JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 226/227, Constitution of India, praying for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for: (a) declaring that initial appointments of respondents 3 and 4 as Assistants (Senior Assistants) in the Secretariat of respondent No. 1 are wrong, illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the rules and as such, such appointments be quashed and set aside; (b) In the alternative, it be declared that respondents No. 3 and 4 are juniors to th# petitioners in the cadre of a Assistants (Senior Assistants) and their placement in the seniority list (Annexure P3) of serial Nos. 12 and 13 is wrong and illegal, and to direct respondent No. 1 to place respondents No. 3 and 4 below the petitioners in such seniority list; and (c) declaring the appointments and postings of respondents No. 3 and 4 as ad hoc Superintendents Grade-II (Ex-cadre) in the Secretariat of respondent No.l are wrong, illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the rules and for quashing the appointment/posting orders dated 21.1.1998 and 11.8.1998, Annexures P7 and P20, respectively. 2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present petition may be thus stated. Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Shanti Devi, was appointed as a Copy-holder on the establishment of respondent No. 1 on 24.10.1979. She was promoted as Assistant on 19.5.1988. Petitioner No. 2, Sunder Lai Negi, was appointed as Clerk on 6.10.1981. He was promoted as Assistant on 2.7.1988. Petitioner No. 3, Shri Ran Singh, who was appointed as a clerk on 15.10.1981 came to be promoted as Assistant on 6.6.1989 which date lateron was changed to 19.12.1991. On the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986, the posts of Assistants came to be redesignated as Senior Assistants. 3. Two vacancies in the cadre of Assistants became available for being filled up by direct recruitment. Both these posts were to be filled up in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules as then in force. Under such rules the essential qualifications for direct recruitment were: (a) Graduate of a recognized University. (b) Experience in Government Service for a period of not less than 10 years. 4. Both the vacancies were advertised by the respondent No. 1 in September 1986. In pursuance of such advertisement many persons including respondents No. 3 and 4 applied. Under such rules the essential qualifications for direct recruitment were: (a) Graduate of a recognized University. (b) Experience in Government Service for a period of not less than 10 years. 4. Both the vacancies were advertised by the respondent No. 1 in September 1986. In pursuance of such advertisement many persons including respondents No. 3 and 4 applied. After undertaking the necessary recruitment process, respondent No. 1 appointed respondents No. 3 and 4 as Assistants on 12.6.1987 and 15.6.1987, respectively. 5. The petitioners have averred that it was only in the last week of November 1997 that they came to know about the serious illegality in the appointments of respondents No. 3 and 4 as Assistants inasmuch as they were not possessing the requisite qualifications, as per the rules, on the dates of their selection and appointments. The appointments of both these respondents were made in complete violation of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and such appointments were kept as a close guarded secret. 6. It is the admitted case of the petitioners that the seniority lists in respect of the petitioners and the respondents were circulated by the respondent No. 1 in the years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997 and 1998. In all such seniority lists though respondents No. 3 and 4 were being seniors to the petitioners, no representations could be made by the petitioners since they were uanware of the illegal appointments of respondents No. 3 and 4 as Assistants. 7. On coming to know about the illegal appointments of respondents No. 3 and 4 in the last week of November 1997, the petitioner No. 1 on 29.11.1997 made a representation to the respondent No. 1 assailing the illegal appointments as also making a grievance as to the placement of respondents No. 3 and 4 in the seniority. Similar representations were also made by petitioners No. 2 and 3 separately on 27.11.1997. 8. In the meantime respondent No. 3 was promoted as ad-hoc Superintendent Grade II (Ex-cadre) on 21.1.1998 vide order as at Annexure P7. Respondent No. 4 also came to be similarly promoted on 11.8.1998 vide order Annexure-P20. The petitioners represented against such promotions granted to the respondents No. 3 and 4. Such representations were, however, rejected by the respondent No. 1 on 21.8.1998 vide Annexures P23 to P28. Hence the present petition came to be filed on 21.9.1998. 9. Respondent No. 4 also came to be similarly promoted on 11.8.1998 vide order Annexure-P20. The petitioners represented against such promotions granted to the respondents No. 3 and 4. Such representations were, however, rejected by the respondent No. 1 on 21.8.1998 vide Annexures P23 to P28. Hence the present petition came to be filed on 21.9.1998. 9. Respondent No. 1 in its reply-affidavit pleaded that two posts in the cadre of assistants became available in the year 1985. These posts were to be filled in by way of direct recruitment in accordance with the relevant rules then in force. Both these posts were advertised in November 1985. Despite vide publicity, very few applications were received. As a result the vacancies were re-advertised and the last date for the receipt of applications was 1st March, 1986 which was extended by two months. In response to such advertisement, 34 applications in all were received out of which only 21 applications were found conforming to the prescribed qualifications. All such 21 candidates were called for a written test. Only 13 candidates appeared and took the written test. In such test, highest marks obtained were 48%. Keeping in view the poor performance of the candidates, none was selected. Since no suitable candidate could be found in two attempts, respondents No. 1 on consideration of the matter relaxed the rule with regard to the requirement of minimum 10 years Government Service so as to attract more persons. The vacancies were then re-advertised on 4.9.1986. The qualifications prescribed after relaxation was as under: (i) Essential: Graduate of a recognized University. (ii) Desirable: Experience of sufficient duration of the like job. Law Graduates would be preferred. 10. Since sufficient number of applications were not received, the vacancies were again advertised in November 1986. 131 candidates, who were found eligible were called and put to a written test on 11.4.1987. Only ten candidates could qualify the written test, who were called for interview and as a result of the combined result of written test and interview, respondents No. 3 and 4 were selected and appointed as Assistants against the two available vacancies. 11. It was further pleaded that none of the three petitioners, who were already serving on the establishment of respondent No. 1, had applied for the post since they were not eligible for direct recruitment as Assistant as none of them was a graduate. 11. It was further pleaded that none of the three petitioners, who were already serving on the establishment of respondent No. 1, had applied for the post since they were not eligible for direct recruitment as Assistant as none of them was a graduate. The petitioners were promoted as Assistants much later to the appointments of respondents No. 3 and 4 were rightly placed juniors. 12. Respondent No. 1 denied that the appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 as Assistants was kept as a guarded secret or that it wanted to accommodate respondents No. 3 and 4 as Assistants in violation of the rules. It also denied that the petitioners came to know about the alleged illegality in the appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 only in November, 1997. It was pleaded that the appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 was strictly in accordance with the rules and the terms contained in the advertisements. No reply-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2. State of Himachal Pradesh. 13. Respondents No. 3 and 4 in their separate reply-affidavit have taken the stand as taken by respondent No. 1 in its reply-affidavit and have pleaded that their appointment as Assistants was valid, legal and in accordance with the rules. 14. During the course of hearing of the present petition the record of respondent No. l pertaining to the recruitment process leading to the selection and appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 as Assistants was called for and perused. A perusal of the same shows that the competent authority, that is, the Speaker in consultation with the Department of Finance in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 26(1) of the H.P. Vidhan Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 had relaxed the qualification in respect of the requirement of minimum ten years experience in Government Service. In view of such relaxation, it cannot be said that respondents No. 3 and 4 were not eligible inasmuch as they did not possess ten years experience in Government Service. 15. In the present case, it may be noted, that no challenge has been laid by the petitioners to the relaxation granted by the competent authority under Rule 26(1) of the Recruitment Rules. 16. 15. In the present case, it may be noted, that no challenge has been laid by the petitioners to the relaxation granted by the competent authority under Rule 26(1) of the Recruitment Rules. 16. Even proceeding on the assumption that there is no relaxation with regard to the period of experience, the appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 which took place long back in the year 1987 cannot be interfered with on equitable grounds. 17. In Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others v. Abahi Kumar and others, (2001) 3 SCC 328, the appointment of the appellants therein as Motor Vehicle Inspectors came to be challenged after more than a decade on the ground that they did not possess the qualification or experience in appointment in an appropriate automobile institutions or that they did not possess driving licences. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court as under:— "The selected candidates, who have been appointed, are now in employment as Motor Vehicle Inspectors for over a decade. Now that they have worked in such posts for a long time, necessarily they would have acquired the requisite experience. Lack of experience, if any, at the time of recruitment is made good now. Therefore, the new exercise ordered by the High Court will only lead to anomalous results. Since we are disposing of these matters on equitable consideration, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that their cases for appointment should also be considered. It is not clear whether there is any vacancy for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. If that is so, unless any one or more of the selected candidates are displaced, the cases of the contesting respondents cannot be considered. We think that such adjustment is not feasible for practical reasons. We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked in the post for a long period, but the contesting respondents do not come in that class. The effect of our conclusion is that appointments made long back pursuant to a selection need not be disturbed. We think that such adjustment is not feasible for practical reasons. We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked in the post for a long period, but the contesting respondents do not come in that class. The effect of our conclusion is that appointments made long back pursuant to a selection need not be disturbed. Such a view can be derived from several decisions of this Court including the decisions in Ram Sarup v. State ofHaryana, (1979) 1SCC168:1979 SCC (L & S) 35; District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1990) 14 ATC 766 and H.C. Puttaswamy v. Honble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 421 : 1992 SCC (L & S) 53 : (1992) 19 ATC 292. Therefore, we must let the matters lie where they are/ 18. In the present case, as stated earlier, respondents No. 3 and 4 were selected and appointed as Assistants on 12.6.1987 and 15.6.1987 respectively. More than sixteen years have passed. Even if they lack in experience in Government Service for the requisite period they have acquired the requisite experience and the initial lack of experience has been made good. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the above noted case applies to the facts of the present case on all fours. 19. Next comes the claim of the petitioners as to seniority in the cadre of Assistants. Admittedly, the petitioners were promoted as Assistants much after the respondents No. 3 and 4 came to be appointed as Assistants by direct recruitment. Therefore, in ordinary course, respondents No. 3 and 4 would rank seniors to the petitioners. 20. The case set up by the petitioners is that since the initial appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 was bad since they did not possess the requisite experience, their seniority should be fixed as from the date they acquired experience for the requisite period and taking into consideration such dates, the petitioners would have to be given seniority over the respondents No. 3 and 4. 21. 21. The question raised on behalf of the petitioners is no more res-integra in view of the pronouncement by the Honble Supreme Court in K.A. Abdul Majeed v. The State of Kerala and others, 2001 (3) SLR 700, wherein it has been held that the question whether initial appointment was regular or not cannot be considered at the time of fixation of seniority. The Court did not approve the fixation of seniority from the date the requisite qualification was acquired by the concerned official and directed the restoration of seniority from the date of initial appointment. In the present case also the seniority of respondents No. 3 and 4 has been rightly fixed by showing them seniors to the petitioners. Since the respondents No. 3 and 4 are seniors to the petitioners no fault can be found to their subsequent promotion as ad hoc Superintendent Grade II (Ex-Cadre). Resultantly, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.