S. SUMNYAN & ORS.versusLIMI NIRI & ORS.

                    [2010] 4 S.C.R. 829


                   S. SUMNYAN & ORS.                           A
                             V.
                      LIMI NIRI & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 3512 of 2010)
                      APRIL 20, 2010
                                                               B
 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]

    Service law:

     Arunachal Pradesh Administration [Public Works c
Department] Group-8 Post Recruitment Rules, 1983 -
Seniority benefit - Appointment of appellants as Assistant
Engineers on temporary and ad-hoc basis by State
Government under the Rules - Subsequently constitution of
State Public Service Commission - Completion of two years 0
probation period by appellants - Recommendation ofthe
Commission - Regularisation of services of appellants from
the date of initial appointment - Meanwhile, respondent no.
1 appointed as Assistant Engineer on regular basis and on
probation for period of two years - Publication of several E
provisional seniority lists showing appellants as senior to
respondent no. 1 - No objection raised - Subsequently
appellants also promoted to higher posts - Publication of final
seniority list - Challenge to, by respondent no. 1 - Direction
by Single Judge of High Court to the Government of
Arunachal Pradesh to recast the seniority list and that ad-hoc F
period of service rendered by appellants not to be counted
towards seniority - Upheld by Division Bench - On appeal
held: There is no justification for denial of the benefit of
seniority to appellants from the date of their initial
appointment - Respondent no. 1 neither challenged the initial G
appointment order of appellants as Assistant Engineers nor
the subsequent order regularising their services from the date
of their initial appointment - Also no objection raised to the
seniority lists, thus, the said challenge is belated - Order of
                               829                              H
    830     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A regularization became final and binding on all persons
  concerned -Respondent no. 1 was inducted into Government
  service by a separate mode of recruitment than that of
  appellants, therefore, their cases cannot be equated - Thus,
  order of High Courl not called for and is set aside - Delay/
B /aches.

       During the years 1986 and 1988, the Government of
  Arunachal Pradesh appointed the appellants on
  temporary and ad-hoc basis as Assistant Engineers [Civil]
  in the Public Works Department on the condition that
C they would be regularized according to the Rules on the
  recommendation of a Selection Board constituted by the
  Government. As per the Rules, the appellant had to
  undergo a probation period of two years. Thereafter,
  Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was
D constituted. The appellants completed their probation
  period and the State Public Service Commission
  considered their cases. They were regularised as
  Assistant Engineer [Civil] against direct recruitment
  quota, with effect from the date of their initial
E appointment. Meanwhile, in the year, 1988, the
  respondent no. 1 was appointed on ad-hoc basis to the
  post of the Assistant Engineer. Thereafter, the
  respondent no. 1 was appointed as Assistant Engineer
  on regular basis and put on probation for a period of two
F years on 02.05.1989. In the year 1990, the provisional
  seniority list of Assistant Engineers was issued and the
  appellants were shown as seniors to the respondent no.
  1. Some of the appellants were promoted to the post of
  the Executive Engineers and the Superintending
G Engineer on ad-hoc basis and thereafter, were
  regularized, by giving them the benefit of service from
  the actual date of their joining the service. A final seniority
  list of the Superintending Engineers and the Executive
  Engineers as on 29.08.2001 was published. In the year
H
       S. SUMNYAN & ORS. v. LIMI NIRI & ORS.           831

2001, the respondent no. 1 challenged the seniority list A
by filing a writ petition. The Single Judge of High Court
directed the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to recast
the seniority list of the Civil Engineers by accepting the
date of appointment of the respondent no.1 as on
02.05.1989 and those of the appellants from the B
respective dates of their regularization and that the ad-
hoc period of service rendered by them as Assistant
Engineers would not be counted towards the seniority in
the rank of Assistant Engineer. The Division Bench of
High Col!rt upheld the order. Hence the appeal.            c
     Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. The appellants were appointed as
  Assistant Engineers on purely temporary and ad-hoc
  basis as per the relevant terms and conditions. Few of       D
  the letters dated 2nd April, 1986 issued in the case of
  some of the appellants are placed on record. In clause 3
  thereof, it was provided that the appointments would be
  on purely temporary and ad-hoc basis until regular
  appointments are made according to the Rules on the          E
  recommendation of a Selection Board constituted by the
  Government and the said ad-hoc appointments as
  Assistant Engineer would not entitle any seniority in the
  cadre of regular Assistant Engineer. Clause 8 of the said
  appointment letter, on the other hand, stated specifically   F
  that his appointment as an Assistant Engineer would be
  governed by the relevant Rules and Orders of the
. Government issued from time to time. At the relevant time
  when the said appointment letters were issued, the
  service condition of the appellants were governed by the     G
  Arunachal Pradesh Administration [Public Works
  Department] Group-B Post Recruitment Rules, 1983,
  which is a set of rules issued in exercise of the powers
   conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
   The said Rules also regulate the method of appointment
                                                               H
    832     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010) 4 S.C.R.


A to the Group-B posts in the Public Works Department and
  also govern the recruitment process of the Assistant
  Engineers [Civil] in the Arunachal Pradesh Public Works
  Department. The said Rules provide both direct
  recruitment and promotion as methods of recruitment.
B The said Rules further provide that in case of a failure to
  recruit by the said methods, transfer on deputation shall
  be employed and that the period of probation for such
  appointment would be for two years. The Rules laid down
  further that the Union Public Service Commission was
c not required to be consulted in making the recruitment.
  [Paras 15, 16 and 17) [843-F-H; 844-A-F]

       1.2. The appellants after their recruitment on
  temporary and ad-hoc basis worked on probation for a
  period of two years and on completion of the said period
D their cases were considered by the State Public Service
  Commission and by an order dated 20.07.1989, the
  appointment of the appellants was regularised as
  Assistant Engineer [Civil] against direct recruitment
  quota. In the said order, the initial date of joining of the
E appellant no. 1 to the post of Assistant Engineer [Civil]
  on temporary and ad-hoc basis was shown as 04.02.1986
  and his date of regularization of appointment in the
  concerned Grade was shown to be as 04.02.1986,
  whereas, the other appellants were also given similar
F dates, but the fact remains that their appointment to the
  post of Assistant Engineer is shown to have been
  regularized with effect from the date of their initial
  appointment only. [Para 18) [844-F-H; 845-A-B]

G        1.3. Several seniority lists were published thereafter,
    showing the names of the appellants as senior to the
    respondent no.1 and despite such publication, which
    were of course provisional in nature, no objection was
    raised by the respondent no. 1. A final seniority list of
H
      S. SUMNYAN & ORS. v. LIMI NIRI & ORS.              833

Assistant Engineers [Civil] in Arunachal Pradesh Public         A
Works Department as on 01.03.1999 was published on
15.03.1999 through an Office Memorandum and in the said
seniority list also the names of the appellants were
shown senior to the respondent no. 1. In the said
seniority list also not only the date of their initial          B
appointment in the post of Assistant Engineer was shown
but also the date of their confirmation in the Grade was
also shown which was from the date of their initial
appointment. When the said final seniority list was
published, the respondent no. 1 finally filed a writ petition   c
in 2001 challenging the seniority position given to the
appellants. [Para 19] (844-G-H; 845-A-B]

     1.4. On the 2nd of March, 2001, a Gazette notification
had also been published which clearly indicates that not ·
only the appellants were confirmed in the post of D
Assistant Engineer [Civil] but they were also confirmed
in the post of the Executive Engineers [Civil] and at least
some of them have since been promoted to the post of
the Superintending Engineer and one of them is at least
occupying the post of the Chief Engineer. The E
respondents in their writ petition had neither challenged
the initial appointment order of the appellants appointing
them as Assistant Engineers [Civil] on temporary and ad-
hoc basis under the 1983 Rules, nor had they challenged
the subsequent order pas~ed by the Government of F
Arunachal Pradesh on the recommendation of the
Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission
regularising the services of the appellants as Assistant
Engineers from the date of their initial appointment. Not
only these orders were not challenged by the respondent G
no. 1 in the writ petition filed by him but the subsequent
orders of promotion of these appellants to the post of
Executive Engineers and their confirmation in the said
 post, on the basis of their seniority positions counting
 the ad-hoc period of service, were also not challenged. H
    834      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010) 4 S.C.R.


 A These orders are therefore final and binding on all
   concerned. [Para 20] [845-F-H; 846-A-B]

         1.5. The High Court without considering those facts
    only dealt with one aspect which is that the initial
.   appointment of the appellants to the post of Assistant
  8
    Engineer was de hors the Rules. The said findings
    recorded by both the Single Judge as also the Division
     Bench were uncalled for and unjustified for the simple
     reason that the appointment order itself indicated that
    their appointment would be governed by the Service
  C Rules then existing, i.e., the 1983 Rules. The fact that their
    services were regularized from the date of their initial
    appointment on the recommendation of the Arunachal
    Pradesh Public Service Commission was also totally
    ignored by the High Court. Thus, these facts coupled
  D with the fact that none of the said orders were challenged
    by the respondent no.1, would indicate that the said
    orders are final and binding on all the persons
    concerned. The High Court ignored the fact that the
    respondent no. 1 himself was bound by the said orders.
  E The respondent no.1 was bound by his own appointment
    orders. The appellants had rendered two years of service
    as Assistant Engineers and at least some of the
    appellants including appellant no. 1 had successfully
    completed their probation period on 01.04.1988 whereas
  F the respondent no. 1 was appointed as Assistant
    Engineer on regular basis and put on probation for two
    years on 02.05.1989. Therefore, when the respondent no.
    1 was put on probation, the appellant no. 1 and some
    others had successfully completed their probation. Thus,
  G for all purposes at all times, the appellants were senior
    to the respondent no. 1. [Para 23] [846-F-H; 847-A-B]
      1.6. Considering the fact and the precedents in the
  Department that all such employees were regularized
H from the date of their initial appointment, the Government
      S. SUMNYAN & ORS. v. LIMI NIRI & ORS.            835

of Arunachal Pradesh also regularized the services of the     A
appellants in the post of Assistant Engineer from the date
of their initial appointment and that was done on the
recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public
Service Commission. The order of regularization having
become final and binding on all concerned could not           B
have been ignored and implicitly set aside by the High
Court on a ground that the initial appointment of the
appellants was de hors the Rules, which is totally a non-
existent ground. [Para 24] [847-C-E]

     1. 7. In all cases since 1980 and prior to the C
constitution of the State of Arunachal Pradesh as an
independent State, the services of the incumbents wer~
regularised giving them retrospective effect from their
actual/initial date of joining in the service and since at the
stage of initial appointment of the appellants Arunachal D
Pradesh Public Service Commission was non-existent,
the regularization of services of such employees were
give11 through meetings of the Departmental Promotion
Committees. By the time appellants completed their two
years of probationary service period, the State of E
Arunachal Pradesh came to be constituted and since
Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission tuld
come into existence by that time, the cases of
regularization of the services of the appellants were
considered by the State Public Service Commission and F
on its recommendation their services were regularized
after expiry of the two year period of probation giving
retrospective effect to their regularization from the date
of their initial appointment. [Para~ 26) [848-A-D]
                                                              G
     1.8 The State of Arunachal Pradesh clearly stated that
if such a retrospective effect to regularization of the
services of the appellants by the State Public Service
Commission would not have been given and if it had
deviated from the past practice, the same would have          H
    836    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 4 S.C.R.

A caused prejudice and grievance and a disparity in the
  application of the Service Rules as compared to the past
  cases. Thus, it is clearly established that the respondent
  no. 1 was inducted into Government service by a separate
  mode of recruitment than that of the appellants and
B therefore their cases cannot be equated. The statement
  of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh that the
  provisional seniority lists were regularly published by the
  Public Works Department Secretariat from time to time
  since 1990 to 1999, with ample time being given to the
c incumbents to reply against any anomaly in the seniority
  list and that the respondent no.1 never submitted any
  representation in that regard is not disputed. The
  respondent no.1, therefore, had challenged the
  established seniority position after about 10 years and
D that too without challenging the basic and the
  fundamental orders of giving the appellants the benefit
  of regularised service from their initial date of
  appointment as Assistant Engineers. [Paras 27 and 28)
  [848-D-H; 849-A-B]
E      1.9. When the respondents were appointed to the
  service as Assistant Engineers on the recommendation
  of the APPSC, the said appointment was on probation for
  a period of two years. Some of the appellants had
  successfully completed their probation period on
F 20.07.1989, after their cases had been taken up for
  regularization by the APPSC. Therefore, there is no
  justification for denial of the benefit of seniority to the
  appellants from the date of their initial appointment. The
  orders passed by the Single Judge as well as by the
G Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. The writ
  petition filed by respondent no. 1 in the High Court is
  dismissed. [Paras 36 and 37) [852-E-G; 853-A-B]

       Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur and
H Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 287; G.P. Doval v. Chief Secy. Govt. of
      S. SUMNYAN & ORS. v. LIMI NIRI & ORS.                837


U.P. (1984) 4 SCC 329; Direct Recruit Class II Engineering        A
Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715,
rr lied on.
        "'7adalaimuthu and Anr. v. State of T.N. and Ors.
(20061 6 SCC 558, distinguished.                                  B
                     Case Law Reference:
    (2006) s sec 558          Distinguished.        Para 30
    (1999) 8 sec 201          Relied on.            Para 33
                                                                  c
    (1984) 4 sec 329          Relied on.            Para 34
    (1990) 2 sec 715          Relied on.            Para 35
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3512 of 2010.                                                     D

    From the Judgment & Order dated 19.2.2009 of the High
Court of Gauhati in Writ Appeal No. 370 of 2005.

    P.K. Goswami, Rajiv Mehta, A. Henry for the Appellants.
                                                                  E
      Ginny Jetley Rautray, Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Anil Shrivastav
for the Respondents.            -- ·

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    DR MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted.                    F

     2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 19.02.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the
Gauhati High Court, whereby the High Court affirmed the
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge allowing the       G
writ petition filed by the private respondent No. 1 herein and
holding that necessary correction be made in the seniority list
of the Civil Engineers and recast the same by accepting the
date of appointment of the respondent No. 1 as on 02.05.1989
and those of the appellants herein from their respective dates    H
    838     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A of regularization and that the ad-hoc period of service rendered
  by them as Assistant Engineers would not be counted towards
  their seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer.

       3. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the aforesaid
  directions issued by the learned Single Judge which were
B subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench of the Higlil Court,
  since by the aforesaid direction they are losing the benefit of
  service period of about two years rendered by them as
  Assistant Engineers on ad-hoc basis for the purpose of
  counting their seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer.
c
       4. The appellants herein were appointed on temporary
  and ad-hoc basis as Assistant Engineers [Civil] by the
  Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Public Works
  Department on various dates between the years 1986 and
D 1988 on the condition that they would be regularized according
  to the Rules on the recommendation of a Selection Board
  constituted by the Government. The State of Arunachal Pradesh
  came to be constituted as a separate State of the Republic of
  India on 20.02.1987. Consequent to such constitution,
E Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was also
  constituted under Gazette notification dated 29.03.1988.

      5. The respondent No. 1 - Limi Niri herein was also
  appointed on ad-hoc basis in the year 1988 to the post of the
  Assistant Engineer with a specific condition that he would be
F regularized according to the relevant Rules on the
  recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
  Commission. Sometime in the month of May, 1988, an
  advertisement was issued inviting applications for filling up the
  posts of the Assistant Engineers [Civil] and the Assistant
G Engineers [Electrical] in the Public Works Department of the
  Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The respondent No. 1
  submitted his application pursuant to the aforesaid
  advertisement. He was found suitable for such appointment as
  Assistant Engineer [Civil] and consequently he was issued an
H appointment letter dated 19.04.1989 for his appointment with
       S. SUMNYAN & ORS. v. LIMI NIRI & ORS.                  839
           [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
a condition that he shall be on the post on probation for a period   A
of two years and that his appointment shall not' commence
before 02.05.1989.

     6. A provisional seniority list as on 31.08.1990 of Assistant
Engineers [Civil] in the Arunachal Pradesh Public Works
                                                                   8
Department was issued and the appellants herein were shown
as seniors to the respondent no. 1. In the year 1993, some of
the appellants were promoted as Executive Engineers on ad-
hoc basis and a provisional seniority list of Executive Engineers
in the Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department was
circulated and the names of some of the appellants were shown C
in the said list of the Executive Engineers. In the year 1997, a
further seniority list as on 31.03.1997 of the Assistant
Engineers [Civil], which showed the position of various ·
appellants as senior to the respondent no. 1, was circulated for
claims and objections. Some of the appellants were thereafter D
promoted to the posts of the Executive Engineer and the
Superintending Engineer and confirmed in the said posts and
at least one of them is now occupying the post of the Chief
Engineer.
                                                                     E
      7. The authorities after promoting the appellants to the
posts of Executive Engineers in between the period from 1991
to 2001 regularized the ad-hoc promotions in the post of the
Executive Engineer by     an    order dated 15.02.2001. A final
seniority list of the Superintending Engineers and the Executive
Engineers as on 29.08.2001 was published. Regularization of
some of the appellants by order dated 15.02.2001 and final
seniority list [as on 29.08.2001] of Superintending Engineers
[Civil] and Executive Engineers circulated on 31.08.2001 were
never put in challenge by anyone.
                                                                     G
       8. In the year 2001, the respondent no. 1 herein filed the
  aforesaid writ petition against the seniority position ascribed
  and shown in the seniority list dated 15.03.1999 and sought for
  a direction that he is senior to the appellants herein as he was
· regularly selected in 1989 by the Arunachal Pradesh Public         H
    840     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 4 S.C.R.

A Service Commission. The appellants and the State Government
  filed their counter affidavit in the said writ petition contending,
  inter alia, that the appellants were appointed prior to the
  constitution of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
  Commission on 29.03.1988. The appointment of Group-B post
B in the Public Works Department of Arunachal Pradesh was
  guided by the Arunachal Pradesh Administration [Public Works
  Department] Group-8 Post Recruitment Rules, 1983 and the
  appointment of the appellants was made as per the said
  Recruitment Rules in the absence of the Arunachal Pradesh
c Public Service Commission at the relevant time. Their services
  also were regularized in terms of the said Rules which provided
  that a minimum service period of two years, known as period
  of probation, was necessary for rendering service in the
  capacity of Assistant Engineer for all appointments made by
D Government to these posts since 1980. The services of the
  appellants were regularized as stated hereinabove giving them
  the benefit of service from the actual date of their joining the
  service.

       9. Before the constitution of the Arunachal Pradesh Public
E Service Commission such regularizations were given by
  convening meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
  However, by the time the cases of the appellants could be taken
  up for consideratiGn for regularization of their services on
  completion of two years period of probation, the Arunachal
F Pradesh Public Seryice Commission came to be constituted
  and therefore the cases for regularization of the services of the
  appellants were considereq by the Arunachal Pradesh Public
  Service Commission, which recom.mended the regularization
  of the services of the appellants from the date of their initial
G appointment. It was also pointed out that not giving
  retrospective effect to regularization of the services of the
  appellants by Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission
  would have been a deviation from the past practices and that
  would have caused prejudice and grievance amongst the
H appellants as also disparity in application of the Service Rules.
       S. SUMNYAN & ORS. v. LIMI NIRI & ORS.                841
           [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
It was also pointed out that the appellants and the respondents    A
were inducted into the Government service through two
separately and different modes of recruitment, one taking place
before the constitution of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission and the other after the constitution of the Arunachal
Pradesh Public Service Commission.                                 B
        10. The learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court
  took up the aforesaid writ petition for hearing and by its
. judgment and order dated 29.04.2005 allowed the writ petition
  and directed the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to make         C
  necessary changes in the seniority list by recasting the same
  by accepting the date of appointment of the respondent no.1
  as on 02.05.1989 and those of the appellants from the
   respective-dates of their regularization and that the ad-hoc
   period of service rendered by them would not be counted
   towards the seniority in the .rank of Assistant Engineer.
                                                                   D

       11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order,
 an appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court
 which was heard accordingly and by a judgment and order
 dated 19.02.2009 the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal     E
 filed by the appellants and confirmed the judgment and order
 passed by the learned Single Judge. Being so aggrieved, the
 present appeal was filed by the appellants herein which was
 entertained and on completion of the pleadings, we have heard
 learned counsel appearing for the parties~                        F
      12. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before
 us that since the appellants herein were appointed prior to the
 respondent no.1 in point of time and they were also regularized
 from an earlier date, they had been rightly shown by the          G
 concerned Department to be senior to the respondent no. 1.
 The counsel for the appellant further submitted before us that
 therefore in any view of the matter the appointment of the
 appellants having been made by the State Government prior
 to the constitution of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
 Commission and their regularisation on the recommendation         H
    842      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2010] 4 S.C.R.


A of the State Public Service Commission after successful
  completion of two years probationary service, having not been
  challenged by any party, including the respondent no. 1 herein,
  the High Court was riot justified in interfering with the seniority
  position and the length of service rendered by the appellants
B in counting the said ad-hoc period of service for the benefit of
  their seniority.

          13. It was also submitted thac not only their services
    rendered as temporary and ad-hoc service were recognized
C   and counted towards their seniority while regularizing their
    service as Assistant Engineer with a retrospective date of their
    initial appointment, but even some of the appellants, in the
    meantime, depending on their seniority in the post of the
    Assistant Engineer were considered and promoted during the
    period from 1991 to 2001 to the post of the Executive Engineer
D   and the Superintending Engineer and one of them was even
    promoted to the post of the Chief Engineer. However, despite
    the aforesaid situation, no objection or challenge was made till
    2001. It was further submitted that the High Court acted illegally
    and without jurisdiction in setting aside the benefit given to them
E   as far back as 20.07.1989, although, in the writ petition filed
    by the respondent no. 1, the said order was not challenged. It
    was also submitted that the respondent no. 1 himself not having
    raised any grievance against the initial appointment of the
    appellants as temporary and ad-hoc Assistant Engineers and
F   also having not protested their regularization of service on the
    recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
    Commission from the date of their initial appointment and the
    said order having become final and binding no interference was
    called for from the High Court on the basis of a writ petition.

         14. The counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1,
    however, submitted that though the initial appointment of the
    appellants has not been challenged by the respondent no. 1,
    he is aggrieved by the appellants having been given the benefit
    of seniority for the period of service which was rendered on
H
         S. SUMNYAN & ORS. v. LIMI NIRI & ORS.                    843
             [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
    temporary and ad-hoc basis. The counsel for the respondents           A
    also submitted that since the initial appointment of the
     appellants was irregular and de hors the relevant Rules, they
     are entitled to get their seniority only from the date when their
    were regularized by the competent authority and therefore the
    judgment and order passed by the High Court is just and               1;3
    proper. It was also submitted by the counsel for the respondents
    that had the appellants so desired, they could have, as he
    (respondent no.1) had done, submitted th~ir application for
     being considered as a regular appointee pursuant to the
     advertisement issued by the Public Service CommisSion. The           c
     counsel for the respondents further emphasized the fact some
     of the appellants had availed the said opportunity, which fact
     would indeed show that they were fully conscious of the fact that
·., their initial appointmentwas not in accordance with the existing
, rules and that the same was r;etjuired to be regularized by
                                                                          0
     following a proper procedure and therefore their seniority could
     be counted only from the date they were so regularized in the
     service on the basis of the recommendation of the Arunachal
     Pradesh Public Service Commission.

         15. In the light of the aforesaid submissions and averments      E
   made by the counsel appearing for the appellants, the
   respondents and the State of Arunachal Pradesh and after
   examining the documents placed on record before us, we find
   that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellants
   were appointed as Assistant Engineers on purely temporary               F
   and ad-hoc basis. Few of the letters dated 2nd April, 1986
   issued in the case of some of the appellants are placed on
   record.

        16. A close perusal of the said letters issued shows that         G
   a few of the appellants had been appointed on 2nd of April,
   1986 as Assistant Engineers purely on temporary and ad-hoc
   basis as per the relevant terms and condjtions. In clause 3
   thereof, it was provided that the appointments would be on
   purely temporary and ad-hoc basis until regular appointments
                                                                           H
    844     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A   are made according to the Rules on the recommendation of a
    Selection Board constituted by the Government and that
    aforesaid ad-hoc appointments as Assistant Engineer would
    not entitle any seniority in the cadre of regular Assistant
    Engineer.
B
        17. Clause 8 of the said appointment letter, on the other
  hand, stated specifically that his appointment as an Assistant
  Engineer would be governed by the relevant Rules and Orders
  of the Government issued from time to time. There is also no
  dispute with regard to the fact that at the relevant time when
C the aforesaid appointment letters were issued, the service
  condition of the appellants were governed by the Arunacha/
  Pradesh Administration [Public Works Department] Group-B
  Post Recruitment Rules, 1983, which is a set of rules issued
  in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the
D Constitution of India. The said Rules also regulate the method
  of appointment to the Grour-B posts in the Public Works
  Department and also govern the recruitment process of the
  Assistant Engineers [Civil] in the Arunachal Pradesh Public
  Works Department. The said Rules provide both direct
E recruitment and promotion as methods of recruitment. The said
  Rules further provide that in case of a failure to recruit by the
  aforesaid methods, transfer on deputation shall be employed
  and that the period of probation for such appointment would be
  for two years. The Rules laid down further that the Union Public
F Service Commission was not required to be consulted in
  making the recruitment.

        18. The aforesaid appellants after their recruitment on
  temporary and P.d-hoc basis worked on probation for a period
  of two years and on completion of the said period their cases
G were considered by the State Public Service Commission and
  by an order dated 20.07 .1989, the appointment of the
  appellants was regularised as Assistant Engineer [Civil] against
  direct recruitment quota. In the said order, the initial date of
  joining of the appellant no. 1 to the post of Assistant Engineer
H
       S. SUMNYAN & ORS. v. LIMI NIRI & ORS.                 845
           [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

[Civil] on temporary and ad-hoc basis was shown as                  A
04.02.1986 and his date of regularization of appointment in the
ooncerned Grade was shown to be as 04.02.1986, whereas,
the other appellants were also given similar dates, but the fact
remains that their appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer
is shown to have been regularized with effect from the date of      s
their initial appointment only.

      19. Several seniority lists were published thereafter,
showing the names of the appellants as senior to the
respondent no.1 and despite such publication, which were of
course provisional· in nature, no objection was raised by the       C
respondent no. 1. A final seniority list of Assistant Engineers
[Civil] in Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department as on
01.03.1999 was published on 15.03.1999 through an Office
Memorandum and in the said seniority list also the names of
the appellants were shown senior to the respondent no. 1. In        D
the said seniority list also not only the date of their initial
appointment in the post of Assistant Engineer was shown but
also the date of their confirmation in the Grade was also shown
which was from the date of their initial appointment. When the
aforesaid final seniority list was published, the respondent no.    E
1 finally filed a writ petition in 2001 challenging the seniority
position given to the appellants.

      20. On the 2nd of March, 2001, a Gazette notification had
also been published which clearly indicates that not only the       F
appellants were confirmed in the post of Assistant Engineer
[Civil] but they were also confirmed in the post of the Executive
Engineers [Civil] and at least some of them have since been
promoted to the post of the Superintending Engineer and one
of them is at least occupying become the post of the Chief          G
Engineer. The respondents in their writ petition had neither
challenged the initial appointment order of the appellants
appointing them as Assistant Engineers [Civil] on temporary and
ad-hoc basis under the 1983 Rules, nor had they challenged
the subsequent order passed bv the Government of Arunachal
                                                                    H
    846     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2010] 4 S.C.R.


A Pradesh on the recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh
  Public Service Commission regularising the services of the
  appellants as Assistant Engineers from the date of their initial
  appointment. Not only these orders were not challenged by the
  respondent no. 1 in the writ petition filed by him but the
B subsequent orders of promotion of these appellants to the post
  of Executive Engineers and their confirmation in the said post,
  on the basis of their seniority positions counting the ad-hoc
  period of service, were also not challenged. These orders are
  therefore final and binding on all concerned.
c       21. As noted earlier by us, several seniority lists, although
  provisional in nature, were published in the meantime, showing
  that the benefit of ad-hoc period had been given to the
  appellants. But these were never challenged by the respondent
  no. 1 and it was only in the year 2001 when some of them were
D promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer and one of
  them to the post of the Chief Engineer that the respondent no.
  1 filed the aforesaid writ petition.

       22. The High Court without considering those facts have
E only dealt with one aspect which is that the initial appointment
  of the appellants to the post of Assistant Engineer was de hors
  the Rules. The said findings recorded by both the Single Judge
  as also the Division Bench were uncalled for and unjustified for
  the simple reason that the appointment order itself indicated
F that their appointment would be governed by the Service Rules
  then existing, i.e., the 1983 Rules.

        23. The fact that their services were regularized from the
  date of their initial appointment on the recommendation of the
  Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was also
G totally ignored by the High Court. Thus, these facts coupled with
  the fact that none of the aforesaid orders were challenged by
  the respondent no.1, would indicate that the said orders are final
  and binding on all the persons concerned. The High Court
  ignored the fact that the respondent no. 1 himself was bound
H by the aforesaid orders. The respondent no.1 was bound by
       S. SUMNYAN & ORS. v. LIMI NIRI & ORS.                   847
           [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
his gwn appointment orders. The appellants had rendered two            A
ye<i'rs of service as Assistant Engineers and at least some of
the appellants including appellant no. 1 had successfully
completed their probation period on 01.04.1988 whereas the
respondent no. 1 was appointed as Assistant Engineer on
regular basis and put on probation for two years on 02.05.1989.        8
Therefore, when the respondent no. 1 was put on probation, the
appellant no. 1 and some others had successfully completed
their probation. Thus, for all purposes at all times, the appellants
were senior to the respondent no. 1.

      24. Considering the said fact and also considering the           C
precedents in the Department that all such employees were
regularized from the date of their initial appointment, the
Government of Arunachal Pradesh also regularized the services
of the appellants in the post of Assistant Engineer from the date
of their initial appointment and that was done on the                  D
recommendation of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission. The order of regularization having become final
and binding on all concerned could not have been ignored and
implicitly set aside by the High Court on a ground that the initial
appointment of the appellants was de hors the Rules, which is          E
totally a non-existent ground.

     25. There is no denial to the fact that prior to the
constitution of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission on 29th March, 1988 the appointment of Assistant
                                                                       F
Engineers in the State Public Works Department was always
carried out in accordance with the Arunachal Pradesh
Administration [Public Works Department] Group-B Post
Recruitment Rules, 1983. The appointment of the appellants as
indicated by their initial appointment letters issued in 1986          G
indicate that their appointments were governed as per the said
Service Rules.

     26. Under the said Rules, a minimum service period of two
years, known as period of probation was considered necessary
for rendering service in the capacity of Assistant Engineer for        H
    848       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 4 S.C.R.

A all appointments made by Government to these posts since
  1980. In all cases since 1980 and prior to the constitution of
  the State of Arunachal Pradesh as an independent State, the
  services of the incumbents were regularised giving them
  retrospective effect from their actual/initial date of joining in the
8 service   and since at the stage of initial appointment of the
  appellants Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was
  non-existent, the regularization of services of such employees
  were given through meetings of the Departmental Promotion
  Committees. By the time appellants completed their two years
C of probationary service period, the State of Arunachal Pradesh
  came to be constituted and since Arunachal Pradesh Public
  Service Commission had come into existence by that time, the
  cases of regularization of the services of the appellants were
  considered by the State Public Service Commission and on
  its recommendation their services were regularized after expiry
D of the two year period of probation giving retrospective effect
  to their regularization from the date of their initial appointment.

        27. It is clearly stated by the State of Arunachal Pradesh
  that if such a retrospective effect to regularization of the services
E of the appellants by the State Public Service Commission
  would not have been given and if it had deviated from the past
  practice, the same would have caused prejudice and grievance
  and a disparity in the application of the Service Rules as
  compared to the past cases.
F
          28. It is, thus, clearly established that the respondent no.
  1 was inducted into Government service by a separate mode
  of recruitment than that of the appellants and therefore their
  cases cannot be equated. The statement of the Government
  of Arunachal Pradesh that the provisional seniority lists were
G regularly published by the Public Works Department Secretariat
  from time to time since 1990 to 1999, with ample time being
  given to the incumbents to reply against any anomaly in the
  seniority list and that the respondent no. 1 never submitted any
  representation in that regard is not disputed. The respondent
H
        S. SUMNYAN & ORS. v. LIMI NIRI & ORS.                  849
            [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
. no. 1, therefore, had challenged the established seniority           A
  position after about 10 years and that too without challenging
  the basic and the fundamental orders of giving the appellants
  the benefit of regularised service from their initial date of
  appointment as Assistant Engineers.
                                                                       B
     29. The challenge appears to us to be belated and in this
 regard we would endorse the same view as expressed by this
 Court in the case of Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of
 Manipur & Ors. reported in (1999) 8 SCC 287 at para 15
 which is extracted hereinbelow: -
                                                                       c
     "15. It is now well settl'3d that even in cases of probation
     or officiating appointments which are followed by a
     confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service
     rendered as officiating appointment or on probation cannot
     be ignored for reckoning the length of continuous officiating     D
     service for determining the place in the seniority list. Where
     the first appointment is made by not following the
     prescribed procedure and such appointee is approved
     later on, the approval would mean his confirmation by the
     authority shall relate back to the date on which his              E
     appointment was made and the entire service will have to
     be computed in reckoning the seniority according to the
     length of continuous officiation. In this regard we fortify our
     view by the judgment of this Court in G.P. Doval and Anr.
     v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and Ors. [(1984)           F
     4 sec 329]."

      30. The respondents have, in support of their case, referred
 to and relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of K.
 Madalaimuthu and Another v. State of T. N. and Others
 reported in (2006) 6 SCC 558. In order to appreciate the              G
 contention raised by the counsel appearing for the
 respondents, we have carefully perused the said decision.
 However, on a careful scrutiny of the said judgment, we are of
 the considered opinion that the said decision is distinguishable
 on facts which are noted hereinbelow.                                 H
    850       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A      31. The aforesaid decision was rendered in a fact situation
  which is altogether different from the present one and this would
  be apparent on a bare perusal of the said decision. In the said
  case the recruitment of the respondents therein was admittedly
  de hors the relevant Recruitment Rules inasmuch as the said
B recruitment was particularly made under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of
  the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955.
  The said provision is extracted hereinbelow for a proper
  appreciation of the situation: -

          "1 O (a) (i) (1 ): Where it is necessary in the public interest
c         owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately
          a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class
          or category and there would be undue delay in making
          such appointment in accordance with these rules and the
          Special Rules, the appointing authority may temporarily
D         appoint a person, who possess the qualifications
          prescribed for the post otherwise than in accordance with
          the said rules."

                                                  (emphasis supplied)
E
       32. It is clear from the judgment in the said case that the
  respondents therein had been appointed under Rule 1O (a) (i)
  (1) which provides for recruitments in emergent circumstances
  and allows the appointing authority to make appointments
  otherwise than in accordance with the said Rules. It was in this
F context that this Court held that the respondents therein will get
  benefit of their seniority only from the date they were regularized
  in the cadre to which they had been appointed. In the case at
  hand, however, the fact situation is totally different on account
  of the fact that the appointment letters issued to the appellants
G appointing them as temporary and ad-hoc basis as Assistant
  Engineers in the Public Works Department specifically
  mentioned that the appellants will be governed by the Service
  Rules and also that they would be regularized according to the
  Rules on the recommendation of a Selection Board constituted
H by the Government. We would like to extract both the aforesaid
       S. SUMNYAl".J & ORS. v. LIMI NIRI & ORS.                851
           [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
conditions formulating part of the terms and conditions                A
contained in the appointment letters issued to the appellants: -

     "3. This appointment will be on purely temporary and ad-
     hoc basis until regular appointment are made according
     to rules on the recommendation of a selection Board
                                                                       B
     constituted by the Government. (No increment in time scale
     will be permissible till their appointment is regularized. This
     ad-hoc appointment as Assistant Engineer will not entitle
     any seniority in the cadre of regular Assistant Engineer"

     "8. His appointment will be governed by the relevant Rules        C
     and Orders of the Government issued from time to time"

       33. In that view of the matter there was not only a case of
 the appellants having a legitimate expectation that their cases
 would be considered for regularization by the competent
                                                                       0
  authority but also a case where the Service Rules were also
  made applicable to the appellants. When the Arunachal
  Pradesh Public Service Commission ("the APPSC")
  considered the cases of the appellants for regularization on
  completion of their probationary period of two years, all the said
  factors weighed with the APPSC and consequently it was
                                                                       E
  decided to regularize them from the date of their initial
. appointment. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, ratio
  laid down in the case of Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh (supra)
  would be squarely applicable.
                                                                       F
     34. We may here also appropriately refer to another
decision of this Court in the case of G.P. Doval v. Chief Secy.,
Govt. of U.P. reported in (1984) 4 SCC 329, wherein this Court
held that regularization of the services of a person, whose initial
appointment although not in accordance with the prescribed             G
procedure but later on approved by an authority having power
and jurisdiction to do so would always relate back to the dates
of their initial appointment. Para 13 is, which is reproduced
herein below:
                                                                       H
    852       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A         "13 ........................... If the first appointment is made by
          not following the prescribed procedure but later on the
          appointee is approved making his appointment regular, it
          is obvious commonsense that in the absence of a contrary
          rule, the approval which means confirmation by the authority
B         which had the authority, power and jurisdiction to make
          appointment or recommend for appointment, will relate
          back to the date on which first appointment is made and
          the entire service will have to be computed in reckoning
          the seniority according to the length of continuous
          officiation. That has not been done in this
c         case .......................... "

          35. We may also usefully refer to the judgment of this Court
  in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Assn. v. State
  of Maharashtra reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715, which reads
D as follows:

          "47. To sum up, we hold that:

                 (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post
          according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the
E         date of his appointment and not according to the date of
          his confirmation ........................................ "

        36. The other aspect of the matter which is to be noted i?
  that whell'- the respondents were appointed to the service as
F Assistant Engineers on the recommendation of the APP SC, the
  said appointment was on probation for a period of two years.
  Some of the appellants had successfully completed their
  probation period on 20.07 .1989, after their cases had been
  taken up for regularization by the APPSC. Therefore, when
G considered from any angle there is no justification for denial of
  t~e benefit of seniority to the appellants from the date of their
  initial appointment which is also in tune with the legal principles
  laid down by this Court as referred to hereinbefore and in that
  view of the matter the aforesaid decision which is relied upon
H by the counsel appearing for the respondents is held to be not
       S. SUMNYAN & ORS. v. LIMI NIRI & ORS.              853
           lPR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.   A

     37. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the
orders passed by the Single Judge as well as by the Division
Bench of the High Court. Consequently, the Writ Petition filed
by respondent no. 1 in the High Court would stand dismissed.     8
    38. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. There will
be no order as to costs.

N.J.                                         Appeal allowed.