Khandsari Inspectors and some others who were recruited departmentally were approved by the Public Service· Commission. On March 22, 1971, the third respondent --the Sugar Commission circulated a provisional seniority list of Khandsari Inspectors. The grievance of the petttioners is that some of the petitioners have been assigned lower place in the seniority list even though they were recruited earlier and have been continuously in service. To illustrate, petitioners pointed out that petitioners I to 3 have been placed at Serial Nos 25, 29 and 27 respectively though ali of them were recruits of 1960 while respondent No. 7-J.S. Negi, who was recruited on March 2 3, J 961 was assigned the place at Serial No. 15 and respondent No. 4 0. N. Chatuivedi, who was recruited on March 23, 1961 was shown at Serial No. 6. Similarly, respondent No. 9-P.N. Rai, who was also recruited on March 23, 1961 was shown at Serial No. 17 and respondent No. 5 was shown at Serial No. 8. The petitioners further pointed out that petitloners Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, who were recruits of l 961 have been assigned places Nos. :o, 34, 42, 35 ' and . , 31 respectively whie recruits of J 9f3 have scored a march over them in the provisional seniority list. The petitioners assert that when the recruitment was made in the year 1960, the post of Khandsari Inspector was not within the purview of the Public Service Commission and that they were regualrly recruited to posts which were temNrarily sanctioned and indefinitely continued till today and therefore, in reckoning the seniorty, they must be given the benefit of the length of continuous officiation. They further contend that when the post of Kh.andsari Jnspecto_r was later brought within the purview of the Public Service Commission, the names of the petitioners who were already recruited in service as also of some of the respondents were forwarded to the Public Service Commission for approval and except petitioner No 9- s. P. Gupta: the names of rest of the petitioner were approved by the Public Service Commission on September 30, 1963, the relevant date in the case of petitioner No. 9 is April 14,. 1978. The petitioners a5sert _that even assuming that their appointment would be regular after approval of the public Service Commission, yet once such approval is granted' it would relate back to the .
