JUDGMENT Asok Potsangbam, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.K. Nakulsena, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Th. Ibohal Singh, learned senior Government Advocate, Manipur, appearing for the State-respondents. 2. This writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners, three in number, who, on the recommendation of a regular DPC and with the concurrence of Public Service Commission, were appointed as Sub-Deputy Collector (SDC) in the Revenue Department, Government of Manipur vide order dated 28.2.2005, claiming that the period of ad hoc service rendered by them w.e.f. 24.4.2000 should be counted towards their seniority in the grade of SDC which is now re-designated as Junior MCS Officer and included in the cadre officers of Junior Manipur Civil Service Rules 2007 which was published in the extra ordinary Gazette of Manipur dated 10th August, 2007. 3. For better appreciation and adjudication of the contentious issues raised by the parties in the case, a little narration of facts is considered necessary for disposal of this writ petition and they are as follows - (i) Prior to framing of the Junior MCS Rules 2007, the appointment and promotion to the post of Sub-Deputy Collector (SDC for short), was governed and regulated by a Recruitment Rules called as Revenue Department, Manipur (Sub-Deputy Collector) Recruitment Rules 1981, framed and published under article 309 of the Constitution of India. Column 11(5) of the aforesaid Rules stipulates that in order to earn eligibility for consideration of promotion to the post of SDC, an under-graduate Revenue Inspector requires eight (8) years of regular service in the grade whereas a graduate Revenue Inspector requires only five (5) years of regular service in the grade. Column 10 of the aforesaid Rules also lays down that 33V 2% of the vacancies in the grade of SDC are to be filled up by promotion and the remaining 661/2% is to be filled up by direct recruitment through open competitive examination to be conducted by the Public Service Commission. (ii) It is stated that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Revenue Inspector on 24.4.1991, petitioner No. 2 on 13.10.1987 and petitioner No. 3 on 8.11.1983. (ii) It is stated that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Revenue Inspector on 24.4.1991, petitioner No. 2 on 13.10.1987 and petitioner No. 3 on 8.11.1983. In view of the eligibility criteria as laid down in column 11(5) of the Recruitment Rules, 1981, there cannot be any dispute that the petitioner No. 1 earned his eligibility for consideration of promotion to the post of SDC on 25.4.1996, petitioner No. 2 on 14.10.1992 and the petitioner No. 3 on 9.11.1998. (iii) It is stated that petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 were appointed as in-charge SDC, vide Government order under No. 3/30/92-R(A) dated 30.11.1996 and similarly, petitioner No. 2 was also appointed as in-charge SDC by another order under No-3/30/92-R dated 20.11.1995. It will be seen from the above that when the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 were appointed as in-charge SDC, they have not even served the qualifying period of five (5) years after their initial appointment as Revenue Inspector which is a feeder post for promotion to the post of SDC. Of course, the petitioner No. 2 had already served the qualifying period and therefore, he was eligible. In addition to the above, it is also contended that petitioner No. 1 and 2 were given the power of executive Magistrate by the Government in terms of section 20(1)of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 while holding the post of SDC on in-charge basis. (iv) It is seen from the records that the petitioners had approached this court in WP(C) No. 64 of 1999 (i) for a direction to regularize their in-charge services in the grade of SDC, (ii) for a direction to appoint the petitioners on ad hoc basis with effect from their initial in-charge appointment, and (iii) for a direction to the respondents to pay the pay and allowances attached to the post of Sub-Deputy Collector (SDC). During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Misc. Case No. 337 of 1999 was filed by the petitioners and this court, after hearing the parties, granted only the prayer for payment of pay and allowances payable to the post of SDC/AS and SO as long as they continued to perform the duties attached to the post. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Misc. Case No. 337 of 1999 was filed by the petitioners and this court, after hearing the parties, granted only the prayer for payment of pay and allowances payable to the post of SDC/AS and SO as long as they continued to perform the duties attached to the post. By another order dated 10.10.2000 issued by the Commissioner, Revenue, Government of Manipur, purportedly in compliance of an order dated 24.4.2000 allegedly passed by this court in the aforesaid writ petition, petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of six (6) months w.e.f. 24.4.2000. The aforesaid order dated 24.4.2000 on the basis of which ad hoc appointment was made is not made available by the petitioners in this writ petition nor is any order extending the aforesaid ad hoc appointment beyond six (6) months w.e.f. 24.4.2000, annexed to the writ petition. However, in the course of argument, a plea is taken by the petitioners that by virtue of order dated 10.4.2002 passed by this court in Misc. Case No. 167 of 2002 filed in connection with the aforesaid writ petition, they claimed to have continued in their ad hoc services. Relevant portion of the order dated 10.4.2002 is reproduced herein below - It is ordered that the status-quo of the petitioner in service as on today is to be maintained until otherwise the matter is taken up by the MPSC and made regular recommendation. (v) Perusal of the order dated 28.2.2005 (Annexure-A/12), would clearly disclose that on the recommendation of a Departmental Promotional Committee and with the concurrence of the Manipur Public Service Commission, 37 Officers holding different feeder posts, were promoted to the post of Sub-Deputy Collector by an order dated 20.2.2005 issued by the Commissioner, Government of Manipur. In the aforesaid order, the petitioner No. 1 is placed at serial No. 15, petitioner No. 2 at serial No. 7 and petitioner No. 3 at serial No. 35, in order of merit, as reflected in the aforesaid order. 4. In the aforesaid order, the petitioner No. 1 is placed at serial No. 15, petitioner No. 2 at serial No. 7 and petitioner No. 3 at serial No. 35, in order of merit, as reflected in the aforesaid order. 4. The Governor of Manipur, in exercise of the power conferred by proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India and in consultation of the Manipur Public Service Commission, was pleased to make a Service Rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of services of the persons to be appointed as Junior Manipur Civil Service Officer and the rules which was published in the Manipur Gazette on 10.8.2007, came to be called as Junior Manipur Civil Service Rules 2007 and the same came into effect from the date of Notification in the Official Gazette. The post of Sub-Deputy Collector (SDC) is one of the 17 posts identified in Schedule 1 of the Rules for inclusion in the cadre strength of Junior MCS (Senior Grade/Junior Grade). Rule 4 lays down as to how the services under the rules is to be constituted and the strength and the classification are to be determined. Rule 5 provides that 50% of the substantive vacancies which occurred from time-to-time in the authorized permanent strength of the Junior Manipur Civil Service is to be filled up by direct recruitment and remaining 50% by promotion from amongst the officers who held substantively any post mentioned in Schedule II to the rules. Rule 12 lays down as to how the Selection Committee is to be constituted and rule 13 lays down the criteria for eligibility and procedure for selection. Rule 25 lays down how seniority is to be determined amongst the direct recruits as well as the inter-se seniority between the promotees and the direct recruits. As no controversy is being raised by any of the parties with regard to any provision of the rules referred to above, I do not consider it necessary to discuss any further on the provisions of the Rules at this stage. 5. As no controversy is being raised by any of the parties with regard to any provision of the rules referred to above, I do not consider it necessary to discuss any further on the provisions of the Rules at this stage. 5. Indisputably, once the Junior Manipur Civil Service Rules 2007 came into force w.e.f. 10.8.2007, i.e., the date of publication in the Manipur extra ordinary Gazette, the post of SDC being one of the 17 posts placed and included in the cadre strength of the service as mentioned in schedule 1(b) to the rules, all the 17 posts mentioned in Schedule 1(b) to the rules are placed under the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) as the cadre controlling authority having the control and jurisdiction over the recruitment and conditions of service of the cadre officers under the Rules. Till the aforesaid rules was framed and enforced in the manner indicated above, there is no doubt that Revenue Department, Government of Manipur, was the cadre controlling authority of the post of SDC. However, once the aforesaid Rules of 2007 came into force, the Revenue Department ceased to have any authority and control over the post of SDC in terms of recruitment, seniority and other conditions of service. 6. The respondents-Government has filed a counter affidavit disputing and controverting the contentions of the writ petitioners and the contentions of the respondents can be summarized as follows - (I) The petitioners were initially appointed as Sub-Deputy Collector on ad hoc basis by an order dated 10.10.2000 w.e.f. 24.4.2000, on the basis of recommendation of a Screening Committee and thereafter by another order dated 28.2.2005 issued by the Government, the petitioners and 34 others were appointed as SDC on regular basis on the basis of recommendation of a regular DPC and with the concurrence of Public Service Commission. The post of SDC was/is within the purview of the Public Service Commission. In view of the above, it is submitted by the respondents that the seniority of the petitioners cannot be given to any date anterior to the date of regular appointment to the post of SDC, i.e., 28.2.2005. The post of SDC was/is within the purview of the Public Service Commission. In view of the above, it is submitted by the respondents that the seniority of the petitioners cannot be given to any date anterior to the date of regular appointment to the post of SDC, i.e., 28.2.2005. (II) Once the petitioners become members of the Junior Manipur Civil Service, their recruitment and conditions of service are governed and regulated by the Junior MCS Rules, 2007, wherein, rule 25 lays down the criteria and procedure as to how seniority and inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees are to be determined. Therefore, the determination of seniority in the grade of SDC being governed by rule 25 of the Rules of 2007, no relief contrary to and in breach of the statutory rules, can be granted to any of the incumbents in the grade of SDC leave alone the petitioners. (III) It is also contended by the respondents that all the incumbents holding the post of Junior MCS were given an opportunity to submit objection to the tentative seniority list of Junior MCS Officers published under Order No. 1/2/2006-MCS(Jr.)/DP dated 17.11.2007, fixing 30.11.2007 as the last date for submission of objection. But the petitioners did not avail of the opportunity by not submitting any objection to the tentative seniority list dated 17.11.2007. In view of the above, the final seniority list dated 2.1.2008 which was published after disposal of the objection submitted by the concerned incumbents, cannot be assailed by the petitioners either directly or indirectly as they have not objected to the tentative seniority list as discussed above. The aforesaid final seniority list contains the list of 103 SDCs or equivalent post and in that, the petitioner No. 2 is placed at serial No. 61, petitioner No. 1 at serial No. 65 and the petitioner No. 3 at serial No. 81. (IV) Linking of service is made only for pensionary benefit and it has nothing to do with the fixation of seniority to a post or a grade and this is evident from the order dated 30.1.2007 (Annexure 13) wherein it is clearly mentioned that a separate order will have to follow regarding inter se seniority. (IV) Linking of service is made only for pensionary benefit and it has nothing to do with the fixation of seniority to a post or a grade and this is evident from the order dated 30.1.2007 (Annexure 13) wherein it is clearly mentioned that a separate order will have to follow regarding inter se seniority. (V) It is also seriously contended by the respondents that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold for non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as a large number of officers who are placed above the petitioners in the final seniority list are not arrayed as party respondents though the relief sought for in this writ petition, if granted, would seriously affect the interest of those non-party incumbents. In the event of granting the prayer of the petitioners for counting their seniority w.e.f. 24.4.2000 on which date they were appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of six (6) months, it will amount to stealing a march ahead of the Officers who are placed above the petitioners in the final gradation list dated 28.2.2005 and as such, writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this count also. 7. From the above narration of facts and discussion and the contentions raised by the parties, the following substantive issues emerge for consideration and decision of this court. (I) Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties who are likely to be affected in case the prayer of the petitioners for counting of their seniority from the date of ad hoc appointment is granted? (II) Whether the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of Manipur ceased to have any jurisdiction and control over the recruitment and conditions of service of the Junior Manipur Civil Service Officers, more particularly SDC, after the Junior Manipur Civil Service Rules, 2007 came into force w.e.f. 10.8.2007 and what would be the legal effect of the order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure 13) and communication dated 7.1.2008 (Annexure 14) to the writ petition? (III) Whether it will be permissible in law to count the ad hoc service of the petitioners' w.e.f. 24.4.2000 towards their seniority in the grade of SDC to which the petitioners were appointed on regular basis on 28.2.2005? (IV) Any other ancillary issues which may arise for consideration of this court. 8. (III) Whether it will be permissible in law to count the ad hoc service of the petitioners' w.e.f. 24.4.2000 towards their seniority in the grade of SDC to which the petitioners were appointed on regular basis on 28.2.2005? (IV) Any other ancillary issues which may arise for consideration of this court. 8. With regards to the issue No. I, it is established beyond any doubt that 37 officers including the three writ petitioners were appointed as SDC on regular basis, on the basis of recommendation of a competent DPC with the concurrence of Public Service Commission vide order dated 28.2.2005. In the aforesaid appointment order, as per the order of merit, the petitioner No. 1 is placed at Sl. No. 15, the petitioner No. 2 at Sl. No. 7 and the petitioner No. 3 at Sl. No. 35. The petitioners submit that their case is of regularization of their ad hoc appointment with effect from 24-4-2000 and, therefore, they should have been shown in the seniority list as officers appointed with effect from 24.4.2000, i.e., the date on which they were appointed on ad hoc basis, not from the date of regular appointment, i.e., 28.2.2005. Therefore, the petitioners sought for a direction from this court to correct the date of their regularization. I have perused the order dated 28.2.2005 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) and there is no doubt that this order is an order of regular appointment of 37 officers, not an order for regularization of anybody. The final seniority list of SDC had already been published on 2.1.2008 and the petitioner No. 1 is placed at Sl. No. 65, the petitioner No. 2 at Sl. 60 and the petitioner No. 3 at Sl. No. 81. In case the prayer of the petitioners for counting their seniority with effect from 24.4.2000 is granted as prayed for, the seniority position of the officers from Sl. No. 46 to 59 shall be disturbed by the petitioner No. 2, the serial No. 46 to 64 barring serial No. 60 shall be disturbed by petitioner No. 1 and serial No. 46 to 80 barring serial Nos. 61 and 65 shall be disturbed by petitioner No. 3 and the petitioners will steal a march ahead of the Officers placed above them in the final gradation list of SDCs. 61 and 65 shall be disturbed by petitioner No. 3 and the petitioners will steal a march ahead of the Officers placed above them in the final gradation list of SDCs. Thus, the respondents submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold for non-joinder of necessary parties in view of the law laid down in Prabodh Verma and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1984) 4 SCC 251 wherein, it has been held by the Apex Court that "A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity...." Following the principle laid down in the aforesaid case, the Apex Court further held in Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 487 that a writ petition is not maintainable if the necessary parties are not impleaded as party respondents. No counter argument has been advanced by the writ petitioners against the aforesaid proposition of law. However, a plea is taken by the petitioners that the instant writ petition is not for a writ of certiorari calling for quashing the final seniority list dated 2.1.2008 but simply for a direction to correct the entry in the seniority position with effect from 24.4.2000. There is fallacy in this submission inasmuch as granting the relief of counting seniority w.e.f 24.4.2000 will necessarily disturb the positions already obtained by the Officers placed above the petitioners in order of merit and therefore, this plea which has no legs to stand, is liable to be rejected. There is a considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and I am inclined to accept the argument of the respondents. This court, in the given facts and circumstances, is of the considered view that writ petition is liable to be dismissed for nonjoinder of parties. Thus, the issue No. I is answered to the affirmative. 9. With regards to the issue No. II, there is no factual dispute that Junior Manipur Civil Service Rules, 2007, came into force w.e.f. 10.8.2007 on which date the rules was published in the extra ordinary Gazette of Manipur. Thus, the issue No. I is answered to the affirmative. 9. With regards to the issue No. II, there is no factual dispute that Junior Manipur Civil Service Rules, 2007, came into force w.e.f. 10.8.2007 on which date the rules was published in the extra ordinary Gazette of Manipur. The post of SDC along with sixteen other posts were identified and included in Schedule 1(b) to Rules of 2007, as the cadre strength of Junior MCS (senior grade/junior grade). Admittedly, Department of Personnel and AR, Government of Manipur, has become the administrative and cadre controlling authority over the recruitment and conditions of service of all the Officers under the Junior Manipur Civil Service. Mr. Th. Ibohal Singh, learned Government Advocate, submits that in view of the above, the logical conclusion and by interpretation of the Government standing orders issued in this regard, the Revenue Department, Government of Manipur which was hitherto the administrative and cadre controlling authority of the post of SDC, ceased to have any control and jurisdiction over the recruitment and conditions of service of the cadre officers of the Junior Manipur Civil Service Rules, 2007 with effect from 10.8.2007 and as such the order dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure A/13) issued by the Principal Secretary, Revenue linking the service of the petitioner as SDC w.e.f. 24.4.2000 is without jurisdiction and competency. Further, the communication dated 7.1.2008 (Annexure A/14) issued by the Principal Secretary, Revenue to the Secretary DP. and AR for inclusion of the petitioners in the final seniority list of 103 junior MCS Officers treating 24.4.2000 as the year of allotment for the petitioners to the post of SDC is also without jurisdiction and therefore, Government has neither accepted nor acted the same and this communication should be treated as non-est in the eye of law. 10. It is noticed from the documents available on records that an order dated 10.10.2000 (Annexure A/11) was issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Manipur appointing the three petitioners on ad hoc basis for a period of six (6) months w.e.f. 24.4.2000, purportedly, in compliance of order dated 24.4.2000 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 64 of 1999. As it is un-usual for a court to direct appointment of a person on ad hoc basis, this court deems it necessary to ascertain what type of direction has been given by the court in the aforesaid order dated 24.4.2000. As it is un-usual for a court to direct appointment of a person on ad hoc basis, this court deems it necessary to ascertain what type of direction has been given by the court in the aforesaid order dated 24.4.2000. Accordingly, records of WP(C) No. 64 of 1999 and connection Misc. Case No. 337 of 1999, Misc. Case No. 167 of 2000 and Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 as well as the Government File No-3/229/2207-R have been requisitioned for perusal. For better appreciation and reference, the order dated 10-10.2000 is reproduced herein below - GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT: REVENUE DEPARTMENT ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR: MANIPUR Imphal, the 10th October, 2000 No. 40/14/2000-Respondent No. : In compliance of the order dated 24.4.2000 of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench) passed in WP(C) No. 64 of 1999 and on the recommendation of the Screening Committee Meeting held on 16.5.2000, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to appoint the following R.I.S of Revenue Department as Sub-Deputy Collectors on promotion in the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-200-10500 p.m. with other allowances as admissible under Rules on ad hoc basis for a period of 6 (six) months w.e.f. 24.4.2000 in the Revenue Department with immediate effect. 2. The expenditure is debitable under appropriate Head of Accounts of the Revenue Department. 1. Shri M. Tombisana Singh, RI 2. Md. Azizur Rahman, RI 3. Shri P. Gojendra Singh, RI 4. Further, the above ad hoc SDCs are posted to the following Offices shown against each of their names. 1. Shri M. Tombisana Singh as SDC - DCs Office Porompot 2. Md. Azizur Rahman as SDC - SDCs Circle/Kakching 3. Shri P. Gojendra Singh as SO- DSRL/Lamphel By orders and in the name of Governor. Sd/- Ch. Pirendra Singh Commissioner (Revenue) Government of Manipur. 11. On careful perusal of the records requisitioned by the court, it transpires that this court did not pass any order on 24.4.2000 whereas the Annexure A/11, as extracted above, was issued by way of complying with an order dated 24.4.2000 allegedly passed by this court in WP(C) No. 64/1999. In this view of the matter, this court was of the view that the matter should be listed again by giving opportunity to all the parties in the case to inspect the records so requisitioned by the court. In this view of the matter, this court was of the view that the matter should be listed again by giving opportunity to all the parties in the case to inspect the records so requisitioned by the court. Accordingly, this case was listed on 23.7.2010 and the learned counsel appearing for the parties were allowed to inspect the records in the court room to ascertain and find out whether any order dated 24.4.2000 was ever passed by this court in WP(C) No. 64/1999 or any order was passed by this court in the aforesaid writ petition directing the Government to appoint the petitioners on ad hoc basis. Learned counsels appearing the parties, after inspection of the records, have fairly submitted that no such order dated 24.4.2000 was ever passed by this court in WP(C) No. 64 of 1999 nor was any order passed by this court directing the Government to appoint the petitioners on ad hoc basis. From the above, the irresistible conclusion is that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis by an order dated 10.10.2000 w.e.f. 24.4.2000 for a period of 6(six) months by way of complying with a non-existent order. The entire process leading to the issuance of the order dated 10.10.2000 is nothing but a deliberate fraud committed by the Officers of Revenue Department, Government of Manipur to serve their vested interest. Therefore, this court expresses its displeasure. Thus, the issue No. II is answered in the manner indicated above. 12. With regards to issue No. III, Mr. R.K. Nakulsana, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are entitled to have their seniority counted with effect from the date of their ad hoc appointment, i.e., 24.4.2000 towards their seniority in the grade of SDC. In support of this contention, the learned counsel cited the following case laws - 1. I.K. Sukhija and Others v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1997 SC 2714 . 2. U.P. Secretariat U.D.A. Association v. State of U.P. and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 278 . 3. Keshav Deo and another v. State of U.P. and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 280 . 4. Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Others, (2007) 4 SCC 54 . 5. Narender Chadha and Others v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1986 SC 638 . 6. 3. Keshav Deo and another v. State of U.P. and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 280 . 4. Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Others, (2007) 4 SCC 54 . 5. Narender Chadha and Others v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1986 SC 638 . 6. The Direct Recruit Class I Engineering Officers' Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 1990 SC 1607 . 13. But in the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners relied mainly on the two cases, namely, Narender Chadha and Direct Recruit Case (supra). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ratio laid down in Narender Chadha's case is applicable in the present case. But in para 14 of the aforesaid Narender Chadha's case, the Apex Court held in the following words - "but we, however, make it clear that it is not our view that whenever a person is appointed in a post without following the rules prescribed for appointment to that post, he should be treated as a person regularly appointed to that post. Such a person can be reverted from that post". In the aforesaid case, the petitioners therein continued in the post for 15 to 20 years and therefore, the Apex Court felt that it would be unjust to hold that the petitioners would not have any claim to such post which they have held for 15 to 20 years and more so when Government has not expressed any un-willingness to continue them with the said post. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the case of the petitioners is governed by conclusion (B) of the Direct Recruit Case (supra). In a subsequent case reported in State of West Bengal and Others v. Aghore Nath Dey and Others, (1993) 3 SCC 371 , the Apex Court held that the conclusion (A) and (B) of the Direct Recruit Case have to be read harmoniously and conclusion (B) cannot cover cases which are expressly excluded from the case. The corollary set out in conclusion : (A) excluded the category of case where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules, and made only as stop gap arrangement. The corollary set out in conclusion : (A) excluded the category of case where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules, and made only as stop gap arrangement. It further held that the conclusion (B) was added to cover a different kind of situation, where appointments are otherwise regular except for the deficiency of procedural requirement laid down by the rules. In order to reconcile conclusion (B) with (A), conclusion. (B) is to be read to cover cases where initial appointment is made against an existing vacancy, not limited to a fixed period of time or purpose by the appointment order itself and there is deficiency only in the procedural requirement prescribed by the rules for adjudging suitability of the appointee for the post being cured at the time of regularization. Another case relied upon by the petitioners, i.e., Ashok Kumar Sonkar case (supra), is actually against the case of the petitioners inasmuch as the Apex Court held in that case that while making the appointment, if the provision of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the statutory Rules were not complied with, such appointment shall be illegal and shall be treated as non est in the eye of law. 14. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis only for a period of six (6) months w.e.f. 24.4.2000 and the ad hoc appointment was not extended by any order from the Government though the petitioners claimed to have continued by virtue of order dated 10.4.2002 passed in Misc. Case No. 167 of 2002 filed in connection with WHO No. 64 of 1999. The learned Government Advocate further submits that appointment to the post of SDC was governed by the Recruitment Rules 1981 at the relevant point of time and the RR 1981 does not authorize any ad hoc appointment and as such the ad hoc appointment of the petitioners dehors the rules. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the post of SDC being a cadre post of Junior Manipur Civil Service, the Recruitment and Conditions of Service of SDC including fixation of seniority are to be governed by the Rules of 2007. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the post of SDC being a cadre post of Junior Manipur Civil Service, the Recruitment and Conditions of Service of SDC including fixation of seniority are to be governed by the Rules of 2007. As the final seniority list dated 2.1.2008 of SDC and other equivalent post has not been put to challenge in this writ petition, the same cannot be disturbed directly or indirectly at the instance of the petitioners. The learned Government Advocate submits that ad hoc appointment without selection by a competent Selection Committee/DPC, would not count towards seniority and in support of this contention, he cited the following cases - 1. Chief of Naval Staff and another v. G. Gopalakrishna Pillai and Others, (1996) 1 SCC 521 . 2. Davinder Bathia and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1985) 5 SCC 262. 3. State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and Aths Association and Another, (2000) 8 SCC 4 . 4. State of Bihar and Others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another, (2000) 9 SCC 94 . 15. The sum and substance of the argument of the respondents is that the petitioners having been appointed on regular basis on 28.2.2005 on the recommendation of a regular DPC and with the concurrence of Public Service Commission, their seniority cannot be counted to any date anterior to the date of regular appointment and their ad hoc appointment being dehors the rules, has no relevancy while determining seniority in the grade of SDC or equivalent. 16. In view of the finding of this court that the petitioners came to be appointed on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 24.4.2000 by way of complying a nonexistent order and also in view of the settled position of law that period of ad hoc appointment unless authorized by the extant RR/Service Rules, cannot, under any circumstances, be counted towards seniority of a post/grade by overtaking and ignoring case of those incumbents who are placed above the petitioners in order of merit in the regular appointment to the post of SDC, it is my considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to count their ad hoc service towards seniority in the grade of SDC. Thus, Issue No. III is also answered in the negative. 17. Thus, Issue No. III is also answered in the negative. 17. Upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced by the parties in the case and in view of the findings of the court on the issues formulated above, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have failed to make out a case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. No order as to cost. Petition dismissed.