JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra; CJ. 1. In this batch of cases, the petitioners challenge the order dated 2nd November, 2011 passed by the Joint Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Manipur regularising their ad-hoc appointment w.e.f. 03.09.2001 notionally for the purpose of pensionary and other service benefits but without seniority benefit. 2. The parties to the proceedings have been litigating for more than a decade on several issues. Several writ petitions have been filed in the Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench) as well as Supreme Court with regard to regularisation of the petitioners in service but the question involved in the present case is in relation to fixation of seniority. 3. The following facts are not in dispute:- In pursuance of the State Government's Office Memorandum dated 8.2.1996, the Director of Health Services, Govt. of Manipur issued an advertisement on 28th February, 1996 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the posts of 59 Medical Officers and 18 Dental Surgeons on ad-hoc basis for a period of 6 months. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioners and several others submitted their respective applications. The Screening Committee selected the candidates including the petitioners for appointment to the above posts of Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons in MHS Grade-IV on ad-hoc basis for a period of 6 months or till the posts were filled up on regular basis whichever is earlier. Though initially the advertisement was made for appointment to the post of 59 Medical Officers and 18 Dental Surgeons, under Annexure A/4, 125 persons were appointed as Medical Officers in MHS Grade-IV on 11th March, 1996. 4. While the matter stood thus the State Government took a policy decision vide Office Memorandum dated 19.8.1998 for regularisation of the ad-hoc appointees to Class I and II direct recruits posts on 31.12.1998. On the same day, another Notification was issued by adding Regulation 21 to the MPSC (Exemption from Consultation) Regulation, 1972 thereby making it not necessary to consult the MPSC in regard to regularisation of the ad-hoc appointees who fulfil the requirements mentioned in the said Regulation. Since the Government failed in regularising the service of the petitioners and similarly placed other doctors who were appointed on ad-hoc basis, they filed writ applications in the High Court on 7.12.1998. Since the Government failed in regularising the service of the petitioners and similarly placed other doctors who were appointed on ad-hoc basis, they filed writ applications in the High Court on 7.12.1998. Learned single Judge vide common order dated 7.12.1998 disposed of the writ applications vide Civil Rule No. 1222 of 1998 and Civil Rule No. 1226 of 1998 directing the Government respondents therein to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularisation in terms of the said Office Memorandum dated 19.8.1998 within a specified time. In compliance of the said order dated 7.12.1998 and on recommendation of the Screening Committee, ad-hoc appointment of the petitioners and several others were regularised with effect from 11.3.1998 vide Government order dated 21.12.1998. Some unemployed doctors preferred 4 writ appeals being W.A. No. 178/98, W.A. No. 4/99, W.A. No. 8/99 and W.A. No. 9/99 against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.12.1998 passed in the two writ applications. Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the writ appeals in a common order dated 1.3.1999 by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.12.1998 and also quashed the Government's regularisation order dated 21.12.1998. Division Bench held that the petitioners in the two writ applications had committed fraud by suppressing the earlier orders of the Court passed in various writ applications and writ appeals for no regularising ad-hoc services of the Medical Officers and Dental Surgeon and for making appointment of the Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons in accordance with the relevant Rules through the MPSC. 5. Challenging the above order passed in 4 writ appeals, the petitioners as well as State Government preferred as many as 14 SLPs in the Supreme Court of India. During pendency of the said SLPs, MHS Rules, 1982 were amended by adding a proviso below clause (a) of the Sub Rule 1 of Rule 7 vide notification dated 22.7.1999 published in the Manipur Gazette dated 28.7.1999. During pendency of the said SLPs, MHS Rules, 1982 were amended by adding a proviso below clause (a) of the Sub Rule 1 of Rule 7 vide notification dated 22.7.1999 published in the Manipur Gazette dated 28.7.1999. The said proviso (hereinafter called the First Amendment) is quoted below:- "Provided that it shall not be necessary to seek the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the process of recruitment for appointment to the MHS Grade-IV in the case of those who were appointed during the period from 8.2.1996 to 12.2.1999 after inviting applications from eligible candidates through advertisements and on the recommendation of the Screening Committee constituted under the Department of Personnel, Office Memorandum No. 14/6/95-DP, dated 8.2.1996" 6. At the time, 14 SLPs were taken up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the above amendment was brought to the notice of the Court and accordingly, Supreme Court disposed of the SLPs on 1.10.1999 setting aside the order of the Division Bench passed in 4 writ appeals with the following observations:- "These ad-hoc doctors can be regularised in accordance with the amended provision of the Rules, if they come within the purview of the said Rules and that the State will take appropriate actions in accordance with the amended proviso of the Rules". 7. Despite the above direction of the Supreme Court, State Government did not regularise the service of the petitioners and on the other hand, again amended (hereinafter called the 2nd Amendment) Rule 1(i) (a) proviso which had been added under MHS Amendment Rules, 1999 and substituted it with a new proviso vide MHS Amendment Rules, 2001. The second amendment was published in the Gazette on 04.09.2001. Substituted proviso is quoted below:- "Provided that in case of a person, who had been appointed to a post, which post is subsequently declared/en-cadred as duty post, he shall be declared to have already been appointed to a duty post from the date on which the post was declared/en-cadred as duty post". 8. After the above amendment was published in the Gazette by order dated 15.10.2001, State Government terminated the services of all the petitioners. 9. The above order of termination was challenged by the petitioners in a batch of writ applications. An interim order was passed on 19.10.2001 directing stay of the above termination order and also further directing the State Government to allow the petitioners to continue in service. 9. The above order of termination was challenged by the petitioners in a batch of writ applications. An interim order was passed on 19.10.2001 directing stay of the above termination order and also further directing the State Government to allow the petitioners to continue in service. The above batch of writ applications bearing W.P.(C) No. 7494 of 2001, W.P.(c) No. 1704 of 2001 and W.P.(c) No. 7670 of 2001 were disposed of in a common judgment by learned Single Judge on 30.11.2001. Learned Single Judge set aside the termination order and directed the State Government to regularise their services by applying Proviso to Rule 7(1)(a) of the MHS Rules, 1982 as it stood during the period from 22.7.1999 to 19.11.1999 within 60 days from 30.11.2001. Challenging the said order of learned Single Judge, State filed two writ appeals and some unemployed doctors also filed two other writ appeals. Division Bench by a common order dated 11.12.2001 dismissed the two writ appeals filed by the State and disposed of the other two writ appeals filed by some unemployed doctors with the observation that the State Government would abide by its undertakings given before the Apex Court by giving appointment to MPSC selectees. In view of the common judgment of the Division Bench only a formal order was required to be issued by the State Government for regularisation in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court dated 1.10.1999. 10. Challenging the above order passed by the Division Bench dated 11.12.2001, the State filed two SLPs being No. 4533/2002 and 4532/2002 before the Supreme Court. Both the SLPs were dismissed on 12.8.2002. Thereafter, the State Government issued two orders on 04.09.2002. In one of the orders, State Government revoked the earlier order of termination dated 15.10.2001 which was set aside by the learned Single Judge and in the other order, ad-hoc appointment of the petitioners were regularised with immediate effect as per Proviso 2 Rule 7 (i) (a) of the MHS Rules, 1982. 11. The petitioners not being satisfied with the order dated 4.09.2002 in which their services were regularised with immediate effect and not with retrospective effect from their initial ad-hoc appointment, again approached the High Court in W.P.(c) No. 1406/2002. 11. The petitioners not being satisfied with the order dated 4.09.2002 in which their services were regularised with immediate effect and not with retrospective effect from their initial ad-hoc appointment, again approached the High Court in W.P.(c) No. 1406/2002. The said writ application was disposed of on 17.7.2008 directing the State Government to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularisation as per provision of the then existing Proviso to Rule 7 (i) (a) of MHS Rules, 1982 w.e.f. 19.8.1998 or any other date during the legal existence of the above Proviso within a specified time. In compliance of the said order, impugned order dated 2nd November, 2011 has been passed regularising the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioners with effect from 3.09.1991 notionally for the purpose of pensionary and other service benefits but without seniority. In the same order it is also directed that petitioners shall be placed below the Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons appointed during the period from 6.10.2001 to 4.09.2002 on the recommendation of the MPSC in the seniority list. It was also directed that the petitioners were not entitled to arrear pay and allowance for the period from 15.10.2001 to 3.09.2002 as they did not render service during the said period. 12. Challenging the said order, Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the cases submitted that the appointment of the petitioners on ad-hoc basis though had been made initially in pursuance of the Office Memorandum dated 8th February, 1996, in view of the first Amendment to Sub Rule 1 of the Rule 7 of the MHS Rules, 1982 i.e. Manipur Health Services Amendment Rules, 1999, the appointment of the petitioners cannot be treated to be dehors the Rules. It was further submitted that once the appointment of the petitioners are treated to be under the provision contained in the MHS (Amendment) Rules 1999, the regularisation in service has to automatically follow and they must be given seniority with effect from their initially date of appointment i.e. 11th March, 1996 or at least from a date during which the above MHS (Amendment) Rules, 1999 remained in force. It was also submitted by Mr. It was also submitted by Mr. A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners having continued in service from the date of their initial appointment and the order of termination having been stayed by the Court, they cannot be deprived of the salary they are entitled to for the period from 15.10.2001 to 3.09.2002. Shri S. Nepolean, learned Addl. G.A. representing the State respondents submitted that ad-hoc appointment of the petitioners was under O.M. dated 8th February, 1996 and not under MHS Rules, 1982. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they were appointed under MHS Rules, 1982 is not correct. It was further submitted by the learned Addl. G.A. that if the petitioners' appointment on ad-hoc basis is treated to be dehors the Rules, they cannot claim their regularisation as a matter of right and even if their services are regularised they have to be placed below the doctors which have been selected by MPSC for such appointment. It was also submitted by learned Addl. G.A. that petitioners having not done any work during the period from 15.10.2001 to 3.09.2012, they were rightly denied the pay and allowance for the said period. Five Doctors who had been appointed to the post of Medical Officers having been selected and recommended by the MPSC filed two applications for being impleaded as respondents in the W.P.(c) No. 644 of 2012 and they were impleaded as respondents 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Shri N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel appearing for the respondents 5 & 6 and Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned sr. counsel appeared for the respondents No. 7, 8 & 9. It was contended on behalf of the said private respondents that in the earlier writ applications when the petitioners sought for quashing the order of termination, they should also have prayed for fixation of seniority. Having not done so, it is no more open for them to file the present writ applications seeking for fixation of seniority. The other objection raised on behalf of the said private respondents is that doctors who were appointed having been recommended by MPSC have not been made parties in the writ application and accordingly, the writ application is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties. Shri I. Lalitkumar, learned sr. The other objection raised on behalf of the said private respondents is that doctors who were appointed having been recommended by MPSC have not been made parties in the writ application and accordingly, the writ application is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties. Shri I. Lalitkumar, learned sr. counsel appearing for the respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 further submitted that in view of the second amendment to Rule 7 (i) of the MHS Rules, 1982, the first amendment to the said Rules became non-existent and petitioners cannot take advantage of the first amendment. Another objection was raised by the respondents to the effect that under Rule 10 of the MHS Rules, 9182, inter se seniority amongst the officers recruited in a batch has to be determined in accordance with their placement in the merit list prepared by MPSC. The claim of the petitioners for their placement above the direct recruits appointed on recommendation of MPSC shall contravene Rule 10 of the MHS Rules, 1982. 13. During the year 1996, MPSC had become defunct in absence of a chairman and State Government felt necessity of appointing doctors by lifting the ban imposed earlier. Therefore, vide O.M. dated 8th Feb., 1996, the State Government not only lifted the ban but also decided that direct recruitment to Class I & II posts should be done through MPSC and necessary requisition should be sent for the purpose and if it is necessary in the public interest to make the appointment without waiting for recommendation of the commission, the department may make appointment subject to calling of applications by advertisement and Screening of the candidates by a Screening Committee consisting of the Officers mentioned therein and that such ad-hoc appointment should be for a period of 6 months or till a candidate recommended by the Commission is available for appointment whichever is earlier. It was further decided that in case recommendation of the Commission does not come for some or other reasons, ad-hoc appointment of the petitioners may extend for another period of 6 months or till availability of a candidate recommended by the Commission whichever is earlier. In pursuance of the above decision of the Government, advertisement was issued by the Commission by the Medical Directorate on 28th Feb., 1996 calling for applications to fill up 59 posts of Medical Officers and 18 posts of Dental Surgeons. In pursuance of the above decision of the Government, advertisement was issued by the Commission by the Medical Directorate on 28th Feb., 1996 calling for applications to fill up 59 posts of Medical Officers and 18 posts of Dental Surgeons. After the selection process was over by the Screening Committee, 125 persons were given appointment on 11th March, 1996 including the petitioners for period of 6 months. In absence of recommendation from the MPSC, their services were extended from time to time. On 19th August, 1998, one O.M. was issued by the Government to the effect that State Government has taken a policy decision for regularising the direct recruit ad-hoc employees subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. On the same date another notification was issued and after regulation 20 of the MPSC (Exemption from consultation) Regulation, 1972, the following was added :- "21. It shall not be necessary to consult the Commission in regard to the regularisation of Class I and II direct recruit employees who were appointed during the period from 08-02-1996 to 12.02.1997 under the DP's O.M. dated 08.02.1996 i.e. after inviting applications from eligible candidates through local newspapers and radio and on the recommendation of the Screening Committee constituted under the O.M. dtd. 08.02.1996 and but continue to hold the posts on ad-hoc basis till date due to one reason or the other through Departmental Screening/Selection Committees". 14. After the said amendment was brought into force by order dated 21st December, 1998, service of the petitioners were regularised with effect from their initial ad-hoc appointment i.e. 11.3.1996. As stated earlier in the mean time, judgment of the Division Bench in the writ appeals was passed and the service of the petitioners were terminated on 15th October, 2001. The judgment of the Division Bench in the 4 writ appeals referred to earlier was challenged before the Supreme Court of India in 14 Civil Appeals and all the Civil Appeals were disposed of by a common order dated 1st October, 1999. The entire order dated 1st October, 1999 is quoted below:- "ORDER" Permission to file SLP allowed. Leave granted. This bunch of appeals is directed against the judgment of Gauhati High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has set aside the regularisation of the ad-hoc Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons in the State of Manipur. The entire order dated 1st October, 1999 is quoted below:- "ORDER" Permission to file SLP allowed. Leave granted. This bunch of appeals is directed against the judgment of Gauhati High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has set aside the regularisation of the ad-hoc Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons in the State of Manipur. While these appeals were pending in this Court, the Health Service Rules, 1982 had been amended giving it retrospective effect with effect from 19.8.1998 on which date the earlier Memorandum dated 19.8.1998 had been issued obviating the consultation with the Public Service Commission under Art. 320 in respect of appointment. By virtue of the impugned amendment to the Health Service Rules, the services of these doctors have been said to be regularised, notwithstanding the judgment of the Gauhati High Court. We are not expressing any opinion on the legality of the aforesaid amended provision of the Rules, but in view of the said Rules, the impugned direction of the Gauhati High Court cannot be sustained. We also noticed from the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Manipur that so far as the advertisement that was issued on 14.7.1997 indicating the number of vacancies in Manipur Health Service Grade-IV; all those posts advertised will be filled only by the persons who have appeared before the Public Service Commission, the result of which has not been declared because of the interim direction of this Court in some other cases. In view of the aforesaid statement of the State of Manipur, the private respondents, who claim to be the applicants before the Public Service Commission, Manipur cannot possibly have any grievance inasmuch as the Government itself had undertaken that there will be no difficulty in appointing all the persons in respect of which the advertisement had been issued as there has been an increase in the cadre in the meanwhile. In this view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the legality of the amended provision of the Rules, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court and these ad-hoc Doctors can be regularised in accordance with the amended provision of the Rules, if they come within the purview of the said Rules. According to the counsel for these Doctors, regularisation has already been made. According to the counsel for these Doctors, regularisation has already been made. We make it clear that if any person is aggrieved by the amended provision of the Rules, it is open to him to challenge the legality of the same in the High Court, and on such challenge being made, the High Court will examine the validity of the rules on its own, since we are not expressing any opinion on the same. The state will take appropriate action in accordance with amended provision of the rules. These appeals are disposed of accordingly." 15. After the above order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no action was taken by the State Government to comply with the same for a considerable length of time and an amendment was brought to Rule 7 of the MHS Rules, 1982. 16. For convenience, the first amendment to the said Rule notified in the Gazette dated 28th July, 1999 is quoted below:- "2. In clause (a) of sub rule 7 of the Manipur Health Service Rule, 1982, the following proviso shall be added namely:- Provided that it shall not be necessary to seek the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the process of recruitment for appointment to the MHS Grade-IV in the case of those who were appointed during the period from 8.2.1996 to 12.2.1997 after inviting applications from eligible candidates through advertisement and on the recommendation of the Screening Committee constituted under the Department of Personnel, Office Memorandum No. 14/6/95-DP, dated 8.2.96. 3. This issues with the approval of the Cabinet vide Agenda No. 7 of its meeting held on 17.7.99." The second amendment to Rule 7 published in the Gazette dated 4th September, 2001 is quoted below:- "2. For the existing clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Manipur Health Service Rules, 1982, the following shall be substituted: namely:- "7. Method of recruitment-(1)(a) Direct recruitment to any grade of the Service including specialist posts in a grade shall be made on the recommendation of the Commission. Provided that in the case of a person, who had been appointed to a post, which post is subsequently declare/encadred as duty post, he shall be declared to have already been appointed to a duty post from the date on which the post was declared/encadred as duty post". 17. Provided that in the case of a person, who had been appointed to a post, which post is subsequently declare/encadred as duty post, he shall be declared to have already been appointed to a duty post from the date on which the post was declared/encadred as duty post". 17. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the ad-hoc appointment can be regularised in accordance with the First Amendment quoted above, taking advantage of the Second Amendment, service of the petitioners were terminated on 15th October, 2001. The said order of termination was challenged by the petitioners in two writ applications vide W.P.(c) No. 1704/2001 and W.P.(c) No. 1705/2001. Both the writ applications were disposed of by common order dated 30.11.2001 setting aside the Order of Termination and directing the State Government to regularise the services of the petitioners vide Rule 7 (1) (a) of MHS Rules (Amendment), 1999 as it stood between 22.7.1999 and 19.11.1999. Relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below:- "21. In view of what have been held above, both the writ petitions succeed. The impugned termination order dated 15.10.2001, so far it relates to the petitioners, is hereby quashed and set aside. The State respondents are directed to regularise the petitioners' services having applied the proviso to Rule 7(1)(a) of MHS Rules, 1982 as it stood between the period from 22.7.1999 to 19.11.1999 and that should be done within a period of 60(sixty) days from today." 18. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged in Appeals and the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals. The matter was carried to Supreme Court again and the SLP was also dismissed. Thereafter, by order dated 4th September, 2002, the order of termination was revoked and the petitioners were taken back to service and their services were regularised with immediate effect. Since their services were regularised with immediate effect on 4th September, 2002, petitioners again challenged the said order in W.P.(c) No. 1406/2002. The writ application was disposed of on 17.07.2008 directing the State Government to consider for regularisation of the petitioners in terms of the first proviso w.e.f. 19.8.1998 or any date during the legal existence of the said first Proviso within a specified time. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below:- "10. The writ application was disposed of on 17.07.2008 directing the State Government to consider for regularisation of the petitioners in terms of the first proviso w.e.f. 19.8.1998 or any date during the legal existence of the said first Proviso within a specified time. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below:- "10. Having regards to all the relevant consideration, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Government respondents shall consider for regularisation of the ad hoc appointment of the petitioners as per the provisions of the then existing proviso to Rule 7(1)(a) of MHS Rules, 1982 with effect from 19.8.1998 or any date during the legal existence of the above said proviso within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. After the said consideration, the Government respondents shall pass an appropriate order modifying the Government order being No. 1/63/2000-M(Pt-3), dated 4.9.2002, if necessary, within the said period as regard the date of giving effect of regularisation of the ad-hoc doctors is concerned. Further, as regard the payment for due emoluments of the petitioners, the Government respondents shall consider the said claim of due emoluments for the period from October, 2001 to 3.9.2002 and if there are due emolument to be paid, necessary steps are to be taken for making payment of the due emolument to the concerned petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order." 19. In compliance of the said order, the impugned order dated 3rd November, 2011 has been passed. It will not be out of place to mention that initially 125 doctors were appointed as against the advertised posts of 59 Medical Officers and 18 Dental Surgeons. When an advertisement was issued by the State Government for filling up of 125 posts on recommendation of the MPSC, some of the doctors who had been appointed on ad-hoc basis applied for appointment through MPSC. Many of them were selected and were appointed by the State Government on recommendation of the MPSC apart from fresh candidates who applied for direct recruitment in pursuance of the said advertisement. These petitioners who had also been appointed on ad-hoc basis did not choose to apply for recruitment through MPSC and continued as such. 20. On consideration of the submission of the learned sr. These petitioners who had also been appointed on ad-hoc basis did not choose to apply for recruitment through MPSC and continued as such. 20. On consideration of the submission of the learned sr. counsels appearing for the parties, I find that three issues have been raised for adjudication. (i) Whether the appointment of the petitioners was on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 8th February, 1996 or under the MHS Rules, 1982. (ii) Whether it is open for the petitioners to pray for fixation of seniority from the date of regularisation considering the fact that such prayer could be made in the earlier two writ application filed by the petitioners. (iii) Whether the writ applications should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties such as Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons who have been appointed having been recommended by the MPSC. 21. So far as the first issue is concerned, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that appointment of the petitioners was on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 8th February, 1996 and not under MHS Rules, 1982, consequently the petitioners cannot claim seniority over those Medical officers and Dental Surgeons who have been appointed as such on being recommended by the MPSC. Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that such a question is no more open to be argued as the issue has been settled in the earlier judgment. 22. Challenging the order of termination dated 15th October, 2001, the petitioners had filed two writ applications vide W.P.(c) No. 1704/2001 and 1705/2001 in the Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench). Both the writ applications were disposed of in a common judgment on 30th November, 2001. The learned Single Judge has discussed about this issue in paragraph 16 to 20 of the judgment and ultimately while setting aside the order of termination, directed the state respondents to regularise the petitioners services by applying Proviso to Rule 7 (1) (a) of the MHS Rules, 1998 as it stood between the period from 22.7.1999 and 19.11.1999. Though the said issue appears to have been answered by the learned single Judge in the above judgment, the same having been raised again in this case, I would like to deal with the same. Undisputedly, the initial appointment of the petitioners was on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 8th February, 1996. Though the said issue appears to have been answered by the learned single Judge in the above judgment, the same having been raised again in this case, I would like to deal with the same. Undisputedly, the initial appointment of the petitioners was on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 8th February, 1996. After they were appointed to their respective posts on 11th March, 1996 they have been continuing as such till today. The first amendment to Rule 7 of the MHS Rules, 1982 was published in the official Gazette on 28th July, 1999. It is specifically provided in the said amendment that it shall not be necessary to seek the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the process of recruitment for appointment to MHS Grade-IV in the case of those who were appointed during the period from 8.2.1996 to 12.2.1997 after inviting applications from eligible candidates through advertisement and on the recommendation of the Screening Committee. This amendment has been made in order to regularise the services of the petitioners by amending MHS Rules, 1982. Though this amendment remained for a short period and was substituted by another amendment on 4th September, 2001, same was part of the MHS Rules, 1982 from the period from 28th July, 1999 to 3rd September, 2001. All the petitioners were appointed to MHS Grade-IV in between 8.2.1996 to 12.1.1997 having applied in pursuance of an advertisement and on the recommendation of the Screening Committee. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioners were appointed on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 8th February, 1996. I find that though initially the petitioners had been appointed on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 8th February, 1996 by virtue of the first amendment as stated above, their appointment can only be treated to be under the MHS Rules (Amendment) Rules, 1999 which has been quoted in an earlier paragraph of this judgment. The second issue relates to question as to whether the petitioners can pray for fixation of seniority which according to the respondents was open to be prayed for in the earlier writ applications filed by them. In this connection, reference be made to the earlier writ applications i.e. W.P.(c) No. 1704/2001 and W.P.(c) No. 1705/2001 disposed of on 30.11.2001 as well as W.P.(c) No. 1406/2002 disposed of on 17.7.2008. In this connection, reference be made to the earlier writ applications i.e. W.P.(c) No. 1704/2001 and W.P.(c) No. 1705/2001 disposed of on 30.11.2001 as well as W.P.(c) No. 1406/2002 disposed of on 17.7.2008. W.P.(c) No. 1704/2001 and W.P.(c) No. 1705/2001 had been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of termination dated 15th October, 2001. While disposing all the two writ applications in a common judgment, the learned Single Judge not only quashed the order of termination but also directed the State respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners applying proviso to Rule 7 (1) (a) of MHS Rules, 1982 as it stood between 22.7.1999 and 19.11.1999. Since the petitioners were challenging the order of termination at that stage, the question of fixation of seniority did not arise. In W.P.(C) No. 1406/2002, the petitioners prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State respondents to regularise their ad-hoc appointment or services with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of their initial ad-hoc appointment or at least with effect from 19.8.1998. The said writ application was disposed of by the learned single Judge on 17.7.2008 directing the State Government to consider regularisation of ad-hoc appointment of the petitioners as per the first amendment to Rule 7(1)(a) of MHS Rules, 1982. It is further clear that in the earlier writ application i.e. W.P.(c) No. 1406/2002, the petitioners had prayed for regularisation from the date of their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis or at least from the date on which the first amendment came into force and Court also allowed such prayer and directed the State Government to consider the regularisation in the above manner. In the impugned order, the State Government, as a matter of fact, has regularised the services of the petitioners from a date during which the First Amendment to Rule 7 was in existence. As stated earlier, the First Amendment to Rule 7 was brought into existence on 28th July, 1999 by virtue of MHS (Amendment) Rules, 1999 and remained in force till 3rd September, 2001 as with effect from 4th September, 2001, the said provision was substituted by another provision. As stated earlier, the First Amendment to Rule 7 was brought into existence on 28th July, 1999 by virtue of MHS (Amendment) Rules, 1999 and remained in force till 3rd September, 2001 as with effect from 4th September, 2001, the said provision was substituted by another provision. The State Government having accepted the judgment of the Court in the earlier two judgments that the appointment of the petitioners was under the amended Rule 7 of the MHS Rules, 1982, and having regularised the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 3.9.2001 on which the first amendment was in existence, they could not have denied seniority to them. Therefore, the batch of cases relate to denial of seniority from the date of regularisation and such a cause of action never arose earlier to be challenged before the Court. Therefore, I am of the view that judgments cited by Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel appearing for some of the private respondents in the case of Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. Divn. and anr.-vs.-Digambara Rao and ors reported in : (2004) 8 SCC 262 and the case of The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association & ors-vs.-State of Maharashtra & ors reported in : AIR 90 SC 1607 have no application in the facts of the present case. 23. So far as the third issue is concerned, the same relates to non-joinder of the necessary parties such as Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons who were appointed having been recommended by the MPSC in the present writ application. The petitioners challenged the impugned order in which their services have been regularised w.e.f. 3.9.2001 but have been denied seniority from the said date. The regularisation from the said date has only been made notionally for the purpose of pensionary and other service benefits. The question of fixation of inter se seniority list between the petitioners and the Medical Officers who were appointed on being recommended by the MPSC is yet to be decided. It is submitted at the bar that the tentative seniority has been circulated by the department and objections have been called for. I am, therefore, of the view that at this stage, question of inter se seniority between the above two classes of officers is yet to be decided and therefore, there was no necessity of impleading those doctors who have been appointed on being recommended by the MPSC as parties to the proceeding. I am, therefore, of the view that at this stage, question of inter se seniority between the above two classes of officers is yet to be decided and therefore, there was no necessity of impleading those doctors who have been appointed on being recommended by the MPSC as parties to the proceeding. 24. Referring to the counter affidavit, the learned state counsel raised another issue which is required to be answered. It appears from the counter affidavit that three categories of appointments have been made. (1) Ad-hoc appointees in pursuance of the Office Memorandum dated 8th February, 1996 in pursuance of which 125 doctors were appointed including the petitioners who have been continuing in service; (2) Doctors who have been appointed on the basis of recommendation of MPSC; (3) Doctors who were initially appointed on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 8th February, 1996 but subsequently appeared before the MPSC and were recommended for such appointment. Referring to Rule 10 of the MHS Rules, 1982, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that inter se seniority of the officers have to be made according to merit specified in the list of candidates recommended by the Commission. Since the petitioners at no point of time, had been recommended by the MPSC for such appointment, they are not covered by Rule 10 of the MHS Rules, 1982 and they cannot be made en block senior to the doctors who have been recruited on recommendation of the MPSC. They have to rank below those who have been recruited on recommendation of the MPSC. In reply, Mr. A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that if such an argument is accepted by the Court, every year after recruitment through MPSC, a seniority list will be prepared and the petitioners will rank below the recruits who are recommended by the MPSC. For convenience the said Rule 10 is quoted below:- "10. Seniority-(1) Seniority will be reckoned with respect to each grade of the service. (2) All persons appointed under Rule 6 shall be senior to all persons appointed under Rule 7. (3) The seniority of officers so appointed under Rule 6 shall be regulated as follows- (a) The inter-se seniority of the officers who were members of the Central Health Service shall be maintained. (2) All persons appointed under Rule 6 shall be senior to all persons appointed under Rule 7. (3) The seniority of officers so appointed under Rule 6 shall be regulated as follows- (a) The inter-se seniority of the officers who were members of the Central Health Service shall be maintained. (b) The inter-se seniority of other officers mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 shall be maintained. (c) Without prejudice to (a) & (b) above the seniority of the officers mentioned in (a) above in relation to the officers mentioned in (b) above in their respective grades shall be determined on the basis of the length of continuous service they had rendered on regular basis in the corresponding grade in the Central Health Service or, as the case may be, in the post under the Government after appointment in accordance with the Recruitment Rules: Provided that for the purpose of fixing seniority in the grade in which they are deemed to have been appointed substantively, the service rendered in an officiating capacity in any higher grade or post will also be included. (4) The inter-se-seniority of persons appointed by direct recruitment under Rule 7 shall be regulated by the order of merit specified in the list of candidates recommended by the Commission. Provided that all persons appointed on the basis of an earlier selection shall rank senior to all persons appointed on the basis of a subsequent selection. (5) The inter-se-seniority of persons appointed by promotion under Rule 7 shall be regulated by the order of merit of officers recommended by the Selection Committee; (6) The seniority of officers mentioned in sub-rule (4) above in relation to the officers mentioned in sub-rule (5) above shall be regulated in accordance with a roster based on the occurrence of vacancies which by these rules are to be filled by direct recruitment and by promotion respectively. Provided that the roster shall start with a promotee of promotes; Provided further that the persons appointed by direct recruitment in pursuance of Clause (f) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 shall have the same benefit of seniority as would have been available to the promotes if promotion had been made to the vacancies." 25. On reading the entire rule, I find that it has not taken care of appointees such as the petitioners. An attempt was made by Mr. On reading the entire rule, I find that it has not taken care of appointees such as the petitioners. An attempt was made by Mr. A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to Proviso sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 to substantiate his submission that inter se seniority of persons appointed by direct recruitment under Rule 7 shall be regulated by the order of merit specified in the list of candidates recommended by the Commission, provided that all persons appointed on the basis of an earlier selection shall rank senior to all persons appointed on the basis of a subsequent selection. It was further contended by that the word, "selection" appearing in Rule 10 does not necessarily relates to selection by MPSC. I am not inclined to accept such contention of Shri Bimol Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners since the word, "selection" used in the sub-rule obviously means selection through MPSC. Therefore, it is evident from the said Rule that it is silent as to how seniority of persons recruited by any method other than on recommendation of MPSC is to be determined. In this connection, reference may be made of a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Shrivastava & ors-vs.-Ram Lal and ors reported in : (2008) 3 SCC 148 . In the said reported judgment, dispute related to status of appointment made by taking out of the purview of Public Service Commission, 97 posts of Trade Tax Officer, Grade-II, which in normal course should have been filled up by direct recruitment through Public Service Commission, as prescribed in the service Rules, 1983. The said Rules were amended and an enabling provision was added in the proviso to Rule 5(1) for holding a limited departmental competitive examination in case of an administrative exigency and in public interest. One of the issues raised before the Apex Court was with regard to fixation of seniority of those who had been appointed in terms of the enabling provision providing for holding a limited departmental competitive examination in case of an administrative exigency and in public interest. The Apex Court held that the candidate appointed under the enabling provision would be entitled to seniority from the date of initial appointment. The Apex Court held that the candidate appointed under the enabling provision would be entitled to seniority from the date of initial appointment. The learned counsel for the respondents in relation to this issue placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. M.A. Haque and others-vs.-Union of India and others reported in : (1993) 2 SCC 213 . In the said reported case some Medical Officers were recruited by the railways on ad-hoc basis between 1968 and October 1, 1984. They were appointed as such ad-hoc employees by way of a stop gap arrangement pending regular appointment to the said posts through UPSC according to the Rules. Some of such ad-hoc employees later on got recruited through UPSC but others continued as such as vacancies were available. The Apex Court held that those ad-hoc employees who continued in service without being selected by UPSC shall rank below those who were recruited having been selected by UPSC. This decision shall not have application in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners though were initially appointed in pursuance of an office Memorandum, subsequently their appointments were rectified by way of an amendment to MHS Rules, 1982 and under MHS (Amendment) Rules, 1999. Accordingly, this Court has held that the appointment of the petitioners was under the amended Rules of MHS Rules, 1982 and not under the Office Memorandum. In the case of Pawan Pratap Singh & ors-vs.-Reevan Singh and ors reported in : (2011) 3 SCC 267 , the Apex Court held that date of entry in a particular service or date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority. 26. I am therefore, of the view that since the Rule 10 is silent as to how seniority of the petitioners is to be fixed, the matter requires re-examination by the State Government. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order in Annexure A/22 dated 2nd November, 2011, I direct the state respondents to reconsider the question as to whether the petitioners should given benefit of seniority having been regularised in service with effect from 3.09.2001. It may reconsider the question of grant of seniority from the date of regularisation i.e. 3.09.2001 and while taking such decision, the above judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Shrivastava & ors-vs.-Ram Lal and ors (supra) be taken note of.