Honble SHARMA , J. — These are four Special Appeals arising out of the order dated February 1,1993 of the learned Single Judge of this Court. Out of the afore said four special appeals, three arise out of the three writ petitions which had been filed before the learned Single Judge by Sarva Shri Alauddin Azad (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6089/92), Keshari Singh (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5837/1992) and K.P. Singhal (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4828/1992). The appellant in the aforesaid three special appeals is Mahendra Surana who was not the respondent in any of the three writ petitions before the learned Single Judge but has preferred the special appeals and under our order dated February 8, 1993, we had granted leave to Shri Surana to file the special appeals. The said order dated February 8, 1993 may be read as a part of this order in so far as the right of Shri Surana to file special appeals is concerned. The last of the four special appeals (No.84/1993) has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. This Special Appeal is confined to only against a part of the order of the learned Single Judge in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4828/1992 K.P. Singhal V. State of Rajasthan under which the learned Single Judge has ordered that the services of Shri K.P. Singhal should be counted from April 1, 1972 and not from November 19, 1973. (2). In these special appeals two questions have been agitated at the Bar and they are - (i) whether Sarva Shri Alauddin Azad, Keshari Singh and K.P. Singhal who are the recruits and appointees under the Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1976 (for short, Emergency Recruitment Rules) are eligible for consideration for promotion to the Supertime Scale post in the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS)?. In other words, the question is as to whether the above three recruits and appointees have completed 20 years service on the post included in the Rajasthan Administrative Service ?. Yet in other words the question is as the whether the legal fiction created by rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules for the purposes of seniority also extends to the service in the RAS? Yet in other words the question is as the whether the legal fiction created by rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules for the purposes of seniority also extends to the service in the RAS? and (ii) the other question is about the date of appointment of Shri K.P. Singhal, whether as held by the learned Single Judge it should be taken as April 1, 1972 or November 19, 1973 ?. (3). The recruitment and appointment to the posts in Rajasthan Administrative Service are governed by the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 (for short, the Original Rules). Rule 4(j) of the said Rules defines Member of Service which means a person appointed in a substantive capacity to a post in the cadre of the Service under the provisions of rules or of any rules or orders superseded by rule 2. Under clause (1) of rule 4 Service means the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS). Rule 4(0) defines Service or Experience and whenever the aforesaid expressions are prescribed in those rules as a condition for promotion from one Service to another or within the Service from one category to another or to senior posts, in the case of a person holding a lower post eligible for promotion to higher post shall include the period for which the person has continuously worked on such lower post after regular selection in accordance with Rules promulgated under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Part II deals with Cadre and its rule 6 provides that the strength of posts in each grade of the service shall be such as may be determined by the Government from time to time. Part III of the Original Rules is in respect of recruitment and rule 7 gives the sources of recruitment which are (i) by direct recruitment through combined competitive examination and (ii) by promotion of Tehsildars. (4). Besides the recruitment under the Original Rules from time to time in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan framed the Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1959 which were published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated December 4, 1959 Part IV-C(Extra-ordinary) page- 879-885. (4). Besides the recruitment under the Original Rules from time to time in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan framed the Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1959 which were published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated December 4, 1959 Part IV-C(Extra-ordinary) page- 879-885. Yet another set of Rules, namely Rajasthan Civil Services (Recruitment of Released Emergency Commissioned and Short Service Regular Commissioned Officers) Rules, 1968 (for short, the Rules of 1968) were framed which were published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated June 22, 1968. Part II of those rules deals with reservation and recruitment. A perusal of those rules will show that they were to remain in force for a period of five years from the date of their coming into force. Rule 5 provides the method of recruitment and age limit for entry into service. A reading of rule 6 will show that so far as RAS is concerned 20% of the cacancies were to be reserved for Released commissioned Officers for five years. The vacancies were also reserved for other services in the proportion mentioned therein. Part HI is in respect of seniority and pay. (5). Yet another set of rules, namely Emergency Recruitment Rules were framed in the year 1976 which were published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra, Extraordinary, Part V(C) Sub-section (1) dated September 29, 1976. There were amendments in the aforesaid Emergency Recruitment Rules and the first amendment was made by notification dated December 15, 1976 which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette, Extra-ordinary of that date. It will be seen from a perusal of the aforesaid amendment that though in the Emergency Recruitment Rules, the year of the Rules was mentioned as 1976, but there were amendments in various rules and in rule 4, and 7, the expressions, year 1976 and the expression during 1976 were substituted by expressions year 1977 and during 1977 respectively. Similarly, for the expression year of allotment 1976 and the expression 1976 wherever occurring in sub- rule (1) of rule 25 the expressions year of allotment 1977 and the expression 1977 were substituted, respectively. The expression 1.1.1976 occurring in sub-rule (2) of rule 26 was substituted by the expression 1.1.1977. Similarly, for the expression year of allotment 1976 and the expression 1976 wherever occurring in sub- rule (1) of rule 25 the expressions year of allotment 1977 and the expression 1977 were substituted, respectively. The expression 1.1.1976 occurring in sub-rule (2) of rule 26 was substituted by the expression 1.1.1977. We will deal later on with the Emergency Recruitment Rules, but for the present suffice it to say that 1977 was substituted in various rules for expression 1976. (6). After coming into force of Emergency Recruitment Rules, the recruitments to the vacancies in various services were held in 1977-78 and we are presently concerned with the RAS. Sarva Shri Alauddin Azad, Keshari Singh and K.P. Singhal were selected under the Emergency Recruitment Rules and in the RAS each of them was appointed in the year 1978 under order dated November 6, 1978 and the names of Sarva Shri Alauddin Azad, Keshari Singh and K.P. Singhal appear at S.No. 11, 40 and 15 respectively. In accordance with rule 25(1) Sarva Shri Alauddin Azad, Keshari Singh and K.P. Singhal were alloted the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 respectively and as required by sub-rule (2) of rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules, they were placed in the seniority list below the direct recruits of the year of allotment. There was direct recruitment to the RAS under the Original Rules in the year 1972. The result was declared, but the process of selection took time and the appointments were made in the year 1973 and the direct recruits of 1972 were appointed in the year 1973 and they joined the service on November 19, 1973. So far as K.P. Singhal is concerned, having been alloted the year of 1972 as per rule 25(2) of the Emergency Recruitment Rules, he was placed below the direct recruits and thus was placed below Shri Mahendra Surana who too was recruited and appointed under the Original Rules to the RAS as a result of the competitive examination held in the year 1972. (7). As per rule 6 of the Original Rules the strength of posts in each grade of the service shall be such as may be determined by the Government from time to time. (7). As per rule 6 of the Original Rules the strength of posts in each grade of the service shall be such as may be determined by the Government from time to time. Schedule-I to the Original Rules contained the strength of the service and the name of the posts in it, and it will be seen from its perusal that they are (i) selection scale post, (ii) posts in the senior scale and (iii) posts in the original time scale. Earlier there were no posts in the Super Time Scale and they were only created later on. The scheme of rule 28-B of the Original Rules which prescribes the revised criterian, eligibility and procedure for promotion to junior, senior and other posts encadred in the Service will show that whereas the selection for first promotion in the State Service is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit of such of the persons who have put in atleast five years service, the selection for promotion to all other higher categories of posts in the State Service has to be on the basis of merit and on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the proportion of 50: 50, except to the highest post/posts in the State Service which has to be on the basis of merit alone. Even in case of selection for promotion to the highest post/posts in the State Service on the satisfaction of the committee the suitable persons are not available for selection by promotion strictly on the basis of merit, the selection by promotion to that post on the basis of seniority-cum-merit can be made in the same manner as prescribed in the rules. It will further be seen by a reading of sub-rule(8) of rule 28-B that if a person has been selected/appointed on the basis of merit he becomes eligible for promotion to the next higher post or category of posts to be filled in on the basis of merit as and when he has put in after regular selection atleast five years of service unless a higher period of service is prescribed elsewhere in the rules on the first day of the month of April of the year of selection on the post or category of post from which selection is to be made. The condition of five years service shall not be applicable to a person, if any person junior to him is eligible for consideration for promotion on the basis of merit. (8). Rule 32 of the Original Rules deals with appointment to senior post and sub-rule (3) of rule 32 is relevant for the present purpose which reads as under : — "(3) No member of the service who has not completed 3 years service on the selection scale posts and 20 years service in all on the posts included in the service shall be eligible for appointment on the super time scale posts." (9). By virtue of rule 27 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules except as provided in those rules, probation pay, allowances, pension, leave and any other condition of service of a person appointed to the Service by Emergency Recruitment under the Emergency Recruitment Rules shall be regulated by the provisions of the Original Rules as amended from time to time. Mahendra Surana, as said earlier, was appointed in the year 1973 and each of the three respondents (Petitioners in the aforesaid three writ petitions) namely Sarva Shri Alauddin Azad, Keshari Singh and K.P. Singhal, were appointed in the year 1978 under the Emergency Recruitment Rules. Shri Surana was given senior scale of RAS in the year 1979 and was also given selection in the year 1987-88. Alauddin Azad was given senior scale of RAS on ad hoc basis against the vacancy of 1981-82. Keshari Singh and K.P. Singhal were also promoted to senior scale of RAS in the year 1981-82 under different orders. These three persons were further promoted in the selection scale of RAS against the vacancies of the years 1988-89. A seniority list of the selection scale officers of RAS was issued on February 1, 1983. In the said seniority list, K.P. Singhal was placed at No. 40. Some other persons actually appointed in the year 1973 in the RAS consequent to the examinations held in 1972 by the RPSC were placed higher than Shri Singhal. Representations were filed. One Kashri Singh Rathore filed an appeal (No.958/1984 before the Rajasthan Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, the Tribunal). Some other persons actually appointed in the year 1973 in the RAS consequent to the examinations held in 1972 by the RPSC were placed higher than Shri Singhal. Representations were filed. One Kashri Singh Rathore filed an appeal (No.958/1984 before the Rajasthan Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, the Tribunal). The said appeal was dismissed and a view was taken by the Tribunal that once a person is appointed to the RAS under the Emergency Recruitment Rules and is awarded seniority under rule 25 of those rules then it is necessary corollary that he derives the benefit .of service with reference to the assigned notional year of allotment. (10). A DPC was convened in the month of May, 1992 for the purposes of making selections and promotions to the super time scale of the RAS. Apprehending that Sarva Shri Alauddin Azad, Keshari Singh and K.P. Singhal may not be held to be eligible, they filed writ petitions in this court and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. In the impugned order the learned Single Judge has held that (i) that the persons who were given seniority under rule 25(2) of the Emergency Recruitment Rules should be deemed to have completed 20 years service in all on the posts included in the service and (ii) thus they are. eligible for appointment in the super-time scale of RAS. (11). We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondents as well as interveners and even such of the interveners who were appointees to the RAS under the original Rules much before either the appellant or the respondents were appointed, have been heard. (12). We have already stated the two points which call for determination in these special appeals, in the earlier part of this order. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Emergency Recruitment Rules were temporary in nature and after the selections had been made to the RAS in the year 1977, those rules became dead and in-effective and as provided under rule 27 of the Emergency Rules thereafter for all the purposes it is the original Rules which will hold the field. Learned counsel further contended that for eligibility for super time scale of RAS one has to go to the original rules and not to the Emergency Recruitment Rules. Learned counsel further contended that for eligibility for super time scale of RAS one has to go to the original rules and not to the Emergency Recruitment Rules. It is yet contended by the learned counsel that under the Rules of 1968 also 20% vacancies in the RAS were reserved for released emergency commissioned officers and short service commissioned officers and there was provision for year of allotment as well as seniority for the appointees under those rules, but so far as sub-rule (3) of rule 32 of the original Rules is concerned under it none of them could be deemed to have completed 20 years service for being eligible for selection and promotion to the super time scale of RAS and therefore rule 32-A of the original Rules was inserted vide Notification No.F.15 (29) DpS/A-II/75 dated October 13,1976 and by it a legal fiction was introduced and only then the total service in their cases was to be reckoned from the deemed date of their appointment. According to the learned counsel by express legislative intent so far as they are concerned, a deemed provision was made under which they were made eligible for consideration for promotion to selection scale/super time scale posts in the RAS. But no such deemed provision was inserted in the case of recruits under the Emergency Recruitment Rules and according to the learned counsel legal fiction which was created under rule 25(1) and (2) of the Emergency Recruitment Rules was for a limited purpose i.e. for allotment of the year and assignment of seniority and the legal fiction could not be intended to give them benefit of the service which they have not rendered under the original Rules in the RAS. Learned counsel therefore contends that the learned Single Judge has wrongly extended the legal fiction in treating that the period which was given for seniority should also be counted as the period of service rendered in RAS. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand have supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge who has held that the legal fiction created by rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules should not be confined only for the purpose of assignment of seniority, but it should also be extended, rather the legal fiction is in respect of the deemed date of appointment. According to the learned counsel the purpose of Emergency Recruitment Rules was to attract certain experienced persons from other walks of life to the RAS and while alloting the year of appointment and assigning seniority the experience was taken note of. According to the learned counsel legal fiction is about the appointment and seniority both and should be confined to seniority alone. It was further contended that the Tribunal under its earlier order dated August 19, 1988 held that the effect of assignment of seniority under rule 25 of the Emergency Rules is that the employee derives the benefit of service with reference to the assigned notional year of allotment. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, that order has become final and further that is the right interpretation of the rules, as the object of assignment of the year of allotment is to give certain weightage of past experience to an employee under the Emergency Recruitment Rules. (13). Before we deal with the question as to what extent the legal fiction has been created by rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules, we may state at the very outset that law can be taken to be settled that legal fiction cannot be arbitrarily extended nor curtailed. In interpreting the provisions creating legal fiction as said by the Apex Court in the case of M/s J.K Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. V. Union of India. (1), the court is to ascertain the object for what purpose the fiction is to be created. In the case of State of Bombay V. Pandurang (2), the court said that — "When a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to have been done, which infact and truth was not done, the court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purposes and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to and full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclusion;" The court referred to Lord Justice James in Ex. Parte Walton. The learned Judge also referred to the case of East End Dwellings Co. Parte Walton. The learned Judge also referred to the case of East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. V. Finsbury Borough Council (3) and said that- "Lord Acquith while dealing with the provisions of the Town and County Planning Act, 1947 made reference to the same principle and observed as follows : "If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative, state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it......... The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs, it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corrol-lories of that state of affairs". In the case of Mandalsa Devi V. Ramnaraian P.Ltd. (4), the Apex Court said that the legal fiction must not be carried too far. Again in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V. Moon Mills (5), the court said that the fiction is an indi visible one. It cannot be enlarged by importing another fiction, namely-that if an amount was receivable during the previous year, it must be deemed to have been received during that year. The court was considering a case under Section 10(2) of the income Tax Act, more so, its 4th proviso which introduced a fiction that in case any insurance salvage or compensation money is received with respect to property exceeds the difference between the written down value and the scrap value, so much of the excess as mentioned therein will be deemed to be the profits of the previous year in which such money is received. In the case of State of Karnataka V. K. Gopalkrishana Shenoy and another (6), the Apex Court said that a legal fiction in terms enacted for the purposes of an Act is normally restricted to that Act and cannot be extended to cover another Act. In the case of State of Karnataka V. K. Gopalkrishana Shenoy and another (6), the Apex Court said that a legal fiction in terms enacted for the purposes of an Act is normally restricted to that Act and cannot be extended to cover another Act. It will therefore be clear that as said earlier while interpreting a provision in creating legal fiction the court has to first look for what purposes the legal fiction is created and ascertain the purpose and give full effect to it so as to take it to logical conclusion, but a provision creating legal fiction has to be read as it is and no other fiction can be imported in it. In the Case of Dr. Bali Ram Waman Hiray V. Mr. Justice B. Lentin and others (7), the Apex Court was considering Sub-section (4) and (5) of Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiries Act, 1952 and the question was whether or not the Commission under the Act was a court for the purposes of Section 195 Cr. P.C. The court said- "It would not be correct to contend that the legal fiction contained in the first part of sub-section (4) is complete in itself and therefore a Commission of Inquiry must, be reason of the legal fiction contained therein be deemed to be a civil court for all purposes: It would not be correct to contend that the fiction created by the first part by the words shall be deemed to be a civil court is full and complete in itself. The purpose and object of the legal fiction created by the first part of sub-sec. (4) is reflected in the second. A Commission of Inquiry is therefore fictionally a civil court for the limited purpose of proceeding under S.482 of the old Code or under S.346 of the present Code. A fortiori, the legal fiction contained in sub-sec. (5) of S.5 which relates to the proceedings before the Commission is necessarily confined to offences that are punishable under Ss.193 and 228 of the Penal Code and does not extend beyond that." Keeping in view the aforesaid mode of interpreting a legal fiction we will proceed to see as to what is the reason to create the legal fiction and to what extent the legal fiction has been created? (14). (14). Though the seniority or allotment of year is not under dispute in so far as the three persons namely Allauddin Azad, Keshari Singh and K.P. Singhal are concerned and so also their inter-se seniority in the selection scale of RAS, which had become final long back, but we cannot help observing that the formula which has been given in rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules is unintelligible and could not be worked out. The said formula is as under: — "Year of Allotment = 1977 (N1 + half of N2) where N1 means = Completed years, including broken period after the age of 28 years of employment or practice of profession as on 1.4.1977 with regular monthly emoluments therefrom amounting to atleast Rs. 625/- N2 means = Completed years, after the age of 28 years of employment or practice of profession as on 1.4.1977 with regular monthly emoluments therefrom amounting to tess than Rs. 625/-." It will be seen from the above extracted formula that it does not provide that after completed years in accordance with Nl and N2, the said years should be deducted from 1977. After the word year of allotment = which denotes equal to has been used. Thus, if we read the formula it will mean that Year of Allotment is equal to 1977(N1 + Half of N2). In our opinion the year of allotment had been worked out by formula wrongly and the formula in order to give effect to the rules should have been Year of Allotment = 1977(N1 + Half of N2). We may also state that we sent for the files to see from which year of allotment the formula was worked out, i.e. it was worked out on the basis of 1976 or 1977 and as said earlier 1977 was substituted for 1976 under the amendment referred to above. We are at pains to observe that the year of allotment has been worked out taking the year as 1976 and not 1977 as it should have been. It will possibly take the year of allotment a year ahead in the case of the three respondents. But as said earlier the year of allotment is not in dispute but we are sorry to observe that draftsmen in the Legislative Department of the Government have been callous and negligent in drafting the rule. It will possibly take the year of allotment a year ahead in the case of the three respondents. But as said earlier the year of allotment is not in dispute but we are sorry to observe that draftsmen in the Legislative Department of the Government have been callous and negligent in drafting the rule. Be that as it may, as the limited controversy before us is about the eligibility of recruits under Emergency Recruitment Rules for the consideration for promotion of Super Time Scale in DPC held in 1992 or to be held now, we will confine to ourselves to that question. So far as argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Emergency Recruitment Rules were a temporary piece of legislation and therefore once the recruitment/appointment had been made in the year 1977-78 those rules became dead is concerned, we find no merit in it. A bare reading of those rules will show that they were not of temporary nature and merely because the purpose of those rules was to make emergency recruitment to the RAS 1977 they cannot be said to be temporary piece of legislation. It is well known that a statute, is either perpetual or temporary and unless the time is fixed for the duration of any statute, the statute is perpetual, unless the same is repealed, either expressly or impliedly. A statute can only be held to be temporary when its duration is for a specified period. Merely because the purpose of a statute is temporary on that ground it cannot be regarded as temporary when no specific period is fixed for its duration. The Federal Court in the case of Jatindra Nath Gupta V. Province of Bihar (8), had taken a similar view. The Apex Court in the case of Maganti V. State of Andhra Pradesh (9), dealing with the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate Communal, Forest, and Private Lands (Prohibition and Alienation) Act, (14 of 1947)said that as no fixed duration of the said Act was specified, it is not possible to hold that merely because of the preamble the Act became a temporary Act. It will therefore be clear that unless the period is specified for any Act, the Act cannot be held to be temporary merely because the purpose of that Act can be temporary it cannot be said to be a temporary legislation. It will therefore be clear that unless the period is specified for any Act, the Act cannot be held to be temporary merely because the purpose of that Act can be temporary it cannot be said to be a temporary legislation. Learned counsel for the appellanthas referred to the case of Dr. N.C.Mehta V. state of Rajasthan and others (10), where in this court was dealing with a case of Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Special Selection Rules 1968. It was provided in those Rules that they shall remain in force for a period of one year which period was extended upto January 31,1970 by a subsequent amendment. Thus, the case was where the life of the rules was specified and therefore that case will have no application to the present case. A persual of the Emergency Recruitment Rules will show that no period was specified in those rules, no boubt except as provided in those rules the probation, pay, leave, allowances, pension and other conditions of the service of a person appointed to the RAS by emergency recruitment under those Rules shall be regulated by the provisions of Original Rules but so far as matters i.e. appointment, allotment of year and seniority of the appointees under the Emergency Recruitment Rules are concerned, they will have to be governed by those rules as and when the dispute arises for determination. (15). It is necessary to read rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules as a whole in order to see as to what extent legal fiction has been created. It reads as under: — "25. Seniority - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 33 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954, seniority of the persons to the service under these rules shall be on the basis of a notional year of Allotment determined as follows: — Year of Allotment = 1976 (Nl + Half of N2) where N1 means = Completed years, including broken periods after the age of 28 years of employment or practice of profession as on 1.4.1976 with regular monthly emoluments therefrom amounting to at least Rs. 625/-. N2 means = Completed years, after the age of 28 years of employment or practice of profession as on 1.4.1976 with regular monthly emoluments therefrom amounting to less than Rs. 625/-. 625/-. N2 means = Completed years, after the age of 28 years of employment or practice of profession as on 1.4.1976 with regular monthly emoluments therefrom amounting to less than Rs. 625/-. (2) After assignment of years allotment under sub-rule (1) a person shall be placed in the list of Rajasthan Administrative Service Officers immediately below the junior-most Rajasthan Administrative Service Officer appointed by direct recruitment in that year. (3) Among persons appointed to the grade under these rules who were assigned the same year of Allotment, inter-se seniority shall be determined on the basis of age." It will be seen from part V of the Emergency Recruitment Rules where rule 25 appears that that part deals with appointment seniority and initial pay, and as said earlier by virtue of rule 27 the appointment had to be on probation of a recruit under the Emergency Recruitment Rules as provided in the original Rules. Rule 33 of the Original Rules deals with seniority but Rule 25(1) starts with non-obstente clause and so far as the appointees to RAS under the Emergency Recruitment Rules are concerned, the seniority will have to be determined in accordance with the Emergency Recruitment Rules. We have already said earlier that the formula is un-intelligable and unworkable, but we have already said that that formula is not under challenge before us and it seems to us that apart from what has been said in the earlier part of this order, the Government in the Department of Personnel appears to have been working the formula as if by deducting the number of years worked out as per formula from the year 1976 though the number of years as aforesaid worked out should have been deducted from 1977 for the reasons stated earlier. First year is to be alloted under sub-rule (1) of rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules and thereafter as required under sub-rule(2) of rule 25 an appointee under Emergency Recruitment Rules had to be placed immediately below the junior most RAS Officer appointed by direct recruitment of that year. Under sub-rule(3) of rule 25 among persons appointed under the Emergency Recruitment Rules who are assigned the same year of allotment, inter-se seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. Under sub-rule(3) of rule 25 among persons appointed under the Emergency Recruitment Rules who are assigned the same year of allotment, inter-se seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. Therefore, despite the fact that in the recommendations of the recruitment Board under the Emergency Recruitment Rules for selection to the RAS, the names of candidates had to be arranged in the list of candidates for appointment as per order of preference, but so far as the seniority is concerned, a different rule was provided. The legal fiction therefore created under the aforesaid rule in our opinion is for the purpose of year of allotment and seniority and for no other purpose. We have already said earlier that while interpreting a provision creating legal fiction the court should ascertain as to what is its purpose and further that the fiction cannot be extended beyond the purpose it was created and it cannot be extended for importing another fiction. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the legal fiction created by rule 25(1) is only for the purpose of year of allotment and seniority and for no other purpose. (16). We have said that so far as rule 27 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules is not concerned not only the probation, pay, allowances, pension and leave but also other conditions of service of the persons appointed under the Emergency Recruitment Rules have to be regulated by the provisions of the original rules. Therefore, so far as promotion to various scale in the RAS is concerned, they are to be governed by the original Rules and there is no controversy so far as this matter is concerned in the parties. We have already extracted and referred to the relevant provisions of soriginal Rules in the earlier part of this order. Seniority and eligibilityare different expressions and convey different meanings. In other words the concept of Seniority and eligibility is different. So far as promotion of various scales posts in the RAS is concerned it is governed by rules 28, 28-B and 32 of the original Rules. Rule 28 is subject to rule 28-B and so also rule 28-B is subject to rule 32 of those Rules. The scheme of the aforesaid rules is that only eligible persons among the same are to be considered. Rule 28 is subject to rule 28-B and so also rule 28-B is subject to rule 32 of those Rules. The scheme of the aforesaid rules is that only eligible persons among the same are to be considered. It will be further seen that though there is a provision that unless one is substantively appointed and confirmed on the lowest post, he cannot be considered for promotion in the service, but if number of substantively appointed and confirmed persons are not available, then the persons who have been appointed on the lowest post after selection in accordance with one of the modes of recruitment prescribed under the original Rules have been made eligible if they fulfil other conditions. It will further be seen that for the first promotion one who has five years service at his credit has been made eligible, but still if the persons of requisite service of five years are not available a discretion has been vested in the competent authority to consider the persons having less experience of service if they are otherwise suitable for promotion. But so far as the promotion to the highest post/posts in the State Service (RAS) are concerned, under sub-rule(7) of rule 28-B of the original Rules it has to be made only on the basis of merit alone but again if the committee is satisfied that suitable persons are not available for selection by promotion to highest post/posts, strictly on the basis of merit in a particular year, selection by promotion even to the highest post/posts on the basis of seniority-cum-merit may be made. A look at sub-rule (8)of rule 28-B alongwith its proviso will show that though a person who has been appointed by promotion on the basis of merit becomes eligible for promotion to the next higher post or category of posts to be filled on merit only after having put after regular selection atleast five years service, but the said condition of five years shall not be applicable to a person, if any person, junior to him is eligible for consideration for promotion on the basis of merit, even if this part might have been struck down as unreasonable, the legislative intent was clear. Again in the event of non-availability of persons equal to the number of vacancies to be filled in eligible for promotion in the category of persons lower from which promotion is made, the Committee may consider the persons having less than five years service, if they are otherwise found suitable for promotion on the basis of merit alone. Thus, it will be seen that provision has been made to relax the condition of five years service even for a candidate who has been earlier promoted on the basis of merit in case the post is to be filled in by promotion on merit again in case any person junior to him as aforesaid on merit is eligible for consideration. But as said earlier, even sub-rule(8) of rule 28-B is subject to the provisions of rule 32 and sub- rule(2) of rule 32 provides that except as provided in that rule, the procedure and the principles for selection by merit shall in so far as it may apply be the same as provided in rule 28-B even to the supertime scale post. We have already extracted sub-rule (3) of rule 32 in the earlier part of this order. A reading of the aforesaid provision will show that before a member of service (RAS) becomes eligible for consideration for promotion to the highest post/posts in the service on merit alone, the necessarry conditions are that (i) he should have completed three years service on the selection scale posts and (ii) he must have 20 years service in all on the posts included in the service. Unless both the conditions are satisfied a member of the service does not become eligible for promotion to the Super Time Scale of the RAS. According to the learned Single Judge the Fiction created by rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules is not limited to the seniority alone. We are unable to agreee with the approach of the learned Single Judge. In taking the aforesaid view the learned Single Judge has referred to the case of Pandurang (supra) of the Apex Court to which we also have made a reference in the earlier part of this order. We are unable to agreee with the approach of the learned Single Judge. In taking the aforesaid view the learned Single Judge has referred to the case of Pandurang (supra) of the Apex Court to which we also have made a reference in the earlier part of this order. No doubt the statutory fiction has to be carried to a logical conclusion but the logical conclusion here will mean the year of allotment and assignment of seniority and it could not be extended to the eligibility of a member of service for consideration for promotion to the super time scale. The learned Single Judge has not dealt with the provisions of Original Rules which he should have dealt with and as have been dealt with by us in the earlier part of this order. If we extend the statutory fiction created by rule 25 which in our opinion was only created for the purpose of year of allotment and assignment of seniority, even to eligibility for promotion to various posts, we will not only be extending the statutory fiction which cannot be extended beyond its object, but will also be importing another statutory fiction which does not exist. We have already made a reffrence to the Rules of 1968 in the earlier part of this order and it will be seen even provisions are there for year of allotment as well as seniority and fixation of pay. Rule 9 (c) which is under part HI provides that all candidates who are appointed against the vacancies reserved as per rules shall rank below the candidates who are appointed as a result of combined competitive examination of the year to which the former candidates are alloted. Thus, even under the rule of 1968 there was/is provision for year of allotment. Rule 9 (a) of the Rules of 1968 provides that the seniority of the candidates appointed under those rules against the reserved vacancies shall be determined on the assumption that they entered service at the first opportunity they had after joining the training prior to their being commissioned in the Armed Forces. Rule 9 (a) of the Rules of 1968 provides that the seniority of the candidates appointed under those rules against the reserved vacancies shall be determined on the assumption that they entered service at the first opportunity they had after joining the training prior to their being commissioned in the Armed Forces. Rule 9 (b) is in respect of seniority inter se of the candidates appointed against the vacancies reserved under rule 6 and alloted to a particular year and it provides that it shall be in accordance with the merit list prepared by the Commission on their performance in the written and the viva voce tests. It will therefore be clear that rule 9 of the Rules of 1968 has provisions for year of allotment as well as assignment of seniority, but because the aforesaid statutory legal fiction could not be extended any further, rule 32A had to be introduced in the original Rules. The said rule 32A reads as under — " 32A. Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 32, the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers or Short Service Commissioned Officers who have been appointed to the service in accordance with the Rajasthan Civil Services (Recruitment of Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers) Rules, 1968 and who have not put in the requisite period of Service or experience as required in these Rules for appointment by promotion to higher posts shall be considered for promotion for such higher posts, if- (i) they have successfully completed the period of probation; and (ii) the total service reckoned from the deemed date of their appointment is not less than the period of service required for promotion to higher posts. Note: —Deemed date of appointment in relation to a Released Emergency Commissioned Officer shall be the date of his appointment in the Army as an Emergency Commissioned Officer or a Short Service Commissioned Officer." It created a legal fiction but for that statutory fiction even the recruits and appointees under the Rules of 1968 would not have been eligible for consideration for promotion to the Super Time Scale post, the highest post in the RAS because they could not have then be said to have completed 20 years of continuous service in RAS. Rule 32A of the original Rules make it absolutely clear that by express legislative intent so far as appointees under the Rules of 1968 are concerned a deemed provision for treating requisite period of service as required as under the rules for promotion to the highest post was made. Sub-rule (3) of rule 32, as said earlier, clearly provides that before one becomes eligible not only he must have completed 3 years service on the selection scale posts but must have also completed 20 years in all on the posts included in the service and therefore, before one could be eligible for Super Time Scale he must have completed 20 years service in all on the posts included in the Service and admittedly the three respondents, Sarva Shri Alauddin Azad, Keshari Singh and K.P. Singhal had not completed 20 years service in all on the posts included in the service and the legal fiction created by rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules cannot be extended to hold that any service rendered by them before their appointment in 1978 to the RAS under the Emergency Recruitment Rules should be deemed to have been the service on the posts included in the service and the posts included in the service are given in the Schedule to the Original Rules. In other words, the period of service etc. for the purpose of year of allotment and then assignment of seniority cannot be considered to be the period of service on the posts included in the service. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that this question had been decided by the tribunal while considering the case of selection scale of RAS in the appeal of Kami Singh Rathore to which reference has been made in the earlier part of this order. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that this question had been decided by the tribunal while considering the case of selection scale of RAS in the appeal of Kami Singh Rathore to which reference has been made in the earlier part of this order. In our opinion that case can have no application because we have referred to the relevant provisions of the original Rules and as aforesaid it may be that for the purpose of promotion to the posts other than the highest post/posts in the RAS if a junior person becomes eligible then a senior person even if he is not eligible will have to be considered, but so far as the highest post/posts in the RAS i.e. Super Time Scale are concerned, for the reasons already stted, and taking into consideration that sub-rule (3) of rule 32 has over riding effect merely on the ground that junior person becomes eligible, a senior person shall not become eligible for consideration. At any rate, we are of the opinion that statutory fiction created by rule 25 cannot be extended for the purpose of examining eligibility for promotion to the highest post/posts in the RAS, and the object and intention of the statutory fiction was only for the year of allotment and assignment of seniority and for no other purpose. (17). With a view which we have taken it is not necessary to say that K.P.Singhal became eligible w.e.f. April 1, 1972 or November 19, 1973 and whether his service should be counted from April 1, 1972 or November 19, 1973 but even as per rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules a recruit under those Rules after assignment of year of allotment had to be placed immediately below the junior most direct recruit of that year. Under the original Rules the direct recruitment was made in the year 1972, may be that the appointment order was issued in the year 1973, but in our opinion Shri K.P. Singhal, even if other view was possible about the interpretation of statutory fiction which is not possible, would have been eligible for counting his service from November 19, 1973 and not prior to it. (18). Consequently, we hereby allow all these special appeals and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated February 1, 1993. All the three writ petitions are hereby dismissed. Costs made easy.