J.N. Sarma, J.— We have heard all the writ appeals analogously as they are against the common judgment dated 16.5.97 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CRs 673 of 1994,512 of 1988,822 of 1994,520 of 1996,521 of 1996, 332 of 1995,235 of 1993,525 of 1995,49 of 1996,1145 of 1996,904 of 1996 and 780 of 1996. 2. We have heard Mr. N. Kotishwar Singh, learned counsel for appellants in WAs 88 of 1997,92 of 1997,93 of 1997 and Mr. NPC Singh, learned counsel for appellants in WAs 82 of 1997,85 of 1997, 86 of 1997, 87 of 1997,91 of 1997 and 105 of 1997. Other Advocates did not appear in the respective appeals. We have heard Mr. HNK Singh, learned counsel for respondents in WAs 82 of 1997,88 of 1997 and Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for respondents in WAs 91 of 1997 and also Mr. HS Paonam, learned counsel for respondent Nos 1 and 19 in WA 85 of 1997, none appears for the State of Manipur. 3. WAs 92 of 1997 has been filed by 2 persons who were the respondents 4 and 10 in CR 520 of 1995. WA 91 of 1997 has been filed by the persons who were respondents 2 and 19 in CR 904 of 1996. In WA 85 of 1997 the appellants were the respondents 9 and 13 in CR 332 of 1995. The, respondents 10 and 16 have filed WA 88 of 1997. WA 105 of 1997 has been filed by 3 persons who were respondents in the respective civil rule. WA 122 of 1997 has been filed by the persons who were the respondents 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 in CR 673 of 1994. WA 86 of 1997 has been filed by the appellants who were the respondents 9 and 11 in CR 520 of 1995. In WA 87 of 1997 the appellants are the respondents 9 and 11 in CR 521 of 1995. The appellants in WA 130 of 1997 are the respondents in the respective civil rule. WA 150 of 1997 has been filed by the appellant who were the respondent No. 21 in CR 673 of 1994. 4. In WA 87 of 1997 the appellants are the respondents 9 and 11 in CR 521 of 1995. The appellants in WA 130 of 1997 are the respondents in the respective civil rule. WA 150 of 1997 has been filed by the appellant who were the respondent No. 21 in CR 673 of 1994. 4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order and judgment dated a 16.5.97 rejected the civil rule being CR 822 of 1994 as the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility condition of the RR for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. That part of the judgment is upheld as a matter of fact, there is no appeal against that part of the order at para 7 of the judgment and as such that part of the judgment shall hold the field. 5. In all the CRs the final seniority list has been challenged. In CR 780 of 1996 the petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 3.8.96 (Annexure A/4) by which respondents 3,4 and 5 were allowed to hold the charge of the post of Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department on the ground that he is senior to respondents 3,4 and 5 and therefore the said respondents should not have been allowed to hold the charges of the post of Executive Engineer c superseding the petitioner. In para 38 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge has inter alia held as follows : “Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated above and after considering the arguments made by the learned counsel of all the parties, I am of the opinion that the final seniority list of the Assistant Engineers published by the State Govt on 23.10.93 should be quashed. Accordingly the final seniority list of d AEs published by Govt on 23.10.93 is quashed. The respondent, State Govt is directed to prepare the seniority list of the petitioner promotee Assistant Engineers and Direct Recruits AEs of 1980, 1981 and 1982 batches according to the quota of vacancies reserved for promotee Assistant Engineers and Direct Recruit AEs. The State Govt is further directed to ascertain the vacancy position of the post of AEs from the year 1975 to 1983 and quota reserved for promotees and direct recruit for e the aforesaid years. The State Govt is further directed to ascertain the vacancy position of the post of AEs from the year 1975 to 1983 and quota reserved for promotees and direct recruit for e the aforesaid years. While fixing the relative seniority of promotees and direct recruit AEs the State Govt is directed to follow the following principles : (a) The seniority of the petitioner promotee AE shall be counted from the date of their regularisation. In other words, their seniority shall be counted from the date of their initial appointment as AE on ad hoc basis; (b) The seniority of the direct recruit Assistant Engineer shall be counted from the date of their regular appointment in the post of Assistant Engineers; (c) A calendar year shall be taken as unit for fixing the seniority between promotee and direct recruits and quota reserved for promotee and direct recruits shall be filled up by rotation of vacancies; Explanation: for fixing seniority between direct recruits and promotees for a year, the seniority list should be prepared after showing three promotees senior to two direct recruits and thereafter again three promotees and the two direct recruits and so on; (d) In the year 1975 there is only promotee Assistant Engineer. If there is any vacancy in that year in the quota of promotee, then he should be entertained against the post for that year. If no vacancy is available, his seniority may be shown in the subsequent year when vacancy is available. Similarly, in the year, 1978 there is one promotee AE and there is no direct recruit. If vacancy is available in the quota of promotee he may be entertained against the post in the year 1978. If no vacancy is available he may be entertained in subsequent year when vacancy is available under promotion quota and seniority be entertained accordingly. In 1979, there six promotees AEs. If vacancy is available in the quota of promotees during the year, 1979, then they may be accommodated in that year, 1979, if vacancies are not available they may be entertained in the subsequent year when vacancies are available under the quota of promotees and seniority be determined accordingly. For the years, 1980 and 1982 there are promotee AEs and direct recruit AEs. Their seniority may be fixed according to the quota of vacancies reserved for each categories in the aforesaid years. For the years, 1980 and 1982 there are promotee AEs and direct recruit AEs. Their seniority may be fixed according to the quota of vacancies reserved for each categories in the aforesaid years. If, however, the quota for promotee is not available, during the aforesaid years they may be entertained in subsequent year when vacancy for promotee will be available and their seniority be fixed accordingly. (e) If the four AEs are promoted in the post of EEs in pursuance of the decision of the High Court in CR 660 of 1992, then their seniority should not be reopened and they seniority may be shown in the grand of EE. (f) The State Govt is directed to prepare a fresh seniority list of Assistant Engineers as per the above guidelines within a period of three months from today.” Hence, these writ appeals. 6. Let us first take up the appeals argued by Mr. N. Kotishwar Singh, learned counsel being Was 88 of 1997,92 of 1997 and 93 of 1997. His argument briefly is as follows: 1. The direct recruits were appointed as Assistant Engineers on regular basis on the recommendation of MPSC in the year 1980. Hence the seniority of the direct recruits are to be counted wef 1980. 2. The promotee Assistant Engineers had filed several writ petitions collectively and in individual capacities claiming seniority w.e.f. the date of initial appointment as AE on ad hoc basis/the dates on which they became eligible for promotion. Earlierthere was another final seniority list of AEs which was framed in the year 1984, in which the direct recruits were included. However, the promotees were not included in the said seniority list as they were not yet appointed as AEs on regular basis. Final seniority list of the Assistant Engineers was framed on 27.10.93 which was quashed by the learned Single Judge. In the said seniority list, the direct recruits are placed at SI No. 5 to 20 whereas the promotees were placed between SI No. 21 and 49. The basis for the claim of the promotees over the direct recruits is that no DPCs were held for a long time between 1979 and 1987, thus denying them the opportunity of regular promotion in the grade of AE. The basis for the claim of the promotees over the direct recruits is that no DPCs were held for a long time between 1979 and 1987, thus denying them the opportunity of regular promotion in the grade of AE. If the claim of the promotees for seniority w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment as AE is allowed, they will supersede the direct recruits who were appointed on regular basis to the promotees seven years before. The direct recruits main contention is that because of certain prevailing situation it was not possible to hold the DPC during 1980-1982 or to regularise the service of the present promotees at that time. As such even if DPC were to be held after 1982, the promotees can not claim seniority over the direct recruits. 3. That among the Section Officers, there were many who were very senior to the present promotees who were appointed during 1966,1970-1972 and holding the post of AE on ad hoc basis till 1980-1982. The AEs who were regularised in the year 1980-1982, were very much senior to these present promotees and appointed as AE on ad hoc basis much earlier to the present promotees. The present promotees could not have claimed any precedence over these seniors for regularisation during 1980. 4. It is not clear that all the promotees were appointed on ad hoc basis against promotion quota. Till 1980-1982, there were as many as 29 ad hoc AEs who were regularised as AEs during 1980-1982. By order dated 9.7.79 33 SOs were appointed as ad hoc AEs including the present promotees. Thus, altogether there were as many as 62 promotee AEs as on 9.7.79, which is far in excess of the promotion quota. In the year 1980-1981 only 24 direct recruitment were made. As the ad hoc promotions were made in excess of the promotion quota, they can be said to be appointed as per rules, but in violation of the quota rule. 5. Apart from the regularisation of the senior SOs who were holding the post of AE on ad hoc basis for a long time and who were also holding the post of EE on ad hoc basis, regular vacancies could not be worked out properly in view of the impending trifurcation of the erstwhile PWD which started in 1980 and could be completed only in 1982. In the midst of the trifurcation, except for regular appointment to AE by invoking the exemption clause. Regulation No. 7 of the MPSC (Exemption from Consultation with MPSC) Regulations, it was not feasible to earmark the c respective vacant posts in the newly created three departments of IFCD, PWD and PHE. Therefore for not holding of DPC for promotion during 1980-1982 could not be found fault with because of the massive rearrangements taking place due to trifurcation of the erstwhile PWD into three independent departments. Further, even chalking out year wise vacancy of IFCD prior to the trifurcation of the PWD is impossible, as the posts of AE were inter transferable amongst the three departments within the PWD. 6. The holding of the DPC was not feasible nor practicable during the period of trifurcation (1980-1982) and as such the Govt carinot be blamed for the same as the process was a complicated and cumbersome. Even if the complaint against holding of DPC late in 1987 is accepted, it does not help the case of the promotees as DPC could not held in 1980-1982 because of genuine difficulties faced by the department. As even if the DPC had been held in 1982 or thereafter, the present promotees would still be junior to the direct recruits who were already AE in 1980 or regular basis. 7. Most of the promotees were considered by DPC for promotion earlier but they could not success themselves. Some of them even competed for appointment under direct recruit quota in 1980 along with the present direct recruits but were rejected by the MPSC. 8. The memorandum No. 22011/3/76-Estt (D) dated 24.12.80 issued by the Govt of India was adopted by the Govt of Manipur and that memorandum was followed by the DPC held on 28.3.87 in the matter of promotion by selection, for the recommen­dation of the present promotees provides that after preparing a consolidated select list by placing the select list of the earlier year above the one for the next and so on. The aforesaid memorandum further provides that while promotions will be made in g the order of the consolidated select list, such promotion will have only prospective effect, even in case where the vacancy relates to an earlier year. The aforesaid memorandum further provides that while promotions will be made in g the order of the consolidated select list, such promotion will have only prospective effect, even in case where the vacancy relates to an earlier year. The same principle is also incorporated in the revised instructions as contained in Govt of Manipur office memorandum No. 17/2/80 DP (1) dated 20.11.1982 which is presently applicable. As such the present promotees even if recommended against vacancies arising prior to 1987, the order of promotion will take prospective effect i.e. with effect from h the date of the order 26.9.87 by virtue of the aforesaid principle for fixing the date of effect of promotion 9. The Hon'ble Court refused to grant benefit of seniority with retrospective effect. The Govt also rightly fixed the seniority of the promotees from the dates of their regular appointment on the recommendation of the DPC while issuing order for retrospective regularisation. 7. Before we go the submissions, let us have a look at the orders passed by this Court in different civil rules earlier. In different civil rules, the Division Bench of Court from time to time passed the following orders: “In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Jacob's case, AIR 1990 SC 2228 we direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as regular Assistant Engineer from the date of his ad hoc appointment i.e. 9.7.79 and issue a notification accordingly within a month; The petitioner shall not be able to claim seniority on the basis of this order, which shall be determined in accordance with the service rules and other Govt instructions. In absence of such rules/instructions it shall be determined in accordance with the principle laid down by the Apex Court and this Court.” 8. The authority on 29.1.95 passed the following order with regard to 16 persons as mentioned in Annexure X/14 and that Annexure X/14 is quoted below: “Govt of Manipur::: Secretariat::: IFC Department Orders by the Govt of Manipur Imphal, the 29th January, 1995. The authority on 29.1.95 passed the following order with regard to 16 persons as mentioned in Annexure X/14 and that Annexure X/14 is quoted below: “Govt of Manipur::: Secretariat::: IFC Department Orders by the Govt of Manipur Imphal, the 29th January, 1995. No. 4/2/88-IFC: In pursuance of Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench's orders dated 6.7.88 in CR No. 162 of 1988, order dated 10.1.92 in CR No. 23 of 1992,24 of 1992,25 of 1992,26 of 1992,27 of 1992,28 of 1992, order dated 3.4.92 in CR No. 108 of 1992,109 of 1992,117 of 1992,118 of 1992,126 of 1992, order dated 6.4.92 in CR No.110 of 1992, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to give retrospective effect to the regularisation of the services of the following Assistant Engineers of the IFC Department, Manipur from the dates shown against their names. However, their seniority will be fixed as per rules ie with effect from the dates of their regular appointment made on the recommendation of DPC. SI Name of Reference No. for regular Date from which retrospective effect No. officers appointment by DPC is given as AE as per HC's order 1. L.LalchandSingh No.9/4/84EFC dt 26.9.87 16.8.75 2. KhDinachandraSingh -do- 9.7.79 3. TMunalSingh -do- 9.7.79 4. L.IbopishakSingh -do- 9.7.79 5. Khs. Kunjo Singh -do- 9.7.79 6. M Radheshyam Singh -do- 28.12.78 7. LPrabhasi Singh -do- 13.7.79 8. L.LukhoiSingh -do- 5.9.80 9. Y. Ibungohal Singh -do- 5.9.80 10. ChDwijamani Singh -do- 5.7.80 11. RNimaichand Singh -do- 13.2.79 12. LYaiskul Singh -do- 31.10.81 13. LRoskumarSingH -do- 31.10.81 14.A.BasantakumarSingh -do- 31.19.80 15. KhLala Singh -do- 31:10.81 16. LRabango Singh -do- 9.7.79 By Orders and in the name of the Governor, Sd/- Illegible (Letkhogin Haolip) Dy. Secretary (IFC), Government of Manipur” 9. The grievance of the writ petitioners are that once regularisation is made from a retrospective date as per the order of the Court, seniority also must be fixed from that date and it cannot be at the mercy of the authority ie of the DPC and for this purpose strong reliance is placed on (1990) 2 SCC 715 : AIR 1990 SC 1607 , Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association vs. State of Maharashtra). The two propositions quoted in para 18 of the judgment are quoted herein below : “(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 officiating 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 appointees continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.” It was urged before the learned Single Judge that it is this corollary 'B' quoted above which will apply in the case of the petitioners and that contention of the petitioner was accepted by the learned Judge. 10. The corollary 'A' and 'B' were considered by the Supreme Court in AIR 1991 SC 284 (Keshov Chandra Joshi vs. Union of India) and the Supreme Court in para 25 of the judgment laid down as follows : “..... propositions 'A' and 'B' cover different aspects of one situation. One £ must discern the difference critically. Proposition 'B' must, therefore, be read along with para 13 of the judgment wherein the ratio decidendi of Narendra Chadha was held to have considerable force. The later postulated that if the initial appointment to a substantive post or vacancy was made deliberately in disregard of the rule and allowed the incumbent to continue on the post for well over 15 to 20 years without reversion and still the date of regularisation of the service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service has to be counted towards seniority. This Court in Narendra Chadha's case was cognizant of the fact that the rules empower the Government to relax the rule for appointment. Without reading paragraph 13 and proposition 'B' and Narendra Chadha's ratio together the true import of proposition will not be appreciated....” 11. This Court in Narendra Chadha's case was cognizant of the fact that the rules empower the Government to relax the rule for appointment. Without reading paragraph 13 and proposition 'B' and Narendra Chadha's ratio together the true import of proposition will not be appreciated....” 11. This aspect of the matter was further considered in (1993) 3 SCC 371 (State of WB & others vs. Aghore Nath Dey & others); 1993 Supp (2) SCC 628 (Chief Engineer and Secretary, Engineering Department, UT, Chandigarh); (1996) 1 SCC 521 (Chief of Naval Staff & another vs. G. Gopalakrishna Pillai & others); (1999) 1 SCC 278 (UP Secretariat UDA Association & others vs. State of UP & others); (1998) 3 SCC 397 (Vyaya Kumar Shrotria vs. State of UP); (1998) 4 SCC 65 (Abraham Jocob vs. Union of India). The ratio of all the cases is that if the initial appointment is for a fixed period or as a stop gap arrangement, then corollary 'A' will apply. That is not the position in hand. The appointments herein were not by way of stop gap arrangement. No doubt it was in excess of quota as rightly urged by Mr. Kotishwar Singh, learned counsel and that itself will not wipe out the rights of the writ petitioners. Mr. Kotishwar, learned counsel also relies on the following decisions: (I) 1984 (Supp) SCC 359 (Union of India vs. HR Patankar), wherein the Supreme Court in para 4 of the judgment held as follows : “It is now well settled law that even if there are no statutory rules in force for determining seniority in a service or even if there are statutory rules but they are silent on any particular subject, it is competent to the Govt by an executive order to make appropriate seniority rules or to fill in the lacuna in the statutory rules by making an appropriate seniority rule in regard to the subject on which the statutory rules are silent...” (II) (1987) 4 SCC 566 (K. Madhavan & another vs. Union of India & others) wherein the Supreme Court in para 15 of the judgment held as follows: “The retrospective appointment or promotion to a post should be given most sparingly and on sound reasoning and foundation. But if the meeting of the D scheduled to be held is arbitrarily or mala fide cancelled without any reasonable justification therefore to the prejudice of an employee and he is not Considered for promotion to a higher post, the Govt in a suitable case can do justice to such an employee by granting him promotion or appointing him to the higher post for which the DPC was to be held, with retrospective effect so that he is not subjected to a lower position in the seniority list.” 12. Mr. Kotishwar, learned counsel further argues as follows: (i) It cannot be said certainly that the ad hoc promotion of the present promotees in the year 1979 were against promotion quota. Thus if the initial ad hoc promotion was not against promotion quota, the same is not as per rules; (ii) The ad hoc promotions were not made through any DPC or screening of all the eligible candidates. There was no element of consideration of merit, as the post of AE is selection post. Hence, the initial appointment on ad hoc basis is not as per rules; (iii) There is a specific rule which provides that the promotion will be prospective even for past vacancies. (iv) The initial ad hoc promotion was purely a stop gap arrangement; (v) The officiating/ad hoc appointment must be for a long period for the claim of seniority with retrospective effect which is not the case herein. 13. Regarding the contention so far Mr. Kotishwar Singh made we are of the view that it is under the wisdom and domain of the authority concerned to examine in the matter as to whether the ad hoc promotion of the present promotees in the year 1979 were against the promotion quota or not or whether- it was made for stop gap arrangement or not as because of the fact that all the related service papers/books/documents of those officers are with the State respondents. 14. On the other hand the respondents relies on the following decisions : (i) (1980) 3 See 393 (Amrik Singh & others vs. Union of India & others) wherein the Supreme Court held that even for administrative lapse, the concerned employee can not be victimized.. 14. On the other hand the respondents relies on the following decisions : (i) (1980) 3 See 393 (Amrik Singh & others vs. Union of India & others) wherein the Supreme Court held that even for administrative lapse, the concerned employee can not be victimized.. (ii) (1991) Suppl 2 SCO 363 (Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee & others vs. Union of India) wherein the Supreme Court held that an employees cannot be made to suffer on account of intervening events. (iii) (1983) 3 SCC 601 (A Janardhana vs. Union of India) wherein it has been laid down where there has been a break down in the enforcement of the quota rule and once the quota rules fails, the quota can no longer be enforced without causing prejudice to officers with longer periods of service in the cadre. (iv) (1997) 9 SCC 287 (Union of India & others vs. NR Banerjee & others) wherein it has been laid down that preparation of yearly panel is the requirement unless appointing authority certified about non-availability of vacancy or eligible candidates. (v) (1997) 3 SCC 118 (Vijay Singh Deora & others vs. State of Rajasthan & another) wherein it was held that temporary appointees, being qualified candidates at the time of their initial appointment, were entitled to seniority from the date of availability of substantive vacancies irrespective of the fact that they were confirmed subsequently. 15. In AIR 1999 SC 44 (Keshov Deo & another v. State of UP & others) wherein the Supreme Court considered the various judgments in para 8 the questions which were posed for consideration, that were answered in favour of the appellant. The questions posed for consideration are as follows: “I. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellants are entitled to seniority on the post of Assistant Engineers from the date they have been officiating as such or from the date they were selected and approved by the Commission? II. The questions posed for consideration are as follows: “I. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellants are entitled to seniority on the post of Assistant Engineers from the date they have been officiating as such or from the date they were selected and approved by the Commission? II. Whether the appellants can be deprived of the benefits of their officiating service prior to the approval of the Commission for the purpose of seniority in view of the fact that the delay in granting approval for making them regular on the post of Assistant Engineer was attributable to the State Govt and the Commission, as the appellants were fully qualified to be appointed and approved as Assistant Engineers even on the date, they were appointed to officiate as such? In para 26 of the judgment, the aforesaid questions were answered in favour of the appellants. This is quoted below : “We have no hesitation to hold that the impugned seniority list of 1995 prepared by the Govt pursuant to the directions contained in DN Saksena and VK Yadav is in accordance with the rules and cannot be interfered with on the ground that promotees have been given the benefit of their service in officiating capacity. The question is answered in favour of the appellants. As stated already, individual grievances against their placement in the list have to be agitated in appropriate forum. The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and it is set aside. The writ petition filed by respondents 3 and 4 is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs.” That appears to be the latest judgment on this point and it is squarely binding onus. 16. The other cases relied by the respondents are as follows: (i) AIR 1994 SC 2481 ; (ii) AIR 1990 SC 1607 ; (iii) (1993) 3 SCC 371 ; (iv) (1987) 4 SCC 566 ; (v) AIR 1994 SC 1527 ; (vi) AIR 1996 SC 638; (vii) AIR 1991 SC 1244 ; (viii) AIR 1994 SC 1223 ; (ix) AIR 1996 SC 644 . It is not necessary to discuss all the cases as almost all these cases have been discussed in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court quoted above. 17. In view of that matter, these writ appeals are disposed of with the following directions. 18. It is not necessary to discuss all the cases as almost all these cases have been discussed in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court quoted above. 17. In view of that matter, these writ appeals are disposed of with the following directions. 18. Before we part with the record, we make it clear that if any benefit has been given by way of promotion according to the rules on the basis of the seniority quashed by the learned Single Judge, that benefit shall not be wiped out and that shall hold the field as we do not want to make things tipsy curvy. We direct that the State respondents are at liberty to make a fresh seniority list if so advised in accordance with the guidelines given by this Court and the Apex Court or to fill up the vacant post of Executive Engineer as per related Service Rules and it is made clear that if there are some ad hoc appointees, that ad hoc appointees shall not be regularised however, their services shall not be disturbed till determination of such seniority and thereafter only if the persons come within the zone of consideration, their case also shall be taken into consideration as right to be considered for promotion has now been recognised as a fundamental right (see 1999 (3) GLT (SC) 1 Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab & others). That judgment is available at (1999) 7 SCC 209 and in paras 22 and 23 the Supreme Court has given the guidelines as follows: “22 .... The word 'employment' being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be 'considered' for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be 'considered' for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be 'considered' for promotion, which is his personal right. 'Promotion' based on equal opportunity and 'seniority' attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). 23. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be 'considered' for promotion, which is his personal right. 'Promotion' based on equal opportunity and 'seniority' attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). 23. Where promotional avenues are available seniority becomes closely inter linked with promotion provided such a promotion is made after complying which the principle of equal opportunity stated in Article 16(1). For example, if the promotion is by rule of 'seniority-cum-suitability', the eligible seniors at the basic level as per seniority fixed at that level and who are within the zone of consideration must be 'first considered for promotion and be promoted if found suitable. In the promoted category they would have to count their seniority from the date of such promotion because they get promotion through d process of equal opportunity: Similarly, if the promotion from the basic level is by selection or merit or any rule involving consideration of merit, the senior who is eligible at the basic level has to be considered and if found meritorious in comparison with others, he will have to be promoted first. If he is not found so meritorious, the next in order of seniority is to be considered and if found eligible and more meritorious than the first person in the seniority list, he should be promoted. In either case, the person who is first promoted will normally count his seniority from the date of such promotion, (there are minor modifications in various services in the matter of counting of seniority of such promotees but in all cases the senior most person at the basic level is to be considered first and then the others in the line of seniority.) That is how right to be considered for promotion and the 'seniority' attached to such promotion become important facets of the fundamental right guaranteed in Article 16 (1). Right to be considered for promotion is not mere statutory right.” The conclusion is at para 89 and that is quoted below : “89. It is axiomatic in service jurisprudence that any promotions made wrongly in excess of any quota are to be ad hoc. This applies to reservation quota as much as it applies to direct recruits and promotee cases. It is axiomatic in service jurisprudence that any promotions made wrongly in excess of any quota are to be ad hoc. This applies to reservation quota as much as it applies to direct recruits and promotee cases. If a Court decides that in order only to remove hardship such roster point promotees are not to face reversions, -then it would, in our opinion be, necessary to hold consistent with our interpretation of Article 14 and 16(1)- that such promotees cannot plead for grant of any additional benefit of seniority flowing from a wrong application of the roster. In our view while Courts can relieve immediate hardship arising out of a past illegality, Courts cannot grant additional benefits like seniority which have no element of immediate hardship. Thus, while promotions in excess of roster made before 10.2.1995 are protected, such promotees cannot claim seniority. Seniority in the promotional cadre of such excess roster point promotees shall have to be reviewed after 10.2.1995 and will count only from the date on which they would have otherwise got normal promotion in any future vacancy arising in a post previously occupied by a reserved candidate. That disposes of the 'prospectively' point in relation to Sabharwal.” 19. For the reasons, observations and direction made above, these writ appeals are disposed of. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge that merge with this judgment and order.