Temporary service counted for seniority where special service rules formed a complete scheme and quota applied only to permanent posts.

The Special Rules were construed as creating one service comprising all District and Sessions Judges, Second Grade posts, whether permanent or temporary. Because Rule 6 fixed seniority by continuous duty in the category, service rendered on temporary posts had to be counted for seniority, and the direct recruitment quota in Rule 2 applied only to permanent posts. The general State Rule on appointment did not govern, since the Special Rules formed a complete code for appointment and seniority in the service. The Supreme Court therefore upheld counting the respondents' temporary service and rejected the claim to place the petitioners above them.

---

---

Issues: Whether temporary posts of District and Sessions Judges, Second Grade formed part of the service under the Special Rules, whether service rendered on such temporary posts could be counted for seniority, and whether the quota prescribed for direct recruits under the Special Rules controlled the seniority rule.

Analysis: Rule 1 of the Special Rules was construed as constituting the service of all District and Sessions Judges, Second Grade posts, whether permanent or temporary. Rule 2 prescribed the mode of appointment and reserved 33 1/3% of the permanent posts for direct recruitment, but that quota was confined to permanent posts. Rule 6 fixed seniority with reference to the date from which a person was continuously on duty in the category, and the Court held that continuous service on temporary posts could not be excluded. Rule 10(a)(i) of the general State Rules was held inapplicable because the Special Rules provided a complete scheme for appointment and seniority in the service.

Conclusion: The respondents' temporary service was rightly counted for seniority, the quota provision did not override the seniority rule, and the petitioners were not entitled to be placed above the respondents.

---