JUDGMENT : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. The instant review application has been preferred by the respondent - State against the judgment and order dated 07.07.2014 passed by this Court in the present appeal i.e. Special Appeal No. 269 of 2014 (Anusuya Prasad Purohit Vs. State of Uttarakhand) whereby the appeal has been allowed by setting aside the judgment passed by learned Single Judge dated 07.04.2014 passed in WPSS No. 375 of 2012 and direction has been issued that service of the petitioners / appellants shall be counted from the date the petitioners / appellants were granted pay scale of Rs. 5500 – 9000 on the post of Head Master / Assistant Teacher in Madhyamik Schools. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that Writ Petition (SS) No. 375 of 2012 was preferred by the petitioners / appellants with a relief that Mandamus be issued to the respondents to give seniority from the date when they were drawing the pay scale which was equivalent to Assistant Teacher (LT Grade). The main contention was that petitioners / appellants were initially appointed as Teacher in the Basic School Cadre governed by U.P. Basic Education Board. After re-organization of the State of Uttarakhand in the year 2006, vide Notification dated 28.07.2006, the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2006”) were notified. Certain relevant provision of the said Rules are being reproduced herein as under: “Rule 5. Recruitment to the various categories of posts in the service shall be made from the following sources: Assistant Master (General Branch) / Assistant Mistress (General Branch and Women’s Branch):- (1) 70 percent posts by direct recruitment. (2) 25 percent posts from head Teacher Primary School, Assistant Teacher Junior High School and Assistant Teacher Government Model School working under Government Elementary Education by adjustment. Provided that if eligible persons are not available, such posts may be filled by promotion on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit from such Assistant Teacher's of Government Primary Schools, as fulfill qualifications prescribed under Clause (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Sub-rule (1) of Rule 16. Provided that if eligible persons are not available, such posts may be filled by promotion on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit from such Assistant Teacher's of Government Primary Schools, as fulfill qualifications prescribed under Clause (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Sub-rule (1) of Rule 16. (3) 5 Percent posts by departmental written examination from Assistant Teacher Primary School, Head Teacher Primary School, Assistant Teacher Junior High School and Assistant Teacher Government Model School working under Government Elementary Education who fulfill qualification prescribed under Rule 8.” x x x x Rule 15 Procedure for direct recruitment - (1) The Regional Additional Director of Education concerned shall provide the description of vacancies of Girl's Schools (women's branch) and Co-educational Schools (General Branch) to be filled by direct recruitment, which have been determined under Rule 14 to the Director, School Education. Then, the Director, School Education shall advertise the vacancies subject-wise in at least two leading daily news papers having wide circulation in the regions of the State and invite application for direct recruitment in the prescribed proforma as may be specified in the advertisement. Such advertisement shall inter alia, mention the pay and allowances relating to the posts, academic qualification for appointment thereto, and maximum age and such other information as may be considered necessary. (2)The application based on the proforma mentioned in the advertisement referred to in line (1) shall be sent, by registered post, so as to reach on the address specified in the advertisement on or before the last date of receipt of application mentioned in the advertisement. (3) The application referred to in Clause (2) shall be accompanied by - (One) a fee, as determined by the State Government at the time being, in the form of Crossed Bank Draft, as specified in the advertisement. (Two) other documents as specified in the advertisement. (4) No Application sent without the specified bank draft and other specified documents, or not received by the specified date shall be taken into consideration. (5) A woman candidate may apply for the post of assistant teacher in the service in any one of the women's branch or general branch, or for both the branch, but in the case of applying for both the branches, the first preference and the second preference shall be marked by her. (5) A woman candidate may apply for the post of assistant teacher in the service in any one of the women's branch or general branch, or for both the branch, but in the case of applying for both the branches, the first preference and the second preference shall be marked by her. (6) (i) The Director School Education, or the institution authorized for departmental examination by the State Government, shall scrutinize the applications and conduct examination prescribed in Appendix and shall cause the merit list of candidates to be prepared subject wise on the basis of the total of marks obtained in the examination and the quality points determined for educational qualification. The examining institute shall provide such merit list to the Director, School Education. The number of the names in the list shall be more (but not more than 25%) than the number of the vacancies. The Director School Education shall allocate the candidate the regional (women's) cadre (in case of female candidate) or the regional (general) cadre (in case of female and male candidates) according to the first option of regional cadre mentioned in the application by the candidate. But in the case of a candidate having place in the merit list, if there be no vacancy in the concerned subject in his/her branch (men's or women's) in the region of his/her first option, the Director School Education shall allocate the candidate the region of his/her second option in the concerned branch against the vacancy of the concerned subject. (ii) In the case of two or more candidates obtaining equal marks (total of examination marks + educational quality points + points for co-curricular activities) the name of the candidate with higher age shall be placed higher in the list. (iii) The Director School Education shall forward such lists to the Regional Additional Director of Education concerned. The Regional Additional Director of Education shall verify the original certificates of the candidates included in the merit list and appoint such candidates as are found suitable in all respects. Rule 16. Procedure for recruitment by adjustment / promotion: - (1) Recruitment by adjustment/promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority, subject to the rejection of unfit. Recruitment by adjustment shall be made by appointing Head Teacher Primary School, Assistant Teacher Junior High School and Assistant Teacher Government Model School, working under Government Elementary Education in the same scale of pay. Procedure for recruitment by adjustment / promotion: - (1) Recruitment by adjustment/promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority, subject to the rejection of unfit. Recruitment by adjustment shall be made by appointing Head Teacher Primary School, Assistant Teacher Junior High School and Assistant Teacher Government Model School, working under Government Elementary Education in the same scale of pay. In a particular year of appointment, the number of posts subject wise shall be determined by the Regional Additional Director of Education for adjustment particulars of which shall be forwarded to all District Education Officers in the region. The District Education Officer shall prepare a list. In the order of seniority based on original source (Assistant Teacher, Primary School/Assistant Teacher Government Model School), of such Assistant Teachers, Junior High School/Head Teachers, Primary School and Assistant Teacher Government Model School as are willing for such adjustment, and (one) possess Bachelor's degree, (two) fulfil subject combination norms as determined in Rule 8, (three) have completed 8 years of service. The list shall be forwarded to the Regional Additional Director of Education. The Regional Additional Director of Education shall prepare a combined list based on the lists received from the districts. For the purpose of preparing combined list, the period of service in substantive capacity shall be calculated for determination of seniority. The Regional Additional Director of Education Shall place the particulars of total number of vacancies against each subject before the committee constituted for the purpose of adjustment/promotion. (2) Committee for recruitment by adjustment/promotion - The committee shall comprise: 1. Regional Additional Director of Education Chairman 2. Regional Joint Director of Education (Administration) Member 3. Regional Joint Director of (Academic) Member. 4. An officer belonging to Scheduled Castes /Scheduled Tribes / Other Backward Classes nominated by the Regional Additional Director of Education. Member (3) The candidates recruited by promotion, in case they are not trained graduates, shall have to obtain prescribed certificate from the institution constituted by the State Government of Graduate degree in education, or diploma from a university or an institute recognized by NCTE. If such certificate, degree or diploma is not obtained within three years after the year of appointment, next increment shall be allowed only when they obtain such certificate, degree or diploma. If such certificate, degree or diploma is not obtained within three years after the year of appointment, next increment shall be allowed only when they obtain such certificate, degree or diploma. Rule 17 Procedure for recruitment by departmental written examination under the category of Rule 5 (3): (1) Such Assistant Teachers, Primary School/Junior High School/Assistant Teachers Government Model School and Head Teachers, Primary School, working in Government elementary education service shall be eligible for departmental written examination who a. (a) Possess Bachelor,s degree, b. Fulfill subject combination norms as determined in Rule 8, (c) Possess graduate degree in education (B.Ed.) from a University established by law or L.T. Diploma of a Government or Government recognised training institute/college or have obtained such equivalent in service training based on the standard of NCTE. (2) The provision of minimum service period shall not be applicable in the process of departmental written examination. The appointing authority (Regional Additional Director of Education) shall determine the number of subjectwise posts to be filled during the course of the year, and forward its particulars to the examination for recruitment by direct selection, or get it conducted through the specified examination institute. Merit list of candidates shall be prepared subjectwise on the basis of marks obtained in the examination. Rule 18. Combined Select List - If in any year of recruitment appointment – appointments are made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, a combined select list shall be prepared by taking the names of candidates from the relevant list, in such manner that the prescribed percentage is maintained, the first name in the list being of the person appointed by promotion. Illustration: Suppose in a service, appointed is made in three ways by direct recruitment (D), adjustment /promotion (A/P) and by departmental written examination (E) in the ratio of 70:25:5 and in particular year, there are 20 vacancies. In such a case 14 vacancies will go to for direct recruitment, 5 vacancies will go for recruitment by adjustment /promotion and 1 vacancy for recruitment by departmental written examination. After the selection are made the combined list shall be prepared in the following cyclic order. In such a case 14 vacancies will go to for direct recruitment, 5 vacancies will go for recruitment by adjustment /promotion and 1 vacancy for recruitment by departmental written examination. After the selection are made the combined list shall be prepared in the following cyclic order. 1 A/P 2 E 3 D 4 D 5 A/P 6 E 7 D 8 D 9 A/P 10 E 11 D 12 D 13 A/P 14 E 15 D 16 D 17 A/P 18 E 19 D 20 D Rule 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 Rules 15, 16, 17 or 18 as the case may be. x x x x Rule 22. Seniority - Except as hereinafter provided, the seniority of persons in any category of post shall be (1) determined according to the Uttaranchal Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002. The seniority of persons in any category of post shall be determined from, the date of the orders of substantive appointment and if two or more persons are appointed together, by such order in which their names are arranged in the appointment order: Provided that if the appointment order specifies a particular back date with effect from which a person substantively appointed, that date, will be deemed to be the date of order of substantive appointment and, in other case, it will mean the date of issue of the order: Provided also that if after a selection more than one appointment orders are issued in relation to a selection, the seniority shall be such as is mentioned in the combined appointment order issued under Rule 19(3). (2). The seniority inter se of persons appointed directly on the result of any one selection shall be the same as determined by the 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. (3). The Seniority inter se of persons appointed by promotion shall be the same as it was in the cadre from which they were promoted. (4). (3). The Seniority inter se of persons appointed by promotion shall be the same as it was in the cadre from which they were promoted. (4). Where appointments are made both by promotion and direct recruitment or from more than one source and the respective quota of the sources is prescribed, the inter se seniority shall be determined by arranging the names in a cyclic order in a combined list, prepared in accordance with Rule 18, in such manner that the prescribed percentage is maintained: 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, from seniority to subsequent year or years in which there are vacancies in accordance with the quota. (ii) Where appointments from any source 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. (iii) 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. (iv) The seniority of a person shall be determined in the concerned branch of regional cadre in which he was appointed.” 3. Rule 22 of the said the Rules, 2006 provides that seniority of persons in any category of post shall be determined according to Uttarakhand Government Servant Seniority Rules, 2002. 4. So from the perusal of aforesaid Rules, it transpires that Rule 15 prescribes procedure for direct recruitment, Rule 16 pertains to recruitment by adjustment and if eligible candidates are not available for adjustment then by promotion and Rule 17 pertains to procedure for direct recruitment by departmental written examination and Rule 18 pertains to preparation of combined select list and Rule 22 pertains to determination of seniority. 5. 5. Petitioners / appellants were initially engaged as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School and subsequently, they were promoted to the post of Headmaster in Junior Basic School and some of them were promoted to the post of Assistant Teacher in Senior Basic School. Pursuant to the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 2006, for the purpose of adjustment, the Regional Joint Director of Education prepared a seniority list subject wise, who were eligible to be adjusted on the post of Assistant Teacher LT Grade by the order dated 30.05.2019. After their adjustment to the post of Assistant Teacher LT Grade services of each of the petitioners are governed by the Rules of 2006. After adjustment petitioners submitted a representation to the Director of Education for the purpose of their seniority in the Assistant Teacher LT Grade wherein they requested for including their services, which they have rendered prior to their adjustment in LT Grade on the ground that the pay scale for the post held by them before their adjustment was same to the posts in which they were adjusted as per Rule 5 (2) of 2006 Rules. It is contended in the writ petition that petitioners were Headmaster, Assistant Teacher in the Primary School/ Senior Basic School and their pay scales were same as that of Assistant Teacher LT Grade and they were adjusted pursuant to the Rules, 2006 on the post of Assistant Teacher LT Grade and therefore, for the purpose of seniority service rendered by each of them in the institutions run under the Elementary Education be computed since the scale on which they were working was same as of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade. Their claim was rejected by the respondent – authorities. Consequently, they approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 07.04.2014 and being aggrieved, with the judgment, the instant Special Appeal was preferred and the appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 07.07.2014 by setting aside the judgment of learned Single Judge and the writ petition was allowed by holding that service of the petitioners / appellants shall be counted from the date they were granted the pay scale of Rs. 5500 – 9000 on the post of Headmaster / Assistant Teacher in Madhyamik School. 7. 5500 – 9000 on the post of Headmaster / Assistant Teacher in Madhyamik School. 7. Against the order dated 07.07.2014 passed in present Special Appeal, the State went in Special Leave Petition No. 7706 of 2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition No. 7706 of 2015 on 15.03.2019. Order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is being extracted herein below: “We see no reason to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” 8. In the meantime, Mr. Jaiveer Singh Sajwan, one of the petitioners, preferred a contempt petition No. 56 of 2015 for non compliance of the judgment passed by this Court on 07.07.2014 in present Special Appeal and the proceedings of the contempt petition was closed on 09.09.2020. Against the order dated 09.09.2020 passed in Contempt Petition No. 56 of 2020, Jaiveer Singh Sajwan filed a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 17966 of 2021 and on 09.05.2023 following order was passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court:- “Mr. Ravinath Raman, Secretary, Education Department, State Government of Uttarakhand is present in the Court through video conferencing. Pursuant to a query made by us, the Secretary states that he will file an affidavit making a statement that it is not possible for the State to grant seniority to the petitioner from the date he was granted pay scale of Rs.5500-9000. Let the affidavit be filed within three weeks. List these petitions for further hearing on 18.07.2023. It will be open for the respondents to file additional documents.” 9. In the meantime, present review application has been preferred by the State for review of the judgment dated 07.07.2024 passed in the present appeal in which on 05.07.2023 this Court issued notices to the appellants. In the meantime, in Special Leave to Appeal No. 17966 of 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.07.2023passed the following order: “Mr. Ravinath Raman, Secretary, Education Department, State Government of Uttarakhand is present in Court through video conferencing. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State of Uttarakhand states that in June, 2023, the State Government has filed an application for review of the order dated 7th July, 2014. Ravinath Raman, Secretary, Education Department, State Government of Uttarakhand is present in Court through video conferencing. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State of Uttarakhand states that in June, 2023, the State Government has filed an application for review of the order dated 7th July, 2014. As the review has been filed belatedly and as there is no stay granted by the High Court, we direct the respondents to file an affidavit setting out the outer limit within which they will fully comply with the order dated 7th July, 2014. Needless to add that if the State complies with the order, it will be subject to the outcome of the review. List on 5th September, 2023 at the top of the Board. We make it clear that during the pendency of this petition, this order will not prevent the High Court from hearing the review on merits. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also pointed out that against the order sought to be reviewed after nine years, a Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government was dismissed by the order dated 15th March, 2019.” 10. Learned counsel for the review applicant submits that LT Grade Teacher and Basic Education Cadre are two different Cadres and their functions and responsibilities also different. The LT Grade Teachers impart education to Class 6 – 10 students and their functions and responsibility are also higher than that of Basic Education Cadre. He further submits that service condition of the Assistant Teacher in Basic Education and Assistant Teacher LT Grade are governed by different set of service Rules, therefore, by adjustment of the petitioners from the cadre of Basic Education to the Cadre of Assistant Teacher LT Grade, the service benefit from the date of appointment in Basic Education cadre cannot be taken into consideration for computation of seniority merely on the ground that the scale before adjustment was same. 11. Learned counsel for the review applicant further submits that by giving seniority to the petitioners from the date prior to the date of their adjustment is not possible and giving seniority from the date they were drawing the scale of Rs. 5500 – 9000 is in gross violation of Rule 22 (1) read with Rule 3 (J) of Rules, 2006. 12. 5500 – 9000 is in gross violation of Rule 22 (1) read with Rule 3 (J) of Rules, 2006. 12. Learned counsel for the review applicant further submits that before adjustment, options were invited from the petitioners / appellants and other similarly situated persons and each of them opted voluntarily and thereafter, they were voluntarily accepted order of their adjustment on the post of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade and for the purposes of their seniority, on the post of Assistant Teacher LT Grade the date of their adjustment in the LT Grade will be considered. 13. Learned counsel for the review applicant further submits that merely on the ground that their pay scale before their adjustment was at par with the pay scale of Assistant Teacher LT Grade, they cannot claim their seniority from the date when they were drawing the pay scale which is equivalent to the pay scale of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade. He further submits that Rule 5 which pertains to the source of recruitment clearly provides that 70% of the posts of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade are required to be filled by way of direct recruitment, 25% by adjustment from Head Teacher, Primary School, Assistant Teacher, Junior High School and Assistant Teacher, Government Model School (Institution), which are under elementary education and remaining 5% through departmental written examination amongst Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Head Teacher, Primary School and Assistant Teacher, Junior High School. Petitioners / appellants are those who are adjusted under 25% quota under Rule 5 (2) and as per Rule 22 of Rules, 2006, seniority of persons in the cadre of post shall be determined according to the Uttarakhand Government Servant Seniority Rules, 2002 and Rule 18 of the said Rules prescribes criteria for determination of the seniority amongst three categories of recruitment i.e. by direct recruitment, by adjustment and by departmental examination and as per this Rule, first post goes to adjusted incumbent, second post goes to person selected through departmental examination and third post goes to incumbent recruited through direct recruitment. 14. 14. Apart from this, learned counsel for the review applicant submits that under Rules, 2006, incumbents holding the post of Assistant Teacher LT Grade appointed under Rule 5 can be promoted to the post of Lecturer and Head Master, Government High School and those teachers of Basic Education Cadre who have not opted for adjustment to the post of Assistant Teacher LT Grade are entitled for their financial upgradation in terms of promotional pay scale after completion of 10 year and 12 year of their service, therefore, their status are different. 15. Apart from this, learned counsel for the review applicant further submits that if the seniority is granted to the petitioners / appellants from the date, when they were drawing the pay scale, which is equivalent to the pay scale of Assistant Teacher LT Grade when they were serving in the institution run under the elementary education, then it will directly affect the seniority of other incumbents who were appointed either by way of direct recruitment or through departmental written examination and obtained promotion to the post of Lecturer. 16. We have gone through the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 07.04.2014 as well as judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the instant appeal dated 07.07.2014. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, after taking into consideration that petitioners in fact were not promoted rather they were adjusted to the post of the Assistant Teacher LT Grade. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition observed that Rule 5 of Rules of 2006, provides 25% quota to the incumbents serving in the institutions run under elementary education to the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) and while dealing with this, learned Single Judge observed that adjustment to the post of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade was not under compulsion rather optional since only those who exercised their option for adjustment were adjusted. There is another requirement for adjustment that only those teachers were adjusted, who were having essential educational qualifications, as required for the post of Assistant Teacher LT Grade. 17. Admittedly, before adjustment options were invited by the State Government whereby willingness of such teachers who were desire to be adjusted in (LT Grade) was sought. Undisputedly, petitioners / appellants gave their consent and opted for the post of Assistant Teacher LT Grade. Each of them were adjusted by different orders issued on different dates. 17. Admittedly, before adjustment options were invited by the State Government whereby willingness of such teachers who were desire to be adjusted in (LT Grade) was sought. Undisputedly, petitioners / appellants gave their consent and opted for the post of Assistant Teacher LT Grade. Each of them were adjusted by different orders issued on different dates. This aspect was also examined by the learned Single Judge that no doubt the pay scale of the petitioners / appellants, who at the relevant point of time were Assistant Teacher in Junior High School (or Principal or Headmaster Primary School) is the same, as pay scale of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade, even then, merely on the ground they were in the same pay scale before adjustment, which was the pay scale of Assistant Teacher LT Grade, their seniority cannot be counted from the date they were in the same pay scale. The State Government has rightly rejected their claim by the order dated 05.07.02011 though it was not in detail but the same is as per Rules of 2006 which provides seniority is to be computed from the date when they were adjusted as Assistant Teacher (LT Grade). 18. We have perused the judgment under review dated 07.07.2014 passed in the present appeal and it appears that while allowing the appeal Rule 5 of the Rules, 2006 was taken into consideration by observing that since services of the petitioners / appellants were merged in accordance with sub-Rule 2 of Rule 5 of the Rules 2006, therefore, it cannot be said to be promotional post. However, while allowing the appeal impact of Rule 22 was not taken into consideration, which pertains to the determination of the seniority. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition examined the impact of Rule 22 of the Rules of 2006. 19. Apart from this, we have also perused the order of adjustment. As it appears from the order of adjustment, firstly this order of adjustment is not on compulsion, rather it is based upon option invited for adjustment. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition examined the impact of Rule 22 of the Rules of 2006. 19. Apart from this, we have also perused the order of adjustment. As it appears from the order of adjustment, firstly this order of adjustment is not on compulsion, rather it is based upon option invited for adjustment. Here admittedly, petitioners / appellants were adjusted after submitting their options and they voluntarily accepted the order of adjustment, therefore, they cannot claim the benefit of seniority on the basis of their past service, which they have rendered in the Institution under the Elementary Education merely on the ground that their pay scale was equivalent to the pay scale of post in which they were adjusted. Petitioners / appellants once exercised their option for their adjustment and after accepting the order of adjustment should abide by the terms and conditions of the adjustment order particularly when these adjustment orders were under Rules, 2006. 20. There is another aspect of the matter that the order of adjustment was on two years probation. This itself demonstrates that their induction by way of adjustment to the post of Assistant Teacher LT Grade was a fresh induction in the cadre of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade and on completion of two years of probation each of them are entitled to get confirmation on the post of Assistant Teacher LT Grade, therefore, if we take into consideration the order of adjustment with Rules of 2006, there is no doubt that their seniority will only be computed from the date of their adjustment and not from the date when they were drawing the pay scale which was equivalent to the pay scale of Assistant Teacher LT Grade. If their contention is accepted then it will certainly affect the seniority of those who were recruited by other source of recruitment as provided under Rules 5 (1) and 5 (3). Rules of 2006 further provide that there should be combined seniority list which should be prepared and determined, after taking into consideration the three sources of recruitment, as provided under Rules 5 of the Rules of 2006, i.e. 70% of posts are to be filled by way of direct recruitment, 25% posts are to be filled from adjustment / promotion and 5% posts are to be filled up by way of departmental examination. On this context also, claim of the petitioners / claimants cannot be accepted. It appears that while allowing the Special Appeal by judgment under Review, provisions of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 2006 were not taken into consideration. 21. Undisputedly, petitioners / respondents were adjusted as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade, after inviting their option, which they exercised voluntarily and their adjustment was made under Rule 16, which pertains to recruitment by adjustment with a proviso that if eligible persons are not available, such posts shall be filled up by promotion and such recruitments were made by taking into consideration Rule 5 (2) of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 2006 which provides that 25% posts should be filled up by way of adjustment amongst Head Teacher, Primary School, Assistant Teacher, Junior High School, Assistant Teacher Government Model School working under Government Elementary Education. After their adjustment, as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade, they all are governed by Rules, 2006 and these Rules, 2006 contains a provision of Rule 22, which pertains to determination of seniority. On perusal of Rule 22, it is very clear that this Rule 22 also pertains to determination of inter se seniority amongst incumbents appointed under their respective quota as provided under Rules (5), which makes a provision for recruitment by three sources i.e. 70% by direct recruitment, 25% by way of adjustment and remaining 5% through departmental written examination. If we further scrutinize these Rules, particularly, Rules 15, 16, 17, and then Rule 18, it reveals that under Rule 15, 16 and 17 there is complete procedure for recruitment, in order to fill up the post by way of three sources of recruitment, as provided under Rule 5 and on such recruitment, a combined select list should be prepared, as per Rule 18, which also gives criteria by giving “illustration” and on that combined select list appointment has to be made, as per Rule 19 and then, seniority including inter se seniority has to be determined, as per Rule 22.. After reading all these provisions of Rules, 2006 it is very clear that for determination of seniority, the order of adjustment of the petitioners / respondents, has to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determination of seniority. After reading all these provisions of Rules, 2006 it is very clear that for determination of seniority, the order of adjustment of the petitioners / respondents, has to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determination of seniority. The Rule does not provide that seniority has to be determined after taking into consideration the scale which they were drawing on the post before their adjustment. The order of Coordinate Bench for which review has been preferred is completely silent on that aspect and if this order is accepted, then the whole spirit of these Rules particularly Rule 22 will be frustrated. The mandate of Rule 22 is very clear but this aspect has not been dealt with. 22. So far the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is concerned, which was set aside by the Coordinate Bench in the judgment under review had dealt with all the aspects by observing that order of adjustment of the petitioners / respondents, herein, is in fact not a promotion order, rather it is an order of adjustment and that too, is voluntarily and not under any compulsion. Even otherwise, the claim as raised before the writ Court as well in the Appeal by the petitioners / respondents, herein, is misconceived and untenable keeping in view of the fact that relief, as sought, was completely contrary to Rules, 2006, thus, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. The judgment under review has nowhere dealt with either the impact of Rule 22, which pertains to seniority or Rule 5, which pertains to source of recruitment and further Rules, 15, 16 and 17. Even otherwise, the observations, as recorded in the judgment under review, are completely contrary to the Rules 2006. Under service jurisprudence, it is a settled principle of law that seniority has to be computed from the date of substantive appointment. Even Rule 22 of 2006 Rules mandates that seniority shall be determined as per provisions of the Uttarakhand Government Servant Seniority Rules, 2002, which in fact is identical to the provisions as elaborated in Rule 22. There are three source of recruitments, as provided in Rule 5 and for determination of their seniority Rule 22 contains procedure. Even Rule 22 of 2006 Rules mandates that seniority shall be determined as per provisions of the Uttarakhand Government Servant Seniority Rules, 2002, which in fact is identical to the provisions as elaborated in Rule 22. There are three source of recruitments, as provided in Rule 5 and for determination of their seniority Rule 22 contains procedure. Therefore, for the purposes of determination of seniority / inter se seniority, all the persons recruited by way of three sources of recruitment, as provided under Rule 5 there should be criteria and criteria is that date of induction in that cadre by way of three sources of recruitment is basis for determination of seniority and that is the reason that learned Single Judge was right by holding that for the purposes of determination of seniority only order of adjustment has to be taken into consideration. It appears that in the judgment under review, the Coordinate Bench has totally overlooked the provisions of 2006 Rules as well as the provisions of the Uttarakhand Government Servant Seniority Rules, 2002 and set aside the judgment of learned Single Judge, therefore, judgment under review cannot be sustained. 23. Accordingly, review application is allowed. Judgment and order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the present appeal is recalled and judgment and order dated 07.04.2014 passed by learned Single Judge is hereby affirmed and writ petition is dismissed.