September 22, 1976 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] B Civil service-Seniority-Irregular recruitment-Regularisation-Appoint ments through Public Service Commission-Recruitment through centudised recruitment scheme._ he. respodents Nos .. 1 to · io who we~~ Writ Petition.;-rs. in the High· CoUrt. were appointed as clerks between June, 1963 to January, 1967 on temporary basis and were promoted to higher posts thereaf_tr. They_ contnded that at th_c relevant time there was no rule or order requ1nng that -appolntments to their c posts ·shall be made through Public Service Commission. The Gujarat Government issued Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerks, Clerk -Typists and Typists (Direct Recruitment Procedure) RulCs, 1970. Thereafter, by resolution dated 15-4-1971. it. Was stated that seniority of the candida·tes .Y'ho were· to be selected for the posts· of Clerks, Clerk typists and typists shall be determined as if their allotment or appointment was frOm 17-4-1970 irrespective of the_ question \hether they were in service or not, and that their names shall be arranged in a common seniority list in order of merit in accordance with the principles )aid do...,·n in the Rules. D The Writ petitioners filed a Writ Petition {n-the Gujarat 1-ligh Court feeling aggrieved by the said 1970 Rules and the 1971 resolution. · The \vril- Petitioners. Ontended that the Govenment shOuld be direct.;:d to· treat their entire service as regular and that their seniority should be fixed on the . basis of the dates on \vhich they had joined their respective posts._ · --Th~ ·Staie_. Gove~~ent in. i~ ·counter affidavit po:nted out th.it the Wr-it E Petitioners ¥'ere not recruited through proper channel; that even though the centralised recruitment scheme was in existence and was· arplirable \Vith effect from'Jahuary, 1963,-the"Wtit Petitioners did not come through the cmploymentexchanges that their appointments were by way of a stop-gap arrangement.The State, however, admitted ·in its affidavit that -the Writ Petitiopers \'ere not under the purview of the Gujarat Public Service Commission at the time of their appointment. The State contended that the Writ Petitioners were irregularly appointed and that 1970 Rules were framed on humanitarian considerations to regularise their appointments and that, their seniority could not be counted from F the dates of their appointment and could be counted only from 17th April, 1970. The Jligli Court"··c~~~·-to·th~ conclusion that the Centralised Recruitment Scheme was not applicable ,when the Writ Petitioners '"·ere appointed and that the posts were also not within the purview of the Gujarat Public Service Commission until March, 1969. The High Court therefore, held that the appointments of the petitioners were regular and were not required to be regularised under the 1970 Rules. It also held that the State Government had no power .to· lissue the circular under rule 30 of the Rules for allotment and fixation of .a. G seniority and that the instructions contained in the resolution Of 1971 \·ere not applicable to the Writ Petitioners. The High Court allo\'·ed _the Writ Petition, struck down the seniority list, and directed the State Government and the Director of Civil Supplies to treat the services of the petitioners as regular from ihe dates when they .were appointed initially and not to apply the instruction., con- - tained in the resolution of 1971 to compute their seniority. · The appellants, who cla_imed to have been appointed regularly from the beginning and who contend that the appointments of the writ petitioners were irregular filed appeal by Special Leave; The -appel~ants contended -: · H
