JUDGMENT Mookherjee, J.: 1. This appeal is directed against an order, passed by a learned Single Judge, on 25th of September, 1989, inter alia, dismissing a writ application, preferred on behalf of the present appellants. 2. The appellants were employed as Employer Officers in different Employment Exchanges of the Government of West Bengal. They were recruited to the said posts directly after becoming successful in the examinations held by the West Bengal Public Service Commission in the year 1976. The respondent Nos. 6 to 30 were holding the post of Investigating Inspectors, Statistical Assistant etc. and by two notifications, dated 2.10.78 and 13.9.79, were promoted, on an ad hoc basis as Employment Officers, along with 26 other persons. In the Senior Selection Grade, subject to the approval of Public Service Commission West Bengal, such employment being terminable any time without notice. It is pertinent to note, however, that such ad-hoc promotees were given the same scale, which your petitioners were enjoying at the relevant point of time. The Public Service Commission approved the regularisation of the above ad-hoc employees on 29th of June, 1988. The dispute in the present case arose as the State Government proposed to prepare a single gradation list of all the Employment Officers, treating the ad-hoc Officers, since regularised, with effect from the dates of their continuous officiations, as within the cadre. 3. The appellants have founded their contentions mainly, in the provisions of West Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as Seniority Rules) and West Bengal Public Service Commission (Consultation by Governor Regulation), 1955. According to Rule 5(4) of the Seniority Rules, when promotions are made to a post, cadre or grade from more than one posts, cadres or grades, the relative seniority shall be according to order of merit, determined by the Public Service Commission or the Selecting Authority. Rule 6 of the said Rules, by sub-rule 1. provides that between promotees and direct recruits, seniority shall be determined by the year of appointment or promotion in the post, cadre or grade concerned irrespective of the date of joining and so far as the promotees and direct recruits of any particular year are concerned, the promotees would be treated to be en-bloc senior to the direct recruits. provides that between promotees and direct recruits, seniority shall be determined by the year of appointment or promotion in the post, cadre or grade concerned irrespective of the date of joining and so far as the promotees and direct recruits of any particular year are concerned, the promotees would be treated to be en-bloc senior to the direct recruits. The respondents, on the other hand, have tried to sustain their contention, regarding absence of necessity of regularisation upon recommendation by the Public Service Commission, by placing reliance upon amended Rule 3(A) of the W.B.P.S.C. (Exemption from Consultation by Governor) Regulation, 1955, as because the said amended Rule 3(A) expressly lays down that it shall not be necessary to consult the Public Service Commission in regard to promotions though at the same time it has been also stated in also said Rule that the decision to exclude the Rule must be incorporated In the relevant Recruitment Rules specifically in consultation with the Commission. It was contended that the Recruitment Rules did not nobody any requirement or recommendation of upon consultation with the Commission. 4. Points, as are involved in the present case fell for consideration by the Apex Court on different occasions and the decisions of the laid Court have settled the legal position. The ratio propounded by such decisions appears to be that for the purpose of determining seniority, the period of temporary or ad-hoc appointment may be counted, provided the concerned employee upon satisfaction of requisite conditions had been promoted to the cadre or post and can be said to have been justly borne in such cadre. The requisite conditions were held to include availability of the posts and fulfilment of the eligibility criteria and also uninterrupted continuance in the post regularisation. 5. In the case of (1) State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindranath reported in AIR 1991 SC 1244 , the claim of respondent Nos. 6 to 23, .who were promotees upon obtaining promotion in 1962 whereas the direct recruits were promoted long before the said date, had been negatived by the Supreme Court by quashing the Governor's order giving promotion to the said respondent Nos. 6 to 23 with retrospective effect from 1958 as there was no material made available to Court that the said respondents were promoted in the quota of 1958. 6 to 23 with retrospective effect from 1958 as there was no material made available to Court that the said respondents were promoted in the quota of 1958. The Apex Court laid down that no person could he promoted with retrospective effect from a date when he was not borne in the cadre as to adversely affect others. In the case of (2) Union of India and Another v. Professor S.K. Sharma reported in AIR 1992 SC 1188 , the Supreme Court, while following the ratio propounded in the case of (3) Masood Akhtar Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1990(4) SCC 24 and (4) D. N. Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1990 SC 1311 , reiterated that holding a post on ad-hoc basis would not confer any right to the post unless the eligibility criteria for promotion could be said to have been fulfilled and only upon such fulfilment his continuance on an ad-hoc basis in the promoted post could be said to be regular Without regularity of appointment, the periods spent on officiation could not be claimed to be counted and the date of confirmation have no relevance whatsoever. In the case of (5) Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Somdutt Uppal and Another reported in AIR 1993 SC 1234 , the same principle for counting of officiating appointment for determination of seniority was reiterated by laying down that it the officiating appointment commenced after satisfaction of requirement of the service regulation then the period spent in officiating appointment could be counted for fixing up Seniority of the Officer concerned. In the case of (6) Excise Commissioner, Karnataka and Another Vs. Srikant reported In AIR 1993 SC 1564 , the Supreme Court repeated the aforesaid principles after reconsidering the earlier decisions to the effect that seniority could be claimed only from the date of the person regularisation of appointment and not on the basis of the periods spent on ad-hoc basis prior to such regularisation. The case of Masood Akhtar Khan v. State of M.P. reported in 1990 (4) SCC 24 is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the relevant advertisements required appearances of the candidates before the Public Service Commission as fresh entrants. Again in the case of (7) Dr. M.A. Haque and Other. The case of Masood Akhtar Khan v. State of M.P. reported in 1990 (4) SCC 24 is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the relevant advertisements required appearances of the candidates before the Public Service Commission as fresh entrants. Again in the case of (7) Dr. M.A. Haque and Other. v. Union of India and Others reported in 1993 (2) SCC 213 the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of ignoring statutory requirement of consulting the Commission, whereas no such requirement for consultation exists in the instant case. 6. It is the admitted position that the seniority of the parties has to be determined in terms of the provisions of West Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1991. Rule 6 of the said Rule provides as follows :- "6. Relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees-(1) The relative seniority between a promotee and a direct recruit shall be determined by the year of appointment on promotion of each in the post cadre or grade irrespective of the date of joining. (2) The promotees shall been bloc senior to the direct recruits of the same year." 7. Admittedly, in the instant case the promotees were promoted to the posts on ad-hoc basis temporarily subject to the approval of the Public Service Commission West Bengal. The basic contention raised on behalf of the direct recruits is that the promotees could not be said to have been en-cadred until the approval of the Public Service Commission had been obtained and only after such approval, their recruitments could be said to have become lar and the period of service that follow could be taken into consideration for determination of their seniority. The respondents promotees on the other hand, have assailed the propriety of such a submission by placing reliance upon the provisions in the Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, regulating the recruitment to the gazetted post in the Directorate of National Employment Service, West Bengal and of the West Bengal Public Service Commission (exemption from consultation) Regulation, 1955 which was to take effect from 1st of September, 1955. In terms of the first Rule under Article 309, the only condition for promotion required to be fulfiled was service for six years in the respective feeder posts and in terms of the second Rule as mentioned above there was no necessity to consult the Commission because the specific exemption granted in the said Rule did not impliedly mean that in all other cases consultation was mandatory particularly in absence of specific requirement in relevant Rules. In this connection, it was further argued, on behalf of the private respondents, the promotees, that notwithstanding the user of a mandatory term, shall, it was held to be only directory and not mandatory. Reference may be made to the cases of (8) State of U.P. Vs. Manbodherlal Srivastava, and (9) Jatindra Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1957 SC 912 (917) and AIR 1984 SC 1850 respectively. Consequent upon the said legal position it had been contended on behalf of the promotees-respondents, that when admittedly the said promotees were appointed to officiate in the posts within the cadre and continued to so officiate uninterruptedly, a mere rider in the respective letters of promotion could not impart irregularity to such promotions and exclusion of period of service rendered by such promotees even as ad-hoc basis for being considered for the purpose of determination of their seniority vis-à-vis the direct recruits. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the rival groups in the background of the language of the relevant Rules and the decisions of the Apex Court, as summarised hereinabove. We are of the view upon such consideration that there is great substance in the claims of the promotees-respondents. The only criterion, which could prevent such promotees being borne in the cadre on the basis of their ad-hoc promotions was the requirement of consultation with the Public Service Commission. Such requirements. In view of the legal position as noted by us above cannot be said to exist in the instant case. All other criteria needed for such promotees for being considered as within the cadre from the dates of their respective ad-hoc promotions stand fulfilled and as such the conclusion by the learned Trial Judge to the effect that the seniority of the respondents should be counted from dates of their initial appointments on ad-hoc basis does not call for any interference. The appeal, therefore and is dismissed. The appeal, therefore and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Prayer for stay is as much, refused in view of the settled legal position as noted by us in our judgment above Bhattacharyya, J: I agree.