JUDGMENT : P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 28.08.2017 made in W.P. No. 15997 of 2014.) 1. The intra-Court Appeal arises out of the order dated 28.08.2017 in W.P. No. 15997 of 2014 passed by the Learned Judge of this Court. 2. The Appellant, who was sponsored by the employment exchange on 02.04.2007 was temporarily appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules to the post of Typist in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat by G.O. (Ms). No. 3, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (U) Department dated 03.01.2007 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, and subsequently the Appellant and other similarly placed persons made representations for their absorption in service. In the meanwhile, persons who were selected through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, came to be appointed in various departments of the Government as Typist and Steno-typist, etc., in the year 2009. At that stage, instead of terminating the services of the Appellant and other temporarily employees, the Government of Tamil Nadu in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissioner had decided to conduct a Special Competitive Examination at Group-IV level in order to accommodate maximum number of temporary employees without displacing them and for that purpose, they were granted benefit of age relaxation in G.O. (Ms). No. 61, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department dated 22.05.2009, and if they got qualified in the said test, their services had been regularized with effect from 25.11.2010. The Appellant along with other similarly placed persons were not satisfied with that benefit and wanted that her regularization should relate back to the date of her initial appointment on 02.04.2007 and made further representation in that regard, which came to be rejected by order No. 14880/U2/2013-1 dated 02.05.2013. This order was challenged by the Appellant in W.P. No. 15997 of 2014 and the Learned Judge, who heard the Writ Petition, after elaborately referring to the rival submissions made by both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition by order dated 28.08.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred this Appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. T. Ranganathan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Parthasarathy, Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred this Appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. T. Ranganathan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Parthasarathy, Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S. Sumnyan -vs- Limi Niri [ (2010) 6 SCC 791 ], contended that once an employee was appointed according to the rules, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his initial appointment and inasmuch as the appointment of the Appellant had been made under rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules by calling from the list of candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, there was no illegality in her appointment and as such, the Appellant should be granted the benefit of regularization from the date of her initial appointment on 02.04.2007 instead of the date of issuing the order of regularization. 5. We are unable to countenance the aforesaid submission. It is not in dispute that the post of Typist to which the Appellant was appointed is a regular post for which recruitment had to be done through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in accordance with the Rules and that exercise had not been taken up at the time of her initial appointment. The mere circumstance that the name of the Appellant had been sponsored through employment exchange would not per se clothe her with the right to claim that there was no illegality in her initial appointment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam -vs- K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao [ (1996) 6 SCC 216 ], has pointed out that restricting appointment to candidates sponsored only through employment exchange would be in negation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, depriving equality of opportunity to all eligible candidates and has declared the law in that regard as follows:- "6. ....It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. ....It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should sponsor the name of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates." That apart, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in D.N. Agrawal -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh [ (1990) 2 SCC 553 ] that regular appointment at later date could not relate back to the date of ad hoc appointment and hence an employee is not entitled to claim officiation between the dates of ad hoc appointment and regular appointment for being counted for the purpose of seniority. This view has been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association -vs- State of Maharashtra [ (1990) 2 SCC 715 ], in which it has been stated as follows:- "Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. Seniority cannot be determined on the sole test of confirmation, for, confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of government service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies. Seniority cannot be determined on the sole test of confirmation, for, confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of government service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies. The principle for deciding inter se seniority conform to the principles of equality spelt out by Articles 14 and 16. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority." The same view has been restated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India -vs- S.K. Sharma [ (1992) 2 SCC 728 ]. In the backdrop of this incontrovertible fact situation coupled with the legal position, it cannot be said that the initial appointment of the Appellant was in accordance with the Rules in order to derive benefit from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S. Sumnyan -vs- Limi Niri [ (2010) 6 SCC 791 ]. 6. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived by the Learned Judge that the Appellant is not entitled to include the period from 02.04.2007 to 25.11.2010, when she had worked on temporary basis, for the purpose of reckoning seniority or extending other benefits of regularization with retrospective effect, and we confirm the same. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.