Civil Appeal No 1995 of 1977
From the Judgment and order dated 1691975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 584 of 1975 
GL Sanghi Subodh Markandeya and Mrs Chitra Markandeya for the Appellants
KG Bhagat Y Prabhakar Rao TVSN Chari and Ms Vrinda Grover for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
This appeal is by special leave and is directed against the appellate judgment of a division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the rejection of the writ petition 26 by a Single Judge of that High Court
Appellants are Engineers in the establishment of the Chief Engineer Roads and Buildings of the Andhra Pradesh Government and the dispute is one of inter se seniority between them on the one side and respondents 3 and 4 on the other
Appellants filed a writ petition being No 4151 of 1972 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh claiming a direction to the State Government for considering them for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on the basis that they were senior to five promotee Assistant Engineers
A learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition by judgment dated 29th March 1973 and gave the following directions The respondents 1 and 2 State of Andhra Pradesh and its Chief Engineer respectively will therefore consider the claims of the petitioners for promotion as Executive Engineers having regard to their seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineers in relation to the seniority of respondents 3 to 7
I therefore direct respondents 1 and 2 to take the seniority of the petitioners who were full members of service in relation to the seniority of respondents 3 to 7 in the cadre of Assistant Engineers and consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineers in accordance with the rules
 The State Government in compliance with the directions issued to it by order dated 10th August 1983 made an order stating As per Rule 5 of the said Special Rules for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers ordinary Grade a Graduate Assistant Engineer should be a a full member or approved probationer b a direct recruit should put in six years service as Assistant Engineer and c a promotee Assistant Engineer should put in five years service
No preference is provided for persons who were either direct recruit Assistant Engineers or who secured earlier confirmation
In the absence of specific provision in the 27 Special Rules for giving any preference to direct recruit Assistant Engineers in the matter of promotion to the category of Executive Engineers only the provisions of General Rules for State and Subordinate Services have to be applied therefor
According to Rule 33a of General Rules for Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services the seniority of a person in a service class category or grade shall unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment be determined by the date of first appointment to such service class category or grade
So the seniority of the Writ Petitioners and the respondents has to be considered with reference to their dates of regular appointment to the category of Assistant Engineers R  B but not from the date of confirmation in the said category for purpose of promotion as Executive Engineers
The dates of commencement of probation of the respondents and Writ Petitioners is as indicated below Sl
Name of the Asstt
Date of Comm No Engineer encement of probation ___________________________________________________________ Respondents 1
BV Venkataramana 1951961 2
CM Ramachandramurthy 1951961 Writ Petitioners 1
Desoola Rama Rao 1871966 2
V Murahari Reddy 3061966 ___________________________________________________________ Names of the three others stated in the order are not extracted as are not relevant
Thus the respondents commenced their probation between 1959 to 1963 while the writ petitioners commenced their probation in 1966 and their seniority is far below the respondents
The Government after careful examination of the judgment of the High Court with reference to the statutory rules and in relation to the seniority obtaining between the respondents and the writ petitioners decide that the 28 turn of the two writ petitioners for promotion has not yet come and that their claims shall be considered for promotion as Executive Engineers ordinary Grade in their turn along with others according to their seniority as per rules and eligibility
 The appellants thereafter filed a second writ petition being Writ Petition No 6157 of 1973 before the High Court challenging the Government order
As already stated the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and such dismissal has been upheld in appeal
Appellants were directly recruited as Assistant Engineers on 29th April 1966 and Special Rules for Roads and Buildings Division of the public Works Department were made on 27th June 1967 but were given effect from 1st April 1965
According to the Rules appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineers can either be by direct recruitment or by recruitment by transfer of Junior Engineers and Supervisors or Draftsmen Special Grade or Draftsmen Grade I Under the Rules appellants became eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in 1971 and when their claim for promotion was overlooked the first writ petition as already stated was filed
According to the appellants respondents 3 and 4 were appointed by transfer under Rule 10 A of the Rules and were approved probationers
They contend that the promotees are approved probationers and until confirmation as full members of the service they would not be entitled to the benefit of seniority in service and therefore the appellants were senior to them
They therefore challenged the Government order referred to above and contended that the High Court went wrong in not holding that appellants were senior to the two respondents and on that basis they were entitled to consideration for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in preference to those respondents
There is no dispute that both directly recruited Assistant Engineers as also promotee Assistant Engineers are entitled to promotion as Executive Engineers
The rule requires direct recruits to have put in six years of service while for promotees the prescription is five years of service for being eligible to be considered for promotion
As in many other service rules there is no provision in the Rules under consideration that direct recruits would have preference over promotees for purposes of inter se seniority
In the absence of such a rule the High Court followed the guideline indicated in the General Rules which provides that seniority shall be determined by the date of first appointment to the service
The High Court found that respondents 3 29 and 4 came to serve as Assistant Engineers long before the appellants were recruited as Assistant Engineers
In fact in paragraph 6 of his judgment the learned Single Judge in the second writ petition has indicated that respondents 3 and 4 were temporarily appointed as Assistant Engineers on 14th August 1959 and 19th May 1960 respectively
In exercise of power under Rule 23a of the General Rules the services of the two respondents had been regularised retrospectively with effect from 19th May 1961 and the order of regularisation had been passed by the Chief Engineer on 3rd May 1967
In the instant case the date from which regularisation has been directed to take effect is not anterior to their appointment as Assistant Engineers
That being the position regularisation is not vitiated on account of arbitrariness
The only other aspect argued on this score was that the Chief Engineer was not competent to make the order
Rule 23a of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules provides If a person having been appointed temporarily under sub rule a or sub rulec of rule 10 to post borne on the cadre of any service class or category or having been appointed to any service class or category otherwise than in accordance with the rules governing appointment thereto is subsequently appointed to any service class or category in accordance with the rules he shall commence his probation from the date of such subsequent appointment or from such earlier date as the appointing authority may determine Underlining is ours The vires of this rule had not been challenged but the only contention in this regard was that the appointing authority being the State Government the Chief Engineer should not have made the order fixing the date of commencement of probation
It is the case of the respondents that the State Government has delegated that power to the Chief Engineer and the order of delegation of that power is on record
The law relating to inter se seniority in a cadre is well settled
If there be a rule indicating the manner in which such seniority has to be fixed that is binding
In the absence of such a rule length of service is the basis for fixing inter se seniority
The High Court has found and there is no longer any dispute that respondents 3 and 4 have put in longer service than the appellants in the post of Assistant Engineer
In that view of the matter the State Government was right and the High 30 Court appropriately approved it that the appellants would rank below the respondents 3 and 4 in the cadre and the promotional benefit would be given to them after the claim of the respondents 3 and 4 has been duly considered
We see no merit in the appeal
It is accordingly dismissed
There would be no order for costs
PSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
 Section 63B of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act of 1960 entitles a family consisting of more than five members comprising a person and other members of the categories mentioned therein vizi minor son ii widow of pre deceased son iii minor son or unmarried daughter of a pre deceased son where his or her mother is dead to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of one fifth of such area for each member in excess of five provided the total area does not exceed twice the ceiling area
The ceiling area prescribed was 45 acres
The family of the respondent landholder consisted of nine members including himself his mother wife three minor sons and three minor daughters
The holding of the family consisted of 60 acres and 4 gunthas
The Revenue Tribunal held that the landholder was not entitled to the benefit of s63B of the Act
In counting the members of the family it excluded from consideration the mother and three minor daughters of the landholder on the view that the applicant and his wife would count as one unit and his minor sons would count as four units and ruled that there were only five members in the family for the purpose of counting the unit notwithstanding the fact that the family consisted of nine members and also comprised of other members belonging to the specified category
In the writ petition the High Court held that the landholder s family consisted of nine members inasmuch as his mother and his wife as also his minor daughters were members of his family
In the appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant State that in applying the test whether or not the family consisted of five 1069 members regard must be had only to the members of family belonging to the specified category namely minor sons in so far as the composition of the family of the landholder was concerned so to say that the landholder his wife and his three minor sons were the only five members of the family for the purpose of section 63B of the Act
Dismissing the appeal  HELD 11 Two tests must be satisfied cumulatively for being eligible to claim the benefit of section 63B of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act 1960 1 the size of the family should exceed five 2 it must consist of members one or more of whom belong to one or other of the specified categories
All the ingredients of section 63B are satisfied in the instant case1074G 12 The expression family has not been defined in the Act
The Court has therefore to go by the concept by family as it is commonly understood meaning a group of persons consisting of parents and their offsprings living together in one household
In that view that family of the landholder consisted of eight members including himself his wife three minor sons and three minor daughters
The family of the landholder thus consists of more than five members
The family also includes persons of one of the specified categories viz the minor sons
1074A C E F 2
It cannot be said that in ascertaining whether or not the precondition is satisfied only the members of the specified category should be taken into account
For to do so would be to kill the letter as well as the spirit of the benevolent provisions aimed at relieving the distress of family members subject to one or other of the socio economic handicaps
1075D E 1071C D 3
Computation of the extent of the additional land must be made by applying the formula embodied in section 63B
On a true interpretation of the provision each member in excess of five must of logical necessity mean each such member of the specified handicapped category viz three minor sons
Under the circumstances for each minor son in excess of the five members the holder was entitled to one fifth of the ceiling area in excess of the prescribed ceiling
That is to say he was entitled to three fifth of the prescribed ceiling area over and above the ceiling area provided the total retainable holding of the family did not exceed twice the ceiling area
The holding of the family consisted of 60 acres and 4 gunthas
And making a computation on the aforesaid basis 1070 having regard to the fact that the ceiling area was 45 acres the family would be entitled to additional 27 acres 4559x327
Thus he would be entitled to hold 72 acres 452772 whereas the holding of the respondent consisted of only 60 acres
Therefore the holding of the family was not in excess of the prescribed ceiling as computed in the aforesaid manner
1075F G 1076B C Nathekhan vs Mamlatdar Vadgam GLR 253 1473 approved