NASEEM AHMAD & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

                     [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 822


A                      NASEEM AHMAD & ORS.
                                     V.
                         STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 10459 of 2010)
                         DECEMBER 10, 2010
B
            [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, P. SATHASIVAM AND
                          A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

         Service laws:
c
          Utfar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior
    Establishment Rules, 1995 - r. 12 - Waiting list -
    Interpretation of - Advertisement for appointment of Class IV
    posts of Process Server, Orderly, Peon and Farrash in District
0   Judgeship - Vacancies notified - Applications by appellants
    - Preparation of select list - Appointment of appellants within
    one year of their selection by select list - Subsequent order
    by District Judge, cancelling select list/wait list and treating
    the appointment of appellants as ad hoc - Order upheld by
E   High Court - Thereafter, termination of services - Held: Not
    correct - r. 12 did not provide any time limit in regard to the
    operation of waiting list - Wait list gets exhausted only when
    all duly selected candidates are given appointments in. the
    light of r. 12 - Until wait list is not exhausted, a fresh list could
    not be prepared under r. 12 - Order by District Judge provided
F   that only the appointments made after one year were ad hoc
    - Appellants being appointed within one year of their selection
    by select list, the services cannot be termed as ad hoc and
    are to be treated as regular service - Process initiated by
    Government for advertising fresh posts and cancelling the wait
G   list by making it as ad hoc, is against the Rules - Thus,
    appellants deem to continue in service from the date of initial
    appointment.


H                                   822
NASEEM AHMAD & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 823


   r. 12 - Waiting list - Expression 'reasonable dimension'    A
- Meaning of - Explained.

     Applications were invited for appointment to Class IV
posts of Process Servers, Orderlies, Peons and
Farrashes in District Judgeship, Mahoba. The total
                                                               8
sanctioned strength of Class IV employees was 31. The
selections were to be made for the purposes of
preparation of a wait list. The appellants applied for the
posts. On 19.09~2000, a select list was prepared and the
appellants were placed at S. Nos. 9, 10 and 11. In 2001, 4     C
more posts were created in the Judgeship of Mahoba. On
13.08.2001, the appellants were issued appointment
letters for the newly created posts. Meanwhile the
sanctioned strength of Class IV employees was
increased. On 19.09.2003, the District Judge cancelled the
select list/wait list fo rthwith and the appointments of the   D
appellants were treated as ad hoc, in terms of the G.Os.
and the order of the High Court, that the panel made of
Class IV employees is valid for a period of one year, thus,
the appointments made after 19.09.2001 are ad hoc. The
appellants filed a writ petition against the order passed      E
by the District Judge, Mahoba. The Single Judge of the
High Court dismissed the writ petition. The special appeal
was also dismissed. In pursuant thereto, the appellants
were terminated from service. Therefore, the appellants
filed the instant appeal.                                      F
    Allowing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1.1 It cannot be said that that since the
appellants were appointed after a period of one year from
the date of their selection as per select list dated G
19.09.2000, in terms of Government Order as well as Rule
12 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior
Establishment Rules, 1995, their appointment cannot be
sustained since the wait list stood exhausted on the
appointments being made against the available vacancies H
    824   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   on the date of advertisement i.e., 6 + 1, and therefore, they
    have no right to claim any appointment. [Para 9] [832-E-
    F]

       1.2 The material placed as well as the details available
  in the order of the Single Judge of the High Court clearly
8
  shows that on 20.09.2000, the District Judge appointed
  six persons on these available six vacancies on the thirty
  five sanctioned posts (31 at Mahoba and 4 at Charkhari)
  in the Judgeship. 'PN' at S.No. 7 was left out and was
  given appointment as SC candidate on 23.12.2000. 'MD'
C at S.No. 8 of the list drawn according to roster was given
  appointment on 13.02.2001. The candidates at S.Nos. 9
  to 12, namely, the appellants and one 'RP' were given
  appointments as against four vacancies at the outlying
  court at Charkhari. [Para 9] [832-F-H; 833-A-C]
D
      1.3 The select list of the appellants was dated
  19.09.2000 whereas they were appointed by order dated
  13.08.2001 i.e. within one year of the declaration of results.
  The order dated 19.09.2003 provides that only the
E appointments made after 19.09.2001 were ad hoc. As all
  the appellants have been given appointment within one
  year of publication of select list dated 19.09.2000, their
  services cannot be termed as ad hoc. [Para 1O] [833-C-
    D]
F      1.4 The statutory rule i.e. Rule 12, as it existed on the
  relevant date did not provide any time limit in regard to
  the operation of the waiting list. In such circumstances,
  the claim of the respondents that a waiting list of
  candidates contemplated under Rule 12 cannot be
G deemed to be subsisting for a period beyond the filling
  up of the notified vacancies, is not supported by any
  statutory Rule and is liable to be rejected. It cannot be
  deemed to be operative for an indefinite period. Even if it
  is accepted that the life of the wait list is only for one year,
H
NASEEM AHMAD & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 825


inasmuch as the appellants were appointed by order A
dated 13.08.2001, within one year of their selection as per
the select list dated 19.09.2000, the stand of the
respondents is to be rejected and the service of the
appellants has to be treated as regular service and no
adverse order can be passed against them. The B
construction of Rule 12 as per interpretation of the statute
would be that its life is not limited for a particular year
since the Rule is very specific and unambiguous. Wait list
gets exhausted only when all duly selected candidates
are given appointments in the light of Rule 12. As long .c
as the wait list was not exhausted, a fresh list could not .
be prepared under Rule 12 and the process initiated by
the respondents for advertising fresh posts and
cancelling the wait list by making it as ad hoc is against
the provisions of the Rules. [Para 11] [833-G-H; 834-A-D] 0

     1.5 The waiting list was prepared as per Rule 12 and
had to be operated as per Rule 12. Rule 12 contemplates
that the waiting list should be of "reasonable dimension".
The wait list is neither a selection list prepared with
reference to specific number of vacancies notified. It is     E
somewhat peculiar and special. The expression
"reasonable dimension" used in Rule 12 signifies that the
wait list should be a moderate one containing that
number of candidates which is adequate to meet the
vacancies which might be available within a reasonable        F
period in the year of recruitment or the year succeeding
thereto and the list should be in reasonable proportion
to the notified vacancies. The waiting list should broadly
be correlated to the number of vacancies either available
in the year of recruitment or likely to become available in   G
the succeeding year and the proportion qua the existing
and anticipated vacancies. It is only in order to obviate
the possibility of the waiting list becoming vitiated on
account of the vice of arbitrariness or illegal
                                                              H
      826    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

 A discrimination that the provision contains the Rules
   which specifically provides for maintaining a waiting list
   of a reasonable dimension. The word 'dimension' has to
   be understood to emphasise the proportion qua the
   vacancies which are sought to be filled up. The factual
 B materials shows that the sanctioned posts at the relevant
   time were 35 i.e. 31 at Mahoba and 4 at Charkhari in
   Judgeship. Thus, the contrary conclusion and the
   interpretation as to expression "reasonable dimension"
   cannot be accepted. [Para 12] [834-E-H; 835-A-C]
 c      1.6 The claim of the appellants is accepted. In the
   course of hearing, it was brought to the notice that
   appellant Nos. 1 and 3 were once again appointed
   temporarily for one year by order dated 30.11.2007 as
   Class IV employees. However, appellant No. 2 was not re-
 D appointed since at that time he was over aged. Thus,
   appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are deemed to continue in service
   in terms of the appointment letter dated 13.08.2001 and
   for all purpose and ser,,ice benefits, the relevant date is
   the date of their initial selection and they are permitted
 E to continue as per the Rules applicable. The impugned
   order of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 13 and 14]
   [835-D-E]

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
 F    10459 of 2010.

          From the Judgment & Order dated 08.08.2007 of the High
      Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh in Special
      Appeal No. 1004 of 2007 .

. G         Garima Prashad, Pradeep Kr. for the Appellants.

           Subodh Markandey, Ashok K. Srivastava, Shaiwal
      Srivastava Manoj K. Mishra, Rajeev K. Dubey, Kamlendra
      Mishra for the Respondents.

 H          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 NASEEM AHMAD & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 827


        P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.                        A

     2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final
•order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the High Court of
 Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 1004 of 2007
-whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the        8
-order dated 19.09.2003 passed by the District Judge, Mahoba.

        3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case
-are:

       (a) An advertisement was issued by the Office of District   c
 Judge, Mahoba on 17.08.2000 inviting applications for
 appointment of Class IV posts of Process Server, Orderly,
 Peon and Farrash in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200/- in District
 Judgeship, Mahoba mentioning that the selections are to be
 made for the purposes of preparation of a wait list. The          D
 advertisement did not mention the details or number of posts
 for which the advertisement was issued. The appellants herein
 applied for the said posts. After interview, a select list was
 prepared on 19.09.2000 mentioning 22 names and the
 appellants were placed at S.Nos. 9, 10 and 11. Subsequent         E
 to the result, appointments were made as and when the
 vacancies arose. Appointment orders were issued to the
 appellants on 13.08.2001. The total sanctioned strength of
 Class IV employees in the Judgeship of Mahoba on the date
 of advertisement was 31. In 2001, 4 more posts were created
 in the Judgeship of Mahoba for the outlying Court in Tehsil       F
 Charkhari. For the said newly created posts, the appointment
 letters were issued to the appellants herein on 13.08.2001. In
 the meantime, one Court of Addi. District Judge was transferred
 from Hamirpur to Mahoba increasing the sanctioned strength
 of Class IV employees in Mahoba to 37 including the outlying      G
 Court of Charkhari.

     (b) On 19.09.2003, the District Judge, Mahoba passed an
 order that as per the provisions of G.Os. dated 27.02.1974
 (Personnel), 29.07.1995 (Personnel and administrative             H
    828     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A Reforms Department, U.P. Government) and order dated
  23.01.1996 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Ram
  Babu etc., the panel made of Class IV employees is valid for
  a period of one year, and thus, the appointments made after
  19.09.2001 are ad hoc. He also cancelled the select lisUwait
B list forthwith: On the basis of the said order, the appointments
  of the appellants were treated as ad hoc.

        (c) Alleging arbitrary appointments, promotions and
  discrimination in appointments, several writ petitions were filed
  which were disposed of by the High Court vide judgment and
C order dated 26.10.2005. However, the appellants herein were
  not party to the said writ petitions, therefore, they filed a
  separate Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 49006 of 2003
  against the order dated 19.09.2003 passed by the District
  Judge, Mahoba. The learned single Judge of the High Court,
D vide order 02.07.2007, dismissed the writ petition. Against the
  said order, a special appeal being S.A. No. 1004 of 2007 was
  filed by the appellants herein before the High Court which was
  also dismissed by the High Court on 08.08.2007 in terms of
  the judgment and order dated 26.10.2005 in C.M.W.P. No.
E 34640 of 2003 (Murari Lal Pandey vs. District Judge, Mahoba
  & Ors.) wherein the High Court had held as follows:
          " ..... A fair and reasonable interpretation of Rule 12 in the
          light of the aforesaid Judgment is that the wait list should
F         not be drawn for more than twice the number of anticipated
          vacancies in the recruitment year, and should come to an
          end as soon as the last vacancy on the date of
          advertisement is filled up. It is always open to the District
          Judge to anticipate the vacancies due to superannuation
          or likely promotion, but having determined number of
G         vacancies, for which the advertisement is made, and
          drawing a wait list of equal number of candidates he is not
          permitted under the Rules to go on appointing persons
          from the wait list on unanticipated vacancies. Any other
          interpretation will only give rise to serious irregularities as
H
NASEEM AHMAD & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 829
           [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    in the present case, and will also violate the rights of those   A
    persons, who become eligible in the meantime for being
    considered for such vacancies in future."

 In pursuance of the order dated 08.08.2007, the District Judge,
Mahoba informed the appellants by letter dated 12.11.2007 that       8
their services came to an end with immediate effect. Aggrieved
by the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal by way
of special leave petition.

    4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
                                                                     c.
     5. The advertisement was issued on 17.08.2000 by District
Judge, Mahoba inviting applications for selection and
appointment on Class IV posts of Process Server, Orderly,
Peon and Farrash. In response to the said advertisement, the
appellants applied and on 19.09.2000 results were published          D
and they were included in the select list. All the appellants were
given appointment on 13.08.2001. It is the claim of the
appellants that all the appointments were made on substantive
vacancies. It is the grievance of the appellants that without any
show cause notice, by order dated 19.09.2003, their                  E
appointments have been converted into ad hoc appointment.
The appellants also pointed out that the Rules nowhere provides
that the regular appointments can be converted into ad hoc
appointments, hence, the order passed by the District Judge,
Mahoba, terminating their services cannot be sustained and the
same was wrongly approved by the High Court. The appellants
                                                                     F
have asserted that they were appointed by order dated
13.08.2001 i.e. within one year of their selection by select list
dated 19.09.2000, as such, the grounds mentioned in the order
dated 19.09.2003 cannot be sustained and the service of the
appellants has to be treated as regular service and no adverse       G
order can be passed against them.

     6. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents
that in view of Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil
Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1995 (in short 'the Rules'),    H
    830     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the select list, mentioned as waiting list, should be a moderate
  one containing that number of candidates which was not less
  than or much excess of the vacancies which might be available
  in the year of recruitment or the year succeeding thereto and
  this list should be in reasonable proportion to the notified
B vacancies. In other words, according to the respondents, a wait
  list of the candidates contemplated under Rule 12 cannot be
  deemed to be subsisting for a period beyond the filling up of
  the notified vacancies. It is also submitted by the- respondents
  that once all the vacancies were filled up, the waiting list would
c stand exhausted. In support of the· above stand, the
  respondents relied on Office Memorandum of the State
  Government dated 31.01.1994 in which it has been provided
  that the waiting list should be valid only for one year.

       7. In order to consider the rival claim of both the parties, it
D is useful to refer the relevant provisions from the Rules:-

         Rule 2 (f) defines "Waiting List" as the list of candidates
    approved under the rules, for appointment to the various posts
    in the establishment.
E
         Rule 4(2) of the Rules lays down the method of recruitment
    for Process Servers, Orderlies, Office Peons and Farrashes
    and reads thus:

          "Rule 4. Method of recruitment-Recruitment to the
F         following posts in the establishment shall be made-

          (1 ) .....

          (2) Process servers, orderly peons, office peons and
          farrashes.-(a) by appoi.ntment of candidates on the
G         waiting list prepared under rule 12 or,

          (b) by transfer from one post to another according to
          suitability.

H         (3) ..... "
NASEEM AHMAD & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 831
           [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

As per Rule 5, all appointments to the establishment in a           A
Judgeship shall be made by the District Judge.

Rule 12 is very relevant for our purpose which reads as under:

    "12. Waiting List-(i) A waiting list of candidates shall be
    maintained for each Judgeship for the posts of process          B
    servers, orderlies, office peons and farrashes.

    No waiting list shall be maintaind for chaukidars, malis,
    sweepers and. waterman.

    (ii) The waiting list should be of reasonable dimensions and
                                                                    c
    be revised from time to time with a view to removing there
    from the names of-

      (a)   all such candidates as are not likely to receive
            appointments before attaining the maximum age           D
            prescribed in Rule 8, and

      (b)   such candidates as are found guilty of
            insubordination, misbehaviour or dishonesty in the
            discharge of their duties in temporary or officiating   E
            vacancies, after giving them necessary
            opportunities to explain their conduct.

     Note-The order of names in the waiting list shall be in the
     order in which the candidates are admitted to it but the
     District Judge may at the time of appointment, choose from     F
     the list the most suitable of all the candidates for reasons
     to be recorded in writing."

    8. The advertisement dated 17.08.2000 makes it clear that
a waiting list for the post of Tamola Dahak Orderly, Peons and      ~
Farrash in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200/- for District Court,
Mahoba is to be prepared. In view of the same, applications
from eligible candidates were invited in the prescribed format
and the same has to be submitted to the Office of Senior
Administrative Officer of District Judge, Mahoba. The               H
    832    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A advertisement further shows that the candidates will be
  interviewed on 11.09.2000 at District Court, Mahoba. The
  eligibility conditions for the said posts were that the candidates
  should be at least 8th, should be an Indian citizen, capable of
  writing and reading english words and figures and should not
B be less than 18 years and more than 35 years as on
  31.09.2000. There is no dispute that all the three appellants
  satisfied the eligibility conditions. The list of selected candidates
  interviewed during 11.09.2000 to 15.09.2000 in District Court,
  Mahoba was published on 19.09.2000. In that select list,
c appellants were shown at S.No. 9, 10 and 11. By appointment
  orders dated 13.08.2001 of District Judge, Mahoba, the
  appellants have been appointed to Class IV posts in the District
  Court, Mahoba. No doubt, it is specifically stated that they were
  appointed in a temporary capacity in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-
D 3200/- and their appointment was purely temporary and was
  terminable at any time without any prior notice.

          9. It is the claim of the respondents before the High Court
    as well as before us that since the appellants were appointed
    after a period of one year from the date of their selection by
E   select list dated 19.09.2000, in terms of Government Order as
    well as Rule 12, their appointment cannot be sustained since
    the wait list stood exhausted on the appointments being made
    against the available vacancies on the date of advertisement
    i.e., 6 + 1, and therefore, they have no right to claim any
F   appointment. We are unable to accept the said contention. We
    have already noted the date of advertisement and the
    vacancies available. The material placed as well as the details
    available in the order of the learned Single Judge of the High
    Court clearly shows that on 20.09.2000, the District Judge
G   appointed six persons, namely, Sri Shitla Prasad, Shri Anand
    Kumar Shukla, Shri Santosh Kumar Saini, Shri Ravi Ranjan
    Kumar Gautam and Shri Vinod Kumar Paliwal on these
    available six vacancies on the thirty five sanctioned posts (31
    at Mahoba and 4 at Charkhari) in the Judgeship. These factual
H   details were extracted by the learned single Judge in the order
NASEEM AHMAD & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 833
           [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
dated 26.11.2005 based on the information supplied in the                A
counter affidavit of Shri Balendu Singh, 1st Additional District
Judge, Mahoba. The same order further shows that Shri Prem
Narayan at S.No. 7 was left out and was given appointment as
SC candidate on 23.12.2000. Smt. Mamta Devi at S.No. 8 of
the list drawn according to roster was given appointment on              8
13.02.2001. It is further recorded that the candidates at S.Nos.
9 to 12, namely, Shri Naseem Ahmad, Shri Prakash Chandra,
Shri Sohan Lal, (appellants herein), Shri Rajendra Prasad
Gautam were given appointments as against four vacancies at
the outlying court at Charkhari.                                         c
     10. It is clear from the information furnished before the
learned single Judge that the select list of the appellants was
dated 19.09.2000 whereas they were appointed by order dated
13.08.2001 i.e. within one year of the declaration of results. The
order dated 19.09.2003 provides that only the appointments               D
made after 19.09.2001 were ad hoc. As all the appellants have
been given appointment within one year of publication of select
list dated 19.09.2000, their services cannot be termed as ad
hoc. Even if it is accepted that wait list is valid only for one year,
since the appellants were appointed well prior to the expiry of          E
the one year, the said objection cannot be countenanced.

     11. About the validity of wait list and the claim of the
respondents that it is valid only for one year, we have already
pointed out that the relevant Rule applicable is Rule 12 which           F
admittedly does not prescribe any such limitation. Even though,
the High Court has adverted to clarification said to have been
issued by the Government, the fact remains, the statutory rule
i.e. Rule 12, as it existed on the relevant date did not provide
any time limit in regard to the operation of the waiting list. In        G
such circumstances, the claim of the official respondents that
a waiting list of candidates contemplated under Rule 12 cannot
be deemed to be subsisting for a period beyond the filling up
of the notified vacancies for the filling whereof the list has to
be prepared and maintained is not supported by any statutory
                                                                         H
Rule and liable to be rejected. It is true that it cannot be deemed
      834   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

 A    to be operative for an indefinite period. We have already
      pointed out that even if we accept that the life of the wait list is
      only for one year, inasmuch as these appellants were appointed
      by order dated 13.08.2001, within one year of their selection
.. ,  by the select list dated 19.09.2000, the stand of the respondents
    B is to be rejected and the service of the appellants has to be
      treated as regular service and no adverse order can be passed
      against them, As discussed above, the construction of Rule 12
      as per interpretation of the statute would be that its life is not
      limited for a particular year since the Rule is very specific and
    c unambiguous. Wait list gets exhausted only when all duly
      selected candidates are given appointments in the ligtlt of Rule
      12. As long as the wait list was not exhausted, a fresh list could
      not be prepared under Rule 12 and the process initiated by the
      respondents for advertising fresh posts and cancelling the wait
      list by making it as ad hoc is against the provisions of the
    0
      Rules.

           12. The waiting list was prepared as per Rule 12 and had
      to be operated as per Ru le 12. The aforesaid Ru le 12
      contemplates that the waiting list should be of "reasonable
  E   dimension" and be revised from time to time with a view to
      removing therefrom/the names of such candidates who are
      found guilty of insubordination, misbehaviour or dishonesty in
      the discharge of their duties in temporary or officiating
      vacancies. The wait list is neither a selection list prepared with
  F   reference to specific number of vacancies notified. It is
      somewhat peculiar and special. The expression "reasonable
      dimension" used in Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules signifies that
      the wait list should be a moderate one containing that number
      of candidates which is adequate to meet the vacancies which
  G   might be available within a reasonable period in the year of
      recruitment or the year succeeding thereto and this list should
      be in reasonable proportion to the notified vacancies. To be
      more precise, this waiting list should broadly be correlated to
      the number of vacancies either available in the year of.
  H   recruitment or likely to become available in the succeeding year
NASEEM AHMAD & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 835
           [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
and the proportion qua the existing and anticipated vacancies.         A
It is or.ly in order to obviate the possibility of the waiting list
becoming vitiated on account of the vice of arbitrariness or
illegal discrimination that the provision contains the Rules which
specifically provides for maintaining a waiting list of a
reasonable dimension. The word 'dimension' has to be                   B
understood to emphasise the proportion qua the vacancies
which are sought to be filled up. It is relevant to mention that
we have already noted the factual materials furnished before
the learned Judge which was noted in the order and shows that
the sanctioned posts at the relevant time were 35        i.e.31 at     c
Mahoba and 4 at Charkhari in Judgeship. In this factual
position, the contrary conclusion and the interpretation as to
expression "reasonable dimension" cannot be accepted.

     13. Under these circumstances, the claim of the appellants
has to be accepted. In the course of hearing, it is brought to         D
our notice that appellant Nos. 1 and 3 i.e., Naseeni Ahmad and
Sohan Lal were once again appointed temporarily for one year
by order dated 30.11.2007 as Class IV employees. However,
the appellant No. 2 -Prakash Chandra was not re-appointed
since at that time he was over aged.                                   E

       14. In these circumstances, we hold that appellant Nos. 1
to 3 are deemed to continue in service from the date of initial
selection i.e., 13.08.2001 and for all purpose and service
benefits, the relevant date is date of their initial selection i.e.,   F
13.08.2001 and they are permitted to continue as per the Rules
applicable. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside.
The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs.

N.J.                                             Appeal allowed.