JUDGMENT Aftab H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Misra, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. H. Roy, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. A. Nilamani, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bimal, learned Counsel appearing for the private Respondents/writ Petitioners, hereinafter called as the private Respondents. Also heard the learned Govt. counsel, Manipur, representing the official Respondents. 2. These four writ appeals have been directed against the common judgment and order dated 11.05.01 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions involving common questions of law pertaining to regularization of ad hoc promotion of the private Respondents being promoted during the period between 30.10.76 and 26.07.83, to the post of Assistant Engineer (Asstt. Engineer) and their inter se seniority with those of direct recruits Asstt. Engineers i.e., the Appellants. 3. The Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment quashed the final interse seniority list dated 31.01.2000 and directed the State Respondents to constitute a Monitoring Committee headed by the Chief Secretary with the Secretary/Commissioner of Public Works Department and the Chief Engineer No. 1 P.W.D. as Members of the Committee for the purpose of preparing and publishing a fresh inter-se seniority list of the Asstt. Engineers showing the correct positions of the promotees as well as direct recruits of the Asstt. Engineers. In arriving at the above conclusion, the learned Judge held that the period of service rendered by the private Respondents from respective date of their appointment on ad hoc basis till regularisation, were to be treated as regular service for the purpose of seniority barring those who encroached upon the quota meant for direct recruits. 4. Since common questions of law, as noted hereinabove, have been raised in all these four writ appeals, all of them are being taken together for analogous hearing and dispose of by this common judgment and order. 5. For proper adjudication of the issues involved in these writ appeals, it would be appropriate to notice the facts of the case in a short compass. 6. The 11 private Respondents in all these writ appeals, while serving as Sectional Officer Gr. I, were promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Asstt. Engineers on different dates in between 30.10.76 to 26.07.83. The services of all of them were regularized by the Govt. on 20.09.85. 6. The 11 private Respondents in all these writ appeals, while serving as Sectional Officer Gr. I, were promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Asstt. Engineers on different dates in between 30.10.76 to 26.07.83. The services of all of them were regularized by the Govt. on 20.09.85. The Appellants, on the other hand, were directly appointed on regular basis to the post of Asstt. Engineers during the period of 27.11.80 and 26.09.86. When the private Respondents were regularized vide order dated 20.09.85, the said order did not mention about inclusion of their past services rendered on ad hoc basis for which some of the ad hoc promotees preferred writ petitions before this Court through C.R. Nos. 160/90 and 339/91 and this Court directed the State authorities to give effect of the appointment on regular basis with effect from the date of initial promotion on ad hoc basis. In compliance of the Court's order, the State Respondents treated the past services rendered by the private Respondents on ad hoc basis as regular service to the post of Asstt. Engineers keeping the question of seniority to be decided later on. A final seniority list was published on 16.03.95 and since the private Respondents' seniority position was not correctly reflected in the said final seniority list and being aggrieved by the said list, they moved this Court through W.P. (C) No. 156/2000 and this Court by its judgment and order dated 23.03.98 directed the State Respondents to constitute a Special Review Committee who should complete the process of re-examining the final seniority list of the Asstt. Engineers within a period of three months. In view of the said direction of this Court, the authority constituted Scrutiny Committee for re-examination of the matter and as per report of the said Committee, the State Respondents eventually published a final seniority list on 31.01.2000 which has been challenged by the private Respondents herein in the connected writ petitions which give rise to present Writ Appeals. 7. In the said seniority list, the private Respondents' seniority position was shown from the date of their regularisation for which in the batch of writ petitions, the private Respondents claimed that their seniority position in the grade of Asstt. Engineers needs to be re-fixed taking into account the dates of their respective initial promotion on the ad hoc basis and not from the date of regularisation. 8. Engineers needs to be re-fixed taking into account the dates of their respective initial promotion on the ad hoc basis and not from the date of regularisation. 8. The Appellants, who were arrayed as Respondents in those writ petitions, resisted the claims of the private Respondents stating inter-alia that their past service as ad hoc promotees cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority inasmuch as the ad hoc promotion of the private Respondents, being only stop gap arrangement, dehors the Recruitment Rules. But, the Appellants, being appointed as direct recruits, having followed the Recruitment Rules, are eligible for placement above the promotees i.e., the private Respondents. 9. The stand of the State Respondents in those writ petitions was that the ad hoc promotion of the private Respondents could not be treated as substantive one and hence, they were not entitled to claim seniority with effect from the date of ad hoc appointment and having carefully considered the same, the final seniority list was published showing the seniority of the private Respondents according to their respective date of regularisation. 10. Now let us see the relevant Rules framed for recruitment to the post of Asstt. Engineer. Be it noted that initially, the Public Works Department (for short, 'P.W.D.'), the Irrigation and Flood Control Department (for short, 'IFCD') and the Public Health Engineering Department (for short, 'PHED') together formed a combined joint cadre. All the posts in the grade of Sectional Officers, Asstt. Engineers, Executive Engineers etc. in the said three engineering department formed one combined single cadre for recruitment, promotion, seniority etc. On 12.02.81 the said combined/joint cadre of three departments was trifurcated into three separate cadres as (i) P.W.D. including Engineering Cell of Education Deptt., Department and Industries/Sericulture (ii) I.F.C.D. including Minor Irrigation Circle of Agriculture Department and (iii) P.H.E.D. Before such bifurcation, the officers in respective cadres in all those departments were put in a common seniority list and promotion of the eligible persons from one grade to next higher grade was made from such common seniority list. After such trifurcation, three new separate cadres namely, cadre of P.W.D., cadre of IFCD and the cadre of PHED came into existence. The instant case is concerned with P.W.D. 11. After such trifurcation, three new separate cadres namely, cadre of P.W.D., cadre of IFCD and the cadre of PHED came into existence. The instant case is concerned with P.W.D. 11. It is pertinent to mention that during the subsistence of the combined cadre of three departments as mentioned above, on two occasions i.e., in the year 1969 and 1975, two Recruitment Rules for the post of Asstt. Engineers were framed and those were namely, the Class I and II Engineering Officers (Public Works Department) Recruitment Rules, 1969 and the Public Works Department, Manipur, Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mechanical/Assistant Surveyor of Works) Recruitment Rules, 1975 (for short 'the R.R.'). Those Rules were notified on 26.12.69 and 29.12.75 respectively. After bifurcation, when the new separate cadre of P.W.D. came into being, another Recruitment Rules for the post of Asstt. Engineer was framed by notification dated 05.11.84 and the same is known as the P.W.D./IFCD/PHED, Manipur (Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mech.)/Assistant Surveyor of Works) Recruitment Rules, 1984. The case of the parties herein is accepted to be governed by the R.R. 12. According to R.R. the method of recruitment was 40% of the overall strength by direct recruit when 60% of the overall sanctioned strength by promotion. Such 60% promotion quota is to be filled up as follows: i) 50% by selection from amongst 3 years Diploma holder (Civil/Mech.) with 8 years regular service as S.O. Grade-I or a post declared by the Govt. as equivalent thereto. ii) 40% by selection from Engineering Graduate (Civil/Mech.) having regular service of 3 years as S .0. Grade-I or a post declared by the Govt. or equivalent thereto. iii) 10% by selection from amongst non Graduate, non Diploma S.O. Grade-I having rendered continuous regular service of 12 years. For direct recruitment, educational qualification prescribed was Degree or AMIE in Civil/Mechanical Engineering or Diploma in Civil/Mechanical Engineering having minimum 3 years' course with 5 years service as S.O. Grade-I or a post declared to be equivalent. The R.R. also contains provision for relaxation in Rule 5 which speaks as follows: These rules shall be effective with immediate effect. Provided that the Governor of Manipur, if satisfied that there are special grounds for so ordering exempt any person from the operation of this rule. The R.R. also contains provision for relaxation in Rule 5 which speaks as follows: These rules shall be effective with immediate effect. Provided that the Governor of Manipur, if satisfied that there are special grounds for so ordering exempt any person from the operation of this rule. Further, it is also provided in the RR that for consideration of the eligibility for promotion, DPC, if exists, shall be composed as Class II DPC and the consultation with Commission is necessary. 13. Besides the RR as aforesaid, the Govt. has adopted certain general principles/guidelines called "Principles for Promotion to Selection Posts" issued by the State Govt. vide Circular dated 20.11.1982 in order to operate on the areas not covered by respective Recruitment Rules framed from time to time under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In para 4(d) of the above General Principles/Guideline it is provided that while promotion will be made in the order of the consolidated select list, such promotion will, have only prospective effect, even in cases where the vacancy relates to an earlier year. The State Respondents have, for determination of seniority, also relied upon GI.M.H.A. Memo No. 9/11/85-RPS dated 22.12.1959 and O.M. No. 350/2/80/Estt. (D) dated 07.02.1986, by Govt. Memo dated 16.05.81 and 13.11.87 respectively. Be it noted that in O.M. dated 22.12.59, in Clause II, it has been provided that the persons appointed in a substantive or officiating capacity to a grade prior to the issue of the said general principles shall retain the relative seniority already assigned to them or such seniority as may hereafter be assigned to them under the existing orders applicable to their cases and shall en-block be senior to all other in that grade while Clause 6 provides relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees, containing that the relative seniority of the direct recruits and/of promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between the direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively in the Recruitment Rules. In O.M. dated 07.02.86, it is provided that in future, while principle of rotation of quotas will still be followed for determining the inter seniority of direct recruits or promotees, the present practice for keeping vacant slots for being filled up by direct recruits of later years thereby giving them unintended seniority over promotees who are already in position would be disposed with, i.e., if adequate number of direct recruits do not become available in a particular year, the rotation of quotas for the purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of available direct recruits and promotees. 14. In the light of the above noted R.R., the general guidelines/principles dated 20.11.82 as well as the Govt. Memo dated 22.12.1959, the Govt. finally published the impugned final seniority list dated 31.01.2000 after publication of tentative seniority list on 30.05.1998 and 28.09.1999. 15. Mr. Misra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error of law in not appreciating the admitted fact that ad hoc promotion of the private Respondents to the post of Asstt. Engineer was made without following any selection process and contrary to the provisions of R.R. According to him, the post of Asstt. Engineer, being a selection post, can only be filled up in accordance with the RR by following a selection process to be conducted by the appropriate Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, ad hoc service rendered by the private Respondents cannot be counted towards their seniority. He has further submitted that the impugned final seniority list of Asstt. Engineers published on 31.01.2000 is correct, valid and in accordance with the provisions of RR because the same has been prepared by a Special Review Committee on the basis of principles laid down in G.O.I, O.M. dated 22.12.59 which holds the field in the instant case. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has further contended that the directives/guidelines prescribed by the learned Single Judge in para 32(g) of the impugned judgment is manifestly contradictory to the observation expressed by him in para 24(j) of the said judgment inasmuch as there is no "en-block system" in the principle of determining seniority under Govt. of India O.M. dated 22.12.1959 wherein only "slot-system" is to be adopted. of India O.M. dated 22.12.1959 wherein only "slot-system" is to be adopted. According to him, the learned Single Judge took an erroneous view in holding that inter se seniority between the promotees and direct recruits be maintained with the ratio of 3 : 2 when first three promotees would be listed thereafter two direct recruits be listed followed by another set of three promotees and two direct recruits and so on and in case in any year if it was found that only some promotions were made but no direct recruitment then the promotees should be shown as "en-bloc-senior" vis-a-vis in case in any particular year if it was found that only direct recruits were made and no promotion, the direct recruits be shown "en-bloc-senior". It is also contended that the case of the Respondents is squarely covered by corollary to proposition (A) of Direct Recruits' case Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers 'Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715 and not by the proposition (B) as held by the learned Single Judge. 16. Defending the impugned judgment and order by which the final select list dated 31.01.2000 has been quashed, Mr. Nilamani, learned Sr. Counsel, at the very outset, has forcefully argued that since service rendered by the private Respondents, being ad hoc promotees, has been regularized by the State Respondents in pursuance to a decision of this Court passed on 16.12.91 in C.R. No. 640/90 by Division Bench, the same issue cannot be raised and re-opened now. It is contended that the private Respondents, having possessed all requisite qualifications fulfilling the prescribed eligibility at the time of their respective promotion, have been rightly and correctly promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Asstt. Engineer. But since at the relevant time, the Commission was defunct, no consultation with the Commission could be done and accordingly, the State Respondents, having maintained initial seniority position of the Sectional Officer Grade-I, issued the present final seniority list. Relying upon the decision of the Direct Recruit's case (supra), the learned Sr. Engineer. But since at the relevant time, the Commission was defunct, no consultation with the Commission could be done and accordingly, the State Respondents, having maintained initial seniority position of the Sectional Officer Grade-I, issued the present final seniority list. Relying upon the decision of the Direct Recruit's case (supra), the learned Sr. Counsel for the private Respondents has vehemently submitted that since the promotion of the private Respondents on ad hoc basis has been regularized after few years taking into account their continuous service on the said ad hoc promotional post, the ratio laid down in Clause (B) in the Direct Recruit's case (supra) is squarely applicable in the instant case. 17. Be it noted that in Direct Recruit's case (supra) in propositions. (A) and (B), in para 47 at page 744, the Apex Court held 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) If the initial appointment is not made by 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. 18. The learned Sr. Counsel has further urged that though admittedly, the private Respondents have been promoted on ad hoc basis without following the procedure prescribed under the R.R., they acquired their respective eligibility in accordance with the RR and the service rendered by them on ad hoc promotion has to be counted and as such the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the final select list which was prepared without counting the seniority of the Respondents from the respective date of their respective ad hoc promotion. 19. The R.R. as noticed herein above, provides that the post of Asstt. Engineers is selection post and the same be filled up (a) 40% by Direct Recruitment and (b) 60% by promotion from the post of Sectional Officer Grade-I. The respective eligibility criteria has also been laid down in the RR. 19. The R.R. as noticed herein above, provides that the post of Asstt. Engineers is selection post and the same be filled up (a) 40% by Direct Recruitment and (b) 60% by promotion from the post of Sectional Officer Grade-I. The respective eligibility criteria has also been laid down in the RR. Basically, for promotion by selection, the requirement is that the promotee shall have to render 3 (three) years regular services as S.O. Grade-I which has already been indicated hereinabove. 20. In the instant case, in W.A. No. 388/03 the private Respondent, Sri. M. Hemanta Kr. Singh was appointed Sectional Officer Grade Ion 25.07.80 and though he was eligible for promotion to the post of Asstt. Engineer after completion of three years regular service on 25.07.83, he was given ad hoc promotion immediately on 26.07.83 and later regularized on 20.09.85. Admittedly such promotion on ad hoc basis on 26.07.83 was made without following the procedure prescribed in the R.R. 21. In W.A. No. 389/03, the private Respondent, Mr. Th. Santikumar Singh was appointed as Sectional Officer Grade-I on 25.07.80 and he was eligible for promotion on 25.07.83 counting his continuous regular service of three years but he was promoted on ad hoc basis on 06.05.83 the date when he was not even eligible for such promotion. 22. In W.A. No. 390/03, the private Respondent, Sri. Mongjam Budhi Singh, being a Diploma holder was appointed on 14.11.69 as Sectional Officer Grade-I and taking into account his eight years service, as required to be eligible for promotion, he became eligible on 14.11.77 and he was given promotion on 25.02.81. 23. In W.A. No. 392/03, the private Respondent Sri R.K. Monisana Singh, was appointed on 25.07.80 as Sectional Officer Grade-I and was eligible for promotion after completion of three years on 25.07.83 but got promoted on ad hoc basis on 06.5.83, much earlier to his eligibility date. 24. It appears that admittedly, the promotion of the private Respondents is dehors the R.R. Besides, two private Respondents, i.e. Th. Santikumar Singh and R.K. Monisana Singh have been promoted before they are eligible for such promotion. 25. In District Recruit's case (supra), the Apex Court categorically held in proposition (A) that once an incumbent is appointed to a post, according to Rules, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. 25. In District Recruit's case (supra), the Apex Court categorically held in proposition (A) that once an incumbent is appointed to a post, according to Rules, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary to above proposition provides that when initial appointment is only on ad hoc and not according to Rules and made as stop gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority wherein in (B) it was held that if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the Rules, but the appointee remains continuously in the post un-interruptedly till regularisation of his service in accordance with Rule, the period of officiating service will be counted. 26. In a case of Md. Israils and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in (2002) 2 SCC 306 , the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 relying on a case of M.K. Shanmugam v. Union of India reported in (2000) 4 SCC 476 and re-iterating the settled law on non counting of seniority of any ad hoc services, ruled that when promotions were made purely on temporary and ad hoc basis and that too subject to the approval of the Public Service Commission, the service rendered on such ad hoc basis till the approval of Public Service Commission was obtained, shall not count for reckoning the seniority in the cadre. 27. In another case, reported in : (2001) 10 SCC 185 Union of India and Ors. v. Satish Chandra Mathur, the Apex Court in paragraph 4 at page 187 held that the period of ad hoc appointment which is dehors the statutory Rule and was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure, even though the Respondents might have possessed the prescribed qualification for being appointed cannot be counted for the purpose of determining the seniority. 28. In V.P. Srivastava and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. reported in (1996) 7 SCC 759 , the Apex Court relying on the Direct Recruit Case (supra) observed in paragraph 10 as follows: 10. We are not concerned with the other propositions laid down by this Court in the present case. 28. In V.P. Srivastava and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. reported in (1996) 7 SCC 759 , the Apex Court relying on the Direct Recruit Case (supra) observed in paragraph 10 as follows: 10. We are not concerned with the other propositions laid down by this Court in the present case. In the case in hand the initial appointment of the Respondents on promotion not having been made following the procedure laid down by the Recruitment Rules of 1965 and even though they are continuing in the post uninterruptedly but the Public Service Commission having not approved their appointments as yet, proposition (B) above, will have no application. Consequently, applying proposition (A) above, the Appellants-direct recruits must be held senior to the Respondents-private Respondents-ad hoc promotees. The Tribunal obviously erred in law in not following the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of this Court for determination of the inter se seniority between direct recruits and the promotees. 29. Having regard to the above cited cases and also having given thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and taking the materials available on record into account, it is seen that admittedly, the promotion of the private Respondents were made purely on temporary and ad hoc basis and without following the procedure enumerated in the R.R. and also without the approval of the Commission and therefore, the case in hand, in our firm view, is squarely covered by the corollary of the proposition (A) of the Direct Recruit's Case (supra). In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the services rendered by the private Respondents on ad hoc basis promotion, even though some of them possessed the requisite eligibility i.e., particularly, the required respective 3/8 years regular service rendered in the post of Sectional Officer Grade-I, cannot be counted for the purpose of reckoning the seniority in the cadre of Asstt. Engineer. We further hold that some of the promotees, as mentioned above, who did not attain the eligibility criteria, i.e., completion of respective 3/8 years of regular service as the case maybe, the question of calculation of their seniority from the date of appointment on ad hoc basis, does not arise at all. 30. On overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any illegality or irregularity in the final select list dated 31.01.2000. 30. On overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any illegality or irregularity in the final select list dated 31.01.2000. But in view of what has been discussed and observed hereinabove, we think that the same may need necessary correction by the State-Respondents, if and where necessary. Therefore, we are inclined to approve the direction given by the learned Single Judge for constitution of a 3(three) member. Monitoring Committee to be headed by the Chief Secretary with the Commissioner/Secretary of P.W.D. and the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. as its members, to make necessary correction in the final select list dated 31.01.2000, if necessary, in accordance with law and more particularly following the general guidelines/principles for promotion of 1982 and for determining seniority of 1959 and the proposition (A) of Direct Recruit's case (supra). It is ordered accordingly. 31. In the result, the batch of Writ Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal allowed