K. RAMASWAMY, J.

1. The vexed question of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits has once again been brought to the force at the behest of the petitioners in these writ petitions filed under Article 32 and respondents 4 to 99 in the first writ petition, for short promotees and the respondents 100 to 139 in the first writ petition, for short direct recruits as Assistant Conservators of Forest. The Governor of U.P. exercising the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution issued the U.P. Forest Service Rules, 1952, for short the rules which became effective from January 2, 1952. The promotees are confirmed Forest Range Officers in U.P. Forest Subordinate Service which is a feeder source for recruitment by promotion under Rule 5(b) of the rules as Assistant Conservator of Forest. Rule 4 constitutes and fixes the cadre strength of Chief Conservator of Forest; Conservator of Forest; Deputy Conservator of Forest and Assistant Conservator of Forest. By fiction of law in Note to Rule 3(h) all the members of the old provincial Forest Service became members of the initially constituted service. It would appear that after amalgamation no recruitment under Rule 5(a) of the posts of Assistant Conservator of Forest was immediately made. In May, 1966, the selection to the posts of Assistant Conservator of Forest was made but was ultimately vacated by this Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [ 1969 (2) SCC 262 [LQ/SC/1969/201] : 1970 (1) SCR 457 [LQ/SC/1969/201] ] and the connected matters. The process of recruitment was again started in the year 1972 but was stayed by the High Court of Allahabad in W.P. No. 119 of 1972. The list of the recruits of 1966 could not thus be finalised till 1975. With effect from May 1, 1975, the ratio of 25 per cent recruitment of promotees in Rule 6 was increased to 33 1/3 per cent. The Governor also issued "promotion by selection in consultation with the Public Service Commission Procedure Rules. 1970". In the meanwhile the number of posts of Assistant Conservator, Forest was determined. As there was no direct recruitment under Rule 5(a) till 1974 and even thereafter, promotees were appointed, admittedly on ad hoc basis, between March 13, 1974 and November 21, 1981, subject to direct recruitment and were posted as Assistant Conservator, Forest. Thus they are continuing temporarily on ad hoc basis though for varying periods of 5 to 12 years. In the meanwhile, the direct recruits under Rule 5(a), had undergone two years training in the Indian Forest College, Dehradun and obtained diploma therefrom. In 1976, they were appointed on probation to substantive vacancies. When their claim was ripe for consideration as Deputy Conservators of Forest in the Indian Forest Service, the petitioners claiming seniority over them filed the writ petitions seeking inter alia for the issue of (a) a writ of mandamus to declare Rule 3(h) and Rule 24 of the Rules relating to reckoning of seniority from the date of the substantive appointment as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (b) to declare Rule 4 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 and Regulation 5 of Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1966 as violative of Articles 14 and 16 etc., the details of which are not material since the petitioners have given up their challenge before us. The only plea put forth is that the promotees should be declared to have been regularly appointed from the respective dates of their initial promotion as Assistant Conservators with all consequential benefits. The contention of Mr Mukhoty and Mr Garg, their learned senior counsel is that though the promotees were appointed on ad hoc basis due to non-availability of direct recruits to the vacant posts of Assistant Conservator or Forest, they are continuing for well over 5 to 12 years discharging the same duties, drawing the same scale of pay without any reversion. The posts held by the petitioners are not fortuitous, nor stop gap. The entire continuous length of service from the dates of their initial promotion should be counted towards their seniority. They strongly relied on Narender Chadha v. Union of India [ 1986 (2) SCC 157 [LQ/SC/1986/31] : 1986 SCC(L&S) 226 : 1986 (1) SCR 211 [LQ/SC/1986/31] ], Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P. [ 1980 (4) SCC 226 [LQ/SC/1980/336] : 1980 SCC(L&S) 531 : 1981 (1) SCR 449 [LQ/SC/1980/336] ], N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [ 1977 (1) SCC 308 [LQ/SC/1976/413] : 1977 SCC(L&S) 127 : 1977 (1) SCR 1037 [LQ/SC/1976/413] ] and proposition B in paragraph 47 in Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra [ 1990 (2) SCC 715 [LQ/SC/1990/294] , 745, para 47, Prop. B : 1990 SCC(L&S) 339 : 1990 (13) ATC 348] for short Direct Recruits case in their support.

2. Shri P.P. Rao, learned counsel for the direct recruits contended that the appointment of the promotees admittedly being ad hoc, they had not have any right to the posts. Their appointments, not being on the basis of merit as per rules, did not confer any right to the posts. Their seniority has to be counted only from the dates of substantive appointment. The service rendered from the dates of initial promotion till date of the substantive appointment should be treated as fortuitous. The delay to make direct recruitment had been occasioned only on account of the pendency of the proceedings right from Kraipak case [ 1969 (2) SCC 262 [LQ/SC/1969/201] : 1970 (1) SCR 457 [LQ/SC/1969/201] ] in Allahabad High Court till the present group of writ petitions. Since promotees were appointed in excess of the prescribed quota in Rule 6, they should be pushed down to the vacancies that had arisen in each year above the direct recruits as per the ratio as the promotees are not entitled to claim seniority from the initial dates of their respective promotions. In support thereof he relied on proposition A of paragraph 47 of the Direct Recruits case [ 1990 (2) SCC 715 [LQ/SC/1990/294] , 745, para 47, Prop. B : 1990 SCC(L&S) 339 : 1990 (13) ATC 348] and the ratio in Mansoor Akhtar Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 1990 (4) SCC 24 [LQ/SC/1990/352] : 1990 SCC(L&S) 580 : 1990 (3) JT 295]. He also contended that the power of relaxation in Rule 27 is only in respect of conditions of service and not relating to recruitment or promotion. He placed reliance on A.J. Patel v. State of Gujarat.

3. Since the rules are legislative in character, they must harmoniously be interpreted as a connected whole giving life and force to each word, phrase and rule and no part thereof should be rendered nugatory or a surplusage. Resort to iron out the creases could be had only when the construction of the relevant rule, phrase or word would lead to unintended absurd results. To accord just solution to this, we have set out only the relevant rules. Rule 3(h) of the Rules defines "Members of the Service" to mean "a person appointed in a substantive capacity under provisions of these rules" or of rules or orders in force previous to the introduction of these rules, "to a post in the cadre of the service". The rules shall not apply to the members of the Indian Forest Service. Rule 3(e) defines direct recruitment, which means recruitment in the manner prescribed in clause (a) of Rule 5 of these Rules. Rule 5 in Part III indicates sources and methods of recruitment as Assistant Conservator of Forest service shall be made -

4. Rule 6 provided that not more than 25 per cent of the total number of posts in the service shall be filled up by promotion and the ratio was enhanced from 1/4 to 1/3 w.e.f. January 1, 1975. On amendment the rule read thus:

5. Part V provides the procedure for appointment, probation and confirmation.

6. Rule 12 prescribes the procedure for appointment. A person finally selected for appointment to the service in the manner prescribed in the foregoing rules shall be appointed by the Governor thereto (unless he subsequently becomes disqualified for appointment) on the occurrence of a substantive vacancy. The order in which such appointments made shall be

(a) in the case of candidates appointed by recruitment, as indicated in the fourth proviso to Rule 24; and

(b) in the case of candidates recruited by promotion, according to their seniority in the Subordinate Forest Service

7. Sub-rules (2) and (3) are not necessary, hence omitted.

8. Rule 14 prescribes the period of probation, discharge, etc. All appointments to the service in a substantive vacancy shall be made on probation. The period of probation shall be two years and will count from the date of taking over charge of appointment, provided that the Governor may extend the period of probation. Any such extension shall specify the date up to which the extension is granted. Sub-rules (2) and (3) are not necessary.

9. Rule 15 prescribes passing of departmental examination prescribed in that regard as a condition for confirmation.

10. Rule 16 empowers confirmation thus :

11. Clause (b) of Rule 16 is not necessary for the purpose of its case, hence omitted.

12. Rule 19 prescribes pay of the direct recruits during probation. Not to Rule 19 postulates the date of service of the direct recruits thus:

13. Rule 24 adumbrates to fix seniority thus:

14. Provisos 2 and 3 are not relevant hence omitted:

15. Appendices A and B are integral parts of Rule 5. Appendix A relates to the direct recruits and Appendix B relates to the promotees. Appendix A enumerates the procedure to notify the vacancies for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest by the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh and the manner of selection.

16. Para 16 postulates that on obtaining diploma in Forestry at the end of two years course at the Dehradun Forest Training College, the candidate will be appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forest. Appendix B prescribes the procedure "for recruitment by promotion in terms of Rule 5(b)". Paragraph 1 says thus:

17. Paragraph 7 prescribes the procedure for considering the claims of the Forest Rangers. The list of eligible candidates drawn by the Chief Conservator of Forest would be forwarded to the Public Service Commission. The Secretary to the Government in Forest Department in consultation with the Commission shall fix a date and call those candidates for interview by a Selection Committee consisting of a representative of the Public Service Commission, who prescribes over it, the Secretary to the Government in the Forest Department and the Chief Conservator of Forests or any other superior officer of the department whom the government nominates. The Public Service Commission shall draw a list of candidates in order of merit and forward it to the State Government. The Governor shall appoint the Forest Range Officers as per the list as Assistant Conservators of Forest on probation. On passing the prescribed tests within two years or extended period, if any, of probation or on exemption, the Governor shall consider the suitability for confirmation and to pass an order confirming the promotee in a substantive capacity to a substantive vacancy.

18. A close reading of the fasciculus of rules clearly posits that recruitment as Assistant Conservator of Forest shall be from two sources, namely, by direct recruitment and by promotion of permanent Forest Rangers of the Subordinate Forest Service. Qualifications have been provided for recruitment. The direct recruit, on selection by the Public Service Commission is required to undergo training for two years in the college as a part of the selection and on obtaining diploma, the Governor is to appoint him to the substantive post of Assistant Conservator of Forest on probation. The service of the direct recruits is to be counted from the date of discharging the duties of the post and on successful completion of the probation within two years or extended period and passing the tests and on confirmation thereof by the Governor, he becomes a member of the service in substantive capacity. Similarly the promotees shall be recruited in accordance with Rule 5(b) and the procedure prescribed in Appendix B. The Chief Conservator of Forest would draw up the list of permanent Forest Range Officers eligible for promotion strictly on the basis of merit. The Committee headed by the member of the Public Service Commission would interview them and prepare the list of the selected candidates on the basis of merit and ability, which would be forwarded to the government. On receipt thereof the Governor would appoint the Forest Range Officers as Assistant Conservator of Forest on probation in terms of the ratio prescribed in Rule 6. The selection shall be based on merit and ability. The seniority of Forest Rangers inter se is to be considered only where the merit and ability as Forest Rangers are approximately equal. Thus even the juniormost meritorious Forest Range Officer would steal a march over his seniors and would earn his seniority as Assistant Conservator of Forest. The promotee shall also be on probation for a period of two years and shall also have to pass the prescribed tests unless exempted. On successful completion and the Governor after satisfying himself that the appointee is also otherwise fit to be confirmed, makes an order. Then only the promotee becomes a regular member of the service in a substantive capacity.

19. The heart of the controversy lies in the question as to when a person is appointed to a post in the service in a substantive capacity within the meaning of Rule 3(h) read with Rules 5 and 24 of the Rules. Under Rule 5 read with Rule 3(h) a member of the service means a person, be it direct recruit under Rule 5(a) or promotee under Rule 5(b), appointed in a substantive capacity to the service as per the provisions of the rules. In order to become a member of the service he/they must satisfy two conditions, namely, the appointment must be in substantive capacity and the appointment has to be to the post in the service according to rules and within the quota to a substantive vacancy. There exists marked distinction between appointment in a substantive capacity and appointment to the substantive post. Therefore, the membership to the service must be preceded by an order of appointment to the post validly made by the Governor. Then only he/they become member/members of the service. Any other construction would be violation of the Rules..

20. The narrative of facts and attendant circumstances would indicate that the Government at no point of time abandoned direct recruitment under Rule 5(a), nor omitted to fix inter se seniority. No blame in this regard should lie at the doors of the government as due to recourse to judicial process this situation crept up. It is not the case of the promotees that Government held out any promise that the promotees would be regularised from the respective dates of promotion. On the other hand the governments positive act of adjusting the promotees in excess of the quota under Rule 6 in the vacancies that arose in the succeeding years belie such a situation.

21. From the above background two questions would emerge : (i) as to when promotees become members of the cadre of Assistant Conservators in a substantive capacity in accordance with the rules, and (ii) whether the entire length of service from the date of initial appointments should be counted towards their seniority. The prerequisite of the right to inclusion in a common list of seniority is that all those who claim that right must broadly bear the same characteristics. Fortuitous circumstances of their holding the grade post carrying the same designation or scale of pay or discharging the same duty would not justify the conclusion that they belong to the same cadre. Due to exigencies of service temporary promotions against substantive vacancies were made. It is undoubted that preceding their promotion, an ad hoc committee had considered the cases of the promotees. Admittedly seniority subject to rejection of unfit was the criteria, followed in the selection. The selection was, therefore, in defiance of and de hors Rule 5(b) read with Appendix B

22. In a democracy governed by rule of law, it is necessary for the appropriate governance of the country that the political executive should have the support of an efficient bureaucracy. Our Constitution enjoins upon the executive and charges the legislature to lay down the police of administration in the light of the directive principles. The executive should implement them to establish the contemplated egalitarian social order envisaged in the preamble of the Constitution.

23. It is seen that the appointments of the promotees were made in batches yearwise. The rule postulates that appointment shall be strictly as per merit after interview arranged in order by the Public Service Commission. In the same year when the appointments are made to the substantive vacancies from both the sources, the promotees shall rank senior to the direct recruits in accordance with the quota prescribed under Rule 6. The rules provide the power to appoint Forest Rangers from Subordinate Service, due to administrative exigencies to officiate or to act temporarily as Assistant Conservators of Forest. The rule itself, thus, recognises the distinction between substantive appointment and temporary/officiating appointment. The procedure to prepare the list to man the officiating or temporary vacancies is on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. The question of considering relative merit and ability of the promotees inter se, then would not arise. Thereby, it is clear that the list prepared by the Chief Conservator of Forest for appointment of the Forest Rangers to officiate in the posts of Assistant Conservator of Forest on ad hoc or temporary basis is only fortuitous due to non-availability of the direct recruits as stop gap arrangement. Employees appointed purely on ad hoc or officiating basis due to administrative exigencies, even though continued for a long spell, do not become the members of the service unless the Governor appoints them in accordance with the rules and so they are not entitled to count the entire length of their continuous officiating or fortuitous service towards, their seniority.

24. It is notorious that confirmation of an employee in a substantive post would take place long years after the retirement. An employee is entitled to be considered for promotion on regular basis to a higher post if he/she is an approved probationer in the substantive lower post. An officer appointed by promotion in accordance with Rules and within quota and on declaration of probation is entitled to reckon his seniority from the date of promotion and the entire length of service, though initially temporary, shall be counted for seniority. Ad hoc or fortuitous appointments on a temporary or stop gap basis cannot be taken into account for the purpose of seniority, even if the appointee was subsequently qualified to hold the post on a regular basis. To give benefit of such service would be contrary to equality enshrined in Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution as unequals would be treated as equals. When promotion is outside the quota, the seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota, rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotees it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits. The rule of quota being a statutory one it must be strictly implemented and it is impermissible for the authorities concerned to deviate from the rule due to administrative exigencies or expediency. The result of pushing down the promotees appointed in excess of the quota may work out hardship but it is unavoidable and any construction otherwise would be illegal, nullifying the force of statutory rules and would offend Articles 14 and 16(1). Therefore, the rules must be carefully applied in such a manner as not to violate the rules or equality assured under Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court interpreted that equity is an integral part of Article 14. So every attempt would be made to minimise, as far as possible, inequity. Disparity is inherent in the system of working out integration of the employees drawn from different sources, who have legitimate aspiration to reach higher echelons of service. A feeling of hardship to one, or heart burning to either would be avoided. At the same time equality is accorded to all the employees.

25. In Direct Recruits case [ 1990 (2) SCC 715 [LQ/SC/1990/294] , 745, para 47, Prop. B : 1990 SCC(L&S) 580 : 1990 (3) JT 295] the Constitution Bench of this Court in which one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) was a member, in Propositions A and B in paragraph 47 at page 475 stated:

Mr Mukhoty and Mr Garg repeatedly asked us to apply the ratio in the cases of Narender Chadha [ 1986 (2) SCC 157 [LQ/SC/1986/31] : 1986 SCC(L&S) 226 : 1986 (1) SCR 211 [LQ/SC/1986/31] ], Baleshwar Dass [ 1980 (4) SCC 226 [LQ/SC/1980/336] : 1980 SCC(L&S) 531 : 1981 (1) SCR 449 [LQ/SC/1980/336] ] and Chauhan [ 1977 (1) SCC 308 [LQ/SC/1976/413] : 1977 SCC(L&S) 127 : 1977 (1) SCR 1037 [LQ/SC/1976/413] ] contending that the promotees were appointed to the same post; are discharging the same duties; drawing the same salary, therefore, they should be deemed to be given promotion from their initial dates of appointment. We express our inability to travel beyond the ratio in Direct Recruits case [ 1990 (2) SCC 715 [LQ/SC/1990/294] , 745, para 47, Prop. B : 1990 SCC(L&S) 339 : 1990 (13) ATC 348]. While reiterating insistence upon adherence to the rule that seniority between direct recruits and the promotees has to be from the respective dates of appointment, this Court noticed that in certain cases, government by deliberate disregard of the rules promotions were made and allowed the promotees to continue for well over 15 to 20 years without reversion and thereafter seniority is sought to be fixed from the date of ad hoc appointment. In order to obviate unjust and inequitious results, this Court was constrained to evolve "rule of deemed relaxation of the relevant rules" and directed to regularise the services giving the entire length of temporary service from the date of initial appointment for seniority. To lay down binding precedent the cases were referred to a Constitution Bench. In the Direct Recruits case [ 1990 (2) SCC 715 [LQ/SC/1990/294] , 745, para 47, Prop. B : 1990 SCC(L&S) 339 : 1990 (13) ATC 348], this Court has laid down clear propositions of general application in Items A to K. Therefore, to keep the law clear and certain and to avoid any slant, we are of the considered view that it is not expedient to hark back into the past precedents and we prefer to adhere to the ratio laid down in the Direct Recruits case[ 1990 (2) SCC 715 [LQ/SC/1990/294] , 745, para 47, Prop. B : 1990 SCC(L&S) 339 : 1990 (13) ATC 348].

26. As stated, the counsel for the promotees placed strong reliance on proposition B while the counsel for the Direct Recruits relied on proposition A. The controversy is as to which of the propositions would apply to the facts of this case. The proposition A lays down that once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rules, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The latter part thereof amplifies that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and is made as a stop gap arrangement, the period of officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for reckoning seniority. The quintessence of the propositions is that the appointment to a post must be according to rules and not by way of ad hoc or stop gap arrangement made due to administrative exigencies. If the initial appointment thus made was de hors the rules, the entire length of such service cannot be counted for seniority. In other words the appointee would become a member of the service in the substantive capacity from the date of his appointment only if the appointment was made according to rules and seniority would be counted only from that date. Propositions A and B cover different aspects of one situation. One must discern the difference critically. Proposition B must, therefore, be read along with para 13 of the judgment wherein the ratio decidendi of Narender Chadha [ 1986 (2) SCC 157 [LQ/SC/1986/31] : 1986 SCC(L&S) 226 : 1986 (1) SCR 211 [LQ/SC/1986/31] ] was held to have considerable force. The latter postulated that if the initial appointment to a substantive post or vacancy was made deliberately, in disregard of the rule and allowed the incumbent to continue on the post for well over 15 to 20 years without reversion and till the date of regularisation of the service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service has to be counted towards seniority. This Court in Narender Chadha case [ 1986 (2) SCC 157 [LQ/SC/1986/31] : 1986 SCC(L&S) 226 : 1986 (1) SCR 211 [LQ/SC/1986/31] ] was cognizant of the fact that the rules empower the government to relax the rule of appointment. Without reading paragraph 13 and Proposition B and Narender Chadha [ 1986 (2) SCC 157 [LQ/SC/1986/31] : 1986 SCC(L&S) 226 : 1986 (1) SCR 211 [LQ/SC/1986/31] ] ratio together the true import of the proposition would not be appreciated. We would deal with the exercise of power of relaxing the rule later. After giving anxious consideration, we are of the view that the latter half of Proposition A would apply to the facts of the case and the rule laid down in that half is to be followed. If the concerned rules provide the procedure to fix inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, the seniority has to be determined in that manner.

27. Realising that applicability of Proposition B to the facts would run into rough weather the counsel for the promotees attempted to anchor it by reiterating that as on date the Public Service Commission found the promotees eligible for confirmation as per rules, the entire length of service would be counted for their seniority. We express our inability to accede to the contention. It is seen that appointment of the promotees as Assistant Conservators of Forest was not in accordance with Rule 5(b) read with Appendix B of the Rules. Admittedly the promotions were on ad hoc basis pending direct recruitment and are in excess of the quota prescribed under Rule 6. By no strength of imagination it could be said that the promotions were made to a substantive post in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the promotees do not hold the post in substantive capacity.

28. Undoubtedly when there was dearth of direct recruits the promotees discharged the duties ranging between 5 to 12 years prior to filing of the writ petitions. The promotees generally may get one or two chances of promotion to cadre posts in higher echelons of the Indian Forest Service. Reckoning continuous officiation of ad hoc promotion would enable the less privileged to excel their latent capabilities in the cadre post.

29. In an appropriate case if the court finds that wanton or deliberate deviation from the rules was made by the implementing authority the court should call upon them to explain the reasons therefor and in the absence of proper explanation forthcoming castigate the authority and pass strictures condemning the actions which would discipline the authorities to adhere to the rules. Undue latitude and acquiescence thereto would not only defeat the due enforcement of the rules but also create disorder and frustration among the members of the services. We have also kept at the back of our minds that the interpretation we are to give to the rules would have far reaching effect, not only for similar services in other States, but also to Indian Forest Service for which the State Services are the feeder source.

30. In Massor Akhtar Khan v. State of M.P. [ 1990 (4) SCC 24 [LQ/SC/1990/352] : 1990 SCC(L&S) 580 : 1990 (3) JT 295], a Division Bench considered, after Direct Recruits case [ 1990 (2) SCC 715 [LQ/SC/1990/294] , 745, para 47, Prop. B : 1990 SCC(L&S) 339 : 1990 (13) ATC 348], the question whether the subsequent selection would entitle an employee to the benefits of the entire temporary service for seniority. Sawant, J. speaking for the court held (with which we respectfully agree) that when the rules of advertisements and the orders of appointments indicate that the appointment is only for a limited period, subject to recruitment by Public Service Commission, the appointments are only emergency arrangement pending regular selection by the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the entire length of service cannot be counted for seniority.

31. It is next contended that the promotees must be deemed to have been appointed in relaxation of the rules of recruitment under Rule 27 of the Rules by the Governor and placed strong reliance on the ratio in Narender Chadha case [ 1986 (2) SCC 157 [LQ/SC/1986/31] : 1986 SCC(L&S) 226 : 1986 (1) SCR 211 [LQ/SC/1986/31] ]. Rule 27 reads thus:

32. It is true that in Narender Chadha case [ 1986 (2) SCC 157 [LQ/SC/1986/31] : 1986 SCC(L&S) 226 : 1986 (1) SCR 211 [LQ/SC/1986/31] ] this Court noticed that appointments by promotion were not made in accordance with the Rules and Rule 16 of Indian Economic/Indian Statistics Service Rules, 1961 as was in force empowers the government to relax "any provision of the rules" to such an extent as may be necessary to ensure satisfactory working or removing inequitious results held that as the government deliberately deviated from the rules and allowed the promotees to be in continuous service without reversion for well over 15 to 20 years, the government must be deemed to have relaxed the rules. While holding so at page 238 it was stated that:

33. In those peculiar circumstances this Court though recognised that appointment according to rules is a condition precedent, adopted the rule of deemed relaxation and deemed promotion to the service in accordance with the rules. Rule 27 of the Rules gives power to the Governor that if he is satisfied that the operation of any rule regarding conditions of service of the members caused undue hardship in a particular case, he may consult the Public Service Commission; notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules he may dispense with or relax the requirement of the conditions of service and extend the necessary benefit as is expedient so as to relieve hardship and to cause just and equitable results. The word "may" consult the Commission has been used in the context of discharge of statutory duty. The Governor is obligated to consult the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the word "may" must be construed to mean "shall" and it is mandatory on the part of the Governor to consult the Public Service Commission before exempting or relaxing the operation of rule regarding conditions of the service of a member to relieve him from undue hardship and to cause just and equitable results. There is a distinction between "rules of recruitment" and "conditions of service". To become a member of the service in a substantive capacity, appointment by the Governor shall be preceded by selection of a direct recruit by the Public Service Commission; undergoing training in Forestry for two years in the college and passing Diploma are conditions precedent. If the contention of the promotees that rules of recruitment are conditions of service is accepted, it would be open to the Governor to say that:

Take another instance. Passing the prescribed tests during probation is a condition of service. Similarly efficiency bar stands as an impediment for the promotees confirmation. On consideration of the record and on objective satisfaction, in an appropriate case, the Governor may relax those or other similar conditions. So passing the tests prescribed is a condition of service. Therefore, the rule which effects the right to confirmation or similar provision is a condition of service. The rules relating to recruitment to the service either under Rule 5(a) or 5(b) or the manner of recruitment to service as per Appendix A or B are basic rules of recruitment to service. Satisfaction of the Governor that the operation of the rules regarding the conditions of service would cause undue hardship in a particular case or cases and the need to relieve hardship and to cause just and equitable results is a precondition. Even otherwise the court cannot substitute its satisfaction for the satisfaction of the Governor in exercise of the power of deemed relaxation. In Narender Chadha case [(1986) 2 SC 157 : 1986 SCC(L&S) 226 : 1986 (1) SCR 211 [LQ/SC/1986/31] ] the power to relax was wide enough to cover any rule and there was no precondition of objective satisfaction by the Governor. We hold that Rule 5(a) and (b) and Appendices A and B are basic rules of recruitment and would not be subject to Rule 27.

34. Accordingly we have no hesitation to hold that the promotees have admittedly been appointed on ad hoc basis as a stop gap arrangement, though in substantive posts, and till the regular recruits are appointed in accordance with the rules. Their appointments are de hors the rules and until they are appointed by the Governor according to rules, they do not become the members of the service in a substantive capacity. Continuous length of ad hoc service from the date of initial appointment cannot be counted towards seniority. The Governor shall have to make recruitment by promotion to substantive vacancies in the posts of Assistant Conservator of Forest, if not already made, in accordance with Rule 5(b) read with Appendix B and Rule 6. Their seniority shall be counted only from the respective dates of appointment to the substantive posts in their quota under Rule 6 as per the rules. The direct recruits having been appointed in accordance with Rule 5(a) read with Appendix A, their seniority shall be counted from the date of their discharging the duties of the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and the seniority of the direct recruits also shall accordingly be fixed. The inter se seniority of the direct recruits and promotees shall be determined in accordance with Rules 5, 6 and the Rule 24 in the light of the law declared in the judgment. All the employees are entitled to all consequential benefits. On account of the pendency of judicial proceedings, if any of the employees became barred by age for consideration for promotion to cadre posts, the appropriate governments would do well to suitability relax the rules and do justice to the eligible conditions.

35. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs.