JUDGMENT & ORDER : (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ.) We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka and Mr. D.J. Das, learned Advocates for the petitioners; Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the State; Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. J.M. Konwar, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 92 and Mr. P. Doley, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.94 to 98. 2. The petitioners, directly recruited Assistant Engineers (Civil), have challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 22 (3) of the Assam Engineering (Public Works Department) Service Rules, 1978 (in short, “Rules of 1978”) and the consequential action by the State in assigning seniority to respondent Nos.3 to 98, who are promotees to the same cadre. 3. The controversy arose because the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineers on 21.09.2022, whereas the promotees were appointed on 06.01.2023. However, the promotees have been placed senior to the direct recruits on the ground that they were promoted against vacancies of the calendar year-2022 and under Rule 22 (3), a promotee appointed against a vacancy occurring in a year shall rank senior to a direct recruit of that year. 4. The petitioners contend that such seniority assignment enables a person “not even born in the cadre” to the rank above those already appointed and is, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. In order to understand the dispute and resolve the same, it would be necessary to refer to Rule 22 of the Rules of 1978 in its entirety, which reads as under: “ 22. Seniority - The Seniority of a member in a cadre appointed by direct recruitment or by promotion shall be determined according to the order of merit in the respective list finally approved by the Appointing Authority under sub- rule (6) of Rule 13 and sub-rule (4) of Rule 14, sub-rule (1) of Rule 18, if he joins the appointment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order or within the extended period as mentioned in Rule 19. (2) If a member fails to join the appointment within the initial 15 days of receipt of order or within the extended period, as mentioned in Rule 19, but joins later, his seniority shall be determined in accordance with the date of joining. (2) If a member fails to join the appointment within the initial 15 days of receipt of order or within the extended period, as mentioned in Rule 19, but joins later, his seniority shall be determined in accordance with the date of joining. (3) A member appointed by promotion against a vacancy occurring in a year shall be senior to a member appointed by direct recruitment of that year (4) A separate seniority list of “S.E.S.” SDOs and SDOs (T.C.) since re-designated and encadred as Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer with effect from 1-1-73 promoted from the cadre of Junior Engineer shall be maintained such seniority list shall continue till all the members of the list are adjusted against promotion post or the post are vacated by retirement or otherwise. (5) The inter-se-seniority of such Assistant Executive Engineer shall be fixed in accordance with sub-rule (1) of this Rule. (6) The seniority of such Assistant Executive Engineer shall be in accordance with the decision of the Governor.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Before any further discussion is made with regard to the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be necessary to refer to few of the terms of the employment as defined in the dictionary of the Rules of 1978. Rule 2(j) defines “Year” as a Calender Year. The General Clauses Act, 1897 defines “year” to mean a year reckoned according to the British calendar. Rule 6 provides for direct recruitment. The Rule provides that subject to sub-rule (3) of Rule 11, direct recruitment to the cadres of Assistant Engineers, --- shall be made by the Governor on the basis of selection made by the Commission in accordance with the procedure provided in the Rule. Rule 6 further provides that before the end of each year, the Government shall make an assessment regarding the likely number of vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment during the next year and shall intimate the same to the Commission together with the details about reservation to categories, as provided under Rule 17. There shall be a simultaneous request by the Government to the Commission to recommend a list of candidates for direct recruitment, in order of preference; whereupon the Commission shall make the selection in accordance with the scheme of the selection prescribed by the Government in consultation with the Commission. There shall be a simultaneous request by the Government to the Commission to recommend a list of candidates for direct recruitment, in order of preference; whereupon the Commission shall make the selection in accordance with the scheme of the selection prescribed by the Government in consultation with the Commission. The Commission shall thereafter furnish the Government with a list of candidates recommended by it in order of preference, found suitable for direct recruitment. The number of candidates in such a list may be approximately double the number of vacancy. The Commission shall then simultaneously publish the list in the Assam Gazette and such other place the Commission may consider proper. Such list shall remain valid for 12 Calendar months from the date of recommendation. In the event of the Commission being unable to recommend sufficient number of candidates to fill up the vacancies in a year, it shall, in consultation with the Appointing Authority, repeat the procedure for recommending a subsequent list in the year; provided that the Appointing Authority shall not make appointment of any candidate from the subsequent select list until all the candidates of the earlier list of the same year, eligible for appointment, have been offered the appointment. This, therefore, means that the appointment process culminates with the appointment order by the Appointing Authority. 7. Rule 11 of the Rules of 1978 deals with promotion as Assistant Engineers, which provides that the Appointing Authority shall publish in the Government Gazette annually the number of vacancies in the respective cadres of Assistant Engineers which have occurred or are likely to occur in the year. Subject to the suitability as may be decided by the Selection Board and by the Appointing Authority, in consultation with the Commission, an officer belonging to the cadre of Junior Engineer in Assam Junior Engineering (Public Works Department) Services under the Government shall be eligible for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Engineer in the manner provided in Rule 13 and 14, if he possesses the requisite qualification. Rule 11(4)(c) clarifies that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rule, subject to the suitability, a Subordinate Engineer Grade I of Assam Subordinate Engineering (P.W.D.) Service, on his acquiring the academic qualification, as prescribed for a direct recruit Assistant Engineer, shall be promoted as Assistant Engineer, in consultation with the Commission, as provided in Rule 14 against the next available vacancy in the cadre and such promotion shall be treated as direct recruitment to the cadre of Assistant Engineer for the purpose of the Rules. The general procedure of promotion has been dealt with in Rule 13. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 13 clearly provides that the Appointing Authority shall consider the select list prepared by the Board along with the character rolls and personal files of the employees and approve the list unless it considers, any change necessary. If the Appointing Authority considers it necessary to make change in the list received from the Board, he shall inform the Board of the changes proposed and after taking into account the comments, if any, of the Board may approve the list finally with such modifications, if any, as may, in his opinion be just and proper. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 13 provides that the inclusion of a candidate’s name in the select list shall confer no right to promotion unless the Appointing Authority is satisfied after such enquiry as may be considered necessary that the candidate is suitable for promotion. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 13 provides that promotion shall be in accordance with the list finally approved by the Appointing Authority. Sub-rule (10) of Rule 13 provides that the select list as finally approved by the Appointing Authority shall be published by the Appointing Authority in the Assam Gazette within 15 days from the date of approval. 8. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1978, thus, entitles a promotee to count seniority based on occurrence of vacancy in a year while a direct recruit would count his seniority based on recruitment made in a year. The resultant effect is, if (3) is allowed to remain in the statute, that a promotee would be entitled to count his seniority from the date when he was not even born in the cadre. The resultant effect is, if (3) is allowed to remain in the statute, that a promotee would be entitled to count his seniority from the date when he was not even born in the cadre. Most importantly, this, it is urged, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and bears no rational nexus with respect to the promotion scheme. That apart, Rule 22 (3) is, in a large measure, anachronistic to the provisions contained in Rules 2(j), 6(1)(a), 6(1)d, 11(c) and 13(6). 9. Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 92 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, however, have expostulated that Rule 22 (3) is clear and specific, which ought not to be tinkered with. It is a kind of quota-rota type arrangement embedded in the service structure. It has further been submitted that the concept of “birth in the cadre” is an argument which is rhetorically attractive, but legally unsound. Seniority jurisprudence distinguishes between date of appointment and the slot in the recruitment year. If the service structure contemplates a combined seniority list based on recruitment year, the date of physical joining may not be determinative. The Supreme Court has upheld the quota- rota system, holding that inter se seniority can be structured by the Rule. 10. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. :: (1990) 2 SCC 715 Rule 22 (3) should be seen as a protective measure for maintaining promotional avenue equilibrium. Such balancing is a matter of public policy. A rule can be struck down or read down only if it is manifestly arbitrary and is violative of constitutional provisions. There is a proper classification bearing nexus sought to be achieved between direct recruits and the promotees to the post of Assistant Engineer. 11. They have referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in S.G. Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India , AIR 1967 SC 1427 and Dental Council of India –Vs- Biyani Shikshan Samiti & Anr., (2022) 6 SCC 65 . 12. In Jagdish Ch. Patnaik & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 456 , the Supreme Court had considered the scope of Rule 26 (1) of the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941. 12. In Jagdish Ch. Patnaik & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 456 , the Supreme Court had considered the scope of Rule 26 (1) of the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941. The facts of that case were that in the year 1978, 40 (forty) vacancies accrued in the post of Assistant Engineers in the Irrigation Wing of the Irrigation Department of the State of Orissa, out of which 10 posts were to be filled up by direct recruitment. The advertisement for recruitment was issued in the year 1979 and the appointments were made in the year 1980. The respondents therein were Junior Engineers who had been promoted as Assistant Engineers in accordance with the Rules on different dates in 1979 and 1980. One of the direct recruits, namely, Jagdish Ch. Patnaik claimed before the State Administrative Tribunal that he should be given the seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer just below the promoted Assistant Engineer in the year 1978 since he had been recruited to the said post against a vacancy which had arisen in the year 1978 and he ought not to have been made to suffer because of the delay in completing the recruitment process. The Tribunal accepted the said contention and held that his seniority should be determined, treating him to be a recruit of the year 1978, notwithstanding the fact that he was appointed as an Assistant Engineer by notification in the year 1980. Rule 26 of the Rules (Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941) in question deals with the inter se seniority of the Assistant Engineers as between the direct recruits and promotees; the promoted officers recruited during the year would be considered senior to the officers directly recruited during the year. The Supreme Court, after reading the entire architecture of the Rules and in particular Rule 26 , held that in case of direct recruits, the Rules unequivocally indicated that the final authority lies with the State Government to issue appointment orders from amongst the persons found suitable by the Public Service Commission and further who were found medically fit by the Medical Board. Such appointee was required to undergo probation for two years and only thereafter he would be confirmed in the service. Such appointee was required to undergo probation for two years and only thereafter he would be confirmed in the service. Rule 26 used the expression “when officers are recruited by promotion and by direct recruitment”, which necessarily mean that when those persons were appointed as Assistant Engineers by the State Government. To import something else into a rule, the Supreme Court opined, would neither be in the interest of justice nor would be necessary in any manner and would tantamount to legislation by the Court. The well-known principle of construction of a statute was reiterated that when the language used in the stature is unambiguous and on a plain grammatical meaning being given to the words in the statute, the end result is neither arbitrary, irrational or contrary to the object of the statute, then it would be the duty of the Court to give effect to the words used in the statute as the words declare the intention of the law-making authority at its best. Interpreting the Rules as such, it was held that the expression “recruited” in the Rules would mean appointed and the expression “during the same year” would mean during the calendar year and, therefore, the direct recruits recruited during the calendar year would be junior to the promotee recruits recruited during the said calendar year. It would be somewhat necessary to reproduce afore-noted Rule 26 of the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941, which was considered by the Supreme Court as it is slightly different from Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1978, which is in question in the present proceeding : “26. Seniority .-1) When officers are recruited by promotion and by direct recruitment during the same year, the promoted officers shall be considered senior to the officers directly recruited irrespective of their dates of joining the appointment. (2) Between the two groups of promoted officers, those promoted from the rank of Sub-Assistant Engineers shall en bloc be senior to those promoted from the rank of Junior Engineers. (3) Subject to provision of sub-rules (1) and (2) seniority of officers shall be determined in accordance with the order in which their names appear in the lists prepared by the Commission.” 13. A comparison of Rule 26 of the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941, which was in consideration in Jagdish Ch. (3) Subject to provision of sub-rules (1) and (2) seniority of officers shall be determined in accordance with the order in which their names appear in the lists prepared by the Commission.” 13. A comparison of Rule 26 of the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941, which was in consideration in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik (supra) and Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1978, which has been quoted above, would reveal that the wordings are not similar. 14. In Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1978, a definite distinction has been made between the cases of promotees and direct recruits by providing that a member appointed by promotion against the vacancy occurring in a year shall be senior to a member appointed by direct recruitment of that year. The clear intendment of the Rule, therefore, appears to be that for a promotee, the crucial date would be the occurrence of the vacancy in a year; but for a direct recruit, the crucial date would be appointment date of that year when the promotees are appointed. No such distinction appears from Rule 26 of the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941 in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik (supra). It is in this context that the observation of the Supreme Court in para 32 of the judgment of Jagdish Ch. Patnaik (supra), which has been quoted below, is to be understood. “ 32. The next question for consideration is whether the year in which the vacancy accrues can have any relevance for the purpose of determining the seniority irrespective of the fact when the persons are recruited? Mr. Banerjee's contention on this score is that since the appellant was recruited to the cadre of Assistant Engineer in respect of the vacancies that arose in the year 1978 though in fact the letter of appointment was issued only in March 1980, he should be treated to be a recruit of the year 1978 and as such would be senior to the promotees of the years 1979 and 1980 and would be junior to the promotees of the year 1978. According to the learned counsel since the process of recruitment takes a fairly long period as the Public Service Commission invites application, interviews and finally select them whereupon the Government takes the final decision, it would be illogical to ignore the year in which the vacancy arose and against which the recruitment has been made. According to the learned counsel since the process of recruitment takes a fairly long period as the Public Service Commission invites application, interviews and finally select them whereupon the Government takes the final decision, it would be illogical to ignore the year in which the vacancy arose and against which the recruitment has been made. There is no dispute that there will be some time lag between the year when the vacancy accrues and the year when the final recruitment is made for complying with the procedure prescribed but that would not give a handle to the Court to include something which is not there in the rules of seniority under Rule 26 . Under Rule 26 the year in which vacancy arose and against which vacancy the recruitment has been made is not at all to be looked into for determination of the inter se seniority between direct recruits and the promotees. It merely states that during the calendar year direct recruits to the cadre of Assistant Engineer would be junior to the promotee recruits to the said cadre. It is not possible for the Court to import something which is not there in Rule 26 and thereby legislate a new rule of seniority. We are, therefore, not in a position to agree with the submission of Mr. Banerjee, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, on this score.” 15. That apart, we have found from the records that the entire process of promotion and recruitment of the promotees was completed in the year 2022. The recommendations were made by the Selection Board on 07.12.2022 and the same was notified also on 17.12.2022. However, the appointment process was delayed for about a week or so and formal appointment letters were issued on 06.01.2023. In that case, holding the petitioners to be senior to the respondents/promotees, would be doing definite damage to the wordings of Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1978 as also the service jurisprudence. 16. The issues before this Court, therefore, are whether Rule 22 (3) is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and whether the expression “vacancy occurring in a year” must be interpreted as the date of appointment with respect to the promotees also. 17. 16. The issues before this Court, therefore, are whether Rule 22 (3) is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and whether the expression “vacancy occurring in a year” must be interpreted as the date of appointment with respect to the promotees also. 17. A further question would arise whether the promotees could be given seniority over the direct recruits appointed few days earlier at that point of time but belonging to the same recruitment year. A service rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India carries the statutory force. It can be invalidated only if it is manifestly arbitrary; it violates constitutional guarantees and is ultra vires the parent statute. 18. In Dental Council of India –Vs- Biyani Shikshan Samiti & Anr. (supra), the Supreme Court has reiterated that subordinate legislation enjoys a presumption of constitutionality and can be struck down or read down only if it is clearly arbitrary and unconstitutional. 19. Though the petitioners have relied heavily on the decision rendered in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik (supra), wherein it was held that seniority ordinarily flows from the dates of appointment, not from the date of occurrence of vacancy but the wordings of Rule 26 of the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941 did not make any distinction between the promotees and direct recruits. Even otherwise, in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik (supra), the Supreme Court did not lay down any inflexible principle. It only held that in the absence of statutory rule, seniority cannot be assigned from the date of vacancy. Where Rules expressly provide otherwise, the Rule would govern. 20. It would also be relevant here to state that in Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officers’ Association (supra), the Constitutional Bench had recognized that where the recruitment had been made from different sources under quota system, inter se seniority may legitimately be regulated through rotation and recruitment year principles. Once appointment is made according to the Rules, seniority must be determined in accordance with those Rules. 21. In Bhey Ram Sharma & Ors. Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 276 , the Supreme Court had examined the question of fixation of seniority inter se between the officers appointed from different sources, i.e. by promotion and by the process of direct recruitment. 21. In Bhey Ram Sharma & Ors. Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 276 , the Supreme Court had examined the question of fixation of seniority inter se between the officers appointed from different sources, i.e. by promotion and by the process of direct recruitment. It was held that it is almost settled that while determining the inter se seniority amongst the officers recruited from different sources or between the officers appointed by the same process at different times, the date of entering in the service is relevant. A person who enters in service first shall rank senior unless there is some rule providing otherwise, which can be held to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 22. In the present case, the distinction has been made and the only purpose appears to be to protect the promotional equilibrium between the promotees who have put in a large number of years in service of the Organization, who in their fag end of careers ought not be placed juniors to the direct recruits, who have many years to go in the service. 23. Examining Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1978 in question again, it appears that the Rule making authority consciously linked seniority of promotees to the vacancy year but the same was not to be applied to direct recruits whose seniority inter se with the promotees would be governed by the stipulation that the promotee appointed against the vacancy accrued in a year would en-block be placed senior to direct recruits of the year. Thus, in this case, the occurrence of vacancy for direct recruits is not the crucial condition but their appointment date and the year of occurrence of vacancy for the promotees. 24. The challenge to the Rule on the ground that it is heavily loaded in favour of the promotees in matters of seniority, is not worthy of acceptance for the reason that the challenge is made on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which permits intelligible classification backed by the objects sought to be achieved, and the object here is to maintain the equilibrium in the promotional avenue. The Rule does not lead to any unguided discretion. It prescribes an objective standard - vacancy year for the promotees. The Rule does not lead to any unguided discretion. It prescribes an objective standard - vacancy year for the promotees. Service jurisprudence recognizes that equality does not mean identical treatment across different sources of recruitment. 25. The slight temporal difference in the wordings, which appears to be a conscious decision of the Rule making authority, ought not to render the Rule unconstitutional. Seniority is a civil consequence governed by statutory prescription, not necessarily by merely chronological entry through different sources. 26. Seen in this context, we have not found any irreconcilable conflict in Rule 22 (3), Rule 2(j), Rule 6, Rule 11 or Rule 13. Rules 6 and 13 govern the process of recruitment; whereas governs seniority after recruitment. The impugned set of Rules operate in distinct spheres. 27. There is yet another aspect of the matter which needs to be stated. Structuring seniority between the promotees and direct recruits, is a matter of service policy, lying purely on the domain of Rule making Authority. 28. We, therefore, conclude that Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1978 is a statutory prescription involving a recruitment year to be crucial, with some distinction between the promotees and direct recruits which is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, nor does it confer any impermissible retrospective appointment; but only maintains a structural parity between the sources of recruitment. Rule 22 (3), thus, passes the muster of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The challenge to the Rule, thus, fails. This writ petition is dismissed.