JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J.—There is no merit in this writ petition in which the seniority list published by the university is being challenged. At the out set it must be pointed out that the writ petition suffers from mis-joinder of causes of action and mass leading. Admittedly, all the petitioners are not on the same pedestal. According to the learned Counsel, petitioners 1, 2 and 6 to 8 stand on a different footing from petitioners 3 to 5. The only common grievance is that they are all aggrieved by the seniority list. Apart from that, the facts are different with regard to each group of petitioners and they should not have joined in one writ petition as the question will have to be decided on the facts pertaining to each group. 2. Secondly, the seniority list was published in 1981. The writ petition was presented in this Court only in 1988. It is stated by the learned Counsel that the petitioners came to know of the seniority list only some time prior to the filing of the writ petition and there was no delay thereafter in approaching the Court. We are unable to accept this version of the petitioners to be correct, The first reason for not accepting the version is that by an office order dated 15-7-1977 the services of the petitioners were regularised by the Vice Chancellor on the recommendations of the Recruitment and Promotion Committee with effect from 2-7-1997. The petitioner were admittedly appointed on 1-11-1976 on ad hoc basis by the Vice-Chancellor. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the regularisation from a date later than 1-11-1976 from which date they have been functioning as such clerks they should have agitated that question. It cannot be said that the petitioners were not aware of the order of regularisation of their own services. Even if the petitioners contention that they were not aware of the regularisation of other persons is accepted, the petitioners were certainly aware of regularisation of their services with effect from 2-7-1977. If there was any error in such regularisation and if the contention of the petitioners is that they should have been regularised from an earlier date they should have agitated that question soon thereafter. The did not choose to challenge the said regularisation order at any time except in the present writ petition. 3. If there was any error in such regularisation and if the contention of the petitioners is that they should have been regularised from an earlier date they should have agitated that question soon thereafter. The did not choose to challenge the said regularisation order at any time except in the present writ petition. 3. Secondly it is common knowledge that among the employees of the same cadre in the same establishment or organisation they would certainly be knowing about the regularisation of each one of them and consequently the petitioners would have come to know that the respondents were regularised with effect from 1-7-1977, a day prior to the date from which the petitioners were regularised. Hence the contention that they came to know about the regularisation of the respondents only just before the filing of the writ petition cannot be accepted. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners original appointment was purely on ad hoc basis The order of appointment filed as Annexure P-3 clearly shows that the ad hoc appointment shall not confer any right on the petitioners for regular appointment. It was also made clear in the order that the appointment could be terminated at any time during the period of ad hoc appointment without any notice it was brought to our notice by the respondents counsel that the Vice Chancellor made those appointments on 1-11-1976 not in accordance with the rules hut on his own without any recommendations of the Selection Committee as required under the rules. Inasmuch as the petitioners appointments were not in accordance with the rules they cannot claim the benefit of continuation of service from the date they entered service for the first time on ad hoc basis. The question is not res Integra. The Supreme Court has considered this matter in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers" Association v State of Maharashtra and others, (1990)2 SCC 715. In paragraph 47 the various propositions have been set out. Suffice it for our purpose to reproduce Clause (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. In paragraph 47 the various propositions have been set out. Suffice it for our purpose to reproduce Clause (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.” 5. Thus it is evident that the petitioners whose original appointment was not in accordance with rules cannot as a matter of right; claim that/ the period during which they functioned as ad hoc employees should be taken into account for the purpose of regularisation and seniority. It is not in dispute that the respondents had fixed the seniority on the basis of the date of regularisation of the petitioners, namely 2-7-1977. 6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that when the regularisation order was passed the respondents acted illegally and fixed different dates for different group of persons, According to the learned Counsel fixation of 1-7-1977 as the date for regularisation of the respondents is erroneous and against the principles of law. But admittedly the respondents were promoted and there were vacancies at the time when they were so promoted with effect from 1-7-1977. There is nothing in law to prevent the concerned authority from making such promotions and regularisation of the respondents with effect from 1-7-1977. However, it is also seen from Annexure P-7 that the orders of regularisation with regard to the respondents were passed only on the basis of recommendations of the Recruitment and Promotion Committee, which were made in accordance with the rules. Even the regularisation of the petitioners was made in accordance with the recommendations of the Recruitment and Promotion Committee. Nothing has been alleged in the writ petition as against the members of the Recruitment and Promotion Committee’ No malafide has been alleged Hence there cannot be any challenge to such recommendations made by the Recruitment and Promotion Committee. 7. In the circumstances, there is no merit whatever in this writ petition and consequently it is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.