Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.7.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 63 of 2011 quashing the panel list dated 20.6.2011 and directing the respondent authorities to prepare a fresh panel list of contractual employees who were serving as Assistant Auditors by placing the private respondent above the appellants and thereafter to consider their case for regularization in terms of the Regularization Scheme. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the appellants were appointed to the post of Assistant Auditors during 2007 and 2008 on contractual basis on the recommendation of DPC/Selection Committee after the posts were duly advertised in the leading local dailies whereas the private respondents No. 6 to 24 were appointed on contract basis on various dates between 2001 and 2006 in the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Aizawl for a period of one year without adhering to the recognized recruitment process and when there was complete ban on any appointment. It may be noted that the request of the respondent No. 5 to the respondent No. 3 for regularizing the services of these respondents was turned down on 4.7.2008. It would appear that the Government of Mizoram had issued the notification dated 6.8.2008 drawing up a scheme known as "The Government of Mizoram Regularization of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008" for the purpose of regularizing contract employees to vacant posts. As some defects were found in this Scheme, the Government of Mizoram again drew up an amended scheme known by the name of "The Government of Mizoram Regularization of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008" ("the Scheme" for short). Clause 3(1) of the Scheme is relevant for our purpose, and the same reads as under: 3. Application: This scheme shall apply to the Contractual Employees under various Department of the Government of Mizoram whose engagements have been made through the duly authorized Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) with the prior approval of DP & AR and the Finance Department. Besides these, contractual appointments whose engagements had been made through the duly authorized Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) with the prior concurrence of the Finance Department alone before 6th December. Besides these, contractual appointments whose engagements had been made through the duly authorized Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) with the prior concurrence of the Finance Department alone before 6th December. 2005 (i.e. before issue of DP&AR's OM No. A.11016/188-P&AR (ARW) 45 dated 6.12.2005) and whose services are still retained by executing a Deed of Contractual Agreement shall also be eligible for regularization under this Scheme. This shall not apply to the contractual employees under CSS. 2. From the Scheme extracted above, it becomes clear that in order to avail of regularization of contractual services under the Scheme, the following conditions shall have to be satisfied, namely, (i) the contractual appointments shall have to be engaged through a duly constituted DPC; (ii) such contractual engagement must have been made with the prior approval of the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms as well as the Finance Department. Under the same Scheme, regularization of contractual appointees is also admissible if their engagements had been made through a duly constituted DPC with the prior approval of the Finance Department and their services are still retained by executing a Deed of Contractual Agreement. There can be no dispute that the Appellants had been appointed as contractual appointees through DPC and with the prior approval of both the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Department of Finance. There is also not dispute that none of the private respondents had been appointed on contract basis through DPC but with the concurrence only of the Department of Finance. This is confirmed by the letter dated 4.12.2008 of the respondent No. 3 addressed to the respondent No. 5 while rejecting the request for regularizing the services of the private respondents. 3. It may be noted that such request made thereafter also met the same fate. Subsequently, a special DPC was convened for the purpose of regularizing the services of those contractual appointees who did not fulfil the requirements of the Scheme. On the recommendation of the special DPC held on 10.6.2009, the respondent No. 4 (The Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts & Treasuries, Govt. of Mizoram) submitted a proposal to the respondent No. 3 (Secretary, Finance) for approving the filling up of 41 vacant posts of Assistant Auditors to accommodate the existing contractual employees by indicating therein that sufficient fund was available for that purpose. of Mizoram) submitted a proposal to the respondent No. 3 (Secretary, Finance) for approving the filling up of 41 vacant posts of Assistant Auditors to accommodate the existing contractual employees by indicating therein that sufficient fund was available for that purpose. The respondent No. 2 by his letter dated 26.8.2009 informed the respondent No. 4 that contract employees engaged without routing through DPC should be examined and screened by the duly authorized DPC to assess their suitability for engagement on contract basis as per the extant recruitment rule so to enable them to come within the purview of the Scheme and that those who did not qualify should not longer be engaged or continued in the post. 4. To cut the long story short, special examinations were held on 2.9.2010 and 3.9.2010 for regularization of 46 contractual employees who were appointed without following the established process of selection. The DPC/Selection Committee in its sitting held on 8.10.2010, after scrutinizing the examination results, recommended the respondent Nos. 6 to 24 for appointment as Assistant Auditor on contract basis. The respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 22.11.2010 addressed to respondent 4 conveyed the approval of the Government to these recommendations. On the recommendation of the said Selection Committee, the Government issued fresh appointment orders for the respondent No. 6 to 24 for the post of Assistant Auditors on contract basis in the month of December, 2010. This was followed by the problem of fixing the inter-se seniority between the appellants and the private respondents. Finally, the Under Secretary to Government of Mizoram in the Finance Department issued the letter dated 2.5.2011 informing the respondent No. 4 that the seniority of contract employees who were appointed without routing through a formal DPC should be counted with effect from the date of the minutes of the Selection Committee recommending such appointment and requested him to fix the inter-se seniority of contractual employees accordingly. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid instruction, the respondent No. 4 prepared the inter-se seniority list of the contract employees under the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries including the appellants and the private respondents vide the letter dated 12.5.2011, which was then circulated on 20.6.2011. In this inter-se seniority list, the appellants were at serial No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 16 whereas the private respondents were placed below the appellants at serial No. 17 to 35. In this inter-se seniority list, the appellants were at serial No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 16 whereas the private respondents were placed below the appellants at serial No. 17 to 35. Aggrieved by this, the private respondents filed the writ petition which resulted in the impugned judgment dated 5.7.2012. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the inter-se seniority list by holding that the private respondents, having been appointed earlier in point of time, are senior to the appellants. The correctness of the view taken by the learned Single Judge is called into question in this appeal. 6. Unfolding his submissions, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the glaring fact that the appointments of the private respondents were made when there was a complete ban on appointment imposed by the State-respondents and has in the process committed illegality in counting the past services rendered by them during their illegal appointments. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel that the appointments of the private respondents, unlike the appointments of the appellants, were de hors any established principles of service jurisprudence: their appointments were made by adopting the policy of pick and choose without the approval of the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms and the Department of Finance; the posts held by them were never advertised nor were they ever recommended by a duly constituted DPC; they were also appointed at a time where ban on appointment was imposed by the Government. On the contrary, maintains the learned senior counsel, though the appointments of the appellants were on contract basis, they were appointed after the posts were duly advertised and, that too, on the recommendation of a duly constituted DPC and, as such, they have every right to be placed above the private respondents in the inter-se seniority list. He, therefore, contends that the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in upsetting the inter-se seniority list and in allowing the private respondents to steal a march over the appellants. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Arup Sarma, the learned Additional Advocate General of Mizoram, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Single Judge does not commit any illegality in holding that the past services rendered by the private respondents should be counted for determining their inter-se seniority. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Arup Sarma, the learned Additional Advocate General of Mizoram, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Single Judge does not commit any illegality in holding that the past services rendered by the private respondents should be counted for determining their inter-se seniority. He maintains that when the appellants themselves were appointed on contract basis like the private respondents, no artificial distinction can be made between them for the purpose of determining their inter-se seniority. 8. Mr. G.N. Sahelwala, the learned senior counsel for the private respondents, while adopting the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General, also contends that as the contractual appointments of the private respondents are earlier in point of time, much earlier than that of the appellants, the appellants cannot be allowed to steal a march over them. He further submits that the subsequent recommendation of the private respondents by the DPC for contractual appointment preceded by examination was merely a device to enable the State-respondents to remove any deficiency in their initial appointments so as to bring them within the purview of the Scheme. He also assails the supersession of the earlier Regularization Scheme dated 6.8.2008 under which the private respondents were eligible for regularization of their services contending that the same was done away with to confer undue benefits upon the appellants. As both the private respondents and the appellants are contractual appointees and are, therefore, similarly situated, upholding the impugned inter-se seniority will amount to treating equals as unequals. The learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting the interference of this Court. 9. Undoubtedly, the appellants were appointed as Assistant Auditors in accordance with the procedure laid down by "The Mizoram Subordinate Finance & Accounts Service (Group 'B' Non-Gazetted post) Recruitment Rules, 2006" i.e. after the vacant posts had been duly advertised in local dailies, after their selection by the Selection Committee and after duly obtaining the approval of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and the Finance Department. It may, however, be noted that the appointments of the appellant had been made only on contract basis even though their recruitment had been made in accordance with the normal recruitment process consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It may, however, be noted that the appointments of the appellant had been made only on contract basis even though their recruitment had been made in accordance with the normal recruitment process consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. These contractual appointments had to be resorted to as the Government of Mizoram, according to the State-respondents, was "facing serious financial hardship" and they "could not entertain any proposal for filling up vacant On regular basis by direct recruitment".- See para 6 of their affidavit. Be that as it may, the irrefutable fact remains that the appellants had been given contractual appointments in the post of Assistant Auditor after following due process of appointment, and not arbitrarily or by adopting a policy of pick and choose. 10. As already noticed, the appellants have also fulfilled the criteria for regularization of their services provided for in the Scheme. Once the appellants have been found to be appointed to the post of Assistant Auditor in accordance with the recruitment rules, they will be entitled to count their past contractual services after regularization of their services. In any view of the matter, except for regular appointees, if there are any, the seniority of the appellants must be counted from the dates of their respective entry into contractual service through DPC. In other words, the past services rendered by them on contract appointment through DPC cannot be wiped out altogether. Coming now to the case of the private respondents, what is the character of their appointments as Assistant Auditor? The case of the private respondents is that they had been initially appointed as Assistant Auditors on Muster Roll basis and were subsequently appointed as Assistant Auditors on contract basis on various dates between 2001 and 2006 with the concurrence of the Finance Department and the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms in accordance with the Orders/Notifications/Office Memoranda issued by the State respondents from time to time. 11. The State-respondents through the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms in their affidavit have denied that they were appointed in accordance with Orders/Notifications/Office Memoranda. On the contrary, they asserted that the appointments of the private respondents were made without advertising the vacant posts, without routing through the duly authorized DPC and against the extant recruitment rules. 11. The State-respondents through the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms in their affidavit have denied that they were appointed in accordance with Orders/Notifications/Office Memoranda. On the contrary, they asserted that the appointments of the private respondents were made without advertising the vacant posts, without routing through the duly authorized DPC and against the extant recruitment rules. Since the private respondents were appointed without advertising the posts and without convening formal DPC and without the concurrence of the Finance Department and Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, they could not fulfil the criteria laid down by the Scheme for regularizing their services like the appellants. This position is made clear by the letter dated 10.10.2006 of the respondent No. 5 (Director of Accounts & Treasuries) to the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Finance Department (E) (See Annexure-19 to the writ petition), which may be reproduced below: GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM DIRECTORATE OF ACCOUNTS & TREASURIES MIZORAM, AIZAWL. No. A. 13015/2/2007-DAT(EST)336 Dated Aizawl, the 10th Oct 2006 To The Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Finance Department C Sub: Proposal for regularization of contract A.A./A.T.A. Ref: Tour letter No. A.13016/1/2002-F-EST/Pt." dt. 18.9.08. Sir, With reference to above, I have the honour to furnish herewith the following information regarding proposal for regularization of contract employees under the Government of Mizoram Regularization of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008 for further action. 1. Those contract employees have been engaged without recruiting through DPC, but the engagement had been made with the prior concurrence of Finance Department and Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. 2. Yes. However, permission for engagement has been obtained only from Finance Department before DP&AR (ARW) issue Office memorandum for the Recruitment/engagement of officer and staff on regular/work charge/officiating/contract basis and engagement of casual staff vide their No. A.II016/1/88-P&AR(ARW)/45 dt. 6.12.2005. Performance Reports of contract employees i.e. 14 Assistant Auditors (Contract) and 13 Assistant Treasury Accountants (Contract) for the last five years is enclosed herewith. Further, additional list of 6 (six) Assistant auditors (Contract) is also enclosed herewith along with their Performance Reports for favour of your kind consideration as they had almost completed required length of 5 (five) years service. Enclo: As stated. Yours faithfully, (Vanlalphena) Director Accounts & Treasuries 12. Further, additional list of 6 (six) Assistant auditors (Contract) is also enclosed herewith along with their Performance Reports for favour of your kind consideration as they had almost completed required length of 5 (five) years service. Enclo: As stated. Yours faithfully, (Vanlalphena) Director Accounts & Treasuries 12. It may be noted that the proposal of the respondent No. 5 for regularizing the services of the private respondents were rejected from time to time by the Finance Department, the last correspondence, in this behalf is found at Annexure-22. Ultimately, the meeting to consider regularization of contract employees including the private respondents was held at the chamber of the Chief Secretary, Government of Mizoram on 10.6.2009 wherein it was recommended that a Special DPC be constituted to look into the legality/propriety of such type of contractual employment for regularization and collect the required information from the concerned Departments latest by 3rd July, 2009 and place the papers before the special DPC for regularization by the Government. The special DPC held in the meeting on 8.10.2010 recommended all the private respondents for appointment as Assistant Auditors and 26 others as Assistant Treasury Accounts on contract basis on merit. Thereafter, the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram in the Finance Department by the letter dated 22.11.2010 conveyed the approval of the Government for the appointments of the said recommended persons. As already noticed, the same Under Secretary issued the letter dated 2.5.2011 informing the respondent No. 4 that the seniority of contract employees without routing through formal DPC should be counted the effect from the approval of the minutes of the Selection Committee recommending such person on such basis and, as such, seniority of contract employees might be fixed accordingly. The provisional inter-se seniority was accordingly published on 20.6.2011 placing the names of the appellants above the private respondents. 13. Thus, from the facts enumerated above, it becomes crystal clear that the appellants were appointed on contract after the posts held by them were duly advertised and on the recommendation of the Selection Committee/DPC and after obtaining the approval of both the DP & AR and Finance Department, and have, therefore, satisfied the criteria laid down by the Scheme for regularization of their services. Interestingly, they were not given regular employment despite fulfilling the criteria for regular appointment on the ground that Mizoram was facing financial hardship. Interestingly, they were not given regular employment despite fulfilling the criteria for regular appointment on the ground that Mizoram was facing financial hardship. Unfortunately, the private respondents do not stand on the same footing. They were appointed as contractual appointees on various dates between 2001 and 2006 without undergoing the selection process conducted by the Selection Committee/DPC and when there was admittedly ban on recruitment imposed in Mizoram. In other words, they were appointed arbitrarily and, most likely, picked and chosen by the authorities concerned at their whims and caprice in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the appellants by virtue of the character of appointments form a separate class by themselves and cannot be clubbed together with the private respondents whose appointments fell foul of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. They apparently, unlike the appellants, declined to apply for the posts through competitive examination, which were advertised in local dailies on two occasions i.e. on 1.3.2007 and on 22.8.2007 vide Annexures 9 and 10 of the writ petition. In other words, both the appellants and the private respondents are as different as a cheese from a chalk and cannot obviously belong to the same class. Article 14 of the Constitution only prohibits class legislation and such prohibition does not extend to different classes. 14. In this context, we may profitably refer to the leading authority on a case of this nature rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in State of WB v. Aghore Nath Dey, (1993) 3 SCC 371 . To appreciate the nature of controversy, we shall refer to the facts of the case therein more elaborately. In that case, the writ petitioners were regularly appointed as Sub-Assistant Engineers. Some of them were appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers on ad-hoc basis, initially for six months between 1974 and 1975 in Public Works Department and others between 1972 to 1978 in Irrigation and Waterways Department. There was also a mention in the appointment order that the candidate concerned "will have to revert... if he is not selected for regular appointment as Assistant Engineer through PSC". The initial ad-hoc appointment was extended periodically on the existing terms during the entire period up to 26.2.1980. Several opportunities were given to the petitioners to appear in the PSC examination but they declined to do so. if he is not selected for regular appointment as Assistant Engineer through PSC". The initial ad-hoc appointment was extended periodically on the existing terms during the entire period up to 26.2.1980. Several opportunities were given to the petitioners to appear in the PSC examination but they declined to do so. State Government attempted to get the appointments made by it approved from the PSC but the Commission not only refused to do so but also criticised the appointments as violative of rules. Subsequently, the State Government amended the recruitment rules, dispensed with the requirement of appearing in PSC examination and the petitioners were absorbed as regular Assistant Engineers. Seniority was given to them from 26.2.1980 and accordingly placed below the private respondents. They claimed seniority for previous ad-hoc service also prior to their regular appointments. 15. At this stage, it may be noted that the Apex Court therein had referred to the conclusions of its earlier decision in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715 (or "Maharashtra Engineers case" or "Direct Recruit case" for short), which are as follows: (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. 16. The Apex Court in Direct Recruit case found the need to read the Conclusions (A) and (B) harmoniously and held that conclusion (B) cannot cover cases which are expressly excluded by conclusion (A). This is what it said in paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the judgment: 22. There can be no doubt that these two conclusions have to be read harmoniously and conclusion (B) cannot cover cases which are expressly excluded by conclusion (A). We may, therefore, first refer to conclusion (A). This is what it said in paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the judgment: 22. There can be no doubt that these two conclusions have to be read harmoniously and conclusion (B) cannot cover cases which are expressly excluded by conclusion (A). We may, therefore, first refer to conclusion (A). It is clear from conclusion (A) that to enable seniority to be counted from the date of initial appointment and not according to the date of confirmation, the incumbent of the post has to be initially appointed "according to the rules". The corollary set out in conclusion (A), then is, that (where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stopgap arrangement, the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority'. Thus, the corollary in conclusion (A) expressly excludes the category of cases where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules, being made only as a stop-gap arrangement. The case of the writ petitioners squarely falls within this corollary in conclusion (A), which says that the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for counting the seniority. 23. This being the obvious inference from conclusion (A), the question is whether the present case also falls within conclusion. (B) which deals with cases in which period of officiating service will be counted for seniority. We have no doubt that conclusion (B) cannot include, within its ambit, those cases which are expressly covered by the corollary in conclusion (A), since the two conclusions cannot be read in conflict with each other. 24. The question, therefore, is of the category which would be covered by conclusion (B) excluding therefrom the cases: covered by the corollary in conclusion (A). 25. In our opinion, the conclusion (B) was added to cover a different kind of situation, wherein the appointments are otherwise regular, except for the deficiency of certain procedural requirements laid down by the rules. This is clear from the opening words of the conclusion (B), namely, 'if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the 'rules' and the latter expression 'till regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules'. This is clear from the opening words of the conclusion (B), namely, 'if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the 'rules' and the latter expression 'till regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules'. We read conclusion (B), and it must be so read to reconcile with conclusion (A), to cover the cases where the initial appointment is made against an existing vacancy, not limited to a fixed period of time or purpose by the appointment order itself, and is made subject to the deficiency in the procedural requirements prescribed by the rules for adjudging suitability of the appointee for the post being cured at the time of regularisation, the appointee being eligible and qualified in every manner for a regular appointment on the date of initial appointment in such cases. Decision about the nature of appointment, for determining whether it falls in this category, has to be made on the basis of the terms of the initial appointment itself and the provisions in the rules. In such cases, the deficiency in the procedural requirements laid down by the rules has to be cured of the first available opportunity, without any default of the employee, and the appointee must continue in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service, in accordance with the rules. In such cases, the appointee is not blame for the deficiency in the procedural requirements under the rules at the time of his initial appointment, and the appointment not being limited to a fixed period of time is intended to be a regular appointment subject to the remaining procedural requirements of the rules being fulfilled at the earliest. In such cases also, if there be any delay in curing the defects on account of any fault of the appointee, the appointee would not get the full benefit of the earlier period on account of his default, the benefit being confined only to the period for which he is not blame. This category of cases is different from those covered by the corollary in conclusion (A) which relates to appointment only on ad hoc basis as a stop gap arrangement and not according to rules. It is, therefore, not correct to say, that the present cases can fall within the ambit of conclusion (B), even though they are squarely covered by the corollary in conclusion (A). 17. It is, therefore, not correct to say, that the present cases can fall within the ambit of conclusion (B), even though they are squarely covered by the corollary in conclusion (A). 17. For better understanding of the correct legal position, we, even at the cost of somewhat lengthy reproduction, are tempted to further reproduce paras 26 and 27 of the judgment as well: 26. In view of the above, it is clear that the claim of writ petitioners (respondents in all these appeals) for treating their entire period of service prior to February 26, 1980 are regular service for the purpose of seniority, and fixation of their seniority accordingly, is untenable. The submission of Shri Sanghi that their initial ad hoc appointment must be treated as having been made in accordance with the rules since the selection by an alternative mode, namely, by a committee of five Chief Engineers was resorted to on account of emergency, cannot be accepted. Rule 11 of the 1959 Rules provides for appointments to be made during emergency, and lays down that such appointments during emergency can be made only 'by advertisement and interview, through the Public Service commission, West Bengal'. Admittedly, this express requirement in rule 11 was not followed or fulfilled subsequently, and, therefore, the initial ad hoc appointments cannot be treated to have been made according to the applicable rules. These ad hoc appointments were clearly not in accordance with the rules, and were made only as a stopgap arrangement for fixed period, as expressly stated in the appointment order itself. (Underlined for emphasis) 27. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that the present cases fall squarely within the ambit of the corollary in conclusion (A) of Maharashtra Engineers case and, therefore, the period of ad hoc service of writ petitioners respondents) on the post of Assistant Engineer prior to February 26, 1980, cannot be counted for reckoning their seniority. 18. The net effect of the paragraphs extracted in the foregoing is that where the all ad hoc appointments made dehors the rules do not confer any right to seniority. They acquire their rights only from the date of their regular employment according to rules. If, however, the initial appointments are according to rules, though on ad hoc or contractual basis, then the seniority would be counted from the dates of initial appointment. They acquire their rights only from the date of their regular employment according to rules. If, however, the initial appointments are according to rules, though on ad hoc or contractual basis, then the seniority would be counted from the dates of initial appointment. The appellants were indisputably appointed in accordance with the recognised method of recruitment consistent with Articles Hand 16 of the Constitution although. Due to financial hardships, their appointments were made not on regular basis but on contractual basis. The fact that their initial appointments were made on contract basis does not change the character of their appointments which had been done in accordance with the rules governing a regular appointment. We may add, they have also fulfilled the criteria laid down by the State-respondents for regularization of their services in terms of the Scheme, 2008, and if and when their services are regularized in accordance therewith, they are entitled to count their previous contractual services for the purpose of seniority. 19. On the other hand, the case of the private respondents falls within the four comers of corollary to conclusion (A) of Direct Recruits case. In other words, if and when their services are also regularised, their past contractual services cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority and, at any rate, they cannot steal a march over the appellants. Therefore, selectees like the appellants and non-selectees like the private respondents do not, and cannot belong to the same class: those who are appointed by following due recruitment process and those who were appointed de hors the rules and arbitrarily cannot be treated alike. In our judgment, the State-respondents are correct in placing the appellants above the private respondents in the inter-se seniority list. In the view that we have taken, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this appeal is allowed. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment dated 5.7.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 63 of 2011. Resultantly, the panel/seniority list dated 20.6.2011 of contractual employees stands restored. We, however, leave the parties to bear their respective costs. _