Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—This bunch of special appeals is directed against the common judgment and order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 24.10.2003 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, leading being Writ Petition No. 32066 of 2001.

2. We have heard Sri R. N. Singh and Ashok Khare Senior Advocates assisted by Sri V.K. Singh and G.K. Malviya Advocates as well as Sri A.K. Gupta Advocate on behalf of the appellant-promotees. Sri Shashi Nandan Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anoop Trivedi Advocate on behalf of the private respondents-direct recruits as well as Standing Counsel on behalf of the State respondents.

3. The dispute in the present special appeals basically revolves around the determination of the dispute of seniority between the direct recruits, appointed on the post of Excise Inspector vis-a-vis the departmental candidates, who had been promoted on the same post of Excise Inspector under the U.P. Subordinate Service Rules, 1992.

4. Facts giving rise to the present special appeals are as follows :

State of U.P. for the purposes of regulating the service conditions including appointment/promotion on the post of Excise Inspector in the Excise Department of the State of U.P. promulgated U.P. Subordinate Excise Service Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 1967 Rules). Under Rule 5 of the 1967 Rules, three sources of recruitment to the post of Excise Inspector were contemplated (a) by direct recruitment, (b) by promotion from permanent Clerks and (c) by promotion from permanent Tari Supervisors.

5. Schedule ‘A’ to the 1967 Rules discloses the sanctioned strength in the cadre of Excise Inspector as 205. Rule 7 of the 1967 Rules conferred a power upon the Excise Commissioner to determine the number of candidates to be recruited from each of the 3 sources specified in Rule 5. In deciding the number regard was to be had to the relative number of promoted and directly appointed persons in the cadre of the service and in any case not more than 10 per cent of the candidates to be recruited in any one year were to be recruited by promotion each from sources (b) and (c) respectively, if suitable candidates were available.

6. The aforesaid 1967 Rules were, however, substituted by subsequent rules framed by the State of U.P., being U.P. Subordinate Excise Service Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1983 Rules’), These rules contemplate appointment on the post of Excise Inspector in the following manner (a) 90% by direct recruitment, (b) 10% by promotion from permanent Deputy Excise Inspectors. The provision for promotion from the Ministerial Cadre and Tari Supervisor Cadre was done away.

7. Appendix-A of 1983 Rules discloses the sanctioned strength of the cadre of Excise Inspectors to be 478 and that 31 permanent post of Excise Inspectors were to be kept in abeyance. With reference to the aforesaid Rules 100 posts of Excise Inspectors were requisitioned to the U.P. Public Service Commission for direct recruitment. Thereafter for 18 posts and finally another requisition dated 10.4.1991 for additional 29 posts was made.

8. In the meantime U.P. Subordinate Excise Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1992 Rules’) were notified. Under Rule 5 of the 1992 Rules following sources for recruitment on the post of Excise Inspector are provided for (a) 80% by direct recruitment, (b) 10% by promotion from amongst the permanent Deputy Excise Inspectors and (c) 10% by promotion from amongst substantively appointed Senior Assistants and Stenographers. Rule 5(2) of 1992 Rules provides that the cadre of Tari Supervisor would now be one of the feeding cadres for promotion to the post of Sub Excise Inspectors. Therefore, with the enforcement of 1992 Rules the cadre of Tari Supervisor has been made a feeding cadre for promotion on the post of Sub-Excise Inspector.

9. Appendix-A to the 1992 Rules records that the total sanctioned strength in the cadre of Excise Inspectors is 461 and that 120 permanent posts of Excise Inspector were to be k