ORDER (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J.) Since in these two Writ Petitions common questions of law and facts involved they are clubbed and taken up together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. Writ Petition No. 15776 of 2009 has been filed in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the common orders dated 17.4.2009 passed in O.A.No. 892 of 2003 and batch by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, directing the official respondents to place the first applicant, respondent No.4 herein, over and above the petitioner in the seniority of the Senior Lecturer in Zone-I, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Writ Petition No. 16830 of 2009 has been filed in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the common Judgment dated 17.4.2009 passed in O.A.No. 935 of 2003 and batch on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, directing the official respondents to finalize the seniority list of lecturers in Government Polytechnic in Zone I by placing the petitioner and 4th respondent herein below the candidates appointed in the year 1987 directly without undergoing the election process conducted by the APPSC as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the Judgment passed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 19459 of 2003, 9072 of 2003 and 8803 of 2002 dated 10.12.2008 and set aside the same. 4. O.A No. 892 of 2003 was filed under Section 19 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following prayer: "praying the Tribunal to call for the records pertaining to the appointment, regularization and Ratification of RA to R7 to the service of Lecturers and the proceedings of the promotion to the post of Senior Lecturers and direct the respondents, R-1 and R-2 to consider the applicants for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturers from the date respondents 4 to 7 were promoted as Senior Lecturers with all attendant and other consequential benefits by declaring that the applicants are seniors than the private respondents 4 to 7 and subsequently declare that the action of the respondents in ordering promotion to the private respondents, more particularly ordering promotion to R-4 to R-7 ahead of the applicant, is illegal discriminatory, ultravires, malafide and unconstitutional." 5. O.A No. 935 of 2003 was filed with the following prayer: "Application filed under Section 198 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying the Tribunal to direct the respondents to publish the seniority list of Lecturers and Senior Lecturers in the cadre of Lecturers immediately as per Rule 33 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1977 and duly following the terms and conditions mentioned in the G.O.Ms. No. 193 of 1990." 6. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants 1 to 3 in O.A.No. 892 of 2003 are working as Lecturers in Government Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam whereas the 4th applicant is working as Lecturer in Government Polytechnic, Vijayawada. According to the averments in the O.A the first applicant was appointed as Associate Lecturer on 1.4.1991 whereas the applicants 2 and 3 were appointed as such on 4.3.1995 and 4th applicant was appointed on 19.11.1996. They assail the promotions of the respondents 4 to 7 as Senior Lecturers and to direct the respondents to appoint the applicants for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturers by declaring that they are seniors to the respondents 4 to 7. As seen from the order, the posts of Associate Lecturers in Government Polytechnics are under the purview of APPSC. A notification was issued in LR.No. G3/14898/85 dated 12.7.1985 for selection of Associate Lecturers. There were number of vacancies, due to which the academic career of the student was affected as the selection process by the APPSC would naturally consume considerable time. Therefore, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No. 853, LEN & T Dept dated 2.4.1986 permitting the Director of Technical Education to fill the vacancies temporarily by drawing qualified and eligible persons from the Employment Exchange and subjected them for interview by an expert committee consisting of Mr. S.R. Govindrajan, lAS, Director General of Public Enterprises, G.A. Department, Government of A.P., Professor K. Koteswara Rao, Regional Engineering College, Warangal and Dr.M.G.G. Naidu, Director of Technical Education, Hyderabad. The candidates, who were successful in the selection process, were appointed as Associate Lecturers in Engineering in Government Polytechnic Colleges in 1987 and 1988 on temporary basis. The candidates selected by APPSC were also appointed as Associated Lecturers in Engineering Colleges during the year 1989 and 1990 and joined the posts. After completion of the period of probation, they were regularized with reference to the date of their joining in the Department. The candidates selected by APPSC were also appointed as Associated Lecturers in Engineering Colleges during the year 1989 and 1990 and joined the posts. After completion of the period of probation, they were regularized with reference to the date of their joining in the Department. While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 193, General Administration (Service-A) Department dated 14.3.1990, for regularization of temporary services of the candidates recruited on temporary basis without reference to APPSC on certain conditions. Under the above said G.O., an ad hoc regulation was passed by the Governor by invoking the proviso to Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India where under consultation with the APPSC was dispensed with for regularization of the candidates covered by the above said G.O. In pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 193, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 14.3.1990 the Commissioner and Technical Education in his proceedings No. G4/11161/91 dated 11.2.1993 regularized the services of the respondents in their personal capacity added in some of the O.As with effect from 20.7.1990 along with others in Zone-I. The applicants are also from Zone-I. The applicants claim that they are entitled for seniority over the respondents in their personal capacity by contending that they were selected by APPSC where as the respondents in their personal capacity were temporarily selected. One Mr. Ramprasad, Associate Lecturer, Government Polytechnic, Bhadrachalam of Khammam District is from Zone-V filed O.A. No. 4095 to declare the proceedings dated 11.2.1993, where under the candidates appointed temporarily by the High Power Committee were regularized with effect from 20.7.1990 in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 193. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A by an order dated 12.11.2002 directing the respondents to prepare a seniority list reconsidering the earlier view taken by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 4016 of 1993. The relevant portion reads as under: "On a careful consideration of the submissions made, this Tribunal earlier decided the matter in favour of the candidates selected by the service Commission. In the orders issued also, it is mentioned that they are temporary appointments and they can also appear for the next selection and they were to be replaced, whenever regular appointments are made by the APPSC and no preferential treatment should be given to them. Obviously, the authorities while filing counter in this matter, has overlooked the order issued to the unofficial respondent while making the appointments as under G.O.Ms.No. 193. Obviously, the authorities while filing counter in this matter, has overlooked the order issued to the unofficial respondent while making the appointments as under G.O.Ms.No. 193. After that is considered, the stand of the applicant appears to be correct and the official respondents cannot take a different stand than that they have taken earlier. This tribunal has taken a consistent view holding the candidates appointed through Service Commission should take precedence over those of the candidates selected through G.O.Ms. No. 193 even though, the selection is made by the Service Commission subsequent to the selection made by the candidates under the G.O.Ms No. 193 dated 14.3.2990. In this regard, AIR 1995,586 Between B.Sreinivas Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh was quoted. Even, in that case also regularization was made for the candidates who were recruited outside the purview of the Service Commission and treating those posts were excluded for the purview of the APPSC. Even though, regularization of those people should not be disturbed, so far as, computing of the seniority is concerned, candidates selected through Service Commission should be given priority over the above the candidates who were selected by other means of selections. In view of these observations made, even though, regularization cannot be questioned and fixing up of day and increments also need not be touched by this Tribunal. In so far as, seniority is concerned, the Seniority of the applicant has to be considered over and above to those candidates who were selected by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 193 dated 14.3.1990 accordingly seniority has to be fixed. Therefore the respondents are directed to prepare a seniority list reconsidering the earlier view taken by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 4016 of 1993." 7. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Petition Nos. 19459 and 9072 of 2003 were preferred and the same were disposed by an order dated 10.12.2008. Paragraph 10 of the order reads as under: "The Petitioners were recruited as Associate Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges by a duly constituted Selection Committee which included experts from appropriate field of engineering, viz., the Principal, Regional Engineering College, Warangal and others. 19459 and 9072 of 2003 were preferred and the same were disposed by an order dated 10.12.2008. Paragraph 10 of the order reads as under: "The Petitioners were recruited as Associate Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges by a duly constituted Selection Committee which included experts from appropriate field of engineering, viz., the Principal, Regional Engineering College, Warangal and others. The need to appoint the petitioners according to the respondents, arose as there was dearth of Associate Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges, the Government with the permission of the APPSC, permitted the Department to fill up the posts of Associate Lecturers by calling for names from the respective Employment Exchanges . It is true that the selection committee considered the merit experience and suitability of the petitioners and prepared a panel for their appointment pursuant to which they were appointed. Though the petitioners were appointed by a selection committee constituted for that purpose, the appointments are made under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Rules and in the appointment order itself it was made clear that their appointment was purely temporary and in case the petitioners intend to get selected on regular basis, they are required to respond to the notification issued by the APPSC and they cannot claim any preferential claim by virtue of their appointment under Rule 10 (a)(i)(1) of the Rules. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The propositions laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association's case (2 supra) was followed by the Apex Court in another decision in Anuradha Badi's case (1 supra). The propositions laid down by the Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Associations case (2 supra) it to the effect that when once an incumbent is appointed to a past according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. In the instant case, the very nature of appointment was made known to the petitioners that it is purely temporary and they will have to compete for regular selection and they will be replaced by regularly selected candidates by the APPSC. In the instant case, the very nature of appointment was made known to the petitioners that it is purely temporary and they will have to compete for regular selection and they will be replaced by regularly selected candidates by the APPSC. But, the Government, as a special case, and also in view of the representation made by the petitioners, took a policy decision to regularize the services of the petitioners excluding the jurisdiction of the APPSC under proviso to Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution, and in pursuance of whichG.O.Ms.No.193,dated 14.3.1990 was issued whereby the services of the petitioners were regularized subject to certain conditions. In view of the specific terms mentioned in the order of appointments issued to the petitioners and the petitioners having accepted the same and joined duties now cannot claim partly with the recruits selected by the APPSC. The Division Bench of this Court in K. Natarajan's case (4 supra) discussed the parameters for exercise of the High Court's power to issue a writ of certiorari and observed that finding of fact reached by the inferior Court, Tribunal etc, as a result of the appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings except when the judgment order or award suffers from an error of law apparent on the fact of the record." 8. The first applicant in O.A.No. 892 of 2003 was appointed as Associate Lecturer on 1.4.1991. So the appointments were made and confirmed prior to the issuance of proceedings dated 11.2.1993 where under the respondents in their personal capacity were regularized with antedate i.e. from 20.7.1990. The relevant portion of the proceedings dated 11.2.1993 reads as under: "In pursuance of the orders of Government issued in Government orders 2nd read above and under the provisions of Rule 23(a) of General Rules for Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rides, the Commissioner of Technical Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is pleased to Regularize the temporary services of the Associate Lecturers in Engineering disciplines selected and appointed by Expert-Committee during the year 1987-88 from the dates shown against their names in the enclosed annexure in the category of Associate Lecturer in Government Polytechnics (Category 6 of Class IV) in APTES)" 9. Therefore, in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 4095/2003, which is confirmed by the High Court, the above applicants, who were appointed prior to the orders of regularization dated 11.2.1993, gain seniority over the respondents in the personal capacity. But the Applicants 2,3,4 in O.A.No. 892 of 2003 were appointed subsequent to the order of regularization dated 11.2.1993; therefore, they cannot question the regularization of the respondents in their personal capacity, which was done prior to their appointments itself. Therefore, the applicants, who were appointed subsequent to 11.2.1993 cannot question the regularization of Lecturers. Therefore, the first applicant in a.A.No.892 of 2003 is entitled for preference to the promotion as Senior Lecturers than the respondents in the personal capacity. While disposing of all the O.As, the Tribunal held as under: "Therefore, the respondents are directed to prepare a seniority list of Lecturers and Senior Lecturers by placing the candidates who were appointed regularly by the APPSC prior to the order of regularization on temporary candidates under proceedings No. G4/11161/1991, dated 11.2.1993 irrespective of the fact that the said proceedings regularize the temporary candidates with antedate i.e. 20.7.1990. In other words, the candidates appointed prior to 11.2.1993 must be given seniority over the candidates regularized in pursuance of G.a.Ms.No. 193, General Administration (Services- A) Department, dated 14.3.1990. But, the candidates who were appointed subsequent to regularization order dated 11.2.1993 cannot be placed above the temporary candidates regularized in pursuance of G.a.Ms.No. 193 General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 14.3.1990. The final seniority list has to be published after considering the other objections for Zone-I within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Therefore, the respondents are directed to place the applicants in O.A.No. 852/ 2003, O.A No. 3180 of 2003, O.A. No. 2320/2003, 1st applicant in O.A. No. 892/2003 by name V.Rama Krishna, in the seniority list over and above the candidates who were regularized under the proceedings No. G4/11161/1991 dated 11.2.1993, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No. 193, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 14.3.1990. The other applicants, who were appointed subsequent to the proceedings No. G4/11161/1991 dated 11.2.1993 cannot be placed over and above the candidates regularized in proceedings No. G4/11161/1991, dated 11.2.1993 in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 193, General Administration (Services-A) Department dated 14.3.1990. The other applicants, who were appointed subsequent to the proceedings No. G4/11161/1991 dated 11.2.1993 cannot be placed over and above the candidates regularized in proceedings No. G4/11161/1991, dated 11.2.1993 in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 193, General Administration (Services-A) Department dated 14.3.1990. The official respondents are directed to finalize the seniority list in the light of the above said directions for Zone I within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the O.As are disposed of, with the above said observation. C.As and M.As are also closed." 10. Aggrieved by the same, N. Vasanthi6th respondent in O.A.No. 892 of 2003 and A. Rajyalakshmi-second applicant in O.ANo. 935 of 2003 filed these two Writ Petitions. 11. This Court on 4.8.2009 while admitting the Writ Petitions granted interim suspension of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 892 of 2003 dated 17.4.2009. Applicants in O.A.No. 892 of 2003 also filed vacate stay petition WVMP No. 3689 of 2009 in W.P.No. 15776 of 2009 contending that any regularization contrary to Clauses 5 of Paragraph 4 of G.O.Ms. No. 193 is void ab-initio and has no legal existence whatsoever and no legal consequence could flow from the orders of the regularization issued through proceedings of the Commissioner of Technical Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad bearing No. G4/11161/91 dated 11.2.1993. Clause 5 of Paragraph 4 of G .O.Ms. No. 193 reads as under: "Only such of those temporary/daily wage appointees who have not been given an opportunity for appearing for regular selection by the regular recruiting agency or authority where the candidate has not failed and forfeited his chance by such failure to get regularize in such selection alone shall be eligible". 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that it is never in dispute that APPSC conducted examinations during the years 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995 and 1996. Unless it is demonstrated that those appointees covered by the Proceedings dated 11.2.1993 mentioned above were prevented from appearing for the examinations conducted by the APPSC., during the periods 1989, 1990,1991,1992, 1993 etc and as such, they were entitled for regularization under G.O.Ms.No. 193 and more particularly, Clause 5 of Paragraph 4 of G.O.Ms.No. 193 gets attracted and brings the advantage of the ad-hoc regularization issued under Article 320 (3) Proviso. 13. 13. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that since the petitioners' services viz., petitioner in W.P.No. 16830 of 2009 were regularized with effect from 06.10.1995 and petitioner in W.P.No. 15776 of 2009 were regularized with effect from 20.7.1990 as per G.O.Ms. No. 193 dated 14.3.1990, their seniority has to be fixed from that date and the candidates recruited by the APPSC cannot be taken as precedence. 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7 contended that the issue has already been decided by this Court though the petitioners were appointed by a selection committee constituted for that purpose, the appointments are made under Rule 10(a)(I)(1) of the rules, and in the appointment order itself it was clear that their appointments were purely temporary and in case the petitioners are intended to get selected on regular basis, they are required to respond to the notification issued by the APPSC and they cannot claim any preferential claim by virtue of their appointment under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Rules. He also submits that it is very clear from the proceedings of the Director of Technical Education, Hyderabad dated 2.3.1987 that the appointments shown are purely temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reasons and they will be replaced whenever regular appointments are made by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission under due notification by the Commission in response to which they may also apply and they shall not claim any preferential treatment at the time of such regular selections by the APPSC. The relevant portion reads as under: "Under the provisions of Rule 10(a)(i)(l) of General Rules for Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service, the candidates shown in he Annexure to this order and whose names are sponsored by the Regional Employment Officer, Secunderabad are temporarily appointed as Associated Lecturers in Polytechnic and Government Degree/Junior colleges under Vocationalisation in the scale of pay of Rs. 1380-6-1980-70-2750 and posted in the institutions as shown against their names in the existing vacancies from the dates of their assuming charge of the post. 2. 1380-6-1980-70-2750 and posted in the institutions as shown against their names in the existing vacancies from the dates of their assuming charge of the post. 2. The appointments shown in the Annexure to this order are purely temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason and they will be replaced whenever regular appointments are made by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission under due notification by the Commission in response to which they may also apply and they shall not claim any preferential treatment at the time of such regular selections by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission." 15. The learned Government Pleader has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in V. Sreenivas Reddy and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (1) AIR 1995 SC 586 , wherein the Supreme Court at paragraphs 6, 14, 15, 18, 27, 28, and 31 held as under: "6. The respondents, PSC candidates, who were appointed on May 14, 1984, appealed to the Government against regularization of the appellants contending that condition (iii) in G.O.Ms.No. 413 was misunderstood by the Chief Engineer; the Government intended to give benefit to the PSC candidates last elected in 1981 selection and that though they were appointed in 1984, they are entitled to seniority over the appellants, since the latter became members of the service only on their regularization on June 11, 1984, i.e., after their appointment on May 14,1984 which found favour with the Government and made it that the PSC candidates are entitled to seniority from the initial dates of their appointments and the temporary appointees (appellants) be placed below them. The appellants questioned before the Tribunal that order of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development made in G.O.Ms.No. 296 dated April 24, 1990 and the PSC candidates challenged the appellants' regularization order by the Chief Engineer Panchayat Raj. 14. It is now well settled law that appointment/promotion must be in accordance with the Rules, direct recruit takes his seniority from the date on which he starts discharging the duty of the post borne on the cadre while a temporary appointee appointed de hors the rules or on ad hoc basis or to a fortuitous vacancy gets seniority from the date of regular appointment. 15. 15. It is settled law by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruits Class II Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCR 900 : (1991 AIR sew 2226), that appointment in accordance with Rules is a condition precedent to count seniority. Temporary or ad hoc or fortuitous appointments etc, is not an appointment in accordance with the Rules and the temporary service cannot be counted towards the seniority, Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee v. R. K. Kashyap, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 194 : ( AIR 1989 SC 278 ); Masood Akhtar Khan v. State of M.P., (1990) 4 SCC 24 ; D.N. Agrawal v. State of M.P., (1990) 2 SCC 553 : ( AIR 1990 SC 1311 ) ; State of Tamil Nadu v. E. Paripoornam, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 420; (1992 AIR SCW 2057); R.C. C. Poudyal v. Union of India, (1993) 2 JT (SC) 1 and at p. 25; (1993 AIR SCW 1620 at p. 1682); Excise Commissioner, Karnataka v. V. Sreekanta, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 53: (1993 AIR SCW 1740). 18. Rule 33 determines the seniority (a) The seniority of a person in a service, class or category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. If any portion of the service of such person does not count towards probation under Rules 10(a), (iv), 10(c), 16, 37(d), or 42(d), his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service which counts towards probation. 27. It is seen that under Rule 3(2) of Part I of the Rules, the approved candidates from the list of candidates communicated by PSC, the PSC candidates, by operation of Rule 3(1) of Part I, become persons appointed to the service from the date on which they started discharging the duties of the posts borne on the cadre. They were appointed to the substantive post by operation of Rule 4 of the Rules in the order of merit prepared by the PSC. On being put on probation under Rule 5 of the Special Rules and declaration of successful completion of probation, they became approved probationers under Rule 3(3) of Part I of the Rules. They were appointed to the substantive post by operation of Rule 4 of the Rules in the order of merit prepared by the PSC. On being put on probation under Rule 5 of the Special Rules and declaration of successful completion of probation, they became approved probationers under Rule 3(3) of Part I of the Rules. Under Rule 2 of the Special Rules, appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer shall be made only by direct recruitment or by transfer from subordinate service. No third mode is permissible under the Special Rules. By operation of Rule 2 of Part II of the Rules, if any provision in the Rules contained in Part II, it is repugnant to the provisions in the Special Rules applicable to any particular service contained in Part III. The Special Rules shall prevail over the Rules. 28. Under Rule 23(a) of the Rules, the temporary appointees, if subsequently appointed to a post borne on the cadre of any service, class or category in accordance with the Rules, he shall commence his probation "from the date of such subsequent appointment or from such earlier date as the appointing authority may determine." Under Rule 33(a), the seniority of such temporary employees under Rule 10(a)(i)(1), such temporary service does not count towards probation or his seniority, shall not be determined by the date of the commencement of his service which counts towards probation. It would thus be clear that by operation of Special Rules and Rules, that PSC candidate gets his seniority from the date on which he starts discharging his duties on the post borne on the cadre and his seniority shall be determined with effect from that date while the temporary appointee under R. 10(a)(i)(1) who is subsequently appointed in accordance with the Rules, the temporary service rendered prior to his appointment shall not be counted towards his seniority or the temporary service even if counted towards probation shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority. Obviously to achieve the same result clause (3) of G. O. Ms. No. 413 dated August 29, 1983 directed that the temporary service of the temporary employee should be regularised from the date subsequent to the last regular candidate or candidates "appointed" or allotted for appointment from the list of successful candidates drawn by PSC based on the examination last held. 31. No. 413 dated August 29, 1983 directed that the temporary service of the temporary employee should be regularised from the date subsequent to the last regular candidate or candidates "appointed" or allotted for appointment from the list of successful candidates drawn by PSC based on the examination last held. 31. It is true that R. 33 (a) speaks of length of service but a temporary employee appointed under R. 10(a)(i)(1), when his services are sought to be regularised under Rule 23(a), the appointing authority has been invested with the discretion to fix the date of initial appointment or subsequent date as the commencement of the date of the probation. In other words, appointment to the service in accordance with the Special Rules is a condition precedent and fixation of the date for commencement of the probation of temporary appointees under R. 23(a) should be done in accordance with the rules. Therefore, when the competing interests of the PSC candidates and the temporary appointees under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) emerges, the appointing authority has been given discretion to give later date to the temporary appointees. Therefore, the entire length of temporary service cannot be computed for the purpose of determining seniority under Rule 33(a)". 16. The learned Government Pleader also relied on the judgment reported in M.P. Palanisamy and others v. A. Krishnan and others (2) (2009) 6 SCC 428 = 2009 (5) SCJ 872 , wherein the Supreme Court at paragraphs 17, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35, and 47 held as under: "17. It is relevant to mention here that at that time also the appellants had not become members of the service since they were only ad hoc appointees under Rule 10(a)(i)(1). It is also relevant to note that these appellants had the option to compete in the said examination. Some who appeared in the T.N. PSC examination failed to qualify and the ret did not bother to take the examination at all. They thereby shunned from competing against the fresh candidates appearing in the T.N. PSC examination. It is also relevant to note that these appellants had the option to compete in the said examination. Some who appeared in the T.N. PSC examination failed to qualify and the ret did not bother to take the examination at all. They thereby shunned from competing against the fresh candidates appearing in the T.N. PSC examination. However, the concentrated efforts for regularization of such candidates who were appointed under Rule 10 (a)(i)(1) in the ad hoc manner were continued by their association and as a result thereof they were ultimately regularized by GOMS dated 12.12.1988 on a condit6ion that they would not be entitled for monetary benefits and would have to take their seniority below the last candidate selected by T.N. PSC in the examination. They accepted this conditional regularization without demur. 26. The Tribunal also held that the ranking given by T.N. PSC and the placement of candidates in the seniority list was not relevant to the issues, as the T.N. PSC candidates came in service later on, as compared to the PG Assistants appointed under Rule 10 (a)(i)(l). The Tribunal, therefore, directed the State Government and the Director of School Education to revise the panel for the post of Headmasters from Sl.No. 143 onwards in such a way that the PG Assistants appointed under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) are placed in the appropriate place in accordance with their seniority, meaning, their date of appointment. This judgment of the Tribunal was challenged by filing various writ petitions in the High Court, those writ petitions being WPs Nos. 21163, 21164, 21347, 21640, 21641, 19075 to 29077 of 2003 and 9719 of 2004. Later on, the lat mentioned writ petition was separated. 27. The High Court invited the counter affidavits from the respondents, more particularly, from the State Government and its authorities. By the impugned judgment, the writ petitions filed by the T.N. PSC-selected PG Assistants were allowed. While disposing of the writ petitions and allowing them, the High Court has given the directions which are contained in Para 2 of this judgment. It is this judgment, which has fallen for our consideration in the present case. 29. By the impugned judgment, the writ petitions filed by the T.N. PSC-selected PG Assistants were allowed. While disposing of the writ petitions and allowing them, the High Court has given the directions which are contained in Para 2 of this judgment. It is this judgment, which has fallen for our consideration in the present case. 29. Ms Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, along with Ms lndu Malhotra and Mr M.N. Krishnamani, learned Senior Counsel, firstly urged that when a candidate is appointed under Rule 10 (a)(i)(1) on ad hoc basis and 'is subsequently regularized, then ordinarily, his seniority has to be reckoned from the date when he was first appointed, provided he has all the necessary qualifications for the job. There can be no dispute with this proposition generally, however, it must be borne in mind that though the appellants herein had the necessary qualifications at the time of their initial appointment under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) and though they were subsequently regularized also, the regularization was conditional regularization, which was done way back in 1988. The condition regarding the seniority was explicit in the said regularization, which is clear from a mere reading of GOMs No. 1813. 30. It cannot be forgotten that this regularization was all along accepted by the present appellants. Once they chose to accept the regularization which was conditional, then it would have to be borne in mind that they have accepted the conditions also. I cannot be countenanced that only the favourable part of the GOMs was accepted by them and the unfavourable part was rejected. If they had to do it, they had to challenge the GOMs immediately. They di not do it, instead they waited almost for six years, when for the first time, they came out with an original application vide OA No. 3617 of 1994. Again, when the matters were decided in the Writ Petitions Nos. 2911 of 1994. Again when the matters were decided in the Writ Petitions Nos. 2911 and 3041 of 1998 on 24.3.1998 and the seniority prayed for on the basis of initial appointment was refused to them, they kept quiet, only to raise the same demand again in 2003 when the panel was prepared. 34. Rule 23(a) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 provides as under: "23. 2911 and 3041 of 1998 on 24.3.1998 and the seniority prayed for on the basis of initial appointment was refused to them, they kept quiet, only to raise the same demand again in 2003 when the panel was prepared. 34. Rule 23(a) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 provides as under: "23. (a) (i) Date of commencement of probation of persons first appointed temporarily.- If a person appointed temporarily either under sub-rule (a) or sub-rule (b) of the Rule 10 to fill a vacancy in any service, class or category otherwise than in accordance with the rules governing appointment thereto, such vacancy being a vacancy which may be filled by direct recruitment, is subsequently appointed to the service, class or category in accordance with the rules, he shall commence his probation if any, in such category either from the date of his first temporary appointment or from such subsequent date, as the appointing authority may determine. If the post is one to which appointment may be made by transfer, and the person who had been appointed thereto either under General Rule 10(a) or 10(d) is subsequently recruited thereto by transfer and included in the list of approve candidates, the appointing authority may, in his discretion, allow such person to commence his probation if any, from the date of his first temporary appointment or from such subsequent date, as the appointing authority may determine: Provided that the date so determined by the appointing authority to commence probation in this clause, shall not be earlier than the date of commencement of probation of the junior most person already in service: Provided further that on the date so determined by the appointing authority to commence probation in this clause, the person shall not only possess all the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the service, but also be fit for inclusion in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or the appointing authority, as the case may be." One look at the first proviso shows that in case of an ad hoc employee, he cannot claim any seniority to the junior most person already in service. The words 'junior most person already in service' in the proviso are extremely important. 35. The words 'junior most person already in service' in the proviso are extremely important. 35. All the T.N PSC PG Assistants were already in service, when the question of regularization of the PG Assistants appointed under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) came for consideration. Till then, the Government had steadfastly refused the regularization and ultimately, chose to regularize them only in 1988. Therefore, the stance of the Government in providing the second condition was absolutely correct and by mere subsequent regularization, that too without taking any examination under T.N PSC or undergoing any recruitment process and facing general competition from the other candidates, the ad hoc PG Assistants could not be held senior to those, who were already in service. If, therefore, these ad hoc PG Assistants claim seniority over and above the T.N PSC-selected candidates, who were admittedly already in service, it would be ridiculous in the wake of a very clear language of GOMs No. 1813. It will be further ridiculous in the wake of a very clear language of GOMs No. 1813. It will be further ridiculous as the said condition was accepted by all the PG Assistants appointed under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) without a demur and as if this I not sufficient, they did not challenge it at least for six long years and thereafter, up to 2003. All this goes totally against the claim of the appellants. 47. In recent decision in K. Madalaimuthu v. State of T.N. (2006) 6 SCC 558: 2006 SCC (L&S) 1451, this Court again reiterated the principles of fixation of seniority in case of the persons, who were temporarily appointed under Rule 10(a)(i)(1). This Court relied on V. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Government of A.P. (1995 Supp (1) SCC 572: 1995 SCC (L&S) 579: (1995) 29 A TC 495) as also, State of T.N. V. E. Paripoornam (1992 supp (1) SCC 420: 1992 SCC (L&S) 415: (1992) 19 A TC 653). Both these cases dealt with Rule 10(a)(i)(1). Distinguishingly, relying upon the case law relied on by the respondents i.e., L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur (1999) 8 SCC 287 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1460) this Court came to the conclusion that the High Court had erred in holding that the temporary appointees under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) were entitled to the seniority right from the date of their first appointment and not from their regularization. Though the controversy involved is ",slightly different, the general principles would undoubtedly apply." 17. The learned Government Pleader further contended that the Government with a view to mitigate the hardship of the candidates or associated lecturers, as a matter of policy framed regularization scheme which contemplates that they should be regularized subject to fulfillment of conditions and the petitioners cannot claim the favourable portions and ignore the unfavorable portions. They have to accept in whole and also in the appointment letter itself they have made it clear that the orders are purely temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reasons, and that they will be replaced whenever regular appointments will be made by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission under due notification by the Commission in response to which they may also apply and they shall not claim any preferential treatment at the time of such regular selections by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. 18. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any advantage or benefit unless they fulfill the conditions laid down by the Government with regard to the policy framed for regularizing the services and without regularizing the services the question of counting their seniority does not arise. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered all these aspects and directed the respondents to finalize the seniority list for Zone-I within a period of 8 weeks and there are no grounds to interfere with the order and therefore, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 19. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the entire material made available on record. 20. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal has committed any jurisdictional error so as to dislodge the findings of the Tribunal. 21. As seen from the record, the Government have also given thought to the question of regularization of temporary/daily wage appointments against civil posts in Government in regular scales of pay. Government accordingly directed that the services of the persons appointed on temporary basis or on daily wage basis and continuing as such on the date of issue of these orders be regularized subject to fulfillment of the following conditions. (1) Regularization shall be done after exhausting candidates approved for appointment allotted to the unit by the recruiting authority, i.e., Public Services commission or District Selection Commission etc., if any waiting for appointment. (1) Regularization shall be done after exhausting candidates approved for appointment allotted to the unit by the recruiting authority, i.e., Public Services commission or District Selection Commission etc., if any waiting for appointment. (2) Such appointments shall be made in vacancies other than those intended for candidates to be allotted for which an indent has been placed with recruiting agency viz., Public Service Commission, District Selection Committee, Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission etc., (3) This shall be done only after absorbing any persons continuing in supernumerary posts, (4) This shall be in clear vacancies available in that unit of appointment in which the candidate is working, (5) Only such of those temporary/daily wage appointees who have not been given an opportunity for appearing for regular selection by the regular rc,:ruiting agency or authority where the candidate has not failed and forfeited his chance by such failure to get regularize in such selection alone shall be eligible. (6) Candidates shall be eligible for appointment under the rules pertaining to local candidature, qualifications, age, the rule of special representation in favour of Scheduled Casts, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes etc., (7) Such daily wage appointees have been appointed by the competent appointing authority and not by any other authority. (8) This shall be applicable only in cases where temporary/casual appointments were authorized by the Government specifically in relaxation of ban on appointments. (9) Where the prescribed procedure has been followed for appointments. (10) Candidates have been appointed through the employment exchange or where in cases covered by GOMs No. 1261, LEN & TE Department, dated 8.4.1984, Employment Exchange was notified of the vacancy and the advertisement was made in papers and selection was made on merits. (11) Where they have worked for more than six months continuously without break except for break due to holidays. (12) Regularization will be in only prospective after verification of antecedents." 22. The seniority has to be counted from the initial date of their appointment. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly directed the respondents to prepare a seniority list of Lecturers and Senior Lecturers by placing the candidates who were appointed regularly by the APPSC prior to the order of regularization on temporary candidates under proceedings dated 11.2.1993 irrespective of the fact that the said proceedings regularize the temporary candidates with ante-date i.e 20.7.1990. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly directed the respondents to prepare a seniority list of Lecturers and Senior Lecturers by placing the candidates who were appointed regularly by the APPSC prior to the order of regularization on temporary candidates under proceedings dated 11.2.1993 irrespective of the fact that the said proceedings regularize the temporary candidates with ante-date i.e 20.7.1990. It is further clarified that the candidates appointed prior to 11.2.1993 must be given seniority over the candidates regularized in pursuance of GOMs.No. 193, General Administration (Services-A) Department dated 14.3.1990. But the candidates who were appointed subsequent to regularization order 11.2.1993 cannot be placed above the temporary candidates regularized in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No. 193 dated 14.3.1990. 23. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Shrivastava and others v. Ramlal and others (3) (2008) 3 SCC 148 at paragraphs 95, 99,101, and 104 held as under: "95. In the Writ Petition filed by Vinod Kumar Gupta (WP No. 1295/SB of 1997) the Government filed its counter affidavit indicating that the amendment was made to achieve the policy decision of giving substantive appointment from the date of initial appointment to those persons who had been appointed on the basis of the limited departmental examination and the word 'ad hoc' had been used in due deference to the interim order passed by the High Court on 12.2.1987 which ceased to operate after the dismissal of Writ Petition Nos. 496 and 1008 of 1987. subsequently, when the 1983 Service Rules were amended in 1997, the Government also indicated that the amendment was made only to clarify/declare that the appointments made under the limited departmental examination were regular and substantive and only a declaration had been made in that regard in the Third Amendment and that no regularization was at all envisaged. In the writ petition filed by Govardhan Lal the State in its counter-affidavit stated: "The Service Rules of 1983 had been amended which envisaged that the persons appointed through limited departmental examination were appointed on a regular and substantive basis from the date of their initial appointment." 99. In our view, notwithstanding the well-settled principle that an employee's service is to be counted for seniority only after he is borne in the cadre, in the facts of this case the 1987 appointees will have to be treated differently. In our view, notwithstanding the well-settled principle that an employee's service is to be counted for seniority only after he is borne in the cadre, in the facts of this case the 1987 appointees will have to be treated differently. Although, the State Government may have shifted its stand to the extent that the services rendered by the 1987 appointees till 1997 could not be counted for computing their seniority, as their initial appointment was ad hoc in nature, we are of the view that such a stand would lead to inequity in view of the expressed intention of the State Government in the earlier writ petitions. 101. While agreeing with Mr Gourab Banerji that it is well settled that an employee can only count his seniority from the moment he becomes part of the cadre, in the instant case we are of the view that the facts are distinguishable in that the services of the 1987appointees should be treated as substantive from the date of their initial appointment and not from 1997 when by amendment of the Service Rules their services were deemed to have been regularized and they were included in the cadre with effect from the date of such amendment. 104. The State Government ha in Para 34 of its counter-affidavit in Govardhan Lal's writ petition said in no uncertain terms that no process had been initiated to regularize the services of the 1987 appointees for the reason that their appointment was always considered to be substantial in nature. We, therefore, have little hesitation in holding that the service rendered by the 1987 appointees between 1987 and 1997 cannot be ignored for computing their seniority in the cadre on the ground that in view of the interim orders passed by the High Court in different writ petitions, which• ultimately came to be dismissed, their appointments were treated to be ad hoc." 24. Taking into consideration all the relevant factors the Tribunal also observed that the applicants, who were appointed subsequent to the proceedings dated 11.2.1993 cannot be placed over and above the candidates regularized in proceedings dated 11.2.1993 in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 193 dated 14.3.1990. 25. Therefore, in our considered view, the petitioners do not have any legally or enforceable right unless they fulfill the criterion laid down under G.O.Ms.No. 193 dated 14.3.1990. No. 193 dated 14.3.1990. 25. Therefore, in our considered view, the petitioners do not have any legally or enforceable right unless they fulfill the criterion laid down under G.O.Ms.No. 193 dated 14.3.1990. Hence, we find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 26. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.