the effect that they will not claim any service benefits for the period worked on contract basis as A.Es. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner/appellants were appointed in the vacancies meant for recruitment by transfer and their appointments were earlier to regularization of services of contract A.Es. Inspite of the fact that their appointment itself is on yearly contract basis, the authorities have responded to the representations and regularized their services. Having issued regularization orders with a specific clause that they shall not claim any other benefit of contract service, when further representations are made, impugned orders are issued to reckon their seniority without any other benefit. From a perusal of Regulation 26 of Part-II Regulations, it is clear that if any portion of service of any candidate appointed does not count towards probation under Regulations 14(c), (e), 19 and 38(b), his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of service which counts towards probation. In this case, the probation of petitioners who filed review petitions, commences only after regularization of their service but not earlier to such regularization. In that view of the matter, the petitioners, who were initially appointed on contract basis, are not entitled for seniority from the date of their initial entry into service on contract basis. Having regard to the conditional appointment orders and further conditions imposed while regularizing their services, neither it is open for them to claim the benefit of seniority nor it is open for the respondent-authorities to consider such claims on mere asking. In view of the specific agreements entered into by the contract employees on their appointment, they are governed by Regulation 3(c) of Part-I Regulations, but not Regulation 3(d). In any event, the discretion conferred on the Board under Regulation 3(d) also cannot be exercised in detrimental to the interests of others with regard to seniority. Regulation 3(d) may empower the authorities to absorb a person appointed on contract basis into regular service, but such discretion conferred under Regulation 3(d) cannot be used in detrimental to the interests of the candidates appointed on regular basis, with regard to their seniority. In that view of the matter, we are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned Senior
