As per case facts, the appellants, selected as Sub-Inspectors through open market direct recruitment, challenged the retrospective amendment to Rule 25(a) of the 1955 Rules which granted "en bloc" seniority ... to less meritorious in-service candidates (20% quota) over more meritorious open market candidates (80% quota) appointed in the same year, despite the seniority rule being previously based on merit. The High Court upheld the G.O. and the retrospective amendment. The question arose whether the amendment to Rule 25(a) of the 1955 Rules and the corresponding G.O. granting en bloc seniority to in-service candidates over more meritorious open market direct recruitees is violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Finally, the Supreme Court quashed the G.O. and struck down the amendment to Rule 25(a), holding that granting seniority to less meritorious candidates based on retrospective effect and merely being in-service is violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, as seniority for direct recruitment must be fixed solely on the basis of merit/rank obtained in the qualifying examination.