The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Rules, 1999 has been preferred by Mr. M. J. Saproo (Designer) to challenge Judgment dated 02.04.2007, rendered by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of petitioner-respondent No. 1 Naseema Shora. The writ petitioner respondent succeeded in persuading the learned Single Judge for quashing order dated 29.12.2008 (Annexure G), which was the subject matter of challenge at her instance. The seniority of the writ pe­titioner-respondent in the cadre of De­signer was disturbed by passing the aforesaid order by government. The or­der was passed at her back without any notice which has given the appellant a date earlier to the date of promotion of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1. 2. To put the controversy in its proper perspective few facts may first be no­ticed. The writ petitioner-respondent was temporarily appointed against the post of Assistant Designer by the Di­rector Handicrafts, J&K Government respondent No. 3 for a period of three months in terms of order No. 1675-HD of 1984 dated 21.05.1984. Despite ex­piry of three months period, she was allowed to continue on the post by vir­tue of various orders issued on 04.09.1984, 07.12.1984, 06.06.1985, 06.07.1985 and 12.08.1985. On 30.01.1987, in continuation of the aforesaid order, she was appointed against the post of Designer for a pe­riod of three months or till the regular selection was made by the Recruitment Board. The aforesaid order was further extended by an order dated 22.06.1987 and 16.03.1988. She preferred SWP No. 1310 of 1988 with a prayer that she be permitted to continue on the post of Designer till the same is filled up on substantive basis. The High Court is­sued interim directions for her con­tinuation till the appointments were to be made on regular basis. However, the respondent did not comply with those directions and adjusted her against the post of Potter for a period of two months vide order dated 05.08.1988. 3. A significant development took place in the year 1989 when the Gov­ernment issued order on 11.09.1989 directing that all adhoc appointments to non-Gazetted posts recruited from time to time upto 29.12.1988 were to be treated as appointments made on regular basis on probation with effect from the date of the order, provided such employees were still in service. 3. A significant development took place in the year 1989 when the Gov­ernment issued order on 11.09.1989 directing that all adhoc appointments to non-Gazetted posts recruited from time to time upto 29.12.1988 were to be treated as appointments made on regular basis on probation with effect from the date of the order, provided such employees were still in service. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Government issued a consequen­tial order No. 1118-HD of 1989 dated 31.10.1989 according approval to the appointment of the petitioner-respon­dent No. 1 against the post of Designer. In the order, it was also directed that her appointment against the post of De­signer was to be treated to be made on regular basis with effect from 11.09.1989. On 11.04.1997, an order was passed to the effect that she has completed her period of probation against the post of Designer while working in the School of designer sat­isfactorily. It is, thus, clear that her effective date of appointment to the substantive post of Designer came to be concluded as 11.09.1989 and this order has remained intact till date. At no stage, this order has been chal­lenged by the appellant-respondent or any other employee of the department. 4. The appellant-respondent- Mr. M. J. Saproo was appointed as Assistant Designer on 14.08.1985 (Annexure-B). He was then promoted to the post of Designer against an available post in the School of Designs, Jammu on 10.12.1993. Later on respondent No. 3 vide order dated 27.04.1995 directed that appellant-respondent be deemed to have been promoted to the post of De­signer with effect from 01.09.1990, the date on which he completed five years as Assistant Designer. It is appropri­ate to mention that there are statutory Rules known as J&K Handicrafts (Sub­ordinate Service) Recruitment Rules, 2005 (for brevity the Recruitment Rules, 2005) which provide that for pro­motion to the post of Designer from that of the Assistant Designer, a person must have put in five years of service as Assistant Designer. It is, thus, clear that the effective date of appointment of writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 Smt. Naseema Sharo was 11.09.1989 and that of the appellant-respondent-M. J. Saproo was 01.09.1990. 5. In the year 2005, the respondent department issued a seniority list of the Designers as it stood on 15.10.2005. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was shown in the seniority list of De­signer at S. No. 3 whereas appellant-respondent figured at S. No. 4. 5. In the year 2005, the respondent department issued a seniority list of the Designers as it stood on 15.10.2005. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was shown in the seniority list of De­signer at S. No. 3 whereas appellant-respondent figured at S. No. 4. It is per­tinent to mention that the appoint­ment of the writ petitioner -- respon­dent No. 1 on the post of Designer was shown to have been made on 11.09.1989 and that of the appellant respondent was shown to be made on 01.09.1990. 6. The appellant-respondent appears to have made some representation to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 at the back of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1. Accepting the representation made by appellant-respondent, an order was passed on 29.12.2008 by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 holding that appellant -respondent would be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Designer notionally with effect from 01.09.1989 instead of 01.09.1990 and he would rank senior to the writ petitioner-re­spondent No. 1 in the cadre of Designer. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order which has resulted in unsettling her seniority, the writ petitioner-re­spondent No. 1 filed SWP No. 131 of 2009, relatable to the instant appeal and suc­cessfully persuaded the learned Single Judge to quash order dated 29.12.2008. 7. The official respondents as well as appellant-respondent filed their ob­jections to the claim made by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1. The facts and various dates of promotion revealed by the petitioner-respondent No. 1 were not disputed. It was, however, high­lighted that she was appointed against the post of Designer in the School of Designs for a period of two months on contract basis in the year 1988 and thereafter vide order dated 05.08.1988, she was appointed on contract basis against the available post of Potter. The official respondent further clarified that vide order dated 11.01.1996, the State Level Departmental Promotion Committee cleared the case of appel­lant-respondent for his promotion to the post of Designer and it was thereafter that he submitted a representation for his placement in the seniority list, ahead of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 by giving him notional date of pro­motion from 01.09.1989 instead of 01.09.1990. The aforesaid representa­tion resulted in passing of order dated 29.12.2008, which has been success­fully challenged by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1. The aforesaid representa­tion resulted in passing of order dated 29.12.2008, which has been success­fully challenged by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1. The learned Single Judge has quashed the order by hold­ing as under:- "On two counts I find the order impugned cannot stand. Admittedly the petitioner was ear­lier holding the post of Assistant De­signer. Vide Government Order No. 178-DH(CJ) of 1995 dated 27.04.1995 the Gout, promoted him as Designer in the grade of Rs. 2000-3200 confirmation by the State Level Departmental Promotion Committee. Though the order was passed on 27.04.1995 retrospective effect to the promotion was given w.e.f. 1.9.1990, the date on which he completed 4 years tenure as Assistant Designer in terms of Recruitment (Non-Gazetted) Rules, a Assistant Designer becomes eligible for the post of Designer only if he completes 5 years tenure as As­sistant Designer, it was on this basis that he was granted retrospective pro­motion w.e.f. 1.9.1990 i.e. date on which he completed 5 years tenure as Assistant Designer. Vide order im­pugned No. 314-IND of 2008 dated 29.12.2008 respondents have given retrospective effect to his promotion w.e.f. 1.9.1989 which would mean that on that date he had completed only 4 years tenure as Assistant De­signer and was not qualified at all to get the post of Designer under the Recruitment (Non-Gazetted) Rules. The order being dehors the rules with­out granting any relaxation of rules in favour of the respondents cannot stand. The basis for grant of retrospec­tive effect to the promotion of respon­dent 5, as would appear from the or­der impugned is the confirmation or­der in favour of the petitioner vide or­der No. 1118-HD of 1989 dated 31.10.1989. Respondent-5 case is that at the relevant time the petitioner was not holding the post of Designer but a post of Potter that too on a con­tract basis as such she cannot claim confirmation from retrospective effect but order No. III 8-HD of 1989 dated 31.10.1989 by means of which ret­rospective effect has been given to regularization of the petitioner w.e.f. 11.9.1989, has not been challenged by the respondent nor has it been re­scinded by the official respondents so far. The order is still in force and can­not be ignore by granting retrospec­tive effect to the promotion of respon­dent 5. The order is still in force and can­not be ignore by granting retrospec­tive effect to the promotion of respon­dent 5. Another ground which prompts me to interfere is that the order No. 314-IND of 2008 dated 29.12.1989 impugned in the present petition has a direct effect to disturb the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent-5 as determined in the seniority list issued by the department in the year 2005. This has been done without a notice to the petitioner and without providing her an opportunity of hear­ing. On these circumstances, I find due force in the present petition which is hereby allowed. The order im­pugned No. 314-IND of 2008 dated 29.12.2008 being dehors the recruit­ments rules is hereby quashed". 8. Mr. R. A. Jan, learned counsel for the appellant has made ambitious sub­missions by arguing that principles of natural justice are not required to be followed in each and every case, par­ticularly when the writ petitioner-re­spondent No. 1 herself was the benefi­ciary of illegal orders and a backdoor entrant. According to the learned coun­sel, the learned Single Judge commit­ted a grave error by accepting the claim of writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 who had acted in a fraudulent manner. 9. Controverting the aforesaid sub­missions, Mr. Javid Iqbal, learned coun­sel for the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1, has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are unexceptionable because promotion from the post of Assistant Designer as per the recruitment Rules of 2005 could be made if an Assistant Designer has completed five years ser­vice. According to the learned counsel, the appellant-respondent was appointed as Assistant Designer on 14.08.1985 (Annexure-B) and if the order impugned in the writ petition is endorsed by this Court then he would have completed slightly over four years as Assistant Designer. According to the learned counsel there would be violation of Re­cruitment Rules of 2005 and it was ab­solutely necessary to issue show cause notice. It has further been submitted that the seniority was settled by show­ing the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 at serial No. 3 whereas appellant-re­spondent was shown at serial No. 4. An attempt has been made by the learned State counsel to support the order passed by the State on 29.12.2008 (Annexure-G). 10. It has further been submitted that the seniority was settled by show­ing the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 at serial No. 3 whereas appellant-re­spondent was shown at serial No. 4. An attempt has been made by the learned State counsel to support the order passed by the State on 29.12.2008 (Annexure-G). 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing record with their able assistance, we are of the view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference in exercise of appel­late jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Rules, 1999. 11. It would be first necessary to read the Recruitment Rules of 2005. The relevant Rules 5 read with Sched­ule II-C and Rule 10 are set out below for a ready reference: 5. Qualification and method of recruitment; (i) No person shall be eligible for ap­pointment or promotion to any post in any class, category or grade in the service unless he possesses the qualifications as laid down in the Schedule II and fulfills other recruit­ments of recruitment as provided in the rules and orders for the time be­ing in force. (ii) Appointment to the service shall be made:- a. by direct recruitment b. by promotion; and c. Partly by direct recruitment and partly by promotion in the ration and in manner mentioned against each post in Schedule-II. ClassCategoryGradeDesignationMinimum Qualification for Direct RecruitmentMethod of Recruitment IA6500 1050(Asst. Designer SOD) from amongst the persons Having not less then 05 Years serving that categoryDesigner graduate with diploma in fine & Art from any recognized institute.(i) 75% direct recruitment (ii) 25% by promotion from class III category. 10. Maintenance of seniority list. Seniority of the members of the service shall be regulated under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. The Head of Department shall maintain and up-to-date and fi­nal seniority of the service. 12. A perusal of Rule 5 read with Schedule II-C would show that for pro­motion to the post of Designer, 25% quota has been carved out for promo­tion from Class III category C, namely, Assistant Designer from amongst the persons having not less than 5 years service in that category. The empha­sis is that the experience shall not be less than 5 years. The empha­sis is that the experience shall not be less than 5 years. If the order dated 29.12.2008 is accepted in the judicial review then it would mean that a per­son who have less than 5 years ser­vice as Assistant Designer would get promotion without fulfilling the re­quirement of that rule. There is no dis­pute on facts of the present case that the appellant-respondent was appointed as Assistant Designer on 14.08.1985 (Annexure B) and by the impugned or­der dated 29.12.2008 he has been given anti-dated promotion of 01.09.1989. In other words, his retrospective date of promotion would be patently against Rule 5 read with Schedule II-C because he would have 4 years and 15 days ser­vice as an Assistant Designer. 13. The question then is mainte­nance of seniority. Rule 10 of the Re­cruitment Rules 2005 imposes an ob­ligation on the Head of the Department to maintain up to date final seniority of the service. According to Rule 10, the seniority of the member has to be regu­lated under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (for brevity the Civil Service Rules). Rule 24 of the Civil Service Rules incorporate a principle of determining seniority by the date of first appointment to the service, class, category or grade. The rule is set out below for facility of reference :- "24. Seniority. -- (1) The seniority of a person who is subject to these rules has reference to the service, class, category or graded with reference to which the question has arisen. Such seniority shall be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade as the case may be. Note. 1. -- The rule in this clause will not effect the seniority on the date on which these rules come into force of a member of any service, class, cat­egory or grade as fixed in accordance with the rules and orders in force be­fore the date on which these rules come into force. Interpretation. -- The words date of first appointment occurring in the above rule will mean the date of first substantive appointment, meaning thereby the date of permanent ap­pointment or the date of first appoint­ment on probation on a clear vacancy, confirmation in the latter case being subject to good work and conduct an /or passing of any examination or examinations and/or tests". 14. 14. A perusal of the rule would show that seniority of an incumbent shall be determined by the date of his first ap­pointment to such service, class, cat­egory or grade. The words, date of first appointment would mean the date of first substantive appointment. In other words, the date of appointment or the date of first appointment on probation on a clear vacancy. Confirmation in the case of a probationer is to result from good work and conduct and/or passing of any examination and/ or test. 15. When we apply the principles of the aforesaid rule to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the substantive date of appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 as Designer is 11.09.1989. The aforesaid date has been fixed in pursuance of order dated 31.10.1989 when her ap­pointment was approved on account of the Government policy which directed that all adhoc appointments to the non-gazetted posts recruited up to 29.12.1988 were to be treated as ap­pointees on regular basis on probation. On 11.04.1997 another order was passed to the effect that she had suc­cessfully completed her period of pro­bation against-the post of Designer while working in the School of Design. It is thus clear that her substantive date of appointment was fixed to be 11.09.1989. Likewise, in the case of appellant-respondent, the date of his substantive appointment to the post of Designer was fixed, namely 01.09.1990. It was on the basis of completing five years service as Assistant Designer as per Rule 5 read with Schedule II-C of the Recruitment Rules of 2005. On the basis of the aforesaid order, the inter se seniority of the writ petitioner-re­spondent No. 1 and the appellant-re­spondent was fixed as it stood on 15.10.2005. Accordingly, the writ peti­tioner-respondent No. 1 was placed in the seniority list at serial No. 3 whereas the appellant-respondent was placed at serial No. 4. As a result of passing of impugned order dated 29.12.2008, the seniority of the writ petitioner-respon­dent No. 1 has been disturbed by rendering her junior to appellant-respon­dent without even affording any oppor­tunity of hearing to her, therefore, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 16. As a result of passing of impugned order dated 29.12.2008, the seniority of the writ petitioner-respon­dent No. 1 has been disturbed by rendering her junior to appellant-respon­dent without even affording any oppor­tunity of hearing to her, therefore, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 16. We also approve the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge and are further of the view that a mere fact that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was working on the post of Potter on 05.08.1988 would not lead to the con­clusion that she should be deprived of the benefit of experience gained by her on the post of Assistant Designer, on which she was working since 21.05.1984. The aforesaid order of the Government has to be ignored because it was in violation of the interim direc­tion issued by the Court whereby the Government was asked to permit her to continue on the post of Designer. The principles of natural justice for unset­tling a settled seniority are required to be followed as has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Ujarey v. Union of India (1999) 1 SCC 685 , N. K. Durga Devi v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad and ors. (1997) 11 SCC 91 , Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P and anr. (2001) 4 SCC 675 , Mansoor Ahmed v. State of J&K (2009) 4 SCC 544 and R. Sulochana Devi v. D. M. Sujatha and ors. (2005) 9 SCC 335 . 17. In the present case, the issu­ance of notice to show cause to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 would not have been an empty formality because grant of promotion from a retrospective date of 01.09.1989 to the appellant-re­spondent was in violation of rules. Ac­cording to the Recruitment Rules, 2005, an incumbent holding the post of Assistant Designer is required to have five years tenure of service. By giving him ante dated promotion with effect from 01.09.1989, the period was reduced to four years without any re­laxation. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the authority to issue the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 a show cause notice. 18. The argument of the learned senior counsel Mr. R. A. Jan is that the facts of this case present a situation which would fit in the exception to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the authority to issue the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 a show cause notice. 18. The argument of the learned senior counsel Mr. R. A. Jan is that the facts of this case present a situation which would fit in the exception to the principles of natural justice. It is no doubt true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded the theory of use­less formality in the cases of S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others (1980) 4 SCC 379 and Aligarh Muslim Univer­sity v. Mansoor Ali Khan AIR 2000 SC 2783 (Para 24). However, that could only be applicable to a case where there was no violation of statutory rules and the order passed has not unsettled the settled seniority position. Therefore, we regret our inability to accept the submission made by the learned coun­sel. The impugned order dated 29.12.2008 (Annexure-G) is patently against the provisions of Recruitment Rules, 2005 and cannot meet the judi­cial approval. 19. As a sequel to the above discus­sion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.