JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This batch of appeals arises from a judgment and order dated 15 March 2011 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

3. For convenience of reference, the facts as they emerged in the lead Civil Appeal [C.A. No. 6026-6028/2021 and SLP (C) Nos. 14029-14031/2011] may be set out.

4. The appellants were appointed as clerks in 1975-1976 in the Punjab Civil Secretariat on an ad-hoc basis. On 3 May 1977, their services were regularized with effect from 1 April 1977 pursuant to a policy of regularization. The policy of regularization notes that in anticipation of regular appointments, ad-hoc appointments were resorted to by various appointing authorities in “administrative interest” after notifying the vacancies to the employment exchange or, as the case may be, by issuing advertisements. Since the ad-hoc employees had acquired experience, and their ouster after a considerable period of service would entail hardship, their services were regularized, subject to certain terms and conditions. Clause (5) of the policy on regularization contained the following stipulations:

“5. The seniority of the ad-hoc employees whose appointments are regularized in terms of the above policy shall be determined in the following manner:

(a) After approval by the Appointing Authority the regularization of their appointments shall date back to 1st April, 1977 from which date their seniority shall be determined vis-a-vis candidates appointed on regular basis after selection through the prescribed agencies.

(b) The service rendered on ad-hoc basis shall be taken into account for purposes of determining inter se seniority among the ad-hoc employees themselves and a person having a longer service shall be senior and if the date of appointment on ad-hoc basis is the same, then the older member shall be senior to a younger member.”

5. From the above stipulations, it becomes evident that the regularization in terms of the policy dated 3 May 1977, was to become effective on 1 April 1977 from which date their seniority would be determined in relation to candidates who were appointed on a regular basis after following the normal procedures for selection. However, as between the ad-hoc employees who were regularized, it was stipulated that service rendered on an ad-hoc basis shall be taken into account so that a person having a longer service shall be senior and if the date of appointment on ad-hoc basis was the same, the older member would rank senior to the younger.

6. A batch of seventy-three clerks, including the appellants, who were working in the office of the Punjab Civil Secretariat instituted a Writ Petition [CWP No. 2780/1980] under Article 226 to challenge the seniority position as it stood on 31 December 1978 [Malook Singh vs. State of Punjab]. Besides the official respondents, twenty-seven private respondents were impleaded as parties to the writ petition. These respondents, it must be noted, were regularly appointed candidates who had been appointed after 1 April 1977. The petitioners in those proceedings claimed the benefit of ad-hoc service rendered by them towards their seniority as against regularly recruited clerks appointed after them. By a judgment and order dated 6 December 1991, a Single Judge of the High Court observed that in terms of Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class III) Rules 1976, the seniority inter se of members of a service in each cadre would be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in the cadre of service. The Single Judge held that while the petitioners before the High Court had been regularized from 1 April 1977, the private respondents were appointed subsequently. As a consequence, those who were appointed subsequently could not claim seniority over those who were regularized prior to their appointment. Besides the above finding, Single Judge held that in view of the decision of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II E