Misra, J. -- 1. The factual score and question of law being similar to all these writ petitions they were heard analogously and disposed of by this singular order. It is worth noting here that the order passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') has been challenged by the State of M.P., M.P. Public Service Commission and also by the incumbents. For the sake of clarity and convenience we shall advert to the facts put forth in Writ Petition No. 1878/2004 which has been preferred by M.P. Public Service Commission.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are imperative to be stated are that one Dashrath Singh along with two others had knocked at the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which stood transferred to the Tribunal by operation of law forming the subject-matter of Transfer Application No. 1808/1988. The applicants therein had appeared for the selection to the post of Assistant Engineer pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Commission on 30.10.1982. The result was declared on 10.7.1984 and they were Dot selected by the PSC. It is not disputed at the Bar that the said Dashrath and two others were working on ad hoc basis on the P9st of Assistant Engineer in the Department of Irrigation. Their non-selection was the subject-matter before the High Court in M.P. No. 2094/1984. This Court quashed the selection on 15.3.1985. The matter travelled to the apex Court forming the subject-matter of Civil Appeal No. 2255/1985 and other connected appeals. The apex Court set aside the order of this Court on the ground that the persons who were necessary parties had not been impleaded party before the High Court and accordingly the matter was remanded to the High Court. After the matter was remanded the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 came into force and thereafter the State Administrative Tribunal was constituted on 8.2.1988. In pursuance of section 29 of the aforesaid enactment the matter stood transferred to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the applicants impleaded as many as 64 persons who were in the select list.

3. It is not disputed before us that the applicants in the original application were regularized as per M.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments Rules, 1986 (for brevity 'the Rules'). The question that emerged before the Tribunal pertained to seniority of the selected candidates by the PSC and person who were regularized under the Rules. In addition the Tribunal also adverted to the issue whether the selection by the PSC is valid or not. In paragraph 35 of the order the Tribunal set forth its conclusions in seriatim as under:

"35. In view of the above discussion this petition (TA No. 1808/88) is disposed off with the following directions --

(i) The selection process undertaken by the Public Service Commission pursuant to advertisement notice (Annexure 'A') dated 30.10.1982 i.e. written examination and the interview (personality test) is upheld.

(ii) The impugned select list issued by the PSC on 10.7.1984 applying the criteria of minimum pass/qualifying marks for individual subject papers of the written examination and the interview (personality test) is quashed.

(iii) A fresh select list shall be drawn out in the order of merit based on the aggregate of the marks secured by the candidates at the written examination and the interview (personality test) and issued/notified by the PSC within 15 days of the receipt of this order by it.

(iv) The fresh select list so issued/notified by the PSC shall determine the inter-se-seniority of the candidates included therein irrespective of the dates of their appointment on ad hoc basis in case they were ad hoc appointees that is to say, candidates at the higher positions shall be senior to those at lower positions in the list.

(v) All candidates included in the fresh select list shall be senior to and placed in the seniority list above the remaining ad hoc appointees given regular appointment