Judgment :- 1. These petitions are heard and disposed of together as they involve the same issues. The facts briefly stated are as follows: 2. The petitioners are all graduates in Civil Engineering. They had joined the services of the Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited (Hereinafter called the Corporation, for brevity) as Task Force Commanders. They were all initially appointed on a Consolidated Pay and only later were their services regularized. On their services being regularized they were placed on probation for a period of one year. Their names were arranged according to their ranking. The probationary period of service having been declared as satisfactory, they were also granted further promotions. 2.1 The Corporation has prepared seniority lists of Task Force Commanders from time to time with reference to the date of regularization of their services. These lists were prepared by publishing provisional seniority lists in the first instance, calling for objections if any and thereafter the seniority list was published. The Corporation has thus published Seniority lists of Task Force Commanders in the years 1991, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2003, 2004 and 2005. 2.2 The Corporation has framed the Karnataka Land Army Corporation Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 1996. According to the said Rules, the posts of Task Force Commanders are to be filled up by direct recruitment. As the Rules were not in force when the petitioners and others, arrayed as respondents, were initially appointed, the same are not relevant. 2.3 The petitioners claim that on their services being regularized, they were informed that their seniority would be counted only from the date of regularization of their services. However, the Corporation having proceeded to assign seniority in respect of many of the respondents, from the date of their initial entry into service, though they had also joined the services of the Corporation as temporary employees and whose services had been regularized later, just as in the case of the petitioners, and having been granted promotions, the petitioners are before this court. 2.4 In the first instance this court had directed the respondents to maintain Status-Quo. During the pendency of the petitions, some of the petitioners were granted promotion. Applications were filed by some of the respondents to vacate the order of stay granted earlier. This court had observed that the application could not be considered as it would be in violation of an earlier order. During the pendency of the petitions, some of the petitioners were granted promotion. Applications were filed by some of the respondents to vacate the order of stay granted earlier. This court had observed that the application could not be considered as it would be in violation of an earlier order. It was also observed that if the Corporation has, in violation of the earlier order, promoted the petitioners-the Corporation would be required to take appropriate action. Hence the Corporation had issued a further Memorandum withdrawing the promotion granted to the petitioners. This is the reason for the petitioners approaching this court in the further batch of cases in the year 2009. 2.5 Incidentally, one N. Srinivasa Reddy (Hereinafter referred to as “Reddy”, for brevity) who was appointed as a Task Force Commander on a consolidated pay on 17.12.1984 was regularized on 21.05.1987. While so regularizing his services it was made with retrospective effect from the date of entry into service, based on which he was even promoted from time to time. The Corporation opined that it had committed a serious error in regularizing Reddy’s services with effect from the date of his entry into service, this realization had come eight years after the mistake had been committed. In that back ground there were petitioners before this Court in WP 4705 to 4708/1999 claiming similar benefit as was granted to Reddy. Those petitions were disposed of by an order dated 07.02.2001, with a direction to the Corporation to consider their case. Their claim was rejected by the Corporation. This was again challenged in WP 32130-134/2001, which was dismissed. The same was affirmed in appeal in WA 135-139/2001. 2.6 The respondent-Corporation had taken steps to correct the error in so far as the date of regularization of services of Reddy was concerned by notices dated 01.08.2001 and 24.09.2001. This action was challenged by him in WP 41212/2001, before this court. An interim order of stay of operation of the order was granted therein. That petition is pending consideration before the Gulbarga Circuit Bench of this court. By virtue of the said order the respondent Corporation considered the representations of the petitioners in WP 4705 to 4708/1999 and several others and also regularized their services from the date of entry into service, subject to the result of the writ petition in WP 41212/2001 as per memorandum dated 31.01.2005. By virtue of the said order the respondent Corporation considered the representations of the petitioners in WP 4705 to 4708/1999 and several others and also regularized their services from the date of entry into service, subject to the result of the writ petition in WP 41212/2001 as per memorandum dated 31.01.2005. 2.7 Though the writ petition in WP 41212/2001 filed by Reddy is pending before the Gulbarga Circuit Bench of this Court, the same petitioner has filed two subsequent petitions in WP 15038/2005 and WP 12198/2009, which are part of this batch. It was repeatedly sought to be urged, at the time of final hearing, that unless the petition pending before the Circuit Bench was disposed of, this batch of petitions may not be considered. 2.8 It is therefore necessary to address the case of Reddy in some detail in order to keep in view the propriety and the effect of disposal of these petitions, while the first of his petitions is said to be pending before the circuit bench at Gulbarga. 2.9 Reddy was appointed as an Assistant Task Force Commander on 25.04.1984. He was subsequently appointed on a consolidated pay as Task Force Commander on 17.12.1984. He was regularized as such on 27.05.1987. His service was counted from that day for purposes of seniority. However, Reddy is said to have made a representation to the Managing Director of his initial entry into service, namely, 17.12.1984. This was granted by an Official Memorandum dated 15.03.1995. This was sought to be altered and was proposed to refix his seniority with effect from the date of regularization of his services, as per notice dated 06.06.1995. This was challenged by way of a writ petition in WP 23009/2005. That petition was dismissed as being premature, with liberty to challenge any final order. Reddy then filed his replies to the notice to contend that the order regularizing his services from the date of entry into service was never questioned in any proceeding before this court. As one Lokesh had filed a writ petition in WP 7815-16/1995 questioning the correctness of the grant of benefit similar to the one given to Reddy, the Corporation took a decision to await the result of that petition in deciding Reddy’s fate. As one Lokesh had filed a writ petition in WP 7815-16/1995 questioning the correctness of the grant of benefit similar to the one given to Reddy, the Corporation took a decision to await the result of that petition in deciding Reddy’s fate. That petition was dismissed on the ground that as no interim order had been granted in the first instance and five years having elapsed during the pendency of the petition and promotions having been granted in the meanwhile to the respondents therein, it was opined that it would be improper to disturb that position. Reddy was promoted as Assistant director of Land records as on 26.09.1997. A final seniority list of Assistant directors was also published on 04.11.2000. This was followed by another seniority list as on 03.07.2001. 2.10 However, one more notice was issued on 01.08.2001 to refix the seniority assigned to Reddy. This was questioned in Writ petition 33314/2001, during the pendency of the same yet another notice dated 24.09.2001 calling upon him to show cause as to why his seniority ought not to be altered. Reddy withdrew the above petition with liberty to approach the court again. He then replied to the show cause notice and filed his reply. But apprehending an adverse order had filed a writ petition in WP 41212/2001 questioning the notices. An interim order was granted as on 13.12.2001, which continues to be in force. 2.11 The writ petition in WP 15038/2005, which is one of the petitions herein, is filed by Reddy to question the promotion of the respondents 3 to 7, who were the petitioners in WP 4705-4708/1999 and also in WP 32130-32134/2001 which were rejected as aforesaid. It is his case that since the respondents had been granted seniority from the date of their initial appointment, all of them would become seniors to Reddy in the cadre of Task Force Commanders, which would be carried over to the next higher post and there by his interest would be affected. There was no interim order. Reddy was thereafter promoted to the post of Deputy Director as on 29.05.2008. 2.12 It transpires that the petitioners in WP 9001-04/2005 had been granted further promotion, in the face of an order to maintain status quo. This had prompted the respondents 4 to 8 therein seeking for a direction to be granted similar relief. There was no interim order. Reddy was thereafter promoted to the post of Deputy Director as on 29.05.2008. 2.12 It transpires that the petitioners in WP 9001-04/2005 had been granted further promotion, in the face of an order to maintain status quo. This had prompted the respondents 4 to 8 therein seeking for a direction to be granted similar relief. This court while rejecting their application of the year 2009 had observed that the Corporation ought to correct its actions if it had acted in violation of the orders of this court. This according to Reddy, drove the Corporation to not only withdraw the orders of promotion granted to the aforesaid persons, but his order of promotion was also sought to be withdrawn. It is that which is questioned in the above petition. 3. However, it is now the stand of the Corporation that the Seniority or Promotion of all the petitioners and concerned respondents would be considered from the date of regularization of their respective services, subject to the view of this court and appropriate directions being issued. 4. It is seen from the material on record that whether the date on which Reddy has entered into service was 04.05.1984, as an Assistant Task Force Commander and had been subsequently appointed as a Task Force Commander by an order dated 17.12.1984, by an unexplained order dated 27.05.1987, it has been directed that his services be regularized with effect from 17.12.1984. This has been subsequently sought to be held as an error requiring correction-notices in respect of which are the subject matter of the pending petition before the Gulbarga Circuit Bench as already stated above. But it is to be noticed that no other Task Force Commander had been granted this special status-even though there were many who were similarly appointed but were regularized in service only much later, even as Reddy was initially. It is by a further order that he acquired the special place. The validity or otherwise of those events is, however, is to be gone into in his petition in WP 41212/2004. It is by a further order that he acquired the special place. The validity or otherwise of those events is, however, is to be gone into in his petition in WP 41212/2004. But since Reddy himself is aggrieved by other persons being given the benefit of Seniority from the date of their initial entry into service as sought to be complained in petitions before this bench, it would require the legal issue, namely, in the absence of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules as on the initial date of entry into service and subsequent regularization in service, whether for purposes of seniority, either the date of initial entry into service or the date of regularization, would be relevant. 4.1 It is also kept in view that several petitioners and the respondents are promoted on the basis of their Seniority from the date of their initial entry into service subject to the result of the writ petition in WP 41212/2001 of Reddy. Such a condition imposed by the Corporation does not create any fetter for this court to decide the legal issue, which can be applied, independent of the outcome of the said WP 41212/2001. Except Reddy there is no other Task Force Commander who has been regularized in that Cadre on the very date of entry in to service in that cadre, except that many are sought to be promoted subject to the outcome of the petition of Reddy. 4.2 One other aspect that is taken note of is whether the status of Reddy could be disturbed inspite of an interim order staying further proceedings pursuant to notices issued regarding the proposal to re-fix his seniority. 4.3 In so far as WP 25182/2001 is concerned, the petitioners seek to challenge the validity of the Seniority list vide notification dated 10.06.1998 issued by the Corporation, on the ground that the seniority list has been prepared without taking into consideration the claim of the petitioners to count the date of entry into service as a criteria to fix the seniority. 5. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri K. Subba Rao appearing for the counsel for the petitioners who canvassed a case for the Seniority list being prepared, ranking the seniority of the Task Force Commanders from the date of regularization in service as such. 5. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri K. Subba Rao appearing for the counsel for the petitioners who canvassed a case for the Seniority list being prepared, ranking the seniority of the Task Force Commanders from the date of regularization in service as such. And the learned Senior Advocate Shri. Ravi Varma Kumar, appearing for the counsel for the respondents canvassing the view that it is the initial date of entry into service that may be relevant in preparing the Seniority list. While the learned counsel appearing for Reddy sought to protect his position on the ground that his seniority has never been questioned over the years and hence cannot be disturbed at this remote point of time. Shri. Rao places reliance on the following authorities. 1. 1995 (2) SLR 621 State of Uttar Pradesh vs. R.K. Tandon. 2. 1995 (2) SLR 425 Food Corporation of India vs. Thaneshwar. 3. 1995 (2) SLR 715 M.T. Puttalingappa vs. State of Karnataka. 4. 1995 (2) SCC 40 State of Gujarat vs. Raiyani 5. 1996 (11) SCC 725 State of Haryana vs. Amarjit Singh 6. 1993 (3) SCC 371 State of West Bengal vs. Aghore Nath Dey. 7. 1998 Supp (1) SCC 194 Delhi Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. R.K. Kashyap. 8. 1990 (2) SCC 715 Direct Recruit Class li Engineering Officer’s Association vs. State of Maharashtra. 9. 2011 (3) SCC 267 Pawan Pratap Singh vs. Reevan Singh 10. 1993 (5) SLR (SC) 1 S. Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka While Shri Kumar placed reliance on the following: 1. (2002) 4 SCC 234 Chandra Prakash and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. 2. (1997) 3 SCC 399 S.B. Patwardhan and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others. 3. (1986) 2 SCC 157 Narendra Chadha and Others vs. Union of India and Others. And the following were relied upon in support of Reddy’s case. 1. 1986 (1) KLJ 1 Ramaswamy G.T. and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others. 2. (2003) 5 SCC 604 Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana and others. 3. AIR 2002 SC 2749 P.S.N. Rao vs. State of Orissa and others. 4. (2001) 1 SCC 240 A.J. Fernandis vs. Divisional Manger, South Central Railway and others. 6. The law as laid down by the authorities cited by Shri Subba Rao, on the facts of those cases would support the following propositions. 3. AIR 2002 SC 2749 P.S.N. Rao vs. State of Orissa and others. 4. (2001) 1 SCC 240 A.J. Fernandis vs. Divisional Manger, South Central Railway and others. 6. The law as laid down by the authorities cited by Shri Subba Rao, on the facts of those cases would support the following propositions. All ad-hoc appointments made de hors the rules do not confer any right to permanency or seniority. They acquire the rights only from the date of their regular appointment according to rules. If the appointments are made according to rules, though initially on ad hoc basis, and are continued for a long time, on regularizing the services, the entire period of temporary service would be counted for seniority. If the appointments are in excess of a quota, the officiating period would not be treated for seniority, as the appointments then become fortuitous. The principle of counting service in favour of one should not, however, be violative of equal opportunity enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. If any statutory rule or executive order provides to the contrary, the rule or order will have supremacy. In the absence of any rule or order the length of service should be the basis to determine the seniority. When appointments are made de hors any rules, seniority cannot be determined on the sole test of confirmation or regularization as it is one of “inglorious uncertainties of government service” depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies. Inter se seniority in a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules. The date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or the other or between one group of officers and the other recruited from different sources. 6.1 In so far as the authorities cited by Shri Ravivarma Kumar are concerned of the three authorities cited, to pertain to disputes between direct recruits and promotes with reference to a quota rule and therefore are not considered relevant for the present case on hand. However, the case of Chandra Prakash, a five judge bench judgment may be usefully referred to. However, the case of Chandra Prakash, a five judge bench judgment may be usefully referred to. The facts leading upto that case were as follows-In the wake of a two judge bench having been found to have taken a dissimilar view to that taken by a Bench of three judges the matter had been referred to the five judge bench for consideration. The Uttar Pradesh State Government had not made regular appointments to its Medical Services for a long time, feeling the need for doctors-temporary appointments were made in consultation with the State Public Service Commission. These appointments continued for decades without interruption. In the year 1979, Rules for Regularization were promulgated, to provide those doctors seniority, but only from the date of such regularization. In the meanwhile, in the year 1972 the Public Service Commission had made selections to fill vacancies in the Medical Services and recommended the names of such selectees. This was done in instalments. The reluctant State Government was compelled to accept those recommendations by judicial pronouncements. Thus the question of inter se seniority as between the temporary doctors originally appointed and the doctors appointed through the PSC. It was the stand of the temporary doctors that they were appointed to permanent vacancies in consultation with the PSC and having continued for a ling time in service, their appointment be deemed as regular and seniority be accorded on that basis. Their claim having been rejected they approached the Allahabad High Court, the court accepted their contention. The state government challenged the same before the apex court. A three judge Bench of the apex court held thus: “We have heard Mr. D.V. Sengal, Senior Counsel appearing for the State of U.P. The respondent in this Special Leave Petition has served the State of U.P. for near 30 years, and he was regularized after he had put in more than 20 years of service. Relying upon the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 the State U.P. declined Allahabad High Court allowed this writ petition and granted him the benefit of the whole of the period towards seniority. We see no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. We agree with the reasoning that the conclusions reached therein. We see no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. We agree with the reasoning that the conclusions reached therein. Special Leave Petition is dismissed.” 6.2 During the pendency of the above proceedings-some of the selected doctors who were not issued letters of appointment, approached the State Services Tribunal seeking that they be appointed in service as per the selection and recommendation of the PSC. The Tribunal allowed those applications. The State Government challenged the said order before the High Court, which in turn modified the Order thus: “In these circumstances, the directions issued by the Claims Tribunal were totally justified. However, in view of the fact that recruitment was made about 14 years earlier and the persons who were appointed on ad-hoc basis have been regularized during the last 12 years, it may not be proper to direct the appointment of all the selectees at this stage. However, the claim of the petitioners who had been selected and are also working on ad-hoc basis be deemed to have been appointed on the date when the vacancies were first filled by the recruitment by virtue of being selected by the Public Service Commission and would be entitled to seniority and other benefits accordingly. The relief granted by the Tribunal shall stand modified to that extent. The State Government again carried the matter before the apex court and was heard by a two judge Bench which held thus: “It is settled law that all ad hoc appointments made de hors the rules do not confer any right to permanency or seniority. They acquire the rights only from the date of their regular appointment according to rules.” Though the Bench took note of the earlier judgment of the three Judge Bench, it did not choose to discuss or distinguish the ratio laid down there in. 6.3 In the above back ground it was noticed by the apex court that by the order of the two judge Bench while holding that the benefits accrued to retired doctors should not be disturbed also held that the inter-se seniority between the doctors recruited through PSC and the doctors whose services were absorbed under the Regularization rules should be determined in accordance with Rule 7 therein, which in effect ran counter to the judgment of the three judge Bench. It was also noticed that the judgment held that the selectee doctors could not be treated as juniors to the temporary doctors. It was further noticed that the order of the two Judge Bench was not in relation to a matter addressing the inter se rights of the temporary doctors and the selectee doctors, which was, however, directly in issue in the case before the three judge Bench. 6.4 It was a consequence of the directions issued by the above order that fresh petitions were preferred before the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and which in turn were referred to the five Judge Bench. 6.5 It was held that the matter would have to be decided de hors the law laid down by the Bench of two judges. And the matter was directed to be placed before the Bench which had referred the matter, to be decided on merits. 6.6 An incidental contention that the decision by the Three judge Bench itself was contrary to an earlier judgment of a three Judge Bench in the case of State of U.P. v. Dr M.J. Siddiqui (1980) 3 SCC 174 , was left open to be addressed on merits. 6.7 The decisions relied upon on behalf of Srinivasa Reddy lay down that earlier seniority lists which have become final should neither be reviewed nor a fresh determination be made contrary thereto. That a settled seniority position ought not to be unsettled. That in the absence of rules governing seniority an executive order may be issued to fill up the gap. It is only in the absence of a rule or executive instructions, the court may have to evolve a fair and just principle which could be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.8 In the light of the above, the core issue to be determined in these cases is whether the seniority of the ad hoc appointees to the post of Task Force Commanders who were later regularized in service, should be ranked in seniority on the basis of their initial date of entry into service or from the date of regularization. 6.9 It is not in dispute that the Cadre & Recruitment Rules framed by the Corporation are of the year 1996. 6.9 It is not in dispute that the Cadre & Recruitment Rules framed by the Corporation are of the year 1996. It follows therefore, that the neither on the date of their appointment or on the date of regularization was there any Rule governing the same. As seen from the Statement of particulars furnished by the counsel for the Corporation, at the hearing, it is evident that there is no consistent method or basis on which Regularization has been made in respect of the cadre of Task Force Commanders. Significantly this anamoly has not been questioned at any point of time nor is it sought to be questioned in any of these petitions. Seniority lists which have been finalized over the years have, however consistently adopted the date of regularization into service as being the relevant date for assigning their respective ranking in the seniority lists. This has been thrown askew with a correction being made in favour of Reddy, to indicate the date of regularization of his service as being the date of his initial appointment as a Task Force Commander. Which remained without being faulted over several years, till it was noticed by some of his contemporaries. This has lead to the saga of several of them, similarly placed, clamouring for the same benefit, by recourse to a series of petitions before this court. And the Corporation adding to the confusion by selectively giving such benefit to some, in the teeth of an interim order of this court. And further withdrawing promotions granted to others in the usual course, as a knee-jerk reaction in the apprehension that the same was in violation of the interim order, especially having regard to an observation made in one matter before this courting that regard. 6.10 The law in so far as inter se seniority amongst ad-hoc appointees is concerned, is clear. Ad-hoc appointments made de hors the rules do not confer any right to permanency of seniority. They acquire the rights only from the date of their regular appointment according to rules. It is not in dispute that there was neither a statutory rule nor an executive order sanctioning the regularization-either. Ad-hoc appointments made de hors the rules do not confer any right to permanency of seniority. They acquire the rights only from the date of their regular appointment according to rules. It is not in dispute that there was neither a statutory rule nor an executive order sanctioning the regularization-either. (As to what is an executive order or instruction is discussed in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa (2010) 12 SCC 471 ) But then again as it is not the case of anybody that the seniority lists prepared over the years on the basis of the date of regularization, had been promptly questioned. Though unsuccessful attempts were made belatedly. The settled position in so far as the same are concerned cannot be disturbed at this remote point of time. 6.11 In so far as the decision of the apex court in Chandra Prakash (supra) is concerned it has merely asserted that the position of law as laid down by a three judge bench could not be overlooked by expressing a dissimilar view by a two Judge Bench. In any event, even the Three Judge Bench was merely affirming a view of the High Court by a brief order upholding the application of a Rule in regularizing the services of ad hoc appointees whose services were regularized after 20 years of service and who were granted the benefit of the entire period of service for purposes of seniority. 6.12 In so far as the petitioner N. Srinivasa Reddy is concerned in W.P.No.15038/2005 his petition is hereby allowed but the disposal having the effect of denying the respondents therein of any advantage they may have gained ought not to be construed as accepting the position that since the Seniority lists have attained finality it would no longer be possible to assail his ranking or that the corporation is estopped from making any correction. In other words denial of the claim of the respondents does not have the effect of protecting his position, which is yet to be considered by the Gulbarga Circuit Bench in a pending petition. There is a specific observation of this court in its order dated 21.11.2001 in WP 32130-32134/2001 as regards the Corporation’s stand of a mistake having been committed in his case and the same being sought to be corrected. There is a specific observation of this court in its order dated 21.11.2001 in WP 32130-32134/2001 as regards the Corporation’s stand of a mistake having been committed in his case and the same being sought to be corrected. Any such correction, if justified, would not be the same thing as disturbing the entire Seniority lists finalized year after year. However, in so far as his writ petition in WP 12198/2009 is concerned is filed only on the ground that the impugned order is passed in the face of an interim order which was in force in a pending petition before the Gulbarga Circuit Bench in WP 41212/2001. This circumstance is not disputed. Hence, without addressing the merits of the case the same is allowed. But this will not decide any question that arises for consideration in the above pending case which shall be independently considered. 6.13 The petition in W.P.No.25182/2001 is dismissed as having become infructuous and not maintainable in the light of the sheer lapse of time and the several subsequent seniority lists that have attained finality over the years. 6.14 All the other petitions are allowed and the respective impugned orders are quashed. It is declared that the respondent shall not adopt the initial date of entry into service on ad-hoc basis for purposes of seniority and shall hence recall any conditional orders made in favour of the several respondents. Further, the withdrawal of promotions granted, to several other petitioners, in the usual course, on the basis of the date of regularization in service as Task Force Commander and Seniority thereof shall be restored.