persons selected on daily wage basis were placed in timescale and regularized their services with effect from 16.10.1986. It is their further case that according to Regulation 12 of the Recruitment Regulations, selections to any category of the posts have to be in accordance with the rule of reservation and a roster of 100 points is prescribed and that if a batch of candidates is selected in a particular recruitment, they have to be appointed in accordance with their placement in the selection list i.e. communal roster. According to Regulation 3(b) of the Service Regulations, if two or more persons are simultaneously appointed, the appointing authority may fix the order of preference among them and the seniority will be determined in accordance with it. Though the candidates were initially appointed on daily wage basis, their appointment on regular basis in the time scale should be in accordance with their placement in the communal roster, as per which, their seniority is determined. It is their further case that though the petitioners were appointed in April, 1985, as per communal roster of the selections conducted on 25.01.1985 and 05.02.1985, their placement is 6 and 46. Subsequently, the petitioners were placed in the time scale on 16.10.1986 along with the candidates who were appointed in March, 1986 in the subsequent selections held on 30/31.12.1985. Respondents 5 to 7 were selected and appointed in subsequent selections and at roster point Nos.10, 17 and 44 of the second 100 point roster prepared in the second selections. The seniority list of the drivers appointed in the second respondent region up to 30.06.2008 has been notified recently and in the said seniority list, the candidates who were selected in the subsequent (second) selections conducted on 30/31.12.1985 and appointed subsequent to the petitioners in March, 1986 were shown as seniors to the petitioners though they were selected in the earlier selections held in
