JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition preferred by Rajasthan Lecturers Association (School Education) & its 34 members (school lecturers), a writ of mandamus is sought to (a) strike down notification dt. 6.1.1989 (Ann2) in so far as its placed the teachers named in Schedule A & B to this petition as enbloc junior to the persons regularly appointed upto 6.1.1989; (2) assign seniority to these Schedule A & B teachers from their appointment date by virtue of regularisation of their service, as done in cases of teachers covered by proviso (3) to R.6(b) of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short "Rules, 1971"); and (3) quash all orders of the respondents passed pursuant to the notification of 6th January, 1989 against the petitioners during pendency of writ petition. 2. Initially this writ petition was preferred by the Rajasthan Lecturers Association (for short "Association") through its General Secretary, Treasurer & Organisation Secretary but on different applications, petitioner Nos. 4 to 35 were impleaded as petitioners party to the petition. The grievance and relief sought for in this petition pertains to these impleaded petitioners so also other adhoc teachers (school lecturers) named in the Schedule A & B to the petition. Schedule A relates to 58 adhoc science teachers who were appointed in between 1st July 1971 to 15th December, 1971 whereas Schedule B consists of 54 adhoc teachers who were appointed after 15.12.71 but upto 19.10.76 for temporary posts though likely to continue indefinitely for different science subjects viz. physics, chemistry, biology, maths & home science in Higher Secondary schools. It is their admitted case that their names were called from employment exchanges all over the State of Rajasthan in the year 1971 onwards and thereafter the Director Primary & Secondary Education (respondent No.2) as their appointing authority had appointed these petitioners as Senior Teachers (redesignated as Lecturers, School Education) according to the vacancies having arisen onwards 1971 on different dates as shown in Schedule A & B to this petition initially for a short term, which had been extended from time to time. Their service Rules came into force upon its publication in the Gazette on 27th November, 1971. 3. Their service Rules came into force upon its publication in the Gazette on 27th November, 1971. 3. It is also the case of these lecturers that the respondents have all along treated them at par with other regular employees in the matter of pay scales, grade increments, leave, provident fund and their services continued with concurrence of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission from time to time and therefore, their appointments were neither adhoc nor as stop gap arrangement. 4. Shri A.K. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though vide notification dt. 30.5.1973 with retrospective effect from 15.12.71 the State Government introduced an amendment in the Rules, 1971 by way of adding proviso III to Rule 6(b) so as to regularise services of such teachers having been working in an adhoc or officiating or temporary capacity on 31.12.72 and who continuously held the post for not less than six months on 15th December, 1971, which provided for screening of such teachers by a Committee envisaged in Rule 25 for adjudging their suitability and then for . giving seniority w.e.f. 15.12.71, but the State Government acted arbitrarily in providing for screening only for teachers having completed six months service upto 15.12.1971, whereas on the date of notification 30.5.73 several science teachers like the petitioners had already completed six months service but they were not screened, and thereby they were deprived of regularisation of their services in the year 1983, itself, only because of fortuituous circumstance of having not completed six months service on 15.12.1971 despite they having been appointed initially prior to publication of Rules, 1971 on 27.11.71. 5. Next contention urged by Shri A.K. Sharma is that despite persistent hard pressing representation to the Government for regularisation of services of teachers such as the petitioners, again the State Government inserted proviso (4)to R.6(b) of the Rules, 1971 vide notification dt. 6.1.89 (Ann.2) but without rhyme or reason discriminated the teachers (petitioners) named in Schedule A & B vis-a-vis teachers having been screened under proviso (3) to R.6(b) & then given seniority from 15.12.1971 whereas they (petitioners) have been assigned seniority only from 6.1.89, the date of impugned notification, meaning thereby they have been denied similar treatment while describing their appointment as adhoc as referred to in office order dt. 23.11.90 with a view to deprive them benefit of seniority by excluding their past service, while being denied retrospective operation to the impugned notification (Ann2) as was covered by earlier notification dt. 30.5.73 for the purpose of regularisation of about 13 to 18 years service and in this view of the matter, the action of the State Government is arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, Shri Akhil Simlot learned counsel for the respondents contended that merely because the petitioners possessed qualification it does not confer any right on the employees to be appointed on any post as substantively because for a regular selection or substantive appointment it is a condition precedent, the incumbent must be appointed in a selection process provided under the Rules, 1971. However, the petitioners named in Schedule A and B albeit were appointed initially only on adhoc basic but admittedly without having followed direct recruitment process as prescribed in Part IV of the Rules, 1971. According to Shri Simlot, no doubt, these petitioners were appointed against temporary vacancies or against ones likely to continue indefinitely and further they were granted some service benefits at par with regularly appointed employees like pay scales or revised ones, grade increments, leave, provident fund and State insurance benefits, but these are irrelevant factors for reckoning seniority or confirmation and promotion for which the employees like the petitioners must have held substantive appointment thereby a member of service as provided in Rule 2(i) of Rules, 1971 and that being so, since these petitioners were neither appointed substantively, nor they became members of the service under Rules, 1971, they are not at all entitled to get the benefits of seniority or promotion, on the anology pleaded by their counsel in this petition. 7. As regards concurrence of the Public Service Commission, Shri Simlot contended that such a concurrence was sought with a view to appoint on urgent temporary basis in exercise of powers under Rule 2B of Rules, 1971, but mere grant of concurrence by the Commission, nature of appointments of these petitioners would not alter automatically while once it is admitted fact that they were not at all having undergone selection or recruitment process as is required for regular & substantive appointment under Part IV of Rules, 1971. 8. 8. Lastly Shri Simlot contended that after 21 years of the amendment made in May, 1973 in Rule 6(b), the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge that amendment which they did not challenge in any court of law rather they accepted such an amendment - object of which was regularise service of the persons who had at least 6 months experience on 15.12.71 - date of publication of Rules, 1971. On 15.12.1971 since the petitioners did not have 6 months experience, they could not have been screened, inasmuch as the State Government cannot be blamed in not introducing amendment by notification dt. 6.1.89 at earlier stage in Rules, 1971 whereas despite having aforded ample opportunity to the petitioners, they failed to clear the recruitment test during this span of 21 years (from the date of their initial adhoc appointment till notification dt. 6.1.89) when the Public Service Commission held regular selection as provided in Part IV of Rules, 1971 but they all did not choose to face it. Even otherwise, according to Shri Simlot, if the impugned notification dt. 6.1.89 is struck down then their services cannot be regularised and in that event also they will be adhoc appointees, and both the impugned notification dt. 6.1.89 so also earlier one of 30.5.73 cannot be equated with each other as each of them had been issued with different circumstances and object. 9. Many points were raised, as noticed above, and a catena of decisions were cited in support thereof. For facilitating a proper understanding of this controversy it is necessary to take a bird's eye view of the various rules and notifications issued by the State Government. 10. By earlier notification dt. 30.5.73 services of those teachers were regularised who were working on 30.5.73 but also having worked at least 6 months on 15.12.71 & could not get chance to face regular selection, while by present impugned notification dt. 6.1.89, the teachers covered for regularisation are those who were not having experience of six months on 15.12.71 and were appointed prior to June, 1977 but failed to clear regular selection. Therefore, pursuant to their impugned notification dated 6.1.89 candidature of the petitioners was considered for screening and then by order dt. 23.11.90 their adhoc/temporary services were regularised. 11. Part III of the Rules, 1971 relates to the Recruitment. Therefore, pursuant to their impugned notification dated 6.1.89 candidature of the petitioners was considered for screening and then by order dt. 23.11.90 their adhoc/temporary services were regularised. 11. Part III of the Rules, 1971 relates to the Recruitment. R.6 of the Rules 1971 provides for method of recruitment and under which, recruitment to the service after the commencement of Rules, 1971 shall be made by following methods in the proportion indicated in column 3 of the Schedule, namely : (a) by direct recruitment in accordance with part IV of these Rules; and (b) by promotion in accordance with Part V of these rules, provided:- (1) that if the appointing authority is satisfied in consultation with the Commission, where necessary, that suitable persons are not available for appointment by either method of recruitment in a particular year, appointment by the other method in relaxation of the prescribed proportion, may be made in the same manner as specified in these rules; (2) that nothing in these rules shall preclude the Appointing Authority from appointing officers previously in the employment of pre-reorganisation State of Ajmer, Bombay and Madhya Bharat to suitable posts specified in the Schedule in accordance with the rules governing the integration of their service. There was third proviso to R.6(b) but it was firstly substituted vide Notification No. F.16(24)Edu/Gr.II/74 dt. There was third proviso to R.6(b) but it was firstly substituted vide Notification No. F.16(24)Edu/Gr.II/74 dt. 30.5.73 w.e.f. 16.12.71 as under:- (3) that a person holding any of the following grade I post in sections B, C, D, E and F or any of the posts in Section "A" of the schedule on 31.12.72 in adhoc/officiating/temporary capacity and who had continuously held the said post or would have held such post but for his appointment on a higher post or would have held any of these posts but for his deputation elsewhere, for a period not less than six months on 15.12.1971 and was working as such on the date of publication of these (amendment) Rules shall be screened by a committee referred to in Rule 25, for adjudging his suitability for such post, provided he possesses the qualifications prescribed in the rules either for direct recruitment or for promotion or the prescribed qualifications of the posts on the basis of which he was appointed in the adhoc or officiating or temporary capacity on such post:- Section B - posts at S.No.1 Section C - posts at S.No. 1(a) & (b) Section D - posts at S.No. 1(a) to (c) Section E - posts at S.No. 1(a) to (c), 4 & 5 Section F - posts at S.No. 1(a) to (c), 2, 3, 4(a) to 4(c) and 5. Provided that : (1) Persons appointed on adhoc officiating/temporary basis shall not be entitled to screening for a post higher than to which was initially appointed, if a person senior to him on lower post who fulfilled qualifications prescribed for the post was either not given such adhoc/officiating/ temporary appointment or is not entitled to screening under this rule. Seniority for this purpose will be determined according to length of continuous service on a post." 12. Proviso (4) to R.6(b) of Rules, 1971 was inserted by Notification F.2(6) DOP A-II/84/dt. Seniority for this purpose will be determined according to length of continuous service on a post." 12. Proviso (4) to R.6(b) of Rules, 1971 was inserted by Notification F.2(6) DOP A-II/84/dt. 6.1.89 (Ann2) (published in Rajasthan Gazette Ordinary Part 4(c) (1) dt.8.6.89 p.112) and thus after the existing proviso (3) (supra) to Rule 6(b) of Rules, 1971 the following proviso was added : (4) that the person appointed to the posts of Senior Teachers in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics and Home Science of Section F of the Schedule from 1st July, 1971 to 30th June, 1977 on adhoc or officiating or urgent temporary basis and who have been continuously holding such posts on the date of the amendment shall be screened by a Committee referred to in rule 25 for adjudging their suitability on the posts held and shall be appointed to the said posts in the service, if they possessed the qualifications prescribed for the posts under the rules either for direct recruitment or promotion at the time of recruitment. The seniority of the persons so screened shall be fixed below all the persons appointed regularly by direct recruitment or by promotion upto the date of amendment and the seniority interse to these persons shall be determined by the Committee according to the length of continuous service on an adhoc or officiating capacity or on urgent temporary basis." 13. The seniority of the persons so screened shall be fixed below all the persons appointed regularly by direct recruitment or by promotion upto the date of amendment and the seniority interse to these persons shall be determined by the Committee according to the length of continuous service on an adhoc or officiating capacity or on urgent temporary basis." 13. In (1) Gurudev Singh Randhawa v. State of Punjab (1989(2) SLR 369) , the contention of the petitioners (that merely because a date was mentioned in the instructions as 1.1.73, on which date the adhoc employees must have completed a period of one year for regularisation of their services, it did not mean that the services were to be regularised w.e.f. the said date), was rejected by holding that the petitioners were entitled to get their services regularised w.e.f. completion of one year service and not from January, 1, 1973, but upon a careful perusal of the decision (supra), I find that the rule of reckoning the seniority of adhoc employees whose appointments were regularised in terms of the policy, which prescribed as under, was not disturbed "The seniority of the ad hoc employees whose appointments are regularised in terms of the above policy shall be determined in the following manner : (a) After approval by the Departmental Committee, the regularisation of their appointment shall date back to 1.1.1973 from which date their seniority shall be determined vis-a-vis candidates appointed on regular basis after selection through the prescribed agencies. (b) The service rendered on ad hoc basis shall not be taken into account for purposes of seniority except to determine inter-se seniority among the ad hoc employees themselves whose services are regularised with effect from 1.1.1973." 14. Next case cited is (2) I.P. Yadav v. Union of India (1985(2) SLR 248) . (b) The service rendered on ad hoc basis shall not be taken into account for purposes of seniority except to determine inter-se seniority among the ad hoc employees themselves whose services are regularised with effect from 1.1.1973." 14. Next case cited is (2) I.P. Yadav v. Union of India (1985(2) SLR 248) . It was a case where in a torrent of writ petitions and SLPs, the grievance was that even though the workman had put in continuous service for years on end to wit ranging from 1974 till 1983 yet their services were terminated with impunity under the specious plea that the project on which they were employed has been wound up on its completion and their services were no more needed, against which some of them rushed to the court and obtained interim relief and at one stage, some of those petitioners were set down for final hearing and the judgment was reserved. In the meantime, Railway Ministry framed a scheme and circulated. Thereafter, the matters were set out for examining fairness and justness of the scheme and whether the court would be in a position to dispose of these petitions in view of the scheme. The scheme envisaged that it would be applicable to casual labour on projects who were in service as on January 1st, 1984, the choice of this date did not commend to the Apex Court. So, it was observed that it is likely to introduce invidious distinction between similarly situated persons and expose some workmen to arbitrary discrimination flowing from fortuitous courts' order. 15. The Apex Court observed as under : "There is another area where discrimination is likely to rear its ugly head. These workmen come from the lowest grade of railway service. They can ill afford to rush to court. Their federations have hardly been of any assistance. They had individually to collect money and rush to court which in case of some may be beyond their reach. 'Therefore, some of the retrenched workmen failed to knock at the doors of the court of justice because these doors do not open unless huge expenses are incurred. Choice in such a situation, even without crystal gazing is between incurring expenses for a litigation with uncertain outcome and hunger from day to day. It is a Hob son's choice. 'Therefore, some of the retrenched workmen failed to knock at the doors of the court of justice because these doors do not open unless huge expenses are incurred. Choice in such a situation, even without crystal gazing is between incurring expenses for a litigation with uncertain outcome and hunger from day to day. It is a Hob son's choice. Therefore, those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court. Burdened by all these relevant considerations and keeping in view all the aspects of the matter, we would modify part 5.1(a)(i) by modifying the date from 1.1.1984 to 1.1.1981. 16. It was a case based on principle of last come first go or to reverse it first come last go as enunciated in 5. 2.56 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence it does not help in any manner to the present petitioners. 17. In (3) A.K. Nigam v. Sunil Misra (1994(2) SLR 20) the principle of determination of seniority had not been challenged before the court and only challenge was the grant of weightage for past service to lass II officers. It was a case challenging the seniority list of Indian Railways Personnel Service (JS/SS) officers as on 1.3.87 and there was no challenge to grant of increments in Time Scale. This case was based on different rule i.e. principle for conferment of limited benefit of weightage which was held to be not unreasonable or illegal in (4) State of Andhra Pradesh v. K.S. Muralidhar ( 1992(2) SCC 241 ) . It was a case where the seniority in IRPS was not governed by the date of joining. Railway Board Secretariat Service was in the nature of a lower grade of similar service. The appellants were promoted from Class II service to Class I service and rules having framed for determining the seniority based on the grant of increments and thus having once determined the date of increment, it was held that the rest followed conferment of seniority. 18. The appellants were promoted from Class II service to Class I service and rules having framed for determining the seniority based on the grant of increments and thus having once determined the date of increment, it was held that the rest followed conferment of seniority. 18. (5) S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra ( 1977(3) SCC 399 ) the Rules making seniority between direct recruits and promotees dependent upon confirmation were held by the Apex Court as violative of the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution because seniority cannot be made to depend on the fortuitous circumstances of confirmation of promotees, when all other factors are equal between direct recruits and promotees. It was a case where promotees ranked for seniority from the date of their confirmation while the seniority of direct recruits was reckoned from the date of their initial appointment. 19. In (6) Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa (1999 Lab.I.C. 3842) there arose a dispute of seniority between the promotee officers including the appellant on the one hand and the direct recruits (respondents) on the other. It was a case where the appellant was promoted to post of Asstt. Engineer in accordance with Rules against a permanent vacancy and given ad hoc promotion pending concurrence of Public Service Commission while respondents were given direct recruitment as Asstt. Engineer in same year but in view of R.26 of Orissa Service of Engineer Rules 1951 appellant promotees would rank senior to direct recruits (respondent), according to the Apex Court. 20. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in (7) Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1990 SC 1607 ) had summed up the law relating to the reckoning of seniority in cases of adhoc appointments made according to the service Rules or not made according to the Rules in sub-paras (A) & (B) of para 44 as under : (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. 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) If the initial appointment is not made by the following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. 21. The Constitution Bench Decision in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Association's case (supra) was considered by a 3-judge Bench of the Apex Court in (8) State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath Dey ( 1993(3) SCC 371 ) and these two principles (A) & (b) (supra) were explained and as per which, conclusion (B) cannot cover cases which are expressly excluded by conclusion (A). According to conclusion (A), to reckon seniority from the date of initial appointment and not according to the date of confirmation, the incumbent must be initially appointed 'according to rules'. The corollary in conclusion (A) is, 'where the initial appointment is only adhoc and not according to rules and made as a stop gap arrangement, the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for reckoning the seniority', which expressly excludes the cases where the initial appointment is only adhoc and not according to rules, being made only as a stop gap arrangement. 22. Conclusion (B) was added to cover a different kind of situation and as per which where the appointments are otherwise regular, except for the deficiency of certain procedural requirements laid down by the rules. Thus to cover the cases where initial appointment is made against an existing vacancy, not limited to a fixed period of item or purpose by the appointment order itself, and is made subject to the deficiency in the procedural requirements prescribed by the rules for adjudging suitability of the appointee for the post being cured at the time of regularisation. According to the Apex Court, in case where the deficiency in the procedural requirements laid down by the rule has to be cured at the first available opportunity, without any default of the employee, and the appointee must continue in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service, in accordance with the rules. 23. According to the Apex Court, in case where the deficiency in the procedural requirements laid down by the rule has to be cured at the first available opportunity, without any default of the employee, and the appointee must continue in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service, in accordance with the rules. 23. The only question involved herein is whether the petitioners named in the cause title as well as in Schedule A & B to this petition are entitled to reckon the period of adhoc service towards their seniority notwithstanding the specific provisions having been inserted as proviso (4) to Rule 6(b) of Rules 1971 by virtue of impugned notification dated 6.1.89 (Ann2), which is also assailed as discriminatory ? 24. It is trite that the appointing authority or the appropriate government can frame rules governing seniority keeping in mind the divergent claims that can be put forward by various categories of the members of the service. If seniority is to depend purely upon the date of confirmation or the date of appointment, that rule should be applicable to all but if the promotees and special recruits are being given weightage, the principles applicable to the members of the service should be kept in mind while determining the weightage to be given or while laying down rules for determination of seniority. That being so, it is for the rule making authority to take a note of the relevant circumstances obtaining in relation to each department and determine objectively in the rules that should govern the inter se seniority and ranking. 25. Article 14 enjoins that the people similarly situated should be treated similarly but what amount of dissimilarity would make the people dis entitled to be treated equally, is rather a vexed question. It cannot be forgotten that a legislature, which has to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations must, of necessity, have the power of making special laws, to attain particular objects; and for which, it must have large powers of selection or classification of persons and things, upon which such laws are to operate. Hence more differentiation of inequality of treatment does not per se amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause. 26. Hence more differentiation of inequality of treatment does not per se amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause. 26. In order that a law may be struck down under Article 14, the inequality must arise under the same piece of legislation or under the same set of laws which have to be treated together as one enactment. Inequality resulting from two different enactments made by two different authorities in relation to the same subject will not be liable to attack under Article 14. Upon a careful analysis & scrutiny of the amended provisions of seniority under the impugned Notification, the conclusion is irresistible that the aforesaid impugned provisions by way of amendment have been framed for a specific purpose of assigning seniority after regularisation of these petitioners School Lecturers whose initial appointments were made on temporary or adhoc basis by not following recruitment process prescribed in the Service Rules, 1971, nor did they qualify recruitment test for regular appointment at the earliest point of time of recruitment process having taken place after their such temporary initial appointment despite several chances having been afforded to them. Thus the provisions under the impugned notification dealing with seniority has been specifically designed to meet all situations. The law making authority must be presumed to have examined pros and cons in making the aforesaid provision for seniority in the cadre. It is therefore difficult for this Court to hold that the aforesaid provision is discriminatory in nature. Earlier notification was issued to cover the teachers whose appointments were made in the absence of requisite service rules which came into force only after their appointment, i.e. in the year 1971 and therefore an appointed dated 15.12.71 was fixed, whereas some of the present petitioners though appointed earlier but could not have completed six months service on or about appointed date 15.12.71, therefore, could not have been governed for regularisation by earlier notification of 1973. On this anology, they cannot claim or assail the impugned notification of 1989 on the principle of equal treatment. 27. The claim of equal protection under Article 14, therefore, is examined with the presumption that the State Acts are reasonable and justified. On this anology, they cannot claim or assail the impugned notification of 1989 on the principle of equal treatment. 27. The claim of equal protection under Article 14, therefore, is examined with the presumption that the State Acts are reasonable and justified. If the challenge to the impugned provisions is examined from the aforesaid stand-point, then there is no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have utterly failed to establish any material for which grievances about discrimination alleged can be said to have been made. Apart from making submissions on a hypothetical basis, no material has been produced to indicate if any one of the persons regularised under the impugned Notification has reaped any undue advantage in respect of his past service or experience by adoption of the formula in the impugned amendment for the purpose of reckoning seniority. In the absence of an iota of material on this aspect, I am not required to examine the correctness of the impugned amendment. 28. In the instant case, the question of seniority is governed by provisions contained in Rule 29 of the Rules, 1971 which deals with "Seniority". According to R.29, seniority of persons appointed to the lower post of service shall be determined from the date of confirmation of such persons to the said post but in respect of persons appointed by promotion to other higher post in the Service or other higher categories of post in each of Group/Sections in the Service, shall be determined from the date of their regular selection to such ts. Different provisions to this Rule 29 have been contemplated. Proviso (1) to R.29 which in fact relates to persons appointed before commencement of Rules 1971, envisaged that seniority of persons appointed to posts of any Section of Service before commencement of these rules including those under sub-rule (3) of rule 6, shall be determined in accordance with Government Notification No.F.6(e)(56)Edu/G- 11/56 dt. 9.9.1965 and subsequent amendment thereto. Proviso (7) to R.29 envisaged that seniority of inter se persons appointed to posts or any section as specified in schedule appended to Rules 1971 before commencement of these rules including those appointed under proviso (3) to Rule 6 shall be determined in accordance with the criteria laid down in Appendix A,B, C & D appended to these Rules and also in accordance with the Government notifications (Appendix E & F). Appendix A relates to criteria for determination of seniority of teachers Grade III from 1.9.61 to 30.3.66. Appendix B relates to the teachers Gr.H appointed from 1.7.66 to 15.12.71. Appendix C relates to the teachers Gr. II and Senior Teachers Gr. I appointed from 1.7.66 to 15.12.71. Appendix D relates to the teachers Grade I & II appointed during 1.9.61 to 30.6.66. Appendix E is the notification dt. 9.9.65 relating to the persons appointed prior to the commencement of Rules, 1971 and under sub-rule (3) of rule 6. Then comes the impugned notification dt. 6.1.89 (Ann2) as to the amendment for insertion of proviso (4) to R.6(b) o c Rules, 1971, quoted above, but this impugned notification (Ann2) prescribed that the seniority of the persons so screened shall be fixed below all the persons appointed regularly by direct recruitment or by promotion upto the date of amendment and the seniority inter se of these persons shall be determined by the committee according to the length of continuous service on an adhoc or officiating capacity or on urgent temporary basis. 29. It is also not in dispute that interpretation of provisions of a service rule will depend on the provisions of that rule and the context in and the purpose for which the expressions are used. Similarly, the meaning of any of terms of appointment in the context of computation of inter se seniority of officers or incumbents holding cadre post or Service will depend on the facts and circumstances in which the appointment came to be made. It is also relevant question, what would be the nature of services rendered by such adhoc appointees prior to the consultation with Public Service Commission and subsequently whose adhoc appointment was approved by the Public Service Commission ? For that purpose, it will be necessary to look into the purpose for which the post was created and the nature of the appointment of the officer or incumbent as stated in the appointment order. Curiously enough the petitioners have failed to produce any of their orders initially issued appointing them either on adhoc or temporary basis, and as to when their adhoc appointments were approved by the concurrence of the Public Service Commission. 30. Where the challenge is made to a statutory provision as discriminatory, allegations in writ petition must be specific and clear. Curiously enough the petitioners have failed to produce any of their orders initially issued appointing them either on adhoc or temporary basis, and as to when their adhoc appointments were approved by the concurrence of the Public Service Commission. 30. Where the challenge is made to a statutory provision as discriminatory, allegations in writ petition must be specific and clear. There must be proper pleadings and averments in the substantive petition. There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of enactments and this presumption stems from the wide power of classification which the legislature must, of necessity, possess in making laws operating differently as regards different groups of persons in order to give effect to policies. Thus the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles. Where necessary materials have not been placed to show, how there has been an unequal treatment, the plea of provisions being violative of Article 14 cannot be entertained. 31. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are direct recruitees or that they have been appointed either on adhoc or temporary basis after having undergone the method of recruitment in accordance with Part IV of Rules, 1971. Rather despite their ambiguous pleadings & lack of materials on record, admittedly their initial entry in the Service was without consultation & concurrence of the Public Service Commission, and without having appeared in the recruitment test prescribed for the post on which initially they were appointed on urgent temporary basis. 32. Part VI of the Rules relates to appointment, probation and confirmation. Under Part VI, Rule 27 prescribes that appointments to posts in the service by direct recruitment or by promotion, as the case may be, shall be made by the appointing authority on occurrence of substantive vacancies by selection of persons in a manner indicated in rule 22 or in rules 25 & 26. Rules 25 & 26 of the Rules relates to Part V prescribing procedure for recruitment by promotion. Rule 22 relates to selection by the appointing authority which provides that subject to the provisions of rule 7 the appointing authority shall select candidates according to the order of merit in which their names appear in the list prepared under Rule 20. 33. Rule 22 relates to selection by the appointing authority which provides that subject to the provisions of rule 7 the appointing authority shall select candidates according to the order of merit in which their names appear in the list prepared under Rule 20. 33. Under Rule 28 urgent temporary appointment can be made only upon a vacancy in the Service of the Rules, 1971 which could be filled in immediately either by direct recruitment or by promotion, and such an appointment can be made by the Government or by the competent authority and according to its proviso, such appointment cannot continue beyond one year without referring it to the commission for concurrence and may discontinue on refusal by the Commission to concur. Rule 27A provides for appointment of screened persons, as per which appointment to the post in the Service shall be made by the appointing authority from amongst the persons adjudged suitable under rule 6 of these Rules. As quoted above, Rule 6 prescribes mode of recruitment including (a) direct recruitment as per Part IV and promotion by following procedure under Part V of the Rules, 1971, besides other mode of recruitment as prescribed in provisos to R.6 and according to proviso(1) to Rule 16, in case of non-availability of suitable persons for appointment by either method of recruitment in a particular year but upon satisfaction of the appointing authority in consultation with the Public Service Commission, appointment by other method in relaxation of the prescribed proportion can be made in the same manner as specified in these Miles. In this view of relaxation clause in proviso (1) of R.6, an appointment can be made but in the same manner as specified in the Rules, 1971. That being so, proviso (3) & (4) to R.6 were inserted to the Rules, 1971 under amendment notification of 1973 and the present notification of 1989 (Ann2) so as to regularise such urgent temporarily appointed Teachers u/r 28 of the Rules, 1971 by way of screening under Rule 27A by way of adjudging their suitability. 34. That being so, proviso (3) & (4) to R.6 were inserted to the Rules, 1971 under amendment notification of 1973 and the present notification of 1989 (Ann2) so as to regularise such urgent temporarily appointed Teachers u/r 28 of the Rules, 1971 by way of screening under Rule 27A by way of adjudging their suitability. 34. Even according to Note appended to definition clause (i) to R.2 which defines "substantive appointment', 'urgent temporary appointment' has been excluded because according to the said Note, "due selection by any methods of recruitment prescribed under these Rules" will include recruitment either on initial constitution of service or in accordance with the provisions of any Rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, except urgent temporary appointment. Further as per clause (f) to R.2 "member of the Service" means a person appointed in a substantive capacity to a post in the Service under the Rules, 1971 and includes a person placed on probation but it does not include person appointed on urgent temporary basis. 35. Be that as it may, the decks are clear that though urgent temporary appointment can be made under Rule 28 but such appointment cannot be held as substantive appointment unless it is followed by regular selection by any of the methods of recruitment prescribed under R.6 of Rules, 1971. Only upon due selection and after regular selection in accordance with Rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the persons can be held to have substantive appointment. That being so, seniority clause as provided in Rule 29 makes it explicit that seniority shall be determined from the date of their regular selection and/or their confirmation on the higher and lower posts as the case may be. That being so, seniority clause as provided in Rule 29 makes it explicit that seniority shall be determined from the date of their regular selection and/or their confirmation on the higher and lower posts as the case may be. Keeping in view this specific provisions as to the formula of seniority in R.29 of the Rules, 1971, though notification was issued on 6.1.89 (Ann2) amending R.6 & adding proviso (4) thereto for regularisation of urgent temporary appointed teachers who admittedly were initially appointed without due & regular selection & without concurrence of the Public Service Commission but under Rule 28 and whose terms were continued only after concurrence of the Commission as required under proviso to R.27 of Rules, 1971 but such a regularisation was subject to the determination of seniority as provided therein, i.e. from the date of their regular selection & they will be put below the regularly selected Teachers appointed upto the date of amendment under notification (Ann2) of 6.1.89. Even under earlier notification dated 30.5.73, the urgent temporary appointments of persons who had been working on 30.5.73 and who had held the post for a period not less than six months on 15.12.71, were regularised by way of amendment introducing proviso (3) to R.6 of Rules, 1971 and in that case, the seniority though not specifically provided in that notification but was of course subject to the formula prescribed in R.29 of the Rules, 1971, from the date of regular selection, i.e. date of amendment. 36. A comparative study of earlier notification dt. 30.5.73 and the impugned notification dt. 6.1.89 makes it precise that both these amendments have different objects; earlier one was with a view to regularise the adhoc employees who had no opportunity to face the process of regular selection because the recruitment rules at that relevant time had not been promulgated which came into force only on 15.12.71, while the impugned notification of 1989 (Anns) covers different persons who had ample opportunity to face the regular selection. Besides recruitment rules 1971 were in force since their initial adhoc or urgent temporary appointment, but they failed to face the regular recruitment process. In other words, under notification dt. Besides recruitment rules 1971 were in force since their initial adhoc or urgent temporary appointment, but they failed to face the regular recruitment process. In other words, under notification dt. 30.5.73, services of only those teachers were regularised, who were working on 30.5.73 but having at least six month experience on 15.12.71, i.e. on the date of publication of the Rules, 1971 & who could not have sufficient opportunity to face regular selection. While under impugned notification dt. 6.1.89, the teachers (who could not have been covered by earlier notification of 1973 and were not having at least 6 months experience on 15.12.71) duly appointed prior to June 1977 and despite having ample chance to clear the regular selection but failed to do so, have been regularised. Thus it makes explicit that both these notifications being applicable to two different class of teachers, cannot be held to have the similarity of treatment. What Article 14 gurantees is the similarity of treatment and not identical treatment. The protection of equal laws does not mean that all laws must be uniform. Equality before the law means that amongst equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. Equality before the law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as equals though they were the same. 37. Equality before the law means that amongst equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. Equality before the law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as equals though they were the same. 37. As analysed above, though the petitioners have failed to produce their orders of initial appointment in order to test the grievance on the ground of inequality of discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, and further adjudging the nature of their initial appointment, whether according to rules or not, for the purpose of reckoning the seniority but it is an admitted position on record that once their entry in the service by way of adhoc appointment was not according to the rules and that being so, by way of amendment introducing insertion of proviso (4) to R.6 of the Rules, 1971, their services were regularised by notification under challenge herein, such officiation cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority, especially keeping in view specific provision of Rules, 1971 as to the reckoning of the seniority, as referred to above, which prescribes the seniority to be determined from the date of regular selection only, so also by virtue of newly inserted proviso (4) to R.6 of the Rules under the impugned notification (Ann2). Further once each of the petitioners was defaulter in having failed to clear and face the regular selection at the first available opportunity despite having been afforded by the appointing authority (respondents) now they cannot be allowed to claim seniority for such adhoc service having been as a result of deficiency in the procedural requirements laid down by the Rules, 1971. 38. In view of the analysis of different provisions of the Rules, 1971 as amended from time to time for regularisation of the teachers thereunder, I have no hesitation to hold that the initial appointment of the petitioners being purely on adhoc basis not only without consultation & concurrence with the Public Service Commission but also having not been made by the same process, as is applicable to the regular appointees, cannot be held to confer on them benefits of regular selection in their cadre and as such their adhoc service cannot be counted for the purposes of reckoning their seniority. Therefore, the conclusion is irresistible that the impugned notification of 1989 has been framed for a specific purpose of regularisation so as to govern and cover the petitioners, as referred to above, under the Rules, 1971 by way of amendment to recruitment rule 6 itself by introduction of proviso (4) thereto and the provision thereunder dealing with seniority has been specifically designed to meet all situations and in consonance with principal seniority rule 29 of the Service Rules, 1971, itself, obviously because the appointees, who have been allowed to continue beyond the period of six months and later on were regularised by the State Government by way of special enactment, may be under amendment in question, can claim seniority only from the date of their regularisation and services rendered from the date of their initial urgent temporary appointment till regularisation cannot be counted for their seniority in the cadre. Hence it is inappropriate for me to hold that the impugned notification dealing with seniority clause is discriminatory in nature. 39. Even otherwise after earlier notification of 1973 despite their initial appointment being urgent temporary since 1971 having been not covered by that notification, besides being not regularly recruited one under any of the recruitment rules of 1971, all of the petitioners kept reticence Since 1971 till 1989 when their such temporary services were regularised by way of the impugned notification (Ann2) dt. 6.1.89, inasmuch as the writ petition has been filed in the year 1991, thereby the seniority of science teachers who were regularly selected and recruited in between 1971 to 1989 (the period of adhoc and/or urgent temporary officiation of the petitioners) as determined under Rule 29 of the Rules, 1971 has operated for all this period from 1971 onwards till date - for more than 18 years, the same should not be altered after this inordinate delay so as to confer the benefits over & above the regularly selected & recruited science teachers more particularly in their absence in this petition, as it would unsettle the entire seniority in the cadre, itself. In the aforesaid premises, I do not find any justification for interference with the impugned notification of 1989 so also the seniority of the regular appointees whose seniority had already been determined much before the regularisation of these petitioners. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******