JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. The issue, which has been raised in this case, relates to the vexed question relating to inter se seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees. It is a perennial problem, which continues to haunt Courts of law from time to time. The resolution of the said dispute must depend upon the facts of the case and, also, the relevant statutory Rules. The relief’s, which have been sought in the writ petition, are as follows: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned office memorandum dated 12.05.2016 (Annexure No. 8 to the Writ Petition) passed by Respondent No. 1. I(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 03-11-2015 passed by the Learned Public Service Commission in Claim Petition No. 12/NB/DB/2015 so far as the findings and observations made in paragraph NO. 15 and 17 are concerned wherein it has been observed that in view of Rule 17 of the Minor Irrigation Service Rules, 2006, the seniority would be determined according to cyclic order. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to redraw the seniority of Assistant Engineers on the basis of their date of substantive appointment strictly in accordance with Rule 8(1) of the Uttarakhand Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 read with Rule 22 of the Uttarakhand Service of Engineers Minor Irrigation Department, Rules, 2006.” 2. Writ petitioners are working as Assistant Engineers in various Divisions of the Minor Irrigation Department. They were appointed as Junior Engineers and, later on, promoted as Assistant Engineers. Petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 were promoted as Assistant Engineers vide Annexure-1 Office Memorandum dated 14.01.2011. Petitioner No. 4 was promoted as Assistant Engineer vide Office Memorandum dated 15.06.2011 against the vacancy of the selection year 2010-11. This was done vide Annexure-2 dated 15.06.2011. Petitioner no. 5 came to be promoted as Assistant Engineer vide Office Memorandum dated 28.01.2013 (Annexure-3). As far as the private respondents are concerned, they were appointed as Assistant Engineer by way of direct recruitment on the recommendation of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. It is the case of the petitioners that though the selection process commenced in the year 2007, the result was declared belatedly. As far as the private respondents are concerned, they were appointed as Assistant Engineer by way of direct recruitment on the recommendation of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. It is the case of the petitioners that though the selection process commenced in the year 2007, the result was declared belatedly. The vacancies against which the private respondents were appointed were determined as of the year 2006. The party respondents were favoured with the appointment orders on 17.06.2011, 29.06.2011, 20.07.2011, 25.08.2011, 28.01.2013and 06.02.2013. Earlier the inter se seniority dispute had engaged the attention of the Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 12 of 2015. The Tribunal, after discussion of the matter, proceeded to inter alia hold as follows: “9. From the perusal of the above rule, it is clear that the Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 have also been made applicable in the present case. Apart from that, the Minor Irrigation Service Rules, 2006 also provides certain clauses, which are in some places in addition to the Uttarakhand Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002. The Minor Irrigation Service Rules, 2006 had been notified in the year 2006, whereas seniority rules of 2002 notified in 2002. The non-obstinate clause of the Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 only overrides the inconsistence provisions of other seniority service rules of the other department prior to the publication of Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002. Thus, the provisions of Rule 8 of the said Rule the Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 vis-à-vis Rule 22 of the Minor Irrigation Service Rules 2006 would be applicable in the case of the petitioners. In both the Rules, the seniority has to be determined in order of their names as arrayed in the appointment letter. Thus, the appointment order is the basis of determining of the seniority of the officers. It is also provided in both the rules, which are added as proviso that if the appointment order is to specify a particular back date with effect from which a person is substantively appointed, that date will be deemed to be the date of order of substantive appointment and in any other cases, it will mean the date of issue of the order. As we have noticed earlier that the appointment order of the respondents does not contain any such back date in their appointment letter, which is annexure-1 to the written statement. As we have noticed earlier that the appointment order of the respondents does not contain any such back date in their appointment letter, which is annexure-1 to the written statement. It only mentions that the respondents have been appointed against the vacancies of the selection year 2009-10. We have to analyze whether the selection year has been mentioned in the order, then what will be the effect of such mentioning in case of the petitioners’ seniority. Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Nandan Giri Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, reported in 2015, UD, 27. The Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. K.M. Joseph and Hon’ble Mr. V.K. Bisht has held in para 17 as under: “17. The first thing we must do in terms of the rules, which we have adverted to is what is the date of the order of substantive appointment. The order of substantive appointment of the applicants is dated 27.08.2010. The applicants before the Tribunal are in serial Nos. 5 & 6. Their selection year is, undoubtedly, shown as 2003-04, but there is nothing in the order to indicate that in terms of either proviso to Rule 8 of the Uttaranchal Government Servants Seniority Rules 2002, or in terms of proviso to Rule 22 of the 1983 Rules that the promotion has been given with reference to an anterior date. We are of the view that therefore mere reference to the selection year in the order of appointment would not suffice and it cannot be treated as a case where the proviso either under Rule 8 of the aforesaid seniority rules, or the 1983 Rules would become applicable. The result would be that the order of substantive appointment within the meaning of the 1983 Rules would be taken as 27th August, 2010. The inevitable result of arriving at this conclusion would be that in terms of Rule 22 the seniority of the applicants would be decided with reference to the said date. We are of the clear view that in the conspectus of the statutory Rules available the Tribunal has committed an illegality in proceeding to lay down the principle that in the matter of determining seniority reliance could be placed on ad hoc service also.” 15. We are of the clear view that in the conspectus of the statutory Rules available the Tribunal has committed an illegality in proceeding to lay down the principle that in the matter of determining seniority reliance could be placed on ad hoc service also.” 15. Perusal of the above rule specifically deals with recruitment, appointments if are made both by promotion and direct recruitment, a combined list shall be prepared by taking the names of candidates from the relevant lists under rule 5. As we have already noticed that Rule 5 prescribes different quota for different members of service as provided in Rule 5. Thus, this rule is an independent rule, which is linked with Rule 22 of the Minor Irrigation Service Rules, 2006. We are mentioning it as an independent rule because it is placed after the clause of Rule 14, 15 and 16 of the said rules, which deal with determination of vacancies, procedure of direct recruitment and procedure for recruitment by promotion respectively. This rule clearly signifies that how a combined list is to be prepared, if two different sources of appointments have been made at different time in a recruitment year. We are also quoting Rule 19(2) of Minor Irrigation Service Rules, 2006 as under: “Where, in any year of recruitment, appointments are to be made, both, by direct recruitment and by promotions regular appointments shall not be made, unless selection is made, from both the sources; and a combined list is prepared, in accordance with rule 17. Perusal of this, rule clearly provides, if at any point of time, the appointments of any selection year are simultaneously made by the Commission of both the sources, again there will be a select list in accordance with Rule 17. Thus, the scheme of the Rules clearly takes us to a conclusion that the determination of the seniority and year of recruitment in which the appointment has been made is relevant. The Minor Irrigation Service Rules, 2006 also defines the year of recruitment in Rule 3(i) which reads as under: “3(i) “Year of recruitment” means a period of 12 months commencing from the 1st day of July of a calendar year.” Thus, this rule clearly provides that recruitment year is meant of 12 months commencing from 1st July of the calendar year. If we read Rule 17 read with Rule 22(3) of Minor Irrigation Service Rules, 2006 and Rule 8(1) of Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 in this light, the meaning would come that if appointments from any sources either by promotion or direct have been made during the year commencing from 1st July to 30th June, the seniority shall be determined accordingly. Thus, the word “recruitment year”, Rule 17 of the Minor Irrigation Service Rules, 2006 is very clear and it is an adjective to word of appointments. So after analyzing of the above Rules, we come to the conclusion that if direct recruits and promotees have been appointed against substantive vacancies in the recruitment year commencing from July 2010-11, it will be treated as the same recruitment year. 16. Now we would like to deal with the authority in this regard. In the case of Jagdish Ch. Patnaik and others v. State of Orrisa and others (1998) 4 SCC, 456. At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the rule which was enforced to determine the seniority of the writ petitioners as well as private respondents was Orrisa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941, in which Rule 26 deals with seniority of the officers recruited by promotion and by direct recruits during the same year. This rule has been quoted in the authority. It is provided in the rule where the officers both by direct recruitment and by promotion are recruited during the same year, the promoted officers shall be considered senior to the officers directly recruited irrespective of their dates of joining the appointment in a year. It was also provided in the sub-clause-3 the seniority of the officers shall be determined in accordance with the order in which their names appear in the lists prepared by the Commission. Here, the controversy arose the word “recruited during the same year”. The vacancies for the direct recruits were determined in the year 1978 according to the rules and they were appointed in the month of March, 1980 after fulfilling all the formalities as provided under Rules. Thus, the respondents before the writ court, were the Junior Engineers promoted as Assistant Engineer according to rule in the year 1979. The vacancies for the direct recruits were determined in the year 1978 according to the rules and they were appointed in the month of March, 1980 after fulfilling all the formalities as provided under Rules. Thus, the respondents before the writ court, were the Junior Engineers promoted as Assistant Engineer according to rule in the year 1979. The claim of the writ petitioners was that they should have been placed above the promotees according to their recruitment/ selection year and they cannot be treated below 1979 batch. Thus, main controversy amongst the parties was that as to whether the year for which the vacancies were notified is a determinative factor to decide the seniority or the date of appointment is the decisive factor for the seniority. The matter came up before Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “24- Rule 26 with which we are really concerned in the present case is the rule of seniority. It would be appropriate to extract the said Rule 26 in extenso: - “Rule 26- Seniority –(1) When officers are recruited by Promotion and by direct recruitment during the same year, the promoted officers shall be considered senior to the officers directly recruited irrespective of their dates of joining the appointment. (2) Between the two groups of promoted officers, those promoted from the rank of Sub-Assistant Engineers shall en bloc be senior to those promoted from the rank of Junior Engineers. (3) Subject to provision of Sub-rules (1) and (2) seniority of officers shall be determined in accordance with the order in which their names appear in the lists prepared by the commission.” The very scheme of recruitment under the Rules, as indicated above, unequivocally indicates that in case of direct recruit the final authority lies with the State Government who issues appointment orders from amongst the persons found eligible by the Public Service Commission and further who have been found medically fit by the Medical Board. Even such an appointee is also required to undergo probation for two years and thereafter he can be confirmed in the service. Under Rule 26, which is the rule for determining inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits when the expression used is “officers are recruited by promotion and by direct recruitment” necessarily it means that when they are appointed as Assistant Engineers by the State Government. Under Rule 26, which is the rule for determining inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits when the expression used is “officers are recruited by promotion and by direct recruitment” necessarily it means that when they are appointed as Assistant Engineers by the State Government. To import something else into the Rule will neither be in the interest of justice nor is it necessary in any manner and it would tantamount to a legislation by the Court. It is a well known principle of construction of statute that when the language used in the statute is unambiguous and on a plain grammatical meaning being given to the words in the Statute, the end result is neither arbitrary, irrational or contrary to the object of the Statute, then it is the duty of the Court to give effect to the words used in the Statutes as the words declare the intention of the law making authority best. In that view of the matter we do not see any justification to go into the question of quota meant for direct recruits and promotees nor is it necessary to find out as to the year in which the vacancy arose against which the recruitment is made. On an analysis of the scheme of the rules, as narrated earlier, we are of the considered opinion that the expression “recruited” would mean appointed and the expression ‘during the same year’ in Rule 26 would mean during the calendar year and, therefore, direct recruits recruited during the calendar year would be junior to the promotee recruits recruited during the said calendar year. 34. The only other contention which requires consideration is the one raised by Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenors to the effect that expression “recruitment” and “appointment” have two different concepts in the service jurisprudence and, therefore, when Rule 26 uses the expression ‘recruited’ it must be a stage earlier to the issuance of appointment letter and logically should mean when the selection process started and that appears to be the intendment of the Rule Makers in Rule 26. We are, however, not persuaded to accept this contention since under the scheme of Rules a person can be said to be recruited into service only on being appointed to the rank of Assistant Engineer, as would, appear from Rule 5 and Rule 6. We are, however, not persuaded to accept this contention since under the scheme of Rules a person can be said to be recruited into service only on being appointed to the rank of Assistant Engineer, as would, appear from Rule 5 and Rule 6. Then again in case of direct recruits though the process of recruitment starts when the Public Service Commission invites applications under Rule 10 but until and unless the Government makes the final selection under rule 15 and issues appropriate orders after the selected candidates are examined by the Medical Board, it cannot be said that a person has been recruited to the service. That being the position it is difficult for us to hold that in the Seniority rule the expression ‘recruited’ should be interpreted to mean when the selection process really started. That apart the said expression ‘recruited’ applies not only to the direct recruits but also to the promotees. In case of direct recruits the process of recruitment starts with the invitation of application by the Commission and in case of promotees it starts with the nomination made by the Chief Engineer under rule 16. But both in the case of direct recruits as well as in the case of promotees the final selection vests with the State Government under rules 15 & 18 respectively and until such final selection is made and appropriate orders passed thereon no person can be said to have been recruited to the service. In this view of the matter the only appropriate and logical construction that can be made of Rule 26 is the date of the order under which the persons are appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer. It the crucial date for determination of seniority under the said Rule. Mr. Raju Ramachandran’s contention, therefore, cannot be sustained.” 17. In the case in hand, the petitioners were recruited in the cadre in respect of vacancies arose in the year 2005-06 though in fact the letters of appointment were issued in the recruitment year of 2010-11 and thereafter and the respondents’ vacancies were determined for promotion in selection year 2009-10 and their appointment letters were also issued in recruitment year 2010-11. Thus, the seniority would be determined in accordance with the appointment orders. The selection year is not the decisive factor but the recruitment year in which the appointment has been issued is relevant. Thus, the seniority would be determined in accordance with the appointment orders. The selection year is not the decisive factor but the recruitment year in which the appointment has been issued is relevant. There is no dispute that there will be some time lag between the year when the vacancy accrues and the year when the final recruitment is made for complying with the procedure prescribed in the case of direct recruitment and in the case of the promotees also, but that would not give handle to the Court to include something which is not there in the rule so seniority under Rule 22 of Minor Irrigation Service Rules, 2006 and Rule 8 of Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002. Rule 22 of Minor Irrigation Service Rules, 2006 as well as Rule 8 of Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 respectively in which the vacancies arose and against which the recruitment has been made, is not at all to be looked into for determination of the inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. It is during the calendar year commencing from first July of which year direct recruits to the cadre of Assistant Engineers and the promotees Assistant Engineers would be kept in the joint list according to Rule 17 of the Minor Irrigation Service Rules, 2006 and their seniority would be determined according to cyclic order. It is not possible for the Tribunal to import some which is not there in Rule 22 of Minor Irrigation Service Rules, 2006 as well as Rule 8 of Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 and thereby legislate a new rule of seniority. In the light of above observation and Rules as indicated above, the petitioners were appointed 17.06.2011, 29.06.2011, 20.07.2011, 25.08.2011, 28.01.2013 and 06.02.2013 respectively. 19. We conclude that the private respondents had been appointed against a substantive vacancies in a recruitment year of 2010-11. The State/Respondent has wrongly shown in the impugned seniority chart that they have been appointed substantively in the selection year 2009-10. The seniority of the petitioners have been wrongly fixed in the said impugned seniority list dated 24.09.2014 issued by the respondent no. 1. The petitioners have been appointed as mentioned above; their appointment order has commenced from 2010-11. Thus, the final seniority list drawn by the respondent is not in accordance with rules and is liable to be quashed to the above extent. 1. The petitioners have been appointed as mentioned above; their appointment order has commenced from 2010-11. Thus, the final seniority list drawn by the respondent is not in accordance with rules and is liable to be quashed to the above extent. The respondent No. 1 is directed to redraw the seniority list of the Assistant Engineers in accordance with Rule 8 of the Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules 2002 and Rule 22 of the Minor Irrigation Service Rules, 2006 as discussed above to that extent and it is concluded that the private respondents had been substantively appointed in the recruitment year 2010-11 according to the above rules. So the seniority would be drawn in accordance with the substantive appointment of the petitioners as well as of the private respondents.” 3. The claim petition was disposed of as follows: “The claim petition is allowed. The final seniority list dated 24.09.2014 drawn by the respondent no. 1 is hereby quashed to the above extent. The respondent No. 1 is directed to redraw the seniority list of the petitioners vis-à-vis private respondents, Assistant Engineers in accordance with Rule 8 of the Uttarakhand Govt. Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 and Rule 22 of the Minor Irrigation Service Rules, 2006 and as discussed above treating private respondents had been appointed in the recruitment year 2010-11 within four months from the date of presentation of the order to the respondent No. 1. No order as to costs.” 4. It is thereafter that the order, which is impugned in this case, came to be passed. 5. We heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel on behalf of the writ petitioners, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State and Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6. 6. It is true that the petitioners (who, hereinafter, will be described as promotees) came to be appointed on dates, which are earlier in point of time than the party respondents in the said writ petition, who are direct recruits. The question to be answered is, whether they are entitled by virtue of their earlier appointments to rank as senior to the direct recruits, who have been appointed later. In order to resolve this issue, we will have to pose the actual questions, which arise for our consideration. The question to be answered is, whether they are entitled by virtue of their earlier appointments to rank as senior to the direct recruits, who have been appointed later. In order to resolve this issue, we will have to pose the actual questions, which arise for our consideration. The first question, we must pose, is, does this case present the problem of the year of recruitment versus year of selection all over again, as was the issue which fell for consideration before the Public Service Tribunal in the claim petition, which we have already referred to. In other words, in the litigation before the Tribunal, the actual issue, to our mind, which posed itself, was, whether the persons were entitled to claim appointments with reference to the year of selection, which means the year in which the process of selection commenced or whether it should be determined with reference to year of recruitment. We notice that the recruitment is defined in the Rules as the period of time commencing from the 1st July of a year and ending on 30th June of the succeeding year. About this, there is no controversy. As far as this case is concerned, we are certainly not called upon to decide the question, whether the seniority is to be determined with reference to the year of selection. In fact the respondents would have a case that the vacancies against which they were recruited relate to the year 2005-06; whereas the vacancies in respect of the promotees relate to the year 2009-10. 7. Next, we must look at the Scheme of the Rules. The Department, which is the subject matter of controversy in this case, is the Minor Irrigation Department. The statutory Rules, which govern the members of the said Department, have been framed in the year 2006 and they are known as ‘The Uttaranchal Service of Engineers Minor Irrigation Department Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 2006 Rules). We may refer to the following Rules: 8. Rule 3(f) of the 2006 Rules defines the words “Member of the Service”, which reads as follows: “(f) “Member of the Service” means a person substantively appointed under these rules or the rules or orders in force prior to the commencement of these rules, to a post in the respective cadre of the service;” 9. Rule 3(f) of the 2006 Rules defines the words “Member of the Service”, which reads as follows: “(f) “Member of the Service” means a person substantively appointed under these rules or the rules or orders in force prior to the commencement of these rules, to a post in the respective cadre of the service;” 9. Rule 3(h) of the 2006 Rules defines the words “Substantive Appointment”, which reads as follows: “Substantive Appointment” means an appointment, not being an ad hoc appointment, on a post, in the cadre of the service, made after selection in accordance with the rules; and if there were no rules, in accordance with the procedure prescribed, for the time being, by executive-instructions, issued by the Government;” 10. Rule 3(i) of the 2006 Rules deals with ‘Year of recruitment’, which we have already referred to. 11. The cadre of the service is contained in Rule 4. It consists of the posts of Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer. 12. Rule 5 of the 2006 Rules deals with the source of recruitment. Since we are concerned with the post of the Assistant Engineer, we deem it expedient to refer only to Rule 5 insofar as it deals with the post of Assistant Engineer: “5- Source of Recruitment- Recruitment to the various categories of posts in the service shall be made from the following sources, namely:- (1) Assistant Engineer:- (a) 40.67% of posts through commission, in the Agriculture, Civil and Mechanical cadre, who possess an Bachelor’s Degree or an equivalent Degree, from a recognized-institution, having a proportion of direct recruitment of 50%, 30% and 20% respectively. (b)(i) 50% posts shall be filled in by promotion amongst substantively appointed Junior Engineer, who have completed ten years service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment. (ii) 9.33% posts Shall be filled in by promotion from amongst such substantively appointed Junior Engineers, who possess Bachelor’s Degree in Civil or Mechanical, or Agriculture or an equivalent Degree from a recognized institution or is an Associate member of Institution of Engineers (India) (Civil or mechanical Engineering Branch) and who have completed three years service, as such, on the first day of year of recruitment. Provided that the appointment authority may regulate the recruitment by promotion in any year of recruitment in such manner that the prescribed percentage for promotion is maintained.” 13. Provided that the appointment authority may regulate the recruitment by promotion in any year of recruitment in such manner that the prescribed percentage for promotion is maintained.” 13. Rule 7 of the 2006 Rules deals with the qualifications. Part-V of the 2006 Rules deals with the procedure of recruitment. Thereunder, Rule 14 provides that the Appointing Authority shall determine the number of vacancies to be filled during the course of the year of recruitment as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for a candidate belonging to Scheduled category. This is to be intimated to the Commission. 14. Rules 15 & 16 deal with the procedure for direct recruitment and procedure for recruitment by promotion respectively. They being relevant, we advert to the same: “15. Procedure for Direct Recruitment (1) Application for permission to appear in the competitive examination shall be invited by the Commission in the prescribed proforma published in the advertisement issued by the commission. (2) No candidate shall be admitted to the examination unless he holds a certificate of admission issued by the commission. (3) After the results of the examination have been received and tabulated, the Commission shall, having regard to the need for securing due representation of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Others under rule 6, summon for interview such number of candidates as, on the result of the written examination, have come up to the standard fixed by the commission in this respect. The marks awarded to each candidate at the interview shall be added to the marks obtained by him in the written examination. (5) The commission shall prepare a list of candidates in order of there proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate of marks obtained by each candidate at the written examination and interview and recommended such number of candidates as they consider fit for appointment. If two or more candidates obtained equal marks in the aggregate, the name of the candidate obtaining higher marks in the written examination/practical examination shall be placed higher in the list. The number of names in the lists shall be more (but not more than 25%) than the number of vacancies. The Committee shall forward the list to the appointing authority. Note:- The syllabus and rules for competitive examination shall be such as may prescribe by the Commission from time to time. The number of names in the lists shall be more (but not more than 25%) than the number of vacancies. The Committee shall forward the list to the appointing authority. Note:- The syllabus and rules for competitive examination shall be such as may prescribe by the Commission from time to time. 16- Procedure for Recruitment by Promotion- Recruitment by promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) or, Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) shall be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit in accordance with “The Uttaranchal Promotion by selection, in consultation with public service Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003”, as amended from time to time. Provided that if two or more cadres are in identical scales of pay the names of the candidates, in the eligibility list, shall be arranged, according to the date of order of their substantive appointment.” 15. Rule 17 of the 2006 Rules deals with preparation of the combined select list for the post of Assistant Engineer. It reads as under: “17. Combined Select List for the post of Assistant Engineer If any year of recruitment, appointments are made both by direct recruitment and by promotion a combined list shall be prepared by taking the names of candidates from the relevant lists under rule 5 in such manner that the prescribed percentage is maintained, the first name in the list being of the person appointed by promotion.” 16. Chapter-VI comes under the heading ‘Appointment, Probation, Confirmation and Seniority. Rule 19 being crucial, we advert to the same: “19. Appointment: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), the Appointing Authority shall make appointment, by taking the names of candidates, in the order in which they stand, in the lists, prepared under rule 15, 16, 17 and 18, as the case may be. (2) Where, in any year of recruitment, appointments are to be made, both, by direct recruitment and by promotions regular appointments shall not be made, unless selection is made, from both the sources; and a combined list is prepared, in accordance with rule 17. (3) If more than one order of appointment are issued in respect of any one selection, a combined order shall also be issued, mentioning the names of persons in order of seniority as determined in the selection or as the case may be, as it stood in the cadre from which they are promoted. (3) If more than one order of appointment are issued in respect of any one selection, a combined order shall also be issued, mentioning the names of persons in order of seniority as determined in the selection or as the case may be, as it stood in the cadre from which they are promoted. If the appointments are made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, names shall be arranged in accordance with the cyclic order referred to in rule 17.” 17. Rule 20 of the 2006 Rules deals with probation. Rule 21 provides for confirmation of service and the last provision, we must refer to, is Rule 22, which specifically deals with the determination of seniority, which reads as under: “(1) The seniority of persons substantively appointed in any category of posts shall be determined in accordance with the “The Uttaranchal Government Servants Rules, 2002. If two or more persons are appointed together by such order in which their names are arranged in the appointment order the seniority of persons in any category of post shall be determined from the date of the order. Provided that if the appointment order specifies a particular back date with effect from which a person is substantively appointed, that date, will be deemed to be the date if order of substantive appointment and, in other cases, it will mean the date of issue of the order: (2) The seniority interse of persons appointed directly on the result of any one selection, shall be the same as determined by the commission or, as the case may be, by Selection Committee: Provided that, a candidate recruited directly may lose his seniority if he fails to join without valid reasons when vacancy is offered to him. The decision of the Appointing Authority as to the validity of reasons shall be final. (3) The seniority interse of persons appointed by promotion shall be the same as it was in the cadre from, which they were promoted. (4) Where appointment are made both by promotion and direct recruitment or from more than one source and the respective quota of the sources is prescribed, the interse seniority shall be determined by arranging the names in a cyclic order in a combined list, prepared in accordance with Rule 17, in such manner that the prescribed percentage is maintained. (4) Where appointment are made both by promotion and direct recruitment or from more than one source and the respective quota of the sources is prescribed, the interse seniority shall be determined by arranging the names in a cyclic order in a combined list, prepared in accordance with Rule 17, in such manner that the prescribed percentage is maintained. Provided that- (1) Where appointments from any source are made in excess of the prescribed quota, the persons appointed in excess of quota shall be pushed down, from seniority, to subsequent year or years in which there are vacancies in accordance with the quota. (2) Where appointments from any sources fall short of the prescribed quota and appointments against such unfilled vacancies are made in subsequent year or years, the persons so appointed shall not get seniority of any earlier year but shall get the seniority of the year in which their appointments are made, so however, that in the combined list of that year, to be prepared under this Rule, their names shall be placed at the top followed by the names, in the cyclic order, of the other appointees. (3) Where, in accordance with the rules or prescribed procedure, the unfilled vacancies from any source could, in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant rule or procedure be filled from the other source and appointment in excess of quota are so made, the persons so appointed shall get the seniority of that very year as if they are appointed against the vacancies quota.” 18. As is obvious, since Rule 22(1) refers to The Uttaranchal Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 2002 Rules) in the matter of seniority, we must necessarily advert to the same also. 19. Part-II of the 2002 Rules provides for determination of the seniority. Rule 5 of the 2002 Rules deals with the situation, where seniority is to be determined where appointment is made by direct recruitment only. Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules deals with the situation, where appointments are made by promotion only from and direct recruitment. It reads as follows: “8. Rule 5 of the 2002 Rules deals with the situation, where seniority is to be determined where appointment is made by direct recruitment only. Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules deals with the situation, where appointments are made by promotion only from and direct recruitment. It reads as follows: “8. Seniority where appointments by promotion only from and direct recruitment.— (1) Where according to the service rules appointments are made both by promotion and by direct recruitment, the seniority of persons appointed shall, subject to the provisions of the following sub-rules, be determined from the date of the order of their substantive appointments and if two or more persons are appointed together, in the order in which their names are arranged in the appointment order: Provided that if the appointment order specified a particular back date, with effect from which a person is substantively appointed, that date will be deemed to be the date of order of substantive appointment and, in other cases, it will mean the date of order: Provided further that a candidate recruitment directly may lose his seniority, if he fails to join without valid reasons, when vacancy is offered to him the decision of the appointing authority as to the validity of reasons, shall be final. (2) The seniority inter se of persons appointed on the result of any one selection -- (a) through direct recruitment, shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or by the merit list prepared by the Commission or by the Committee, as the case may be. (b) by promotion, shall be as determined in accordance with the principles laid down in rule 6 or rule 7, as the case may be, according as the promotion are to be made from a singly feeding cadre or several feeding cadres. (3) Where appointments are made both by promotion and direct recruitment on the result of any one selection the seniority of promotees vis-a-vis direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order the first being a promotee as for a may be, in accordance with the quota prescribed for the two sources. (3) Where appointments are made both by promotion and direct recruitment on the result of any one selection the seniority of promotees vis-a-vis direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order the first being a promotee as for a may be, in accordance with the quota prescribed for the two sources. Illustrations—(1) Where the quota of promotees and direct recruits is in the proportion 1:1 the seniority shall be in the following order; First Promotion Second Direct recruits and soon (2) Where the said quota is in the proportion of 1:3 the seniority shall be in the following order:- First Promotee Second to fourth Direct Recruits Fifth Promotee Sixty to eight Direct recruits and so on. Provided that- (i) Where appointments from any source are made in excess of the prescribed quota, the persons appointed in excess of quota shall be pushed down, for seniority, to subsequent year in which there are vacancies in accordance with the quota. (ii) Where appointments from any source fall short of the prescribed quota an appointment against such unfilled vacancies are made in subsequent year or years, the vacancies are made in subsequent year or years, the person so appointed shall not get seniority of any earlier year but shall get the seniority of the year in which their appointments are made, so however, that their names shall be placed at the top followed by the names, in the cyclic order of the other appointees; (iii) Where, in accordance with the service rules the unfilled vacancies from any source could, in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant service rules be filled from the other source and appointment in excess of quota are so may, the persons so appointed shall get the seniority of that very year as if they are appointed against the vacancies of their quota.” 20. It is in the conspectus of these Rules that we must proceed to appreciate the controversy and also the contentions of the parties. 21. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the promotees would submit that the official respondents have committed a clear illegality in not bearing in mind that under Rule 22(1) of the 2006 Rules read with Rule 8 (1) of the Rules of 2003, the cardinal principle, which should govern seniority is the date of substantive appointment. 21. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the promotees would submit that the official respondents have committed a clear illegality in not bearing in mind that under Rule 22(1) of the 2006 Rules read with Rule 8 (1) of the Rules of 2003, the cardinal principle, which should govern seniority is the date of substantive appointment. If the date of substantive appointment is applied, he would emphasize that it does not remain in the region of doubt that the promotee would rank as senior to the direct recruit. He would submit that the law is settled that a direct recruit cannot gain seniority from the date on which he was not a member of the service, and yet in the impugned proceedings, the official respondents have transgressed this elementary principle far too established to be shaken by the wrong interpretation, which is sought to be placed. In this regard, he would draw our attention to the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and another vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma reported in (2007) 1 SCC 683 and Pawan Pratap Singh and others vs. Reevan Singh and others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 267 . He would elaborate and contend that in this case, there is no dispute that there is no single selection. The principle of having seniority fixed on the basis of cyclic order, in which, the promotees and direct recruits are appointed will come into play in a situation, where there is only single selection. In fact, he would point out that the impugned order would reveal that the Authorities have proceeded on the basis that there is a single selection, which is a mistaken understanding of facts. He would point out that there were two different selections; one for the promotees and another for direct recruits. He makes these submissions in the light of Rule 8(3), which is clearly premised on the application of the quota rota rule and the consequent right to seniority, only in a situation, where there is a single selection. He would submit that otherwise, the principle is enunciated in Rule 8(1), namely, that when the appointments are made from both sources, namely, by direct recruitment and promotion, then the date of substantive appointment will govern the issue. He would submit that otherwise, the principle is enunciated in Rule 8(1), namely, that when the appointments are made from both sources, namely, by direct recruitment and promotion, then the date of substantive appointment will govern the issue. He would next point out that Rule 22(4) of the 2006 Rules, which apparently would be the sheet anchor of the respondents, has no application. In this regard, he would place reliance on the admitted position on facts that no combined list under Rule 17 of the 2006 Rules has been prepared in this case. He posed the question, if the combined seniority list as contemplated in Rule 17 of the 2006 Rules has not been prepared, how can there be a scope for applying Rule 22(4) of the 2006 Rules? Therefore, he would submit that the Authorities should have fixed seniority with reference to the well settled principles in the field and also the compulsory mandate of Rule 22(1) read with Rule 8(1). He would also emphasize that in the litigation before the Tribunal, a perusal of the relief granted by the Tribunal would leave none in any doubt that seniority was to be determined on the basis of the date of substantive appointment as the Tribunal has referred only to Rule 22(1) of the 2006 Rules read with Rule 8(1) of the 2002 Rules. 22. Per contra, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would, in fact, submit that it is true that no combined seniority list was prepared. In fact, in the presence of the officer, who had come to assist him, the stand taken was that there was lapse by the Public Service Commission in not preparing the combined seniority list. The line taken by the official respondents, in short, was that the list has to be put together as contemplated in Rule 17 by the selecting body, namely, the Public Service Commission, and there is no role to be attributed to the Department. He would further point out that, however, the list has now been prepared on the basis of the position, which would be occupied by the direct recruits and the promotees, had the combined seniority list been prepared. Seniority has been determined with reference to such a list, which has been put together with due adherence to the percentage or rather the quota, which is earmarked under Rule 5, which we have adverted to. Seniority has been determined with reference to such a list, which has been put together with due adherence to the percentage or rather the quota, which is earmarked under Rule 5, which we have adverted to. 23. Learned counsel for the direct recruits Mr. Alok Mahra would distinguish the Rulings, which have been cited and he would submit that this is not a case, where the direct recruits are claiming seniority with reference to the year of selection, nor are they claiming seniority with reference to the date of occurrence of the vacancies. Instead, they are only claiming seniority well within the year in which they were appointed but with reference to the quota or the cyclic order. He also does not dispute that there is no single selection, but he would submit that having regard to the mandate of Rule 22(4) and on harmonious construction of the Rules to be put together, the result would be that the list prepared by the official respondents cannot be treated as flawed. 24. We must, at this stage, refer to the Rulings, which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 25. In the case of State of Uttaranchal and another vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma reported in (2007) 1 SCC 683 , the respondent was claiming seniority from the date anterior to the date, on which he was actually given promotion. The Hon’ble Apex Court found that impermissible, and we may refer to Paragraphs 28, 29 and 34 of the said judgment: “28. It is clear from the above that a person appointed on promotion shall not get seniority of any earlier year but shall get the seniority of the year in which his/her appointment is made. Therefore, in the present fact situation the respondent cannot claim promotion from the date of occurrence of the vacancy which is 1995-96 but can only get promotion and seniority from the time he has been substantively appointed i.e. from 1999. Likewise, the seniority also will be counted against the promotion/appointment in the cadre from the date of issuance of order of substantive appointment in the said cadre, i.e. from 19.11.1999. 29. In a recent judgment of this court in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers Association (Direct Recruit) & Ors vs. State of U.P. & Ors 2006(9) Scale 577 , (Dr. AR. Likewise, the seniority also will be counted against the promotion/appointment in the cadre from the date of issuance of order of substantive appointment in the said cadre, i.e. from 19.11.1999. 29. In a recent judgment of this court in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers Association (Direct Recruit) & Ors vs. State of U.P. & Ors 2006(9) Scale 577 , (Dr. AR. Lakshmanan and Tarun Chatterjee) this Court was of the view that seniority has to be decided on the basis of Rules in force on the date of appointment, no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of K.C. Joshi vs. Union of India 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 272. In State of Bihar & Ors. 34. Another issue that deserves consideration is whether the year in which the vacancy accrues can have any relevance for the purpose of determining the seniority irrespective of the fact when the persons are recruited. Here the respondent’s contention is that since the vacancy arose in 1995-96 he should be given promotion and seniority from that year and not from 1999, when his actual appointment letter was issued by the appellant. This cannot be allowed as no retrospective effect can be given to the order of appointment order under the Rules nor is such contention reasonable to normal parlance. This was the view taken by this Court in the case of Jagdish Ch. Patnaik & Ors. vs. State of Orissa & Ors. 1998(4) SCC 456 . 36. This observation of the High Court in our view is erroneous. The High Court while observing that, "the appellants rejected the representation of the respondents on the ground that since the appointment letter was issued to the respondent on 19.11.1999, he is entitled to his seniority from that date. vs. State of Orissa & Ors. 1998(4) SCC 456 . 36. This observation of the High Court in our view is erroneous. The High Court while observing that, "the appellants rejected the representation of the respondents on the ground that since the appointment letter was issued to the respondent on 19.11.1999, he is entitled to his seniority from that date. The authority has failed to appreciate that if the fact of vacancy being accrued in the recruitment year 1995-96 i.e. on 1st May, 1996 and second vacancy on 1st June 1996 had come to the knowledge of the Commission the Commission could have given the promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. these dates, as the petitioner was entitled for the same and the Commission has found him suitable, which is evident from the promotion order dated 19.11.1999", has committed an error in understanding and appreciating Rule 17 and 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Group "B" Service Rules, 1995 and Rule 8 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991, which categorically states that the date of ’substantive appointment’ will be the date that shall be taken for determining promotion, seniority and other benefits.” 26. This is not a case, which involved a tussle between a direct recruit and a promotee. This is a case, which involved granting of seniority from the date, on which the vacancy was there for accommodating the promotee. In the absence of any Rule, which conferred the right of seniority from a date anterior to the date, on which the person was appointed, the Hon’ble Apex Court took the view that the respondent was not so entitled. 27. In the case of Pawan Pratap Singh and others vs. Reevan Singh and others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 267 , the question arose with respect to the recruitment to the post of Deputy Jailors. The recruitment was by two sources; direct recruitment and promotions. The actual question, which arose, has been set out in Paragraph 15 of the judgment, which reads as under: “The contention raised by the writ petitioner (first respondent herein) before the High Court was that in view of the second proviso to rule 5 of 1991 Rules, the Deputy Jailors who were selected in the selection which commenced in 1987 must be treated senior to those selected pursuant to the selection that commenced in 1990. The Division Bench agreed with this contention and held as follows: “………In our opinion the correct interpretation of the proviso to Rule 5 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Rules, 1991 is that persons like the petitioner who were selected in the selection process which commenced in 1987 should be treated as senior to there (sic) selected in selection process which commenced in 1990.” 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court did not find the judgment of the High Court correct. The reasons have been set out in Paragraphs 28 and 29. It is, thereafter, that the Court passed on to consider, whether it is Rule 8(1), which applies and held that it is Rule 8(1), which applies. Paragraphs 31 and 63 are extracted as under: “31. It is true that the controversy in hand relates to determination of seniority between two groups of direct recruits to the posts of Deputy Jailor, one appointed in 1991 through the selection made by the Selection 1 Commission and the other in 1994 by the UPPSC and the controversy does not relate to determination of inter se seniority between direct recruitees and the promotees, but that does not take away the applicability of rule 8 of the 1991 Rules. It is so because in the 1991 Rules, the basis of categorization for the purpose of determination of seniority is the method and manner for appointments in the service rules. It is in this view of the matter that rule 5, rule 6, rule 7 and rule 8 of the 1991 Rules provide for determination of seniority amongst different categories of appointments made under the service rules. Once it is held that rule 8 is applicable for determination of inter se seniority amongst 1991 and 1994 recruitees to the posts of Deputy Jailor, it is clear that their seniority has to be determined on the basis of their substantive appointments. 63. To the decisions referred to on this point in the main judgment I may add just one more in Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of J & K, (2000) 7 SCC 561 . The decision relates to a dispute of seniority between direct recruits and promotees but in that case the Court considered the question of ante-dating the date of recruitment on the ground that the vacancy against which the appointment was made had arisen long ago. The decision relates to a dispute of seniority between direct recruits and promotees but in that case the Court considered the question of ante-dating the date of recruitment on the ground that the vacancy against which the appointment was made had arisen long ago. In paragraph 18 of the decision 3 (at page 578 of the SCC) the Court framed one of the points arising for consideration in the case as follows: “(4) Whether the direct recruits could claim a retrospective date of recruitment from the date on which the post in direct recruitment was available, even though the direct recruit was not appointed by that date and was appointed long thereafter? ” This Court answered the question in the following terms: “Point 4: Direct recruits cannot claim appointment from date of vacancy in quota before their selection We have next to refer to one other contention raised by the respondent-direct recruits. They claimed that the direct recruitment appointment can be ante-dated from the date of occurrence of a vacancy in the direct recruitment quota, even if on that date the said person was not directly recruited. It was submitted that if the promotees occupied the quota belonging to direct recruits they had to be pushed down, whenever direct recruitment was made. Once they were so pushed down, even if the direct recruit came later, he should be put in the direct recruit slot from the date on which such a slot was available under the direct recruitment quota. This contention, in our view, cannot be accepted. The reason as to why this argument is wrong is that in service jurisprudence, a direct recruit can claim seniority only from the date of his regular appointment. He cannot claim seniority from a date when he was not borne in the service. This principle is well settled. In N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, Krishna Iyer, J. stated: Later direct recruit cannot claim deemed dates of appointment for seniority with effect from the time when direct recruitment vacancy arose. Seniority will depend upon length of service. 3 Again, in A. Janardhana v. Union of India, it was held that a later direct recruit cannot claim seniority from a date before his birth in the service or when he was in school or college. Seniority will depend upon length of service. 3 Again, in A. Janardhana v. Union of India, it was held that a later direct recruit cannot claim seniority from a date before his birth in the service or when he was in school or college. Similarly it was pointed out in A.N. Pathak v. Secretary to the Government that slots cannot be kept reserved for the direct recruits for retrospective appointments.” 29. In this case, now that we have set out the Rules, which are relevant for deciding this issue, we may proceed to express our opinion on the vexed issue, which is posed before us. Under the 2006 Rules, which, undoubtedly, are the Rules, which we should bear in mind, the scheme of selection, appointment and seniority for the post of Assistant Engineer would appear to be as follows: There is a percentage or rather a quota in regard to appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. A certain percentage is devoted to direct recruits and a quota is there for the promotees and the promotees are further subdivided into two categories, which we have already noticed. The appointing authority has to prepare a list of vacancies. This is to be done as there is a concept of year of recruitment, which is 1st of July to 30th of June of the next year. There is a difference between year of selection and year of recruitment and that had been the bone of contention between the parties before the Tribunal. We need not go into the said issue at all as it does not arise for our consideration in this writ petition. Under Rule 15, there is a procedure for direct recruitment. The task of selecting candidates is entrusted to the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission must undertake the task, as provided in the Rules. After it completes the task, it sends the list to the department. Equally, promotion is to be made again on the basis of selection done by the Government and the Public Service Commission together. We say this because an attempt was made to place the blame at the doorstep of the Public Service Commission by the Government. In other words, a statement was made that it is the Public Service Commission, which has bungled up the matter by not preparing the combined select list within the meaning of Rule 17. 30. We say this because an attempt was made to place the blame at the doorstep of the Public Service Commission by the Government. In other words, a statement was made that it is the Public Service Commission, which has bungled up the matter by not preparing the combined select list within the meaning of Rule 17. 30. We think the time is apposite now to deal with this aspect. Appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer by way of promotion is to be done in accordance with the Uttaranchal Promotion By Selection In Consultation With Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 2003. It is, therefore, necessary to refer to the Uttaranchal Promotion By Selection In Consultation With Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 2003 Rules). 31. Rule 5 of the 2003 Rules provides for the criterion for promotion. It reads as follows: “5. Criteria for promotion.—(1) Where any service rules provide either “Strict merit” or “primarily on merit” or “rigorous selection on merit from the whole field of eligibility” or however expressed, as lays primary stress on merit as the basis of selection for promotion the criterion to be followed and after commencement of these rules shall be “merit”. (2) Where any service rules provide either “Seniority” or “Seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit” or any such other criterion, howsoever expressed, as lays primary stress on seniority as the basis of selection for promotion, the criterion to be followed on and after the commencement of these rules shall be “seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit”. (3) In all cases in which no service rules exist, or in which the service rules do not lay down clearly which of two criteria for promotion mentioned in sub-rules (1) and (2) is to be followed such criterion of the two shall be followed as may be decided upon by the Governor in consultation with the Commission.” 32. Part III deals with the procedure for promotion where the criterion is merit. 33. Part IV deals with the procedure for promotion where the criterion is seniority subject to the rejection of unfit, which is the criterion, which is relevant for our purpose. It reads as follows: “17. Part III deals with the procedure for promotion where the criterion is merit. 33. Part IV deals with the procedure for promotion where the criterion is seniority subject to the rejection of unfit, which is the criterion, which is relevant for our purpose. It reads as follows: “17. Application of this part.—Where by virtue of the provisions of rule 5, promotion is to be made on the criterion of Seniority Subject to the rejection of the unfit, the procedure laid down in this part shall be followed. 18. Preparation of eligibility list.—(1) Except as otherwise provided in rule 19, the appointing authority shall prepare 3 lists to be called the eligibility lists of the senior-most eligible candidates from each of the sections namely General, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, separately, in the light of vacancies available for each of the said sections containing names, so far as may be, in the following proportion:- For 1 to 5 vacancies.—Two times the number of vacancies subject to a minimum of five. For over 5 vacancies.—1 ½ times the number of vacancies subject to a minimum of 10. The first proviso and the explanation to rule 8 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this rule. (2) The rest of the procedure prescribed in part III shall mutatis mutandis apply to promotion made under this part except that the select list referred to in pat III shall be prepared by the Selection Committee subject to the rejection of the unfit. 19. Power to dispense with Selection Committee.—Notwithstanding anything in rule 18 if in any case the number of vacancies to be filled in small, and the appointing authority considers the senior-most candidate or candidates clearly fit for promotion and accordingly no super session is involved, the Commission may, if it agrees with the view of the appointing authority, approved the proposal straightway. In that case no Selection Committee need be constituted and the candidate or candidates so approved shall be deemed to have been duly selected for promotion.” 34. Since Rule 18(2) provides that the procedure in Part III, which we have noticed, deals with the procedure of promotion where the merit is to apply, except that the select list in Part III is to be prepared on principle of seniority subject to rejection of unfit, we must advert to the said proviso also. Since Rule 18(2) provides that the procedure in Part III, which we have noticed, deals with the procedure of promotion where the merit is to apply, except that the select list in Part III is to be prepared on principle of seniority subject to rejection of unfit, we must advert to the said proviso also. “(2) The rest of the procedure prescribed in part III shall mutatis mutandis apply to promotion made under this part except that the select list referred to in pat III shall be prepared by the Selection Committee subject to the rejection of the unfit.” 35. Rule 8 in Part III contemplates preparation of eligibility list. Rule 9 contemplates sending of list to the commission. It reads as follows: “9. Sending of lists to commission.—The appointing authority shall forward to the Commission the eligibility list or lists together with the gradation list of all persons with in the field of eligibility and the character rolls of the candidates included in the eligibility list or lists and also intimate to it the number of vacancies of each year of recruitment for which selection is proposed.” 36. Rule 10 provides for the review of the eligibility list. It reads as follows: “10. Review of eligibility list.—If in any case the Commission feds that the requisite number of suitable candidates may not be available from amongst those names are included in the list or lists received by it under rule 9, it may ask the appointing authority to include therein the names and character rolls of such larger number of the senior-most, or of all, eligible candidates, as it thinks fit, and the appointing authority shall notwithstanding anything contained in rule 8, accordingly.” 37. Rule 11 deals with the Selection Committee, which is to consist of the Chairman or Member of the Commission, who is to be the Chairman of the Committee, the appointing authority, and a senior officer of that or any other officer nominated by the Government. 38. Rule 13 deals with the Select List. It reads as follows: “13. Rule 11 deals with the Selection Committee, which is to consist of the Chairman or Member of the Commission, who is to be the Chairman of the Committee, the appointing authority, and a senior officer of that or any other officer nominated by the Government. 38. Rule 13 deals with the Select List. It reads as follows: “13. Select List.—The Selection Committee shall prepare two lists in order of merit, namely select list, containing names of candidates recommended for substantive appointment against the permanent vacancies intimated to the Commission under rule 9: Provided that if recruitment is made for vacancies occurring during more than one year of recruitment, the selection in respect of each such year shall be made from the eligibility list prepared for that year. In such a case, the names of candidates selected against vacancies of one year will be excluded from the eligibility list or lists of subsequent year or years, as the case may be, before making the selection from eligibility lists of the second and subsequent years.” 39. Rule 14 declares that the Commission shall consider the recommendations of the Selection Committee and, thereafter, send the select list, as approved, to the appointing authority. 40. The appointing authority under Rule 15 is to rearrange the select list in order of seniority. In fact, appointments are declared to be made from the select list. 41. On perusal of these Rules and also Rule 15(5), which contemplates that the Committee has to forward the list to the appointing authority, it is crystal clear to us that the task of the Commission comes to an end after the preparation of the list in accordance with the appropriate criteria and the lists are sent to the concerned departments. Rule 17, in our view, clearly entrusts the task of preparation of combined seniority list with the department and the department cannot absolve itself of its responsibility to prepare the combined seniority list, and put the blame at the hands of the Commission. In fact, there is no wrong committed by the Commission in this regard. It is a case, where it is the department, which has committed an error and an illegality, if it has not prepared the combined seniority list within the meaning of Rule 17. 42. In fact, there is no wrong committed by the Commission in this regard. It is a case, where it is the department, which has committed an error and an illegality, if it has not prepared the combined seniority list within the meaning of Rule 17. 42. In the facts of this case, we must proceed on the basis that no combined seniority list within the meaning of Rule 17 was prepared. Also, on a conspectus of the Rules, we would further think that the intention of the Law-giver was that upon receipt of the list relating to promotees and the list relating to direct recruits, being prepared by the Commission, as provided under Rules 15 and 16, the same are sent to the department. They must prepare a combined seniority list. The manner of preparing the combined seniority list is as predicated in Rule 17, namely, they must take the names of the candidates from the select list in such a manner that a prescribed percentage (prescribed under the Rules) is maintained and the further condition is that the first name in the list will be that of a promotee. Therefore, it is a case, where the Appointing Authority is entrusted with the task of making such appointments by preparing a combined seniority list. 43. Next, we must see the effect of Rule 19(1). Rule 19(1) contemplates that the appointing authority is obliged to make appointments by taking the names of the candidates in the order, in which they stand in the list, which is prepared under Rules 15, 16, 17 and 18, as the case may be. We may straightway eliminate Rule 18 as it does not deal with the case of Assistant Engineers. Taking Rules 15, 16 and 17, we may notice that in respect of the post of Assistant Engineers, the intention appears to be that after preparation of lists of direct recruits and promotees by the Public Service Commission and they are forwarded to the Government Department, the Department, as we have already noticed, is obliged to prepare a combined seniority list under Rule 17. The combined seniority list must give effect to the percentage prescribed under Rule (5) and, on the said basis, appointments are to be made in the order, in which the parties’ names figure in the list, as we have already noticed that under the Rules of 2003, when the list is prepared and sent to the Department, the Department must rearrange it in the order of seniority in regard to the source of recruitment by way of promotion. 44. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 19 contemplates the concern of the Rule-maker about a situation, which may arise, where in a year of recruitment, appointments are made from both direct recruits and promotees and selection is not made from both sources. The Rule-maker has taken care of this contingency by providing that in such a situation, no regular appointment shall be made. Instead, they must resort apparently to ad-hoc appointments. The rationale behind this is that ordinarily seniority flows from the date of the regular appointment. In such a contingency, the proper course would be to make only ad-hoc appointments from other sources, from which the candidates are available. 45. Rule 19 (3) also purports to reinforce the cyclic order. Passing on now to the last remaining Rule, which is Rule 22, we must here first notice certain features about this Rule. Rule 22 (1) contemplates that the seniority of persons substantively appointed is to be determined with reference to the 2002 Rules. It does contemplate a person being given appointment from an anterior date but that is rendered permissible and possible if the order specifically recites that the appointment will take effect from the anterior date. In other words, appointment from earlier date, which in turn would clothe an employee with right to consequential seniority, is possible provided the order of appointment expressly says so. Rule 22(2) deals with the inter-se seniority of persons, who are directly recruited. Rule 22(3) deals with seniority of persons, who are appointed by way of promotion and it declares that the seniority will be the same as they had in the feeding category. 46. Rule 22(2) deals with the inter-se seniority of persons, who are directly recruited. Rule 22(3) deals with seniority of persons, who are appointed by way of promotion and it declares that the seniority will be the same as they had in the feeding category. 46. The next Rule, around which the destiny of this case revolves, proceeds to declare that when appointments are made by both promotion and direct recruitment from more than one source and the respective quota of the source is prescribed, the inter se seniority shall be determined by rearranging the names in cyclic order in the combined seniority list prepared in accordance with Rule 17 in such manner that the prescribed percentage is maintained. 47. Now, we must, at this juncture, notice what the 2002 Rules provide. This is relevant insofar as Rule 8(1) of the 2002 Rules provides that when appointments are made by direct recruitment and promotion, the date of the substantive appointment will govern. Rule 8(3), no doubt, contemplates a situation, where promotions and direct recruitments were made in one single selection. 48. We may, at once, notice two aspects. Firstly, when the 2006 Rules were made, they were obviously later in point of time than the 2002 Rules. The 2002 Rules are general Rules applicable to all Government servants, whereas, the 2006 Rules appear to be the Rules governing this particular department. In that sense, it may not be incorrect to characterize them as special Rules applicable to the concerned department. Secondly, they are Rules, which are later in point of time. While it must be the task of the Court to give effect to the Rules, in the presence of conflict, it becomes our duty to harmoniously consider both sets of Rules and, if possible, to give life to all provisions. It is true that in the impugned order, the Secretary of the department against whom there are other complaints, which we will deal with, has proceeded to state that there is one single selection. This obviously is not correct and can only be attributed to an erroneous understanding of the facts. It is quite clear that the selection for promotion of direct recruits are different and it is not a case of a single selection; the year of selection is also different and this is an aspect, which may not detain us. This obviously is not correct and can only be attributed to an erroneous understanding of the facts. It is quite clear that the selection for promotion of direct recruits are different and it is not a case of a single selection; the year of selection is also different and this is an aspect, which may not detain us. Rule 22(4), we may notice, does not refer to a single selection - a concept, which is found embedded in Rule 8(3) of the 2002 Rules. We are not inclined to think that it has to be read into Rule 22(4) that there has to be a single selection for making appointment. We cannot read a casus omissus and say that the omission is something, which the Court must apply. So we may take Rule 22(4) as it is, and we cannot presume that the Rule-maker intended that Rule 22(4) will apply only if there is one single selection. Nothing stood in the way of the Rule-maker to include the words ‘single selection’ in Rule 22(4), if that was their intention. Next, we must notice that if the intention was that Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules must completely govern the fate of the members of the service in regard to the seniority, what prompted the Rule-maker to include Rule 22(4), as Rule 8(3) would completely encompass all cases, where the seniority is to be determined inter se between the promotees and the direct recruits. 49. The argument of Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioners would appear to be that unless there is a single selection, there cannot be any occasion for applying Rule 8(3) and also for applying the seniority based on cyclic order with reference to Rule 17. 50. It is true, as we have noticed, that the scheme of the rules is that upon receipt of lists from the Public Service Commission in regard to direct recruits and promotees in regard to the post of Assistant Engineer, the department must embark upon the task of preparing a combined seniority list based on the quota as contemplated under Rule 5. Thereafter, appointments must be made. All regular appointments must be made only when candidates from both sources are available. Thereafter, appointments must be made. All regular appointments must be made only when candidates from both sources are available. This would ensure adherence to the percentage prescribed in Rule 5 and it will also give a quietus to any future dispute relating to seniority, which may arise in between the parties based on their respective appointments. We must, however, in this case, proceed with the fait accompli which is that the combined seniority list under Rule 17 has not been prepared by the department. This resulted in the appointments of the direct recruits being made though in the same year of recruitment, and not with reference to the cyclic order but belatedly. This is not the mistake or omission of the direct recruits in not joining within the time, which was allotted to them. There is no such case before us. 51. In Rule 22(4), we notice that the Rule-maker has categorically declared that seniority must be determined in a situation, where appointments are made both by promotion and direct recruitment from more than one source and there is a quota prescribed on the basis of arranging the names in a cyclic order in a combined list prepared in accordance with Rule 17. 52. The argument of Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioners is that Rule 22 (1) of the 2006 Rules and Rule 8(1) of the 2002 Rules together contemplate fixation of seniority on the post from the date of substantive appointment. If the combined seniority list is prepared under Rule 17 in time by the department, then obviously appointment will be made only on the basis of the list. Rule 22(4) provides for a different yardstick to determine seniority in the cases, where appointments are made in a year from both direct recruits and promotees. The principle of inter-se seniority is clearly declared with reference to the percentage prescribed, which necessitates the maintenance of the percentage declared under Rule 5 and also the cyclic order in the combined list to be prepared in accordance with Rule 17. 53. We may, at once, notice that there is absolutely no case for the petitioners/promotees that in the impugned seniority list, violence has been caused to the cyclic order, in that, the percentage under Rule 5 has been contravened. 53. We may, at once, notice that there is absolutely no case for the petitioners/promotees that in the impugned seniority list, violence has been caused to the cyclic order, in that, the percentage under Rule 5 has been contravened. There is no case for the promotees, in other words, that the direct recruits were appointed in excess of the percentage. There is no case that promotees have not been promoted in terms of the percentage or that direct recruits have been promoted in excess of the percentage. This is also not a case, where seniority is being given from a date anterior to the recruitment year. In other words, seniority has been given with reference to the very same year, in which the appointment orders were issued. This does not involve violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a person cannot claim seniority with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancies. This also does not violate the mandate of the law laid down that the year of recruitment is what matters and not the year of selection. We are in full agreement with the Tribunal that it is the year of recruitment which matters and unless the Rules otherwise provide, there can be no occasion for an employee to claim that since the vacancy arose on a much earlier date and he is appointed much later, he is entitled to claim the seniority with reference to the date on which the vacancy arose. None of these principles are in issue in this case. What has happened is that there was a lapse on the part of the department in preparing the combined seniority list under Rule 17 and consequently, there was also a lapse on the part of the department in making regular appointments from both sources in accordance with the cyclic order, which is to be done in accordance with the percentage prescribed or in other words, the quota. 54. Now, it is time for us to also deal with what happened in the Tribunal in greater detail. The Issue before the Tribunal was, whether it is the recruitment year or whether it is the year of selection, which is relevant. It is there that the Tribunal took the view that it is the year of recruitment, which is relevant. It is true that the Tribunal, as pointed out by Mr. The Issue before the Tribunal was, whether it is the recruitment year or whether it is the year of selection, which is relevant. It is there that the Tribunal took the view that it is the year of recruitment, which is relevant. It is true that the Tribunal, as pointed out by Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, directed that the seniority list be redrawn in accordance with Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules and Rule 22 of the 2006 Rules and it was followed up by the words “as discussed above” treating the private respondents, who are petitioners here, as appointed in the recruitment year 2010-11. 55. A perusal of paragraph 17 would, however, show that the Tribunal did have in mind the duty to look at the matter in the context of Rule 17 of the 2006 Rules and fixation of seniority on the basis of cyclic order. We say this because there is a challenge, which no doubt was not seriously pressed before us relating to the order of the Tribunal. Even though the Tribunal gave a direction to redraw the seniority list with reference to Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules and Rule 22 of the 2006 Rules, it is also to be done in context of the discussion which preceded the order. Discussion also includes Paragraph 17. Paragraph 17 also refers to Rule 17 of the 2006 Rules. 56. In such circumstances, we would think that while no doubt the ordinary operation of the Rules must be as we have already stated, namely, on receipt of the lists from the Public Service Commission, order should be passed by making changes to accommodate the claims to seniority, as per Rules and a combined list is to be prepared bearing in mind the percentage under Rule 5. The first name in the list is to be taken of a promotee and thereafter regular appointments are to be made by the department in accordance with the position in the combined seniority list and this would clearly reduce or rather eliminate all controversies relating to seniority as appointments would be made and this would bring with it the right to seniority as is contemplated in Rule 8(1) of the 2002 Rules. But in this case we would think that the matter must be governed when it comes to inter-se seniority with reference to the position in the cyclic order and the percentage, which is prescribed. This case does not involve a direct recruit staking a claim for seniority with reference to an earlier year. The seniority is fixed with reference to the very same year, in which they were appointed. In fact, we may, notice the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied on by Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 285 of 2016, namely, U.D. Lama and others Vs. State of Sikkim and others reported in (1997) 1 SCC 111 . Therein, the Hon’ble Apex Court, inter alia, held as follows: “20. On the other hand, it cannot be overlooked that the appellants were not appointed by following the regular procedure of appointment. Under Rule 4(1), recruitment could be made to the newly created State Civil Service by competitive examinations to be held by the Sikkim Public Service Commission. This competition is not confined to persons who are already in Government employment. The second method of recruitment is selection from persons "serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Sikkim". In the second category of recruitment, specifically no provision of holding written and viva voce test has been laid down. The respondents claim that had the procedure in rule 4(1)(b) been followed, they would have got into the Service without any examination. But their lawful exception was denied by the failure of the Government to set up a Commission or appoint a Chairman. What would have happened in normal course, did not happen because of the Government’s failure. Only because of this, quite contrary to the Rules, a written and oral tests were held. This was upheld by this Court principally on the ground of what was described as "peculiar situation" which was created by the absence of a Commission and its Chairman. The selection and appointments made in 1982 were dictated by peculiar circumstances obtaining at that time. The appointments were not made strictly in accordance with the Rules but, as was held by this Court, in exercise of the executive power of the State. The selection and appointments made in 1982 were dictated by peculiar circumstances obtaining at that time. The appointments were not made strictly in accordance with the Rules but, as was held by this Court, in exercise of the executive power of the State. It is true that some of the respondents appeared in the test and did not qualify but there is substance in the contention of the respondents that they were entitled to be appointed even without these tests if Rule 4(1)(b) was followed. They were deprived of this chance. Even for Rule 4(1)(b), the instrumentality of Public Service Commission was necessary for making any appointment. Now that the Public Service Commission has been set up, the State Government has to undo the wrong that was initially done to these employees by subjecting them to tests which was not warranted by Rule 4(1)(b). Therefore, they should not be made to suffer in the matter of seniority or promotion in any way by failure of the State Government to implement the Rules laid down by it. In these circumstances by directing the new recruits to be treated to have been recruited on the day the appellants were recruited, the State Government has not done anything contrary or wrong but has really restored the injustice done to the respondents by the State Government’s failure to recruit them into the Service in accordance with Rule 4(1)(b). In fact, the only door that was open to the appellants under the Rules to enter the Service was through Rule 4(1)(b). They might have also joined through open competition but neither of the two steps were taken or could be taken. In these circumstances, the appellants have really tried to steal a march upon the respondents by being successful in the tests which should not have been held in any event. 21. We are of the view that the contention of the respondents must be upheld. The point in dispute has been examined in depth by two Committees set up by the State Government. The earlier judgment of this Court upholding the recruitment of the appellants was because of the failure of the State Government to appoint the State Public Service Commission. As no appointments were being made for a number of years, the Government adopted the device of holding a written test which was not laid down by the Rules. The earlier judgment of this Court upholding the recruitment of the appellants was because of the failure of the State Government to appoint the State Public Service Commission. As no appointments were being made for a number of years, the Government adopted the device of holding a written test which was not laid down by the Rules. This Court held that under the peculiar circumstances, it was justified. This, however, does not mean that the State Government would not be entitled to regularise the service on the basis of the rules framed. The appellants who were appointed under very special circumstances cannot claim any special right in the matter of promotion or seniority. It was not the fault of the respondents that appointments according to rules could not be made in time. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court has come to a correct decision. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.” 57. We would, therefore, think that the case of the promotees should not be accepted. We would think that the preparation of the list as done does not contravene to the direction of the Tribunal. The authority has borne in mind the Rules, no doubt, proceeding on the misapprehension that there is only a single selection, but it is supportable with reference to Rule 22(4), which even without presence of a single selection contemplates preparation of inter-se seniority with reference to cyclic order as provided therein. There is no dispute that appointments were made in 2010-11 and subsequent years from both sources, namely, promotees and direct recruits. 58. One of the contentions of Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the promotees was that originally after the direction of the Public Service Tribunal, an attempt was made to do things in the correct way. A list was prepared by the authorities. It is, thereafter, that the Secretary, without any basis and authority, proceeded to give a hearing to the officers and he brought in the concept of combined select list in Rule 17 and also the idea of single selection, which was not there. We would think that giving a hearing by itself can not be a ground for setting aside a seniority list, which is otherwise not found flawed. We would think that giving a hearing by itself can not be a ground for setting aside a seniority list, which is otherwise not found flawed. As far as the single selection not being there, we have already expressed our view with reference to Rule 22 (4); it may not be fatal even if there is no single selection as long as the appointments are made from both the sources and in the same year. We have already taken the view that the 2006 Rules are later in point of time; they are special Rules having regard to the fact that it specifically caters to the Minor Irrigation Department and further the Rule-maker must be presumed to be conscious of the contents of the 2002 Rules when they enacted the 2006 Rules and this will also fortify us in taking the view that Rule 22(4) must be given full play in the facts of this case, which we do. 59. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal would, no doubt, contend that in the order, there is reference by the authority to both Rule 8(3) and Rule 22(4). The authority has proceeded on the basis that there is a single selection, which is relevant only if Rule 8(3) is allowed to have full play. Rule 8(3) cannot apply as there is no single selection. Therefore, there is no basis for supporting the order based on Rule 22(4). 60. We do not think that we should accept this argument as we find that Rule 22(4) is the Rule which will apply in the facts of this case and as we have already noticed and we reiterate that the absence of a single selection may not be fatal to applying Rule 22(4) and we reject the said argument. 61. It is, no doubt, true that the concept of substantive appointment is not entirely irrelevant as that will have play in its own sphere, but when the matter of inter-se seniority is to be determined between promotees and direct recruits then it must be determined with reference to the mandate of Rule 17 read with Rule 5 and the concept of cyclic order would come in and, therefore, we do not find merit in the said contention. 62. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.