1046 administrative pragmatics influence, without invalidation, the recruitment mechanics where a narrow rider providing for imponderable exigencies written into the rule, provides for departure ? (2) Assuming there has to be a proportion of 50 50 as above indicated, how is it to be worked out ? On a rotational basis of the direct recruits inexorably getting the first, the third, the fifth and such like vacancies or as an entitlement to half the total number of vacancies arising in the cadre in a particular year or other conven tional period ? Again, does it further imply an imperative obligation on the part of Government to keep untilled all vacancies allocable to direct recruits so that they may be available to be filled up in later years with retroactive repercussions and, if such ear marked posts are, for admin istrative exigencies, filled regularly, not ad hoc, in sub stantive vacancies, not ex cadre posts by selection and promotion, they must be treated as provisional nationally filled by direct recruits who may arrive long later? And consequentially, in counting seniority, reckon their (i.e., direct recruits) deemed dates of entry as prior to those actually officiating promotee deputy collectors by importing a sort of legal fiction that the direct recruits must be allowed to count service from the date when the entitled vacancy for direct recruits arose? May be a diffusive, digressive discussion can be obviated and the focus turned on specific issues if we start with a formulation of the major points urged by Sri D. V. Patel, counsel for the appellant, hotly controverted, of course, by shri R.K. Garg for the contesting respondents.