JUDGMENT

DESAI, J.:—The petitioners in this group of petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution were inducted as Khandsari Inspectors between March 1960 and 1964. Respondents 4 to 19 were also recruited as Khandsari Inspectors on different dates. Respondents 1 and 2 are the Chief Secretary, Govt. of U. P. and the Secretary, Industries respectively of the U. P. Government and respondent No. 3 is the Sugar Commissioner of U. P. The dispute amongst the petitioners and the respondents 4 to 19 is about inter se seniority between them in the cadre of Khandsari Inspectors.

2. It appears that in the year 1958-59, the State Government framed what is styled as Khandsari Licensing Scheme to regulate the supply of sugarcane to sugar factories by G.O. No. 4588(l) XVIII-A-680/59 dated November 21, 1959 Posts of Khandsari Inspectors initially designated as Licensing Inspectors were created in the pay-scales of Rs. 120-250. Petitioners No S. 1, 2 and 3 were appointed as Khandsari Inspectors between March and May. 1960. Thereafter some of the respondents were recruited as Khandsari Inspectors and some others who were recruited departmentally were approved by the Public Service Commission. On March 22, 1971 the third respondent - the Sugar Commissioner circulated a provisional seniority list of Khandsari Inspectors. The grievance of the petitioners is that some of the petitioners have been assigned lower place in the seniority list even though they were recruited earlier and have been continuously in service. To illustrate. petitioners pointed out that petitioners 1 to 3 have been placed at Serial Nos. 25, 29 and 27 respectively though all of them were recruits of 1960 while respondent No. 7-J. S. Negi. who was recruited on March 23, 1961 was assigned the place at Serial No. 15 and respondent No. 4 0. N. Chaturvedi, who was recruited on March 23, 1961 was shown at Serial No. 6. Similarly, respondent No. 9-P. N. Rai, who was also recruited on March 23, 1961 was shown at Serial No. 17 and respondent No. 5 was shown at Serial No. 8. The petitioners further pointed out that petitioners Nos. 4, 5. 6, 7 and 8, who were recruits of 1961 have been assigned places Nos. 30, 34, 42, 35 and 31 respectively while recruits of 1963 have scored a march over them in the provisional seniority list. The petitioners assert that when the recruitment was made in the year 1960, the post of Khandsari Inspector was not within the purview of the Public Service Commission and that they were regularly recruited to posts which were temporarily sanctioned and indefinitely continued till today and therefore, in reckoning the seniority, they must be given the benefit of the length of continuous officiation. They further contend that when the post of Khandsari Inspector was later brought within the purview of the Public Service Commission, the names of the petitioners who were already recruited in service as also of some of the respondents were forwarded to the Public Service Commission for approval and except petitioner No. 9-S. P. Gupta, the names of rest of the petitioners were approved by the Public Service Commission on September 30. 1963, the relevant date in the case of petitioner No. 9 is April 14, 1978. The petitioners assert that even assuming that their appointment would be regular after approval of the Public Service Commission, yet once such approval is granted, it would relate back to the date of appointment and the previous length of service cannot be ignored or denied in computing their seniority in the absence of any statutory rule or administrative instruction which has the force of law. The petitioners further aver that in the absence of any other statutory rule or administrative instruction for determining seniority, length of continuous officiation provides a valid principle for determining seniority. Viewed from this angle, petitioners 1 to 3 would be senior to all the respondents and the placement of the remaining petitioners vis-a-vis the responddents w