JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the initial seniority list dated 6.6 84 The petitioner in the provisional seniority list as Jr. Engineer as on 1.8.1980 had been shown at Serial No. 590 with which he was satisfied. But after inviting objections when final seniority list was published on 6.6.84, the petitioner's name was shown at Sr.No. 628. Aggrieved with this alteration in the seniority list from the provisional seniority list to the final seniority list, the petitioner filed this writ petition n 17.7.84 challenging the determination of final seniority list for multiple reasons. 2. The facts which have been placed by the petitioner goes to show 10 that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and vide order dated 1.8.78, he has been posted as Jr. Engineer (Mechanical). The petitioner thereafter participated in the regular competitive examination in which he failed but subsequently as a result of availing the opportunity of getting regularised by getting selected through Screening Committee in pursuance f the order Annex.R/1, his services were regularised and he was regularly appointed vide order dated 26.9.80. By order dated 25.1.84, the Selection grade was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 10.2.82. 3. On 16.8.80, a provisional seniority list of Junior Engineers under SEB on 1.8.80 was published according to which petitioner's name was placed at Serial No. 590. After inviting objections, and considering this, final seniority list was published on 6.6.84 wherein the petitioner's name found lace at Sr.No. 688 amongst the Junior Engineers. 4. This petition has been filed to quash the final seniority list and restore the petitioner's seniority as per provisional seniority list qua 33 persons to whom the following assertions were made. 5. According to the petitioner in the provisional seniority list persons named at 106 to 126 in number 20, were all appointed by order dated 30th August, 1978 along with many other persons as a result of being selected through the competitive examination help for regular selections by direct s recruitment. Out of the persons appointed along with petitioner, 9 persons were regularly appointed in the Electrical and Mechanical Branch, the rest all were subjected to screening and regularisation process through screening. The respondents No. 24(a) and 24(5) were appointed as Jr. Out of the persons appointed along with petitioner, 9 persons were regularly appointed in the Electrical and Mechanical Branch, the rest all were subjected to screening and regularisation process through screening. The respondents No. 24(a) and 24(5) were appointed as Jr. Engineers on 6.4.79 and were given selection scale by order dated 25.1.84 w.e.f. 1.4.83 and the respondents No. 25 to 33 in all 9, were originally appointed as Junior Engineers grade II (overseer), as they were holding diploma in engineering. However, on passing AMIE, which is equivalent to degree in engineering, they were placed amongst the junior. .Engineers Cr I meant for degree holders is w.e.f. the date the respective persons acquired their AMIE qualifications. 6. It is on the aforesaid premise, it is contended that the petitioner's service for the seniority purposes ought to be counted w.e.f. first appointment on adhoc temporary basis since he has continued in service without break until his services were regularised. On screening, he may be deemed to have been regularised we.f. his temporary appointment, he ought to be assigned seniority on that basis and not on the basis of his subsequent regular appointment as per order dated 26.6.80, because the original appointment in the case of respondents, above whom, the petitioner claims seniority, had been initially appointed either later to in the petitioners or when petitioner was appointed they had not acquired AMIE degree and were Diploma Holders therefore, on the date of entering the service, they were junior to him. 7. The respondents in their return clarified that petitioner's regular appointment was only dated 21,6.80 and he could claim seniority only w.e.f. that date. Since he has failed to pass the regular recruitment, in which he had appeared and taken his chance amongst other candidates, he cannot be considered to have been regularly appointed and to claim seniority above regularly appointed prior to the petitioner, and steal a march over them. 8. Since he has failed to pass the regular recruitment, in which he had appeared and taken his chance amongst other candidates, he cannot be considered to have been regularly appointed and to claim seniority above regularly appointed prior to the petitioner, and steal a march over them. 8. Apparently, on first principle it must be accepted that the petitioner who had appeared in competitive examinations for regular recruitment after being temporarily appointed and failed and subsequent thereto by the process of regularisation, he has been given regular appointment, ordinarily, will not be entitled to claim the benefit of services rendered on urgent temporary basis to which he was not appointed regularly and steal a march over those persons who had appointed and succeeded ahead of petitioner on being selected in the same process in which the petitioner had failed so as become senior to those persons. In fact, Annex.R/1 submitted by the respondents read with original Ex.1 filed by the petitioner clearly goes to show that the petitioner could not lay claim on the basis of services rendered by him anterior to his regular selection. 9. Contents of Annex.P/1, by which he was appointed on 1st 4.5 September, 1978 containing the conditions of temporary appointment clearly envisaged that petitioner has been appointed on purely temporary ad hoc basis against temporary post for a period of not exceeding three months or till such time such of the candidates qualify themselves in the written competitive examinations to be conducted in the near future in terms of the prescribed syllabus and get selected and appointed or till such time regularly selected candidates are available whichever is earlier. Coupled with this condition of the appointment, it was also envisaged by term No. 2 that failure on the part of the person so appointed to appear in all the subjects of the 1 said competitive written examinations, shall automatically result in the termination of such appointment w.e.f. the date of last paper of competitive examinations. Apparently, since the petitioner has failed to pass the competitive examinations in which he appeared in accordance with the terms s and conditions of appointment dated 10th September, 1978, which had been extended from time to time, his appointment under the said order was liable to come to and end, and would not ensure for continuation in service after regularly selected candidates were available. 10. 10. In stead of terminating the services of the petitioner automatically in to terms of the order Annex. 1, the respondent vide Annex.R/1 gave a further opportunity to the persons who had failed in competitive examination, but were working in the Department for a considerable period, to appear at the screening test for regularisation and the petitioner was ultimately regularised in pursuance of Annex.R/1 dated 29.4.80 which was issued soon after the result of the examinations conducted for regular appointment. It was decided by the Board that the requirement of holding competitive examinations for regularising the ad hoc appointments on Junior Engineer made during the year 1978 up to 9.4.79 be dispensed with. It was decided to constitute a screening committee to adjudge the suitability of adhoc appointees for regularisation as Junior Engineers by holding interview. 11. Consequent to this order, the petitioner was screened by the interview Committee and was given appointment on regular basis vide order dated 26.6.80. The said appointment on regular basis was to be made effective from the date of the order. Obviously, the screening committee for regularising services was not with the purpose of giving them appointments with retrospective date for continued period. Similarly, transition of diploma holder from the post of J.En. II to J.En. I on acquiring degree in engineering or qualification equivalent thereto is as per rules, is not in issue. There is no assertion in the petition that any person was made J.En Grade I from J.En. Grade 11 had acquired AIME qualification after the petitioner was regularly appointed on 28.6.80. Hence, the petitioner cannot be considered to have been regularly appointed as J.En. Grade II prior to these diploma holders who had acquired AIME qualification earlier to his regular appointment. 12. The petitioner cannot successfully challenge the seniority assigned on the basis of the date of regular appointment to any one of the respondents. 13. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******