DALVEER BHANDARI ( 1 ) IN these two writ petitions, the petitioners who are direct recruits, are claiming seniority over the departmental candidates. The main contention of these petitioners is that while computing seniority, the departmental candidates cannot be given benefit of ad-hoc service. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the final seniority list prepared on 16. 10. 87, has not been prepared on the basis of the recruitment and promotion regulations as notified on 17. 11. 1985. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts which are necessary to dispose of these petitions are recapitulated as under:- Petitioner no. 1 S. R. Gauba, a direct recruit initially was given temporary appointment to the post of the Assistant Engineer (E and M) on 5. 4. 1980 but he joined that post on 22. 5. 80. Similarly. petitioner no. 2 was initially given temporary appointment to the post of the Assistant Engineer (Eandm) on 25. 2. 1981. The detailed chart as submitted by the respondent undertaking of the M. C. D. during the course of hearing would show their qualification date of appointment as Junior Engineer, date of eligibility for the Assistant Engineer, date of engagement as Assistant Engineer on current duty charge and date of appointment as Assistant Engineer. ( 4 ) A chart showing details of the petitioners (in both CWPs) service particulars are reproduced hereiniinder:- ( 5 ) IT is clear from the appointment letters of the petitioners that they were appointed on temporary basis. It is also mentioned in the terms and conditions of the appointment that the petitioners would be on probation for a period of two years which period may be further extended for one year if the appointing authority finds it necessary. It is also mentioned that the appointment is purely on adhoc basis and can be terminated at any time without any notice and assigning of any reasons. It may be pertinent to point out that in the instant case, the petitioners have been given the benefit of service from the date of temporary appointment which includes their probation period. But the submission of the petitioners in these petitions is that similar yardstick may not be adopted as far as the respondents are concerned and they may not be given benefit of ad-hoc service while computing their seniority. They be given seniority only from the date of regularisation. But the submission of the petitioners in these petitions is that similar yardstick may not be adopted as far as the respondents are concerned and they may not be given benefit of ad-hoc service while computing their seniority. They be given seniority only from the date of regularisation. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, another significant aspect of the matter is that the respondents were given ad-hoc appointments when they became eligible for the appointments, and when the regular vacancies were also available. and after they were selected by the D. P. C. ( 7 ) THIS court in the petitions filed by the petitioners issued rule and in reply, the respondent undertaking has submitted that at the time of appointments of the petitioners, there were no notified rules and regulations lor appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (E and M) in the respondent undertaking. Therefore. the seniority list was prepared on the basis of rota quota i. e. 50 percent by direct recruitment and 50 per cent by promotion through the U. P. S. C. The Rules and Regulations for electrical and mechanical cadre were first notified in November, 1982 and later on some changes have been made in the said rules and regulations of l985. There was no provision in Rules and Regulations, 1982 to count the adhoc service for regular appointment/promotion, therefore, some changes in the said rules and regulations became imperative. The entire electrical and mechanical cadre was in jeopardy. Therefore, the matter was discussed with the UPSC for removing the anomalies. The RRs of 1982 were reviewed and new set of recruitment rules were framed which were duly approved by the MCD and were notified vide notification dated 17. 9. 85 published on 26. 12. 85. ( 8 ) AS per the revised recruitment rules, the provision was made for counting the adhoc service rendered by the officers in the electrical and mechanical cadre for regularisation of appointment of officers in various cadires at the initial constitution stage. It is submitted in the counter-affidavit that in view of the advice of the UPSC the department had to follow the principle of continuous adhoc appointment for regular appointment in the matter of seniority of Assistant Engineer (E and M ). It seems that while framing the rules and regularisations. It is submitted in the counter-affidavit that in view of the advice of the UPSC the department had to follow the principle of continuous adhoc appointment for regular appointment in the matter of seniority of Assistant Engineer (E and M ). It seems that while framing the rules and regularisations. 1985, the guidelines laid down in various judgments of the Supreme Court was also taken into consideration. The final seniority list was prepared on 16. 10. 87 on the strength and basis of Rules and Regulations of 198: ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, considerable confusion was prevailing in the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking of the MCD and number of orders were issued from time to time whicstood superseded by subsequent orders. This happened because the undertaking did not have any recruitment and promotion rules. It may not be necessary to refer to various orders which were passed by the MCD and were superseded later on. It may. however, be relevant to mention that the provisional seniority list of the Assistant Engineer (E and M) was prepared on 10. 4. 87 in supersession of all previous circulars/orders in respect of seniority of the Assistant Engineers (E and M) and thereafter the final seniority list was prepared on 16. 10. 87. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to clause (1) and (3) of the Notification dated 17. 11. 1985 issued by Local Self-Govt. Department of Delhi Administration published in the Delhi Gazette dated 26th December, 1985. Clause (1) and (3) are set out as under: " (1) All officers who have been appointed, on regular basis prior to the date of commencement of these regulations to any of the posts mentioned in the said schedules shall be deemed to have been appointed to the respective grades at the initial constitution. " (3) The Selection Committee shall determine the suitability of Assistant Engineers (E and M) covered by sub-rule (1) above and prepare a list arranged in order of performance of all officers considered suitable for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (E and M) at the initial constitution. The officers found suitable shall be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis to the post of Ex. The officers found suitable shall be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis to the post of Ex. Engineer (E and M) w. e. f. the date of their appointment on ad hoc to the post or on the date they completed 8 years service as Assistant Engineer (Eand M) from the date of their appointment in the grade whichever is later. " ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the MCD has drawn my attention to clause 10 of the Recruitment and Promotion Regulation. Clause 10 is set out as under:- " (10) The regular continuous service of officers mentioned in sub-rules (1), (3), (4) and (5) prior to their appointment to the (E and M) cadre of the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking shall count for the purpose of probation period, qualifying service for promotion, confirmation and pension. " ( 11 ) WHEN all the three regulations (1985) are read carefully, it is quite clear that the adhoc service has to be computed in determining the seniority. The final seniority list has been prepared on this basis. In this case, it may be relevant to mention that the respondents were appointed on adhoc basis when they became eligible to the post of the Assistant Engineers and when posts were available. At that time. their confidential reports were also taken into consideration and the respondents were appointed on ad-hoc basis after proper selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Since at that time. no recruitment and promotion rules were in force that is why the respondent-undertaking perhaps has made all appointments on adhoc basis. All the appointments on ad-hoc basis were made. when these officials were clearly eligible for appointments and against available vacancies. Their appointments were also approved by the D P. C. In case the rules or regulations would have been in force then perhaps all these appointments would have been made on regular basis. ( 12 ) THE petitioners were appointed on temporary basis. They were also put on probation for 2 years, and in the cases of the petitioners they have been given the benefit of this temporary service and their seniority. was computed from that point of time when they were appointed even on temporary basis. While computing then seniority no different yardstick has been adopted by the respondent undertaking. They were not given seniority after completion of their probation period. was computed from that point of time when they were appointed even on temporary basis. While computing then seniority no different yardstick has been adopted by the respondent undertaking. They were not given seniority after completion of their probation period. But in fact they were given seniority from the date of appointment as Assistant engineers on temporary basis. The seniority list which has been challenged by the petitioners is strictly prepared on the basis of recruitment and promotion regulation of the MCD which were notified on 17. 11. 85. it is beyond comprehension how can the petitioners legitimately make any grievance? ( 13 ) IN number of cases, the apex court had occasion to examine the question, regarding the valuable service rendered by the officials on the ad-hoc basis followed by confirmation. The apex court had consistently taken the view that the officials must get the benefit of continued uninterrupted ad hoc service in computation of their seniority. In the case of Kaleshwar Dass v. State of U. P. , (1980) 4 SCC 226 , the Supreme Court has mentioned as under: "if a public servant serves for a decade with distinction in a post known to be riot a casual vacancy but a regular post, experimentally or otherwise kept as temporary under the time honoured classification, can it be that his long officiation rums to ashes like a Dead Sea fruit because of a label and his counter part equal in all functional respects but with ten years less of service steals a march over him because his recruitment is to a temporary vacancy? We cannot anathematize officiation unless there are reasonable differentiations and limitation. The normal rule consistent with equity is that officiating service, even before confirmation in service has relevancy to seniority if eventually no infirmities in the way of confirmation exists. We see nothing in the scheme of the Rules contrary to that principle. Therefore the point from which service has to be counted is the commencement of the officiating service of the Assistant Engineers who might not have secured permanent appointments in the beginning and in that sense may still be temporary, but who, for all other purposes. have been regularised and are fit to be absorbed into permanent posts as and when they are vacant. have been regularised and are fit to be absorbed into permanent posts as and when they are vacant. ( 14 ) IN another Supreme Court,a. Janardhana v. Union of India, (1983) 3 SCC 601 , the Court has held as under: As well recoguised principle of service jurisprudence that any rule of seniority has to sly the test of equality of opportunity in public service as enshrined in Article 16. It is equally well recognised canon of service jurisprudence that in the absence of any other determining inter se seniority of members belonging to the same service, the continuous unmterrupted service thereafter would be valid and would satisfy the tests. 16. " ( 15 ) IN the court of C Doval v. Chief Secretary. Government of U. P. , (1984) 4 SCC 329 . the apex court as under:- "now if there was no binding rule of seniority it is well settled that length of continuous officiation prescribes a valid principle of seniority. The question is: from what date the service is to be reckoned? it was urged that any appointment of a stop gap nature or pending the selection by Public Service Commission cannot be taken into account for reckoning seniority. In other words, it was urged that to be in the cadre and to enjoy place in the seniority list. the service rendered in a substantive capacity can alone be taken into consideration. We find it difficult to accept this bald and wide submission. Each case will depend upon its facts and circumstances, if a stopgap appointment is made and the appointee appears before the Public Service Commission when the latter proceeds to select the candidates and is selected we see no justification for ignoring his past service. At any rate, there is no justification for two persons selected in the same manner being differently treated. That becomes crystal clear from the place assigned in the seniority list to petitioner 1 in relay to respondent 7. In fact if once a person appointed in a stopgap arrangement is confirmed in his post by proper selection, his past service has to be given credit and he has to be assigned seniority accordingly unless a rule to the contrary is made. That has not been done in the case of all the petitioners. The error is apparent in the case of petitioner ! and respondent 7. That has not been done in the case of all the petitioners. The error is apparent in the case of petitioner ! and respondent 7. These errors can he multiplied but weconsider it unnecessary to do so. In fact a fair rule of seniority should ordinarily take into account the past service if the stopgap arrangement is followed by confirmation. This view which we are taking is borne out by the decision of this Court in Baleshwar Dass v. State of U. P. It is thus well settled that where officiating appointment is followed by confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment cannot be ignored for reckoning length of continuous officiation for determining the place in the seniority list. " ( 16 ) IN the case of G. S. Lamba v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 604 , the Supreme court has held as under: "in the absence of any other valid principle of seniority it. is well established that the continuous officiation in the cadre, grade or service will provide a valid principle of seniority The seniority lists having not been prepared on this principle are liable to be quashed and set aside. " ( 17 ) THEREAFTER, in the case of Ashok Gulati v. B. S. Jain, 1986 Supp SCC 597, same principle has been reiterated and the court observed as under: - ". . . . . . that in the absence of any other valid principle of seniority, the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promoiees should as far as possible be determined by the length of continuous service whether temporary or permanent in a particular grade or post (this should exclude periods for which an appointment is held in a purely stopgap or fortuitous arrangement ). No doubt, there are certain observations in the two cases of G. P. Doval and Narinder Chadha, which seem to run counter to the view we have taken, but these decision earned. on their own peculiar facts and are therefore clearly distinguishable an do not lay down any rule of universal application. No doubt, there are certain observations in the two cases of G. P. Doval and Narinder Chadha, which seem to run counter to the view we have taken, but these decision earned. on their own peculiar facts and are therefore clearly distinguishable an do not lay down any rule of universal application. ( 18 ) AIL these cases have been considered in a matter of, Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee (supra) The Supreme Court, after considering ali these judgments, held as under:- "but if the claims of all eligible candidates were considered at the time of ad hoc appointments and such appointments continued uninterruptedly till the regularisation of services by the Departmental Promotion Committee or the Public Service Commission there is no reason to exclude such service for determining the seniority. Of course, if any statutory rule or executive order provides to the contrary, the rule or order will have supremacy. In the absence of any rule or order the length of service shouid be the basis to determine the seniority. " ( 19 ) THIS judgment was delivered by the apex court in the case of the respondent undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of direct recruit class-Il, Engineering Officers Association vs. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715 , has affirmed the view taken by the Supreme Court in the said case. ( 20 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners had also tried to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel on the strength of the appointment orders. The submission is totally devoid of any merit and is accordingly rejected ( 21 ) I have carefully considered the rival contentions and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. On careful scrutiny, it is abundantly clear that the impugned final seniority list is prepared on the basis of recruitment and promotion regulation, notified on 17. 11 1. 85. The relevant rules are also based on the guidelines provided by the various judgments of the Supreme Court therefore. I do not find any merit in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with costs.