JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Srivastava, J.—These three writ petitions are connected with each other and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The factual position emerging from the pleadings of the parties is more or less undisputed, so we would like to give only a summary of it before we proceed to consider the issues involved in these writ petitions. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007 3. The petitioners and proforma respondents of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007 have put up their case by saying that prior to 1989 there were no separate Rules for recruitment of Stenographers and the Rules in this regard were introduced for the first time in 1989. In Kanpur region of the Income Tax Department, acute shortage of Stenographers was felt during the period 1977-78. The appointments for the post of Stenographers (Ordinary Grade) were to be made by the Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commission’), New Delhi. A demand was sent to the Commission to sponsor certain number of Stenographers to the Income Tax Department, Kanpur. The Commission could not provide any selected candidate and by its letter dated 19.4.1978 the Commission expressed its inability to hold a selection and requested the department to fill up the vacancies through Employment Exchange. The department sought permission to recruit the Stenographers from the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short the C.B.D.T. or the Board) which was granted to it vide letter dated 29.6.1978. Examinations were conducted and the petitioners and the proforma respondents were appointed in the Income Tax Department on various dates between 1978-79. Referring certain facts relating to the Income Tax Departments of Lucknow and Allahabad the petitioners have alleged that the Commission granted approval for regularization of the ad-hoc Stenographers from the date of their initial appointment in the Lucknow and Allahabad region. The petitioners have further said that their cases were exactly similar to those Stenographers and, therefore, they were also entitled for the benefit of regularization. The Department constituted a D.P.C. for considering the confirmation of the petitioners and in pursuance of the recommendations of the D.P.C., the Department confirmed their services vide orders dated 11.6.1982 and 17.4.1984. The petitioners were also allowed to cross the efficiency bar by the D.P.C. vide order dated 30.1.1984. The Department constituted a D.P.C. for considering the confirmation of the petitioners and in pursuance of the recommendations of the D.P.C., the Department confirmed their services vide orders dated 11.6.1982 and 17.4.1984. The petitioners were also allowed to cross the efficiency bar by the D.P.C. vide order dated 30.1.1984. The Commission had held a Special Qualifying Examination (SQE for short) to consider regularisation of ad-hoc Stenographers but the petitioners did not appear in it as they were already confirmed as mentioned above. The petitioners have further said, referring certain gradation lists prepared by the Department, that a common gradation list was issued in which the petitioners were shown senior to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. But in gradation list dated 1.1.1995 the names of the petitioners were found deleted against which action of the department, the petitioners filed various representations. The Department forwarded them to the C.B.D.T. and the Board after due consideration of the matter passed and issued an order dated 22.9.1998. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax passed a consequential order on 13.10.1998 providing therein that all the Stenographers mentioned therein shall be treated at par with regular employees from the dates of their appointments. Another order was passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur on 15.10.1998 reverting the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 also from the post of Stenographer Grade II to the post of Stenographer Grade III. In their Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007, the petitioners have referred in detail the case of J.V. Trinidade. Since we are going to deal with that case also in this judgment in its latter part, there is no need to give details of J.V. Trinidade case at this point. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.9.1998 passed by the Board and consequential orders dated 13.10.1998 and 15.10.1998 passed by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur and an order dated 16.10.1998 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut region the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and some other Stenographers filed three Original Applications in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. 5. As the three Original Applications were intertwined they were heard together and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad allowed all the Original Applications mentioned above vide its order dated 1.9.2006 and quashed the decision dated 22.9.1998 taken by the Board and consequential order dated 13.10.1998 and the reversion orders. 6. 5. As the three Original Applications were intertwined they were heard together and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad allowed all the Original Applications mentioned above vide its order dated 1.9.2006 and quashed the decision dated 22.9.1998 taken by the Board and consequential order dated 13.10.1998 and the reversion orders. 6. Feeling aggrieved by this order dated 1.9.2006 the petitioners (of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007) have filed this writ petition. It will not be out of place to mention here that feeling aggrieved by the Board’s decision dated 22.9.1998 and consequential orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur and Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut, J.V. Trinidade and others filed O.A. No. 1590 of 2002. This Original Application was heard by a different bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and the same was dismissed on 8.2.2006 and therefore J.V. Trinidade has filed a separate Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2006. As mentioned earlier in this judgment we shall deal with this writ petition in latter part of this judgment. 7. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007 have vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the petitioners. They have said in their counter affidavit that it is untrue that prior to 1989 there were no separate rules for recruitment of the Stenographers. The Commission was selecting Stenographers since it came into existence and after its constitution, power of recruitment other than through the Commission was seized by the Government of India. A request was made by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur to the Board which gave permission to appoint Stenographers purely on ad-hoc basis on local basis and, therefore, it was clearly stipulated in the appointment letters of the petitioners and proforma respondents that their services were purely on ad-hoc basis and would be terminated as soon as the candidates would be available from the Commission. The Board never gave permission to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur for appointment of Stenographers on regular basis because it was not competent to do so. In these circumstances, the Board had given permission to make appointments only on ad-hoc basis, as a temporary measure till the selection of candidates from the Commission. The Board never gave permission to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur for appointment of Stenographers on regular basis because it was not competent to do so. In these circumstances, the Board had given permission to make appointments only on ad-hoc basis, as a temporary measure till the selection of candidates from the Commission. Referring to the contention of the petitioners regarding regularisation of the ad-hoc Stenographers in Lucknow and Allahabad regions it has been said that letter dated 25.9.1979 was in respect to other employees and not in respect of the petitioners and proforma respondents. It has been further stated by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that it is totally wrong to say that the petitioners and proforma respondents were appointed with the approval of Commission. Referring to Annexure"4" of the writ petition, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have said that the orders dated 11.6.1982 and 17.4.1984 were passed by an incompetent authority and were de hors the Rules and as such both orders were never implemented and never given effect to and they were not considered for promotion of the Stenographers in the year 1995. The petitioners and proforma respondents never challenged their non-promotion and their seniority. In the list prepared in 1995 their names were not shown in the seniority list of regular Stenographer and their names were shown separately in the seniority list dated 1.1.1995. These respondents have further said that the seniority list dated 1.1.1991 was never circulated or served upon them and other regularly selected Stenographers. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were promoted on the basis of gradation list 1.1.1995. It was not challenged by the petitioners or the proforma respondents. The services of the petitioners and proforma respondents having been regularised by an incompetent authority, they remained ad-hoc and that is why the Board and Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur did not promote them till the passing of the impugned order dated 22.9.1998 passed by the Board. It has been alleged by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that neither the Board nor Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur was competent to pass the impugned and consequential orders. It has been further said that the Income Tax Employees Federation filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 1989 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for regularisation of services of ad-hoc employees. 1 to 5 that neither the Board nor Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur was competent to pass the impugned and consequential orders. It has been further said that the Income Tax Employees Federation filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 1989 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for regularisation of services of ad-hoc employees. The Board opposed the writ petition by filing an additional affidavit before the Court with the stand that the ad-hoc Stenographers cannot be regularised without following the prescribed Rules and the Rules cannot be relaxed in their favour. The Board had also said in the counter affidavit that as per orders of the Department of Personnel & Training, Special Qualifying Tests were conducted in the years 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1987 by the Commission but none of the petitioners and proforma respondents appeared in the said Special Qualifying Examination and as such they could not be regularised. Referring O.A. No. 1590 of 2002, J.V. Trinidade and others v. Union of India and others, these respondents have said that the main reason for dismissal of the original application was the misrepresentation coupled with unfair and contradictory pleas taken by the Income Tax Department. The changing, unfair and contradictory pleas taken by the department was not appreciated by the Ministry of Finance and a letter was sent by the Board on 30.3.2006 to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow to amend the counter affidavit filed in the Original Application but by that time order in J.V. Trinidade case was already passed. It has been further contended by the respondents that the orders passed in J.V. Trinidade case was not filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in O.A. No. 297 of 2000 which passed the order dated 1.9.2006 impugned in this writ petition. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have specifically said in their counter affidavit that neither the Board nor the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur nor the petitioners and proforma respondents proved this fact by producing relevant documents to the effect that the seniority lists as alleged by the petitioners were issued or served upon the contesting respondents prior to preparation of gradation list of 1995. The present decision treating the petitioners as ad-hoc for all practical purposes is in accordance with law and the order dated 22.9.1998 passed by the Board was passed under misconception of law and facts both. The present decision treating the petitioners as ad-hoc for all practical purposes is in accordance with law and the order dated 22.9.1998 passed by the Board was passed under misconception of law and facts both. In fact, throughout after its constitution the Commission was active and it was only competent agency to make the relevant recruitments. The ad-hoc Stenographers of Lucknow charge including Allahabad had appeared in the Special Qualifying Examination and those ad-hoc Stenographers who passed the Special Qualifying Examination were regularised from the date of passing of the said test and not from the date of their initial appointments. In the end, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have said that the order passed by the Tribunal is based on sound principles of law and Rules and in these circumstances, the present writ petition should be dismissed with special costs. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38755 of 2007 8. The petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38755 of 2007, Rajesh Kumar and others v. Smt. Anita Vinayak and others, have alleged in their writ petition more or less similar facts which are mentioned in the connected Anil Kumar Sehgal’s writ. They have alleged certain additional facts which need mentioning here. They have said that feeling aggrieved by the order passed in O.A. No. 297 of 2000 and connected original applications, they filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital. Simultaneously Writ Petition No. 68458 of 2006 was filed by Central Board of Direct Taxes against the said order before this Court. In these set of circumstances, the petitioners withdrew their writ filed before the Uttaranchal High Court with liberty either to seek intervention in aforesaid Writ Petition No. 68458 of 2006 or to file a separate writ. The petitioners have admitted that they alongwith respondent Nos. 1 to 14 of the said writ petition were initially employed in Income Tax Department in Group "C" cadre holding the post of Stenographers. In the year 1976, the Central Government established a new recruiting agency for Group "C" of Central Government employees namely Staff Selection Commission which actually started functioning sometime in the year 1982 only. From 1976 to 1982 in case of any administrative exigency, the Head of respective departments used to take a decision for making recruitment in Group "C" according to the procedure prescribed by themselves. From 1976 to 1982 in case of any administrative exigency, the Head of respective departments used to take a decision for making recruitment in Group "C" according to the procedure prescribed by themselves. No selection could be finalised by the Commission before 1982. These petitioners have also said the same thing regarding their appointment what the petitioners in Anil Kumar Sehgal’s writ have said and, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same. Regarding their regularisation and confirmation, the petitioners in this writ petition have taken exactly similar stand which has been taken by the petitioners of Anil Kumar Sehgal’s writ. These petitioners (Rajesh Kumar and others) have also requested that the impugned order dated 1.9.2006 passed in O.A. No. 297 of 2000 be quashed. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case. The private respondents who have filed the counter affidavits have taken the similar stand which has been taken by the private respondents of Anil Kumar Sehgal’s writ. Therefore, there is no need to repeat here these pleas. One thing which needs mentioning here is that the respondent No. 7 Manoj Kumar has taken an additional plea that he and respondent No. 6 Anil Kumar Sharma had joined the service on 30.1.1982 and 18.1.1982 respectively after being duly selected by the Commission which dates are earlier to the dates 11.6.1982 and 17.4.1984 which dates the petitioners are claiming as their dates of confirmation. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2006 10. J.V. Trinidade and 21 others have filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2006, J.V. Trinidade and others v. Union of India and others, whereby they have challenged the order dated 8.2.2006 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in Original Application No. 1590 of 2002. Their case is that they were appointed as Stenographers in the Income Tax Department which is a Class III post through selection process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission which was constituted in the year 1977. The respondent Nos. 5 to 35 of this writ petition (hereinafter called as the private respondents) were also appointed as Stenographers in the department on ad-hoc basis. For this purpose some correspondence took place between the Commission, the Board and the Department. The respondent Nos. 5 to 35 of this writ petition (hereinafter called as the private respondents) were also appointed as Stenographers in the department on ad-hoc basis. For this purpose some correspondence took place between the Commission, the Board and the Department. The appointment of all the 31 private respondents was made subject to the condition that their services were liable to be terminated on appointment of the candidates selected by the Commission. The private respondents were appointed prior to the petitioners due to urgent need of the hour. It has been further alleged by the petitioners that it appears that in the context of the long continued service of the ad-hoc employees the Central Government was inundated with persistent requests to regularise the services of ad-hoc/daily rated/casual LDCs and Stenographers Grade III/D, working in various attached and subordinate offices as well as non-participating offices of CSCS/CBSS of Central Government. The matter was examined by the Department of Personnel and Training and it was decided in consultation with the Commission that such ad-hoc employees were to be allowed to appear in a Special Qualifying Examination, as a one time measure, to be conducted by the Commission on 26th December, 1993 (Sunday) for the purpose of their regularisation. Earlier, Special Qualifying Examinations were conducted twice, in 1987 and 1991, but these 31 Stenographers did not appear at any of the three examinations. For the purpose of abovesaid Special Qualifying Examination a circular No. 28036/10/02 and Estt (D) dated 2.8.1993 was issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi. 11. Some of the salient features of the circular letters are that those who qualify in the Special Qualifying Examination were to be regularised from the date of announcement of the result of the Special Qualifying Examination; that they were to be placed in the seniority list enbloc junior to the candidates regularly appointed to such posts on the basis of the results of the last regular competitive examination held by the Commission prior to Special Qualifying Examination; that the services of those who failed to pass the Special Qualifying Examination were to be terminated. 12. The petitioners were appointed as Stenographers Grade III before any Special Qualifying Examination took place. None of the private respondents appeared in any Special Qualifying Examination and as such no question of regularisation of their services arise. 12. The petitioners were appointed as Stenographers Grade III before any Special Qualifying Examination took place. None of the private respondents appeared in any Special Qualifying Examination and as such no question of regularisation of their services arise. In the Lucknow and Allahabad region of the Income Tax Department some ad hoc appointees were regularised after they had passed the Special Qualifying Examination and were put in seniority list below the Commission selected candidates. In the gradation list dated 21.2.97 names of the petitioners were mentioned but the name of private respondents did not find a place in it. Instead a separate list of ad-hoc Stenographers was issued at that time. The private respondents had filed representations to the Board and during pendency of the representations a consolidated list was prepared by the Department on 1.1.1998 but the same was never circulated. In this list the private respondents were shown senior to the petitioners. In subsequent gradation lists also the petitioners were wrongly shown junior to the private respondents. The petitioners made various representations but all were rejected on different dates in the year 2002. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the unjust and wrong seniority lists which were prepared on the basis of an order dated 22.9.1998 issued by the Board. Therefore, they filed Original Application No. 1590 of 2002 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench which was heard and dismissed on 8.2.2006. In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition No. 25550 of 2006. 13. The stand taken by the petitioners in this writ petition has been opposed by way of counter affidavits filed by the private respondents. The stand taken by the private respondents is more or less the same which the petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007 (Anil Kumar Sehgal’s writ) and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38755 of 2007 (Rajesh Kumar’s writ) have taken in their respective writ petitions. It is worth mentioning here that respondent No. 19, Deepak Mittal, has taken a few additional pleas which are exclusively related to him. He has said that his case is different to other private respondents of this writ petition and he is on a better footing. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It is worth mentioning here that respondent No. 19, Deepak Mittal, has taken a few additional pleas which are exclusively related to him. He has said that his case is different to other private respondents of this writ petition and he is on a better footing. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 15.These three writ petitions in hand relate to the dispute of seniority between ad-hoc Stenographers and the Stenographers regularly selected by the Commission. The petitioners and private respondents in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007, the petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38755 of 2007 and all the private respondents in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2006 were initially selected and appointed in the department on the post of Stenographers on ad-hoc basis. For the sake of brevity they shall be called hereinafter in this judgment as "ad-hoc stenos" whereas for the same purpose the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007 and private respondents of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38755 of 2007 and all petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2006 shall be called as "regularly selected stenos". 16. It is the admitted case that in Income Tax Department, Kanpur Region there was felt acute shortage of Stenographers in the year 1977-78 and it had become necessary for the Department that they should appoint them at the earliest possible so that routine work of the Department may not suffer. It is also admitted that in the year 1976, the Central Government had established a new recruiting agency for all the group-C employees of Central Government namely Staff Selection Commission. 17. According to ad-hoc stenos, the Commission came into actual form and action in the year 1982. This contention has been refuted by the regularly selected stenos who have said that the Commission had started functioning right from the date of its inception in the year 1976. In support of this contention, the regularly selected stenos have filed a letter sent from Sri V.K. Bhandari, Under Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi which is addressed to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur relating to the subject : "Stenographers (O.G.) Examination 1978—Allocation of Candidates". In support of this contention, the regularly selected stenos have filed a letter sent from Sri V.K. Bhandari, Under Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi which is addressed to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur relating to the subject : "Stenographers (O.G.) Examination 1978—Allocation of Candidates". This letter reads as follows : "With reference to your letter No. C. No. 124/78 (Estt.) dated the 13th April, 1978 on the above subject, I am directed to say that all candidates who qualified in the Stenographers (Ord. Gr.) Examination, 1977, have since been nominated to different subordinate offices and the Commission have no candidate on the panel to sponsor against the vacancies reported by your office. The Commission will be able to meet your demand on the availability of qualified candidates from the Examination of 1978, which is likely to be held in August, 1978. In the circumstances, the Commission have no objection to your filling up the vacancies purely on ad-hoc basis through the permissible channels of recruitment including Employment Exchange till the Commission are in a position to recommend qualified candidates on regular basis." 18. From the perusal of the above letter, it is evident that letter No. C. No. 124/78 (Estt.) dated the 13th April, 1978 was sent by the Income Tax Department, Kanpur to the Commission, through which it was requested that certain number of Stenographers be sponsored so that they may be appointed on the post of Stenographers. In reply to this letter, the Commission stated that all candidates who qualified in the Stenographers (O.G.) Examination, 1977 were already nominated to different subordinate offices and the Commission had no candidate on the panel to sponsor against the vacancies required by the Department. The Commission had assured the Department that the latter’s demand would be met on the availability of qualified candidates from the examinations of 1978 which was likely to be held in August, 1978. In the same reference, the Commission suggested the Department and expressed its ‘No Objection’ if the vacancies were filled up by the Department purely on ad-hoc basis from permissible channels of recruitment including Employment Exchange. It was specifically mentioned in the said letter that this facility was available only till the Commission was in a position to recommend the qualified Stenographers on regular basis. It was specifically mentioned in the said letter that this facility was available only till the Commission was in a position to recommend the qualified Stenographers on regular basis. The dates mentioned in the above-mentioned letter clearly go to indicate that Commission had conducted an Examination in the year 1977 to sponsor Stenographers to various departments of the Central Government. It is also clear that it had planned to hold the next examination for the purpose in August, 1978. Keeping in view the pressing need of the Department for Stenographers, the Commission had permitted it to appoint certain number of Stenographers who were to be replaced very shortly after availability of regularly appointed Stenographers by the Commission. In these set of circumstances, the averment made by the ad-hoc Stenographer is not acceptable when they say in their petition that the Commission though established in the year 1976, came into actual form and action in the year 1982. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Commission was functioning since 1976 and it had already conducted an examination to sponsor Stenographers (O.G.) in the year 1977. 19. It may be mentioned here that it is the admitted case of the ad-hoc Stenographers that the Commission had come into existence in the year 1976. They have also admitted that this body was constituted by the Government of India to conduct the examinations in order to select the candidates which should be sponsored to various government departments under the Central Government in Group "C". Admittedly the post of Stenographer comes within the category of Group "C" employees. Therefore, it is evident that it was only the Commission which was empowered to select Stenographers to be sponsored and posted in various departments of Central Government. 20. It has been further contended by the ad-hoc stenos that their selection by the department was de facto regular. To press this contention they have said that wide circulation of the intention of the department to appoint ad-hoc Stenographers were made. Advertisements were published in various newspapers. Information was also sent to the employment exchange. Besides, names were also called for from the Employment Exchanges. Thereafter written examination was held followed by an interview and a list of selected candidates was prepared on the basis of written examination and interview. These candidates were selected by the department and appointed. Advertisements were published in various newspapers. Information was also sent to the employment exchange. Besides, names were also called for from the Employment Exchanges. Thereafter written examination was held followed by an interview and a list of selected candidates was prepared on the basis of written examination and interview. These candidates were selected by the department and appointed. In these circumstances the ad-hoc appointees have argued that this selection was as good as a selection made by the Commission. We find ourselves unable to accept this contention also. The department was not actually competent to hold an examination to select and appoint Stenographers on regular basis by itself. The Commission had given permission in consultation with the Board that keeping in view the need of the hour, the department may select certain Stenographers on ad-hoc basis so that the work of the Income Tax Department may not suffer. In this regard, our attention has been drawn by the ad-hoc Stenographers towards the letter dated 29.6.1978 addressed to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur and sent by the Central Board of Direct Taxes with reference to the recruitment of Stenographers (O.G.). In this letter the Board has simply written that the Board is examining the matter of appointment of Stenographers in consultation with the Commission. It has been further mentioned in it that in the meantime the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur may fill up vacancies in the cadre of Stenographer (O.G.) on an ad-hoc basis only by making the recruitment on local basis. This letter does not indicate that any decision was taken that regular appointments may be made by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur on these posts. 21. It has further been argued from the side of ad-hoc stenos that they were confirmed in the service vide orders dated 11.6.1982 and 17.4.1984 issued by the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur who is also the Cadre Controlling Authority of the employees of the Kanpur Region. In this regard it has been said on behalf of ad-hoc stenos that the Income Tax Department had considered the confirmation of the ad-hoc stenos in pursuance to the recommendations of the D.P.C. and the Income Tax Department issued the orders dated 11.6.1982 and 17.4.1984 confirming the services of the petitioners with effect from the dates mentioned in the order aforesaid. Copies of these orders have been filed. 22. Copies of these orders have been filed. 22. This contention of the ad-hoc stenos has been vehemently challenged by the regularly selected stenos. They have said that these orders were passed by an incompetent authority and were de hors the Rules and these orders were never implemented or given effect to and ad-hoc appointees were not considered for promotion in the year 1995. 23. One of the conditions in the letter of appointment of the ad-hoc stenos was as follows : "Their appointment is being made purely on ad-hoc basis and is likely to be terminated at the availability of the candidates from the Commission." 24. None of the ad-hoc stenos has alleged that this condition was not mentioned in their letter of appointment. 25. Our attention has been drawn towards Annexure"3" to Anil Kumar Sehgal’s petition. This letter was sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. From the perusal of this letter, it appears that a letter was sent to the Board by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow making request therein that services of certain ad-hoc employees of the office of Income Tax Commissioner, Lucknow and Allahabad be regularised and Board had decided to regularise the services of the ad-hoc Stenographers (O.G.) and Lower Division Clerks (Spl. Category). In this context it has been argued by the side of the ad-hoc stenos that cases of the ad-hoc Stenographers at Kanpur were similar to the cases of the employees at Lucknow and Allahabad, therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur had reguarised their services on the principles of parity. Admittedly this letter was sent in context to the Stenographers and Lower Division Clerks of the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow. The contents of this letter do not disclose the details of the facts the Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow had submitted to the Board. This letter also does not disclose the circumstances, terms and conditions on which the ad-hoc Stenographers and Lower Division Clerks at Lucknow and Allahabad were to be regularised. On the other hand this letter definitely shows that it had no concern with the ad-hoc Stenographers who were posted in the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur. This letter also does not disclose the circumstances, terms and conditions on which the ad-hoc Stenographers and Lower Division Clerks at Lucknow and Allahabad were to be regularised. On the other hand this letter definitely shows that it had no concern with the ad-hoc Stenographers who were posted in the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur. No Rule has been mentioned in this letter under which the Stenographers and Lower Division Clerks at Lucknow were regularised despite the fact that they were adhoc. We are not dealing here with the cases of Stenographers and Lower Division Clerks in the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow. There is thus no need to discuss their cases further. We have referred to the Lucknow appointments here to resolve the question whether on the strength of this letter the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur who is the Cadre Controlling Authority of his office was entitled to regularise the services of ad-hoc employees posted in his office and who were not selected and sponsored by the Commission. In this context, reference of letter dated 20.12.1993 may be had. This letter was written by Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur to the Board on 20.12.1993. In this letter it has been mentioned that all 34 ad-hoc Stenographers excepting one were confirmed by orders dated 11.6.1982 and 17.4.1984. But there is absolutely no reference to any Rules under which these ad-hoc stenos could have been regularised or confirmed. No reference of any Rule whatsoever is available on the record nor any such Rule has been placed before us during the course of arguments. An ad-hoc employee cannot be regularised in the absence of rules. 26. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties to the writ petitions, it appears that many ad-hoc employees were appointed on the basis of various examinations which were not held by the Commission under various circumstances. It also appears that due to one reason or the other they were allowed to continue in their services for a long period. Keeping in view the length of their services, various departments under Central Government sent letters to the Department of Personnel and Training of Central Government to regularise their services. It also appears that due to one reason or the other they were allowed to continue in their services for a long period. Keeping in view the length of their services, various departments under Central Government sent letters to the Department of Personnel and Training of Central Government to regularise their services. It also appears that the matter was examined by the DOPT and it was decided in consultation with the Commission that the ad-hoc/dailyrated/casual L.D.C./Stenographers Group-3/D working against any such sanctioned post in various Central Government Department were to be allowed to appear in Special Qualifying Examination as one time measure and final date was fixed as 26.12.1993. Prior to it two such examinations were conducted in the year 1987 and 1991. The ad-hoc stenos have admitted that the Commission had conducted Special Qualifying Examinations to consider the regularisation of the ad-hoc Stenographers but since they were already regularised by the orders dated 11.6.1982 and 17.4.1984 and were confirmed, there was no question of their appearing in the Special Qualifying Examination. It should be mentioned here that admittedly none of the ad-hoc Stenographer ever appeared in any of the Special Qualifying Examination held by the Commission. 27. The picture that is emerging is that no rules were framed under which the ad-hoc employees could be regularised but the Commission, considering certain extra-ordinary circumstances prevailing during the relevant period had decided to regularise the services of those employees who were appointed on ad-hoc basis on various posts under various departments of Central Government by conducting Special Qualifying Examination to regularise their services. One of the salient features of the circular letter through which these examinations were conducted was that the ad-hoc employee shall be regularised only when he passes the Special Qualifying Examination and the date of his regularisation will be the date of pronouncement of the result of such examination. Since none of the ad-hoc stenos appeared in any of the Special Qualifying Examination, they have lost their opportunity to become regularised. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held so. 28. Since none of the ad-hoc stenos appeared in any of the Special Qualifying Examination, they have lost their opportunity to become regularised. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held so. 28. In the case of State of Punjab v. Jagdeep Singh, AIR 1964 SC 521 , the Apex Court has held that where a government servant has no right to a post or to a particular status, though the authority under the Government, acting beyond its competence had purported to give that person a status which, it was not entitled to give, he will not in law be deemed to have been validly appointed to the post or given the particular status. 29. In the matter before us, neither the D.P.C. nor the Board was competent to regularise the ad-hoc employees and the exercise done by the D.P.C. or Board in this regard cannot help the ad-hoc stenos. 30. To sum up this important point whether the ad-hoc stenos stood regularised by the orders dated 11.6.1982 and 17.4.1984, we have to say that they cannot be treated as regularised because— (i) the ad-hoc stenos have failed to establish that their case was similar to that of the ad-hoc stenos of Lucknow and Allahabad regions and whose services were regularised. (ii) no Rule has been mentioned in his orders by the officer/authority under which the ad-hoc stenos were regularised. (iii) the ad-hoc stenos did not appear at any of the Special Qualifying Examinations. (iv) but for appearance at the Special Qualifying Examination and passing the same there was no provision under which the ad-hoc stenos could be regularised. 31. It has been further argued that ad-hoc employees were appointed in the year 1978-79 and the regularly selected stenos joined in the year 1982, therefore, it will be inequitable to place the ad-hoc stenos below the regularly selected stenos in the seniority list. This argument is also not acceptable. All the ad-hoc stenos knew from the very beginning that they were going to be selected and appointed on ad-hoc basis in the department. They were aware of the fact that their services may be terminated when regularly selected candidates from the Commission are available to the Department. This argument is also not acceptable. All the ad-hoc stenos knew from the very beginning that they were going to be selected and appointed on ad-hoc basis in the department. They were aware of the fact that their services may be terminated when regularly selected candidates from the Commission are available to the Department. In our opinion with passage of time they should not forget the fact that in their letters of appointment, this fact was clearly mentioned that they are being appointed on ad-hoc basis and their services may be terminated on the availability of duly selected candidates. We should mention here that we are not dealing here with the question whether these candidates (the ad-hoc stenos) should continue in their service or not? The dispute is confined only to their seniority. The fact that ad-hoc stenos have worked for a considerable length of time does not entitle them to be kept in the seniority list above the regularly selected stenos. 32. It has been further argued from the side of the ad-hoc stenos that the O.A. No. 297 of 2000 was barred by limitation. The reasons given in this regard are that the ad-hoc stenos were appointed in the year 1978-79; that they were granted confirmation on 11.6.82 and 17.4.84; that the seniority list was published in the year 1991 and remained in force till 1995 in which the ad hoc stenos were shown senior to the regularly selected stenos; that the seniority list dated 1.1.95 was wrong and the ad-hoc stenos had preferred their representations questioning its validity and legality and consequently orders dated 22.9.98 and 13.10.98 were passed upholding their objections. It has been also argued in this reference that the O.A. No. 297/2000 was barred by the principles of limitation as the cause of action had arisen in the year 1982 and 1984. This argument has been refuted by the regularly selected stenos. 33. From the perusal of the order passed in O.A. No. 297/2000, it is clear that no plea of limitation was taken before the Tribunal by the opp. parties of the relevant O.A. No such plea has been taken by the petitioner in writ petition No. 29117/07 and writ petition No. 38755 of 2007 either. In the O.A. No. 1590/2002 filed by J.V. Trinidade and others before the Tribunal, the applicants had specifically pleaded that their O.A. was filed well within time. parties of the relevant O.A. No such plea has been taken by the petitioner in writ petition No. 29117/07 and writ petition No. 38755 of 2007 either. In the O.A. No. 1590/2002 filed by J.V. Trinidade and others before the Tribunal, the applicants had specifically pleaded that their O.A. was filed well within time. The opposite parties of O.A. No. 1590/2002 had not challenged the fact that the said O.A. was in time. 34. In our opinion the cause of action in O.A. No. 297/2000 and O.A. No. 1590/2002 actually arose on 22.9.98 and 13.10.98 when the Board and Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur passed the orders impugned in the said O.As. By order dated 13.10.98 the C.C.I.T. Kanpur had reverted the regularly selected stenos from Grade II to Grade III and the ad-hoc stenos were promoted over them. It has been specifically pleaded by the petitioners in J.V. Trinidade’s case that after coming to know of the orders dated 22.9.98 and consequential order of their reversion they preferred a number of representations before the competent authorities which were rejected on different dates in the year 2002. It therefore appears that the claim petitions were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal within time from the date the cause of action arose. Even otherwise under Section 21(3) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay. In absence of any objection regarding delay there was no occasion for the Tribunal to go into that question when the petitions apparently were not time barred. 35. It has also been argued for the ad-hoc stenos that mere non-selection by S.S.C. will not make their selection illegal, irregular or bad. This argument is misconceived. The issue whether the selection of the ad-hoc stenos was legal or illegal is not involved. The issue is whether the ad-hoc stenos without being regularized by a competent authority can be placed at par in the matter of seniority with stenos duly selected by the S.S.C. or not? This is the basic issue to be decided further by us in these writ petitions. 36. Learned counsel for the petitioner for the ad-hoc stenos has drawn our attention towards AIR 1987 SC 1227 , Union of India and others v. N. Hargopal and others. This is the basic issue to be decided further by us in these writ petitions. 36. Learned counsel for the petitioner for the ad-hoc stenos has drawn our attention towards AIR 1987 SC 1227 , Union of India and others v. N. Hargopal and others. In this ruling the Supreme Court has stated that the Government offices are also included in the expression establishment in public sector and, therefore, Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 is applicable to Government Establishment also. But at the same time the Act does not oblige an employer to employ those persons only who have been sponsored by Employment Exchange. The object of the Act is not to restrain but to enlarge the field of choice so that the employer may choose the best and most efficient of the candidates. 37. In a subsequent decision (1996) 6 SCC 216 , Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Vishweshwara Rao and others the Apex Court has held that restricting the selection only to the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange is not proper. In addition to requisitioning the names from the Employment Exchange, names should be called for by publication in Newspapers having wide circulation and by display on office notice board or announcement on radio, television and publication in employment news bulletin. 38. In Arun Tewari and others v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and others, (1998) 2 SCC 332 , the Apex Court has referred to N. Hargopal and K.B.N. Vishweshwara Rao cases (supra) and reiterated the necessity of wide circulation of offers for recruitment. 39. The case of K.A. Abdul Majeed v. State of Kerala and others, 2001 (4) ESC 595 (SC), has also been cited on behalf of the ad-hoc stenos in support of their contention that their regularisation should be considered from the date of their initial appointment. This decision has been given in the context of Rule-27 of the Kerala Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 which provides for regularisation of an ad hoc employee from the date of his initial appointment and for giving him seniority from that date. This ruling does not have any application here as it was in the context of a different rule. 40. This decision has been given in the context of Rule-27 of the Kerala Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 which provides for regularisation of an ad hoc employee from the date of his initial appointment and for giving him seniority from that date. This ruling does not have any application here as it was in the context of a different rule. 40. In Vijai Goyal (Smt.) and others v. Union of India and another, (1998) 1 SCC 376 , vacancies of lower division clerk were to be filled up by recruiting persons through Employment Exchange and from departmental candidates. The Subordinate Services Commission expressed its inability to provide candidates for some more time and Commission itself had suggested filling of the vacancies through other authorised channel. Therefore, a selection committee was constituted and recruitment was made by following the procedure consistent with eligibility conditions of educational qualification and typing speed as prescribed in the recruitment rules. A salient feature of the recruitment was that there was no mention in the orders of the appointment that they were ad-hoc. Certain persons were selected and appointed on the post of lower division clerk. Regularisation orders were also issued after some time. Ten years elapsed and thereafter, their regularisation was sought to be cancelled treating their appointment as irregular. The appellant of the case approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the order modifying the dates of their regularisation and also the order through which their services were terminated. The Tribunal dismissed their petition. The Supreme Court allowed their appeal. In para 12 of the judgment Supreme Court has said : "The fact, however, remains that when the hospital authorities approached the SSC it expressed its inability to conduct the test and select candidates for appointment to the post of LDCs in the hospital and rather told them that the authorities could themselves make arrangement to fill up the vacancies through other authorised channels if it was urgent. SSC did not say that the authorities could fill up the vacancies on ad hoc basis only till such time candidates sponsored by SSC were made available to the hospital." 41. The case is distinguishable on facts in that in the present case the department was authorised to make only ad-hoc appointments. 42. SSC did not say that the authorities could fill up the vacancies on ad hoc basis only till such time candidates sponsored by SSC were made available to the hospital." 41. The case is distinguishable on facts in that in the present case the department was authorised to make only ad-hoc appointments. 42. The decision in M.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited Bhopal v. Nanu Ram Yadav and others, (2007) 8 SCC 264 has no application to the facts of the case in hand. Allegations in that case were that some of the selected candidates were related to the then Managing Director of the Bank. In those facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court had reached the conclusion that the appointments were irregular. 43. The case of A.N. Shastri v. State of Punjab and others, 1988 (Supp.) SCC 127, relates to seniority and promotion based on academic qualification for the eligible candidates. We have examined the facts of this case and in our opinion there is nothing in it factwise, of which any benefit may be given to the ad-hoc stenos. 44. In Shri Umanand Roy v. A & N Administration and others, 2007 (3) ESC 2093 (DB)(Cal), the Calcutta High Court has said that appointments and selections ought not to be disturbed after long lapse of time. The dispute in the present case relates to seniority. The ratio of Umanand Roy’s case is of no relevance on the seniority question. Reliance has also been placed upon : (i) (1982) 1 SCC 379 , R.S. Makashi and others v. I.M. Menon and others; (ii) AIR 1986 SC 2086 , K.R. Mudgal and others v. R.P. Singh and others; (iii) (1993) 3 SCC 307 , V. Bhaskar Rao and others v. State of U.P. and others; (iv) 1975 (2) Serv LR 255 (SC), Malcom Lawrence Cesil D’Suza v. Union of India. 45. In all these cases the Supreme Court has held that where there is undue and unexplained delay by the petitioners after finalization of the seniority list, the same should not be disturbed. Keeping in view the facts of the cases before us, we are of the opinion that the law laid down in the above mentioned four cases is not applicable to them. Keeping in view the facts of the cases before us, we are of the opinion that the law laid down in the above mentioned four cases is not applicable to them. From the pleadings of the regularly selected stenos, it is evident that the seniority lists prepared by the Department had kept on changing from the very beginning till 1.1.1995 and various representations were made against them. It has been admitted by the ad-hoc stenos (para 19 of Anil Kumar Sehgal’s writ petition) that the controversy had started when the gradation list dated 1.1.1995 was prepared and it was found by the ad-hoc stenos that their names were deleted from it by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur. Thereafter, the ad-hoc stenos had started representing the matter before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur who referred the matter to the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Board after appreciating the entire controversy issued an order dated 22.9.1998 which was followed by order dated 13.10.1998 of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur. Similar facts have been averred by the regularly selected stenos (paras 13 to 16 of J.V. Trinidade’s writ). They have stated that on the basis of position as stood in the year 1995 a gradation list was issued on 21.2.1997 showing the names of regularly selected stenos in one list while the names of ad-hoc stenos were not included therein and a separate gradation list was prepared and issued for them. Thereafter the ad-hoc stenos approached the Board and a number of representations were made by them. It has been further alleged by the regularly selected stenos that gradation list dated 1.1.1998 was up dated in 1999 which was published in the year 2001 in which the regularly selected stenos were shown junior to the ad-hoc stenos. The regularly selected stenos felt aggrieved by the seniority list of 2001 and filed several representations before the competent authority. The representations were rejected on different dates in the year 2002. In the meantime the impugned order dated 22.9.1998 was passed by the Board. The above set of circumstance clearly go to show that since the very beginning, various seniority lists were subjected to challenge either by the regularly selected stenos or by the ad-hoc stenos. It also appears that till date the seniority list has not taken a final shape. In the meantime the impugned order dated 22.9.1998 was passed by the Board. The above set of circumstance clearly go to show that since the very beginning, various seniority lists were subjected to challenge either by the regularly selected stenos or by the ad-hoc stenos. It also appears that till date the seniority list has not taken a final shape. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the position of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned four cases has no application to the cases before us. 46. In the case AIR 1991 SC 1244 , State of Bihar and others v. Akhori Sachindra Nath and others, the Apex Court has dealt with the issue of promotion with retrospective effect. In that case, the dispute was between the employees who belonged to the same cadre and there was a dispute of their seniority between direct recruits and the promotees. We have gone through this ruling. Keeping in view the facts of this case we find that the law laid down in this case has no application in the cases before us. 47. The case of Ashok Kumar Srivastava and others v. Ram Lal and others, (2008) 3 SCC 148 , was also cited before us. In that case the State Government had taken out certain posts from the purview of the Public Service Commission. Appointment on such posts was then made by the Department. In the view of the High Court their appointments were ad-hoc. The Supreme Court held that the apointments were regular. The case is distinguishable on facts. In the present case there was no order for taking out the posts from the Staff Selection Commission. In fact, the department was authorised to make appointments on ad-hoc basis until regular selections were made. 48. Our attention has been drawn from both the sides towards the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . We have gone through it. In the same reference our attention has also been drawn towards the cases : (i) (2009) 3 SCC 179 , C. Balchandran and others v. State of Kerala and others; (ii) (2008) 10 SCC 1 , Official Liquidator v. Daya Nand and others; and (iii) 2005 (1) ESC 161 (All), Farhat Hussain Azad v. State of U.P. and others. 49. In the same reference our attention has also been drawn towards the cases : (i) (2009) 3 SCC 179 , C. Balchandran and others v. State of Kerala and others; (ii) (2008) 10 SCC 1 , Official Liquidator v. Daya Nand and others; and (iii) 2005 (1) ESC 161 (All), Farhat Hussain Azad v. State of U.P. and others. 49. In Umadevi’s case the Supreme Court has given a detailed and exhaustive position of law touching also absorption and regularisation of ad-hoc employees. It has held that unless appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons the same would not confer any right on the appointee. The Apex Court has clarified that merely because a temporary employee is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent merely on the strength of such continuance. 50. The case of M.P. Palanisamy and others v. A. Krishnan and others, (2009) 6 SCC 428 , has relevance in the cases before us. In this case the Supreme Court has observed that if the initial appointment was on ad-hoc basis and the regularisation was attached with a condition that the employee has to appear at certain qualifying examination, he cannot expect regularisation straightway. He can only be regularised if he faces the examination and clear it. 51. Much reliance has been placed by the ad-hoc stenos on the order dated 8.2.2006 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1590 of 2002 (J.V. Trinidade and others v. Union of India and others). We have gone through this order which is impugned in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2006. In that case the Tribunal has referred the cases of Dinesh Kumar v. Union of India and others decided on 23.9.1991 and Ramesh Chandra v. Union of India and others decided on 18.12.1990. On the other hand the regularly selected stenos had referred there the cases of Smt. Shashi Prabha v. Union of India decided on 10.12.1996 and a Full Bench decision of Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench dated 24.8.1999, Km. Kulwant Kaur and others v. Union of India and others. 52. We have examined with caution the two impugned judgments passed by the Tribunals on 1.9.2006 and 8.2.2006. Kulwant Kaur and others v. Union of India and others. 52. We have examined with caution the two impugned judgments passed by the Tribunals on 1.9.2006 and 8.2.2006. We have also examined the orders passed in Dinesh Kumar’s case, Ramesh Chandra’s case, Smt. Shashi Prabha’s case and Km. Kulwant Kaur’s case. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunals in Dinesh Kumar’s case and Ramesh Chandra’s case we find that the facts of two cases exclusively relate to the peculiar circumstances of the two cases. No principle of law was laid down by the Tribunals in those cases. On the other hand, the orders passed in Shashi Prabha and Km. Kulwant Kaur’s cases specific ratios have been given by respective Tribunals. So much so in Km. Kulwant Kaur’s case a specific law point was formulated and was duly answered. The order passed by the Tribunal in J.V. Trinidade’s case basically rests on so called guidelines given in Dinesh Kumar’s case. J.V. Trinidade’s case was decided on 8.2.2006 and by that time the cases of Shashi Prabha and Km. Kulwant Kaur had already been decided. We fail to understand as to why the learned Tribunal while passing the order of dismissal in J.V. Trinidade’s case did not follow the ratio given in those cases specially when the case of Km. Kulwant Kaur was decided by a Full Bench. 53. The impugned order dated 8.2.2006 passed in J.V. Trinidade’s case also appears to have rested on certain presumptions. It was contended by the opposite parties to the J.V. Trinidade’s case before the Tribunal that certain ad-hoc Stenographers of Lucknow and Allahabad Regions were regularised by an order of the Board in consultation with the Commission and since cases of the opposite parties to the O.A. were exactly similar to the cases of the ad-hoc stenos at Lucknow and Allahabad, the decision of the Board to regularise the ad-hoc stenos of Kanpur region is in accordance with Rules. The Tribunal accepted this contention as true in all respects without examining the circumstances in which the ad-hoc Stenographers of Lucknow and Allahabad regions were regularised. We have examined the records of this writ petition. Nowhere it has been mentioned in it as to under what circumstances, the ad-hoc Stenographers of Lucknow and Allahabad regions were regularised by the Board and the Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow. We have examined the records of this writ petition. Nowhere it has been mentioned in it as to under what circumstances, the ad-hoc Stenographers of Lucknow and Allahabad regions were regularised by the Board and the Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow. On the basis of the regularisation of such ad-hoc employees, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur had also decided to refer the matter to the Board and the Board without giving any reason decided to regularise the ad-hoc stenos of Kanpur region from the date of their initial appointment. In this reference we have examined Annexure "6" attached to the Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007 (Anil Kumar Sehgal’s writ). It is a letter sent to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. This is the impugned order/decision taken by the Board. The relevant portion of this letter is as follows : "I am directed to refer to your D.P. Letter No. CCTT/KNP/C&V/65-D98-99 dated 16th June, 1998 addressed to Member (P & V) on the above subject and to say that the matter has been carefully examined by the Board and it has been decided that these employees may be treated at par with the other regular employees for all purposes from the date of their initial appointment." 54. From the perusal of the above, it is clear that the Board has not mentioned in this letter the matters which were subject of its consideration. It does not even speak of the issues placed before it. It has also not been mentioned in this letter whether the regularly selected stenos were heard or given an opportunity of being heard before deciding the matter pending consideration before it. No Rule has been mentioned in this letter under which this decision was taken by the Board. Nowhere it has been mentioned that the Board was competent to take such a decision on its own. If it had power to regularise the ad-hoc stenos, the Board should have mentioned the relevant Rules and Regulations in the letter but nothing has been mentioned in it. Commenting upon this letter, the Tribunal in its judgment dated 1.9.2006 (impugned in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007 and Civil Misc. If it had power to regularise the ad-hoc stenos, the Board should have mentioned the relevant Rules and Regulations in the letter but nothing has been mentioned in it. Commenting upon this letter, the Tribunal in its judgment dated 1.9.2006 (impugned in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007) has rightly observed that "the questions for our decision are as to whether the respondents were justified in treating the respondents No. 3 to 34 (in O.A. of 2000) as regular from the dates of their initial appointments and as to whether consequential orders including that of reversion were justified. We have found that the Board’s decision to treat these persons at par with the regular employees from the dates of their initial appointment was not legally justified and so subsequent reversion orders were also not justified in law. Respondents No. 3 to 34 cannot be treated to be senior to the applicants. It is for the Department to tackle the problem in the way it may be permissible in law but we are very sorry to say that we are not in a position to help the department." 55. It has also been argued from the side of the ad-hoc stenos that they were regularised by the Board after consultation and approval of the Commission. We do not have the details what consultations were done between the Board and the Commission. The same has not been provided to us either by the Board or the Commission or the ad-hoc stenos. In our opinion, the ‘consultation’ between the two cannot replace the touchstone of the Special Qualifying Examination which was decided to be held by the Department of Personnel and Training with a view to regularise not only the ad-hoc Stenographers contesting this case but also those who were similarly selected and appointed in various other departments of the Central Government. 56. When there was a specific provision made by the Department of Personnel and Training to hold a Special Qualifying Examination, there appears no reason as to why the Board and Commission in consultation with each other regularised the ad-hoc Stenographers at Kanpur region without there being any such rule in force. 56. When there was a specific provision made by the Department of Personnel and Training to hold a Special Qualifying Examination, there appears no reason as to why the Board and Commission in consultation with each other regularised the ad-hoc Stenographers at Kanpur region without there being any such rule in force. It may be mentioned here that no Rule has been quoted before us which say that the Board and the Commission were competent to regularise the services of ad-hoc stenos after consulting each other on the issue without holding any examination or interview for the purpose. 57. On the basis of the above discussion, we are of the view that the so called regularisation of ad-hoc employees was not in accordance with the Rules. We must make it clear that we are not deciding here whether ad-hoc stenos should continue in their services or not. We are not expressing any opinion regarding validity or invalidity of Ramesh Chandra’s case, Smt. Shashi Prabha’s case, Dinesh Kumar’s case or Km. Kulwant Kaur’s case because the parties therein are not before us as a party in these cases and at the same time no issue relating to them are before us for decision. The observations regarding those cases have been made only with a view to scrutinise whether the orders impugned before us in these three petitions are legal or illegal. The above observations were necessitated as we had to decide the seniority between the contesting parties in the cases before us. 58. Thus, we are of the considered view that Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007 (Anil Kumar Sehgal and others v. Smt. Anita Vinayak and others) and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38755 of 2007 (Rajesh Kumar and others v. Smt. Anita Vinayak and others) have no force and they are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. The Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2006 (J.V. Trinidade and others v. Union of India and others) succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.2.2006 passed in O.A. No. 1590 of 2002 is quashed. As a consequence the decision dated 22.9.1998 of Central Board of Direct Taxes and the consequent orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur are also quashed. 59. We direct that the respondent Nos. 5 to 35 of Civil Misc. The impugned order dated 8.2.2006 passed in O.A. No. 1590 of 2002 is quashed. As a consequence the decision dated 22.9.1998 of Central Board of Direct Taxes and the consequent orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur are also quashed. 59. We direct that the respondent Nos. 5 to 35 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2006 will not be shown senior to the petitioners of this case. The petitioners of this petition shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. 60. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. 61. The interim stay order, if any, stands vacated. ————