Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In the present writ application the petitioners nave prayed for quashing of the notification Nos.577 and 578 dated 30.6.1994 as contained in annexure-1, whereby respondent Nos.8 and 9 have been made incharge Executive engineer in their own scale in Public health Engineering Department, government of Bihar and the notification No.606 dated 4.7.94, as contained in annexure-2, whereby respondent No.8 has been granted junior selection grade with effect from 1.4.89 in alleged supper-5 ression of the legitimate claim of the petitioners, who claim to be senior to them as also for commanding the respondent State to publish a fresh final gradation list of assistant Engineers after deciding the objections filed by the petitioners and others. 2. In short, the relevant facts of the present case are that after at advertisement and interview the petitioners, who were duly qualified, were initially appointed as Assistant engineer (Civil) in the Public Health engineering Department on ad-hoc basis; the petitioners Nos.1, 4 and 6 vide notification No.3784 dated 6.7.79 and petitioner No.5 vide notification no.594 dated 21.3.80, photo copies whereof have been annexed as annexures 4 and 4/1 to the writ application. The services of the petitioners were extended time to time till the date of their regularisation in the service on 19th January, 1987. 3. It appears that in the meantime, the respondents Nos.8 and 9, who were initially appointed as junior Engineers in the Department and during their services period passed the A. M. I. E. and B. Sc. Engineering examination in the month of March, 80 and December, 80, respectively, were promoted to the post of Assistant engineer on 27.4.82. 4. The matter regarding regularisation of ad-hoc appointments of the Engineers and various other officers in different departments including Irrigation Department and the public Health Engineering Department were under consideration by the State government. Engineering examination in the month of March, 80 and December, 80, respectively, were promoted to the post of Assistant engineer on 27.4.82. 4. The matter regarding regularisation of ad-hoc appointments of the Engineers and various other officers in different departments including Irrigation Department and the public Health Engineering Department were under consideration by the State government. On consideration of the fact that due to extension of development activities and social activities in the Government in different spheres and due to circumstances existing, the normal recruitment procedure could not be followed and large number of gazetted officers were appointed on ad-hoc/ temporary basis and have served the Government for a considerable period and gained experience as also the compelling necessity to regularize the services of such ad-hoc/temporary gazetted officers for peace and harmony in service and in public interest the Governor of Bihar promulgated Bihar Ordinance No.32 of 1986 Under Sec.3 (1) of the said Ordinance all ad-hoc appointments made by direct recruitment to any of the gazetted posts by the State government, which were continuing on such ad-hoc/temporary basis upto 30.6.86 were excluded from the purview of the commission regarding any of the matters mentioned in sub-clauses (a) (b) of clause 3 of article 320 of the Constitution of india. Under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Ordinance notwithstanding anything any degree, order or direction or writ or prohibition issued by any court of tribunal against ad-hoc appointment of gazetted officers the services of all the gazetted officers appointed on ad-hoc/temporary basis upto 30th June, 86 and are continuing in service, were regularised and their appointments were deemed to be made on regular basis with effect from the dates of their appointments. 5. The petitioners claim that a proposal for regularisation of their services was already sent by the department of the B. P. S. C. , which was long pending and the same was finalised by regularising their services vide notification dated 19.1.1987 (annexure-15), under the aforementioned ordinance with effect from the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners further claim that they have been given time-bound promotion by counting the required period from the date of their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis. A copy of me notification giving them time bound promotion has been annexed as annexture-16. 6. The petitioners further claim that they have been given time-bound promotion by counting the required period from the date of their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis. A copy of me notification giving them time bound promotion has been annexed as annexture-16. 6. It appears that a provisional gradation list of Assistant Engineers of the Public Wealth Engineering Department was prepared and published vide notification No.510 dated 23.2.89 (annexure-17) under the signature of the Joint Secretary to the Government in the department inviting objections, if any, within a month. The petitioners claim to have filed objection, but the said objection was not approved of till date and the respondent Nos.8 and 9 have been directed to hold charge of the post of Executive Engineer, though in their own scale, vide the impugned notification (annexure-1) as in the said provisional gradation list the said respondents nave been placed above the petitioners. Later, vide notification no.606 dated 4.7.94 (annexure-2)respondent No.8 has been given junior selection grade with effect from 1.4.89, the validity of which, the petitioners assailed in the present writ application along with the notification, contained in annexure-1. The petitioners have stated that the respondents 8 and 9 came in the cadre of assistant Engineers only in 1982, whereas the petitioners have been continuing in the post of Asst. Engineer since 1979-80 without any break or interruption and that their services have been regularised with effect from the date of their initial appointment vide notification-annexure 15. 7. It appears that after filing of the writ application final gradation list has been circulated, vide memo no.481 dated 27.7.95 (annexure-2) to the amendment petition, the validity of which has been assailed by the petitioners by filing an amendment petition in which they have prayed for quashing of the said gradation list as well. In the said gradation list, the petitioners have been placed at Sl. Nos.271, 262, 274, 257 and 272 respectively, whereas respondent Nos.8 and 9 have been placed at Sl. Nos.207 and 203, even though the date of entry in the cadre of Asst, Engineers of respondent Nos.8, 9, and others has been shown as 27.4.82 and 11.12.82, whereas the date of entry of petitioners in the cadre of Assistant engineer has been shown as 6.9.79 and 21.3.80. It is contended that the petitioners placement in the said gradation list have been shown below the asst. It is contended that the petitioners placement in the said gradation list have been shown below the asst. Engineers, who have been appointed between 27.4.82 to 21.10.1986 without any rational and intelligible grounds, even though their services have been regularised vide annexure 15 with effect from the date of their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis and were also given time bound promotion after completion of 10 years service counted from the date of their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of intervenors respondents. It appears that Umesh kumar Mahto and Vimal Kumar Singh filed an application for intervenors for being added as respondents to oppose that writ application. In the said application they have claimed that they have been duly appointed in the year 1986 as per the Statute/rules regulating the method of recruitment of the Bihar Public Health Engineering service after the posts have been duly advertised by the BPSC and in that process they participated and they were declared successful and accordingly their names had been recommended by the Commission for appointment. It is alleged that the petitioners have been appointed without following the rules meant for appointment of asst. Engineers directly by the department on ad-hoc basis and thus, according to them, the said petitioners cannot claim seniority over regularly appointed Asst. Engineers before their regularisation by counting the period of their ad-hoc appointment. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the intervener respondents sworn by one Dineshwar pd. Singh, in which the facts already stated above are more or less not disputed. The stand in the said counter affidavit is also that after consideration of all claims and objections publication of the final gradation list (annexure-20) is consonance with the settled principle of law regarding determination of inter se seniority between the direct recruits and the ad hoc appointees dehors the rule and therefore, the petitioners claim for quashing of the same and also for quashing of the impugned notification by reckoning their ad hoc services towards seniority is without any legal basis and is fit to be rejected. It has also been contended that the claim of the petitioners for their placement in the seniority list by reckoning their ad hoc services towards seniority is completely in violation of the provisions of section 6 of the Bihar gazetted Officers ad-hoc appointments regulation Act and contrary to the stipulation in the appointment letters of the petitioners (ad hoc appointees), vide annexures 4 and 4/1. 10. Various other affidavits have also been filed on behalf of different respondents and reply to the same on behalf of the petitioners including counter affidavit on behalf or respondents 2 to 5 re-iterating more or less the same stand. 11. Although by filing various affidavits the brief of the case has been made bulky, but in nutshell the point for consideration is as to whether by virtue of the provisions of the aforementioned Bihar Ordinance No.32 of 1986 the ad hoc appointees can claim seniority with effect from the date of their initial appointment on ad hoc basis. 12. The admitted facts are that initially the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on ad hoc basis in the year 1979 and since then they continuously worked in that capacity until their services were regularised under the Bihar Ordinance no.32 of 1986 with effect from the date of their initial appointment on ad hoc basis. Respondent Nps.8 and 9 were not even qualified to be appointed as Asst. Engineer in B. E. S. Class II in the year 1979-80. The said respondents were, however, promoted on said post only on 27.4.82 after obtaining the requisite qualification. Before that the said respondents were holding a lower post, i. e. Junior engineer, while the petitioners were working as Asst. Engineer, though on ad hoc basis. 13. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that letters of appointments of the petitioners itself contain an stipulation that they would have to appear before the B. E. S. C. It is also contended that under the rules regulating the method of recruitment to Bihar Public Health engineering Service Class II a photo copy whereof has also been annexed as annexure I/1 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of intervenor respondents Umeshwar Kumar Mahto ana others. Certain procedures have been prescribed for direct recruitment in the said service and that having not been followed in the case of the appointment of the petitioners their services cannot be regularised with respective effect as that would be violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India inasmuch as, the person who, in the meantime, were regularly appointed/promoted as per the aforementioned Rule their seniority would be prejudicially affected by such regularisation of services of ad hoc appointed which is not permissible under the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. 14. Mr Mahto, learned senior counsel for the intervenors submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of state of West Bengal and others V/s. Aghore Nath Dey and others, reported in (1993) 3 SCC 371 , held that in a case of ad hoc service followed by regular service the benefit of ad hoc service not admissible if appointment was in violation of rules. The corollary to the said conclusion disallows benefit of ad hoc appointment made as a stop-gap arrangement. According to mr. Mahto on the same analogy, the provisions of the Ordinance shall also be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1)of the Constitution of India. 15. On the other hand, Mr mukherjee, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since 1979 the petitioners have been continuously working on the post, though initially on ad hoc basis and later their services were regularised, the denial of seniority to them would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Further, the learned Counsel submitted that even in the case of S. B. Patwardhan V/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1977) 3 SCR 775 the Apex Court held that the officiating period cannot be denied for the purpose of counting seniority. Mr Mukherjee has placed reliance on the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Direct recruit Class II Engg. Mr Mukherjee has placed reliance on the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Direct recruit Class II Engg. Officers association V/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1607 , in which the Constitution Bench of the supreme Court while dealing with the question of fixation of seniority in various circumstances including the one like present case held that if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by 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, for the purpose of seniority. The decision in the case of State of West bengal and others (supra) was of a bench comprising of three Hon ble judges of the Court, whereas in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Association (supra) me decision is by the Constitution Bench consisting of five Hon ble Judges of the Supreme Court, which has laid down the general principles to be followed in determining seniority in various circumstances mentioned therein including the one referred to above. 16. Further, I find that the principles laid down in the case of direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers association has been explained and applied in the case of State of West bengal and others. In any view of the matter the principles laid down in the latter case will have no application to the facts of the present case. Even if the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents is accepted that the initial ad hoc appointment of the petitioners was in violation of the rules, it is difficult to hold that they are not entitled to count their seniority as Asst. Engineer since the year 1979, as in fact, they admittedly continued in their post uninterr- uptedly till their regularisation with effect from the date of initial appointment on ad hoc basis in the year 1979 by virtue of Bihar ordinance No.32/86. The legislative competence of the State for promulgating Bihar Ordinance No.32/86 has not been questioned by the respondents, nor they can question the same after lapse of almost 9 years. Moreover, it is well settled that is a writ-petition respondents cannot claim any relief such as assailing the validity of an order or vires of law. The legislative competence of the State for promulgating Bihar Ordinance No.32/86 has not been questioned by the respondents, nor they can question the same after lapse of almost 9 years. Moreover, it is well settled that is a writ-petition respondents cannot claim any relief such as assailing the validity of an order or vires of law. A reference in this regard is made to the case of (sic) reported in 19 (sic) 17. However, the Apex Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Association (supra) has approved such regularisation of service in accordance with rules and also to count the period of officiating service for determination of seniority. In the instant case the regularisation of service of the petitioners with effect from their initial appointment on ad hoc basis in the year 1979 has been done by virtue of an Act of legislature. In my opinion, the rules regulating the method of Recruitment to Bihar Engineering Service Class II will have to be read with the provisions of Bihar Ordinance No.32/86 for recruitment to the aforesaid service and to that extent the aforementioned rule in my opinion stood amended/modified by the said bihar Ordinance. Accordingly, there cannot be any doubt that initial appointment of the petitioners, though not made according to the rules, but having been regularised under the aforementioned Bihar Ordinance No.32/86 is squarely covered by the principle laid down by the Supreme court in the case of Direct Recruit class II Engg. Officers Association (supra) for counting such officiating service for the purpose or determination of seniority. 18. Learned Counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A. K. Bhatnagar and others V/s. Union of India and others, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 644 , which was decided after the decision in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers association (supra ). In the said case the Supreme Court, however, held that ad hoc recruits regularised subsequently their past ad hoc service cannot be taken into account in counting inter se seniority. The principle laid down in the said case in my opinion, will have no application to the facts of the instant case. Officers association (supra ). In the said case the Supreme Court, however, held that ad hoc recruits regularised subsequently their past ad hoc service cannot be taken into account in counting inter se seniority. The principle laid down in the said case in my opinion, will have no application to the facts of the instant case. In the said case before the Supreme Court the regularised officers admittedly remained outside the cadre until january 4, 1997 from when their services were regularised and thus, the supreme Court held that the Union government was right while regularising the services under the notification to direct that the regularised officers will be placed below regular recruits through 1970 examination. In the instant case the facts are completely different. The petitioners were initially appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 1979 and continued uninterruptedly until regularisation of their services under the Bihar Ordinance No.32/86 with effect from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment. Thus, in my opinion, the principle laid down in the case of a. K. Bhatnagar (supra) by the supreme Court will have no application to the facts of the present case. Moreover, the decision reported in the case of Direct Recruit Class II engg. Officers Association (supra) is of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme court comprising of five Hon ble judges and the judgment in the case of a. K. Bhatnagar ana others (supra) is of three Hon ble Judges of the Apex court, in which case the aforementioned decision of the Constitution bench have not been brought to the notice of the Hon ble Court. 19. Thus, even following the law of precedence the decision of the constitution Bench will have the binding force in preference to the decision of a Bench comprising of lesser number of Hon ble Judges. A reference may be made in this regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another V/s. K. S. Subramanian, reported in A. I. R.1976 S. C.433. 20. Learned Counsel for the respondents yet placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M. A. Haque and others V/s. Union of India and others, reported in (1993) 2 S. C. C.213. 20. Learned Counsel for the respondents yet placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M. A. Haque and others V/s. Union of India and others, reported in (1993) 2 S. C. C.213. In the said case the petitioners, who, without availing the selection opportunities or having failed to get selected but still continuing in service, will found by the supreme Court to have been regularised pursuant to its earlier order but their officiating service was held to be not counted for the purpose of their seniority as they neither were appointed nor regularised in accordance with the rules but as a consequence of special procedure laid down by the Supreme Court. In the said case also the Division Bench of the Supreme Court placed reliance on the aforementioned decision of the constitution Bench. In my opinion, the said decision of the Supreme Court also will have no application to the facts of the present case, where the petitioners continued in the past uninterruptedly and were regularised in accordance with Bihar Ordinance no.32/86 with effect from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment in the year 1979. 21. Another case on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents and intervenors is the judgment of the supreme Court in tne case of Keshav Chandra Joshi and others V/s. Union of india and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272. In the said case the supreme Court while dealing with U. P. Forest Service Rules 1952 considered the conditions under which the seniority is to be counted and held that "employee must become member of relevant service, for which his appointment must be according to rules and within prescribed quota. Unless these conditions are satisfied, appointment to be treated as ad hoc which cannot be counted for seniority or promotion. " The said decision of the supreme Court also has no application to the facts of the present case, where admittedly the petitioners have become member of the service by virtue of their regularisations according to the bihar Ordinance No.32/86 since their ad hoc appointment and thus, even according to the said decision of the apex Court, the conditions laid down in the said decision for counting seniority of the ad hoc period is satisfied. Moreover, the said Supreme court decision is also by a Bench comprising of three Hon ble Judges, whereas, the decision in the case of direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers association (supra) is of a Constitution bench comprising of five Hon ble judges which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. On applying the same principle the Division Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Excise Commissioner, Karnataka and another V/s. Sreekanta, reported in a. I. R.1993 S. C.1564, which has also been relied upon by the respondents can also have no application to the facts of the present case. 22. Another submission which has been advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents/ intervenors is that it is true that the services of all the gazetted officers appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis upto 30th June, 86, who were continuing in service on that date were regularised and their appointments are deemed to be made on regular basis with effect from the dates of their appointments notwithstanding any judgment, degree, prohibition issued by any court or tribunal against ad hoc appointment of gazetted officers, but section 6 provides that the provisions of the ordinance shall not affect the appointment made to the gazetted post through Commission before the commencement of the Ordinance. Thus, according to the learned Counsel for the respondents/ intervenors aforementioned, the benefits accruing under sub-section (1) of Sec.3 of the ordinance in a person initially appointed on ad hoc basis will be subject to the rights of those appointed before the commencement of the Ordinance against any gazetted post in the State through the Commission and under rules. According to them, the only possible interpretation of the said two provisions in the ordinance can be that the rights including right of seniority accounting in the appointees appointed to gazetted post through Commission before the commencement of the ordinance shall remain protected. 23. On the other hand, Mr mukherjee, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said two provisions will have to be read harmoniously. 23. On the other hand, Mr mukherjee, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said two provisions will have to be read harmoniously. It is well settled that while interpreting a Statute the Court shall read different provisions of an act in a manner that no part thereof is held to be superfluous or surplus and/or if the language of the Statute lends to manifest contradictions a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentence. It is contended by Mr Mukherjee that if the interpretation which has been put forward by the learned Counsel for the respondents/intervenors is accepted, then it is bound to create an anomalous position, inasmuch as, under sub-section (2) of Sec.3 the ad hoc appointment of a gazetted officer is deemed to be made on regular basis with effect from the date of such an appointment, yet under section 6, in some cases such appointee would be deprived of the benefits accruing therefrom, where some persons are appointed through commission before the commencement of the Ordinance, whereas, in a case where no such appointment is made through Commission the persons, whose ad hoc appointments are regularised will get full benefit of regularisations with effect from the date of their ad hoc appointment. Thus, according to him, the interpretation put forth by the respondents will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. 24. In my opinion, learned counsel for the petitioners appear to be right. The only possible harmonious construction of the said two provisions can be that under sub-section (2) of section 3 the gazetted officers initially appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis, wnose services are regularised under the said provisions with effect from the date of their appointment shall be entitled for all the benefits, such as, the salary, seniority, etc. But by virtue of such regularisation of their services appointment of the persons made in gazetted post through Commission before commencement of the ordinance shall not be affected, meaning thereby that even if the appointments exceed the sanctioned vacancy, then by virtue of regularising services of the persons appointed on ad hoc basis the appointment made before the commencement of the ordinance shall not be affected. Any other interpretation would lead to manifest injustice to the persons like the petitioners, who are appointed after advertisement etc. Any other interpretation would lead to manifest injustice to the persons like the petitioners, who are appointed after advertisement etc. , but on ad hoc basis and uninterruptedly continued in service until their regularisation under the Ordinances would be deprived of their past continued satisfactory service for no fault of their. I have already noticed above that such a regularisation and counting of such service for the purpose of seniority has also been approved by the constitution Bench of the Apex Court. 25. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the interpretation put forth on behalf of the respondents/intervenors to the aforementioned two provisions of the Ordinance and the same is thus, rejected. 26. Moreover, once a person becomes the member of service, in my opinion, he cannot be denied the benefits arising therefrom, from the date he becomes member of the services. Undisputedly by virtue of bihar Ordinance No.32/86 the petitioners became the members of the service with effect from their initial ad-hoc appointment and the denial of seniority for such period would, in my opinion, be violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India besides being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 27. In the result, the writ application is allowed and the notification contained in Memo Nos.566 and 578 dated 30.6.94 issued by the Special Secretary, Public Health engineering Department, Bihar (Annexure-1) as also the notification no.606 dated 4.7.94 (annexure-2) are quashed and the official respondents are directed to accordingly rectify/correct the position of the petitioners in the gradation list prepared and published by letter No.510 dated 23.2.89 (Annexure-17) and give them all other consequential enefits including promotion flowing therefrom. 28. However, in the facts and circumstances aforementioned, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Appln. Allowed.