(1) THESE appeals are directed against an order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in a proceeding before it. That proceeding was initiated by the appellants. They were appointed as junior Assistants on compassionate ground in the year 1984. It appears they were regularly promoted as Assistants in 1988. An order was made by the Additional Director of Agriculture (Personnel Management), Madras by which he fixed the inter se seniority of the candidates recruited from three sources, namely: 1. Those recruited by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission; 2. Those appointed on compassionate grounds, such as the appellants; 3. Those appointed under Rules for special absorption. (2) THE Director ordered that the seniority of those who are appointed on compassionate grounds will be refixed amongst the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission candidates of the year concerned duly taking into consideration the date of joining and their names will be deleted from the panel for regular promotions to the post of Assistant as on 15/3/89. However, it was made clear that the services of Junior Assistants who were temporarily promoted as Assistants will be regularised in terms of Rule 35 (aa) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules i.e. the regularisation of services in the post of Assistant shall be made on the date of appointment of their juniors. That order was challenged before the Tribunal. On examination of the relevant Rules, the Tribunal took the view that in the case of persons other than the candidates selected by Public Service Commission, seniority will be fixed from the date of appointment in accordance with the principles underlying Rule 35(aa) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and for that purpose relevant date in respect of the candidates covered by the Special Absorption Rules will be the date of their regularisation in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 548 dated 19/6/87, which is 25/6/84. The Tribunal upheld the order made by the Director of Agriculture and dismissed the applications filed by the appellants. (3) IN these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter considered by the Tribunal had been earlier considered by the High Court of Madras in writ petition No. 7730 of 1987 and disposed of on 8th April, 1988. The Tribunal upheld the order made by the Director of Agriculture and dismissed the applications filed by the appellants. (3) IN these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter considered by the Tribunal had been earlier considered by the High Court of Madras in writ petition No. 7730 of 1987 and disposed of on 8th April, 1988. In that case, learned single Judge of the High Court elaborately considered the relevant rules and took the view that the persons appointed on compassionate grounds should be treated at par with those who are recruited through the Public Service Commission and, therefore, when the candidates recruited through the Public Service Commission are ranked above those appointed under the Absorption Rules. Necessarily the appellants who are appointed on compassionate grounds, who ranked along with the candidates recruited through the Public Service Commission should stand above and certain directions were given as to the manner in which the Rules have to be worked out. This view of the learned single Judge was confirmed in the appeals and thereafter the special leave petitions preferred to this Court stood dismissed. He therefore, submitted that in view of this decision, the Tribunal ought to have followed the decision of the High Court and should not have disturbed the state of affairs that prevailed till then. He further pointed out that subsequently in O.A. Nos. 1436, 1684 and 1810 of 1995 disposed of on 23rd January, 1996 by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the view taken by the High Court stood reiterated and, therefore, the Tribunal has not been consistent in its view and the view taken by the Tribunal in the order under appeal needs interference in our 1999 SCW (Suppl.)/308 hands. (4) THE fact that the appellants have all been appointed subsequent to 25/6/84 is not in dispute. The question for consideration is whether the benefit arising under Rule l0 should be applied to the appellants or not The said Rule reads as follows : "10. (4) THE fact that the appellants have all been appointed subsequent to 25/6/84 is not in dispute. The question for consideration is whether the benefit arising under Rule l0 should be applied to the appellants or not The said Rule reads as follows : "10. Seniority : The Seniority of a candidate appointed through Special Absorption in 1984, shall be fixed with reference to the date of first temporary appointment on the departmental Unit in which he had beer absorbed irrespective of whether he had been subsequently discharged for want of vacancies or appointed again through the Employment Exchange in that departmental Unit and not with reference to the date of first appointment in any other departmental Unit where he had acted previously before his absorption in particular departmental Unit. He shall be ranked below the candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on the results of the competitive examination held in November 1983 irrespective of the date of appointment of these candidates. If more than one candidate is appointed on the same day, their seniority shall be fixed with reference to the age as laid own in subrule (a) of Rule 35 of the General Rules. The rule of reservation (General Rule 22) shall not apply to these candidates. Provided that if any person is appointed to the post of Junior Assistants/Typists/StenoTypists in accordance with the Special Rules the seniority of such person shall be placed above the candidate appointed through Special Absorption in 1984. Provided also that if any of the persons appointed to the posts of junior Assistant Typist/Steno Typist in accordance with the Special Absorption Rules, 1987 and whose services were regularised in one department on 25/6/84 and reallotted to a new department for want of vacancy through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission shall take his seniority in the new department from the date of his temporary appointment in the department from which he was reallotted." (5) A reading of this Rule makes it clear that a candidate who has been appointed under these Rules shall rank below the candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the competitive examinations held in November, 1983 irrespective of the date of appointment of these candidates. G. 0. Ms. G. 0. Ms. No. 951, dated 14/9/84 reads as follows : "2.................the persons appointed on compassionate ground in the post of Junior Assistant, Typist and Stenographer in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, their seniority has to be fixed with reference to the year of selection of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and their seniority has to be fixed inter se the dates of appointment of the candidates selected by the Service Commission. This order shall not apply to the candidates who are already appointed." (6) THE High Court placing reliance upon this order took the view that the candidates appointed on compassionate grounds will have to be treated at par with the candidates appointed through the Public Service Commission. The Tribunal did not agree with this view. We have now to see the background in which the Absorption Rules were made. The absorption Rules were made in the year 1987, but they were deemed to have been given effect from 25/6/84. The Rules took note of the fact that the Public Service Commission was in the process of selection of candidates in the competitive examination held in November, 1983. Therefore, special provision was made under Rule 10 thereof to state that those who were appointed under the Absorption Rules will rank below the candidates selected by the Public Service Commission under the examination held in November, 1983. That was a special provision made in a special context while the Notification G. 0. Ms. No. 951 dated 14/9/84 is of general application. The exact reason as to why this special provision is made is not far to seek. The special absorption Rules adjusts equity between those recruited through Public Service Commission and those absorbed under the Rules. We do not think that the High Court was justified in stating that the principle stated in the said G.O. could be made applicable to a situation contemplated under Rule 10 of the Absorption Rules. Neither in the writ appeal nor in the latter decision of the Tribunal any other reasons are set out in support of the view taken by them. The view taken by the Tribunal, therefore, appears to be correct. At any rate it is now made clear under the order which was challenged in the Tribunal that the appellants will be treated as having been temporarily promoted and there is no likelihood of their reversion. The view taken by the Tribunal, therefore, appears to be correct. At any rate it is now made clear under the order which was challenged in the Tribunal that the appellants will be treated as having been temporarily promoted and there is no likelihood of their reversion. In this view of the matter no further direction would be given in that regard. Subject to these observations, these appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Appeals dismissed.