JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were connected as they raise common points. They have been heard by me together. 2. In petition No. 2005 of 1960 the petitioner is Sri Avadesh Kumar who was appointed Adjutant in the gazetted rank of Military police in 1948. He was posted in the XII Battalion P.A.C. Moradabad. In 1948 the State legislature passed the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. 40 of 1948) which provided for the constitution of the Uttar Pradesh Armed Constabulary. The members of the U.P. Military Police were absorbed in the Armed Constabulary and the petitioner became an Adjutant in the newly constituted Constabulary. The petitioner signed a statutory bond under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Armed Constabulary Act, 1940. The said bond is Annexure B to the affidavit accompanying the petition. In 1947 the Central Government and the Governments of some States including Uttar Pradesh agreed to constitute a service called the Indian Police Service. A member of the Provincial Service could be promoted to the Indian Police Service. By an order dated 4th August 1954 the State Government decided to included the superior gazetted post of the Provincial Armed Constabulary in the regular Police Force and the petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by a notification dated April 14, 1956. By a letter dated 15th February 1958 addressed to the Inspector General of Police, the Anu Sachiv Uttar Pradesh Sarkar purported to fix the seniority of the petitioner as well as of the other candidates who had been appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. This fixation was directly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and affected his chances of future promotion to the Indian Police Service. The petitioner therefore, preferred a representation to the Chief Secretary, State Government on 1st September 1958 and requested him to fix his seniority from the date of his employment in the Provincial Armed Constabulary. By a letter dated 3rd July 1959 the Deputy Assistant to the Inspector General of Police informed the petitioner that the Government had rejected his representation. The petitioner therefore, preferred a representation to the Chief Secretary, State Government on 1st September 1958 and requested him to fix his seniority from the date of his employment in the Provincial Armed Constabulary. By a letter dated 3rd July 1959 the Deputy Assistant to the Inspector General of Police informed the petitioner that the Government had rejected his representation. The petitioner thereafter preferred a memorial to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh and requested to be intimated the grounds for the rejection of the representation but was informed by the Deputy Assistant to the Inspector General of the Police that it was not possible for the State of communicate the grounds for the rejection of the petitioner's representation. The memorial addressed by the petitioner to the Governor was rejected in May 1960. Aggrieved by the action of the State Government the petitioner came to this Court and prayed for a mandamus directing the opposite parties not to give effect to the provisions of Clause (4) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 to the extent that they modify the provisions of the notification dated 22nd December 1947 and schedule to the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act. It was further prayed that the opposite parties be directed no to give effect to the order dated 15th February 1958 in so far as it fixes the seniority of the petitioner below the last promoted or directed recruited officers of the 1955 batch." 3. In writ petition No. 2006 of 1960 the petitioner is Sri R.S. Ambardekar who was also appointed Adjutant in the gazetted rank of the police force and was posted in the VII Battalion, U.P. Military Police at Fatehgarh. He was also absorbed in the Provincial Armed Constabulary and became an Adjutant in it. He also signed a statutory bond under Section 4 of the Armed Constabulary Act. It is mentioned in the petition that by an order dated 4th August 1954 the State Government decided to include the superior gazetted posts of the Provincial Armed Constabulary in the regular police force. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by a notification dated 14th April 1956. It is mentioned in the petition that by an order dated 4th August 1954 the State Government decided to include the superior gazetted posts of the Provincial Armed Constabulary in the regular police force. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by a notification dated 14th April 1956. The Anu Sachiv Uttar Pradesh Sarkar by his letter dated 15th February 1958 addressed to the Inspector General of Police purported to fix the seniority of the petitioner as well as of the other candidates who had been appointed substantively to the post of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and this fixation was directly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and affected his chances of future promotion to the Indian Police Service which had been constituted in 1947 by the Central Government and the Government of various states including Uttar Pradesh. He requested him to fix his seniority form the date of his employment in the Armed Constabulary. The petitioner was informed by Sri Som Prakash I.P.S. that the Government had rejected his representation. The petitioner then preferred a memorial to the Governor but the memorial was also rejected. Aggrieved by the action of the State Government the petitioner came to this Court and claimed exactly the same reliefs as have been claimed by Sri Avdesh Kumar in writ petitioner No. 2005 of 1960. Counter-Affidavits in both the petitions have been filed on behalf of the State by one Sri. S.D. Verma, Assistant Superintendent, Appointment (A) Department. Both the petitioners have filed their rejoinder affidavits in reply. 4. I have heard Sir Iqbal Ahmad the learned counsel for the two petitioners and the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State. Sir Iqbal Ahmad made a statement that he withdrew relief A in both the petitions, as he did not want to press that relief. The two petitions, are, therefore, directed only against the order of the State Government dated 15th February 1958. The first submission of Sir Iqbal Ahmad was that Cls. (4) and (5) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, are ultra vires as they modify the provisions of the terms of appointment contained in the Government order dated 22nd December 1947, and the schedule appended to the U. P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act. The first submission of Sir Iqbal Ahmad was that Cls. (4) and (5) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, are ultra vires as they modify the provisions of the terms of appointment contained in the Government order dated 22nd December 1947, and the schedule appended to the U. P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act. The second submission was that the terms and conditions of service applicable to the petitioner were those under which he was appointed and no provisions made subsequently and deterimental to his interest can be State Government dated 15th February 1958 relating to the fixation of seniority of directly recruited gazetted officers of the Provincial Armed Constabulary are bad in law in so far as they fixed the seniority of such officers, including the petitioner, below the promoted or recruited officers of the 1955 batch, particularly as thereby the guarantee provided in the schedule to the U.P. Armed Constabulary Act has been violated. Sir Iqbal Ahmad contended that the schedule statement appended to the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 which the petitioner had to sign under the provisions of Section 4 of that Act embodied terms and conditions of the petitioners service and the petitioner having been originally and substantively appointed to the post of Adjutant in the Military Police and his services having been absorbed in the U.P. Armed Constabulary those terms and conditions of service could not be subsequently altered to the detriment of the petitioner. He further urged that the effect of fixing seniority by letter dated 15th February 1958 from the Anu Sachiv, Uttar Pradesh Sarkar to the Inspector General of Police rendered the chances of petitioner's promotion to the Indian Police Service illusory and as the matter stands at present the petitioner has no chances whatsoever of being promoted to the Indian Police Service during his tenure of service in the Provincial police force. He also urged that the petitioner, who was a directly recruited officer of the Provincial Armed Constabulary, could not be placed below the last promoted or directly recruited officer of the 1955 batch. He also urged that the petitioner, who was a directly recruited officer of the Provincial Armed Constabulary, could not be placed below the last promoted or directly recruited officer of the 1955 batch. Sir Iqbal Ahmad contended that the petitioner was given a guarantee when he signed the schedule statement appended to the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act that the petitioners services in the Constabulary will count for promotion and pension in the U.P. Police force and, therefore, the seniority of the petitioner could not be fixed below the promoted or recruited officers of the 1955 batch. It was further pleaded that even if the schedule statement appended to the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act did not constitute terms and conditions of the petitioner's service the petitioner had a right to come to this Court and pray for the relief sought for in the present petition. 5. The learned Advocate General, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner has not been able to show any enforceable right belonging to him which has been violated in this case and hence no mandamus could be issued as prayed for by the petitioner. According to the learned Advocate General the right to seniority or of promotion is not a natural right and is not governed by any rule. He urged that the schedule statement appended to the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act did not speak of seniority and the sentence in the event of your continuing in the Uttar Pradesh Police or your re-enlistment therein, your services in the Provincial Armed Constabulary will count for promotion and pension in the Uttar Pradesh "Police" contained in the schedule statement could not apply to the petitioner as his was not a case of continuance in service nor was his a case of re-enlistment. According to the learned Advocate General the petitioner was not a member of the U.P. Police Service and, therefore, he was not entitled to claim the benefits mentioned in the schedule statement of the U. P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act. He urged that all the services essentially are at the pleasure of the employer, i.e. the State in this case. The benefits mentioned in the schedule statement of the U.P. Armed Constabulary Act amounted to only service rules as between the employer and the employee and they are not binding as they cannot be enforced in a court of law. He urged that all the services essentially are at the pleasure of the employer, i.e. the State in this case. The benefits mentioned in the schedule statement of the U.P. Armed Constabulary Act amounted to only service rules as between the employer and the employee and they are not binding as they cannot be enforced in a court of law. The learned Advocate General urged that the only assurance given to the petitioner when he signed the schedule statement appended to the U.P. Armed Constabulary Act was that his services in the Provincial Armed Constabulary will be considered for promotion and pension in the Uttar Pradesh Police and that it did not amount to any guarantee regarding conferment of seniority. The learned Advocate General also urged that when the petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by the order dated 14th April 1956 he was told that his seniority inter se and vis-a-vis other persons appointed in the cadre of the U.P. Police Service would be determined at a later date and, therefore, could not claim seniority as a matter of right. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police subject to his seniority being considered at a later date and the petitioner having accepted the appointment subject to his seniority being considered later could not repudiate that condition. If the petitioner had any right to seniority he should have challenged it when he was told in 1956 that his seniority will be determined later. The learned Advocate General contended that the petitioner must be deemed to have been holding an officiating appointment since 1948 and he was only substantively appointed in 1956 and, therefore, his services between 1948 and 1956 may be counted for promotion but could not be counted for seniority." 6. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1956 according to the rules and regulations framed under the Police Act, 1861. The rules framed under the Police Act cannot be treated as administrative directions but have the same effects as the provisions of the statute under which they were made in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the rules made under the Police Act cannot be said to be administrative directions. The rules framed under the Police Act cannot be treated as administrative directions but have the same effects as the provisions of the statute under which they were made in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the rules made under the Police Act cannot be said to be administrative directions. As held by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram Upadhya, AIR 1961 SC 751 . "The police Act and the rules made thereunder constitute a self-contained code providing for the appointment of police officers and prescribing the procedure for their removal. It follows that where the appropriate authority takes disciplinary action under the Police Act or the rules made thereunder, it must conform to the provisions of the statute or the rules which have conferred upon it the power to take the said action" 6-A. If there is any violation of the said rules the petitioner has a right to challenge the decision by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is now fairly well-established that the question of the seniority of a public servant is justiciable See Kunj Behari Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 518 . The petitioner, therefore, in my opinion, has the right to maintain this petition. 7. The question now for consideration is whether the petitioner is a member of the police service and whether his appointment to the post of the Adjutant in the Military of Police in 1948 was substantive or not. Annexure A to the petition is a copy of the advertisement dated 19th September 1947 in response to which the petitioner had applied for the post of Adjutant in the Military Police. It runs as follows: "Wanted Ex. Army Officers for the posts of Commandant, Assistant Commandant and Adjutant, Military Police. The scales of pay will be as follows - Commandant pay Rs. 450-25-650. Special Pay Rs. 150/-. Asstt. Commandant Pay Rs. 350-25-500. Special pay Rs. 100/-. Adjutant Pay Rs. 300-35-500. Special Pay Rs. 75/-. In addition, cost of living allowance according to current rates. Age not to exceed 35. The posts are temporary but selected officers may be absorbed in the force. Applications will be received till the 27th September, 1947. Apply to B. N. Lahiri, I. P., D. I. G. Police, Allahabad." 8. 100/-. Adjutant Pay Rs. 300-35-500. Special Pay Rs. 75/-. In addition, cost of living allowance according to current rates. Age not to exceed 35. The posts are temporary but selected officers may be absorbed in the force. Applications will be received till the 27th September, 1947. Apply to B. N. Lahiri, I. P., D. I. G. Police, Allahabad." 8. The word `force' in the above advertisement, in my opinion, means the U.P. Police Force as such. U.P. Military Police was only a part of the wider police force. Had it not been so it was not necessary for the applications in response to the advertisement to be addressed to Sri B. N. Lahiri who was then the D. I. G. of Police, Allahabad. The sentence "the petitioner completed his eight years of service in 1956 when he became eligible for promotion to the Indian Police Service" in para 13(c) of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State also bears out the fact that the petitioners appointment from the very beginning in 1948 was in the U.P. Police force. This is further borne out from the words used in the schedule .statement appended to the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 and which the petitioner had to sign under Section 4 of the Act. The following words in the schedule statement are relevant in this connection: On the liquidation of the force or of the Company in which you may for the time being, be posted, you will be discharged from the Provincial Armed Constabulary and, unless you were already a confirmed member of the Uttar Pradesh Police Force before joining the Provincial Armed Constabulary, from the Uttar Pradesh Police also." Sec. 5 of the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act 1948 reads thus: - "Subject always to the provisions of Sections 6 to 8 every member of the Provincial Armed Constabulary shall, upon his appointment and as long as he continues to be a member thereof, be deemed to be a police officer........." 9. The words "be deemed to be a police officer" show that a member of the Provincial Armed Constabulary was a member of the U.P. Police Force and, therefore, was in police service. Sections 9 and 12 of the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 show that the Police Act has been made applicable to the Provincial Armed Constabulary. The words "be deemed to be a police officer" show that a member of the Provincial Armed Constabulary was a member of the U.P. Police Force and, therefore, was in police service. Sections 9 and 12 of the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 show that the Police Act has been made applicable to the Provincial Armed Constabulary. Section 12 of the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 is as fallows : - "Nothing in this Act shall prevent any person from being prosecuted under the Police Act, 1861, or under any order, or rule made under that Act............" If the members of the Provincial Armed Constabulary were not members of the Police Force there was no question of applying the Police Act to them. Annexure F to the petition dated 15th February 1958 is a letter from the Anu Sachiv Uttar Pradesh Sarkar to the Inspector General of Police. It is reproduced below; Subject: Fixation of seniority of the directly recruited gazetted officers of the Provincial Armed Constabulary in the cadre of the U.P. Police Service in which they have been absorbed permanently." Appointment (A) Deptt. Sir, With reference to Sri H. K. Kerr's No. 1-240-51, dated May 28, 1956, to Sri B. L. Chak, on the subject noted above, I am directed to say that the Governor has carefully considered the question of the assignment of seniority in the gradation list of U.P. Police Service to the directly recruited gazetted Officers of the provincial Armed Constabulary, who have since been permanently absorbed in the U.P. Police Service. Having regard to the undertaking given to them at the time of their initial recruitment in Provincial Armed Constabulary (vide the schedule statement to the Provincial Armed Constabulary Act) and the general Rule published in Government Notification No. P-3606/ I I-A-1955, dated November 9, 1955, it has been decided that all the 16 officers of the Provincial Armed Constabulary, who have been absorbed permanently in the U.P. Police Service in an officiating capacity from the date they commanced service in the Provincial Armed Constabulary but they should be given the seniority in the Gradation List of the U.P. Police Service Officers from the date of their substantive appointment in the service, viz., they will be placed below the last promoted or directly recruited officer of the 1955 batch. The above arrangement will, under para 4 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 make these 16 officers eligible for consideration for promotion to the Indian Police Service provided they have put in more than eight years of service in all including their officiating service in the U.P. Police Service. 2. I am to add that the orders contained in Para 1 above will not give rise to any subsequent proposal for re-fixation of pay of these officers, whose pay in the U.P. Police Service has already been fixed in G. O. No. P-2083/II-A-597/1952, dated August 16, 1956. I am to request that the officers concerned may kindly be informed accordingly. Yours faithfully Sd. S. V. S. Juneja, Anu Sachiv This also shows that the members of the Provincial Armed Constabulary were treated as members of the U.P. Police Service by the State. I, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the learned Advocate General that the petitioner was not a member of the U.P. Police Service. 10. I now proceed to consider whether the appointment of the petitioner originally was of a substantive nature. If it was substantive in character it created a lien in the petitioner as regards his promotion and pension were concerned. The petitioner's seniority would depend upon his promotion and if subsequently the order of the State Government dated 15th February 1958 fixing the seniority of the petitioner and placing him below the last promoted or directly recruited officer of 1955 batch was prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and affected his chances of future promotion to the Indian Police Service the petitioner, in my view would have the right to challenge the order of the State Government. It is true that the advertisement (Annexure A to the petition, already quoted above) in response to which the petitioner was appointed to the post of Adjutant in the gazetted rank of military police mentioned that the posts were temporary but it is also mentioned that selected officers may be absorbed in the force. It was conceded by the learned Advocate General that a temporary appointment can also be substantive in character. It was conceded by the learned Advocate General that a temporary appointment can also be substantive in character. In the absence of qualifying words like "officiating" in the advertisement dated 19th September 1947 (Annexure A to the petition) the petitioner's appointment in February 1948 as Adjutant in the gazetted rank of Military Police must be held to have been substantive in character. The words "Selected officers may be absorbed in the force" appearing in the advertisement further enforce the substantive nature of the petitioners appointment in 1948. The petitioner was appointed originally in 1948 under the U.P. Special Armed Constabulary Act, 1942. Section 3 of that Act provides that before an officer appointed to the United Provinces Police Force under the Police Act, 1861, is appointed an officer of the Special Armed Constabulary, the statement in the Schedule shall be read, and, if necessary, shall be explained to him in the presence of a Magistrate, Commandant or Assistant Commandant, and shall be signed by him in acknowledgement of having been so read to him. It further provides that notwithstanding any notice given under Section 9 of the Police Act, 1961, an officer of the Special Armed Constabulary shall not be entitled to be discharged except in accordance with the terms of the statement which he has signed under that Act. The schedule statement appended to the U.P. Special Armed Constabulary Act, 1942, and which the petitioner must have signed under Section 3 of the Act reads as follows: - "The United Provinces Special Armed Constabulary is a temporary force and you are required to serve in it for a period of five years or for the duration of the present war, whichever is the less. At no time within the above specified period will you entitled to obtain your discharge at your own request. On the conclusion of the above-mentioned period you will be discharged from the United Provinces Special Armed Constabulary, and, unless you were already a member of the United Provinces Police on October 1, 1941, from the United Provinces Police also. (You will, however, be eligible for re-enlistment in the United Provinces Police). On the conclusion of the above-mentioned period you will be discharged from the United Provinces Special Armed Constabulary, and, unless you were already a member of the United Provinces Police on October 1, 1941, from the United Provinces Police also. (You will, however, be eligible for re-enlistment in the United Provinces Police). In the event of your continuing in the United Provinces Police or your re-enlistment therein, your services in the United Provinces Special Armed Constabulary all count for promotion and pension in the United Provinces Police." (Signature of Police Officer in acknowledgement of the above having been read to him). A. B. Signed in my presence after I had ascertained that A. B. understood the purport of what he signed. C. D. Magistrate, Commandant or Second-in-Command. The portion in brackets will be deleted in the case of officers who were already members of the United Provinces Police on October 1, 1941. The petitioner was absorbed in the Provincial Armed Constabulary under the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 which came into force in December, 1948. The preamble of this Act reads as follows; "Whereas it is expedient to provide for the constitution and regulation of the Uttar Pradesh Armed Constabulary, it is hereby enacted as follows:" It has already been mentioned above that under Section 4 of this Act the petitioner had to sign the schedule statement appended to this Act and which is Annexure B to the petition. It is as follows :- "Schedule Statement At no time during the period of your service in the Provincial Armed Constabulary, will you be entitled to obtain your discharge at your own request. On the liquidation of the force or of the Company in which you may for the time being, be posted, you will be discharged from the Provincial Armed Constabulary and, unless you were already a confirmed member of the Uttar Pradesh Police Force before joining the Provincial Armed Constabulary, from the Uttar Pradesh Police also. (You will, however, be eligible for re-enlistment in the Uttar Pradesh Police.) In the event of your continuing in the Uttar Pradesh Police or your re-enlistment your services in the Provincial Armed Constabulary will count for promotion and pension in the Uttar Pradesh Police. Signature of Police officer in acknowledgement of the above having been read over to him. (You will, however, be eligible for re-enlistment in the Uttar Pradesh Police.) In the event of your continuing in the Uttar Pradesh Police or your re-enlistment your services in the Provincial Armed Constabulary will count for promotion and pension in the Uttar Pradesh Police. Signature of Police officer in acknowledgement of the above having been read over to him. Signed in my presence, after I had ascertained that.............understood the purport of what he signed. Magistrate. Commandant, or Asstt. Commandant." It is clear from Section 4 of this Act that the Police Act, 1861, was made applicable to this Act. In 1947 the Central Government and the Government of some States including Uttar Pradesh agreed to constitute a service called the Indian Police Service in accordance with the following provisions :- (1) (a) ........................ (b)......................... (2) (a) ........................ (i) by direct recruitment; or (ii) by promotion of members of a Provincial Police Service. Annexure D to the petition is the copy of an order of the State Government dated August 4, 1954 and runs thus: "I am directed to say that consequent upon the decision of Government to include the Superior Gazetted posts of the Provincial Armed Constabulary in the Regular Police Force, the Governor has been pleased to sanction the creation of 28 permanent posts in the cadre of the U.P. Police Service with effect from April 1, 1954, thus raising its present strength from 139 to 167 posts. The distribution of these 28 posts thus added to the cadre of the U.P. Police Service will be as follows: - " 17 posts of Asstt. Commandant. 9 posts of Adjutant and 2 posts of Staff Officers. The cost on this account will be met from the Police Budget for the current financial year............." 11. From the order of the State Government quoted above it is again clear that the posts of Adjutants were considered by the Government to be posts of regular Police Force. Their cost was also to be met from the Police Budget for the current financial year. This also shows that the appointment of the petitioner as Adjutant in the Military Police in 1948 was of a substantive nature and that the petitioner was a member of the U.P. Police Service from the very beginning of his appointment. Their cost was also to be met from the Police Budget for the current financial year. This also shows that the appointment of the petitioner as Adjutant in the Military Police in 1948 was of a substantive nature and that the petitioner was a member of the U.P. Police Service from the very beginning of his appointment. The fact that the Provincial Armed Constabulary was not liquidated does not in any case mean that the schedule statement appended to the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 was not applicable to the members of the Provincial Armed Constabulary. In my opinion, it could not be the intention of the legislature that service in the Provincial Armed Constabulary was to count only if and when that Constabulary was liquidated. The legislature could not mean that the service of the petitioner was to count only if the Provincial Armed Constabulary was liquidated and he was re-enlisted. By the schedule statement the petitioner bound himself not to obtain his discharge at his own request and the State Government, in its turn, bound itself by the following two stipulations, namely, (1) that in the event of the force or of the Company in which the petitioner may happen to be posted at a given time being liquidated the petitioner could be re-enlisted in the U.P. Police, and (2) in the event of the petitioner continuing in the U.P. Police his services in the Provincial Armed Constabulary were to count for promotion and pension. Though the petitioner was originally appointed to the temporary post of Adjutant in Military Police in 1948 and was later on transferred from there to the Provincial Armed Constabulary, both of which were disbanded by 1950, his services were never terminated nor did he start his service afresh at the post he held after the disbandment of the Military Police and the Provincial Armed Constabulary. The petitioners name is mentioned at item No. 8 under the head of "Adjutants" in the list of non-police officers holding Gazetted posts in P. A. C. Battalian at page 30 of the United Provinces Police Gradation list, corrected upto November 1, 1949. All this clearly shows that the petitioners original appointment in 1948 was substantive in character. 12. The petitioners name is mentioned at item No. 8 under the head of "Adjutants" in the list of non-police officers holding Gazetted posts in P. A. C. Battalian at page 30 of the United Provinces Police Gradation list, corrected upto November 1, 1949. All this clearly shows that the petitioners original appointment in 1948 was substantive in character. 12. That the State Government was making appointments of substantive nature even against temporary posts is evident from the order of the State Government dated August 6, 1954 (Annexure to the rejoinder affidavit). Sub-para, (ii) of para 1 of this order says "the practise of making appointments in a substantive capacity against temporary posts shall be discontinued altogether." It is, therefore, clear that till 6th August 1954 appointments of substantive nature were being made against temporary posts. The fact that the petitioner's services were never terminated is clear from the notification issued by the State Government on 14th April 1956 (Annexure E to the petition) which says :- "Subject to their seniority inter se and vis-a-vis other persons appointed to this service in accordance with the U.P. Police Rules, being determined at a later date, the following gazetted Officers of the Provincial Armed Constabulary, are appointed substantively as Dy. Superintendents of Police, against the existing vacancies in the cadre of the U.P. Police service with effect from November 9, 1955 in terms of the general rule published in Government Notification No. P-3606/II-A-1955 dated November 9, 1955." * * * 15. Sri Avdesh Kumar Pathak. * * * Sd. A. N. Jha, Chief Secretary. 13. The contention of the learned Advocate General was that the petitioner was appointed under the rule made by the State Government in regard to the Uttar Pradesh Police Service on November 9, 1955 (Annexure II to the counter-affidavit). The rule relied upon by the learned Advocate General is as follows: - "Notification. No. P-3606/II-A-1955 Dated Lucknow, November 9, 1955. In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to make the following general rule in regard to the Uttar Pradesh Police Service. The rule relied upon by the learned Advocate General is as follows: - "Notification. No. P-3606/II-A-1955 Dated Lucknow, November 9, 1955. In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to make the following general rule in regard to the Uttar Pradesh Police Service. Notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P. Police Service Rules, 1942, gazetted officers who are serving in the Provincial Armed Constabulary of the State may be appointed in consultation with the Public Service Commission, to posts in the cadre of the service, and the persons so appointed will be deemed to have been appointed to the Service in accordance with these rules. The Governor may also direct that the said rules, or any individual rule thereof shall not apply or shall apply with such modification as he may specify, to this class of persons in respect of their recruitment or appointment to the service and other conditions of service relating thereto, and he may deal with the case of any member of the service so appointed as may appear to him to be just and proper, so, however, that the conditions of service are not altered to his disadvantage. Sd. A. N. Jha, Chief Secretary. The Advocate General, therefore, urged that the petitioner was not governed by the U.P. Police Service Rules, but was governed by the rule framed by the State Government on 9th November 1955. According to the learned Advocate General the recruitment of the petitioner to the U.P. Police Service was made by virtue of the notification dated November 9, 1955 in accordance with which it was laid, down that officers recruited from the Provincial Armed Constabulary and appointed substantively in 1955 would be placed below the last promoted and recruited officers of the 1955 batch. The petitioner's Seniority has been determined in accordance with the rule dated 9th November 1955. 14. This contention does not seem to be well-founded. Nowhere in the counter-affidavit has it been mentioned that the petitioner was appointed in 1955 in consultation with the Public Service Commission. I have already held above that the petitioner had been substantively appointed originally in the U.P. Police Force in 1948 and his services were never terminated. In my opinion, therefore, the petitioner is not governed by the rule dated 9th November 1955. I have already held above that the petitioner had been substantively appointed originally in the U.P. Police Force in 1948 and his services were never terminated. In my opinion, therefore, the petitioner is not governed by the rule dated 9th November 1955. It is the U.P. Police Service Rules, 1942 which apply to the case of the petitioner Rule 21 of these rules prescribes that seniority in the Service shall be determined according to the date of the appointment in a substantive vacancy provided that if two or more candidates are appointed on the same date, their seniority inter se shall be determined according to the order in which their appointment has been notified under Rule 20(iii). The appointment of the petitioner, in my view, was made in accordance with the U.P. Police Service Rules, 1942 and the petitioner was always treated to be a member of the U.P. Police Service within the meaning of those rules. The petitioners appointment, therefore, had the legal sanction behind it as the rules of 1942 have statutory force having been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The petitioners seniority, therefore, has to be determined with effect from his substantive appointment in the U.P. Police Force, with effect from 10th February 1948. 15. I am also unable to agree with the contention of the learned Advocate General that all the services are at the pleasure of the employer which is the State in this case and which is free to fix the seniority of the members of its service in any manner it chooses and can alter the seniority in a manner prejudicial to their interest without the sanction of law. It is now well-established that Article 16 of the Constitution bars discrimination not only at the time of entry in the service of the State by a person but also throughout the period of his service. See General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36. Article 14 of the Constitution also bars discrimination. Therefore, the claim of the State that it can alter the seniority of a person in its service at its will and thus discriminate amongst its servants cannot be upheld. The State, being a creature of the Constitution, can only act in accordance with constitutional provisions. It is bound by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 16. The State relies on the order dated 15 Feb. The State, being a creature of the Constitution, can only act in accordance with constitutional provisions. It is bound by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 16. The State relies on the order dated 15 Feb. 1958 (Annexure F to the petition already quoted above in fixing the seniority of the petitioner and in placing him below the last promoted or directly recruited officer of 1955 batch. The order dated 15th February 1958 is in the form of a letter from the Anu Sachiv, Uttar Pradesh Sarkar addressed to the Inspector General of Police. In my opinion it has no statutory basis. No provision of law has been shown to me under which this letter was issued. The letter dated 15th February 1958 cannot therefore, be treated as a rule or a statutory provision framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Rules are always framed in exercise of a power conferred by a statute. It is nowhere mentioned in the letter dated 15th Feb. 1958 that it was made in exercise of a power conferred by a statute. This letter, therefore, has no statutory force. It follows that the petitioners promotion and seniority must be governed by the schedule statement appended to the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 (Annexure B to the petition) and his services in the Provincial Armed Constabulary must be counted in fixing his seniority. 17. My attention has been drawn to a decision of my brother Jagdish Sahai in Manohar Chaturvedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Civil Misc. Petition No. 2974 of 1962. Decided on 16.8.1963. The facts of that case were entirely different than the facts of the present case. In that case brother Jagdish Sahai dismissed that petition on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner of that petition had no legal support behind it as his appointment was not made on the basis of any rule or statutory provision and, therefore, he had no rights in the U.P. Police Service and could not claim seniority according to the U.P. Police Service Rules. In the instant case it cannot be denied that the appointment of the petitioner was made under the provisions of the U.P. Special Armed Constabulary Act, 1942 and under the U. P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act, 1948. 18. In the instant case it cannot be denied that the appointment of the petitioner was made under the provisions of the U.P. Special Armed Constabulary Act, 1942 and under the U. P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act, 1948. 18. For the reasons mentioned above I allow this petition with costs and quash the order of the State Government dated 15th February 1958 in so far as it fixes the seniority of the petitioner below the last promoted or directly recruited officer of the 1955 batch.