JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. Adil Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. M. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2; and Mr. K. Talukdar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5. 2. The petitioners, in the present proceeding, have presented a challenge to the final gradation list, circulated vide communication, dated 20.12.2022, of the cadre of Overseer(Civil) in the establishment of the Commissioner of Industries & Commerce Department, Government of Assam. The petitioners have also prayed for assigning to them, seniority position above the private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, herein. 3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under: The petitioners, herein, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Assam Public Service Commission(APSC) for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer(Civil & Mechanical) under PWD Roads and the post of Overseer(Civil) under the Industries & Commerce Department, Government of Assam, had submitted their respective applications for the same. On conclusion of the recruitment process; the Assam Public Service Commission(APSC) published the select list and therein, the names of the petitioners No. 1 & 2, herein, figured at Serial No. 1 and 4, respectively, against the post of Overseer(Civil) under the Industries & Commerce Department. In terms of the recommendations so made by the Assam Public Service Commission(APSC) in favour of the petitioners, herein; the petitioners along with 3(three) others came to be appointed against the post of Overseer(Civil) under the Industries & Commerce Department, Government of Assam, vide order, dated 27.07.2003. The petitioners, accordingly, joined their respective service on 11.08.2003. Subsequent to the joining of the petitioners in their respective service on 11.08.2023, pursuant to their recruitment by the Assam Public Service Commission(APSC); the respondent authorities, vide an order, dated 29.09.2003, had proceeded to regularize the services of private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, herein, basing on the approval granted for the same by the State Cabinet in its meeting held on 10.06.2003. Vide the said order, dated 29.09.2003, the services of the private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, were regularized with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 12.06.2003. Vide the said order, dated 29.09.2003, the services of the private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, were regularized with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 12.06.2003. It is contended in the writ petition that the respondent authorities, vide order, dated 25/26.02.2021, had published a provisional gradation list of the incumbents in the cadre of Overseer(Civil) under the Industries & Commerce Department and therein, while the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 were placed at Serial Nos. 1, 2 & 3, respectively, the names of the petitioners No. 1 & 2, were placed at Serial Nos. 5 & 4, respectively. The petitioners, herein, submitted objection to the assignment of their seniority positions in the said provisional gradation list, dated 25/26.02.2021. The respondent authorities, thereafter, vide order, dated 11.11.2021, published a fresh provisional gradation list of the incumbents in the cadre of Overseer(Civil) and therein, placed the names of the petitioners No. 1 & 2 at Serial Nos. 4 & 6, respectively, while the names of the private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, were placed at Serial Nos. 1, 2 & 3, respectively. It is projected that the petitioner No. 2 had submitted objections with regard to the seniority position assigned to him in the provisional gradation list, dated 11.11.2021. The respondent authorities, vide order, dated 20.12.2022, proceeded to publish the final gradation list of incumbents in the cadre of Overseer(Civil) and therein, the names of the private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, were placed at Serial Nos. 1, 2 & 3, respectively, while the names of the petitioners No. 1 & 2, were placed at Serial Nos. 4 & 6, respectively. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have instituted the present proceeding before this Court. 4. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, by reiterating the facts as noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioners, herein, were appointed to the post of Overseer(Civil) under the Industries & Commerce Department by following the procedure prescribed and after their selection by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC). The learned counsel has further submitted that the private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, were initially recruited as Overseer(Civil) under the provisions of Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Services(Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1951, on adhoc basis. Such engagement of the private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, herein, was contended to have been extended from time to time. 5. Mr. Such engagement of the private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, herein, was contended to have been extended from time to time. 5. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel, has submitted that the private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, were never recommended for appointment on regular basis against the post of Overseer (Civil) by the Assam Public Service Commission(APSC). However, considering the long length of service rendered by the said respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, a proposal came to be placed before the State Cabinet for regularization of their services. The learned counsel has further submitted that the Cabinet in its meeting held on 10.06.2003, had approved the proposal for regularization of the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that on completion of the formalities required to be so followed, the services of private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 were regularized vide issuance of a Notification, dated 29.09.2003. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel, that the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 can be said to be regular incumbents in the cadre of Overseer(Civil) only with effect from the date of issuance of the order, dated 29.09.2003, and not from a date prior thereto. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioners, herein, being regular appointees to the cadre of Overseer(Civil); they cannot be permitted to be superseded by persons who have not been so recruited to the cadre of Overseer(Civil) in the manner required and have been regularized in their respective service only by way of a Cabinet decision. 7. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, in the above premises, has submitted that the impugned final gradation list, dated 20.12.2022, insofar as it assigns seniority position to the petitioners, herein, and respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, herein, would call for an interference with a further direction to the respondent authorities to prepare a fresh gradation list and assign therein, seniority position to the petitioners, above the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, Industries Department, has submitted that the services of the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, having been so regularized in pursuance of a Cabinet decision; the departmental authorities had arrived at a decision that the regularization so made in respect of the said respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, would be deemed to be effective w.e.f. 12.06.2003 i.e. on the date on which the Cabinet decision was communicated to all concerned by the authorized Officer i.e. the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam(Political), Cabinet Cell Department. The learned standing counsel has further submitted that the Cabinet having decided to approve the proposal for regularization of the services of private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, their such services must be deemed to have been so regularized immediately with effect from the date, the Cabinet had so approved the proposal, in this connection. 9. Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, Industries Department, has submitted that subsequent processing in the matter done after the approval of the Cabinet was received to the proposal for regularizing the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, was merely a ministerial act and the same would be of no consequence in considering the date from which the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, are required to be so regularized in their service. The learned standing counsel has further submitted that the regularization as effected in respect of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, w.e.f. 12.06.2003, is strictly in accordance with the procedure in place and has reiterated that the services of the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 are to be deemed to be so regularized immediately w.e.f. 10.06.2003 when the Cabinet had approved the proposal in this connection. 10. In the above premises, Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, Industries Department, has submitted that the decision as arrived at in the matter by the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 12.06.2003, would not call for any interference from this Court. 11. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, has adopted the submissions so advanced by Mr. 11. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, has adopted the submissions so advanced by Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, Industries Department, in the matter and has submitted that there exists no error in regularization of the services of private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, being so effected w.e.f. 12.06.2003. 12. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 13. It is to be noted that while the petitioners, herein, were appointed as Overseer(Civil) in pursuance to their recruitment by the Assam Public Service Commission(APSC); the private respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, herein, who were working in the Industries & Commerce Department, against the post of Overseer(Civil), on adhoc basis, under Regulation 3(f) of the said Regulation of 1951; were regularized on approval being granted by the Cabinet in its meeting held on 10.06.2003, to a proposal placed before it, in this connection. 14. The materials brought on record goes to reveal that in pursuance of the approval granted by the Cabinet for regularization of the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5; the same did not automatically lead to issuance of orders towards regularization of their services. In terms of the Note Sheets brought on record by the respondent authorities; it is seen that after the approval of the Cabinet was received for regularization of the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, the matter in terms of the procedure mandated, was placed before the State Level Empowered Committee(SLEC) for its approval. The State Level Empowered Committee(SLEC) had in its meeting held on 22.08.2003, approved the proposal for regularization of the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Personnel(B) Department for its endorsement and the same was so endorsed by the Personnel(B) Department on 18.09.2003. It is only after the approval of the State Level Empowered Committee(SLEC) in its meeting held on 22.08.2003, and the endorsement so granted in the matter by the Personnel(B) Department vide its endorsement, dated 18.09.2003, that the Notification, dated 29.09.2003, came to be issued, regularizing the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 against the post of Overseer(Civil). However, vide the said Notification, dated 29.09.2003, the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 were so regularized w.e.f. 12.06.2003. However, vide the said Notification, dated 29.09.2003, the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 were so regularized w.e.f. 12.06.2003. The regularization of the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, being so made effective w.e.f. 12.06.2003, had the effect of making them regular incumbents in the cadre of Overseer(Civil) prior to the date of joining of the petitioners, herein, which had occasioned on 11.08.2003. 15. It is a settled position of law that employees engaged on adhoc basis cannot be regularized from a back date in a manner that would have the effect of disturbing the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre. Accordingly, such regularization of adhoc employees ought to be so made with prospective effect and could not have been given a retrospective effect. 16. In the case on hand, it is projected by the respondent authorities that the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 have to be deemed to have been regularized on the date, the proposal in this connection was approved by the Cabinet in its meeting held on 10.06.2003. The said contention on the face of the materials available on record, is clearly perverse. The approval granted by the Cabinet in its meeting held on 10.06.2003, did not automatically lead to the regularization of the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, in-as-much as, in terms of the procedure in place, the same was required to be placed before the State Level Empowered Committee(SLEC) for its approval. The State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) had granted its approval in the matter only in its meeting held on on 22.08.2003. The date on which the State Level Empowered Committee(SLEC) had granted its approval i.e. on 22.08.2003, the petitioners, herein, were already appointed in their service as Overseer(Civil) in pursuance of their recruitment by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC). As noticed hereinabove, the petitioners had joined their respective service as Overseer(Civil) on 11.08.2003. 17. Accordingly, the contention of the respondent authorities that the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 should be deemed to have been regularized on the date, the Cabinet had accorded its approval to the proposal placed before it, in this connection, cannot be accepted. As noticed hereinabove, the petitioners had joined their respective service as Overseer(Civil) on 11.08.2003. 17. Accordingly, the contention of the respondent authorities that the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 should be deemed to have been regularized on the date, the Cabinet had accorded its approval to the proposal placed before it, in this connection, cannot be accepted. At best, the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, herein, can be said to have been so regularized only after the State Level Empowered Committee(SLEC) had granted its approval to the same in its meeting held on 22.08.2003 and the Personnel(B) Department had approved the same. 18. In view of the above position, this Court is of the considered view that the Notification, dated 29.09.2003, regularizing the services of respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, herein, has to be given prospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 29.09.2003 and cannot be given any retrospective effect thereof. Accordingly, the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, have to be deemed to have been regularized in their services against the post of Overseer(Civil) only w.e.f. 29.09.2003 and not from a date prior thereto. 19. In view of the above discussions, the final gradation list, circulated vide the Notification, dated 20.12.2022, calls for an interference from this Court. The said Notification, dated 20.12.2022, is, accordingly, set aside. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to prepare a fresh gradation list of the incumbents in the cadre of Overseer(Civil) in the Department and therein, assign seniority position to the petitioners, herein, above the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5, herein. It is further provided that promotions of the incumbents in the cadre of Overseer(Civil) to the next higher cadre, be so considered after publication of the gradation list in the manner, directed above. 20. With the above directions and observations; this writ petition stands disposed of.