JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have challenged the decision of the respondents denying them the benefit of CAS-3 [as modified] under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, in short ‘ROP, 1999’ w.e.f. 24.07.2004 when the petitioners had completed 8(eight) years of service as the Agricultural Officer (Grade-I of Tripura Agricultural Service) Group-B Gazetted. The petitioners have asserted that their appointment on 25.07.1996 should have been taken as their day of appointment for purpose of extending the said benefit. 3. As consequence of the said relief, the petitioners have also urged this court to direct the respondents to modify the Memorandum No.F.2(74)-Agri/Estt/2001-02/8234-8485 dated 08.11.2007 (Annexure-R and Annexure-S to the writ petition), whereby the petitioners alongwith others were moved to CAS-3 in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-300-15,100/- on completion of 8(eight) years continuous and satisfactory qualifying service in the existing post without promotion. The petitioners have further urged that the respondents be directed to treat the petitioners holding the posts of Agricultural Officer, Grade-V of the Tripura Agriculture Service (TAS), re-designated subsequently as Agricultural Officer, Grade-I (Group-B Gazetted) borne in the TAFS w.e.f. 25.07.1996. 4. The brief resume of fact as would be relevant for purpose of appreciating the controversy as raised in this writ petition is that all the petitioners were appointed as the Agricultural Officer (Grade-V of TAS), Group-B Gazetted on ad-hoc basis in the scale of pay of Rs. 2,100-4,530/- for a period of 6(six) months by the Notification under No. F.2(124)-Agri(Estt)/93-94/11,427-469 dated 14.08.1996 (Annexure-G to the writ petition). 5. There is no dispute that without any demur the petitioners had continued in the said posts on ad-hoc basis. However, in response to the Advertisement No.16/97 dated 03.12.1997 (Annexure-G/2 to the writ petition), all the petitioners had participated in the selection process as conducted by the Tripura Public Service Commission. There is no dispute as well that by the Memorandum No.F.2(124)-Agri(Estt)/93-94/Part/3334-37 dated 07.09.1998 (Annexure-H to the writ petition), the petitioners were appointed as the Agricultural Officer (TAFS Grade-I), Group-B Gazetted, in the regular establishment in the scale of pay of Rs. 2,100-4,530/-. Till by the Memorandum dated 08.11.2007 (Annexure-R and Annexure-S to the writ petition) the petitioners were moved to CAS-3 in the pay scale of Rs. 2,100-4,530/-. Till by the Memorandum dated 08.11.2007 (Annexure-R and Annexure-S to the writ petition) the petitioners were moved to CAS-3 in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,100/-, they never raised any objection regarding the ‘effective’ date of appointment in the regular establishment. Only after that Memorandum dated 08.11.2007, the petitioners had urged the respondents to treat their date of appointment w.e.f. 25.07.1996, the date when the petitioners were engaged on ad-hoc basis as the Agricultural Officers. 6. The petitioners have contended that since the petitioners are regularly appointed, they are entitled to get their ad-hoc service counted for their seniority or for any other purpose. In this regard, the petitioners have relied on the Memorandum No.F.23(16)GA(P&T)/91 dated 19.07.2001 (Annexure-N to the writ petition), whereby in terms of the judgment dated 11.06.2001 passed in W.P.(C) No.308/2000 by the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, the Government of Tripura had declared as under: “1. In exceptional circumstances where in exigencies of public service ad-hoc appointments/promotions are made, the same should be limited to one year only. On expiry of one year, the ad-hoc appointment/promotion shall automatically cease. Ad-hoc appointments/promotions may only be allowed in exceptional circumstances as mentioned at paragraph-1 of this Memorandum.” 7. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that since the petitioners were allowed to continue in the ad-hoc engagement for more than one year, the period of service they have rendered on ad-hoc engagement shall be added to their regular service for all purposes. However, the respondents did not agree to the said proposition. 8. The respondents, by filing their reply, have clearly stated that the petitioners were appointed to the post of Agricultural Officer (Grade-V of TAS) on ad-hoc basis on 25.07.1996 by the Agriculture Department on the basis of their application on special drive against the ST vacant reserved post and the said ad-hoc appointment were made without recommendation and selection process of the TPSC. As per provision of Annexure-B of the ROP Rules, 1999, the direct recruit to the post of Agricultural Officer, TAFS Grade-I under the Tripura Agriculture Field Service is entitled to get the benefit of CAS-3 scale of Rs. 10,000-15,100/- on completion of 8(eight) years of service. As per provision of Annexure-B of the ROP Rules, 1999, the direct recruit to the post of Agricultural Officer, TAFS Grade-I under the Tripura Agriculture Field Service is entitled to get the benefit of CAS-3 scale of Rs. 10,000-15,100/- on completion of 8(eight) years of service. Since the petitioners were recruited to the post of Agricultural Officer, TAFS Grade-I on regular basis on 01.02.1999 pursuant to the selection process and recommendation of the TPSC, they came under the Tripura Agriculture Field Service w.e.f. 01.02.1999, for which the petitioners got CAS-3 benefit w.e.f. 01.02.2007 on completion of 8(eight) years service [01.02.1999 to 31.01.2007]. 9. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that the benefit of CAS is counted from the date of the substantive or regular appointment in the post, not on the basis of the ad-hoc engagement. He has further submitted that the ad-hoc engagement of the petitioners was on the basis of the exigencies and as a part of special drive pending in the regular process of appointment. Having referred to the Advertisement No.16/97 dated 03.12.1997 (Annexure-G/2 to the writ petition), Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has further submitted that, after the ad-hoc engagement of the petitioners the said Advertisement No.16/97 was issued and the last date of receiving the application was 03.01.1998. It is apparent from the records that the ad-hoc appointment was in the exigencies of service and thus those were only stop-gap in nature and as such the petitioners cannot claim any benefit on the basis of their ad-hoc engagements. Moreover, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has pointed out that the petitioners had participated alongwith the other candidates who had the eligibility for getting the appointment. There was no special consideration in the selection process for their engagement on ad-hoc basis and that exercise by the Tripura Public Service Commission was also not for regularisation of the petitioners. 10. By filing the rejoinder, the petitioners have asserted that the appointment was regular for all purposes, they were eligible for being appointed as the Agricultural Officer (Grade-V of TAS), Group-B Gazetted and, they were appointed through a transparent selection procedure. Their appointment was against the permanent vacant posts of Agricultural Officer (Grade-V of TAS). 10. By filing the rejoinder, the petitioners have asserted that the appointment was regular for all purposes, they were eligible for being appointed as the Agricultural Officer (Grade-V of TAS), Group-B Gazetted and, they were appointed through a transparent selection procedure. Their appointment was against the permanent vacant posts of Agricultural Officer (Grade-V of TAS). But the petitioners could not debase the averment of the respondents that their appointments was only stop-gap arrangement and no procedure of selection was followed while engaging the petitioners on ad-hoc basis. 11. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has referred the decision in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715 , where the apex court had observed in sub-para (A) and (B) of para 44 as under: (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 regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. [Emphasis supplied] 12. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has also referred 2(two) decisions of this court in The State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Tribal Engineers’ Society & Ors. [judgment dated 10.08.2015 in W.A. No.97/2014] and in Apan Bhowmik & Ors. Vs. The State of Tripura & Ors. [judgment dated 07.04.2016 in W.P.(C) Nos.665, 666, 706, 708, 709 and 710 of 2015], where the said ratio of the Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association case was followed by this court. 13. In Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association (supra), the apex court has categorically observed that, 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 regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. 13. In Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association (supra), the apex court has categorically observed that, 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 regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. This is not a case where regularisation was made, rather the petitioners participated in the selection process alongwith others and on their selection they were appointed substantively. The situations are clearly distinguishable. 14. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has also referred a decision of the apex court in Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department & R.E.S. Vs. Narendra Kumar Tripathi, reported in 2015 (4) SCALE 569 , where the apex court had occasion to observe as under: 18. The scheme of the working of the Rules in the Department shows that right from 1979, the Department has been making direct recruitment after due selection and by applying the 1979 Rules which rules have been extended from time to time to subsequent recruitments, services were regularized. Validity of the scheme of these recruitments is not under challenge. In such circumstances, when the rules provide that such ad hoc appointments have to be regularized and seniority counted from the date of appointment, the writ petitioner could not be deprived of the past service rendered by him from 12th June, 1985 till the date of regularization. It is not a case of appointments made without due selection or without vacancy or without qualification or in violation of rules. The larger Bench failed to observe that the appointment of the writ petitioner was not dehors the rules nor by way of stop gap arrangement. The rules had the effect of treating the appointment as a regular appointment from initial date of appointment. In these circumstances, the principle laid down in K.C. Joshi was not applicable. It is not a case where service rendered is either fortuitous or against rules or by way of stop gap arrangement. Applying the principle laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association, the writ petitioner is entitled to count service from 12th June, 1985. Moreover, the department has allowed the benefit of past service to other similarly placed incumbents as observed in the judgment giving rise to the appeal of the department. [Emphasis supplied] 15. Applying the principle laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association, the writ petitioner is entitled to count service from 12th June, 1985. Moreover, the department has allowed the benefit of past service to other similarly placed incumbents as observed in the judgment giving rise to the appeal of the department. [Emphasis supplied] 15. This court is constrained to observe that even the petitioners cannot get any advantage of the said observation made in Narendra Kumar Tripathi (supra). Thus, in the considered view of this court, this writ petition is devoid of merit and as such the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.