JUDGMENT Sreedharan, J. 1. These Writ Appeals arise from the decisions in O.Ps. 5238/87, 1971/87 and 1388/87. Writ Appeal 878/94 is filed by the additional 7th respondent in O. P. 5238/87, while the 4th respondent in O. P. 1971/87 is the appellant in W. A. 1193/1994. He was the 3rd respondent in O.P. 1388/87. Against the judgment in that Original Petition, he has preferred W. A. 1309/94. Since the issues raised in these appeals are the same, we consider it advantageous to dispose of them by a common-judgment. 2. The main issue that is to be tackled by us in these appeals is as to how direct recruits to the cadre of Assistant Conservators of Forests are to be ranked in the seniority list vis-a-vis the promotees from the cadre of Rangers. Qualification and method of appointment to the cadre of Assistant Conservators is provided by the Special Rules governing the Kerala Forest Service. Category 4 in the Special Rules relate to Assistant Conservators. The post is to be filled up by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from among Rangers in the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service. The rule further states that so far as qualified and suitable candidates are available, direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer shall be made in the proportion of 3:2. The said rule has a proviso. The proviso states that substantive vacancies alone in the category of Assistant Conservators shall be filled up in accordance with the seniority of approved probationers. The above provision shows that the direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer from among Rangers must be in the ratio of 3:2 and the substantive vacancies in the Cadre of Assistant Conservators can alone be filled up only by approved probationers in that cadre, depending on their seniority. In other words, no officer, who has not been declared as an approved probationer in the cadre of Assistant Conservator, can take a substantive vacancy in that cadre. Putting it differently, no one holding the post of Assistant Conservator, who has not got his probation declared, be placed in any substantive vacancy at any point of time in the said cadre. 3. Even though the said rule underwent an amendment as per G. O. (P) 100/87 dated 16th December, 1987 by substituting two paragraphs by an Explanation, that has not gone to change the legal position materially. 4. 3. Even though the said rule underwent an amendment as per G. O. (P) 100/87 dated 16th December, 1987 by substituting two paragraphs by an Explanation, that has not gone to change the legal position materially. 4. R.8 of the Special Rules states that the seniority of a directly recruited Assistant Conservator shall be determined by the date of his appointment as probationary Assistant Conservator. This provision is reiteration of the provision contained in R.27(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, hereinafter referred to as "the General rules". If such a provision was not incorporated in the Special Rules, a direct recruit would have had the benefit of R.27(c) of the General Rules, under which his seniority will depend upon the date of the effective advice given by the Public Service Commission. By virtue of the specific provision in R.8, a direct recruit to the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests can count seniority only with effect from the date of his appointment as Probationary Assistant Conservator. 5. Petitioners in O. P. Nos. 5238/87, 1971/87 and 1388/87 are direct recruits to the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests. They were appointed to the post as Probationary Assistant Conservators with effect from 1st May, 1978, 1st May, 1979 and 1st November, 1980 respectively. They approached this Court to have their seniority in the cadre of Assistant Conservators of Forests fixed in accordance with the Special Rules and the General Rules. 6. Before dealing with the facts in this case, we consider it advantageous to examine the relevant provisions of the General Rules relating to this issue. R.2(1) of the General Rules defines "appointed to a service". A person is said to be "appointed to a service", as per this definition, when in accordance with the rules he discharges for the first time duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or commences the probation. Only after a person has been appointed to the service can he discharge the duties of that post. When he is so appointed to a service, he must commence probation in that service. If one does not commence his probation on the date he was put in charge of that post, he can never be considered to have been appointed to that post or service. When he is so appointed to a service, he must commence probation in that service. If one does not commence his probation on the date he was put in charge of that post, he can never be considered to have been appointed to that post or service. This means that a person who has been appointed to a service or post temporarily or provisionally as a stop gap arrangement can never be considered as one who has been appointed to that post or service. So, only when a person is discharging the duties of the post borne on the cadre or commences the probation can he be said to be holding the post borne on that cadre. 7. R.2(9) of the General Rules defines "member of a service". As per that definition, "member of a service" means a person who has been appointed to that service. He must be a probationer, an approved probationer or a full member of that service. Therefore, a person who is not a probationer, approved probationer or a full member of that service can never consider himself a member of that service. In other words, a person who has been posted on provisional or temporary basis in a cadre or service can never be considered as a member of that cadre or service. R.2(18) of the General Rules defines "cadre" as the permanent cadre of each service, class, category and grade as determined by the State Government. So, the State Government is to decide the permanent cadre strength of each service, class, category and grade. "Cadre" has been defined in R.12(4) of Chap.2 Part I K. S. R. As per that definition, "cadre" means the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. So, the strength of each service has to be fixed by the Government. In the instant case, the strength of the cadre of Assistant Conservators of Forests has been fixed by the Government and that number is the number of permanent posts in that cadre. Taking into consideration the entire scheme of the General Rules and the Special Rules, Government are to do justice to direct recruits and appointees by transfer to a service where the appointment is by direct recruitment and by recruitment by transfer by fixing/reviewing the cadre strength. Taking into consideration the entire scheme of the General Rules and the Special Rules, Government are to do justice to direct recruits and appointees by transfer to a service where the appointment is by direct recruitment and by recruitment by transfer by fixing/reviewing the cadre strength. Government have to periodically review the cadre strength and fix the number in the permanent cadre of each service, class, category and grade. Otherwise, it will go to adversely affect both categories of recruits. 8. R.5 of the General Rules deals with "method of recruitment". As far as the case on hand is concerned, R.5 is the most important rule, which has not been properly understood by the State in preparing the seniority list of Assistant Conservators of Forest. So, for a proper understanding of that rule, we read the same: "5. Method of Recruitment. Where the normal method of recruitment to any service, class or category is neither solely by direct recruitment nor solely by transfer but is both by direct recruitment and by transfer (a) the proportion or order in which the Special Rules concerned may require vacancies to be filled by person recruited direct and by those recruited by transfer shall be applicable only to substantive vacancies in the permanent cadre; (b) a person shall be recruited direct only against a substantive vacancy in such permanent cadre, and only if the vacancy is one which should be filled by a direct recruit under the Special Rules referred to in clause (a); and (c) recruitment to all other vacancies shall be made by transfer. Note. (1) All permanent vacancies and temporary vacancies except those of short duration shall be treated as substantive vacancies. (2) Leave vacancies and vacancies of less than 6 months' " duration shall be treated as vacancies of short duration." According to this rule, where normal method of recruitment to any service is neither solely by direct recruitment nor solely by transfer but by both, then the proportion or order in which the Special Rule requires the vacancies to be filled up should apply only to substantive vacancies in the permanent cadre. Permanent cadre is the strength of officers in the cadre fixed by the Government. Substantive vacancies are permanent vacancies or temporary vacancies of more than six months' duration. Only against a permanent vacancy can the persons be recruited. Permanent cadre is the strength of officers in the cadre fixed by the Government. Substantive vacancies are permanent vacancies or temporary vacancies of more than six months' duration. Only against a permanent vacancy can the persons be recruited. Clause (b) further mandates that a person shall be recruited direct only against a substantive vacancy in such permanent cadre. If as per the Special Rule a vacancy is one which is to be filled up by direct recruitment, that direct recruitment must be as against a substantive vacancy in, the permanent cadre. This would mean that a direct recruitment can only be as against a substantive vacancy in the permanent cadre. Putting it differently, if there is no substantive vacancy in the permanent cadre available, no direct recruitment can be resorted to. Clause (c) of R.5 makes this position further clear. Recruitment by transfer can be to any vacancy in the cadre, permanent or temporary. R.5 thus safeguards the direct recruits vis-a-vis the recruits by transfer. While direct recruitment can only be as against substantive vacancies in the permanent cadre, recruitment by transfer can be to all other vacancies. This would mean that a person who is recruited to the cadre by transfer cannot oust a direct recruit from a substantive vacancy in the permanent cadre. The direct recruits should get substantive vacancies in the permanent cadre, while a recruit by transfer may be adjusted against a permanent vacancy or a temporary vacancy, as the vacancy position exists. 9. Under R.9(a)(i) depending on the exigencies of service, temporary appointment can be made to a vacancy otherwise than in accordance with the Special Rules. A person so appointed invoking this provision is to be replaced . as soon as possible by a member of the service of an approved candidate qualified to hold the post under the rules [vide R.9(a)(iii)]. R.9(a) (iv) proceeds to state, a person appointed under Clause (i) or (ii) shall not be regarded as a probationer in such service; nor will he be entitled to any preferential claim to future appointment to such service on account of the said temporary appointment. Same is the provision in relation to persons who get temporary promotions to any cadre, class or category under R.31(a)(i) of the General Rules. Same is the provision in relation to persons who get temporary promotions to any cadre, class or category under R.31(a)(i) of the General Rules. R.31(d) specifically states that a person promoted under sub-rule (a) or (b) shall not be regarded as a probationer in the higher category or be entitled by reason only of such promotion to any preferential claim to future promotion to such higher category. On a combined reading of R.9 and R.31 of the General Rules, it is crystal clear that a person who gets a temporary appointment or promotion, as the case may be, shall not be regarded as a probationer in that category and on account of that temporary appointment or promotion, he should not have any preferential claim to that post. 10. The next rule relevant for our purpose is R.18(a) of the General Rules. This rule specifically provides that a person who is temporarily appointed under R.9 is subsequently appointed to the service in accordance with the rules, he shall commence his probation from the date of such subsequent appointment or from such earlier date as the appointing authority may determine, without prejudice to the seniority of others. So, a person who has been appointed to a post borne on a cadre of any service, class or category temporarily under R.9 is not to start the probation with effect from the date of appointment. He can commence his probation only with effect from the date on which he gets appointment in accordance with the rules. If the appointing authority wants to allow him to start his probation with effect from a date anterior to the date of his subsequent appointment, that can be done only without prejudice to the seniority of others. If the temporary appointee is allowed to start his probation from a date anterior to the date of his subsequent appointment in accordance with the rules, that should be without prejudice to the seniority of others in the service. 11. R.20 and 24 of the General Rules will have to be read together. As per R.20, at the end of the prescribed period of probation, the appointing authority should consider the probationer's suitability for full membership of the service, class or category to which he was selected. If the appointing authority considers the probationer suitable for full membership, then satisfactory completion of probation of that officer should be declared. As per R.20, at the end of the prescribed period of probation, the appointing authority should consider the probationer's suitability for full membership of the service, class or category to which he was selected. If the appointing authority considers the probationer suitable for full membership, then satisfactory completion of probation of that officer should be declared. By that, he will become an approved probationer. As per R.24, an approved probationer shall be appointed to be a full member of the service in any substantive vacancy which may exist or arise in the permanent cadre of such class of category. If a substantive vacancy in the permanent cadre was in existence from a date previous to the issue of the order of appointment, the approved probationer may be appointed with retrospective effect from that date. When this is read along with R.8 of the Special Rules governing the Kerala Forest Service, in the case of Assistant Conservators of Forests a direct recruit approved probationer should be adjusted against a substantive vacancy in the permanent cadre with effect from the date of his appointment as probationary Assistant Conservator. The proviso to R.24 states that where more than one approved probationer is available, the senior most approved probationer on the date of the vacancy should be appointed against that vacancy. Clause (b) of this Rule deals with officer's who are directly recruited and those recruited by transfer to any service, class or category. This clause specifically provides that persons recruited direct should be regarded as a distinct group and those recruited by transfer as another distinct group. Their appointment as full members should be in accordance with sub-rule (a) and should be made separately in each of these groups. 12. R.27 of the General Rules deals with the seniority of persons in a service, class, category or grade. As per clause (a] of this rule, seniority of a person is , determined by the date of the order of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. This clause has got an Explanation. It states that appointment under R.9 or appointment by promotion under R.31 of the General Rules is not to be taken as an appointment to the service, class, category or grade for deciding seniority. This clause has got an Explanation. It states that appointment under R.9 or appointment by promotion under R.31 of the General Rules is not to be taken as an appointment to the service, class, category or grade for deciding seniority. In the case of direct recruit to the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests, the seniority of a directly recruited candidate should be determined by the date of his appointment as probationer. 13. According to the learned counsel representing the respondent, a directly recruited Assistant Conservator of Forests, the third proviso to R.27 lays down the principle under which a person advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the category and a person who is appointed by transfer to that category is to be determined is illustrated. The principle stated therein must, according to learned counsel, . guide the Government in fixing the seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees. Learned counsel went on to state that even though this proviso was added by G. O. (P) 41/90/P and ARD, dated 17th September, 1990, it was only a statutory recognition of the existing practice which was judicially recognised. Be that as it may, we do not think it necessary to examine whether the said principle is to be followed in fixing the inter se seniority of the officers in this case. The other provisions of the General Rules and the Special Rules referred to B above are sufficient to determine their inter se seniority. PP 14. For the purpose of disposing of these appeals, we consider W. A. 878 of 1994 is the main case. This appeal arise out of O. P. 5238/87. Petitioner therein Mr. B. Muraleedharan, was directly recruited to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. He was appointed as such as a probationer on 1st May 1978. He joined service on the same day 1st May, 1978. He was advised by the Public Service Commission for training on 31st May, 1976. He underwent training for two years in the State Forest Service College, Murnihat. It was after successful completion of the training, he joined service on 1st May, 1978. He claims seniority over Sri Babuji A. George, Sri K. G. George and Sri P. T. Joseph. P. T. Joseph, 6th respondent in this Original Petition, is the appellant in W. A. Nos. 1193/91 and 1309/94. It was after successful completion of the training, he joined service on 1st May, 1978. He claims seniority over Sri Babuji A. George, Sri K. G. George and Sri P. T. Joseph. P. T. Joseph, 6th respondent in this Original Petition, is the appellant in W. A. Nos. 1193/91 and 1309/94. Additional 7th respondent in O.P. 5238/87 Sri C. K. Antony is the appellant in W. A. 878/1994. Learned Single Judge by Judgment, dated 17th June, 1994 directed respondents 1 to 3 State; Secretary to Government, Forest; and Chief Conservator of Forests to prepare a comprehensive seniority list showing at least the position from 1st May, 1978 onwards, which would show the rank or position assigned to the Officers. Learned Judge directed to revise that list in accordance with the increase in the strength and to up-date the same. Confirmation and promotion was directed to be regulated in accordance with the said seniority list. This direction is questioned in these appeals. 15. When these appeals came up for final hearing, this Court issued a direction on 28th September, 1994 to respondents I to 3 to prepare a seniority list of Officers in the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests as on 1st May 1978 in accordance with law and taking note of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions governing the point. Pursuant thereto, a list was produced in Court along with a memo by the learned Government Pleader. The memo was filed in Court on 1st December 1994. That list contained the names of 54 Officers. Sri B. Muraleedharan was being shown as the 54th man. When that list was considered by a Bench, it was observed: "The learned Government Pleader who represents respondents 1 to 3 submitted before us that the strength of the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests as on 1st May 1978 was 29. If that be the case, we fail to understand the circumstances under which respondents 1 to 3 could prepare a seniority list of 54 Officers in the cadre of Assistant Conservator of 'Forests as on 1st May 1978." The Chief Conservator of Forests (Protection) was directed to appear before Court and explain as to how the above anomaly took place. The Chief Conservator of Forests (Protection) appeared before Court on 15th December 1994. But, the Court was not satisfied with his explanation. The Chief Conservator of Forests (Protection) appeared before Court on 15th December 1994. But, the Court was not satisfied with his explanation. So, detailed order, dated 15th December, 1994 was passed. Dates on which the promo tees came into the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests and the dates on which direct recruits joined the cadre were directed to be given in the seniority list to be prepared. In purported compliance with that order, a new list - Annexure A3 - has been produced in Court along with the affidavit, dated 10th January, 1995. That affidavit has been sworn to by the Chief Conservator of Forests (Protection). Even in that list, 54 persons are shown as Assistant Conservators of Forests as on 1st May, 1978. The said list shows that Sri C. K. Antony appellant in W. A. 878/94 has been assigned rank No. 51. The date on which he was promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests is shown as 3rd September, 1977. He is stated to have been regularised in that cadre on 4th September, 1977 as per G.O. Ms. 235/83/AD, dated 2nd August, 1983. Sri P. T. Joseph - Appellant in the other appeals is assigned rank No. 40. His date of appointment as Assistant Conservator of Forests is given as 31st January, 1975. The date of regularisation is shown as 10th March, 1975 as per G. O. Ms. 235/83/AD, dated 2nd August, 1983. Fourth respondent in O. P. 5238/87 Sri Babuji A. George was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests on 22nd December, 1974 and given regularisation with effect from 22nd December, 1974 as per G. O. Ms. 42/82/AD, dated 25th January 1982. He has been assigned rank No. 37 in that list. Fifth respondent in the O. P. Sri K. G. George is assigned rank No. 38 in the above list. The date of promotion to the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests is 5th December, 1974 and the date of regularisation in that cadre is shown as 5th December, 1974 as per G. O. Ms. 42/82/AD, dated 25th January, 1982. 16. Babuji A. George and K. G. George, who are ranked 37 and 38 in the seniority list produced along with the affidavit, dated 10th January, 1995, were confirmed as Assistant Conservators of Forests as per Ext. 42/82/AD, dated 25th January, 1982. 16. Babuji A. George and K. G. George, who are ranked 37 and 38 in the seniority list produced along with the affidavit, dated 10th January, 1995, were confirmed as Assistant Conservators of Forests as per Ext. P-2 G.O. (Ms.) 332/83/AD, dated 8th November 1983 with effect from 1st November 1982 and 1st March 1983 respectively. While we come to Ext. P-2 (a) G.O. (Ms.) 38/87/Fand WLD, dated 18th April 1987 we see, P. T. Joseph person ranked 40 in the above mentioned list is given confirmation as Assistant Conservator of Forests with effect from 10th December 1980, a date anterior to the dates assigned to his seniors. But, neither Exhibit P-2 nor Ext. P-2(a) is reflected in the present seniority. list produced before this Court. As to how these things happened is not explained in any of the counter affidavits. It is also worthwhile to note that Mr. Muraleedharan, who was directly recruited to the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests and joined service on 1st May 1978, was shown in Ext. P-2(d) as having been confirmed as Assistant Conservator of Forests with effect from 30th April 1984. On what basis the said date was fixed as the date of confirmation of Sri Muraleedharan is also not given in any of the counter affidavits. 17. Before proceeding further, it will be quite interesting to note Exhibit P-10 proceedings issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Thiruvananthapuram on 15th November 1979. By this proceedings, certain . Forest Rangers were given promotion as Senior Grade Rangers with effect from 1st July 1978. That order states that it was in implementation of the direction given in G O. (P) 860/78/Fin., dated 16th December 1978 Senior Grade in the scale of Rs. 650-1150 has been allowed in the ratio of 1:3 between Senior Grade Rangers and Rangers. Babuji A. George, K. G. George and P. T. Joseph are serial Nos. 19, 20 and 22 in that order who got the benefit of Senior Grade. That order further gives 1st July 1978 as the date from which promotion to the cadre of Senior Grade Range Officer is given to these officers. Babuji A. George, K. G. George and P. T. Joseph are serial Nos. 19, 20 and 22 in that order who got the benefit of Senior Grade. That order further gives 1st July 1978 as the date from which promotion to the cadre of Senior Grade Range Officer is given to these officers. These officers, who were Rangers and who got promotion to the cadre of Senior Grade Range Officers with effect from 1st July 1978, are now shown in the present list produced before this Court as having been appointed as Assistant Conservators of Forests in December 1974 and January 1975. Learned Government Pleader has not brought before us any rule or decision of this Court which could confer on them such a benefit. 18. The persons who were actually holding substantive posts of Rangers in 1978 are now taken as having been appointed as Assistant Conservators of Forests in December 1974 and January 1975. This action on the part of respondents 1 to 3 is not having the backing of any statutory rule. At this juncture it is worthwhile to note the cadre strength of Assistant Conservators of Forests. By order dated 14th December, 1992, this Court directed respondents 1 to 3 to file a detailed affidavit giving the following points: (i) Number of permanent posts of Assistant Conservators of Forests as on 1st May 1978; (ii) Number of temporary posts of Assistant Conservators of Forests as on 1st May 1978 (iii) Duration of temporary posts; and (iv) By which orders the various posts were sanctioned. In answer to the above queries, Government Pleader filed an additional counter affidavit dated 5th January 1993. The answer to the first question given therein is that there are 14 permanent posts of Assistant Conservators of Forests as on 1st May 1978. In answer to the second question, it was stated that there are 15 temporary posts of Assistant Conservators of Forests as on 1st May 1978. Regarding the third question, it was submitted that the temporary posts are sanctioned for each financial year, i. e. from 1st March to 28th February of the subsequent year. Various orders under which those posts were created are mentioned in answer to the 4th point. 19. Regarding the third question, it was submitted that the temporary posts are sanctioned for each financial year, i. e. from 1st March to 28th February of the subsequent year. Various orders under which those posts were created are mentioned in answer to the 4th point. 19. In Para.13 of the counter affidavit dated, 31st December, 1994, the Chief Conservator of Forests (Protection) stated that the sanctioned strength of Assistant Conservator of Forests as on 1st May, 1978 is 29; 14 of which are permanent and 15 are temporary. While we come to the additional affidavit dated 10th January 1995 sworn to by the same Chief Conservator of Forests (Protection), what we see is that he asserts that on 1st May 1978 there were 29 cadre posts of Assistant Conservators of Forests in the Department. From this it may lead to an inference that the cadre strength of Assistant Conservators of Forests as on 1st May, 1978 was 29. Actually this stand taken by him in the additional affidavit, dated 10th January, 1995 is not correct. As on 1st May, 1978, the strength of the cadre, permanent posts of Assistant Conservators, was only 14 and not 29 as is now stated. 20. From the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that the strength of Assistant Conservators of Forests, permanent cadre, has been 14 as on 1st May 1978. As on 1st May 1978, from exhibit P-10 order referred to earlier, it is evident that respondents 4 to 7 were only Rangers. They were not regularly promoted to the cadre of Assistant Conservators of Forests. Their promotion to the cadre was purely under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules. That promotion can by no stretch of imagination confer on them any right to the post, namely the post of Assistant Conservators of Forests. 21. As per the Special Rules, the ratio between direct recruits and those recruited by transfer is 3:2. When the cadre strength of Assistant Conservators of Forests was 14 as on 1st May 1978, there could be 10 direct recruits. These direct recruits could be appointed only against substantive vacancies in the permanent cadre. So, the direct recruits to the cadre of Assistant Conservators of Forests, who were in service as on 1st May 1978, should have been adjusted against the 14 permanent posts. These direct recruits could be appointed only against substantive vacancies in the permanent cadre. So, the direct recruits to the cadre of Assistant Conservators of Forests, who were in service as on 1st May 1978, should have been adjusted against the 14 permanent posts. Neither the General Rules nor the Special Rules allow the Government to push them down below of 14 permanent posts. As on 1st May, 1978 as against the 14 permanent posts, there could be the above mentioned 10 direct recruits and another 4 promotees. Not even a 5th promotee could be ranked against any permanent cadre, post even as the 15th man in the seniority list of Assistant Conservators of Forests as on 1st May, 1978. Respondents 4 to 7 in O. P. 5238/1987 could never come anywhere among the 14 Assistant Conservators of Forests as on 1st May 1978. The rank assigned to them above Mr. Muraleedharan, the petitioner in . O. P. 5238/1987, is clearly erroneous and in violation of the provisions contained in the General Rules and the Special Rules. These respondents could never be allowed to have their probation to commence from a date anterior to 1st May 1978 in view of the specific provision contained in R.18(a) of the General Rules. If the Government are allowing them to start the probation with effect from a date anterior to 1st May 1978, it will be in violation of the said rule, because it will be to the prejudice of the seniority of direct recruits. Such an action cannot be resorted to by the Government. The service, if any, rendered by them in that cadre, which was under R.9(a)(i) or R.31 of the General Rules, can in no manner confer upon them any claim for seniority in the cadre of Assistant Conservators of - Forests. 22. Many decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court dealing with the question of fixation of seniority between direct recruits and promotees have been cited at the Bar. Those decisions, we are afraid, are not germane to the issue before us, in view of the specific provisions contained in R.5 of the General Rules. In none of the decisions referred to, a provision similar to R.5 of the General Rules came up for" decision before Court. So, we do not consider it necessary to deal with those decisions for disposing of these appeals. In none of the decisions referred to, a provision similar to R.5 of the General Rules came up for" decision before Court. So, we do not consider it necessary to deal with those decisions for disposing of these appeals. But, we think that the observation made by the Supreme Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 284 is relevant to the facts of this case. It reads: "When promotion is outside the quota, the seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota, rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotees it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits. The rule of quota being a statutory one must be strictly implemented and it is impermissible for the authorities concerned to deviate from the rule due to administrative exigencies or expediency. The result of pushing down the promotees appointed in excess of the quota may work out hardship but it is unavoidable and any construction otherwise would be illegal, nullifying the force of statutory, rules and would offend Art.14 and 16(1). Therefore, the rules must be carefully applied in such a manner as not to violate the rules or equality assured under Art.14 of the Constitution." (emphasis given) In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any merit in these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed. But, that will not do justice to the petitioners in the Original Petitions, who are respondents in these appeals. They are direct recruits. Petitioner in O. P. 5238/87 entered service as a probationer with effect from 1st May, 1978, while petitioner in O. P. 1971/87 with effect from 1st May, 1979. Petitioner in O. P. 1388/87, who is another direct recruit, joined the service as a probationer with effect from 1st November 1980. With effect from those respective dates, these direct recruits must be placed against substantive vacancies in the permanent cadre. Petitioner in O. P. 1388/87, who is another direct recruit, joined the service as a probationer with effect from 1st November 1980. With effect from those respective dates, these direct recruits must be placed against substantive vacancies in the permanent cadre. Not only that they are to be placed in substantive vacancies of permanent cadre with effect from the respective dates of entry into the service as probationer, they must also be given their confirmation and legitimate promotion to the higher cadres. A rank list must be prepared by respondents 1 to 3 of Assistant Conservators of Forests assigning these petitioners their due rank taking into consideration their entry into service as probationers, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy, of this judgment. Respondents 1 to 3 must prepare a seniority. list of Assistant Conservators of Forests as on 1st May, 1978 and then revise it yearly and in that manner bring it up-to-date. Otherwise the petitioner in O. P. 1971/87 and the petitioner in O. P. 1388/87 may not be getting their legitimate rank in the seniority list. In this regard the direction given by the learned Single Judge is confirmed. Depending on their rank in the seniority list ' so prepared, they must be given their legitimate promotion to the higher cadres. If their legitimate claim for inclusion in the I. F.S. cadre was not considered at the relevant time their case should be considered depending on the new seniority that is directed to be assigned to them. This exercise must also be done by respondents 1 to 3 as expeditiously as possible. We also declare that the seniority lists of Assistant Conservators of Forests now made available to this Court were not prepared in accordance with the rules and that they have no legal backing. They are only to be ignored. At this juncture, we impress upon the Government to have periodical review of the cadre strength of Assistant Conservators of Forests in a realistic manner so as to obviate the difficulties that may be caused to direct recruits and those who are appointed by transfer. In view of what has been stated, we find no merit in these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed as indicated above. In view of what has been stated, we find no merit in these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed as indicated above. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.