SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTT. & R.E.S.versusNARENDRA KUMAR TRI PATH I

                       [2015] 5 S.C.R. 742


A      SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTT. & R.E.S.
                                v.
                 NARENDRA KUMAR TRI PATH I
                 (Civil Appeal No. 3348 of 2015)
B
                         APRIL 7, 2015
    [V. GO PALA GOWDA AND AD AR SH KUMAR GOEL, JJ. ]
         Service law: Seniority - Ad hoc appointment -
c Regularization of - Claim for seniority from the date of
  appointment - Held: In the instant case, the appointment was
  made after due selection process and was neither against
  the rules nor as stop gap arrangement - Service was
  subsequently regularised - Employee is entitled to count ad
D hoc service for his senioritY1- Uttar Pradesh Regularisation
  of Ad Hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the
  Public Service Commission) (Second Amendment) Rules,
  1989 - r. 10 - Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc
  Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public
E Service Commission) Rules, 1979- rr.4 and 7.

         Dismissing the State's app~al and allowing the
    respondent-writ petitioner's appeal, the Court

F        HELD: 1. The writ petitioner was first appointed
  as Work Engineer (Work Charge) on 18th January, 1983.
  Later, vide Office Memo dated 12th June, 1985 issued by
  the State Government on the basis of recommendations
  of the Selection Committee, he was appointed on
G temporary post of Assistant Engineer in regular scale
  on ad hoc basis. The said appointment continued and
  was followed by "Notification/Regularization" dated 141h
  December, 1989 as per the 1979 Rules as amended by
  1989 Rules. The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc
H                           742
   SECY. MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTI. v. NARENDRA                 743
                 KUMAR TRI PATH I

Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public A
Service Commission) Rules, 1979 provided for
regularization of ad hoc appointment of persons
possessing requisite qualifications for regular
appointment on completion of three years continuous
service. [Paras 3, 4] [745-G-H; 746-A-E]                B

       2. No doubt, ad hoc service, when appointment
was against rules and purely as stop gap arrangement,
cannot be counted for the purposes of seniority but the
present is not the case where the ad hoc service is purely       C
by way of stop gap arrangement or against the rules.
The scheme of the working of the Rules in the
Departmentshows thatrightfrom 1979, the Department
has been making direct recruitment after due selection
and by applying the 1979 Rules which rules have been             D
extended from time to time to subsequent recruitments,
services were regularized. When the rules provide that
such ad hoc appointments have to be regularized and
seniority counted from the date of appointment, the writ         E
petitioner could not be deprived of the past service
rendered by him from 12th June, 1985 till the date of
regularization. It is not a case of appointments made
without due selection or without vacancy or without
qualification or in violation of rules. It is not a case where   F
service rendered is either fortuitous or against rules or
by way of stop gap arrangement. The writ petitioner is
entitled to count service from 12th June, 1985. Moreover,
the department has allowed the benefit of past service
to other similarly placed incumbents [Paras 13, 18] [751-        G
B; 757-C-G]

  Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association
  v. State of Maharashtra 1990 (2) SCC 715: 1990 (2)
  SCR 900 - relied on.                                           H
744         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A        Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union oflndia 1992 Su pp.( 1)
         SCC 272: 1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 573 - held
         inapplicable.

        State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors.
B       1993 (3) SCC 371: 1993 (2) SCR 919; Rudra Kumar
        Sain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2000 (8) SCC 25:
        2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 573 - referred to.

                         Case Law Reference
c 1990 (2) SCR 900               relied on.          Para 7

      1993 (2) SCR 919           referred to.        Para 9

      1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 573    held inapplicable. Para 13
D
      2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 573    referred to.        Para 16

            CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
      3348 of 2015 etc.

E             From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2003 of the
      High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ
      Petition No. 9940 of 2001.

                                WITH
F
           C. A. No. 3349 of 2015

         Ratnakar Das, M. R. Shamshad, Kabir Dixit, Aditya
  Samaddar, Garvesh Kabra, Pooja Kabra, Pradeep Misra,
  Chandra Shekhar, Udit Arora, Shashwat Sharma, Sandhya
G Gupta, S. K. Verma, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, G. V. Rao, Siddharth
  Krishna Dwivedi, Vi nay Garg, Anil Kumar Sang al, Respondent-
  In-Person, Applicant-In-Person, Pradeep Misra, for the
  appearing parties.

H           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
   SECY. MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTI. v. NARENDRA                   745
                 KUMAR TRI PATH I

       ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.                                       A

     1. Leave granted.

      2. These appeals have been preferred against judgment
and order dated 13th February, 2003 in Civil Miscellaneous         B
Writ Petition No.9940 of 2001 and dated 10th December, 2004
in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.11542 of 2003 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.18683 of 2004 has been filed by the Minor
Irrigation Department of State of Uttar Pradesh ("the              c
Department") and SLP (Civil) No.8330 of2005 has been filed
by Narendra Kumar Tripathi ("the writ petitioner") employed
as engineer with the Department of Minor Irrigation, Rural
Engineering in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In both the matters,
the question involved is whether the writ petitioner is entitled   D
to count his service as Assistant Engineer from 12th June,
1985, the date of his initial appointment on an 'ad hoc' basis,
for purposes of seniority or his service will be counted only
from 14th December, 1989, the date on which approval'to his
appointment was given by the State Government under the            E
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc
Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service
Commission) Rules, 1979 ("1979 Rules") as amended on 7th
August, 1989 by the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc
Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service    F
Commission) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1989 ("1989"
Rules).

     3. The writ petitioner was first appointed as Work
Engineer (Work Charge) on a fixed pay of Rs.650/- on 18th G
January, 1983. Later, vide Office Memo dated 12th June, 1985
issued by the Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Rural
Development Section on the basis of recommendations of the
Selection Committee, he was appointed on temporary post of
                                                             H
746       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A Assistant Engineer in regular scale on ad hoc basis. The letter
  of appointment, inter alia, provided that the appointment was
  purely on ad hoc basis and his services could be terminated
  by notice or on availability of candidates duly selected through
  Public Service Commission and the appointee had no claim
B for regular appointment. The said appointment, however,
  continued and was followed by "Notification/Regularization"
  dated 14th December, 1989 as per the 1979 Rules as
  amended by 1989 Rules.

C        4. The 1979 Rules provided for regularization of ad hoc
  appointment of persons possessing requisite qualifications
  for regular appointment on completion of three years
  continuous service. Rule 7 provides for seniority from the date
  of order of appointment after selection. The said Rules though
D initially applicable to appointments made prior to January 01,
  1977 were extended from time to time and on 7th August, 1989,
  the said rules were extended to persons directly appointed on
  ad hoc basis on or before 1st October, 1986 and who continued
  in service.
E
           5. Rules 4 and 7 are as under:

      "4. Regularisation of adhoc appointments: (1) any
      personwho-
F
         (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before
         January 1, 1977 and is continuing in service as such
         on the date of commencement of these rules;

         (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for
G        regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc
         appointment; and

         (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he
         has completed three years continuous service shall
H        be considered for regular appointment in permanent
 SECY. MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTI. v. NARENDRA                   747
  KUMAR TRI PATH I [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

   or temporary vacancy as may be available on the            A
   basis of his record and suitability before any regular
   appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance
   with the relevant service rules or order.

(2) In making regular appointments under these rules,         B
reservations for the candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward
classes and other categories shall be made in
accordance with the order of the Government in force
at the time of recruitment.                                   C

(3) For the purpose of sub-rule (1) the appointing
authority shall constitute a Selection Committee and
consultation with the Commission shall not be
necessary.                                                    D
(4) The appointing authority shall prepare an eligibility
list of the candidates, arranged in order of seniority, as
determined from the date of order of appointment and
if two or more persons are appointed together from the        E
order in which their names are arranged in the said
appointment order, the list shall be placed before the
Selection Committee along with their character rolls and
such other records, pertaining to them as may be
considered necessary to judge their suitability.              F

(5) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases
of the candidates on the basis of their records referred
to in sub-rule (4).

(6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of the       G
selected candidates, the names in the list being
arranged in order of seniority and forward it to the
appointing authority."
                                                              H
748        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A       7. Seniority:- (1) A person appointed under these rules
        shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of order
        of appointment after selection in accordance with these
        rules and shall, in all cases be placed below the persons
        appointed in accordance with the relevant service rules,
 B      or as the case may be, the regular prescribed
        procedure, prior to the appointment of such person
        under these rules.

        (2) If two or more persons are appointed together, their
 c      seniority inter se shall be determined in the order
        mentioned in the order of appointment."

              6. The 1989 amendment to the Rules inserted Rule 10
      as follows:
 D      "10. Extension to the rules: - The provisions of these
        rules shall apply mutatis mutandis, also to any person
        directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before October
        1, 1986 and continuing in service as such, on the date
        of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization
 E      ofAd hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of
        the Public Service Commission) (Second Amendment)
        Rules, 1989."

           7. The writ petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ
 F Petition No.9940 of 2001 with the grievance that in the seniority
   list published on 41h January, 1995 his name was placed at
   Serial No.274 showing his service w.e.f. 14•h December, 1989.
   In doing so, he was not given benefit of past service, while
   such benefit was given to other similarly placed persons. This
 G contention was noticed by the High Court as follows :

        ' .A perusal of the seniority list shows that persons placed
        at Serial No. 8 to 64 were regularized vide order dated
        15-4-1985 w.e.f. 14-5-1979, and similarly the person
 H      placed at serial No. 132 was regularized by order dated
      SECY. MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTT. v. NARENDRA                  749
       KUMAR TRI PATH I [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

     17-1-1990 w.e.f. 13-5-1984. One Subhash Singh whose            A
     name is at serial No. 8 was given the benefit of his
     previous service and his seniority fixed accordingly.
     However petitioner was not given any benefit of his
     previous service in the department."
                                                                     B
       The High Court held that the writ petitioner was entitled
to benefit of past service in view of the law down by this Court
in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association
vs. State of Maharashtra1. Accordingly, the High Court
directed that the initial date of appointment of the writ petitioner C
be taken as 181h January, 1983. Aggrieved by the said view,
the State has approached this Court.

        8. However, during pendency of the matter in this Court,
the issue arose in other pending matters before the High Court D
including the second writ petition by the writ petitioner Narendra
Kumar Tripathi being Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition
No.11542 of 2004 which was filed to seek compliance of
earlier order of the High Court. The matter was referred to a
larger Bench and was heard and decided by a Bench of three E
Judges vide Judgment dated 101h December, 2004 "Farhat
Hussain Azad versus State of U.P. & Ors." against which the
department has approached this Court.

        9. Referring to the decision of this Court in State of F
West Bengal & Ors. vs. Aghore Nath Dev & Ors.g laying
down that, to count past service, initial appointment has to be
according to rules and if initial appointment is ad hoc, not
according to rules and is made as a 'stop gap arrangement',
the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for G
counting the seniority, the High Court held that appointment on
ad hoc basis dehors the rules and without following the
procedure prescribed under the law could not be counted for
1
    1990 (2) sec 715
2   1993 (3) sec 371                                               H
750         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A seniority. Accordingly, it was held that the writ petitioner was
  not entitled to count ad hoc service for his seniority. The
  judgment dated 12th February, 2003 rendered in the case of
  the writ petitioner which is the subject matter of appeal filed by
  the State was held to be per incuriam. Aggrieved thereby, the
B writ petitioner has approached this Coort by way of appeal
  arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8330 of 2005.

             10. We have heard learned counsel forthe parties.

c              11. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted
      that the view taken by the larger Bench of the High Court is
      based on erroneous assumption that the appointment of the
      writ petitioner was stop gap arrangement and dehors the rules.
      Careful perusal of the scheme of the rules and their working
      shows that the appointment of writ petitioner was neither
 0
      against the rules nor by way of stop gap arrangement. It was
      made clear by learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the
      claim of the writ petitioner was limited for counting service from
      12th June, 1985 when he was appointed after due selection in
 E    regular pay scale. It is pointed out that under the 1979 Rules to
      meet exigency of service, appointments were being made
      without approval of the Public Service Commission and were
      being thereafter re~larized. Service of such persons was
      being counted from the date of initial appointment made after
 F    due selection. In the present case also, the writ petitioner was
      duly selected and though the terms of appointment provided
      for his service being terminated on a person selected by Public
      Service Commission joining service, such a situation never
      arose and services of the writ petitioner continued and were
G     regularized thereafter. In these circumstances, the past service
      of the writ petitioner could not be ignored.

          12. Learned counsel for the State however, submitted
  that the view taken by the larger Bench was the correct view
H and ad hoc service as stop gap arrangement could not be
    SECY MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTI. v. NARENDRA                   751
     KUMAR TRIPATHI [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

taken into account. At the time of appointment no rules had A
been framed.

        13. After giving due consideration to the rival
submissions, we are of the view that the contention of the writ
petitioner has to be upheld. No doubt, ad hoc service, when B
appointment was against rules and purely as stop gap
arrangement, cannot be counted for the purposes of seniority,
as held by the larger Bench of the High Court and in several
judgments of this Court, including in Keshav Chandra Joshi
vs. Union of India~ but the present is not the case where the C
ad hoc service is purely by way of stop gap arrangement or
against the rules.

       14.Atthis stage, observations of this Court in some of
the leading judgments may be referred to. In Direct Recruit D
Class II Engineering Officers' Association, it was
observed:-

   "47. To sum up, we hold that:
                                                                E
   (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according
   to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of
   his appointment and not according to the date of his
   confirmation.

   The corollary of the above rule is that where the initfaf    F
   appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules
   andmade as a stop-gap a"angement, the officiation in
   such post cannot be taken into account for considering
   the seniority.
                                                                G
   (8) If the initial appointment is not made by following
   the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee
   continues in the post uninterruptedly till the
• 1992 Supp.(1)   sec 212                                       H
752        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A       regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules,
        the period of officiating service will be counted."

             15. In Aghore Nath Dey, the above observations were
      explained as follows:-
B
        "25. In our opinion, the conclusion (8) was added to
        cover a different kind of situation, wherein the
        appointments are otherwise regular, except for the
        deficiency of certain procedural requirements laid down
c       by the rules. This is clear from the opening words of the
        conclusion (8), namely, 'if the initial appointment is not
        made by following the procedure laid down by the 'rules'
        and the latter expression 'tit/ t!1e regularisation of his
        service in accordance with the rules'. We read
D       conclusion (8), and it must be so read to reconcile with
        conclusion (A), to cover the cases where the initial
        appointment is made against an existing vacancy, not
        limited to a fixed period of time or purpose by the
        appointment order itself, and is made subject to the
 E      deficiency in the procedural requirements prescribed
        by the rules for adjudging suitability of the appointee
        for the post being cured at the time of regularisation,
        the appointee being eligible and qualified in every
        manner for a regular appointment on the date of initial
 F      appointment in such cases. Decision about the nature
        of the appointment, for determining whether it falls in
        this category, has to be made on the basis of the terms
        of the initial appointment itself and the provisions in
        the rules. In such cases, the deficiency in the procedural
G       requirements laid down by the rules has to be cured at
        the first available opportunity, without any default of the
        employee, and the appointee must continue in the post
        uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service, in
        accordance with the rules. In such cases, th1~ appointee
 H
    SECY. MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTI. v. NARENDRA                   753
     KUMAR TRIPATHI [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

   is not to blame for the deficiency in the procedural          A
   requirements under the rules at the time of his initial
   appointment, and the appointment not being limited to
   a fixed period of time is intended to be a regular
   appoirJtment, subject to the remaining procedural
   requirements of the rules being fulfilled at the earliest.    B
   In such cases also, if there be any delay in curing the
   defects on account of any fault of the appointee, the
   appointee would not get the full benefit of the earlier
   period on account of his default, the benefit being
  .confined only to the period for which he is not to blame.
                                                                 c
   This category of cases is different from those covered
   by the corollary in conclusion (A) which relates to
   appointment only on ad hoc basis as a stopgap
   arrangement and not according to rules. It is, therefore,     D
   not correct to say, that the present cases can fall within
   the ambit of conclusion (B), even though they are
   squarely covered by the corollary in conclusion (A)."

       16. In Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors. vs. Union of India
                                                                 E
& Ors.~. it was observed:-

   "15. So far as the terminology used in Sing/a case [1984
   (4)  sec   450], namely "ad hoc", "fortuitous" and
   "stopgap", the same is quite familiar in the service
  jurisprudence. Mr Rao, appearing for the High Court of         F
   Delhi however contended before us that the said
   terminology should be given the same meaning, as was
  given in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India [AIR
   1958 SC 36: 1958 SCR 828]. In Dhingra case the Court
                                                                 G
   was examining whether removal of an employee can
  be held to be penal and whether Article 311 (2) of the
  Constitution can at all be attracted and the Court also
  observed that certain amount of confusion arises
• 2000 (8) sec 25                                                H
754      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2015] 5 S.C.R.


A     because of the indiscriminate use of the words
      "provisional", "officiating" and "on probation". We do not
      think that the concept or meaning given to those
      terminology in Dhingra case will have any application
      to the case in hand, where the Court is trying to work-
 B    out an equitable remedy in a manner which will not
      disentitle an appointee, the benefit of his fairly long
      period of service for the purpose of seniority, even
      though he possesses the requisite qualification and
      even though his appointment has been made after due
 c    consultation and/or approval of the High Court.

      16. The three terms "ad hoc", "stopgap" and "fortuitous"
      are in frequent use in servrce jurisprudence. In the
      absence of definition of these terms in the Rules in
 D    question we have to look to the dictionary meaning of
      the words and the meaning commonly assigned to them
      in service matters. The meaning given to the expression
      "fortuitous" in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary is "accident
      or fortuitous casualty". This should obviously connote
 E    that if an appointment is made accidentally, because
      of a particular emergent situation and such appointment
      obviously would not continue for a fairly long period.
      But an appointment made either under Rule 16 or 17
      of the Recruitment Rules, after due consultation with
 F
      the High Court and the appointee possesses the
      prescribed qualification for such appointment provided
      in Rule 7 and continues as such for a fairly long period,
      then the same cannot be held to be "fortuitous". In Black's
 G    Law Dictionary, the expression "fortuitous" means
       "occurring by chance", "a fortuitous event may be highly
      unfortunate". It thus, indicates that it occurs only by
      chance or accident, which could not have been
      reasonably foreseen. The expression "ad hoc" in Black's
 H
 SECY. MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTT. v. NARENDRA                    755
  KUMAR TRIPATHI [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

·Law Dictionary, means "something which is formed for          A
 a particular purpose". The expression "stopgap" as per
 Oxford Dictionary, means "a temporary way of dealing
 with a problem or satisfying a need".

17. In Oxford Dictionary, the word "ad hoc" means for a        B
particular purpose; specially. In the same dictionary, the
word "fortuitous" means happening by accident or
chance rather than design.

18. In P Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon (2nd Edn.)              c
the word "ad hoc" is described as: "For particular
purpose. Made, established, acting or concerned with
a particular (sic) and or purpose." The meaning of word
"fortuitous event" is given as "an event which happens
by a .cause which we cannot resist; one which is               D
unforeseen and caused by superior force, which it is
impossible to resist; a term synonymous with Act of God".

19. The meaning to be assigned to these terms while
interpreting provisions of a service rule will depend on       E
the provisions of that rule and the context in and the
purpose for which the expressions are used. The
meaning of any of these terms in the context of
computation of inter se seniority of officers holding cadre
post will depend on the facts and circumstances in which       F
the appointment came to be made. For that purpose it
will be necessary to look into the purpose for which the
post was created and the nature ofthe appointment of
the officer as stated in the appointment order. If the
appointment order itself indicates that the post is created    G
to meet a particular temporary contingency and for a
period specified in the order, then the appointment to
such a post can be aptly described as "ad hoc" or
"stopgap". If a post is created to meet a situation which
                                                               H
756      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 5 S.C.R.

A     has suddenly arisen on account of happening of some
      event of a temporary nature then the appointment of
      such a post can aptly be described as "fortuitous" in
      nature. If an appointment is made to meet the
      contingency arising on account of delay in completing
 B    the process of regular recruitment to the post due to
      any reason and it is not possible to leave the post vacant
      till then, and to meet this contingency an appointment
      is made then it can appropriately be called as a
      "stopgap" arrangement and appointment in the post as
 c    "ad hoc" appointment. It is not possible to lay down any
      strait-jacket formula nor give an exhaustive list of
      circumstances and situation in which such an
      appointment (ad hoc, fortuitous or stopgap) can be
      made. As such, this discussion is not intended to
 D
      enumerate the circumstances or situations in which
      appointments of officers can be said to come within the
      scope of any of these terms. It is only to indicate how
      the matter should be approached while dealing with the
 E    questions of inter se seniority of officers in the cadre.

      20. In service jurisprudence, a person who possesses
      the requisite qualification for being appointed to a
      particular post and then he is appointed with the
      approval and consultation of the appropriate authority
 F
      and continues in the post for a fairly long period, then
      such an appointment cannot be held to be "stopgap or
      fortuitous or purely ad hoc". In this view of the matter,
      the reasoning and basis on which the appointment of
 G    the promotees in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service in
      the case in hand was held by the High Court to be
      "fortuitous/ad hoc/stopgap" are wholly erroneous and,
      therefore, exclusion of those appointees to have their
      continuous length of service for seniority is erroneous."
 H
    SECY. MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTI. v. NARENDRA                        757
     KUMAR TRIPATHI [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

       ·11. The above principles are undisputed. Question of A
their application has arisen from time to time in different fact
situations. Question to be decided in each case was whether
the ad hoc appointment was stop gap and fortuitous as against
being to an existing vacancy which continued and initial
appointment was made after due selection without violating B
the rules, if any.

        18. The scheme of the working of the Rules in the
 Department shows that right from 1979, the Department has
 been making direct recruitment after due selection and by            C
 applying the 1979 Rules which rules have been extended from
time to time to subsequent recruitments, services were
 regularized. Validity of the scheme of these recruitments is
not under challenge. In such circumstances, when the rules
provide that such ad hoc appointments have to be regularized          D
and seniority counted from the date of appointment, the writ
petitioner could not be deprived of the past service rendered
by him from 12th June, 1985 till the date of regularization. It is
not a case of appointments made without due selection or
without vacancy or without qualification or in violation of rules.    E
The larger Bench failed to observe that the appointment of the
writ petitioner was not de hors the rules nor by way of stop gap
arrangement. The rules had the effect of treating the
appointment as a regular appointment from initial date of             F
appointment. In these circumstances, the principle laid down
in K.C. Joshi was not applicable. It is not a case where service
rendered is either fortuitous or against rules or by way of stop
gap arrangement. Applying the principle laid down in Direct
Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association, the writ          G
petitioner is entitled to count service from 12th June, 1985.
Moreover, the department has allowed the benefit of past
service to other similarly placed incumbents as observed in
the judgment giving rise to the appeal of the department.
                                                                      H
758         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A             19. Accordingly, we are unable to approve the view taken
      by the larger Bench to the extent it proceeds on the assumption
      that past service of the writ petitioner was by way of stop gap
      arrangement or contrary to the rules.

 B         20. We, therefore, direct the State to redetermine the
   seniority after hearing the affected parties within six months. It
   is made clear that benefit of redetermination of seniority at
   this stage will not disturb holding of posts by any incumbent
   and except for benefit in pension other benefits to which the
 C writ petitioner may be found entitled will be given only on
   notional basis.

         21. The appeal of the writ peitioner is accordingly
   allowed to the above extent and appeal of the State is
 D accordingly dismissed.

      Devika Gujral                                  Appeals disposed.