JUDGMENT : M.S. Karnik, J. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 21/07/2016 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original Application No. 735 of 2015 and Original Application No. 214 of 2016. The petitioners No. 1 to 5 are the original applicants in Original Application No. 735 of 2015. 3. OA No. 735 of 2015 is filed by those Junior Engineers in the Public Works Division who acquired Engineering Degree or AMIE qualification while in service and were given benefit of ?th of their service as Junior Engineer (diploma holder) for seniority as degree holder Junior Engineer. In the OA before the Tribunal, they have challenged the Circular dated 21/08/2015 issued by Public Works Department which has cancelled the final seniority list published on 07/07/2015 and restored the final seniority list published on 06/09/2014. The respondents No. 4 to 9 are Assistant Engineers Grade II selected by Maharashtra Public Service Commission (for short 'MPSC') who have been placed above the petitioners in the seniority list. OA No. 214 of 2016 was filed by another group of Junior Engineers seeking the similar reliefs. 4. The petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Engineers on Work Charged Establishment from 1984 to 1986 on different dates. The services of the petitioners came to an end on 31/07/1987. The respondents decided to accommodate such Junior Engineers in government service in phases. First G.R. reappointing 233 Junior Engineers was issued on 06/12/1989 and another on 30/11/1993. The G.R. dated 30/11/1993 relaxed the condition of the recruitment in the cadre of Assistant Engineer Grade II through MPSC. The appointments were to be made as per seniority of the Junior Engineers on the Work Charged Establishment. In the G.R. dated 30/11/1993, it was also stated that those who join within 15 days from the date of appointment, their interse services in the cadre of Junior Engineer would be maintained. The appointment letters of the petitioners were issued on 22/12/1993 and 27/12/1993. However, some of the petitioners received letters in the first week of January 1994. The petitioner's claim is that some of their colleagues joined services (Shri Kiran Kedar Patil) on 31/12/1993 while the petitioners could join after 01/01/1994. The petitioners case is that they should be deemed to have joined services on 31/12/1993. 5. However, some of the petitioners received letters in the first week of January 1994. The petitioner's claim is that some of their colleagues joined services (Shri Kiran Kedar Patil) on 31/12/1993 while the petitioners could join after 01/01/1994. The petitioners case is that they should be deemed to have joined services on 31/12/1993. 5. Those Junior Engineers who have degree in Engineering or those who acquired such degree or AMIE qualification are designated as Assistant Engineer Grade - II. Since this post came within the purview of MPSC, Recruitment Rules for Assistant Engineer Grade II was notified on 16/06/1997. These rules are called as the Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II in the Maharashtra Engineering Services, Group B (Recruitment) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997). Since the petitioners were appointed before August 1986, they came to be included in the list of 427 Junior Engineers who are in government service as on 31/07/1987. According to the petitioners, the Recruitment Rules of 1997 made material changes to the G.R. dated 30/11/1993. Accordingly, those who have completed 3 years service as on 31/12/1996 were eligible to be regularized on the basis of Limited Competitive Examination which was to be held by MPSC in 199798 which was in the nature of viva-voce. Junior Engineers who joined before 31/12/1993 and who completed 3 year's service on 31/12/1996 could have their services regularized on the basis of limited examination by MPSC. In respect of those junior Engineers who joined after 01/01/1994 they were required to compete with fresh candidates in the competitive examination to be conducted by MPSC. 6. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1997 is reproduced hereinunder : "8. Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 3, the temporary appointment made to the posts till the 31st December, 1996, may be regularized in the following manner : (a) The person who have completed minimum three years of continuous service as on 31st December 1996 and have satisfied the requirements of qualification and age limit mentioned in rule 3, at the time of their appointment, shall have to qualify in viva-voce or Limited Competitive Examination to be held by the Commission during 1997-98. (b) Services of those persons who will qualify in such examination will be regularized. (b) Services of those persons who will qualify in such examination will be regularized. (c) The seniority of such qualified persons shall be fixed as per the existing rules notified vide Government Notification, General Administration Department No. SRV.1076/XII dated 21st June 1982 regarding fixation of seniority. (d) The services of persons who do not qualify in such examination shall be terminated by the Government. (e) The person who have been appointed to the posts on or after 1st January, 1994 but on or before 31st December 1996 and who possess the qualification mentioned in rule 3(ii) shall, in relaxation if necessary of the age limit prescribed in rule 3(i) be required to get selected in the first attempt in the regular combined competitive examination to be held by the commission during 199798. Service of such persons who have not been selected in the above competitive examination shall be terminated by the Government, and the seniority of selected persons shall be fixed in accordance with the rules mentioned in Government Notification, dated the 21st June, 1982, mentioned in rule 8(c)." 7. Rule 8 of the said Rules of 1997 provided for procedure to be followed for regularization of adhoc Assistant Engineer Grade II. In July/August 1997 MPSC conducted oral examination for only those adhoc Assistant Engineers who had completed minimum 3 years service on 31/12/1996. Almost 509 such adhoc engineers appeared for this examination and out of them 495 passed the oral examination whereas remaining 14 failed. No steps were taken by the Government to regularize these 495 adhoc engineers on their passing of the oral examination conducted by MPSC as per Rule 8 of Recruitment Rules 1997. 8. Written examination was conducted by MPSC on 13th & 14th of December 1998 of those examinees who had applied directly through MPSC pursuant to the advertisement issued, as well as of those adhoc assistant Engineers Class - II who had less than 2 year's service as on 31/12/1996. At least 97% of adhoc engineers who had less than 3 year's service on 31/12/1996 failed in that examination as per the result published on 20/04/1999. Successful candidates were called for viva-voce which was conducted in May-June 1999 and final list was published on 19/09/1999. 9. At least 97% of adhoc engineers who had less than 3 year's service on 31/12/1996 failed in that examination as per the result published on 20/04/1999. Successful candidates were called for viva-voce which was conducted in May-June 1999 and final list was published on 19/09/1999. 9. The respondents passed a resolution dated 01/03/2000 amending Rule 8 of Recruitment Rules of 1997 and procedure for regularization of the adhoc Assistant Engineers Class II was sought to be changed. This resolution came to be challenged in WP No. 2480 of 2000 filed in this Court. On 06/03/2003, WP No. 2480 of 2000 came to be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal. Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court against the order of this Court dated 06/03/2003 was dismissed on 10/04/2003. The petitioners therein then approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 421 of 2003 and after hearing all concerned parties, the OA was finally decided on 11/09/2003. Operative part of the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 421 of 2003 reads thus : "The Original Application is partly allowed. The Government Resolution dated 01/03/2000 is partly held to be invalid and set aside. It is invalid in respect of 507 posts of Assistant Engineers Grade II (Class II) (Civil) contemplated by Group "B" and in respect of 399 posts of Assistant Engineers Grade II (Class II)(Civil)contemplated by Group "C", It is made clear that they can be regularized following the Rules of 1997. The rest of the G.R. is upheld. O.A disposed off accordingly." 10. The applicants in OA No. 421 of 2003 approached this Court challenging the order dated 11/09/2003 passed by the Tribunal. On 26/07/2006 this Court partly allowed the Petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal and OA No. 421 of 2003 was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12960 of 2006 filed by some of the adhoc appointees challenging the order of this Court dated 26/07/2006 before the Apex Court was allowed and the Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the order dated 26/07/2006 passed by this Court and the matter was remanded back to this Court for fresh consideration of WP No. 7415 of 2003 and other connected Wps. 11. Upon remand by the Apex Court & during the pendency of WP Nos. 11. Upon remand by the Apex Court & during the pendency of WP Nos. 7415/2003, 6619/1998, 7414/2003, 8246/2003 and 8607/2003, the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification on 08/07/2009 and published Assistant Engineers (Civil) (Grade II) in Maharashtra Services of Engineers Group B Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2009' for short). Under the said Rules of 2009, the State Government amended Rule 8 of Recruitment Rules of 1997. As challenge to the G.R. dated 01/03/2000 did not survive in view of amended Rules of 2009, the said WPs were amended and Rule 8 was made subject matter of challenge in the said Petitions. 12. At this stage, it is material to note here that the petitioner No.2 herein Shri Shyam Keshavrao Jahagirdar was a party to WP No. 6619 of 1998 as petitioner No.1. Rule 8 of Rules of 2009 as amended reads thus : "Amended Rule - 2009 8. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 3, the appointments made to the posts till the 16th June, 1997, shall be regularized in the following manner, namely : (a) The persons appointed on regular basis during the period from the 2nd April 1981 to the 16th April 1984 to the post of Graduate Junior Engineers (Class - III) either through the State Selection Board or from the candidates who have given bonds for serving in Government service as per the then prescribed procedure for appointment, shall have to pass vivavoce test that shall be the qualifying examination to be held by the Commission during the period 20092010 or immediately thereafter to enable them to be absorbed in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, Grade II (Junior Gazetted Class II) created for Graduate Junior Engineers vide Government Resolution, Irrigation Department No. CDS 1582/158(215)/EST 10, dated the 16th April 1984. (b) The Diploma holder Junior Engineers regularly appointed in Class III post and who have obtained AMIE (Equivalent to B.E. Degree) or B.E. Degree while in service have been given benefit of ?th of service rendered as Junior Engineer, during the period from the 1st April, 1981 to 16th June 1997, in the light of the provisions of the Government Resolution, irrigation Department, No. S.L.S. 2681/1273/(500)/EST (8), dated the 29th November 1984. Such persons shall have to pass viva-voce test that shall be the qualifying examination, to be held by the Commission during 20092010 or immediately thereafter, to enable them to be absorbed in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, Grade II, vide Government Resolution dated 16th April, 1984. (c) Services of persons appointed on temporary basis to the post of Assistant Engineer, Grade II during the period from the 17th April 1984 to 21st December 1996 and who have already qualified in viva voce test held by the Commission from the 7th August 1997 to 2nd September 1997 and those who have qualified in the combined competitive examination held by the Commission during the period from the 12th December 1998 to 13th December, 1998 shall be regularized in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, Grade II from the date of their initial appointment in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, Grade II. (d) The persons appointed during this period from 17th April 1984 to 31st December 1996 and not qualified in the above said viva-voce test or Combined Competitive Examination as the case may be held by the Commission shall have to pass in the viva-voce test to be held by the Commission during the period 20092010 or immediately thereafter, to enable them to get regularized in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, Grade - II. (e) Persons who do not pass such viva-voce test shall be given second opportunity to appear for the vivavoce test to be held by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, to enable them to get their services regularized in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, Grade - II. (f) The persons who do not pass in the second attempt shall be given one more opportunity by way of last chance to appear for the viva-voce test to be held by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, to enable them to get their services regularized in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, Grade (g) The services of persons mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) of this rule, who pass the viva-voce test to be held by the Commission during the period 20092010 or immediately thereafter, shall be regularized in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, Grade - II from the date of their initial appointment, either in the cadre of Graduate Junior Engineers or Assistant Engineer, Grade II. (h) The persons who do no pass vivavoce as provided in the clause (f), their services as Assistant Engineer, Grade - II shall be terminated. Provided that if such persons give an undertaking to the effect that they are ready to get absorbed in the cadre of Junior Engineer, Group - B (Non Grzetted) (which is below that of Assistant Engineer, Grade II) with the placement at the bottom of the seniority list of the particular year in which viva-voce test is held, then such persons shall be absorbed in that cadres. (i) The persons who were appointed during the period from 2nd April 1981 to 16th June 1997 and who have either retired on superannuation or voluntarily retired or left the above referred post for any other reasons, shall be deemed to be regularized in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, Grade - II. (j) The seniority of such persons except those who have passed combined competitive examination mentioned in clause (c) and the persons mentioned in clause (d), shall be fixed in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, Grade II, as per the provisions of the first proviso to sub rule (1) to Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982 and the Seniority of such persons mentioned in clause (d) shall be fixed at the bottom of the directly recruited batch joined in the year 2001." 13. The said WPs (7415/2003, 6619/1998, 7414/2003, 8246/2003 and 8607/2003,) came to be decided by this Court by its judgment and order dated 17/03/2010. It is material to reproduce paragraphs 4 & 6 of the order passed by this Court which reads thus : "4. There is no dispute between the parties that the Government Resolution dated 1.3.2000 was not acted upon at any time and an amendment of the Recruitment Rules on 8.7.2009, the said G.R. ceased to exist and therefore, the challenged to the said G.R. as well as to the order passed by the Tribunal came to an end. We are therefore, required to examine only the challenge to the amended Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, providing for the regularization of the adhoc and temporary appointed Assistant Engineer, Grade - II in this group of petitions. 6. The petitioners are the direct appointees through MPSC. We are therefore, required to examine only the challenge to the amended Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, providing for the regularization of the adhoc and temporary appointed Assistant Engineer, Grade - II in this group of petitions. 6. The petitioners are the direct appointees through MPSC. The crux of the petitioner's grievance is regarding their seniority and it is contended that the Amended Rule 8 is unconstitutional as under the said Rule, ad hoc appointees, who were unsuccessful in the selection by the MPSC in the year 199798, would be ranked senior to them enmass, as the regularization under it is sought to be made from the date of initial appointment on ad hoc basis." Emphasis supplied 14. It is also material to quote paragraph 16 and operative portion of order at paragraph 17 : "16. We have limited the scope of our considerations in these petitions only on the issue of seniority and not to the issue of regularization of the temporary appointees and in any case there is not much of a serious challenge to the decision for regularization of these temporary appointees who came to be appointed prior to 01/01/1997. On the preliminary points regarding the maintainability of the petitions so as to challenge the validity of the amended Rules, we wish to state that the Rules have been amended while the petitions were pending and we have allowed the amendment to the petition memo so as to challenge the amended Rules. It is also pertinent to note that the petitions were remanded for fresh hearing by the Apex Court and by the amended Rules, nothing further survived in the challenge raised in the petitions to the GR dated 01/03/2000 and the judgment and order dated 11/09/2003 rendered by the tribunal. Asking the petitioners to go back to the tribunal to challenge the validity of the amended Rule 8 would have resulted in a multiplicity of litigation, which ought to be prevented. Asking the petitioners to go back to the tribunal to challenge the validity of the amended Rule 8 would have resulted in a multiplicity of litigation, which ought to be prevented. At the same time, the uncertainty about the validity of the amended Rule ought to be settled at the earliest possible and in any case, as we have noted earlier, as and when the State Government draws the seniority list based on the amended Rule 8 and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they have to take recourse to file an application under the Administrative Tribunals Act, at the first instance and we cannot presume, at this stage, that the State Government will act contrary to the amended Rule 8 and show the petitioners juniors to the engineers who are sought to be regularized under Clauses (d) to (f) of the said Rule. 17. In the premises, these petitions fail and the same are hereby dismissed. We hold that the amended Rule 8 does not cause any prejudice, on the point of seniority, to the petitioners and if any of them are shown in the seniority list, to be drawn by the State Government, as juniors to the engineers to be absorbed in Clauses (d), (e) and (f) of the said Rule, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Rule discharged. Costs in cause." 15. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents published a final list on 06/09/2014. However, the same was not in accordance with the Rules. Thereafter the respondents corrected the final seniority list and published a final seniority list on 07/07/2015. The respondents however realised that the said seniority list dated 07/07/2015 is not in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of 2009 and therefore, by the Circular dated 21/08/2015 restored the final seniority list published on 06/09/2014 by cancelling the seniority list published on 07/07/2015. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the seniority list published on 07/07/2015 should be restored and the impugned Circular dated 21/08/2015 restoring the seniority list published on 06/09/2014 be set aside. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the seniority list published on 07/07/2015 should be restored and the impugned Circular dated 21/08/2015 restoring the seniority list published on 06/09/2014 be set aside. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that they therefore approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 735 of 2015 & OA No. 214 of 2016 challenging the Circular dated 21/08/2015 by virtue of the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 17/03/2010 in WP No. 7415 of 2003. According to the petitioners they are entitled to the regularization of their services and entitled to seniority over respondents No. 4 to 9. 16. At this juncture, it is material to take into consideration the objection raised by the State Government and also learned Counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 9. It is pointed out that issue about grant of benefit of regularization from the date of initial entry into the service was already decided by the Tribunal by judgment dated 08/08/1997 in OA No. 464 of 1997. As a result, the petitioners who are admittedly appointed in January 1994 were held ineligible for regularization in service without appearing for Combined Competitive Examination which was to be conducted by MPSC. The relief to treat one of the petitioners as being appointed on 31/12/1993 was categorically rejected by the Tribunal as far back as on 08/08/1997 in OA No. 464 of 1997. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents, once the issue of regularization of the petitioners service has attained finality, the petitioners cannot again reopen the issue and claim the same relief on the basis of the liberty granted by this Court. Moreover, the petitioners challenge to the amended Rule 8 of Rules of 2009 has failed. 17. The Tribunal has observed that Writ Petitions were dismissed and liberty was given to the petitioners therein to approach the Tribunal if the engineers to be absorbed in terms of clauses (d), (e) & (f) of Rule 8 of the said rules were shown as senior to the petitioners. According to the Tribunal the liberty given by this Court vide its order dated 17/03/2010 is for "direct recruits". The Tribunal held that the petitioner No.2 herein, though a petitioner in WP No. 6619/1998, cannot claim the benefit of the liberty as the liberty was meant only to direct recruits. 18. According to the Tribunal the liberty given by this Court vide its order dated 17/03/2010 is for "direct recruits". The Tribunal held that the petitioner No.2 herein, though a petitioner in WP No. 6619/1998, cannot claim the benefit of the liberty as the liberty was meant only to direct recruits. 18. Learned Counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 9 contends that a reading of the order dated 17/03/2010 passed by this Court, especially paragraph 6 quoted herein before, would clearly indicate that the said liberty is granted to direct appointees through MPSC. The liberty does not apply to the adhoc appointees like petitioners. 19. In fact we find that the unamended Rule 8 remained in force till it was amended in 2009. As per the unamended Rule 8, petitioners were required to appear for Combined Competitive Examination which was conducted by MPSC in December 1998. After Rule 8 was amended, the petitioner should have got their services regularized as per amended Rule 8. However, we find that pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in WP No. 7415/2003 and other connected Wps, the petitioners are trying to reopen the very same issue which is already concluded by the Tribunal in OA No. 464 of 1997. The prayer of the petitioners to treat them as being appointed on 31/12/1993 was already rejected by the Tribunal by the judgment dated 08/08/1997 in OA No. 464 of 1997 and the same has attained finality. 20. In our opinion, the Tribunal was correct in its approach in observing that the liberty granted in terms of order dated 17/03/2010 passed by this Court in WP No. 7415 of 2003 would only enure to the benefit of direct recruits if they are shown juniors to the engineers to be absorbed in terms of clauses (d), (e) & (f) of Rule 8. The Tribunal in our opinion was justified in coming to conclusion that the petitioners are not covered by that liberty. 21. The Tribunal in our opinion was justified in coming to conclusion that the petitioners are not covered by that liberty. 21. As observed earlier in the light of the fact that the claim of the petitioners that they should be treated as being appointed on 31/12/1993 has already been rejected by the Tribunal by the judgment dated 08/08/1997 in OA No. 464 of 1997, we are of the view that the petitioners are again trying to rake up the same issue on the basis of liberty granted by this Court in WP No. 7415 of 2003. 22. We find that admittedly, the petitioners were reappointed as junior engineers after 01/01/1994. The petitioners had tried to claim the benefit of Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules 1997 seeking grant of benefit of regularization from the date of initial entry into the service. However, the Tribunal by the judgment dated 08/08/1997 in OA No. 464 of 1997 negatived the claim of the petitioners. As a result, the petitioners who are admittedly appointed in January 1994 were held ineligible for regularization in service without appearing for Combined Competitive Examination which was to be conducted by MPSC. Even after Rule 8 was amended in the year 2009, the petitioners failed to get their services regularized as per amended Rule 8. 23. We thus find considerable merit in the submission of learned Counsel for respondents, that the petitioners are trying to reopen the issue of getting their services regularized for claiming seniority over the respondents No. 4 to 9 by taking advantage of the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 17/03/2010 in WP No. 7415/2003 and other connected WPs. Reading of the order dated 17/03/2010 more particularly clause 6 and the operative part of the order at clause 17 leaves no manner of doubt that the liberty granted by this Court was meant to enure to the benefit of the direct appointees in the event the contingency mentioned in the operative order at clause 17 occurs as indicated by this Court. 24. Once the issue of regularization of the services of the petitioners on the basis of Rules of 1997 is negatived by the Tribunal in OA No. 464 of 1997 by its judgment and order dated 08/08/1997 which has attained finality, the petitioners are not justified in claiming the same relief on the basis of the liberty granted by this Court. 25. 25. In this view of the matter if the respondents have by the Circular dated 21/08/2015 cancelled the final seniority list published on 07/07/2015 as the same was contrary to the Rules of 2009 the same cannot be said to be contrary to law. The action on the part of the respondents in restoring the seniority list published on 06/09/2014 is not illegal or unjustified in these circumstances. 26. We do not find any error in the view taken by the Tribunal that the seniority in the cadre of the Assistant Engineer Grade II will depend upon the regularization of the services first under Rule 8 as amended. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. 27. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners prays that interim stay granted by this Court by order dated 01/03/2017 be extended for a period of 4 weeks. Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed this prayer. However, in the interest of justice, we continue the stay for a period of 4 weeks from today.