A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE issue, namely, seniority list of Officers of Junior Management Scale I (OJM-I) issued in Staff Circular No. 13/2000-01 dated 21-10-2000, involved in all the three writ petitions is common. Hence, they are being disposed by this common order. ( 2 ) IN WP No. 21445 of 2000, petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed as Branch Managers in the 2nd respondent-Bank on 4-11-1985 and they joined in the said post on the same day. The 3rd petitioner, who was appointed as Branch Manager in the same bank on 3-11-1986 also joined in the said post on the same day. Ever since their appointment they are continuing as such, whereas respondents 3 to 6 were joined in service on 11-12-1985, 18-11-1985, 12-11-1986 and 14-11-1986 respectively. Basing upon the same in service particulars of Branch Managers as on 31-12-1988 petitioners 1 to 3 were shown at Sl. No. 55, 57 and 72 respectively whereas respondents 3 to 6 were shown at Sl. Nos. 64, 63, 73 and 74 respectively. The Seniority List of Branch Managers as on 1-4-1991 was issued in Staff Circular No. 6/91-92 dated 13-5-1991, in which petitioners 1 to 3 were shown at Sl. Nos. 48, 49 and 71, whereas respondents 3 to 6 were shown at Sl. Nos. 64, 63, 73 and 74 respectively. Meanwhile, on the instructions contained in para-25 of the Working Group Report on RRBs. a combined seniority list of Branch Managers and Field Supervisors was also prepared under Staff Circular No. 26/93-94 dated 18-1-1994 in which petitioners 1 to 3 were shown at S1. Nos. 42, 43 and 65 whereas respondents 3 to 6 were shown at Sl. Nos. 58, 57, 66 and 67 respectively. Similarly in the Seniority List of Officers (OJM-I) as on 1-4-1997 was issued in Staff Circular No. 12/ 97-98 dated 23-2-1998 in which petitioners 1 to 3 were shown at Sl. Nos. 35, 36 and 58, whereas respondents 3 to 6 were shown at Sl. Nos. 51, 50, 59 and 60 respectively. While so, respondent-Bank issued Staff Circular No. 2/2000-01 dated 28-6-2000 informing that written test was conducted on 5-3-2000 for forty eligible officers for consideration of promotion from OJM I to MMG Scale II in which petitioners 1 to 3 were shown at sl. Nos. 14, 15 and 31, whereas respondents 3, 4 and 6 were shown at Sl. Nos. While so, respondent-Bank issued Staff Circular No. 2/2000-01 dated 28-6-2000 informing that written test was conducted on 5-3-2000 for forty eligible officers for consideration of promotion from OJM I to MMG Scale II in which petitioners 1 to 3 were shown at sl. Nos. 14, 15 and 31, whereas respondents 3, 4 and 6 were shown at Sl. Nos. 27, 26 and 32 respectively. Curiously Revised Seniority List of Officers of ONJ I Grade was issued in Staff Circular No. 5/2000-01 dated 1-8-2000 in which petitioners were shown at Sl. Nos. 18,19 and 41 whereas respondents 3 to 6 were shown at S1. Nos. 9, 17, 34 ad 40 respectively and representations were called for on the above said revised seniority list on or before 10-8-2000. The petitioners submitted their objections on 9-8-2000, 4-8-2000 and 5-8-2000 respectively and filed WP No. 14857 of 2000 questioning the provisional Seniority List dated 1-8-2000. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Bank, it was stated that revised Seniority List dated 1-8-2000 was only provisional and vide Circular No. 7/2000-01 dated 14-8-2001 time was extended for filing representations/objections by the aggrieved staff member. In the meanwhile without considering the representations, the 2nd respondent-Bank issued final Seniority List vide Staff Circular No. 13/2000-01 dated 21-10-2000 confirming the Seniority List dated 1-8-2000. In view of the same, the said writ petition was disposed of on 30-10-2000 with a liberty to the petitioners to question the final revised Seniority List dated 21-10-2000. Questioning the final Seniority List the present writ petition is filed stating that by the impugned Seniority List dated 21-10-2000 showing the petitioners juniors to the unofficial respondents is arbitrary and illegal and seek alteration of the same after a long lapse of time basing upon the observation made in the interim order granted by this Court in WPMP 28676 of 1999 is unwarranted and the same is contrary to Regulations 13 (1) (a), 7 and 13 (3) of the Staff Service Regulations, 1982. ( 3 ) IT is contended that consideration of fixation of seniority is only date of appointment but not date of joining as such. In view of the fact that all the petitioners joined earlier to the un-official respondents, they were rightly shown as seniors in the service particulars of Branch Managers on 31-5-1988 and also in the Seniority Lists published in the years 1991, 1994 and 1998. In view of the fact that all the petitioners joined earlier to the un-official respondents, they were rightly shown as seniors in the service particulars of Branch Managers on 31-5-1988 and also in the Seniority Lists published in the years 1991, 1994 and 1998. Once the Seniority List had become final it cannot be reopened pursuant to interim order granted by this Court. Therefore, ranking theory, which was adopted by the respondent-Bank for fixation of seniority, is contrary to regulations and the same is liable to set aside. ( 4 ) IN WP No. 14910 of 2000, the petitioner was selected for the post of Officers Scale I in 1985 along with 34 persons including the petitioners in WP Nos. 21445 of 2000 and 22876 of 1999 and joined duty on 18-11-1985. In the Seniority List of 1994 he was shown at Sl. No. 51 instead of 37. Likewise, in the Seniority List of 1998 he was shown at Sl. No. 49 instead of 30 and in the Provisional Seniority List dated 1-8-2000 he was shown at Sl. No. 27 instead of 12. The 2nd respondent-Bank issued Circular dated 11-12-1999 proposing to fill up the vacancies in Officers Scale II. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for written test and came out successfully. The petitioner and others who were successful in the written test were called for interview scheduled to be held on 18-8-2000. Meanwhile, the respondent published Revised Seniority List dated 1-8-2000 showing the petitioner at Sl. No. 27 instead of 12 on the ground of extension of his probation. The same is not in accordance with the law declared by this Court interpreting similar regulation. Unless the petitioner is given correct position in the Seniority List, he cannot get promotion, as there are only 10 vacancies. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition questioning the rank assigned to him in Seniority List dated 1-8-2000 and for a direction for correct placement in the Seniority List on the basis of rank assigned to him at the time of recruitment. ( 5 ) IN WP No. 22876 of 1999 the petitioner, who was selected along with others through proceedings dated 19-10-1985, joined in service on 11-12-1985. Though he required to join duty between 28-10-1985 and 2-11-1985 since he was working in Manjeera Grameena Bank he sought time for joining and for relieving from the previous employment. ( 5 ) IN WP No. 22876 of 1999 the petitioner, who was selected along with others through proceedings dated 19-10-1985, joined in service on 11-12-1985. Though he required to join duty between 28-10-1985 and 2-11-1985 since he was working in Manjeera Grameena Bank he sought time for joining and for relieving from the previous employment. Accordingly, extension was granted in his favour and after relieving from the Manjeera Grameena Bank he joined in the respondent-Bank on 11-12-1985. According to him, 1985 batch candidates names start from 26 and probably his name would be 5th or 6th in the merit list. But as per the Seniority List dated 23-2-1998 he was placed at Sl. No. 51. The rank assigned to him in the Seniority List is based only on the date of joining which is contrary to Regulation 13 (2) of the Staff Regulations. He filed WP MP No. 28676 of 1999 and obtained interim order from this Court to consider his objections strictly in accordance with Regulation 13 (2 ). Basing upon the same, the Seniority List is now revised and he was shown at Sl. No. 9. ( 6 ) RESPONDENT-BANK filed a counter stating that ranking was allotted at the time of their recruitment and all the officers are governed by Sangameshwara Grameena Bank Staff Service Regulations. As per Regulation 13 (2) of the Staff Regulations, the Seniority List of the Officers has to be prepared basing upon the ranking at the time of recruitment. Whenever the probation of the Officer is extended, he will take the last position as per Regulation 13 (3) of the Staff Regulations. The Final Seniority List issued under Staff Circular No. 13/2000-01, dated 21-10-2000 is strictly in accordance with the above regulations and the same is in order. The Seniority List issued in Staff Circular No. 6/91-92 dated 13-5-1991 was prepared taking into account the joining date as the basis. As per the instructions contained in para-25 of Working Group Report on RRBs. a combined seniority list of Branch managers and Field Supervisors was also prepared on 18-1-1994 and subsequently Seniority List under Staff Circular No. 12/ 97-98 dated 23-2-1998 was issued. All the above Seniority Lists were prepared basing on the joining date of the Officers concerned in the Bank. a combined seniority list of Branch managers and Field Supervisors was also prepared on 18-1-1994 and subsequently Seniority List under Staff Circular No. 12/ 97-98 dated 23-2-1998 was issued. All the above Seniority Lists were prepared basing on the joining date of the Officers concerned in the Bank. While so, one Officer G. Mohan Reddy filed WP No. 22876 of 1999 questioning the basis for the Seniority List and this Court by its order dated 3-11-1999 in WP MP No. 28676 of 1999 directed the Bank to dispose of the representation dated 30-8-1999 filed by the petitioner therein against the Seniority List in the light of Regulation 13 (2) of the Staff Service Regulations. In view of the same, matter was referred to sponsoring Bank namely, State Bank of India, and it has expressed its opinion that all the Grameena Banks have to follow Regulation 13 (2) while fixing the seniority of the direct recruit officers. In view of the above rule position Revised Seniority List was issued in Staff Circular No. 5/2000-01 dated 1-8-2000 strictly as per Regulation 13 (2) and (3) of the Staff Service Regulations. Provisionally all the officers were asked to submit objections if any by 10-8-2000, which date was extended subsequently. After considering the objections submitted by the affected persons, the Bank has issued the Final Seniority List dated 21-10-2000 under Staff Circular No. 13/ 2000-01. The claim of the petitioners that Seniority List has to be prepared basing on the joint date etc. , is not correct. The Seniority Lists issued earlier were revised in terms of Regulation 13 (2) and (3 ). Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any grievance. The Bank further stated in the counter that written test was conducted on 5-3-2000 for 40 officers for promotion to the post of MMG Scale II as per the Seniority List dated 23-2-1998 against the available vacancies at the ratio 1:4. The Seniority List is strictly in accordance with the statutory rules and also as per the law declared by the Apex Court. In view of the interim order granted by this Court dated 9-11-2000 there is lot of inconvenience and no promotions have been effected. ( 7 ) SRI B. Krishna Mohan, learned Counsel for petitioners in WP No. 21445 of 2000 contends as follows: 1. In view of the interim order granted by this Court dated 9-11-2000 there is lot of inconvenience and no promotions have been effected. ( 7 ) SRI B. Krishna Mohan, learned Counsel for petitioners in WP No. 21445 of 2000 contends as follows: 1. Regulation 13 (2) of Service Regulations cannot be read in isolation but the same should be read along with Regulation 7. If both the regulations are combinedly interpreted the date of joining is only criteria for fixing the seniority. 2. The Seniority List, which was prepared as early as in the year 1991, 1994 and 1998, cannot be revised after a long lapse of time in the absence of any objections raised by the officers concerned. In the service particulars of Branch Managers issued on 31-5-1988 the Bank correctly interpreted Regulation 13 (2 ). The Bank harmoniously interpreted Regulation 13 (2) with that of Regulation 7 showing the petitioners as per their date of joining as referred above, the same is continued in the subsequent Seniority List dated 13-5-1991, 18-1-1994 and 23-2-1998. In view of the same, the said ranking which was shown 15 years back cannot be unsettled after a long lapse of time. By elaborating the same he contends that appointment order which was given to the petitioners is earlier to that of the un-official respondents 3 to 6 and the services of the person commences on the date which he reports to duty. As the unofficial respondents reported to duty subsequently, their services do not count for probation earlier than the petitioners. In view of the same, they cannot count their service prior to joining in service. In support of the same, he places strong reliance in Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union of India, (2000) 8 SCC 25 = AIR 2000 SC 2808 and B. S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab, (1998) 2 SCC 523 . Respondent No. 3 never sought permission to join duty at a later date, therefore, he is not entitled to claim seniority basing upon ranking assigned by the Selection Committee. Respondent No. 3 never sought permission to join duty at a later date, therefore, he is not entitled to claim seniority basing upon ranking assigned by the Selection Committee. The settled position of seniority cannot be revised after a long lapse of time by placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Balwant Singh, (1996) 9 SCC 209 ; K. V. Subba Rao v. A. P. State Electricity Board, 1997 (4) ALD 567 and C. Navaneeswara Ready v. Government of A. P. , AIR 1998 SC 939 . ( 8 ) SRI B. G. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Bank contended that all the officers who were recruited in the year 1985 were assigned seniority basing upon the ranking assigned to them in the selection by the Selection Committee. Earlier Seniority Lists i. e. , 13-5-1991, 18-1-1994 and 23-2-1998 were prepared by following Regulation 13 (1) which is not applicable to officers who are directly recruited which will be applicable to officers who are on promotion, whereas Regulation 13 (2) applies to direct recruits. In view of the clarification given by the Sponsoring Bank i. e. , State Bank of India, Seniority List was revised keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in Chairman, Pun Graraya Bank v. Ananda Chandra Das, (1994) 6 SCC 301 and he also contended that the Seniority List issued earlier in 1991, 1994 are provisional but they are not final as such. In view of the same, no vested right is conferred on the petitioners to claim seniority basing on the same, which is contrary to Regulation 13 (2 ). WP No. 22876 of 1999 is filed questioning the ranking assigned in the Seniority List of 1998. This Court in WP MP No. 28678 of 1999 directed to consider and dispose of the representation in the light of Regulation 13 (2 ). In view of the same, keeping in mind the rule position and also the law declared by the Apex Court, Provisional Seniority List dated 1-8-2000 was prepared and after calling objections from the respective parties final Seniority List was also prepared and the same is strictly in accordance with the rule position which do not warrant any interference of this Court. ( 9 ) SRI K. V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioner in WP No. 22876 of 1999 and respondent No. 3 in WP No. 21445 of 2000 contends that on selection of R3, he was appointed by appointment order dated 19-10-1985 calling upon him to join duty on 2-11-1985. As the petitioner was working earlier in Manjeera Grameena Bank, unless he relieved from the previous employment he cannot join in new service. Therefore, he sought extension of time for joining. After granting time by the Bank, he joined on 11-12-1985. He also contends that Seniority Lists prepared in 1991, 1994 and 1998 are provisional only. In view of the objections raised by him this Court directed to dispose of the representation, strictly in accordance with the regulations. There is no laches on the part of respondent No. 3 in questioning the provisional Seniority List, which was issued in 1998. In view of the fact that all the Seniority Lists issued earlier are provisional and unless they are finalised no right is accrued to the petitioners to claim settled seniority list cannot be questioned. ( 10 ) SRI Vedula Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No. 14910 of 2000 contends that the petitioner who was appointed along with 34 others joined duty on 8-11-1985. He was assigned the seniority as per Regulation 13 (2 ). The seniority of the officer directly recruited in a batch shall be reckoned with reference to the ranking allotted to them at the time of recruitment. Clause (3) of Regulation 13 was interpreted by this Court in Chaitanya grameena Bank v. S. V. L Narayana, 1999 (1) ALD 627 = 1999 (1) ALT 550 , wherein this Court held that merely because extension of probation he will not lose his seniority and his seniority shall be reckoned as per the original merit rank. The representation made by the petitioner was never considered, whereas the representation made by the petitioner in WP No. 22876 of 2000 was considered and as per the directions of this Court pending writ petition the ranking assigned to him earlier was rectified and the similar benefit is not extended to the petitioner herein inspite of orders granted by this Court. Therefore, mere extension of probation will not entail the respondent bringing him down bottom of the Seniority List. Therefore, mere extension of probation will not entail the respondent bringing him down bottom of the Seniority List. ( 11 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions it is relevant to reproduce Regulations 7 and 13, which are set out as under: 7. Commencement of Service:service of a person appointed in the Bank shall commence on the working day on which he reports for duty on a post in accordance with the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment made to him: provided that in the event of his joining in the afternoon of the working day, he shall not be entitled to draw pay and allowance for that day. 13. Seniority: (1) (a) Seniority of an officer or employee of the Bank in a grade or scale shall be reckoned with reference to the date of his appointment in that grade or scale. (b) Where there are two or more officers of the same length of service in that grade or scale, their inter seniority shall be reckoned with reference to their grade or scale of the previous cadre to which they belong in the Bank s service. (c) Where there are two or more officers of the same length of services of such cadre of scale or sub previous cadre their seniority shall be determined with reference to their seniority in the immediately preceding grade or scale or cadre as the case may be. (2) The inter seniority of officers or employees directly recruited in a batch to any grade or scale shall be reckoned with reference to the rank allotted to them at the time of such recruitment. (3) In the case of an officer or employee whose probation has been extended, his seniority shall be reckoned just below all the officers or employees, if any, recruited or promoted in the same batch along with him. ( 12 ) THE special facts as they appear from the judgments relied upon by Mr. Krishan Mohan are under different context. (3) In the case of an officer or employee whose probation has been extended, his seniority shall be reckoned just below all the officers or employees, if any, recruited or promoted in the same batch along with him. ( 12 ) THE special facts as they appear from the judgments relied upon by Mr. Krishan Mohan are under different context. The Apex Court in Balwant Singh s case (supra) while considering the effect of status quo granted by the Court on the ad hoc appointees held that due to which the respondents could not join in service as they have not taken any action for impleading themselves in the pending writ petition nor filed any separate writ petition claiming for their appointment and they were appointed after dismissal of the writ petition nearly after 13 years and the Court also observed that seniority of the individuals would be determined with reference to the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee. ( 13 ) THIS Court in K. V. Subba Rao s case (supra) considered the grievance of the petitioner whose request for revision of seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineer by placing him above the respondents was rejected by the APSEB, which was impugned in the said writ petition. While considering the relative merits of the case this Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not raised any protest in making any grievance when first four persons were promoted as Executive Engineers, and when he was regularly promoted to Executive Engineer later and he was further promoted to Superintending Engineer. On those two occasions also he heving accepted and kept quite for all the years raised the issue for the first time after 13 years. In those circumstances, this Court held that such a belated grievance after 13 years regarding alleged overlooking of seniority cannot be entertained. ( 14 ) THE Apex Court in Rabindranath v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 470 , while considering the inordinate delay held that it would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have accrued to them after a long lapse of 15 years when a challenge is made. ( 14 ) THE Apex Court in Rabindranath v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 470 , while considering the inordinate delay held that it would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have accrued to them after a long lapse of 15 years when a challenge is made. That writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the Officers of the Income Tax Department complaining that Government in breach of the rules governing the service of Income-tax Officers Class I Grade II appointed respondents 6 to 39. Their initial appointments were irregular and illegal being outside the quota prescribed by Government for regulating recruitment to the service. Not only were they thus illegally absorbed into service but were also given preferential treatment in the matter of seniority in Class I Grade II itself and for further promotion to higher grades by framing rules which were discriminatory and which made hostile discrimination against Class I direct recruits like the petitioners by virtue of change in 1952 Seniority Rules. As the challenge was made nearly after 15 years the Supreme Court held that accrued rights of the respondents cannot be unsettled after a along lapse of time. ( 15 ) SIMILARLY the Apex Court in B. S. Bajwa s case (supra) held that the question of seniority should not be reopened after a lapse of reasonable period. ( 16 ) THIS Court in WA No. 1181 of 1997 held that sub-rule (1) (a) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 makes it abundantly clear that the seniority of an officer or employee of the bank in any grade or scale has to be reckoned with reference to the date of his appointment in that grade or scale; where number of officers are employed by direct recruitment, their inter se seniority in a batch to any grade or scale will have to be reckoned with reference to the ranks allotted at the time of such recruitment. ( 17 ) THE Apex Court in Puri Gramya Bank s (supra) held as follows: ". . . By mere fortuitous chance of reporting to duty earlier would not alter the ranking given by the Selection Board and the arranged one as per roaster. ( 17 ) THE Apex Court in Puri Gramya Bank s (supra) held as follows: ". . . By mere fortuitous chance of reporting to duty earlier would not alter the ranking given by the Selection Board and the arranged one as per roaster. The High Court is, therefore, wholly wrong in its conclusion that the seniority shall be determined on the basis of the joining reports given by the candidates selected for appointment by direct recruitment and length of service on its basis. " ( 18 ) THE decisions relied upon by Mr. B. Krishna Mohan support his argument in general terms but are distinguishale on account of statutory rule for fixation of inter se seniority of persons directly recruited in a batch. Admittedly, in the present case it is not in dispute that the petitioners as well as un-official respondents 3 to 6 were selected in the year 1985 by the Selection Committee and combined merit list of the officers was prepared on the basis of marks obtained in IBPS written test and interview in which petitioners were shown at Sl. Nos. 19, 21 and 40 whereas respondents 3 to 6 were shown at Sl. Nos. 5, 7, 31 and 34 respectively. No doubt, petitioners joined in the Bank earlier than the respondents, and in the service particulars of Branch Managers as on 31-5-1988 petitioners 1 to 2 were shown at Sl. Nos. 57 and 55, and petitioner No. 3 was shown at Sl. No. 72 whereas the respondents 3 to 6 were shown at Sl. N6s. 64, 63, 73 and 74 respectively basing upon the dates they joined in service. It is well settled proposition of law that mere chance to report duty earlier would not alter the ranking given by the Selection Committee and they cannot claim seniority over the persons who were placed above them on the basis of the highest marks obtained in the test. It is well known that while determining the seniority of an officer the date of his appointment is more important factor than the date of his joining. It is well known that while determining the seniority of an officer the date of his appointment is more important factor than the date of his joining. In many compelling circumstances a particular candidate may not be in a position to join immediately due to the distance at which he resides or ill-health, and is working in another employment, they have to necessarily take relieve orders or resign to their previous jobs by giving statutory notice as per the service regulations. In those circumstances, the persons who could not join duty within the prescribed time have to obtain permission from the appointing authority to join later. In the present case admittedly, the Bank through proceedings dated 19-10-1985 advised all the selected candidates of 1985 batch to join in service between 28-10-1985 to 2-11-1985. R-3 categorically stated as he was working in Manjeera Grameena Bank sought extension of time for joining which was accepted by the Bank and he joined within the extended period. Further the second respondent-Bank in its counter specifically stated the date of appointment is same for all the officers who were recruited in the year 1985 which fact is not denied by the petitioner by filing any reply-affidavit. It is therefore futile to contend that as petitioners in WP No. 21445/99 joined as Branch Managers on an earlier date, they were entitled to rank senior to respondents 3 to 6 irrespective of ranking assigned by the Selection Committee. Regulation 7 only speaks of commencement of service for drawing pay and allowances and nothing to do with the preparation of seniority list, whereas Regulation 13 (2) prescribes reckoning of seniority for direct recruited officers which clearly envisages that seniority shall be reckoned with reference to the rank allotted to them at the time of recruitment. In view of the same, merely because the officers joined later they will not step down in the rank assigned by the Selection Committee. At most, their services will be counted from the date of joining for the purpose of declaration of probation and for other monetary benefits but not for counting seniority. In view of the same the judgment in R. K. Saini v. Union of India (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel is misplaced. At most, their services will be counted from the date of joining for the purpose of declaration of probation and for other monetary benefits but not for counting seniority. In view of the same the judgment in R. K. Saini v. Union of India (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel is misplaced. As the appointment of the petitioners and respondents 3 to 6 was made on the same day, their seniority has to be counted as per the ranking assigned by the Selection Committee. (Satyabrata Dutta v. State of Assam, 1976 (1) SLR 795 and Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and others v. Union of India and others, 1996 (2) SLR 892 ). As seen from the Seniority Lists dated 13-5-1991 and 18-1-1994, it was clearly mentioned that any aggrieved employee may submit his representation/ objection before a specific date. Similarly, when Seniority List was published on 23-2-1993, it do not specify whether any objections were filed by the aggrieved employees and the same were taken note of. Immediately, the 3rd respondent filed WP No. 22876 of 2000 questioning that the Seniority List is not prepared in accordance with Regulation 13 (2) and this Court directed the respondent-Bank to consider the representation of the petitioner therein and prepare final Seniority List strictly in accordance with Regulation 13 (2 ). Basing upon the same provisional Seniority List was published on 1-8-2000 calling upon objections of the affected parties for which the petitioners filed their objections and they are considered and final Seniority List was published. In view of the same, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Seniority List dated 31-5-1988 has become final long back and the same cannot be revoked after a long lapse of time has no force. ( 19 ) IT is next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that even though the petitioners raised their objections to the Provisional Seniority List dated 1-8-2000 the same were not considered nor any reasons were assigned for rejecting the same by placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in C. Navaneeswara Reddy v. Government of A. P, (supra) and Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union of India (supra ). ( 20 ) THIS Court in WP MP No. 28676 of 1999 in WP No. 22876 of 1999 directed the respondents to consider the objections in the light of the Regulation 13 (2) of the Staff Service Regulations and finalise the Seniority List. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners as well as Respondent No. 3 filed objections. Final Seniority List was prepared on 21-10-2000 by elaborately discussing Regulation 13 (2) in para-8. In view of the same, the complaint of the petitioners that their objections were not considered in proper perspective cannot be accepted. ( 21 ) COMING to the controversy about fixing the seniority of the petitioner in WP No. 14190/2000 below the seniority of all officers recruited in the same batch under Regulation 13 (3) of the Staff Regulations is justified or not. ( 22 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner who was appointed along with 34 others, joined duty on 18-11-1985. Regulation 13 (2) envisages fixation of inter se seniority of officers directly recruited in a batch to any grade or scale shall be reckoned with reference to the ranking allotted to them by the Selection Committee at the time of recruitment. In other words, once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to Regulation 13 (2) his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. No doubt Regulation 13 (3) postulates that if the probation of an officer is extended, his seniority shall be reckoned just below all the officers or employees if any, recruited or promoted in the same batch along with him. Regulation 7 prescribes commencement of service on the working day on which he reports for duty. Regulation 8 provides that every officer or employee shall be put on probation for a period of 2/1 year which shall be extendable for a period not exceeding 1 year/6 months. Regulation 9 provides confirmation of an officer or employee on satisfactorily completion of his probation. ( 23 ) WHEN once an appointment itself is made in accordance with law applicable to substantive appointment as in the present case and the determination of seniority has to be counted as per the ranking assigned by the Selection Committee at the time of recruitment, the same will be reflected in the Seniority List as per Regulation 13 (2 ). Merely because the probation of an officer is extended, that does not automatically result in reduction of length of his service and forego the seniority if he successfully completes the probation at a later dater. In view of the same, his seniority cannot be reduced by placing below the officers who were recruited in the same batch. The mere extension of probation only disentitles him to claim promoticn but does not reduce the length of service. If Regulations 13 (2) and 13 (3) harmoniously interpreted, the only plausible conclusion that will emerge is if the initial appointment made was de hors the rules, the entire length of such service cannot be counted for seniority. In other words, the appointee will become a member of the service in substantive capacity from the date of his appointment only. If the appointment is made according to the regulations, seniority would be counted from that date. If in case the appointment is made by way of ad hoc or stop gap arrangement due to administrative exigencies for want of vacancies or suitability, probation is extended, in such cases only such appointee will take the last rank among the approved probationers but not otherwise. In view of the same, Regulation 13 (2) and 13 (3) will operate in different fields as stated above. Any interpretation made otherwise will mount to violence to the seniority rule, which should be discouraged. In view of the same, once the Rule 13 (2) postulates the determination of seniority on the ranking assigned at the time of initial recruitment in a particular grade or scale merely because the probation of an officer has been extended he will not loose his seniority which was assigned to him as per Regulation 13 (2 ). ( 24 ) THE Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607 , summed up the principle for fixation of seniority in para 47, which reads as follows: (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. (B) to (K) x x x x ( 25 ) THIS Court also had an occasion to consider the identical issue in Chaitanya Grameena Bank v. S. V. L. Narayana, 1999 (1) ALT 550 . While considering the same, this Court held that Regulation 13 (3) of the Staff Regulations is contrary to the reason and arbitrary. ( 26 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, the petitioner in WP No. 14910/2000 is entitled to proper placement in the Seniority List as per the ranking assigned to him at the time of recruitment and respondent-bank shall issue notice to all concerned persons who are likely to be affected by giving placement to the petitioner in the Seniority List and shall amend the Seniority List accordingly. ( 27 ) IN the result, WP No. 21445/2000 is dismissed. WP No. 14910/2000 is allowed as indicated above. In view of the revision of Seniority List as per Regulation 13 (2) and the petitioner was assigned seniority as per the ranking allotted to him at the time of recruitment, no further orders are required to be passed in WP No. 22876/99 and the same is accordingly closed.