JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.-The questions involved in these appeals are identical and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 6.5.1994 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition Nos. 731 of 1991, 251 of 1994, 309 of 1994, 1897 of 1980 of 1663 of 1991.

3. The facts, in short, are as follows :-

According to the appellants, they were eligible for appointment to the posts in question and the appointments were made on the basis of selection made pursuant to the public advertisement and after considering claims of all eligible candidates. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the entire length of service of the appellants is entitled to be considered for the purpose of seniority as held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Associations vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (1990) 2 SCC 715. However, the High Court held that ad hoc services cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. It was further submitted that if the ad hoc appointment is made after satisfying all tests for regular appointment and after considering the claims of all eligible candidates, these appointments must be treated as substantive appointments for the purpose of seniority and that the High Court fell in error in excluding such period from seniority.

4. The High Court pronounced the impugned judgment whereby it was held that the appellants/writ petitioners who are ad hoc appointees are not entitled to claim seniority on the basis of continuous officiation. It was also held that the direct recruit appointees/respondents were, in fact, appointed on 16.9.1982 and the corrections were made in their appointment letters mala fide. The High Court also disbelieved the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government and the Director of Medical Services. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the seniority list and directed preparation of fresh seniority list in accordance with the guidelines mentioned therein.

5. In most of the writ petitions, dispute of inter se seniority has been raised. While raising dispute of seniority, the selection made by the Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the PSC") was also challenged. In one or two of the writ petitions, recommendations of the PSC were accepted by the State Government. In the light of the facts and circumstances, the High Court held as follows :-

"We hold that the inter se seniority of all the Inspectors of Drugs, whether promotees or direct selected by the Public Service Commission deserved to be determined in accordance with the merit prepared by the Public Service Commission. As far as those Drugs Inspectors who either did not appear before Public Service Commission or appeared but failed to be selected and whose services where regularised by the State Government would be placed below the persons selected by Public Service Commission in accordance with the Rule-7 of the Regularisation Rules.

In view of what has been indicated herein above writ petitions bearing No. 731/91 GR Chawls & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. and No. 251 [SB]/1994 AK Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. & others partly succeeds. A writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 12.1.1991 passed by Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of U.P. determining the seniority of Inspectors of Drugs, is issued. Opposite parties are directed to redetermine the seniority of Inspectors of Drugs in the light of the observations mentioned in this order. Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 1897/80, 1663/91 and 309 [SB]/1994 are dismissed."

6. Dis-satisfied with the above judgment, the writ petitioners have come up on appeal to this Court and contended that the High Court has completely ignored the pleadings of the appellants/writ petitioners and failed to appreciate that the controversy was not confined to the determination of seniority amongst the promot