In reply, the main contention of learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 & 2 is that respondents Nos. 1 & 2 upon their absorption to the post of Assistant Engineer on a regular basis on April 21, 1975 were entitled to the benefit of the entire period of officiation as Temporary Engineers on an ad hoc basis i.e. the period from January 1971 and May 1969 to April 21, 1975 and the failure of the Government to count such period of their ad hoc service was per se arbi trary, irrational and thus violative of articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution inasmuch as the service rendered by them as Temporary Engineers (ad hoc) was not for a short period intended to meet some emergent or unforeseen circumstances, but to meet the exigencies of the service and there is no reason why the principles laid down in Baleshwar Das 's case should also not be extended in determining the seniority of such ad hoc employees vis a vis direct recruits.