S. RAVINDRABHAT, J. ( 1 ) IN these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the relief claimed is for quashing an order dated 5. 3. 1989 by which the Respondents No. 3 to 20 were promoted by the second respondent i. e. Delhi state Civil Supplies Corporation ltd. (hereinafter) called "the Corporation" ). The validity of Rule 9 or the Recruitment and promotion Policy Rules which was brought into force on 1. 7. 85 has also been impugned. ( 2 ) THE Corporation is a Public Limited company; it framed formal Rules of recruitment and promotion Policy in 19x5. The petitioners in answer to an advertisement issued in the year 1981, applied for the post of, Sales Assistant. The advertisement/ notification was circulated to all the employment exchanges. It held out that the post carried a consolidated pay Rs. 450/- per month and had been sanctioned up to 31. 3. 1982. The notice also stated that the post did not carry any liability for continuing services of the incumbents after expiry of that period. The Petitioner applied, were interviewed, and were appointed with effect from 17. 10. 81 as Sales Assistants. ( 3 ) IT is claimed that the petitioners were performing field duties and involved in marketing and sales activities of the corporation. The Corporation had another set of employees. who were working in the office. They were known as Assistants. It is claimed that the post of Sales Assistant and assistant Grade-II were equivalent and the higher post of Senior Sales Assistant and assistant Grade-I were equal. ( 4 ) IN 1985, the Corporation formulated its recruitment and promotion policy Rules. These Rules provided for method of recruitment to various categories of posts, including the promotion, eligibility Criteria, qualifications and other details. The existing employees like the Petitioners, working within the Corporation were dealt with by Rule 9 which reads as follows. "9. PROVISIONS FOR EXISTING STAFF: the following categories of staff working on consolidated salary would wand equated with the post noted against each with the same sale of pay sanctioned for these posts provided they are found suitable by ,he Screening committee. consolidated salary. "9. PROVISIONS FOR EXISTING STAFF: the following categories of staff working on consolidated salary would wand equated with the post noted against each with the same sale of pay sanctioned for these posts provided they are found suitable by ,he Screening committee. consolidated salary. The date on which the regular pay-scale is given to a person will be the date of his regular appointment for the post and the services rendered by him prior to that date on consolidated salary is not on be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of seniority. The other employees appointed on regular scale till date will be deemed to have been covered under the provisions of these rules. " ( 5 ) THE petitioners were considered and granted the prescribed pay scales as Senior sales Assistants, after they underwent the screening/ procedure prescribed by Rule 9. ( 6 ) IT is alleged that the Corporation issued a separate seniority list of employees working in the sales wing and the petitioners were shown at Serial nos. 1, 4 and 8 of the list. A copy of the list has been produced along with petition. The reguular pay scales were given to the petitioners by an order dated 27. 10. 1996 with effect from 1. 7. 1985. By the impugned order dated 15. 3. 89 a number of Assistant Grade II and Senior Sales Assistant were promoted as Assistant Grade- I/sales officers in the pay scale of Rs. l400/-2300/ -. This order has been impugned as arbitrary. The petitioners contend that once seniority was fixed on the basis of their duties in the sales wing, the Corporation could not prepare a combined list of Sales Assistant/senior Sales assistants along with Assistant Grade II and grant promotion to employees working in the office such as Assistant Grade II. ignoring the claims of those in the sales wing. ( 7 ) THE validity of the Rule 9 has been impugned. It is alleged that the provision is arbitrary and ignores the realities as existing 1. Sales Officer = asstt. Grade-1 2. Sr. Sales Asstt. = asstt. Grade- ii 3. J/r. Sales Asstt. = asstt. Grade-III/jr. Asstt. 4. Helper, Mozdoor = etc. Class IV employees the suitability of the persons working on consolidated basis, will be determined by the Screening committee on the basis of the qualifications and experience as provided in the Recruitment Rules. Sales Officer = asstt. Grade-1 2. Sr. Sales Asstt. = asstt. Grade- ii 3. J/r. Sales Asstt. = asstt. Grade-III/jr. Asstt. 4. Helper, Mozdoor = etc. Class IV employees the suitability of the persons working on consolidated basis, will be determined by the Screening committee on the basis of the qualifications and experience as provided in the Recruitment Rules. The persons who are not found suitable for placement in a regular scale of any due to non-fulfilment of conditions regarding , experience/will continue on consolidated salary till they become eligible for the same within a reasonable period to be decided in each case by the Chairman-cum-Managing Directo, alternatively such officials may be considered for the next lower grade. The age limit in such case will be counted from the date of appointment on before coming into force of the Rules in 1985. The petitioners prior service has not been taken into consideration at all. Such an action is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. ( 8 ) THE respondent Corporation in its return has defended its action, promoting respondent nos, 3 to 20. It has denied that originally the petitioners and others were discharging duties that were different from the personnel working in the office as Assistant grade II Grade III. It is claimed that the petitioners were not recruited to any regular posts, but were employed for a tenure . on consolidated salary. The Corporation also avers that as per its policy before 1985, the post of Assistant Grade III, Grade II and Grade i carried regular pay scales and personnel were selected on the basis of proper recruitment. Their services were qualitatively different from the nature of service put in by the petitioners prior to the year 1985. ( 9 ) THE respondent Corporation has stated that there is nothing arbitrary or illegal in Rule 9. ft applied only in case of personnel who had been employed in the category of Sales assistant/senior Sales Assistant since there was no cadre on post and the petitioners were employed purely on account of exigencies of work on consolidated salary basis. ( 10 ) IT is alleged that the services of the petitioners were regularized with effect from 1. 7. ( 10 ) IT is alleged that the services of the petitioners were regularized with effect from 1. 7. 85 which were accepted by them; hence they cannot now make a grievance that the period of service put in prior to 1985 also had to be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority and other benefits. ( 11 ) MR. K. K. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the impugned order is arbitrary. The initial seniority list issued by the corporation clearly showed that there was a difference in the manner of treatment as between a clerical or administrative staff on the one hand and the Sales Staff on the other. Till 1989 those two categories were being treated differently and separate seniority lists were maintained. ( 12 ) IT was submitted that the sudden change or the policy in treating both the categories of staff similarly and preparing a combined seniority list was not justified. Learned counsel submitted that the nature of duties or responsibilities of clerical and administrative staff were quite different from those of the sales staff. The former had to work in the office in regard to the administrative functioning of the corporation. The latter on the other hand were deployed in the field and were entrusted with the actual operations. Hence the corporation acted arbitrarily in preparing a combined seniority "list and promoting the contesting respondents no. 3 to 20 on the basis or the length of their continuous service. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel submitted that Rule 9 is arbitrary and unconstitutional to the extent that it enables the corporation to completely ignore the previous service put in by those employees working in the sales wing or category. It was submitted that the petitioners were recruited pursuant to the legal method of selection of candidates namely from amongst those who applied after being registered with employment exchanges. The petitioners underwent proper procedure, were interviewed and selected before their appointment hence it was not as if their services were irregular or illegal. It was contended that prior to 1985 there were no rules. Hence the corporation could not have treated the entire length of service put by the petitioners till 1985 as irregular. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as union of India Vs. It was contended that prior to 1985 there were no rules. Hence the corporation could not have treated the entire length of service put by the petitioners till 1985 as irregular. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as union of India Vs. Anu Sekhar Guin 1989 (1) SCC ,283, D. P. Sharma Vs. Union of lndia, air 1989 SC 1071 and Ramesh K. Sharma Vs. Rajasthan Civil Supplies corporation 2000 IX AD (S. C.) 53 - (2001) scc (Lands) 289 for the submission that service of an employee rendered prior to the formulation or Rules cannot he termed as ad hoc c irregular. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel submitted that Rule 9 is also arbitrary because it deprived benefit of continuous service for the period 1981 to 1985 to the petitioners. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported as K. Naryanan Vs. Stare of Karnataka air 1994. SC 55 and "r Kapoor Vs. State of Haryana 1986 (Suppl) SCC 584 to say that vested and accord rights in respect or service benefits like seniority cannot be take away retrospectively by a Rule. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel further submitted that rule is contrary to the decision or the supreme Court in Direct Recruitment. Class III Officers Association Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1990, SC 1607. He placed reliance to content that the Supreme court held in that decision tint in the absence of a rule, uninterrupted and continuous service in a post would entitle the officer to reckon his seniority for the entire length of such service. ( 16 ) MS, Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel for the corporation submitted that there is nothing wrong or illegal] in the impugned order or in Rule 9. Learned counsel denied that petitioners had any light to claim separate seniority on the basis original difference between employees entrusted with sales work/working in the clerical/administrative department. It was submitted that such distinction had never existed and the employees in the clerical or administrative set up also could be asked to form field and sales work. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel submitted that the petitioners could not be compared with those working in the administrative/clerical unit, since the latter were appointed after an elaborate recruitment process to sanctioned posts which had existed in the Corporation even prior to the Rules. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel submitted that the petitioners could not be compared with those working in the administrative/clerical unit, since the latter were appointed after an elaborate recruitment process to sanctioned posts which had existed in the Corporation even prior to the Rules. It was submitted that distinction between such employees and the petitioners is that the former were in a regular grade with salaries in sanctioned pay scale whereas the petitioners were discharging work on consolidated salaries. Beside the petitioners services were engaged only temporarily, for a limited period, but they were allowed to continue on account of exigencies of work. The others appointments were not temporary or ad hoc appointments: even in the absence of rules those employees were enjoying a right to the post as per the existing policies, learned counsel further submitted that petitioners are beneficiaries of first put of rule 9 which enabled the Corporation to regularize services of those eligible to he continued. In exercise of that power the service records or such sales Assistant/ Senior Sales Assistants were considered and suitable orders were issued. In case any employee was discovered not to possess qualifications prescribed by the Rule, he could he offered a post in a lower cadre. The petitioners willingly underwent the screening process and were given appointment after being successful. Hence rule 9 became operative. But for that provision, the petitioners would never have been regularized. It was, therefore, contend that the exclusion of previous service, (for seniority) prior to 1985, was a part of process of regularization. Having derived benefits from the main part of the provision was not open to the petitioners to attack the latter portion after choosing to take the benefits. Learned counsel relied upon judgments of the supreme Court reported as Union of India vs. S. K. Sharma 1992 (2) SCC 728 and excise Commissioner Vs. V. Srikantha 1993 (3) ,scc 53, for the submission that an irregular or ad hoc appointment, contrary to the policies or Recruitment Rules, do not entitle an employee to reckon the period of such service for the purposes of seniority and promotion benefits. ( 18 ) IN the present petition two points aries for consideration. The first is validity of Rule 9 and the second, whether the petitioners claim for counting seniority prior to 1. 7. 1985 is justified. ( 18 ) IN the present petition two points aries for consideration. The first is validity of Rule 9 and the second, whether the petitioners claim for counting seniority prior to 1. 7. 1985 is justified. Regarding the first point the petitioners were admittedly recruited/ appointed some time in 1981. There is no dispute that the respondent issued a notice and asked applicants to be sponsored, by employment exchange. The candidates were also interviewed by the Corporation. However, the notice itself discloses that the post for which applications were for a limited period of time namely till 1982. Further the appointment was not for any prescribed or encadred post, for a consolidated salary (Rs. 450/- per month ). Undoubtedly the petitioners were allowed to continue beyond the original one year period. It is also not disputed that no rules and regulations regulating the recruitment even in respect posts and categories of posts existed at that point of time. ( 19 ) THE Corporation has contended that despite absence of ruies which were brought into force for the first time in 1985, it had policies by which the pay scales and method of recruitment of the clerical and administrative staff had been laid down. It was also averred that such procedure was followed and clerical/administrative staff were appointed to regular pay scales. This is the rationale put forth for not providing for regularization of the employment but only making the provisions in respect of clerical staff like petitioners. ( 20 ) A bare reading of Rule 9 would disclose that four kinds of employees were working on consolidated salary. The first three were sales Officers, Senior Sales Assistants and junior Sales Assistants. Their equivalent designation is Assistant Grade I, Assistant Grade ii and Assistant grade III; respectively; they were provided by the Rules. It would thus he clear that categories of Assistant Grade III, assistant Grade II were not deemed to be irregular. Though the existing policies relied upon the corporation have not been produced, the opening wards of Rute 9 would imply that other categories of staff in the administrative or clerical side had been appointed to prescribed pay scales, and some elaborate procedure had been followed or adopted. ( 21 ) THE argument that entire length of service prior to 1985 could not be ignored by Rule 9 appears to be attractive. ( 21 ) THE argument that entire length of service prior to 1985 could not be ignored by Rule 9 appears to be attractive. However the important circumstance to be kept in mind is that the appointment order of the petitioners and even the advertisement nowhere discloses that they were appointed on a permanent or irregular basis in accordance with the existing policies. On the other hand the appointment order shows that the engagement if one may so put it was a short duration of one year. The petitioner s right to continue was therefore, tenuous. ( 22 ) WITH the advent of Rules the Corporation formulated its employment standards including qualifications necessary in respect of various posts, it pertained to categories to staff other than Sales Assistant/senior Sales assistant etc. Or the other hand. the standards were being introduced for the first time, in respect of these three categories of posts (i. e Sales Assistant, Senior Sales Assistant etc ). Therefore the Corporation adopted the methodology of screening the qualifications and experience of each such employee to decide whether to regularise them in existing posts or to offer them any lower posts, The petitioners willingly participated in such screening process. ( 23 ) IN view of these above narrative facts, the claim of the petitioner that all employees had to be treated alike because prior to 1985 rules, and that services of no employee could be termed irregular, cannot be accepted. The reliance placed upon the judgment of supreme Court in D. P. Sharma s case and guin s case are not appropriate. In Guin s case. the issue was whether the period of initial appointment in the post, followed by regular appointment in the absence of Rules could he ignored. That was a decision with dealing rival claims to seniority as between direct recruits and promotions . The facts would show that the officials alleged to have been appointed as irregular in the absence of rules were promoted to an existing grade. However that is not position in this case. The petitioners unlike the others in the clerical and administrative staff, were appointed on consolidated salary basis. In D. P. Sharma s case (supra) the issue was the methodology adopted by the employer in giving benefits retrospectively (or service rendered after the rules and deny it for the previous period. However that is not position in this case. The petitioners unlike the others in the clerical and administrative staff, were appointed on consolidated salary basis. In D. P. Sharma s case (supra) the issue was the methodology adopted by the employer in giving benefits retrospectively (or service rendered after the rules and deny it for the previous period. The supreme Court held that if any light had accrued on account of administrative instructions in respect of benefits of such past service, rules formulated later could not take them away retrospectively. In the present case, the facts are different the character or employment of the petitioners were temporary and for short duration. On the other hand the employment or service of the clerical/administrative staff was not a short time one. The Corporation has asserted that they were appointed specific pay scales/ grades. Hence there is no question of any right accruing to the petitioners which was taken away by the rules for the reasons in tile two judgments in K. Naryanan s case and t. R. Kapoor s case would have no relevance. In those cases the State had framed Rules which operated retrospectively and impaired existing or accrued rights to pay. or in the seniority list. ( 24 ) THE Rule or a policy such as Rule 9 makes a classification, between those working in the clerical/administrative staff on the one hand and those working as Sales representative or senior Sales Representatives on the other hand on the basis of their terms of appointment namely to regular pay scales for existing posts. Such categorization between those in regular pay scales, and those working on consolidated salary basis for short term employment on the other, cannot be termed arbitrary or discriminatory. The Corporation applied the necessity of having to fulfil eligibility criteria as per 1985 rules to the petitioners and others of their categories employed on consolidated salary. Screening took place and petitioners service were regularized after such screening process. Hence there is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the Rules so far as it excludes the period between 1981 and 1985 for the purpose of reckoning seniority, specially when the previous service stood excluded once the sneering, to determine suitability or an empfoyee, was held. Screening took place and petitioners service were regularized after such screening process. Hence there is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the Rules so far as it excludes the period between 1981 and 1985 for the purpose of reckoning seniority, specially when the previous service stood excluded once the sneering, to determine suitability or an empfoyee, was held. Regarding point No. 2 ( 25 ) THE impugned order has been attacked on the ground that the petitioners names were placed in separate seniority list and subsequent by the respondent changed the basis, and prepared a combined seniority list and granted promotion to respondent nos. 3 to 20 which is illegal and arbitrary. ( 26 ) THE main emphasis of counsel during the course of hearing on this issue was that the petitioners and others in the clerical/, administrative grades were performing different duties and were always treated as two distinct classes. It was claimed that the preparation of combined sonority list has resulted in grave prejudice. Besides it would create other anomalies whereby the petitioners can be asked to discharge clerical or administrative duties for which they are not equipped. That would also impede their chances or prospects of promotion. ( 27 ) THE Rules of recruitment form dated in 1985, provided by Rule 18 that seniority of employees in each grade had to be followed on the basis of some principles. That Rule reads as follows:"18. SENIORITY seniority of employees in each grade in a cadre shall be determined on the following principle namely: i) Seniority Of employees appointed to any grade in regular capacity shall be determined in accordance with the order of their selection for appointment to that grade. ii) The relative seniority of direct recruit s vis promotees shall be determined according to the post of vacancies as per recruitment quotas fixed for direct requirement and promotion respectively. iii) The seniority of Employees on depuration of their absorption vis-a-vis other persons will be determined in accordance with the instructions on the subject from time to rime by the bureau of public enterprises. " ( 28 ) CLASSIFICATION of posts indicated in the Rules of 1985 by description reveals that there are three equivalent grades namely Accounts assistant. Assistant Grade II and Sales assistant. The promotion to Senior Accounts assistant is restricted from the categories or those holding lost of Accounts Assistant. " ( 28 ) CLASSIFICATION of posts indicated in the Rules of 1985 by description reveals that there are three equivalent grades namely Accounts assistant. Assistant Grade II and Sales assistant. The promotion to Senior Accounts assistant is restricted from the categories or those holding lost of Accounts Assistant. However, in ease of Assistant Grade I/sales officer promotion is permissible from the category of Assistant Grade II Senior sales assistanty/junior Stenographer with four years regular standing in their respective grades. Otherwise in case Assistant Grade II/senior sales Assistant promotion is from the categories of Assistant Grade II/junior assistant/jsa with lour years regular service in the respective grades. These show only determination between employee holding identical pay scale is vis-a vis those employed in the Accounts Section/department. In case of others. Rules contemplate interchangeability. This aspect assumes significance in view of Rule 18 which states that seniority of employees appointed to any grade would be determine in accordance with the order or their selection for appointment to that grade. If this rule along with eligibility criteria spelt out for different grade are taken into consideration emerging pattern would be that all those who continuously worked on regular basis for four years or more, irrespective of the description of their posts would be eligible for promotion as per their seniority having regard to the date of their appointment in the regular grade to the next higher category. The only exception is in the case of employees working in the accounts section. ( 29 ) HAVING regard to the findings on point no. 1 the complaint or arbitrariness in treating all categories alike and preparing a combined seniority list in my, opinion has no basis. Rule 18 has not been impugned in these proceedings. In the absence such a challenge, every employee who put in minimum regular service prescribed in the Rules either as an assistant or as Sales Assistant would have to be considered for the next higher post. The circumstance that the corporation had previously prepared a seniority list com prising on of Senior Sales Assistant, cannot detract from this reality. Promotional avenues under the Rules are available on the basis of interchangeability of persons holding different kinds of posts, with the same pay-scales. Hence combined seniority list is neither arbitrary, nor illegal. The circumstance that the corporation had previously prepared a seniority list com prising on of Senior Sales Assistant, cannot detract from this reality. Promotional avenues under the Rules are available on the basis of interchangeability of persons holding different kinds of posts, with the same pay-scales. Hence combined seniority list is neither arbitrary, nor illegal. ( 30 ) EVEN other wise 1 am of the opinion that the mere circumstance of combining two categories of employees, holding identical pay scales and promoting them to higher posts ignoring a previous practice of treating them separately by itself does not result in arbitrariness. That course of action is perfectly justified under Rule 18 and is a matter of policy adopted by the corporation. ( 31 ) IN view of the foregoing reasons I find no merits in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. .