JUDGMENT 1. These special appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated August 10, 1990 by which the writ petitions of the petitioner-respondents (No. 1) have been allowed and it has been ordered that they (petitioners) be placed above respondents Nos. 3 to 17 in the seniority list, they are entitled to be promoted on the post of U.D.C. from the date their juniors have been promoted and an opportunity will be afforded to them to take up the examination for the post of Stamp Reporters and Court Fee Examiners and on their success they will be promoted as Stamp Reporter and Court Fee Examiner from the dates their juniors have been promoted, if they fulfil the eligibility condition, educational qualifications and their service record is otherwise clean and unblemished. 2. The facts of the cases are identical and may be summarised thus. In the year 1975, 18 posts of lower division clerks were sanctioned by the State of Rajasthan to clear the arrears of the paper-book section of the Rajasthan High Court. The Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur issued advertisement and invited applications from the candidates possessing requisite qualifications to appear in the typing test. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners (respondent No.1 of both the appeals) appeared in the typing test, they stood at Nos. 4 and 9 in the merit list and were initially appointed till February 29, 1976 vide order dated January 9, 1976 (Annexure 2). Their services were extended from time to time. They were finally confirmed with effect from February 2, 1981. The respondents Nos. 3 to 17 of both the writ petitions (including the appellant Bhanwara Ram) were appointed on the post of lower division clerk during the period from March 4, 1977 to January 16, 1980 and were confirmed earlier than the petitioners. They submitted several representations but with no avail. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint reply and the respondent No.4 Bhanwara Ram (appellant in these special appeals) filed his separate reply, seriously opposing the writ petitions. The other respondents did not contest the writ petitions. They submitted several representations but with no avail. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint reply and the respondent No.4 Bhanwara Ram (appellant in these special appeals) filed his separate reply, seriously opposing the writ petitions. The other respondents did not contest the writ petitions. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge held the Hon'ble Chief Justice has power under Rule 17, Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 (In short 'the Rules') to relax any of its provisions, he relaxed the condition of holding written examination for the recruitment to fill up the 18 posts of lower division clerks in view of the urgency, accordingly their recruitment on the posts of lower division clerks was regular and was not against any rule. He also held that the assignment of seniority on the basis of the date of confirmation being a fortuitous circumstance was not legal. He further held that the respondent No.4 (appellant) Bhanwara Ram was not entitled to get his previous service rendered in the Education Department counted for the purpose of seniority as he himself applied in the High Court, appeared in the typing test and joined the service in pursuance of the appointment order issued to him and he did not seek his transfer from the Education Department to the High Court. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Bhanwara Ram that the learned single Judge has seriously erred to hold that the appointment of the petitioners Heera Lal and Ganpat Singh on the posts of lower division clerks was regular and the Hon'ble the Chief Justice had power to grant relaxation under Rule 17 of the Rules. He also contended that the facts and circumstances of Direct Recruiting Class II Engineers Officer Asso. v. State of Mah., 1990 (2) JT 264 : are quite different and distinguishable and the law laid down in it was not applicable in the present cases. He further contended that the appointment of the petitioners was adhoc, it was upto February 29, 1975 and for such a case no relaxation could be granted under Rule 17 of the Rules by the Hon'ble Justice. He further contended that the appointment of the petitioners was adhoc, it was upto February 29, 1975 and for such a case no relaxation could be granted under Rule 17 of the Rules by the Hon'ble Justice. He lastly contended that the appellant Bhanwara Ram was already serving in the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan prior to his appointment in the High Court and the learned single Judge seriously erred to hold that his service rendered in the Education Department cannot be taken into consideration while fixing his seniority. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-respondents Heera Lal and Ganpat Singh duly supported the order of the learned single Judge. He contended that it was also stated in the notification inviting applications dated December 4, 1975 (Annexure 1) that the term of the posts was likely to be extended. He also contended that the appointment of the petitioners cannot be said to be irregular or against the Rules, there is no rule regarding determination of seniority in the Rules and as per various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the seniority has to be determined on the basis of the length of service. He relied upon S.B. Patwardhan v.. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 2051 : 1977(2) SLR 235 (SC) ; Baleshwar Das v. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 41 Harivanshji Mishra v. Railway Board, AIR 1989 SC 696 and R.N. Bansal v. Union of India, (1992) 2 SCC 318. 5. There is no substance in the special appeals. Rule 2A (2) of the rules runs as under:- "(2) The Chief Justice may, from time to time, by general or special order:- (a) specify the method by which recruitment to a post or category of posts shall be made. (b) determine the proportion of vacancies to be filled by each method in case of recruitment by more than one method, and (c) specify the manner in which such recruitment shall be made in the case of direct recruitment." Rule 17 of the Rules states as follows:- "17. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice may relax the provisions of any of these rules in any particular case provided that the case shall not be dealt with in a manner less favourable than that provided in the rules." 6. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice may relax the provisions of any of these rules in any particular case provided that the case shall not be dealt with in a manner less favourable than that provided in the rules." 6. On the note of the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, the Hon'ble Chief Justice passed order that recruitment to fill up said 18 posts of lower division clerks (sanctioned by the Government) be made by holding typing test and Registrar will personally supervise it. Admittedly, the petitioners Heera Lal and Ganpat Singh and others were appointed on the post of lower division clerks on the basis of their merit in the typing test. As such it cannot be said that their appointment was irregular or against the rules. It is not in dispute that the duration of said 18 posts of lower division clerks was extended from time to time and all persons so appointed on the said posts continued as lower division clerks. Subsequently, they were confirmed. As such it cannot be said that the appointment of the petitioners Heera Lal and Ganpat Singh was ad hoc and was given as a stop-gap arrangement. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officer's Association v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607 : has summed up the law relating to such appointments in sub-paras (A) and (B) of para 44 as follows:- (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rules is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules the period of officiating service will be counted." The facts of this reported case are of course different but the above quoted paragraphs lay down the law. It is fully applicable in this case. It is fully applicable in this case. According to the above law, if the initial appointment is ad hoc, as a stop-gap arrangement and not according to the rules, the officiation on such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. As already observed above, the initial appointment of the petitioners Heera Lal and Ganpat Singh was according to rules. It was also not as a stop-gap arrangement. In the present cases, law laid down in sub-para (B) is also applicable. As such their entire length of service has to be taken into account for considering their seniority and has rightly been taken into consideration by the learned single Judge for the purpose of their placement in the seniority list. 7. Admittedly, the appellant Bhanwara Ram appeared in the typing test and joined the post of lower division clerk in pursuance of the appointment order No. Est/HC/77/95 dated March 4, 1977 (Annexure R4/2). He admits in his reply to the writ petition that he was appointed by the High Court on the post of lower division clerk. It is not his case that he was transferred from the Education Department of the Rajasthan High Court. The appellant has himself stated in para No.2 page 2 of his reply that at the time for initial appointment, he was given benefit of age relaxation by the Rajasthan High Court. This also supports the case that his services were not transferred from Education Department to Rajasthan High Court. 8. There is no question of applicability of Rule 27, Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 which provides that seniority of persons appointed to the lowest post of service or lowest category of post in each of the group/section of the service, as the case may be, shall be determined from the date of confirmation of such person to the said post. Obviously these provisions of the Rule are against the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, quoted above, in para No.7 (supra). Moreover, Rule 4-A of the Rule deals with the seniority. 9. Accordingly, the Special Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeals dismissed. *******