Honble KEJRIWAL, J.—In these three writ petitions, common question of law is involved and as such they are decided by a common judgment. (2) Petitioner K.P. Singhal was appointed as U.D.C. in the service of the respondents in the year 1965. In the year 1967, he was selected by the R.P.S.C. for Rajasthan Tehsildar Service & was appointed as member of the said service in the month of May, 1976. Lateron, he was selected by R.P.S.C. for Rajas-than-Accounts Service and was appointed as member of that service in April, 1970. From the year 1972, he started drawing salary more than Rs. 625/- p.m. (3) Petitioner Allaudin Azad was appointed teacher in Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan on 1.9.1954. Later on, he was selected by R.P.S.C. for the post of Senior Teacher & was appointed as such in the year 1968. (4) Petitioner Keshri Singh was appointed as Commercial Taxes Inspector on 19.10.1964, after selection by R.P.S.C. Later on, in the year 1971, he was promoted as Commercial Taxes Officer. (5) In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, His Highness the Rajpramukh of Rajasthan made Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 (for short the Rules of 1954) for the recruitment to the post and the terms and conditions of service of the persons appointed to the said Service. (6) Rule 4(l)(j) of the said Rules defines the word "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 supereseded by rule 2. (7) Rule 4(1)(1), defines the word "Service", which means the Rajasthan Administrative Service. (8) Rule 4(l)(o) defines the word "service" or "Experience", which reads as under: — "Service" or "Experience" whenever prescribed in these 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 proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. (9) Rule 9(l)(a) of the Rules 1954, provides that subject to the provisions of these rules, the Appointing Authority shall determine on 1.04.every year, the actual number of vacancies occurring during the financial year. (10) Rule 9(1) (b) provides that where a post is to be filled in by a single method as prescribed in the rule or Schedule, the vacancies so determined shall be filled in by that method. (11) Rule 12 deals with the academic qualifications. It reads as under: — "12. Academic qualifications: - A candidate for direct recruitment must hold (degree in Engineering to Technology) arts, science, agriculture or commerce of a University established by law in India or of a foreign university declared by Government in consultation with the Commission, to be equivalent of a degree of a University established by law in India." (12) Rule 28-B(5) reads as under :- (5) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7), selection for promotion from the lowest post or category of post in the State Service to the next higher post or category of post in the State Service and for all posts in the Subordinate Services and in the Ministerial Services shall be made strictly on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the persons who have passed the qualifying examination, if any, prescribed under these Rules, and have put in atleast five years service, unless a different period is prescribed elsewhere in these 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 made : Provides that in the event of non-availability of the persons with the requisite period of Services of five years, the Committee may consider the persons having less than the prescribed period of Service if they fulfil the qualifications and other conditions for promotion prescribed elsewhere in these Rules, and are found otherwise suitable for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Rule 28-B (8) reads as under:- (8) The persons having been selected and appointed by promotion to a post or category of post on the basis of merit, shall be eligible for promotion to the next higher post or category of post, which is to be filled in by merit, only when they have put in after regular selection, atleast five years service, unless a higher period of Service is prescribed elsewhere in these 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: Provided that the 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, Provided further that 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 posts next lower from which promotion is made, the Committee may consider the persons having less than five years service, if they are found otherwise suitable for promotion on the basis of merit alone. Rule 28-B (9) provides for determination of zones of consideration of persons eligible for promotion. Rule 32-A reads as below: — "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) 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 post shall be considered for promotion for such higher posts if: (i) they have successfully completed the period of probation, (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. (13) Vide Notification dated 12.12.1989, after sub-rule (2) of rule 32-A, of the said Rules, the following new-sub-rule (3) was added with effect from 1.4.1988: - "(3) No member of the service who has not completed three 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." Rule 33 of the Rules of 1954 provides for determination of seniority but the provision has been made subject to rule 25 of Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1977. (14) Though, for recruitment to the post and regulating service conditions of R.A.S. OFFICERS Rules of 1954, were already in existence but in the year 1976, the Government was in need of more R.A.S. Officers. Under these circumstances, the Governor of Rajasthan vide its notification dated 29.9.1976, in exercise of his powers under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India made R.A.S. (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1976. But as no recruitment was made under these Rules in the year 1976, the nomenclature of the aforesaid rules was changed as Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short the Rules of 1977) and consequential amendments were also made in the said rules. (15) Rule 6 of the Rules of 1977 provides source of recruitment, which reads as below: — 6. Source of Recruitment :-(l) Upto 25% of the vacancies shall be filled up from amongst employes of the Government of Rajasthan who on 31.12.1975, either held in a substantive capacity or have been working for a period of 3 years on 31.12.1975 in an-officiating/ad-hoc/temporary capacity, on the following posts : — (i) Tehsildar; (ii) Grade I Inspector of Devasthan Department, (iii) Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer; (vi) Assistant Regional Transport Officer; and (v) Assistant Excise Officer. The names of the candidates selected against the vacancies reserved under this sub-rule shall be arranged in the vacancies reserved under this sub-rule shall be arranged in the order of merit irrespective of the Service to which they belong. (2) The remaining vacancies shall be filled up from amongst other persons (hereinafter referred to as "other persons") in profession, business or any Government or Semi-Government or Private employment having total monthly emoluments of Rs. (2) The remaining vacancies shall be filled up from amongst other persons (hereinafter referred to as "other persons") in profession, business or any Government or Semi-Government or Private employment having total monthly emoluments of Rs. 450/- p.m. Rule 11 of the Rules of 1977 lays down qualifications of persons to be appointed under the said Rules, which is as below: — 11. Qualifications :- (1) A candidate must hold a degree in Arts, Science, Engineering, Agriculture or Commerce of a University established by Law in India or of a Foreign University declared by the Government to be equivalent to a degree of a University, established by law in India or a degree or diploma recognised by the Govt. as equivalent thereof. (2) In respect of a person referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 6, a candidate must have acquired by the first of the month in which notice is issued by the Commission inviting applications for Emergency recruitment to the Service any of the following experience : — (a) continuous services for three years in any department of the Govt. of Raj. or any other State Government or the Government of India or a Commercial firm or with a private employer on the monthly emoluments of Rs. 450/- p.m. or above, (b) continuous gainful employment for 3 years in any business, occupation other than the legal profession, (c) experience at the Bar for 3 years continuously as a Registered Legal Practitioner after obtaining degree of Bachelor of Law or equivalent degree. Rules 24 and 25 of the Rules of 1977, which are relevant for the decision of these writ petitions are as below: — 24. Appointment to the Service: - Subject to being declared fit by the Medical Board as required under rule 13, the candidates selected in accordance with rule 23 shall be appointed to the Service by the Govt. 25. Seniority (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 33 of the Raj. Adm. Service Rules, 1954, seniority of persons appointed to the Service under these rules shall be on the basis of a notional year of Allotment determined as follows: — Year of Allotment-1976 (N 1 + Haly of N 2), where N 1 means:— Completed years, including broken periods, after the age of 28 years, of employment or practice of profession as en 1.4.1976, with regular monthly emoluments therefrom amounting to atleast Rs. 625/-. 625/-. N 2 means: — Completed years, after the age of 28 years of employment or practice of profession as on 1.4.76, with regular monthly emoluments there from amounting to less than Rs. 625/-. (2) After assignment of years of Allotment under sub-rule (1), a person shall be placed in the list of R.A.S. Officers immediately below the junior most R.A.S. Officer (appointed by direct recruitment in that year). (3) Among persons appointed to the grade under these rules who are assigned the same year of Allotment, inter-se seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. (16) The petitioners were selected under rule 24 of the rules of 1977 for appointment to R.A.S. & they were appointed as such vide order dated 16.11.1978, marked Annexure 1- On successful completion of period of probation of two years, they were confirmed in the ordinary scale of R.A.S. Lateron, the respondent published seniority list under rule 25 of the rules of 1977 of the officers appointed under these rules vis-a-vis of R.A.S. Officers appointed under the rules of 1954 and invited objections. The petitioner K.P. Singhal submitted his objections on 7.4.1981, and alleged that his notional year of appointment was wrongly determined as 1972, instead of 1971. The respondent later on, published a final seniority list vide notification dt. 1.2.1983, in which also he was shown as an emergency recruit of 1977 and was placed below the persons who were appointed in the year 1972 under the rules of 1954. He again submitted his representation mentioning therein that para Nos. 2 and 4 of his representation dated 7.4.1981 were not taken into consideration before assigning notional year of allotment as 1972. In his representation, he submitted that he completed 28 years of age on 31.12.1969, and started drawing monthly employments more than Rs. 625/- w.e.f. 1.4.72. The respondent wrongly calculated the period from 1.4.1972 to 31.3.1976, as three years and thereby wrongly determined notional year of allotment of the petitioner as 1972, ware it should have been as 1971. (17) Petitioners Allaudin Azad and Keshri Singh were given 1971 as notional year of allotment and were placed below the officers who were appointed in the year 1971, under the Rules of 1954. (18) Vide order dated 11.10.1984, the petitioner Allaudin Azad was given senior scale of RAS on adhoc basis against the vacancies of the year 1981-82. (17) Petitioners Allaudin Azad and Keshri Singh were given 1971 as notional year of allotment and were placed below the officers who were appointed in the year 1971, under the Rules of 1954. (18) Vide order dated 11.10.1984, the petitioner Allaudin Azad was given senior scale of RAS on adhoc basis against the vacancies of the year 1981-82. One Shri Karni Singh Rathore, who was appointed in the ordinary scale of RAS under the rules of 1954, on 2.6.1974, and was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 31.12.1977, filed an appeal against the order dated 11.10.1984, before the Rajasthan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, challenging the promotion of Allaudin and other emergency recruits on the post of senior scale of R.A.S. In the said appeal, argument of the appellant Shri Rathore was that under rule 28(b)(5) of the Rules of 1954, he had five years experience to his credit, whereas the respondents were appointed on the post only in the year 1978, under the rules of 1977 and as such, were not even eligible for consideration for promotion for want of five years experience. In that appeal, reply of the respondent i.e. the State Government was that the respondents were assigned seniority in the service under Rule 25 of the Rules of 1977, and according to notional year of allotment, their experience of past services was counted towards the post of ordinary scale of R.A.S. Hence, the respondents No. 2 to 14 were eligible for promotion to the post of senior scale of R.A.S. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 19.8.1988, held as under :- "We have, therefore to consider the implications of Rule 25 of the Rules of 1976. After full consideration of the matter, we are of the view that when a person recruited to the Rajasthan Administrative Service under the Rules of 1976 is assigned seniority under Rule 25 on the basis of a notional year of allotment, then it is a necessary corollary with reference to the assigned notional year of allotment. The object of the assignment of year of allotment under Rule 25 is to give certain weightage on the basis of past experience to the person appointed under these rules. The formula incorporated in Rule 25 accordingly takes into account the past experience of the person and the year of allotment is counted on the basis of such past experience. The object of the assignment of year of allotment under Rule 25 is to give certain weightage on the basis of past experience to the person appointed under these rules. The formula incorporated in Rule 25 accordingly takes into account the past experience of the person and the year of allotment is counted on the basis of such past experience. Therefore, once a particular year of seniority is assigned to a person recruited to the R.A.S. under the Rules of 1976 and he is placed in the list of R.A.S. Officers immediately below the junior most R.A.S. Officers appointed by direct recruitment in that year, according to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 25, then he becomes a person similarly situated with the officers of the seniority of that particular year. It therefore follows that whatever benefit of service or experience is available to the directly recruited R.A.S. Officers of that particular year, would also be available to the emergency recruit who has been assigned that particular year." (19) The other petitioners Mr. K.P. Singhal and Keshri Singh were also promoted to senior scale of RAS against the vacancies of the year 1981-82, by different orders. All the three petitioners were further promoted in the selection scale of RAS against the vacancies of the year 1988-89. (20) In para No. 9 of the writ petition, Mr. Singhal alleged that the respondent i.e. the State of Rajasthan convened D.P.C. in the month of May, 1992, for giving promotions to super time scale of RA.S. against the vacancies of the year 1992-93. Mr. Mahendra Surana intervener filed a writ petition No. 4047/1992, challenging the eligibility of the petitioner Mr. Singhal and other persons appointed under the Rules of 1977. During the course of hearing, the Hon. Court was pleased to call and examine the record of D.P.C. At that time, it was discovered that the respondent had committed the following errors in the selections pro-cedure:— (i) Firstly, it committed an error in including even ineligible persons in the zone of consideration; and (ii) the other error committed by the respondent was to the effect that despite having been given the year 1972 as the year of Allotment under rule 25 of the Rules of 1977, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were not given the benefit thereof with effect from 1st of April, 1972. (21) Later on, the writ petition filed by Mr. (21) Later on, the writ petition filed by Mr. Surana was dismissed as withdrawn but since proceedings of D.P.C. had moulded its selection procedure in accordance with the interim direction/order issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, therefore, with a view to undo the prejudice caused to the petitioner and others in this regard, this Court, vide its order dated 23.6.1992, directed the respondent to reconveyance the D.P.C. and to hold selections in accordance with law. (22) In Para No. 10 of the Writ Petition, Mr. Singhal has alleged that apprehending that the respondent might again commit the same mistake in the matter of zone of consideration and in treating the petitioner not eligible submitted his representations to the respondent, but he did not receive any reply. It has been further mentioned that during the course of oral discussions with the petitioner and his colleagues, the Chief Secretary, the Secretary, Department of Personal and also the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, did not show their inclination to the request made by the petitioner and his colleagues. The meeting of the D.P.C. is likely to be convened on or about 15.7.1992, for the purposes of making selections and promotions to super time scale of R.A.S. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 13.7.1992. In this writ petition, his case is that under rule 25 of the Rules of 1977, he was assigned 1972 as the year of allotment and as such his service on the post of R.A.S. has to be computed w.e.f. 1.4.1992. That the Government issued a formal seniority list of those officers to whom selection scale of RA.S. was given. The name of the petitioner has been shown at Serial No. 95. Out of the said list, persons placed at Serial Nos. 1 to 35, have already been promoted to the super time scale of R.A.S. and persons mentioned at Sl. No 49 to 52, 58 to 60, 64,67 to 73,75,79to 83, 86 to 88 and 90 to 92 are not eligible for promotion to the super time scale of R.A.S. as they did not complete 20 years of service in R.A.S. and are not entitled to the benefit of rule 25 of the rules of 1977, since they were not appointed under the said rules. Thus, there are only 32 persons above the petitioner in selection scale who are eligible for promotion to super time scale of R.A.S. whereas there are 33 vacancies in super time scale for which promotions are to be made. Thus, according to the petitioner, his case falls within the zone of consideration. The petitioner prayed that he be declared eligible for promotion to super time scale of R.A.S. against the vacancies of the year 1992-93 and he be promoted accordingly in the event he is being found suitable. (23) The other petitioners also made similar prayers in their writ petitions. (24) The State of Rajasthan submitted reply to the Writ Petition in which it has been alleged that the representations submitted by Mr. Singhal against the seniority list were rejected and further that the petitioner Mr. Singhal remained silent uptil now and as such he can not challenge the seniority list after a period of nine years. In para No. 10 of its reply, it further alleged as below: — "Since the Direct Recruits R.A.S. batch of 1972 joined on 19.11.1973 and, therefore, the experience of the petitioner can at the most be counted with effect from 19.11.1973 and not earlier to that as per the Rules and also as per the decision of the Honble Tribunal dated 19.8.1988, passed in Appeal No. 958/84, Karni Singh Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan." (25) The respondent further alleged that in view of rule 32A(3) of the Rules of 1954, the petitioners were not eligible for consideration for the super time scale of R.A.S. as they did not complete 20 years of service on the post. (26) That, on 9.8.1992, Mr. V.K. Rastogi and other R.A.S. Officers submitted an application, through Mr. Keshote, for impleading them party in the writ petition. That application was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 14.8.1992, giving a right to the applicants to make their submissions at the time of disposal of the writ petition. (27) That, again on 10.8.1992, Mr. Mahendra Surana submitted an application praying that the petitioner Mr. Singhal be directed to implead him as a party in the Writ Petition or in the alternative, the Writ Petition submitted by him, be dismissed for want of necessary party. Mr. Surana submitted this application only in the case of Mr. Singhal on the basis of his seniority. Mahendra Surana submitted an application praying that the petitioner Mr. Singhal be directed to implead him as a party in the Writ Petition or in the alternative, the Writ Petition submitted by him, be dismissed for want of necessary party. Mr. Surana submitted this application only in the case of Mr. Singhal on the basis of his seniority. He did not file such applications in other two writ petitions. This Court, vide its order dated 17.9.1992, rejected the said application, holding that no relief has been sought by the petitioner against Mr. Surana and further that the question of interse-seniority between the parties is not in issue in the Writ Petition. This Court further observed that in case Mr. Surana wants to assist the Court, he can do so. (28) I have heard Mr. Paras Kuhad and Mr. Hanuman Chaudhary for the petitioners. Mr. B.P. Agrawal, Advocate General for the respondent. Mr. S.K. Keshote for Mr. V.K. Rastogi and other applicants, Mr. M. Mridul for Mr. Surana. (29) Mr. Mridul raised the following preliminary objection: — (1) That no order has been passed against any one. The recommendations of the D.P.C. have still not become final. These are merely recom- mendations and can be modified, rejected or accepted by the Government and as such the Writ Petition is not maintainable. (30) In support of his arguments, Mr. Mridul placed reliance on the following judgments Dr. Purushottam Nagar vs. State of Rajasthan (1) and Mrs. Kunda S. Kadam and others vs. Dr. K.K. Soman and others (2), (31) The aforesaid judgments are totally distinguishable and do not apply to the facts of the present case. (32) He next argued that the petitioners have alternate remedy of appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and as such these writ petitions are premature. (33) In my opinion, this submission of Mr. Mridul is also not tenable. Why the petitioners should wait for filing appeal before the Tribunal, when the Government has already made up its mind for not considering the cases of petitioners for super time scale of R.A.S. Further more, only legal questions are involved in these writ petitions. (34) The third preliminary objection is also not maintainable, simply on the ground that the D.B. Special Appeal filed by Mr. Surana, has already been disposed of by this Court. (35) Mr. (34) The third preliminary objection is also not maintainable, simply on the ground that the D.B. Special Appeal filed by Mr. Surana, has already been disposed of by this Court. (35) Mr. Kuhad, counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioner Allaudin Azad was given promotion in senior scale of R.A.S. against the vacancies of year 1981-82, and at that time though he did not get actual experience of five years on the post, still his experience was counted on the basis of seniority. The promotion of Mr. Azad and other appointees under Rules of 1977 was challenged before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. In that appeal, the reply of the Government was that the respondent Numbers 2 to 14 were assigned seniority in the R.A.S. under rule 25 of the Rules of 1977, and according to notional year of allotment, their experience of past service was counted towards the ordinary scale of R.A.S. The respondent Nos. 2 to 14, were, therefore, eligible for promotion to the senior scale of R.A.S. under rule 28 (b) of the Rules of 1954. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 18.8.1988, held that the object of assignment of year of allotment under rule 25 of the rules of 1977 was to give certain weightage on the basis of past experience to the persons appointed under those rules. It further held that whatever benefit of service or experience was available to the directly recruited R.A.S. Officers of that particular year would also be available to the emergency recruits, who had been assigned that particular year. Mr. Kuhad argued that the judgment of the Tribunal became final as none of the parties had challenged the same before this Court and under these circumstances, the respondent is bound by the said judgment. The said judgment is res judicata against the State of Rajasthan. He further argued that there is no difference between the principle laid down under rule 28(b)(5) and the rule 32A(3) of the Rules of 1954. Under rule 28(b)(5), the experience required is five years whereas under, rule 32-A(3), the experience required is of 20 years. He argued that in para No. 5 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner specifically alleged that he started drawing salary more than Rs. Under rule 28(b)(5), the experience required is five years whereas under, rule 32-A(3), the experience required is of 20 years. He argued that in para No. 5 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner specifically alleged that he started drawing salary more than Rs. 625/- p.m. on 1.4.1972, onwards and, therefore, he was entitled to be given benefit of six years of service for the purposes of computing his seniority as per rule 25 of the Rules of 1977 and should have been treated as appointee of the year 1971, instead of the year 1972. The respondent i.e. the State of Rajasthan did not deny these facts and as such this Court should presume that the petitioner Mr. K.P. Singhal was also an emergent appointee of the year 1971 and not of 1972. He argued that this was a simple mistake of calculation which deserves to be corrected. In the alternative, he argued that without admitting and for the sake of arguments, even it be taken that the petitioner Mr. Singhal was notionally appointed in the year 1972, he had already completed 20 years of his service on 31.3.1992, and as such he deserves to be considered for promotion in super time scale of R.A.S. He argued that the recruits under the emergency rules should have been given the weightage of their past service, which was also given by the Tribunal and which was also the case of the Government of Rajasthan that the emergency recruits should be given benefit of past service. He argued that the petitioner was given seniority on the basis of allotment of year. The seniority is merely an incidence of service and service is merely a consequence of appointment. There can be no seniority without the experience of service and further more, there can not be service without existence of appointment. If the seniority of the petitioner is treated to be w.e.f. 1.4.1972, it should be presumed that the petitioner was appointed on 1.4.1972. There is a legal fiction in this respect and that should be given full effect. There can be no seniority without the experience of service and further more, there can not be service without existence of appointment. If the seniority of the petitioner is treated to be w.e.f. 1.4.1972, it should be presumed that the petitioner was appointed on 1.4.1972. There is a legal fiction in this respect and that should be given full effect. He argued that the legal fiction has been defined in Courous Juris, Volume 25, page 1036, which reads as under: — "A legal assumption that a thing is true which is either not true, or which is a probably false as true, as assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of fact exists which has "never really taken place, an allegation in legal proceedings that does not accord with the actual facts of the case, and which may be contradicted for every purpose except to defeat the beneficial and for which the fiction is invented and allowed." He also placed reliance on the following judgments: — Additional Income-tax Officers and another Vs. E. Alfred (3) and State of Bombay Vs. Pandurang Vinaayak and others (4). He argued that the marginal heading can not curtail the true scope of rule 25 of the Rules of 1977. Once it is found that substantive part of rule 25 of the Rules of 1977 does in fact deal with the question of appointment also, the fact can not be denied to this part of the provision on the basis of limited nature of the marginal heading. On this point, Mr. Kuhad placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Shrimant Padmaraje R. Kadambande Vs. CIT Pune, (5). He further argued that rules 24 and 25 of the Rules of 1977 should be construed together and not in isolation. If we consider both these rules together, the only conclusion comes that the petitioner was appointed on 1.4.1972, and he completed 20 years of service on 31.3.1992, and as such he is entitled to be considered for super time scale of R.A.S. against the quota of 1992-93 but the respondent is not going to consider his case for promotion to the said post. Under these circumstances, he prayed that the respondent be directed to consider his case for promotion to the super time scale of R.A.S. for the year 1992-93. (36) Mr. Under these circumstances, he prayed that the respondent be directed to consider his case for promotion to the super time scale of R.A.S. for the year 1992-93. (36) Mr. BJP. Agarwal, counsel for the State of Rajasthan argued that the seniority Est of RAJS. Officers was published and objections were invited. After considering the objections of the petitioner Singhal, the final seniority list was published on 1.2.1982. The petitioner Singhal, did not challenge that seniority list and after a period of nine years, he can not be permitted to challenge the seniority list in these proceedings. In the seniority list, he has been assigned the year 1972, but the case of the respondent is that batch of direct recruitees of RA.S. of 1972, joined on 19.11.1973, and as such the experience of the petitioner can at the best be counted to be w.e.f. 19.11.1973, when the batch of 1972, joined the service and not earlier to this. In this connection, Mr. Agarwal also placed reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal passed in Karni Singh Rathores appeal. Mr. Agarwal next argued that by virtue of sub-rule 3 of rule 32-A of the Rules of 1954, the petitioners can not be said to have completed twenty years of their service and as such they are not eligible to be considered for promotion on the post of super time scale of R.A.S. (37) Mr. Keshote, counsel for some of the interveners argued that after insertion of sub rule 3 in Rule 32-A of the Rules of 1954, after the judgment of the Service Tribunal, the petitioners can not be said to be eligible for promotion to super time scale as they did not complete 20 years of service in all on the post i.e. in the R.A.S. Mr. Keshote next argued that Rule 25 of the rules of 1977, only gives legal fiction with regard to the notional year of seniority and nothing more than that. The legal fiction should be limited to the purpose for which it was created and should not be extended beyond it. The purpose was only with regard to seniority and not beyond that. He argued that this legal fiction can be taken to the extent that the service of the emergency recruits in R.A.S. should be counted from the date of seniority. The purpose was only with regard to seniority and not beyond that. He argued that this legal fiction can be taken to the extent that the service of the emergency recruits in R.A.S. should be counted from the date of seniority. He also argued that the eligibility for promotion has been provided under Rules of 1954. In these rules, no provision has been made for counting the service of emergency recruits from the year of allotment of the seniority in R.A.S. cadre. He argued that if the Rule making authority wanted to give such benefit, a provision should have been made under the rules of 1954. He further argued that sub-rule 3 was added in rule 32-A in the year 1989, after the decision of the appeal filed by Mr. Karni Singh in Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. This sub-rule(3) speaks that no member of service who has completed three years service in the selection scale and 20 years in all on the post included in the services would be eligible for appointment to the super time scale. According to him, as the petitioners did not complete 20 years of services in R.A.S. and as such they are not entitled to be considered for super time scale. The judgment of the Tribunal is not binding on this Court and further more, this is not relevant for the decision of this Writ Petition. A writ of mandamus can be issued if there is legal right but in the present case the petitioners have no legal right for consideration of their cases by the D.P.C. for promotion in super time scale and as such no writ of mandamus can be issued against the State of Rajasthan. He prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed. The same arguments were repeated by Mr. Mridul, Counsel for Mr. Surana. In addition to that, Mr. Mridul argued that Mr. Surana is direct recruitee and is senior to the petitioner Mr. Singhal and as such Mr. Singhal can not be given march over Mr. Surana. He prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed. The same arguments were repeated by Mr. Mridul, Counsel for Mr. Surana. In addition to that, Mr. Mridul argued that Mr. Surana is direct recruitee and is senior to the petitioner Mr. Singhal and as such Mr. Singhal can not be given march over Mr. Surana. He argued that in Rule 28-B(5) of the Rules of 1954, the words used are "at least five years service" whereas in sub-rule (3) of rule 32-A of Rules of 1954, the words used are "20 years service in all on the post included in the service." Thus, there is a clear departure from sub-rule (5) of rule 28-B in sub-rule (3) of rule 32-A of the Rules of 1954. He argued that when different words are used in statute, they can not be given the same meaning. He also argued that words used in statute are never superfluous and each word has to be given its own meaning. In this connection, he cited several authorities before me but this principle is a settled one and does not require any authority. He further submitted that if the words used in the statute are clear and are not ambiguous, they should be given their natural meaning. This is also a settled principle. He argued that when rule 32 of the Rules of 1954, as originally made, the condition of eligibility for promotion to the senior was 10 years of service in connection with the affairs of the State. Later on the rule was amended so as to provide that substantive appointment to the senior post shall be made by the Govt. for amongst the members of service and explanation was appended thereto for counting the service. Thereafter the words "super time scale" were inserted in rule 32 of the Rules of 1954, vide notification dated 17.7.1987. After that the Service Tribunal passed its judgment dated 19.8.1988, as mentioned above. He argued that legislative history clearly indicates a conscious effort to lay down different eligibility conditions for filling the super time scale posts. He further argued that sub-rule (3) of rule 32 A of the Rules of 1954, is a special provision for giving promotion to super time scale. The special provision prevails over the general provisions and in that connection, he cited several authorities. He further argued that sub-rule (3) of rule 32 A of the Rules of 1954, is a special provision for giving promotion to super time scale. The special provision prevails over the general provisions and in that connection, he cited several authorities. He also argued that the super time scale posts were created for the first time in the R.A.S. in the year 1987 w.e.f. 1.4.1988, much later after the coming into force of the emergency Rules of 1977, and as such the only rule which lays down regarding eligibility of super time scale is rule 32-A of the Rules of 1954. Rule 32 A of the Rules of 1954, is a complete code in regard to the super time scale and the provisions which were made earlier when this rule was not there, can have no over riding effect upon it. In support of this argument, Mr. Mridul placed reliance on M. Pentiah and others V. Muddala Veeramallappa and others (6). He also argued that if there is a leg fiction, the same is restricted only with regard to seniority. Rule 25 of the Rules of 1977, which deals with seniority is independent rule, whereas rule 24 of the said rules which relates to appointment is independent rule. In the alternative, he argued that even if it be assumed that there is a legal fiction and it has to be given effect, the effect can not be given contrary to law. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. S. Teja Singh, (7) and M. Pentiah and others V. Muddala Veeramallappa and others (supra). (38) According to Mr. Mridul, the so called fiction is limited to the grant of senior scale and selection scale and does not permit the fiction to operate for the super time scale. If the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is accepted, it would result in absurdity and would become a case of making unequal, equals, which would be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. He argued that weightage given for purposes of determination of seniority to the emergency recruits, should not be imparted in Rule 32-A of the Rules of 1954. Mr. Surana was appointed against the vacancies of direct recruitment quota of 1972. He argued that weightage given for purposes of determination of seniority to the emergency recruits, should not be imparted in Rule 32-A of the Rules of 1954. Mr. Surana was appointed against the vacancies of direct recruitment quota of 1972. The process of selection was started in the year 1972 Appointments could not be given in that year as entire process of written examination and interviews had to be gone through. The appointment of Mr. Surana was delayed on account of fortuitous- circumstances for which he can not be blamed. If there is any legal fiction in favour of the petitioners, the same legal fiction is in favour of Mr. Surana. He also argued that it is a settled position of law that if justice has been done, the Court should not interfere with the order, even the order is not in accordance with law. (39) Lastly, he argued that only eligible persons can file the writ petition. As the petitioner is not eligible for super time scale, hence he has no right to file the writ petition. (40) In rejoinder, Mr. Kuhad, argued that Mr. Surana was appointed in the year 1974 and not in the year 1972 and as such his case did not fall under Rule 32-A(3) of the Rules of 1954. He further argued that no legal fiction has been created under the Rules of 1954 and as such Mr. Surana could not be considered for super time scale of R.A.S. The petitioners were given notional seniority w.e.f. 1.4.1972, and 1.4.1971, and as such they shall be deemed to have been appointed w.e.f. the said dates and under these circumstances, it should be presumed that the petitioners completed 20 years service in all on the post included in the service and as such were/are eligible for consideration to the super time scale of R.A.S. Mr. Kuhad further argued that there is no dispute regarding the settled principle of law, for which Mr. Mridul raised his arguments but those principles are not applicable in the present case. (41) Before deciding the writ petitions on merits, I want to make it clear that neither I am deciding the question of inter-se-seniority between the petitioner. Mr. Singhal, and Mr. Surana, nor I am deciding the question as to whether Mr. Mridul raised his arguments but those principles are not applicable in the present case. (41) Before deciding the writ petitions on merits, I want to make it clear that neither I am deciding the question of inter-se-seniority between the petitioner. Mr. Singhal, and Mr. Surana, nor I am deciding the question as to whether Mr. Surana is entitled for consideration for super time scale of R.A.S. because these points are not involved in these writ petitions. Mr. Surana filed an application for becoming a party in the writ petition filed by Mr. Singhal. The same was decided by this Court as mentioned above. He was allowed to submit his arguments. Mr. Surana did not file similar applications in other two writ petitions. His main argument is that Mr. Singhal is junior to him and as such he can not be given march over him. He did not raise any argument regarding other petitioners. (42) The only question before me as to whether the petitioners who were appointed in the ordinary scale of R.A.S. in the year 1978, under Rule 24 of the Rules of 1977, and who were given seniority with retrospective effect from 1.4.1972 and 1.4.1971, can be said to be eligible for super time scale of R.A.S. under rule 32(a)(3) of the Rules of 1954. The argument of the counsel for the petitioners is that on account of legal fiction created in rule 25 of the Rules of 1977, they were given seniority with retrospective effect. This legal fiction should be given full effect and it should be presumed that the petitioners were appointed in the service from the date when they were given seniority i.e. from 1.4.1972 and 1.4.1971, and as such they had already completed 20 years service in all on the post of R.A.S. Under these circumstances, they are entitled for consideration for promotion in super time scale of R.A.S. (43) On the other hand, argument of the counsel for interveners it that the petitioners were actually appointed in the service in the year 1978, They did not complete 20 years of service and as such they are not eligible for super time scale of R.A.S. Under rule 32-A(3) of the Rules of 1954, the words used are "20 years service in all on the post included in the service". In this rule the word "actual" is missing. In this rule the word "actual" is missing. Had the intention of the Government was that a person who had actually completed 20 years service on the post, the word actual should have been inserted in this sub- rule. Under these circumstances, I have to consider as to whether on the basis of fiction created in rule 25 of the Rules of 1977, it can be said that the petitioners completed 20 years service in all on the post included in the service. Before coming to this aspect, it has to be ascertained as to for what purpose the fiction was created. In the year 1976, the Government was in need of some experienced R.A.S. Officers and as such the Rules of 1977 were made giving weightage to past services of the emergency recruits. From the Rules 1977, it is apparent that in addition to the qualifications which were required under the Rules of 1954, emergency recruits were required to possess atleast three years experience. On appointment to the service, they were given seniority with retrospective effect on account of legal fiction created under the rule 25 of the said Rules. Thus, it is apparent that legal fiction was created to give due weightage to emergency recruits of their past service. If by fiction introduced by rule 25 of the Rules of 1977, the petitioners were given seniority with retrospective, it is obvious that full effect must be given to the legal fiction. The respondent had already promoted the petitioners in senior scale and selection scale on the basis of this legal fiction. On the basis of said legal fiction, the petitioners are further entitled to consideration for super time scale. In my opinion, there are no limitations to this legal fiction. I agree with the argument of Mr. Mridul that legal fiction can not go contrary to law. But in the present case there are no limitations to the legal fiction. (44) In State of Bombay Vs. Pandurang (supra), the Apex Court held as under: — "When a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to have been done, which in fact 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. (Vide Lord Justice James in Ex Parte Walton; In re Levy, (1881) 17 Ch.D.746 at p. 756 (A). If the purpose of the statutory fiction mentioned in s. 15 is kept in view, then it follows that the purpose of that fiction would be completely defeated if the notification was construed in the literal manner in which it has been construed by the High Court. In East End Dwellings C. Ltd. V. Finsbury Borough Council, (1952) A.C. 109 (B), Lord Asquith 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 corollaries of that state of affairs." (45) In Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (supra), it has been held that if there is legal fiction, it would be proper and necessary to assume all those facts on which the fiction can operate. (46) When the petitioners were given seniority retrospectively, then it should also be presumed that they were appointed on the date when they were assigned seniority. I do not agree with the argument of Mr. Mridul that the fiction is limited only to the extent of giving promotion to senior scale and selection scale and is not applicable to super time scale nor I agree with the argument of Mr. B.P. Agarwal that the experience of petitioners can at the most be counted w.e.f. 19.11.1973, when the batch of direct recruits of R.A.S. of 1972 joined and not earlier to that. In the appeal filed by Mr. B.P. Agarwal that the experience of petitioners can at the most be counted w.e.f. 19.11.1973, when the batch of direct recruits of R.A.S. of 1972 joined and not earlier to that. In the appeal filed by Mr. Karni Singh Rathore, before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, the case of the Government was that seniority was assigned to the emergency recruits under rule 25 of the rules of 1977, according to the notional year of allotment and as such their experience of past service was counted towards the post of ordinary scale of R.A.S. In these circumstances, on the respondents were eligible for promotion to the post of senior scale of R.A.S. under rule 28-B(5) of the rules of 1954. It is pertinent to note that under rule 28-B(5) of the Rules of 1954, before a person is promoted to senior scale, he must have worked for atleast five years on the post. The respondents in that case did not complete five years on the post but they were given promotion on the basis of legal fiction. In my opinion, though the phraseology used in rule 28-B(5) and rule 32-A(3), is not similar, but there is no substantial difference. Looking to these circumstances, I am of the view that all those persons who were given seniority under the rules of 1977 w.e.f. 1.4.1972, should be deemed to have completed 20 years service in all on the post included in the service and are eligible for appointment in the super time scale. The authority of Apex Court in M. Pentiahs case (supra), is not applicable to the facts of present case. (47) The argument of Mr. Mridul that as the petitioners are not eligible for promotion for super time scale of R.A.S. and as such the writ petitions are not maintainable, has no force. Similarly, his other argument that as justice has been done, hence this Court should not interfere in its extra ordinary jurisdiction, has also no force in the circumstances of the present writ petitions. When eligible persons are not considered for promotion, it can not be said that justice has been done. Similarly, his other argument that as justice has been done, hence this Court should not interfere in its extra ordinary jurisdiction, has also no force in the circumstances of the present writ petitions. When eligible persons are not considered for promotion, it can not be said that justice has been done. (48) Consequently, I allow the writ petitions and direct the respondent i.e. the State of Rajasthan to re-convene the D.P.C. within 15 days from today and to consider the petitioners for promotion to super time scale of R.A.S. against the vacancies of the year 1992-93, provided they fall within the zone of consideration and to promote them on the said post, in case they are found suitable. In case the D.P.C. has already considered the cases of the petitioners for promotion to super time scale, the respondent is directed to declare the result of D.P.C. and to pass necessary orders. (49) I am aware of this fact that on account of ad-interim order of this Court, declaration of result of D.P.C. was stayed. During this period, some officers who were considered for super time scale for R.A.S. have been retired. I case the retired officers are found suitable, they should also be given all benefits of super time scale of R.A.S. (50) Parties to bear their own costs.