S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a typist in the office of the Director, Food and Drugs control Administration, Gujarat State, filed this petition under Art. 226 of the constitution of India challenging the orders dated 2-9-1982 and 29-10-1982 under which seniority is assigned to her in the category of typist from 2-1-1974. The petitioner claims that she should have been given seniority in the cadre of typist from 13-10-1967 and/or 17-4-1970. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as typist in the Food and drugs Control Administration on 23-11-1966. Her services were terminated on 12-6-1967. Thereafter she was reappointed as typist in the office of the respondent on 18-10-1967. In exercise of the powers conferred under Art. 309 of the Constitution of india the Government of Gujarat had framed statutory rules known as Gujarat Non- secretariat Clerks, Clerk-typists and Typists (Direct Recruitment Procedure) Rules, 1970 and published under notification dated 17-4-1970. Rule 29 of the said Rules provides for regularization of services of temporary employees in the department who were appointed without selection through the Gujarat Public Service Commission or Centr. ised recruitment Scheme. The condition for eligibility for consideration for regularization under the aforesaid Rule was that the concerned employee should have completed 2 years continuous service as on 31st December 1968. Seniority of the persons who were found eligible for regularization has to be determined in the order as it has been assigned by the Committee. A resolution was also issued in this respect on 17-4-1970. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was called for test for regularization of her services under the aforesaid provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules, 1970 and the notification dated 17-4-1970. She was declared successful and she was ordered to be continued in service under order dated 12-7-1971. The order dated 12-7-1971 was cancelled under order dated 7-2-1972 on the ground that she had not completed two years continuous service as on 31-12-1968. ( 4 ) THE petitioner was again called for special test in typing by the Departmental selection Committee under its order dated 18-11-1972. It is the case of the petitioner that she was successful in the test and her appointment was regularised under order dated 22-1-1973. Seniority list was published from time to time and her continuous service was shown in the category of Typist with effect from 17-4-1970. It is the case of the petitioner that she was successful in the test and her appointment was regularised under order dated 22-1-1973. Seniority list was published from time to time and her continuous service was shown in the category of Typist with effect from 17-4-1970. As per the petitioner those lists were published on 31-3-1977, 8-6-1981 and 23-3-1982. ( 5 ) THE 1970 Rules were amended under notification dated 2-1-1974 and those clerks, gujarati/english Clerks-typists, Gujarati/english Typists who were initially recruited otherwise than through the procedure of direct recruitment as laid down under the Rules referred to above, but were within the age limit of 25 years in the case of clerks and clerk-typists and 28 years in the case of typists and were subsequently continued as clerk, gujarati/english clerk-typist and English/gujarati Typist in the Department to which these rules apply, and who rendered not less than two years continuous service as on 31st december, 1972 in the Department on the date of notification were eligible for consideration for regularization of their services. As the petitioner was eligible for consideration of her case for regularization, on 2-1-1974 she acquired the right of regularization and her regular appointment was made with effect from 2-1-1974. As the petitioner has acquired the right for regularization of her services on 2-1-1974 seniority has to be assigned to her from the said date. The earlier seniority list in which the petitioner was said to be regularly appointed from 17- 4-1972 was sought to be changed. show cause notice was given to her on 2-9-1982. Her seniority was revised from 17-4-1970 to 2-1- 1974, under order dated 2-9-1982. The petitioner lodged her protest against that order. As the persons alleged to be junior to the petitioner have been promoted, she filed this petition for direction for correction of her seniority. Alter filing this special civil application the petitioner prayed for amendment of the petition which was allowed by this Court, and further facts were brought on record. ( 6 ) AFTER this petition was filed, under order dated 12-9-1983 the petitioner has been given final seniority from 2-1-1974, as typist in pursuance of the resolution of the government dated 2-1-1974. Alter filing this special civil application the petitioner prayed for amendment of the petition which was allowed by this Court, and further facts were brought on record. ( 6 ) AFTER this petition was filed, under order dated 12-9-1983 the petitioner has been given final seniority from 2-1-1974, as typist in pursuance of the resolution of the government dated 2-1-1974. It is the case of the petitioner that the resolution dated 2-1-1974 is not applicable to the petitioner as she was already appointed as typist before 2-1-1972 and her services were regularised after holding typist test on 12-7-1971 and again after taking typing test on 22-1-1973. Reference has also been made by the petitioner to the Government Notification dated 30-3-1994 under which the Gujarat Non secretariat Clerk and Clerk Typist (Training and Examination) Rules, were amended. This amendment has been made in pursuance of the decision of this Court in the case of safamiya Malek vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1992) 33 (1) GLR 704. Provision has been made that a candidate who is appointed as clerk or clerk-typist subject to undergoing training or passing examination shall get seniority from the date of joining service if he completes the post training and passes the examination as prescribed under rule 7 within three chances. Referring to this notification the petitioner contended that her services should have been appointed from the date of her initial appointment for the purpose of seniority. Reference has also been made to further notification dated 5-7-1995 under which the Gujarat Non Secretariat Clerks, Clerk-typist (Training and Examination) Rules. 1970 were further amended providing for determination of seniority of those candidates appointed as clerk or clerk-typist prior to the commencement of the Centralised recruitment Scheme. ( 7 ) UNDER order dated 2-9-1995 the petitioners seniority again came to be corrected and she was assigned seniority from 17-4-1970. Pressing in service notification dated 5-7-1995 the petitioner contended that she should have been assigned seniority from 19-10-1967. Consequential prayers have also been made in the petition. The petitioner further placed reliance on Circular dated 6-8-1969 and contended that her seniority should have been fixed from the date of joining the service. Reply to the petition has been filed by the respondents, and further reply has been filed after amendment of the special civil application. Consequential prayers have also been made in the petition. The petitioner further placed reliance on Circular dated 6-8-1969 and contended that her seniority should have been fixed from the date of joining the service. Reply to the petition has been filed by the respondents, and further reply has been filed after amendment of the special civil application. The respondents have come up with the case that the decision of this court in the case of Safamiya Malek (supra) is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The petitioners services were regularised under the provisions of 1970 Rules, as amended from time to time, and her services as typist could have been taken for seniority only from 2-1-1974 and not from 13-10-1967 or 17-4- 1970. It is the further case of the respondents that, due to oversight, in the seniority list of junior clerks published earlier the petitioner was given seniority from 17-4-1970. However, by notification dated 20-5-1976 revised provisional seniority list of junior clerks was published and objections were invited from the concerned Government servants. The petitioner has not filed any objection thereto. In this provisional seniority list the petitioner has been assigned seniority by taking her regular appointment from 2-1-1974. ( 8 ) MR. P. V. Hathi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners services were regularised under notification dated 17-4-1970 and she has been given" regular appointment on 12-7-1971 and as such she cannot be given seniority now from 2-1-1974. It has next been contended that in view of the decision of this court in the case of Safamiya vs. State of Gujarat (supra) and the subsequent amendment which has been made in the rules, the petitioners seniority should have been counted from 30-1-1967, the date of her initial appointment. On the other hand the counsel for the respondents contended that the claim of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. The ratio of the decision of this court in the aforesaid case on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner is applicable only to those clerks and typists who have been appointed through the centralised recruitment scheme and not to the clerks or typists who have been appointed illegally initially and subsequently their services have been regularised under the amended provisions of 1970 Rules. ( 9 ) THE dispute before this Court in the aforesaid case was of those clerks and typists who were regularly recruited under 1970 Rules, but because of non-passing of the requisite examination their Seniority have been disturbed. This court has laid down that in the case of such persons seniority has to be granted from the date of initial appointment, though the requisite examination would have been passed by the candidate in a later point of time, but within the specified time. ( 10 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any substance. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed on 23-11-1966 or may be on 18-10-1967. As there are divergent dates given by the petitioner and she had not completed 2 years service on 31-12-1968, she had not gained eligibility for consideration of her case for regularization under rule 29 and the Government resolution dated 17-4-1970. It is true that she was called for test on 12-2-1971 and she was declared successful and order of regularization of her services was also made, but that order was contrary to the resolution dated 17-4-1970 and as such the error which has been made by the respondents in regularization of services of the petitioner was to be corrected and accordingly it has been corrected under order dated 7-2-1972. That order has not been challenged by the petitioner at any point of time. However, the petiioners grievance is that in the seniority list of 31-3- 1977, 8-6-1981 and 23-3-1982 her service was considered from 17- 4-1970. Once the order of regularization of her service from 17- 4-1970 has been cancelled under order dated 7-2-1972 and that order of cancellation was not challenged by the petitioner before the appropriate authority it is a case where apparently a mistake has been committed by the respondents to give her seniority by treating her to be in regular service from 17-4-1970. The respondents have taken the action of correcting that mistake and the petitioner was called upon to show cause why her seniority should not be counted from 2-1-1974 and ultimately after filing of the petition under order dated 12-9-1983 she has been given seniority in the cadre of typist from 2-1-1974. The respondents have taken the action of correcting that mistake and the petitioner was called upon to show cause why her seniority should not be counted from 2-1-1974 and ultimately after filing of the petition under order dated 12-9-1983 she has been given seniority in the cadre of typist from 2-1-1974. The petitioner was eligible for consideration of her case for regularization under the amended provisions of Rule 29 as amended by notification dated 2-1-1974. She had completed two years service as on 31-12-1972 and she was continuously working on the post on the date of notification dated 2-1-1974 and her services were regularised and seniority has been given to her from 2-1-1974. That order has been challenged. I tail to see any justification in the challenge made. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any provision from the 1970 Rules or from any Government Resolution or circular wherein it has been provided that the seniority of an employee whose services were regularised under Rule 29 of 1970 Rules as per notification dated 17-4-1970 should be counted from the date of initial appointment. If this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then the services of the petitioner from 23-11-1966 or 18-10-1967 shall be counted for the purpose of seniority, and she will become senior to those typists who have been regularly recruited under the 1970 Rules. The class of employees whose initial appointment was illegal and by amending rules their services were regularised cannot take benefit of seniority above the employees who have been regularly recruited under the 1970 Rules. The subsequent resolutions and the amendment made in the 1970 Rules, after judgment of this court in the case of Safamiya (Supra) is applicable only for those persons who have been recruited on the post of clerk and clerk-typist as provided in 1970 Rules. The case of the petitioner is not covered under the subsequent resolutions whatsoever, as she was not selected under 1970 Rules. Reliance placed on the subsequent resolution is of no help to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is not covered under the subsequent resolutions whatsoever, as she was not selected under 1970 Rules. Reliance placed on the subsequent resolution is of no help to the petitioner. The petitioners seniority has to be determined in accordance with resolution dated 2-1-1974 and not in accordance with the resolutions which were meant for those clerks and typists who were appointed under 1970 Rules by selection as laid down therein, and not for those who were initially illegally appointed and whose services were subsequently regularised. ( 12 ) IN the result this special civil application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. Ad interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. .