S. R. SINGH AND D. R. CHAUDHARY, JJ. ( 1 ) NIDUS of the controversy involved in this bunch of writ petitions is the placement of S. C. Mal, k. C. Saxena, etc. in the seniority list of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspectors, Grade II qua the petitioners herein. ( 2 ) IN some of the writ petitions, the seniority list dated 28. 10. 1991 is sought to be quashed, inter alia, on the ground that the aforestated officers amongst others, who were initially appointed as entertainment and Betting Tax Inspectors, Grade II on deputation have been wrongly placed to rank above the petitioners in the seniority list, albeit, the fact that the petitioners were appointed directly in consultation with the Public Service Commission anterior to the regularisation of the services of the aforestated officers in the cadre of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, grade II. ( 3 ) AMONGST other reliefs claimed in some of the petitions, the reliefs of quashing the seniority list of Assistant Commissioner Entertainment Tax circulated vide office memorandum dated 17. 8. 2000 ; the notification dated August 21, 2000 of appointments by promotion of Assistant commissioner, Entertainment Tax to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Entertainment Tax ; and the seniority list of District Officers Entertainment Tax circulated vide order dated July 21, 1999, have also been claimed. ( 4 ) WE have heard Sri A. Kumar and Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocates for the petitioners and sarvsri R. N. Singh, senior advocate and Vinod. Swarup, Additional Advocate General for the respondents. ( 5 ) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents about maintainability of the writ petition. It has been canvassed that the impugned seniority list dated 28. 10. 1991 wears the veneer of a provisional list by reason of the fact that objections have been invited from the aggrieved officers. As regards the legality and validity of the seniority list pertaining District entertainment Tax Officers and the one pertaining to Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment tax, it has been submitted for the respondents that it has been clearly evinced in the said seniority lists that these would abide by the result of the writ petition pertaining to the seniority list of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, Grade II. In so far as the order promoting to the officers aforestated on the post of Deputy Commissioner, Entertainment Tax is concerned, it has been canvassed for the respondent that it would be open to permutation, depending upon the seniority list that may be finally prepared. For the petitioners, the argument pressed into service is that S. C. Mal, K. C. Saxena and others who were initially inducted into the cadre on deputation from other departments, are entitled to be taken into reckoning for seniority amongst the Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspectors, Grade II with effect from the date of their regularisation as statutorily envisaged in Rule 7 of the U. P. Regularisation of Service (On Posts falling within the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 and the respondents have patently erred in reckoning their seniority with effect from the date they took over charge on the post of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, Grade II initially on deputation. It has also been submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the posts fell within the purview of Public Service Commission and the order by which the aforesaid officers were absorbed/assimilated in the cadre being de hors the rules, cannot be sustained. The only way these officers could be inducted into the cadre of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspectors. Grade II, proceeds the submission, is by way of regularisation as contemplated under the aforestated Regularisation Rules, 1979. ( 6 ) WE have bestowed our most anxious thoughts upon the submissions made across the bar by the counsel for the parties. The deputationists were initially regularised under the provisions of the U. P. Public Service Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On Posts within the Purview of public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 but later on, by the Government order, they were sought to be absorbed, after rescinding the order of regularisation w. e. f. the date of their initial appointments on deputation. It brooks no dispute that the U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax inspectors Service Rules, 1982 governs the recruitment to the post of Entertainment and Betting tax Inspectors, Grade II. It brooks no dispute that the U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax inspectors Service Rules, 1982 governs the recruitment to the post of Entertainment and Betting tax Inspectors, Grade II. The appointment to the post according to the Rules, is to be made by direct recruitment through the Public Service Commission on the basis of competitive examination as postulated in Part V of the Rules and by promotion in a given percentage from amongst the permanent senior clerks and stenographers of a given scale of pay. Recruitment to the posts of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspectors, Grade II is made upon the recommendations made by the Selection Committee constituted in the manner indicated in Rule 18 of the U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector Service Rules, 1982. The appointments of the parties herein were, however, made before the enforcement of these rule, perhaps, on the basis of executive instructions operating at the relevant time. But it is asserted for the petitioners that even before the rules came to be enforced, consultation with the Public Service Commission was necessary for appointment to the post of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, Grade II. ( 7 ) THE other set of rules known as U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax (Gazetted) Rules, 1992, provides for recruitment to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and district Entertainment and Betting Tax Officer. The appointment to the posts of Deputy commissioner is visualised by promotion from amongst such Assistant Commissioners as have completed at least two years of service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment, whereas appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner is made by promotion from amongst such substantively appointed District Entertainment and Betting Tax Officers as have completed three years of service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment. The post of District entertainment and Betting Tax Officer is filled in consultation with the Public Service commission by promotion from amongst such Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspectors. Grade i as have completed 7 years of service as such on the first day of the year of appointment. The post of District entertainment and Betting Tax Officer is filled in consultation with the Public Service commission by promotion from amongst such Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspectors. Grade i as have completed 7 years of service as such on the first day of the year of appointment. ( 8 ) SO far as the impugned seniority list of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, Grade II is concerned, that admittedly is a pro-visional one and the petitioners have remedy to file their objections the tenability of which we have no manner of doubt, would be delved into while finalising the seniority list. However, we would not scruple to cite the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Kunal Nanda v. Union of India, (2000) 3 UPLBEC 2171, the quintessence of which is that unless the claim of deputationist for permanent absorption in the borrowing department is based upon any statutory Rule, Regulation or Order having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in any such claim for absorption. The deputationist Officers, in the instant case, were earlier regularised under the provisions of the U. P. Regulation of Service on Posts (Falling within the Purview of Public Service Commission)Rules, 1979 but the order of regularisation was rescinded and instead, they, were assimilated into the service with effect from the date of their initial appointment on deputation. While regularisation made in accordance with the U. P. Regularisation of Service on Posts (Falling within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, cannot be demurred to, the claim of absorption sans consulting the Commission will not be permissible in law in absence of any statutory Rules, Regulation or Order having the force of law. ( 9 ) SO far as the regularisation under the Rules aforestated is concerned, seniority, it is envisaged in Rule 7 of the Rules, will be taken into reckoning from the date of regularisation. The State government, therefore, while adjudicating upon the question of seniority of Entertainment and betting Tax Inspector, Grade II will have to advert itself to the question whether absorption of the deputationist was sanctified by the sanction of any statutory Rules, Regulations or Order having the force of law. The State government, therefore, while adjudicating upon the question of seniority of Entertainment and betting Tax Inspector, Grade II will have to advert itself to the question whether absorption of the deputationist was sanctified by the sanction of any statutory Rules, Regulations or Order having the force of law. In case there was none, the deputationist can be inducted into the service of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector only on the basis of the regularisation under the provisions of the U. P. Regularisation of Service on Posts (Falling within the Purview of the public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 treating their services as on ad hoc. In case, however, there did exist any statutory Rule, Regulations or Order having the force of law providing for absorption, in that event, the question of seniority will be clinched with reference to the provisions embodied in such statutory Rules, Regulations or Orders. The State Government, while finalising the seniority list of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, Grade II, will bear in mind these questions besides the related provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants seniority Rules, 1991. ( 10 ) SO far as the office communication dated 17. 8. 2000 impugned in Writ Petition Nos. 38807 of 2000, and 37040 of 2000 is concerned, the Government by means of the said office communication, has partly allowed the representations of certain officers in respect of inter se seniority in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment Tax but the same has been subordinated to the decision of Writ Petition No. 36422 of 1991, Writ Petition No. 2570 of 1985 and 18552 of 2000 the necessary corollary of which is that the impugned office memorandum dated 17. 8. 2000 would be resilient to modification depending upon the seniority-list-to-be-finalised of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, Grade II which is to be finalised in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Similarly, the seniority list of District entertainment Tax Officers circulated vide order dated July 21, 1999 impugned in Writ Petition no. 36407 of 1991 is subject to final seniority list of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, grade II. The appointment to the post of District Entertainment Tax Officer is made from amongst the Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, Grade I in consultation with the Public service Commission. 36407 of 1991 is subject to final seniority list of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, grade II. The appointment to the post of District Entertainment Tax Officer is made from amongst the Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, Grade I in consultation with the Public service Commission. In case, therefore, the seniority list of Entertainment and Betting Tax inspector is correctly decided, there would be no difficulty in fixing inter se seniority of assistant Commissioners Entertainment Tax as well as that of the District Entertainment Tax officer. Since the impugned seniority list of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, Grade II is only provisional, we consider it unnecessary to delve into the merits of the seniority list of district Entertainment Tax Officer and that of Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment Tax. ( 11 ) NOTIFICATION dated 21. 8. 2000 impugned in Writ Petition No. 38807 pertains to the promotion of certain Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment Tax to the post of Deputy Commissioner, entertainment Tax. This notification will again be liable to be modulated depending upon the final seniority list of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector. Grade II inasmuch as the notification dated 21. 8. 2000 has been made subordinate to the decision of the writ petition in which validity of the provisional seniority list of Entertainment, and Betting Tax Inspector, grade II has been canvassed. In considering the question of promotion, regard shall be had to the provisions of Rule 4 of the U. P. Government Servants Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion rules, 1994 as amended up-to-date. In the circumstances, we veer round to the view that the ends of justice would be best attained if we dispose of the writ petition attended with the direction that in case any objection is filed within a month from today challenging the correctness of the provisional seniority list of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, Grade II, the same shall be traversed upon and taken into reckoning while finalising the seniority list of entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, Grade II. The seniority list of District Entertainment tax Officer and that of the Assistant Entertainment Tax Officer as well as promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Entertainment Tax would, if necessary, be permuted in the light of the final seniority list of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector. Grade II within a period of four months. The seniority list of District Entertainment tax Officer and that of the Assistant Entertainment Tax Officer as well as promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Entertainment Tax would, if necessary, be permuted in the light of the final seniority list of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector. Grade II within a period of four months. It may be clarified that in so far as legality of promotion is concerned, the same may be scanned keeping in view the criterion for promotion. In case the criterion for promotion is seniority subject to rejection of unfit, the seniority will be given precedence. To rephrase it, if seniority in feeder cadre is found to have been wrongly fixed, the promotion on the basis of wrong seniority cannot be upheld. See Anand Kumar v. Prem Singh and others, 2000 (3) ESC 1953 (SC ). In case, however, the criterion for promotion is merit or merit-cum-suitability, merit will be given precedence. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the directions contained in the body of this judgment. .