JUDGMENT Maibam B.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Potsangbam, learned Advocate General, Manipur appearing on behalf of the Government respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the seniority list of section Officer, Grade-1 dated 11.8.192006, a copy of which is at Annexure-A/12 of the writ petition, in which the petitioners are placed at Sl. Nos. 32, 39, 43 and 44 and for rectifying the said list by placing them at Serial Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. 3. There is no dispute that on the recommendation of the selection committee, the petitioners, who are Diploma holders in Civil Engineering and were in Sl. No. 29, 37, 49 and 50 in the panel list, were appointed as section Officers purportedly with the approval of the Government on ad hoc basis for a period of 6 months or till the posts were filled up by regular appointment whichever was earlier. The petitioner No. 1 along with some other were appointed on 18.9.1978 on the said basis and the other petitioners were appointed on 26.10.1978 on the same basis. Annexure-A/3 and A/4 of the writ petition are copies of the above said appointment orders. On 29.4.1982, on the recommendation of DPC held on 13.1.1982, with approval of the Government, the petitioners were appointed as Section Officers, Grade-I on regular basis retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1981. The petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 along with some other persons filed C.R. No. 1011/93 praying inter alia for affording regularization w.e.f. their respective dates of initial Ad hoc appointments. This Court directed, vide order dated 26.7.1994 passed in C.R. No. 1011/93, in effect, to regularize the services of the concerned petitioners w.e.f. their respective dates of initial Ad hoc appointments. The relevant dates were 18.9.1978 in respect of petitioner No. 1 and 26.10.1978 in respect of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner No. 4 also obtained the same benefit on the basis of the order of this Court dated 8.2.1999 passed in C.R. No. 1329/98 and as such this Court directed to regularize the service of the petitioner No. 4 also w.e.f. the date on which he was appointed on Ad hoc basis, i.e., 26.10.1978. Annexure-A/7 and A/8 are the copies of the said orders of this Court passed in C.R. No. 1011/93 and C.R. No. 1329/98 respectively. Annexure-A/7 and A/8 are the copies of the said orders of this Court passed in C.R. No. 1011/93 and C.R. No. 1329/98 respectively. In compliance with the said directions of this Court made in C.R. No. 1011/93 and C.R. No. 1329/98, the concerned Chief Engineer issued necessary orders on 20.8.1997 and 29.5.2001 respectively. Annexures-A/13 and A/14 of the writ petition are the copies of the said orders issued in compliance with the directions of this Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the said regularization of their services w.e.f. their respective dates of initial Ad hoc appointments, as per direction of this Court, their services rendered on the basis of the said Ad hoc appointments prior to their subsequent regularization cannot now be considered as on fortuitous or stop gap arrangement basis. The petitioners are aggrieved that in all the Seniority lists of section Officer, Grade-I published from time to time, including the impugned seniority list dated 11.8.2006, the petitioners have been places at wrong place by showing and indicating incorrect dates of their regularization and thereby affecting their promotional chance to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to be listed at Sl. No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively in the Seniority list of section Officer, Grade-I. 5. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Counsel of the petitioners submits that since the petitioners held their respective posts un-interruptedly till regularization of their services following the rules and since their initial Ad hoc appointments were made following the recommendation made by a selection committee as per the qualification and Rules prescribed by the relevant Recruitment Rules, Condition (B) mentioned in the decision of the Apex Court in the Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra 1990 (2) SCC 715 as well as the decision of the Apex Court in Chief of Naval Staff reported in 1996 (1) SCC 521 and subsequent decisions will apply and the petitioners should not be deprived of the benefit of counting of ad hoc period towards their Seniority in service. 6. It is the case of the respondent Nos. 6. It is the case of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that when this Court directed, vide the order dated 26.7.1994 passed in C.R. No. 1011/93 and the order dated 8.2.1999 passed in C.R. No. 1329/98, for regularization of the ad hoc services of the petitioners retrospectively w.e.f. their respective dates of initial appointments on ad hoc basis, it was clearly mentioned that their inter se seniority should be fixed in accordance with the relevant service rules and executive instructions issued from time to time in this regard. And as such, the dates w.e.f. which the respective regularization of services of the petitioners have been made in pursuance of this Court's order mentioned above, are not relevant for fixing seniority. 7. Mr. Ashok Potsangbam, learned Advocate General, Manipur submits that the appointments of the petitioners on Ad hoc basis in 1978 were not made on the recommendation of a validly constituted DPC and that they were appointed as an interim arrangement without constituting a valid DPC and as such the dates of their Ad hoc appointments cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determining seniority. This Court's attention is drawn by the learned A.G to the fact that in the said C.R. No. 1011/93 filed by three of the petitioners and Ors. one of the prayer of the petitioners was for modification of the seniority list on the ground of the same having been framed without taking into consideration of the dates of their initial ad hoc appointments but the said prayer was withdrawn and as such the petitioners cannot be allowed to claim seniority to those persons appointed on the basis of the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. According to the learned A.G, in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Sarguja's case Basantakumar Wangkhem etc. v. The Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 88 , SLP(C) No. 19126 of 1995 and Rekha Mukherjee v. Ashishkumar Das (2005) 3 SCC 427 , since the petitioners abandoned the claim in respect of their seniority, they are precluded from filing a fresh writ petition about the matter. The learned A.G. submits that in the present case, the dispute in respect of seniority is amongst the direct recruits and not in between the direct recruits and promotees. The learned A.G. submits that in the present case, the dispute in respect of seniority is amongst the direct recruits and not in between the direct recruits and promotees. Further, learned A.G. submits that as per the said decision of the Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association (supra) also, once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority is to be counted from the date of his regular appointment and 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. The learned A.G., further submits that some of the present private respondents filed WP(C) No. 62/99 and other writ petitions before this Court challenging the orders issued by the Government giving seniority to some incumbents, who are similarly situated with the present writ petitioners and that this Court; vide the common judgment and order dated 25.5.2000, allowed the writ petitions by quashing the orders of the Government with a direction to determine the seniority in accordance with the merit position in the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) select list. It is also submitted that an appeal being WA No. 79/2000 filed against the said' judgment and order dated 25.5.2000 was also dismissed on 6.2.2007 holding that the appellants could not claim seniority from the dates of their respective initial ad hoc appointments. 8. The petitioners are direct recruits. They belong to the group of 23 Ad hoc section Officers, Grade-1, who were not recommended by MPSC. While serving as section Officers Grade-I on Ad hoc basis, on the recommendation of DPC held on 13.1.1982 and in pursuance to the approval of the Government of Manipur, they were appointed on regular basis retrospectively as section Officers Grade-I w.e.f. 1.1.1981. At the time when the DPC was held on 13.1.1982, the post of S.O. Grade-I was not within the purview of MPSC as the same had been taken off from the purview of MPSC w.e.f. 18.4.1981. It is ascertained that most of the present private respondents, against whom the petitioners are claiming seniority, are also direct recruits appointed as Section Officers Grade-I on regular basis on the recommendation of the MPSC before the regular appointment of the petitioners. It is ascertained that most of the present private respondents, against whom the petitioners are claiming seniority, are also direct recruits appointed as Section Officers Grade-I on regular basis on the recommendation of the MPSC before the regular appointment of the petitioners. At the time when the private respondents were recruited, the post of Section Officer Grade-I was within the purview of MPSC. 9. It is well settled that seniority is an incidence of service and where the service rules prescribe the method of its computation, it is to be computed in accordance with the said rules. The relevant rules of recruitment to the post of S.O. Grade-I (Civil/Mechanical) in the PWD Manipur is the Public Works Department, Manipur. S.O. Grade-I (Civil/Mechanical) Recruitment Rules, 1976. As per the said Rules, merit list is to be prepared for both Civil and Mechanical wings and the combined merit list of the two wings will determine the seniority of the incumbents. Merit is the determining factor for seniority of the incumbents. Further as per note 3 of the said rules, it is clearly stated that any period of Ad hoc appointment prior to the regularization of the appointment in consultation with the commission shall not be counted in the minimum period of service prescribed for promotion. The above said provisions are in consonance with the general principle of seniority that the ad hoc period of service does not count for seniority and that the seniority is to be determined on the basis of the merit positions obtained by the candidates in the regular selection. Keeping in view, the above said principle and provisions of recruitment rules, the petitioners cannot claim seniority to the private respondents who were regularly recruited before them. 10. In A.K. Bhatnagar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 544 wherein the dispute is concerning the inter, se seniority between direct recruits alone, the Apex Court held that where the service rules prescribe the method of its computation, it is squarely governed by such rules. At paras 12 and 13, the Apex Court held: 12. Mr. Bhandarni, learned Counsel for some of the regularized employees not covered by the Government notification of regularization but whose services became regular through the examination contended that though they have taken the examination and become regularized under the rules, their past services should also be taken into account. At paras 12 and 13, the Apex Court held: 12. Mr. Bhandarni, learned Counsel for some of the regularized employees not covered by the Government notification of regularization but whose services became regular through the examination contended that though they have taken the examination and become regularized under the rules, their past services should also be taken into account. We do not find any force in such a submission particularly when there is a definite rule dealing with seniority and they had subjected themselves to that process. Their seniority in terms of the rules had to be regulated according to the merits of the respective lists in the years when the examinations were held. We, therefore, do not propose to meddle with the service in any manner. The net result, therefore, would be that the writ petition has to be dismissed and the Civil appeals have to be allowed.... 13. On more than one occasion, this Court has indicated to the Union and State Governments that once they frame rules, their action in respect of matters covered by rules should be regulated by the rules. The rules framed in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution are solemn rules having binding effect. Acting in a manner contrary to the rules does create problem and dislocation...we take serious view of these lapses and hope and trust that the government both at the centre and in the states would take note of this position and refrain from acting in a manner not contemplated by their own rules... 11. In Masood Akhtar Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1990) 4 SCC 24 which also dealt with the case of direct recruit, the question for consideration was as to from what date the seniority in the cadre of an appointee could be considered? In that case also, the initial appointments were made for a period of six months pending regular selection by the Public Service Commission. In that case also, the initial appointments were made for a period of six months pending regular selection by the Public Service Commission. The Apex Court held that the appointees who were allowed to continue beyond the period of six months and later on were regularly selected by the Public Service Commission could claim seniority from the date of their regular absorption in the cadre after being selected by the commission, and services rendered from the date of their initial stop gap appointment till regular selection would not be counted for their seniority in the cadre. 12. The initial Ad hoc appointments of the petitioners, on the basis of the recommendation made by a selection committee and with the approval of the State Government for a fix period, cannot be considered as appointments made according to the relevant Recruitment Rules. Because, a recommendation made by a selection committee constituted for the purpose of appointment on Ad hoc basis for a specified period cannot be equated with a recommendation made by the concerned DPC constituted under the relevant rules for the purpose of regular appointment. There is a qualitative difference in between the two recommendations. There is also nothing to show that any notification was issued thereby giving opportunity to all eligible candidates for applying in respect of the said Ad hoc appointments. It is to be noted that at the time when the said initial Ad hoc appointments of the petitioners were made, the post of section Officers Grade-I (Civil/Mechanical) in the P.W.D. Manipur was within the purview of MPSC. The said ad hoc appointments on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose cannot be deemed to be substantive appointments. They were in the nature of stop gap fortuitous appointments. Since the said initial ad hoc appointments were made in violation of the relevant Recruitment rules for a fix period as a stop gap arrangement, the said appointments are covered under corollary in conclusion (A) and not conclusion (B) of the constitution bench in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra 1990 SCC 715 . Since the said initial ad hoc appointments were made in violation of the relevant Recruitment rules for a fix period as a stop gap arrangement, the said appointments are covered under corollary in conclusion (A) and not conclusion (B) of the constitution bench in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra 1990 SCC 715 . The conclusion (A), it's corollary and the conclusion (B) arrived by the Constitution Bench in the above case are as follows; (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority is to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the data 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 regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. In the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Aghore Nath Dey and Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 371 , the Apex Court considered the above said conclusion (A) and (B) and held at paras 22, 23, 24 as follows: 22. There can be no doubt that these two conclusions have to be read harmoniously, and conclusion (B) cannot cover cases which are expressly excluded by conclusion (A). We may, therefore, first refer to conclusion (A). It is clear from conclusion (A) that to enable seniority to be counted from the date of initial appointment and. no according to the date of confirmation, the incumbent of the post has to be initially appointed 'according to rules'. The corollary set out in conclusion (A), then is, that 'where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stopgap arrangement, the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority'. Thus, the corollary in conclusion (A) expressly excludes the category of cases where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules, being made only as a stopgap arrangement. Thus, the corollary in conclusion (A) expressly excludes the category of cases where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules, being made only as a stopgap arrangement. The case of the writ petitioners squarely falls within this corollary in conclusion (A), which says that the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for counting the seniority. 23. This being the obvious inference from conclusion (A), the question is whether the present case an also fall within conclusion (B) which deals with cases in which period of officiating service will be counted for seniority. We have no doubt that conclusion (B) cannot include, within it's ambit, those cases which are expressly covered by the corollary in conclusion (A), since the two conclusions cannot be read in conflict with each other. 24. The question, therefore, is of the category which would be covered by conclusion (B) excluding therefrom the cases covered by the corollary in conclusion (A). 13. In the light of the above position of law and for the reasons already given, the said initial ad hoc appointments of the petitioners are covered by the corollary of the conclusion (A) in the Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association (supra) and as such, conclusion (B) in the said case will not apply. Accordingly, the period of ad hoc services of the writ petitioners as Section Officers Grade-I prior to their regularization w.e.f. 1.1.1981 cannot be counted for reckoning their seniority. The submission of the learned Counsel of the petitioners to the contrary in this regard is not acceptable and it is rejected. It is also to be noted that though the learned Counsel for the petitioners cites Chief of Naval Staff v. G. Gopal Krishna Pillai (1996) 1 SCC 521 , the said case does not held the petitioner's case. In the said case, basic facts were as follows: Shri G. Gopal Krishna Pillai was given Ad hoc appointment to the post of Store Keeper at Gao and while he had been continuing in such ad hoc appointment, he was regularized in the post of Store Keeper. In the said case, basic facts were as follows: Shri G. Gopal Krishna Pillai was given Ad hoc appointment to the post of Store Keeper at Gao and while he had been continuing in such ad hoc appointment, he was regularized in the post of Store Keeper. The Naval Staff has given appropriate fitment in the scale of Store Keeper to Shri Pillai after giving credit for the officiation in the said post but so far as the seniority to the cadre of Store Keeper is concerned, the seniority has been given only from the date when he was regularized in the post of Store Keeper. Shri Pillai felt aggrieved for not getting seniority by computing the period spent on Ad hoc basis as a Store Keeper Claiming seniority by reckoning Ad hoc service, he made representation to the Naval Deptt. which was rejected. The Central Administrative Tribunal decided in favour of Shri Pillai. The Apex Court held at para 5: 5. ...In the instant case, the respondent Shri Pillai was not selected by a regularly constituted selection body for giving ad hoc appointment to the post of Store Keeper and on such selection he had continued in ad hoc service till regular appointment to such posts was made. On the contrary, the case of Shri Pillai is that while he had been holding Ad hoc posts, he got selected on a regular basis to the said post of Store Keeper. Hence, the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. It also appears to us that the Tribunal in passing the impugned order has relied on condition (B) as referred to in the decision of the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association in support of the impugned order. In our view the principle enunciated in the said case is not applicable in the facts of this case because the initial appointment of Shri Pillai by way of Ad hoc arrangement was not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules as referred to in condition (B) in the said decision. Hence, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order without however any order as to costs. 14. The above said decision goes against the case of the petitioners. Hence, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order without however any order as to costs. 14. The above said decision goes against the case of the petitioners. These authorities unequivally make it clear that if the initial appointment is not according to the rules, subsequent regularization of the appointee's service does not entitle him to the benefit of intervening service for seniority. 15. No doubt, this Court directed vide order dated 26.7.1994 and 8.2.1999 passed in C.R. No. 1011/93 and C.R. No. 1329/98 respectively, for regularization of the services of the petitioners w.e.f. their respective dates of initial ad hoc appointments. Further, in compliance with the said directions, the Chief Engineer issued necessary orders dated 20.8.1997 and 29.5.2001 and thereby deeming the services of the petitioners to be regularized w.e.f. 26.10.1978. However, this Court, while passing the said orders, observed that the inter se seniority of the petitioners should be fixed in accordance with the service rules and executive instructions issued from time to time. This Court did not hold that the respective dates of the initial ad hoc appointments of the petitioners should be taken into account while determining their seniority. Any decision of this Court to that effect would have effected the interest of Private respondents, who were appointed on recommendation of the MPSC before the regular appointments of the petitioners under the relevant recruitment rules. Apart from absence of any directions/order of this Court to the said effect, the learned Counsel of the petitioners in C.R. No. 1011/93 submitted before the court that the petitioners were not claiming any relief against the private respondents in the case and the court directed to struck off the names of the private respondents in the case. In this situation and having regards to the well settled position of law discussed above, merely on the basis of the said regularization of services of the petitioners w.e.f. the respective dates of their initial Ad hoc appointments on direction of this Court, which was also issued with direction that their inter se seniority should be fixed in accordance with rules and executive instructions, the petitioners are not entitled to ask for taking into consideration of the respective dates of their initial Ad hoc appointments in determining their seniority in service. 16. 16. While arriving to the above mentioned view, I have also taken into account the common judgment and order dated 25.5.2000 passed by this Court disposing of C.R. No. 734/96, WP(C) No. 374/99, WP(C) No. 720/99, WP(C) No. 864/99, WP(C) No. 629/99, WP(C) No. 236/99, WP(C) No. 1109/99, C.R. No. 512/96 of Imphal Bench wherein similar question regarding relevance of the period of Ad hoc service of an employee before his regular appointment in determining his seniority was considered and decided. WP(C) No. 734/96and WP(C) No. 374/99 were filed by some of the MPSC recommended candidates challenging various orders issued by the Government giving seniority to those ad hoc appointees who were appointed as section Officers Grade-I from waiting list and one from merit list. The claim was founded on the ground that they were appointed on ad hoc basis in 1978 and as such their ad hoc services should have been counted towards seniority after appointment on regular basis on the recommendation of MPSC. The contention was rejected by this Court. An appeal filed by 5 appellants being No. WA No. 79/2000 was dismissed by holding in-effect that the appellants had been appointed dehorse the Recruitment Rules and if that be so they could not claim that their Ad hoc period of service should be counted towards seniority. There is no sufficient reason for deviating from the principle of law which formed the basis of this Court's decisions in the above said cases. 17. Apart from having no merit in the case of the petitioners, in my considered opinion, the objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition as has been raised by learned AG. cannot be said to be misplaced. In the said C.R. No. 1011/93 filed by three of the present petitioners and others as against most of the private respondents, by submitting on behalf of the petitioners by their counsel that they were not claiming any relief against those respondents, in effect, the petitioners abandoned or withdrew their prayer for modification of the seniority list on the ground of same having been framed without taking into consideration of the dates of their initial Ad hoc appointments. Since the said withdrawal was made without obtaining any liberty to file afresh in respect of the said relief, having regards to the decisions of the Apex Court made in Sarguja's case, 1987 SC 88,Basantakumar Wangkhem (supra) and Rekha Mukherjee (supra), the petitioners are precluded from filing the present writ petition claiming the same relief withdrawn earlier without obtaining any permission from the court to claim the said relief later on. 18. Since, this Court has already concluded with the present petitioners have no merit in respect of the relief sought by them, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The interim order dated 30.8.192006 passed in this case stands vacated. Petition dismissed.