JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J.:—Special leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8312/88, 5878-87 and 2592/89.

2. The controversy, which we are called upon to decide in this batch of appeals, relates to the determination of seniority between the appellants who entered service in the various engineering departments of the State initially as Supervisors and who on acquiring a degree in engineering were re-designated Junior Engineers and those graduate Junior Engineers who were temporarily appointed on ad hoc basis under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter called the General Rules) and whose services were later regularised under GOMs No. 647 dated September 14, 1979.

3. The factual matrix relevant for resolving the conflict may be briefly stated. The respondents Nos.3 to 43 herein were the original petitioners in the group of petitions disposed of by the State Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by its common judgment dated August 7, 1984 which is impugned in these appeals. They were recruited directly by the Government and not the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (PSC) within whose purview the said post of Junior Engineers fell as there was a ban under GOMs No. 682 dated August 18,1970 against regular appointments through PSC. To overcome the ban different departments resorted to temporary recruitment under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules to fill up vancancies in their respective engineering services. The respondents Nos. 3 to 43 were accordingly recruited on temporary and ad hoc basis as Junior Engineers. In course of time the question of regularisation of their services cropped up. The Government took a decision to regularise their services by lifting the ban on direct recruitment and framing special rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution providing for their regularisation through a Special Qualifying Test (SQT) to be conducted by the PSC. However, only those temporary Junior Engineers who had completed not less than two years service as on January 1, 1973 were admitted to the SQT. Pursuant thereto the PSC issued a notification inviting applications from eligible candidates for admission to the SQT who were desirous of having their services regularised. Junior Engineers serving in different departments of the State Government e.g. Roads and Buildings department, Public Health and Municipal Engineering department, Panchayati Raj Engineering department, etc., who were eligible under the special rules applied in response to the advertisement. However, those temporary Junior Engineers who were not eligible to appear at the SQT on account of the two year rule questioned the same through writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. A learned single Judge allowed the said petitions holding that the condition of minimum two years service as on January 1, 1973 was unconstitutional. The issue was carried in appeal to the Division Bench of the said court which allowed the writ appeals and dismissed the writ petitions with costs by a common judgment dated July 29,1975. Thus ended the first cycle of litigation.

4. The PSC thus conducted the SQT with a view to selecting candidates from amongst eligible temporary Junior Engineers for regularisation of their service as direct recruits to the various engineering services of the State as gazetted Junior Engineers. Those who successfully cleared the SQT were absorbed in regular service and there is no dispute raised herein about their seniority, presumably because of the ratio of this Courts decision. in M. Nirmala v. State of A.P., (1996) 3 SCC 647.

5. Temporary Junior Engineers who failed to clear the SQT and those who were ineligible to appear at the SQT because of the two year rule represented to the Government for their regularisation also. Respondents 3 to 43 herein belong to the said group of temporary Junior Engineers (Gazetted). Other temporary ad hoc employees serving in administrative and other branches of the