JUDGMENT : O.P. GARG, J. 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking to challenge the correctness, legality and validity of the action and omission, on the part of the respondents in excluding the petitioners from the combined seniority list of lecturers serving in the Government Inter Colleges in the State of U. P. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, ad interim order was passed by Hon'ble B. M. Lal, J., (as His Lordship then was) on 24.8.1991, which runs as follows : "Heard learned counsel for the parties on stay. Vide order dated 7.5.1991 this Court directed to the respondents, the State, that they shall take decision within a month and communicate the same to the petitioners. However, still the standing counsel is not in a position to make any statement as to whether the Government has taken decision in this regard or not. Under these circumstances, this Court is constrained to pass an ad interim stay order in favour of the petitioners as sought for. The interim relief is granted in the following terms : The respondents are directed to include the petitioners' name in the combined seniority list of lecturers serving in the Government Inter Colleges in the State of U. P. and to treat them at par with lecturers in any other subjects. Further it is directed that the petitioners will also be given selection grade in terms of relevant G.Os. Issued by the Government from time to time. Dt. 24.8.1991 Sd./-B. M. Lal, J." In pursuance of the aforesaid order, a combined seniority list has been prepared in which the names of the petitioners have been reflected and the facility of selection grade has also been allowed to them. The petitioners have challenged their placement in the combined seniority list on the primary ground that they have not been given their due seniority from the date they were appointed and that some of the lecturers, particularly, respondent Nos. 4 to 9 who joined service later on, rank senior to the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged their placement in the combined seniority list on the primary ground that they have not been given their due seniority from the date they were appointed and that some of the lecturers, particularly, respondent Nos. 4 to 9 who joined service later on, rank senior to the petitioners. The petition has been drastically amended and now a prayer has been made that the impugned order dated 9.6.1992, Annexure-2 to the writ petition be quashed and that the respondents be commanded to determine the infer se seniority right from the date of the appointment of the petitioners and to grant consequential benefits. 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of with their consent. 4. For appreciating the controversy, which has to be resolved in the present case, it is necessary to refer to the brief summary of the facts. Initially the subject of Engineering at Intermediate level was introduced on an experimental basis, temporarily under Scheme No. 24 of the Second Five Year Plan and thereunder certain Government Inter Colleges were chosen as multipurpose schools. These schools known as Government Inter Colleges are located at Meerut, Jhansi, Moradabad, Pilibhit, Allahabad, Kanpur, Gyanpur. Deoria, Falzabad and Lucknow. To implement the said scheme. 40 temporary posts of lecturers were created in the year 1957. As against 40 posts, 30 persons were appointed as Lecturers (Engineering) and on the remaining 10 posts. Lecturers (Physics) were appointed. The subject of Engineering as introduced under the aforesaid scheme, comprised of two courses, namely, (i) Elements of Electrical Engineering and (ii) Elements of Mechanical Engineering. These subjects were duly recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, constituted the technical group in the syllabus of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. The minimum qualification for Lecturer (Engineering) was B.Tech/B.Sc. Technical (Education) or Diploma in Mechanical /Electrical Engineering and one year workshop experience. The petitioners who are six in number, were appointed as Lecturer (Engineering) in different Intermediate Colleges of the State of U. P. They were appointed in the pay scale of Re. 650-1.280 like lecturers in other subjects. The petitioners claim that they are members of Special Subordinate Education Service (for short 'S.S.E.S.'). 5. The petitioners who are six in number, were appointed as Lecturer (Engineering) in different Intermediate Colleges of the State of U. P. They were appointed in the pay scale of Re. 650-1.280 like lecturers in other subjects. The petitioners claim that they are members of Special Subordinate Education Service (for short 'S.S.E.S.'). 5. Initially the posts of lecturer (Engineering) were sanctioned on temporary basis but subsequently, by Government Order dated 5.8.1965 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), the term of the sanctioned temporary posts was extended till 31.3.1965 and by the same Government Order the posts of lecturer (Engineering) were converted into permanent posts w.e.f. 1.4.1965. For the sake of clarity, the dates of initial appointment, regular selection and confirmation of the petitioners may be given as follows : Sl No. Name of petitioner Date of appointment Date of confirmation Date of selection through U.P.P.S.C. 1. Jagdish Prasad Sharma 5.7.63 17.12.66 17.12.68 2. Shiv Shankar Lal Srivastava 27.8.63 17.12.66 17.12.68 3 Krishan Dutta Misra 1.5.71 7.7.73 4. Dinesh Bhushan Sharma 1.5.71 7.7.73 5 B. M. Dwivedi 5.7.63 17.12.66 17.12.68 6 Suresh Chandra Misra 14.8.67 11.12.70 11.12.72 6. The case of the petitioners is that inspite of the fact that they have been selected and appointed in the same manner and by same process as is applicable to the lecturers of other subjects : performing the same duties ; holding permanent posts as lecturers, they are being subjected to differential and discriminatory treatment in the matter of promotion and grant of selection grade mainly because of the reason that they have been excluded from the combined seniority list of lecturers. According to the petitioners, inspite of the fact that they have put in more than 15 years of service as confirmed lecturer, they are stagnating at the maximum of lowest grade of lecturer and have been unlawfully deprived of the benefits of higher promotion. They made a number of representations and inspite of the fact that the Director of Education had strongly recommended their case to the Government, their various legitimate claims and expectations are being neglected. 7. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. a counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Rajendra Singh Rastogi, Assistant Director of Education. They made a number of representations and inspite of the fact that the Director of Education had strongly recommended their case to the Government, their various legitimate claims and expectations are being neglected. 7. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. a counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Rajendra Singh Rastogi, Assistant Director of Education. It has been averred that the petitioners are holding specialised miscellaneous ex-cadre posts and have not been inducted in the main stream of the S.S.E.S. to which the Lecturers in other subjects belong, and, therefore, a combined seniority list in respect of the two different cadres of employees cannot be prepared. It was further averred that the matter for encadering the post of Lecturer (Engineering] has been referred to the Government, which is pending consideration and until the Government takes a final decision, in the matter, the petitioners cannot be granted any relief. 8. In pursuance of the interim order dated 24.8.1991 passed by this Court as welt as on the letter addressed by Director of Education to Government (Annexure-12 to the writ petition), the State Government had taken various decisions for encadering the post of lecturer (Engineering). By Government Order dated 18.4.1992, the State Government declared the post of lecturer (Engineering) as cadre post and by order dated 25.5.1992, the Director of Education was required to pass appropriate orders to comply with the interim order dated 24.8.1991 passed by this Court. In pursuance of these orders of the Government, a combined seniority list of the lecturers in Government Inter Colleges was prepared on 9.6.1992 and the orders for grant of selection grade to the petitioners have also been issued. In this manner, most of the grievances of the petitioners have come to be redressed. 9. The main controversy which is left to be considered and decided by this Court relates to the placement of the petitioners in the combined seniority list. As it is. the petitioners, namely, B. M. Dwivedi, S. S. L. Srivastava and J. P. Sharma have been placed at Sl. Nos. 374A, 374B and 374C of the seniority list while the petitioners Suresh Chandra Misra, Krishna Dutta Misra and Dinesh Bhushan Misra have been placed respectively at Sl. Nos. 575A, 575B and 575C. The principle adopted by the respondents to determine the seniority of the petitioners, as is disclosed from the counter-affidavit filed by Sri S. P. Tripathi. Nos. 374A, 374B and 374C of the seniority list while the petitioners Suresh Chandra Misra, Krishna Dutta Misra and Dinesh Bhushan Misra have been placed respectively at Sl. Nos. 575A, 575B and 575C. The principle adopted by the respondents to determine the seniority of the petitioners, as is disclosed from the counter-affidavit filed by Sri S. P. Tripathi. Assistant Director of Education, Allahabad is the date of substantive appointment of the petitioners, i.e., the date on which the services of the petitioners were regularised/approved by the U. P. Public Service Commission. According to the respondents, the petitioners are not entitled to compute seniority from the date on which they were appointed on ad hoc basis. It is further averred that under the U. P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991. the expression 'substantive appointment' has been defined and the said expression excludes the ad hoc appointment and since under the Seniority Rules, aforesaid, the seniority has to be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment, the period of ad hoc appointment of the petitioners cannot be taken into consideration for purposes of determining the seniority. The petitioners have challenged the above principle adopted by the respondents to determine their seniority. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to seniority right from the date on which they were initially appointed as they have throughout been continuously officiating on the posts on which they were initially appointed and that the posts on which they were appointed were substantive in nature even though initially they were temporary but later on converted into permanent posts. 10. As said above, the controversy, which is to be determined by this Court, covers a very small field. It is an Indubitable fact that the seniority of the petitioners, who are lecturers in Engineering, vis-a-vis the lecturers in other subjects, has to be determined with reference to the date of their substantive appointment. The petitioners have been treated to have been substantively appointed from the date of their approval/regularization by the U. P. Public Service Commission (for short 'U.P.P.S.C.') while in respect of the other teachers, the date of initial appointment has been accepted for purpose of computing the seniority. As per combined seniority list, which incorporated the names of the petitioners, it would be apparent that the petitioners J. P. Sharma, S. S. L. Srivastava and B. M. Dwivedi have been placed at Sl. Nos.374A, 374B and 374C. As per combined seniority list, which incorporated the names of the petitioners, it would be apparent that the petitioners J. P. Sharma, S. S. L. Srivastava and B. M. Dwivedi have been placed at Sl. Nos.374A, 374B and 374C. Just below Sri Suresh Chandra Saxena, who was directly recruited and joined on 12.9.1966 though the dates of appointment and Joining of the above named three petitioners are in the months of July and August, 1963. Similarly, the petitioners, K. D. Misra, D. B. Sharma and S. C. Mishra have been assigned seniority at SI. No. 575A, 575B and 575C, and just above them, at Sl. No. 575 there is one Ashok Kumar Pathak, who is a direct recruit having Joined the service as lecturers on 16.10.1970. The placement of the petitioners has resulted in an anomaly. For example, Sri A. N. Varma. who is a provincialised college lecturer, was initially appointed on 1.4.1964 and his date of approval/regularization by U.P.P.S.C. Is 13.10.1995. Treating him to be substantively appointed on 1.4.1964, he has been assigned Sl. No. 8C in the combined seniority list. Similarly the date of initial appointment of Sri G. S. Benjwal is 15.1.1965 and date of his approval/regularization by U.P.P.S.C. Is 26.11.1966. He has been placed at Sl. No. 164 in the combined seniority list. The petitioners have to be interwoven in the seniority list with reference to the date of their substantive appointment as in their case the question of provincialization does not arise. The names of the three petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 5, who were appointed in the year 1963, have been reflected in the combined seniority list below the persons, who were appointed much after them in the years 1966 and 1967 by direct recruitment. 11. Now the moot point for consideration is whether the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 5 can be treated to have been appointed in a substantive capacity right from the year 1963 or not. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed in July. 1963 and he joined service on 19.7.63. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 were appointed on 13.8.1963. Petitioner No. 5 joined on 26.8.1963 while petitioner No. 2 joined on 27.8.1963. Their appointments were made through Annexures-S. A. 1 and 2, which, in fact, indicate that they were appointed as temporary lecturers Engineering in the S.S.E.S. grade of Rs. 200-450. 1963 and he joined service on 19.7.63. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 were appointed on 13.8.1963. Petitioner No. 5 joined on 26.8.1963 while petitioner No. 2 joined on 27.8.1963. Their appointments were made through Annexures-S. A. 1 and 2, which, in fact, indicate that they were appointed as temporary lecturers Engineering in the S.S.E.S. grade of Rs. 200-450. Forty posts were sanctioned, the period of which was extended from time to time and ultimately by Government Order, dated 5.6.1965. the posts which included the post held by the petitioners, became permanent with effect from 1.4.1965. In short, the 40 newly created posts were initially temporary in nature but were converted into permanent posts w.e.f. 1.4.1965. These posts were never discontinued. They existed throughout. Similarly petitioners, without any break of a day, continued to work on the posts of lecturers [Engineering) right from the date of their initial appointment. The plea of the respondents that since the posts of lecturer (Engineering) were ex-cadre posts and had not been assimilated in the cadre of the lecturers of the provincialised colleges, the petitioners could not claim seniority with the lecturers in other subjects. Is fallacious and against the well established proposition of law. This matter came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Shri Pratap Narain and others etc. etc., AIR 1992 SC 1363 , in which distinction between the holder of a cadre post or an ex-cadre post for purpose of determining the seniority was done away with. As a matter of fact, the theory that the petitioners were on ex-cadre posts is untenable for one simple reason that the petitioners were appointed through the same process as the other lecturers who are said to be holding the cadre posts, in the same grade and were performing the same duties. There has been no distinction in the status, position, manner of selection, grade and the responsibilities of the two types of lecturers. There were certain other posts of lecturers in the subjects of Arts, Physical Training, Music, etc., which were termed as ex-cadre but were subsequently encadred. The distinction between the ex-cadre and cadre-posts in relation to the lecturers in different subjects was without any difference. Therefore, to say that lecturers (Engineering] were holding ex-cadre posts was nothing but a subterfuge and certainly a misnomer. 12. The distinction between the ex-cadre and cadre-posts in relation to the lecturers in different subjects was without any difference. Therefore, to say that lecturers (Engineering] were holding ex-cadre posts was nothing but a subterfuge and certainly a misnomer. 12. The criteria of substantive appointment has to be uniformly applied for the purposes of determining infer se seniority. In Baleshwar Das and others v. State of U. P. and others (1981) 1 SCR 449 , it was held that a person is said to hold a post in substantive capacity when he holds it for an indefinite period, specially of long duration in contradistinction to a person who holds it for a definite and temporary period or holds it on probation subject to confirmation. The continuous officiation in substantive capacity may be both against temporary as well as permanent posts as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of O.P. Garg and others, Vs. State Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1991 SC 1202 . It was observed that so long as the temporary post has an independent existence and is a part of cadre strength, the appointment against the said post has to be treated as substantive appointment. Continuous officiation shall be counted for determining the seniority when substantive vacancy in temporary or permanent post is made available to the employee. Existence of a vacancy, either permanent or temporary, is the sine qua non for claiming benefits of continuous length of service towards seniority. The continuous officiation/service shall be counted for determining the seniority from the date a substantive vacancy in permanent or temporary post is available. The law is well-embedded that continuous officiation in substantive capacity may be as against permanent or temporary post. The vacancy, however, should not be adventitious, fortuitous casual or stop-gap. 13. In the instant case, the posts were sanctioned in the year 1957 and right up to the year 1965 when they were converted into permanent posts, they continued to exist and manned throughout. The officiation of the petitioners for a short period of about two years on the temporary posts, i.e.. between the year 1963. when the petitioners were appointed, and the year 1965 when the posts were made permanent, was on the substantive posts regardless of the fact that the posts, at the relevant time, were temporary in nature. The officiation of the petitioners for a short period of about two years on the temporary posts, i.e.. between the year 1963. when the petitioners were appointed, and the year 1965 when the posts were made permanent, was on the substantive posts regardless of the fact that the posts, at the relevant time, were temporary in nature. There is no warrant to suggest that initially the appointment of the petitioners was ad hoc in nature as has been averred in the counter-affidavit filed by Sri S. P. Tripathi, Assistant Director. The appointment letters brought on record indicate that the petitioners were appointed in temporary capacity. Reference by the respondents to the definition of the expression 'substantive appointment' which excludes appointments made on ad hoc basis, as contained in the U. P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991, to defeat the claim of the petitioners for seniority right from the year 1963. Is otiose and wide off the mark for the reasons, firstly, that the rules were not in operation in the year when the petitioners joined as lecturers (Engineering), and, secondly, their appointments were not made on ad hoc basis. The petitioners have been occupying the temporary /permanent posts of lecturers (Engineering) in the substantive capacity from the day one of their initial appointment and have been continuously officiating till they were confirmed in service. 14. In the above premises, now let us examine the legal position as has been adumberated in the various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. By way of preface, it may be mentioned that at the time when the question of determination of seniority arose, there were no statutory rules or executive instructions laying down the principles for determining the seniority. Right from Baleshwar Das case (supra) up to the, The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1990 SC 1607 , there have been series of cases dealing with the point of determination of seniority with reference to the date of initial appointment and continuous officiation. All these cases have been elaborately discussed in the Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association case (supra), in which legal position with regard to computation of seniority has been summarised. In para 47, principles governing seniority have been classified under clauses (A) to (J). All these cases have been elaborately discussed in the Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association case (supra), in which legal position with regard to computation of seniority has been summarised. In para 47, principles governing seniority have been classified under clauses (A) to (J). Clauses (A) and (B) which are material for the purpose of this case, are reproduced as follows : "(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance With the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted." (C) ....." It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners were appointed without following the procedures laid down by the Rules. On the other hand, it is common case of the parties that the petitioners as well as other lecturers similarly placed, were appointed right from the very beginning in a regular manner. Since the petitioners have continued to hold the posts uninterruptedly till their appointments were approved/regularised by the U.P.P.S.C., the period of officiation of service, of necessity. Is to be counted to compute their seniority in view of the firm law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association (supra) as well as the cases cited therein. A reference was also made to the order of the Supreme Court dated 24.11.1992inS.L.P. No. 13840 of 1992. State of U. P. and another v. Jagdish Narain Rai, in which the benefit of 20 years of service, for computing seniority, rendered before regularization of service under the U. P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Within the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 was allowed. The decision of this Court dated 26.4.1991 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20408 of 1988, Dr. S. C. Mathur v. State of U. P. and others, was also relied upon. The decision of this Court dated 26.4.1991 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20408 of 1988, Dr. S. C. Mathur v. State of U. P. and others, was also relied upon. 15. In the conspectus of the above facts and the well-settled legal position, it is found that the seniority of the petitioners has not been correctly fixed in the combined seniority list. The petitioners, should have been given seniority with reference to the date of their initial appointment as they were holding the substantive posts in substantive capacity right from the date they joined service. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds. 16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.6.1992, by which the names of the petitioners have been incorporated in the -combined seniority list, is hereby quashed. The seniority of the petitioners shall be determined with reference to their initial date of appointment as they shall be deemed to have been holding the substantive posts in the substantive capacity from the date of their joining service. The date of approval/regularisation of appointment of the petitioners for the purpose of determination of seniority is irrelevant and consequently, shall not be taken into consideration. The respondents are directed to prepare and issue fresh combined seniority list on the basis of the above direction within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and order before them. The petitioners shall be entitled to the resultant benefits including further promotions on the basis of their placement in the revised combined seniority list.