Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the respondents seeking relief that the petitioners date of regular appointment may be treated as 9.1.1988 and 11.1988, respectively with all consequential benefits and if the petitioners are found entitled for the aforesaid relief , the respondents be further directed to include the names of the petitioners in the final seniority list of L.D.C. and assign them seniority on the basis of such dates of appointment. 3. The facts and circumstances in which this petition has arisen are not in dispute. The facts discernible from the documents produced by the petitioners as well as respondents, genuineness of the same are not in dispute, may first be noticed chronologically. 4. From the perusal of Annex. R/3 dated 28.1987, it appears that Director, Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti accorded sanction for creation of posts of various categories of teaching and non-teaching staff for Navodaya Vidhyalaya opened during 1987-88. The Navodaya Vidhyalaya and Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti work under the Department of Education under Ministry of Human Resources Development. Letter Annex. R/3 emanates from Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education). Pursuant thereto, names of eligible candidates were invited from the employment exchange. The proforma notification dated 210.1987 has been produced by the respondents as Annex. R/11. It is mentioned in the proforma notification that the nature of vacancies is L.D.C. It also states the requisite qualifications. Place of work was stated to be Pachpadra City (Barmer). It also states the particulars regarding interview/test of applicant, which shall be held between 20th November, to 30th November, 1987. The calender which was shown in the said notification shows the date of itnerview/test to be 111.1987, time of interview to be 11 a.m., place of interview to be S.D.O. Office, Balotra. 5. Pursuance to this notification, the names of the petitioners namely; Rajesh Pandey and Kishanlal Soni were forwarded to the Selection Authority and copy thereof was sent to the respective candidates, which is dated 11.1987, informing them to appear at the interview on 111.1987. The information letter by the employment exchange issued to the petitioners had been placed on record by the petitioners as Annexs. 1 and 2. 6. The information letter by the employment exchange issued to the petitioners had been placed on record by the petitioners as Annexs. 1 and 2. 6. The next thing about which the petitioners heard about selection was that petitioner Rajesh Pandey received a letter dated 9.1.1988 issued by the Principal of the School informing him that on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee, he has been selected to the post of L.D.C in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and that he will be allowed allowances and other benefits as per the Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti, New Delhi Rules and orders as amended from time to time and that the order of appointment shall be subject to the candidate being declared fit for the post of L.D.C. by a civil surgeon. 7. Notwithstanding there being no clue in the notification that the vacancy was for a temporary period or of temporary nature, the appointment was offered to the petitioner subject to his being declared fit by a civil surgeon, and it was stated that the appointment will be purely for six months which may be extended. This appointment continued until said Rajesh Pandey was offered appointment on regular basis vide Annex. 5 dated 11.1989 which clearly indicated that the appointment was with reference to interview held on 111.1987 and he was appointed as he was selected for appointment against temporary post of L.D.C. in Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti on an initial pay of Rs. 950-1500 and that he will draw allowances and other benefits in addition to pay at the rates admissible to the Navodaya Vidhyalaya employees and the offer of appointment is subject to the candidate being declared fit for the post of L.D.C. by a civil surgeon. 8. In the very similar format another letter was issued by Chairman, Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti, Lucknow Region for and on behalf of Deputy Director on 13/16.3.1989. In the first instance, by an order dated 11.1989 the first grade increment was offered to the incumbent Rajesh Pandey w.e.f. 1.1990 treating his date of appointment to be January, 1989 but lateron by an order dated 30.3.1990, the date of increment was advanced from January, 1990 to 16.3.1990 by taking the date of appointment to be 16.3.1989, when the letter of appointment was issued from Regional Office, then situated in Lucknow. 9. 9. From the material placed on record by the respondents, it further transpires that notwithstanding the first appointment was termed as temporary for six months and subject to the condition of finding fit by a civil surgeon, by an order dated 18.1988, approval was conveyed by the Deputy Director, Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti, Lucknow Region for appointment on ad hoc basis for 89 days or till the joining of regular incumbent, whichever is earlier. This was a common letter issued for both the petitioners as well as for one Neemb Singh, who was appointed as Librarian. Before issuance of letter dated 11.1989, approval of the Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti, Regional Office, Lucknow for regular appointment was accorded vide Annex. R/5 dated 9.1.1989 and after the letter dated 13/16.3.1989 was issued by the Chairman for and on behalf of Deputy Director, Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti, Lucknow Region, another letter dated 26/29.3.1990 was issued from Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti, Jaipur Region, which appears to have come into existence, meanwhile, conveying permission of the Deputy Director to appoint the four persons including both the petitioners on probation w.e.f. the date mentioned against their names i.e. 16.3.1989. 10. Curiously enough, this letter is captioned as "Regularisation of services of the Group `C and `D emloyees of the Vidhyalaya", which followed with communication dated 212.1992 that the petitioners have satisfactorily completed their probation on 13.1991. 11. In view of their continuous service in the Vidhyalaya since January, 1988, as a result of regular selection, the petitioners requested that their date of appointment be treated as 9.1.1988 in the case of Rajesh Pandey and 11.1988 in the case of K.L. Soni and consequently seniority may be assigned to them and objected to the seniority list published on 14.1993 in which names of the petitioner were not included, whereas, names of persons appointed upto 211.1988 had been included. .12. The prayer was declined by a letter dated 16.4.1993 that the cases for regularisation of services of the officials retrospectively have been examined with reference to the relevant records and it would not be possible to regularise their services from the dates mentioned against their names. .13. This led to filing of the present writ petition on 26.1993. 14. .12. The prayer was declined by a letter dated 16.4.1993 that the cases for regularisation of services of the officials retrospectively have been examined with reference to the relevant records and it would not be possible to regularise their services from the dates mentioned against their names. .13. This led to filing of the present writ petition on 26.1993. 14. The facts relating to petitioner No. 2 Kishan Lal Soni are identical except for the fact that initial appointment in pursuance of selection which took place in November, 1987 was given on 11.1988 are against the appointment of petitioner No. 1 Rajesh Pandey on 9.1.1988. The first appointment was for 89 days only. However, the subsequent communications upto the regular appointment vide letters dated 13/16.3.1989 and 11.1989 run parallel to each other. 15. The other fact which is not in dispute is that the appointing authority in the case of L.D.C. in the School is Principal though the supervisory control is exercised by the Samiti, firstly on the Regional Office, Lucknow Region and lateron by Regional Office, Jaipur. 10.16. Another fact of significance, which is not in dispute, is that initial appointment in January, 1988 in the case of both the petitioners was temporary appointment for 89 days as well as regular appointment on probation vide order dated 11.1989 in the first instance, and reaffirmed by an order dated 13/16.3.1989 is in pursuance of one and only selection which took place in November, 1987 and no separate selection has taken place for giving temporary or regular appointment. There is no issue between the parties that there has been violation of any rules in giving appointment to the petitioners on temporary basis in pursuance of selections made in November, 1987, which continued thereafter until appointment was offered in January, 1989 on probation for a period of two years. The first appointment was also subject to certification of fitness by civil surgeon as well as appointment on probation in January, 1989 was also subject to same condition. 117. In the circumstances, it is difficult to countenance the plea taken by the respondents that petitioners regular appointment can only be taken to be from 13.1989 when the order of appointment was conveyed by Deputy Director, Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti, Lucknow Region, Lucknow. 117. In the circumstances, it is difficult to countenance the plea taken by the respondents that petitioners regular appointment can only be taken to be from 13.1989 when the order of appointment was conveyed by Deputy Director, Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti, Lucknow Region, Lucknow. It is just to take away all consequential benefits which flow from the regular appointment given after a regular selection meant for filling the posts and that very selection has ultimately enured in regular appointment. 118. Labelling the appointment made in January, 1989 as temporary and continuing the same from time to time by issuing fresh appointment orders is wholly misnomer and there appears to be a confusion in the mind of the respondents between regular appointment and regularisation of appointment. Guided by this fact, the respondents deprived the petitioners from their continuous service in pursuance of regular selection and, therefore, the appointment was taken to be valid w.e.f. the date the regularisation was approved by the Committee. The confusion in the mind of respondents is further apparent from the fact that the appointment letter dated 11.1989 itself has been issued in furtherance of directions issued by the Deputy Director, Navodaya Samiti, Lucknow Region, still the appointment dates have been advanced w.e.f. 13/16.3.1989 by issuing another appointment order. 119. Be that as it may, in the circumstances shown to exist and about which there is no dispute, the appointment offered to the petitioners vide appointment letters dated 9.1.1988 and 11.1988, respectively, in pursuance of the very same selection which is referred to in the order of appointment dated 11.1989, must be held to be regular appointment under the Rules as a result of selection made in accordance with law and benefit of that appointment cannot be negatived merely because there is hiatus between offer of appointment by the appointing authority and approval of the same by the Regional Committee. 120. Therefore, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners date of regular appointments have to be treated as on the date they were issued first appointment letters vide letters dated 9.1.1988 and 11.1988 respectively in pursuance of selection which took place in November, 1987. 120. Therefore, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners date of regular appointments have to be treated as on the date they were issued first appointment letters vide letters dated 9.1.1988 and 11.1988 respectively in pursuance of selection which took place in November, 1987. Merely because for their own convenience the respondents have chosen to adopt a device by firstly giving temporary appointment to the petitioners until selection made by the selection committee is approved by the Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti, they have chosen to give an artificial break after every 89 days until regular appointment on probation was issued. Such strategies are subversive of the rule of law and has to be corrected as it affects the rights of the citizen to equality under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 121. During the pendency of the writ petition, it appears from the material placed by the respondents that the respondents have issued a seniority list dated 28.4.1998 for circulating the same amongst the candidates named therein for their information and correctness. Meaning thereby, it was a provisional seniority list to which any objection could be raised by any of the candidate, whose name appeared in list and if any objection is raised, the same has to be decided by the competent authority and if found to be justifiable, necessary corrections have to be made. .22. Undoubtedly, petitioners have not made any of the persons included in the seniority list produced by the respondents as party respondents in the present case which was issued during pendency of writ petition, therefore, it would not be possible to give directions to the respondents to treat the petitioners senior to those who have been shown in the seniority list and shown to have been appointed after the petitioners in the service in regular manner as aught (sic) one know the date of appointment referred to in the case of these .persons may have gone through the same journey to which the petitioners have passed. 123. 123. In these circumstances, while holding that the petitioners date of regular appointments to be 9.1.1988 and 11.1988, respectively, it is left open for the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list keeping in view the aforesaid conclusions and observations and invite objections from all the persons, whose position in the seniority list is proposed to be altered and final seniority list be published only after deciding their objections, if any, in accordance with law. 24. The petition is allowed with no order as to costs.