in a post without following the rules prescribed for appointment to that post, he should be treated as a person regularly appointed to that post. Such a person may be reverted from that post. But in a case of the kind before us where persons have been allowed to function in higher posts for 15 to 20 years with due deliberation it would be certainly unjust to hold that they have no sort of claim to such posts and could be reverted unceremoniously or treated as persons not belonging to the Service at all, particularly where the Government is endowed with the power to relax the rules to avoid unjust results. In the instant case the Government has also not expressed its unwillingness to continue them in the said posts. The other contesting respondents have also not urged that the petitioners should be sent out of the said post. The only question agitated before us relates to the seniority as between the petitioners and the direct recruits and such a question can arise only where there is no dispute regarding the entry of the officers concerned into the same grade." After the aforesaid observations it was held ; "The continuance of these petitioners may be justified on the basis of the above quoted Rule 16 on the assumption that the Government had relaxed the Rules and appointed them to the posts in question to meet the administrative requirements." "Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the peculiar facts present in this case, we feel that the appropriate order that should be passed in this case is to direct the Union Government to treat all persons who are stated in have been promoted in this case to several posts in Grade-IV in each of the two services contrary to the Rules till now as having been regularly appointed to the said posts in Grade-IV under Rule `8 (1) (a) (ii) and assigned them seniority in the cadre with effect from the dates from which they are continuously officiating in the said posts. Even those promotes who have been selected in 1970, 1982 and 1984 shall be assigned seniority with effect from the date on which they commenced to officiate continuously in the posts prior to their selection. For purposes of seniority the dates of their selection shall be ignored. The direct recruits shall be given seniority with effect from the date on which their names were recommended by the Commission for appointment to such grade or posts as provided in Clause (a) of Rule 9-C of the Rules. A seniority list of all the promotes and direct recruits shall be prepared on the above basis treating the promotes as full members of the service with effect from the dates from which they are continuously officiating in the posts. This direction shall be applicable to only to officers who have been promoted till now. This is the meaning of the direction given by the Court on February 1, 1984 which stated. We wish to make it clear that there is no question of any rotation system being applied under the Rules, as they exist now. All appointments shall be made thereafter in accordance with the Rules and the seniority of all officers to be appointed hereafter shall be governed by Rule 9-C of the Rules." 14. A similar question cropped up in the case of Union of India and others v. Sri Pratap Narain and others, Reported in 1992 (1) SVLR (L) page 220. Relying upon the case of Narendra Chadhdha (Supra) Hon'ble Kuldip Singh, J. speaking on behalf of the bench indicated as under : - "It is thus obvious that the Bench was fully conscious of the total number of posts in the service during the period from 11-9-1964 to 1984, the total number of direct recruits occupying the posts, the fact that large number of promotes were occupying the posts meant for direct recruits and the departmental promotion committee had not met for years together to fill the posts meant for the promotes. The Bench was thus fully aware of the provisions of the Rule and their actual application to the cadre and ex-cadre posts during the period from 1961 till 1984. The Bench was thus fully aware of the provisions of the Rule and their actual application to the cadre and ex-cadre posts during the period from 1961 till 1984. It is clear from the minute effectual details adverted to by the Bench, that this Court gave benefits of total officiation to the promotes whether against the cadre post or a non cadre post." It was further held ; "It is obvious from the quota above that the Court was primarily concerned with the question of granting the promotes of benefits of their long period of service in Grade-IV posts for the purposes of seniority. The promotes were appointed 15 years back to the cadre of ex-cadre posts in Grade-IV, had been doing the same work as regularly appointed Grade-IV officers, were doing, were drawing the same salary and were treated at par with other regularly appointed officers. It is there any justification to deprive them the benefit of 15 years of service on the ground that they were working against the ex-cadre posts ? It was projected before this Court that the appointments to Grade-IV of all the promotes whether working against cadre post or ex-cadre posts were contrary to the Rules. So in that situation where is the jurisdiction, after all the promotes are regularised by this Court, to hold that only those who are regularised while working against cadre posts, are to be given the benefit of such regularisation towards seniority. Doing that, would be wholly arbitrary." 15. As discussed earlier the petitioner had worked on the post of Assistant. Unit Officer for more than 20 years, which was not just, proper and fair to revert him on his substantive post. 16. On November 3, 1988 in pursuance of the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution the Governor was pleased to order publication of Notification No. 15/93/86 (1) Karmik-I, Lucknow : Dated : November 3, 1988, by means of which in exercise of the powers conferred by Proviso Article 309 of the Constitution, U. P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc Promotions (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rule, 1983 were framed, which reads as under : - 1. (1) These rules shall be called the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Promotions (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rule, 1988. (2) They shall come into force at once. (1) These rules shall be called the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Promotions (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rule, 1988. (2) They shall come into force at once. (3) They shall apply to posts under the rule making power of the Governor except the posts which are not within the purview of the Public Service Commission. These rules shal1 have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any ether rules or orders. Unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. (1) `appointing Authority' in relation to any post means the authority empowered to make appointments to such posts ; (2) `Available vacancy' means a vacancy for which no candidate has been recommended by the Commission before the date of notification of these rules. (3) `Commission' means the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. (4) `Governor' means the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. (1) Any person who - (i) was appointed by promotion on ad-hoc basis before January 1, 1985 and is continuing in service either on the post on which he was so promoted or an equivalent or higher post on the date of the commencement of these rules ; (ii) was eligible for regular promotion on the date of ad-hoc promotion, and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service on the post or posts, referred to in Clause (1). Shall be considered for regular appointment by promotion in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available, on the basis of record and suitability before any regular appointment by promotion is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. (2) In making regular appointment under these rules, reservation for candidates belonging to the scheduled castes, schedule tribes and other categories shall be made in accordance with the orders of the Government in force at the time of consideration under sub-rule (1). (2) In making regular appointment under these rules, reservation for candidates belonging to the scheduled castes, schedule tribes and other categories shall be made in accordance with the orders of the Government in force at the time of consideration under sub-rule (1). (3) For the purpose of the sub-rule (1), the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee : Provided that where constitution of Selection Committee is provided for in any rules or orders relating to the relevant post or service the Constitution of the Committee for the purpose of these rules shall, as far as possible, be as provided in such rules or orders but nothing herein contained shall be construed to mean inclusion of the representative of the Commission in such Committee. (4) The appointing authority' shall having regard to the provisions of sub-rule (,), prepare an eligibility list of the candidates, arranged in order of seniority on the post from which promotion was made, and place it before the Selection Committee alongwith the character rolls, including the confidential entries given after ad-hoc promotion, and such other records as may be considered necessary to assess their suitability. (5) The Selection Committee shall consider the case of candidates on the basis of their records, referred to in sub-rule (A). The Selection Committee shall prepare a select list of candidates, arranged in the same order of seniority as is referred to in sub-rule (4) and forward it to the appointing authority. (7) Where in respect of any person, who is eligible for being considered for regularisation under these rules, a formal departmental enquiry is pending or there is an order of the Court on account of which or for any other reason it is not possible to make regular appointment by promotion of such a person, Selection Committee shall place its recommendation in a sealed cover and shall mention this fact against the name of the concerned person in the list prepared under sub-rule (5). The appointing authority shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rules (2) and (7) of Rule 4 make appointments from the list prepared under sub-rule (6) of the said rule in the order in which the names stand in the list : Provided that in the case covered by the provisions or sub-rule (7) of Rule 4, action shall be taken by the appointing authority in accordance with the orders of the Government. Appointments made under these rules shall be deemed to be appointment under the relevant service rules or orders, if any. (8) A person appointed under these rules, shall be entitled to seniority in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders, regulating conditions of service of persons regularly appointed in the service or on the post, and for this purpose selection under these rules shall be deemed to be selection under the said service rules or orders. (9) Where a person, promoted on ad-hoc basis, is not found suitable or whose case is not covered by sub-rule (i) of Rule 4 of these rules, be shall, at-once be reverted to the substantive post from which ad-hoc appointment was made and on such reversion he shall not be entitled to compensation." Explanation. - Where a person has been given more than one ad-hoc promotions, he shall be reverted to the substantive post from which first of such ad-hoc appointments was made. 17. The petitioner was promoted before January, 85 and he was eligible for regular promotion on the date of ad-hoc promotion and has completed three years on the post on which he was working promotion. Although in accordance with the aforesaid rules the case of the petitioner deserve to be considered by Selection Committee, but it was never done for the purposes of regularisation. 18. On 8-12-1978 the writ petition was admitted and operation of the impugned order of reversion dated 30-10-1987 was stayed provided it has not given effect to. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation. The petitioner raised grievance before this court that although he had been discharging his duties as Asstt. Unit Officer in view of the interim order passed by this Court, but he was not being paid his salary for the said post. If it is assumed that the petitioner was actually reverted wrongly on the post of Sri Malaria Inspector even then he cannot be posted on the post of Assistant. Unit Officer only for the reason that he had retired from the service, but certainly he would be entitled for monetary benefits. 19. In view of what has been indicated herein above the writ petition partly succeeds. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of reversion is issued. 20. Unit Officer only for the reason that he had retired from the service, but certainly he would be entitled for monetary benefits. 19. In view of what has been indicated herein above the writ petition partly succeeds. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of reversion is issued. 20. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to assign the seniority of the petitioner with effect from the date, on which the petitioner commenced to officiate on the post of Assistant Unit Officer, in accordance with the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Chaddha v. Union of India, (Supra) and to pay him all consequential benefits.