Judgment ( 1. ) THEY are heard. ( 2. ) BOTH the petitioners filed the present case before the tribunal for quashment of the order dated 31. 10. 2000 issued by the respondents. Both the petitioners have also prayed for a writ of Mandamus against the respondents to accord them seniority from the date of their initial appointment. ( 3. ) BY communication dated 31. 12. 2000 which is Annexure A/17, the representation submitted by one Shri V. K. Shukla, the Asst. Training Officer has been rejected. Mr. Shukla is not the petitioner in the present petition. The said representation was submitted by Mr. Shukla for grant of seniority from the date of his first adhoc appointment. ( 4. ) THE facts leading to the present case are that both the petitioners were initially appointed on adhoc basis. According to the averments made in the petition they were selected by the Mini P. S. C. ( 5. ) ACCORDING to the orders of appointment, the appointment was made for a period of 89 days and according to the petitioners the said period of appointment was extended after the expiry of the earlier period of appointment. The petitioners have also not given details about the number of days on which there was a break in the service between the period after expiry of the earlier period of appointment till the issuance of new order of appointment on adhoc basis. ( 6. ) ADMITTEDLY, there had been intermediate breaks in service of each petitioner but it is stated that the said break is technical in nature and cannot be considered as a break. ( 7. ) WHILE arguing the matter, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submitted that on the date when the first appointment was given, there were no recruitment rules regulating the appointment of the petitioners on the post. According to the averments made in the petition, both the petitioners were selected by the Mini PSC on regular basis and were appointed as Assistant Training Officer by orders dated 30. 3. 89 and 29. 3. 89. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the new recruitment rules came into force in the year 1988 and it was further admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no provision for regularization under the Recruitment Rules of 1988. ( 8. 3. 89 and 29. 3. 89. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the new recruitment rules came into force in the year 1988 and it was further admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no provision for regularization under the Recruitment Rules of 1988. ( 8. ) IT is pertinent to mention here that the order of initial adhoc appointment specifically stipulates a condition that the adhoc appointment of the present petitioners shall not give any right to seniority. Both the petitioners accepted the aforesaid condition. ( 9. ) IT is to be further mentioned that the petitioners when were said to have been regularized by order Annexure A/10 and A/11, a specific condition was also appended therein that petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis and they have to pass the examination from Central Training Institute within a period of three years. This order further stipulates that in case both the petitioners could not pass the aforesaid examination within a period of three years then there services shall be treated as regular under Rule 8 (6) of M. P. Civil Services (General condition of service) Rules, 1961. In the petition filed by the petitioner, it is not stated anywhere that petitioners have passed the said examination to which they were required to pass within a period of three years in terms to the condition enumerated in the order Annexure A/10 and a/11 by which the petitioners were said to have been given regular appointment. ( 10. ) IN the rejoinder, there are no averments made that any of the petitioners that they have passed the said examination within the stipulated period of three years while giving them appointment in pursuance to the orders Annexure A/10 and A/11 which is said to be a regular appointment. ( 11. ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the tribunal has passed the order Annexure A/12 in O. A. No 1979/91 decided on 26. 11. 94, the relevant para of the aforesaid order is quoted below:- "in my opinion, the request cannot be conceded to. The matter of the fact remains that both the applicants were appointed on ad hoc basis and they have continued on ad hoc basis and they have continued all these years in that capacity. 11. 94, the relevant para of the aforesaid order is quoted below:- "in my opinion, the request cannot be conceded to. The matter of the fact remains that both the applicants were appointed on ad hoc basis and they have continued on ad hoc basis and they have continued all these years in that capacity. The applicants never agitated their claims requesting the respondents to regularize them on the post they have been holding. Therefore, the only direction can be issued by the tribunal is to direct the respondents to constitute a Screening Committee within two months of the date of this order. If the committee finds them suitable for the post in all respects, they shall be regularized on the post held by them and shall also pay them salary on regular scale. They shall also be entitled to salary for the days on break in service. Their seniority will be counted from the date of their initial appointments. " ( 12. ) ON this basis, an attempt is made on behalf of the petitioners to claim similar relief which was granted by the tribunal in the said Original Application. ( 13. ) IT is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that in terms to Rule 12 (4)of the M. P. Civil Services (General condition of service) Rules, 1961 which was amended with effect from 02. 04. 98, the petitioners even otherwise are entitled to be given the benefit of seniority because both the petitioners were appointed by following due procedure. ( 14. ) THE submission so made by learned counsel for the petitioners is considered. ( 15. ) IN this reference before adverting to the question raised on behalf of the petitioners, it would be appropriate to refer herein below Rule 12 sub-rule 4 of m. P. Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 on which the reliance is placed which reads as under;- "12 (4) Seniority of Adhoc employees.- (a) A person appointed on adhoc basis" shall not get any seniority till the regularization of his services. (b) If a person is appointed on adhoc basis by substantially following the procedure laid down by the Recruitment Rules and the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service shall be counted for seniority. " ( 16. (b) If a person is appointed on adhoc basis by substantially following the procedure laid down by the Recruitment Rules and the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service shall be counted for seniority. " ( 16. ) THE reading of Rule 12 sub-rule 4 (a) indicates that a person appointed on adhoc basis shall not get any seniority till the regularization of his services which means that after regularization, a person appointed on adhoc basis shall be entitled for seniority and the previous services rendered by such an incumbent on adhoc basis shall not be reckoned for the purposes of seniority. Rule 12 sub-rule 4 (b)further indicates that if an incumbent is appointed on adhoc basis by substantially following the procedure laid down by the Recruitment Rules and the appointee continues on the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service shall be counted for seniority which means that for the purposes of reckoning seniority. The person appointed on adhoc basis has to be appointed by substantially by following the procedure laid down by the Recruitment Rules. In the present case, as admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, there had been no recruitment rules on the date of the first appointment therefore there is no question of following any procedure substantially or otherwise prescribed under the relevant Recruitment rules. This clause also indicates that the appointee if continues on the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his services in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service shall be counted for the seniority. The later part of this clause indicates that there should be no interruption till the regularization in the adhoc appointment of an incumbent. ( 17. ) ADMITTEDLY in the present case there had been interruptions which according to the petitioners, is artificial but the fact remains that there are interruptions in the service till regularization is admitted. ( 18. ) LEARNED-COUNSEL for the petitioners submitted that there are no rules regulating the regularization of the petitioners services or to the post on which they were initially appointed on adhoc basis. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that regularization and regular appointment is the same. ( 18. ) LEARNED-COUNSEL for the petitioners submitted that there are no rules regulating the regularization of the petitioners services or to the post on which they were initially appointed on adhoc basis. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that regularization and regular appointment is the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also not brought to the notice of this Court, any authority or judicial pronouncement to substantiate his submission that regularization and regular appointment is one and the same. Though, the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, state of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and Others 2006 (4) SCC 1 has not accepted the same. ( 19. ) IN the present case it is to be seen that when the order Annexure P/10 and p/1 1 were passed which according to the petitioners are the orders of regularization then it was also a condition mentioned therein that the petitioners have to pass the necessary examination from Central Training Institute within a period of three years. There is nothing on record that petitioners have passed the said examination then it being the situation then in terms to Rule 8 (3), the probationer has to undergo the said training and pass such Departmental Examination during the period of probation as may be prescribed then again the question would be, a person who has not passed the examination, how would be entitled to be confirmed and would also be entitled to claim seniority from the date of his initial appointment even though he has not passed the said examination. ( 20. ) THE question as such has been considered by the Apex Court in 1996 (11) SCC 173 M. P. Chandoria Vs. State of M. P. and Others and relevant para 4 and 5 of the said judgment are as under:- "4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since he has been appointed w. e. f. the date of joining of duty, his seniority should be reckoned from the date of his starting discharging duty of the post, viz. , February 15, 1967. As he has not been discharged from service due to his failure to pass the test, though he passed his test at later, he must be deemed to have been confirmed w. e. f. the date of his joining the duty. , February 15, 1967. As he has not been discharged from service due to his failure to pass the test, though he passed his test at later, he must be deemed to have been confirmed w. e. f. the date of his joining the duty. Therefore, the seniority is required to be confirmed from that date. We find no force in the contention. Indisputably, the appellant is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services [general Conditions of Service] Rules, 1961 [for short, the rules]. Clause 2[g] defines service to mean a service of group of posts in connection with the affairs of the State other than the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service, organised as such by the Government. Rule 4 classifies the post with which we are not concerned. Rule 8 prescribes probation. Rule 8[1] envisages that a person appointed to a service or post by direct recruitment shall ordinarily be placed on probation for such period as may be prescribed. The appointing authority may, for sufficient reasons, extend the period of probation by a further period not exceeding one year. The probationer has to undergo such training and pass such departmental examination during the period of his probation as may be prescribed. Sub-rules (4) and (5) are not relevant and are omitted. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 is relevant for the purpose of the case which envisages that on successful completion of probation and passing the prescribed departmental examination, if any, the probationer shall, if there is a permanent post available, be confirmed in the service or post to which he has been appointed. Otherwise a certificate shall be issued in his favour by the appointing authority to the effect that the probationer would have been confirmed but for the non-availability of the permanent post. As soon as a permanent post becomes available, he will be confirmed. Under sub-rule (7), a probationer, who has neither been confirmed nor a certificate issued in his favour under sub-sec. (6), nor is he discharged from service under sub-rule (4), he shall be deemed to have been appointed as a temporary Government servant w. e. f. the date of expiry of probation and his conditions of service shall be governed by the Madhya Pradesh Government servants [temporary and Quasi - Permanent Service] Rules, 1960. 5. (6), nor is he discharged from service under sub-rule (4), he shall be deemed to have been appointed as a temporary Government servant w. e. f. the date of expiry of probation and his conditions of service shall be governed by the Madhya Pradesh Government servants [temporary and Quasi - Permanent Service] Rules, 1960. 5. Under Rule 12, the seniority of the members of the service of a district branch or group of posts of that service shall be determined in accordance with the principles laid down therein. Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) envisaged that the seniority of a directly recruited Government servant appointed on probation shall count during his probation from the date of his appointment; the proviso is not relevant. Sub-clause (ii) envisages that the same order of inter se seniority of direct recruits maintained by confirmation of the normal period of probation. If, however, the period of probation of any direct recruit is extended, the appointing authority should determine the date from which the candidate should be assigned seniority. Until the probation is declared and he was confirmed in the post, he does not become a member of the service (sic) successful completion of the probation and pass of the prescribed tests or conditions precedent to declare the probation. So, mere passage of time one year does not entitle a probationer to be a member of the service. He remains to be on temporarily service. On declaration of probation, the appointing authority should confirm in a pending post available or to grant quasi-permanent status. As soon as the post is available, he should be confirmed. In view of the admitted position that he did not pass the test, me appointing authority considered that his seniority would be counted w. e. f. the date of his passing the test. Rule 12 (a) (ii) clearly empowers the appointing authority to assign, in these circumstances, the seniority in lower level than the one assigned by the Public Service Commission. We do not find any illegality committed by the authorities in giving seniority from the date of his passing the test. " ( 21. ) ON the basis of the law laid down as aforesaid, no material has been placed on record that petitioners have passed the requisite examination which was a condition mentioned in the order of appointment, Annexure P/10 and P/11 whereby they were appointed on probation. ( 22. " ( 21. ) ON the basis of the law laid down as aforesaid, no material has been placed on record that petitioners have passed the requisite examination which was a condition mentioned in the order of appointment, Annexure P/10 and P/11 whereby they were appointed on probation. ( 22. ) THE next question also arises for consideration that while appointing the petitioners on adhoc basis, a condition as such was enumerated that petitioners shall not be entitled to claim any benefit of the period of their adhoc appointment for the purposes of reckoning seniority. Petitioners accepted the said condition. The condition as such has also not been challenged in the present petition. Once both the petitioners have accepted the said condition then in the absence of any challenge to the said condition even otherwise are stopped from claiming the benefit of adhoc period for the purposes of reckoning the seniority. ( 23. ) IN this reference the judgment passed by the Gwalior Bench of this Court is referable which is reported in I. L. R. 2008 M. P. 1869 State of M. P. and Others vs. Vinod Mohan Shrivastava wherein the Division Bench has taken into account the conditions mentioned in the order of appointment which were accepted by an employee then it is held that in case the employee does not fulfill the said conditions mentioned in the order of appointment then the employee as such has to fulfill the said condition before obtaining the benefits arising out of the order. ( 24. ) THUS, in view of the condition laid down in the order of first appointment which was on adhoc basis that petitioners shall not claim the period of adhoc appointment for reckoning the seniority and thereafter the petitioners were appointed on probation by orders, Annexure P/10 and P/11 then there, a condition was imposed that they have to pass the examination from Central Training Institute within a period of three years. There is nothing on record that petitioners have passed the above said examination. In the absence of any material to this Court, the judgment so passed by the Division Bench of this Court (supra) shall have full application in the present case and, therefore, petitioners, until fulfill the said condition cannot claim any benefit of the said order. ( 25. There is nothing on record that petitioners have passed the above said examination. In the absence of any material to this Court, the judgment so passed by the Division Bench of this Court (supra) shall have full application in the present case and, therefore, petitioners, until fulfill the said condition cannot claim any benefit of the said order. ( 25. ) THE next question which has also been raised by the petitioners is that the tribunal has decided the Original Application No 1979/91 decided on 26. 11. 94 wherein the employees who are similarly situated were directed to be regularized and seniority is also directed to be reckoned from the date of their initial appointment. ( 26. ) IT is to be seen that the judgment passed by the tribunal has no binding precedent on the High Court. The aforesaid judgment was passed on 26. 11. 94 and the relevant recruitment rules i. e. Rule 12 of M. P. Civil Services (General condition of Service) Rules, 1961 was amended with effect from 02. 04. 98. The petitioners have also placed reliance on this rule. Thus, on the date when the said case was decided, there were different set of rules and on the date when the present case was filed by the petitioners the amendments in the recruitment rules have already came into operation and the present case has to be decided in the light of the rules in vogue on the date when the case was filed. ( 27. ) AS per Rule 12 (4.) (b) there has to be uninterrupted service and regularization has also to be done of adhoc appointment in terms to the relevant recruitment rules. Admittedly, there were no recruitment rules which provides for the regularization. ( 28. ) APART from this, there had been interruptions also whichis admitted by the petitioners in their service, thus keeping in view the mandate of Rule 12 (4) (b) of the 1961 Rules, the petitioners have no case in their favour. On the contrary, Rule 12 (4) (a) says that an adhoc appointee shall have no right to claim seniority. ) APART from this, there had been interruptions also whichis admitted by the petitioners in their service, thus keeping in view the mandate of Rule 12 (4) (b) of the 1961 Rules, the petitioners have no case in their favour. On the contrary, Rule 12 (4) (a) says that an adhoc appointee shall have no right to claim seniority. This is the mandatory rule which is in existence and ,therefore, in the absence of requirement of non fulfillment of the conditions as enumerated under Rule 12 (4) (b), the petitioners cannot be given the benefit of the said rules but the case of the petitioners is covered by Rule 12 (4) (a) which has already been reproduced hereinabove. ( 29. ) UNDER the circumstances, the judgment on which heavy reliance is placed passed by the tribunal has no application in the present case and is also distinguishable, ( 30. ) THE next submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that certain other similarly placed persons have been given the benefit of seniority from the date of their adhoc appointment and therefore, petitioners are also entitled to the same. ( 31. ) IT is to be seen that merely a wrong is done by the State Govt. that will not confer any right on the petitioners. It is a case of negative equity and a wrong benefit conferred shall not carry any right in favour of other persons to claim the same relief by applying the concept of negative equity. Apart from the aforesaid, no details have been given by the petitioners with respect to other persons those who were similarly situated, according to the petitioners. ( 32. ) MERE bald submission in the petition has been made that petitioners are also the similarly situated persons. There is nothing on record whether there was any break against their services or not. Nothing is also shown that other persons were having no break into their services. ( 33. ) IN view of the aforesaid, in the absence of proper material to this Court merely a bald submission made in the petition cannot be accepted for conferring the benefit in favour of the petitioners. ( 34. ) ACCORDINGLY, no case is made out in favour of the petitioners and the petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.