( 1 ) THE perpetual rivalry for seniority in service between the direct recruits and the promotees has once more engaged the attention of this Court for several days. The dispute which was brought to Court by S- B. Patwardhan in 1972 by a writ petition in the bombay High Court and which was supposed to have been finally settled by the judgment of this Court reported in S. B. Pstwardhan v State of Maharashtra (1977 3 SCC 399): (1977)3scr 775, has been kept alive by some direct recruits till this date. The events relevant for the case are spread overa long period and the issues joined by the patties have been described in the earlrer judgments as involving ticklish and complicated question of unrivalled complexity with no earlier case comparable. The position as now stands in that the field of controversy on legal questions has been considerably narrowed down by the earlier decieions of this Court, but the relevant facts and the issues to be settled have multiplied by further events and subsequent rules framed under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) FOR appreciating the controversy which has to be resolved, a briefsurvey of several sets of rules is necessary. The parties are Engineers in the employmentof the State of Maharashtra excepting the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 3947-48 of 1983 who are in Gujarat service. Avoiding the details, the position may be briefly stated by dividing that the entire period into four sub-periods and mentioning the scope of such of Ihe provisions of the rules which have direct bearing on the questions involved in the present cases. By a resolution of the year 1937 of the government of Bombay, two new provincial Engineering Services described as the Bombay Engineering Service class I consisting of posts of Chief engineer, Superintending Engineers, executive Engineers and Assistant engineers Class I, and the Bombay engineering Service Class II, having officers designated as Deputy Engineers, were created. All the posts were permanent. In 1939, Rules were made for regulating the meihods of recruitment to the said Services which directed the recruitment to ba made either by nomination from amongst the students of the College of Engineering, pune or by promotion of officers holding inferior posts. The next Rules to which the parties in the present esses have made reference were those made by the resolution dated November 21, 1 941 for determ (nation of the seniority of the direct recruits and the promoted officers, containing only two rules out of which Rule 1 admittedly is not relevant for the present purpose. Rule 2 said that in case of officers promoted to substantive vacancies, the seniority would be determined with reference to the date of their promotion to the substantive vacancies. In 1960, detailed rules for recruitment to Class I and class II Services were framed by a government resolution dated April 23,1960. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to rhese Rules as the 1960 Rules and have made elaborate arguments with reference to some of the provisions. In place of nomination from the successful students of college of Engineering, Pune as direct recruits, these Rules prescribed for a competitive examination to be held by the Public Service Commission, and introduced a quota system by fixing a ratio of appointments of direct recruits and promotees. The Rules also made reference to promotion, as Executive engineers on otficiating basis, and temporary Deputy Engineers and officiating Deputy Engineers By Rule 8 the posts of Deputy Engineers were reorganised, and by subrule (iii) it was provided that the direct recruits in any year shall in a bunch be placed senior to promottes confirmed during that year. A review of these Rules was (ater undertaken by the government and ultimately in partial supersession thereof a fresh set of rules, described by the learned counsel in the present cases as the 1970 Rules, were adopted by another government resolution. In t