ORDER : ANANT S. DAVE, J. 1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 2. Letters Patent Appeal No.731/2019 is filed by the appellants upon grant of leave vide oral order dated 20.03.2019, as sought for in Civil Application No.473/2019 filed by them on the ground that all of them at present are working as Deputy Section Officers (Dy.S.O.s) in various Departments of Secretariat of the State of Gujarat. It is their case that Gujarat Public Service Commission (“GPSC”), pursuant to requisition sent by the State of Gujarat, had issued an advertisement dated 28.01.2011 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Section Officer and upon successful clearance of the above examination, appointment orders were issued on 02.06.2012, though on fixed pay and on such terms stipulated in the order, they continue in service till date. After the policy of Fixed Pay came to be introduced by the State on 16.02.2006, a Resolution was issued by the State on 04.06.2009, providing that seniority will start running only after completion of five years of initial appointment on fixed pay. By Government Resolution dated 18.01.2017, clarification was issued by the State of Gujarat that initial services of five years on fixed term put in by the employees appointed by way of direct recruitment under the policy of the Finance Department Resolution dated 16.02.2006 shall also be treated and counted for the purpose of promotion, seniority and higher pay-scale and also for retirement benefits at the time of superannuation. It was further clarified by Resolution dated 20.01.2018 that inter se seniority amongst employees who are direct recruits and those promoted in the cadre of Deputy Section Officers shall be governed as per the contents of such Resolution. That out of 28 original petitioners in whose favour learned Single Judge passed interim order dated 11.02.2019 in writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.2155/2019, 21 petitioners were appointed in the quota reserved for appointments to be made by direct selection and rest 07 petitioners were appointed as Deputy Section Officer by way of Special Competitive Examination in the year 2013, that is, after the appointment of the appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No.731/2019. Said original petitioners challenged the Government Resolutions dated 18.01.2017 and 20.01.2018 after a span of two years and one year respectively by way of above writ petition inter alia alleging that they are made to lag behind in terms of seniority and promotion by allowing those employees to seal a march over them who were appointed for a fixed period of five years subsequent to the appointment of the original petitioners. 3. Since order was passed by learned Single Judge without hearing the applicants – appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No.731/2019, an application was preferred to grant leave to file Letters Patent Appeal against impugned order, which was granted by this Court on 20.03.2019. 4. In the above backdrop of factual scenario, namely, order passed by learned Single Judge issuing certain directions at the interim stage while issuing Rule in the main petition affected appellants inasmuch as that in spite of Government Resolution dated 18.01.2017, direction in Paragraph 7(iii) of the impugned order deprived the appellants of their valuable five years of continuous service which was treated as not regular by learned Single Judge by interpreting Rule 2(c) of the Section Officers (Class-II in the Secretariat Service) Recruitment Rules, 1983. Neither the original petitioners had joined the affected employees like the appellants nor learned Single Judge deemed it just and proper to hear the appellants though pleadings were made in the writ petition challenging the status of the appellants as employees having regular continuous service. 5. Inter alia, it is submitted by the appellants that the post of Deputy Section Officer is governed by Deputy Section Officer (In the Subordinate Secretariat Service) Recruitment Rules, 2009, and the said Rules stipulate three means by which recruitment to the post of Deputy Section Officer can be made. Rule 2 of the said Rules stipulates that appointment to the post of Deputy Section Officer in the subordinate service of Secretariat shall be made either by promotion or by promotion on the basis of special competitive examination (semi direct) and Rule 2(B) provides for appointment by direct selection on the basis of result of competitive examination. 6. Rule 2 of the said Rules stipulates that appointment to the post of Deputy Section Officer in the subordinate service of Secretariat shall be made either by promotion or by promotion on the basis of special competitive examination (semi direct) and Rule 2(B) provides for appointment by direct selection on the basis of result of competitive examination. 6. As against the above, the original writ petitioners and private respondents in this appeal were working as Clerks/ Typists in various Government Departments and upon vacancies arising on the post of Deputy Section Officer, appointments were made initially by way of promotion in excess quota and on purely temporary basis and 21 out of 28 original petitioners were appointed in the quota which was reserved for appointments to be made by direct selection and rest of the 07 petitioners were appointed as Deputy Section Officers by way of special competitive examination in the year 2013, i.e. after the appointments of appellants, whereas, initially by order dated 02.06.2012 pursuant to examination conducted by GPSC for which advertisement was already issued on 28.01.2011, the appellants of this LPA were appointed as Deputy Section Officers. Thereafter, vide Resolution dated 18.01.2017, it was clarified that the service of five years put in by employees appointed under the Fixed Pay Policy of the Finance Department Resolution dated 16.02.2006 shall be counted for promotion, seniority and higher pay scale and also for retirement benefits. Hence, the services rendered by appellants from the date of their initial appointments in 2012 is made regular service as per Resolution dated 18.01.2017. Hence, the services rendered by appellants from the date of their initial appointments in 2012 is made regular service as per Resolution dated 18.01.2017. Even the Resolution dated 20.01.2018 clarified the inter se seniority between the employees who are direct recruits and those who are promotees in the cadre of Dy.S.O.s. Even reliance is placed on Section Officers (Class-II in the Secretariat Service) Recruitment Rules, 1983, for appointments on the post of Section Officer in Departments of Government of Gujarat and it is contended that examination was envisaged under Rule 2(C), namely, Special Competitive Examination (Semi Direct Recruitment) was conducted by respondent No.3 on 11th and 18th November, 2018, which promoted those Dy.S.O.s. who are graduates and have completed at least five years of regular continuous service and have passed the special competitive examinations held by the GPSC in accordance with the Rules prescribed in that regard by the State Government from time to time and who have passed the departmental examination meant for the purpose of promotion as Section Officers by virtue of Government Resolution dated 18.01.2017 and subsequent Government Resolution dated 28.01.2018, therefore, the appellants herein could not have been treated as not in regular continuous service by learned Single Judge. All the appellants qualified pursuant to competitive examination for which final result was declared on 16.02.2019. On the other hand, the original petitioners were not qualified either failed though appeared and or chosen not to appear and belated challenge was made to Government Resolution dated 18.01.2017, for which mandatory interim directions are given in the nature of allowing the writ petition at the stage of admission and that too, without either hearing the appellants or giving any opportunity to represent their case and therefore, it is submitted that interim relief as prayed for deserves to be granted by continuing the ad-interim relief so ordered on 01.04.2019 till final disposal of the appeal. 7. Letters Patent Appeal No.844/2019 is preferred by the State of Gujarat challenging the very order mainly on the ground that the original petitioners had no legal right to impede the semi direct recruitment through promotion. 8. Mr. 7. Letters Patent Appeal No.844/2019 is preferred by the State of Gujarat challenging the very order mainly on the ground that the original petitioners had no legal right to impede the semi direct recruitment through promotion. 8. Mr. P.K. Jani, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant – State of Gujarat raised similar contentions as above and submitted that the State of Gujarat is having shortage of Deputy Section Officers and vacancies have remained unfilled and issuance of directions of mandatory nature by learned Single Judge in Paragraph-7 of the impugned order deserve to be interfered with since initial appointments of appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No.731/2019 was pursuant to policy decision of the Government introduced as early as on 16.02.2006, and Government Resolution was also issued on 22.01.2009 with regard to direct recruitment and stating that date of appointment would be the criteria to determine seniority and after Government Resolution dated 04.06.2009 was issued stating that those who are appointed on fixed pay will get seniority after they complete five years, meaning thereby, that five years’ service will not be counted for the seniority but the said condition was later on reconsidered and it was stated that the seniority of direct appointees in fixed pay will be considered from the date of their initial appointment which was bone of contention before the learned Single Judge. Learned Additional Advocate General also relied on Government Resolution dated 20.01.2018, to which reference is already made and other such events and submitted that issuance of directions of mandatory nature by way of an interlocutory order amounts to allowing the writ petition and not permitting the State of Gujarat to appoint officers in accordance with governing Rules though meritorious selectees after passing examination through Public Service Commission are available and waiting appointments. 9. Opposing the above submissions and prayers, Mr. 9. Opposing the above submissions and prayers, Mr. Bhaskar P. Tanna, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the original petitioners vehemently contended that in the facts and circumstances and particularly, categorical findings arrived at by learned Single Judge in the impugned oral order wherein directions are issued, reveal a strong prima facie case in favour of he original petitioners and those who are appointed for a fixed term on fixed pay by imposing various conditions, including that their services could be terminated at any point of time, were rightly not treated as regular in service by relying on and interpreting Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1983 and by emphasizing Paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of the order passed by learned Single Judge, it is submitted that appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No.731/2019 having no right of permanency and challenge to Government Resolution dated 18.01.2017 was within the time since original petitioners had preferred representations to the authorities which ere not answered and leaving no option, they approached this Court invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, reliefs as prayed for by the appellants in both the appeals do not deserve to be granted. It is submitted that when facts so emerge on record, it would be just and proper for the court to even grant mandatory relief and reliance was placed on judgment dated 03.04.2019, rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Hammad Ahmed v. Abdul Majeed & Ors. - Civil Appeals No.3382-3383 of 2018 in the context of an order passed in exercise of power under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by referring to Paragraph 57 of the above judgment that ad-interim mandatory injunction ought to be granted when strong circumstance so emerge which require protection of the rights and interest of the parties so as not to frustrate their rights regarding mandatory injunction and jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court to maintain status of the parties on the date of filing of the suit or any other proceedings and if the order is passed subject to outcome of the petition, it would almost render the petition infructuous and by assigning reasons, directions though issued at interim stage, but warranted when regularly appointed Deputy Section Officers were wrongly denied promotion as Section Officers, same may be confirmed. 10. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. 11. Both these appeals arise from oral order dated 11.02.2019, which, no doubt, is an interlocutory order, whereby the petition has been admitted and interim relief is granted. However, if the operative part of the oral order contained in Paragraph-7 is perused, more particularly clause (iii), it provides that if a fixed term appointee is to be considered for promotion on the post of Section Officer, he/ she shall be considered only from the date of his or her completion of further five years of service from the date such person/ fixed term employee had exhausted the initial fixed period of five years. Admittedly, in the writ petition, principal prayer of the original petitioners is to quash and set aside the Government Resolutions dated 18.01.2018 and 20.01.2018, reference to which is already made hereinabove. Prima-facie, it transpires that at the admission stage, learned Single Judge has interpreted Rule 2(c) of the Section Officers (Class-II in the Secretariat Service) Recruitment Rules, 1983, ignoring the clarificatory Government Resolutions dated 18.01.2018 and 20.01.2018, which in terms provide that five years' period from the date of initial appointment of fixed pay shall be counted for promotion, seniority, higher pay-scale and retiral benefits. It also requires to be noted that such interim oral order has been passed in the writ petition in absence of the appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No.731/2019. It further transpires from record that 21 amongst the original petitioners had chosen not to participate in semi direct promotion process and remaining 07 had failed to clear such written examination. Therefore, prima-facie, one of the issues which falls for consideration is whether the original petitioners, being non-participants, in the special competitive examination, have any right to impede the promotion process for which specified quota on the post of Section Officer is prescribed, that too, after declaration of the result. 12. It may also not be out of place to mention that pursuant to Resolutions dated 18.01.2017 and 20.01.2018, the State Government published a revised provisional seniority-list dated 20.02.2018 considering the services rendered by the appellants for counting their seniority vis-a-vis the original petitioners and though some of the original petitioners raised objection against the said seniority list, same was rejected, and a final seniority-list was published on 05.02.2019. Therefore, prima-facie, after publication of a final seniority list, and in absence of challenge thereto, whether mandatory interim relief, as has been granted by learned Single Judge, can be granted and allowed to operate would be another issue for consideration. 13. As regards reliance placed by learned Senior Advocate for the private respondents upon a judgment dated 03.04.2019, rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Hammad Ahmed v. Abdul Majeed & Ors. - Civil Appeals No.3382-3383 of 2018, to argue that adinterim injunction or relief in a mandatory form can be granted, the said judgment arises from an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi whereby an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. In the said judgment, it has been held that ad-interim mandatory injunction is to be granted not at the asking but on strong circumstance to protect the rights and interest of the parties so as not to frustrate their rights regarding mandatory injunction. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, if the ad-interim relief which amounts to allowing the writ petition itself, is allowed to continue on the ground that rights of the original petitioners would be affected, then applying the same analogy, the rights of the appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No.731/2019 may also be affected irreversibly if the ad-interim relief granted by learned Single Judge is allowed to continue, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances narrated above, more particularly, when certain important issues referred to above are required to be decided before adjudicating upon their rights. 14. Hence, in our considered view, when both the appeals are already admitted and by way of ad-interim relief, the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge has already been stayed vide oral order dated 01.04.2019, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.731/2019, interest of justice would be met if the same is continued till final disposal of the present Letters Patent Appeals. 15. Hence, by way of interim relief, the operation of the oral order dated 11.02.2019, passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2155/2019, shall remain stayed till final disposal of these appeals. 16. It is made clear that State and its authorities are not precluded from proceeding further with selection and recruitment process. 15. Hence, by way of interim relief, the operation of the oral order dated 11.02.2019, passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2155/2019, shall remain stayed till final disposal of these appeals. 16. It is made clear that State and its authorities are not precluded from proceeding further with selection and recruitment process. Promotions to the post of Section Officer, subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per relevant Rules and Government Resolutions issued from time to time, are also not withheld. 17. It is also clarified that the observations and reasonings recorded above are only prima-facie in nature for grant of interim relief in these appeals as the same have been pressed for by learned Senior Advocate for the original petitioners and shall have no bearing upon the outcome of the Letters Patent Appeals finally. 18. Civil Applications for interim relief in both the Letters Patent Appeals stand disposed of.