JUDGMENT B. N. Lokur, J. - Petitioner Prem Pal Mital and Respondent No. 3, Bankey Behari Srivastava, belong to the staff of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Com- mission. They were both promoted as Assistant Superintendents and were also appointed from time to time to officiate as Superintendents. It is not disputed that Bankey Behari Srivastava was senior to Petitioner Prem. Pal Mital as Assistant Superintendent. Petitioner Prem Pal Mital was confirmed as Superintendent on the 24th July, 1962 while Bankey Behari Srivastava was confirmed as such on the 5th April, 1963. A seniority list was drawn up by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Respondent No. 1, on the 1st December, 1963, in which Bankey Behari Srivastava was shown as senior to Petitioner Prem Pai Mital. It is against this gradation of seniority that Prem Pal Mital has come up to this Court with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. His short contention is that he was confirmed as Superintendent earlier than Bankey Behari Srivastava and, therefore, he is entitled to seniority over Bankey Behari and has, accordingly, prayed for a writ or direction that he be placed above Bankey Behari Srivastava in the gradation list and the existing gradation list be quashed. 2. The rule of seniority amongst the staff of the U. P. Public Service Com- mission is stated in Regulation 25 of the United Provinces Public Service Com- mission Staff (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1942 which reads as follows : "The seniority of a member of the staff shall be determined in the class to which he is appointed by the date of his substantive appointment, and in the lase of more than one person being appointed on the same date, according to their respective positions on the waiting list, provided that the appointing authority may direct that a member whose period of probation is extended for failure to prove his fitness for confirmation be placed in the seniority list below the last confirmed member". 3. The learned counsel for Petitioner Prem. Pal Mital contended that the substantive appointment of Prem Pal Mital as Superintendent was on the date of his confirmation, namely, 24th July, 1962, and he is senior, under Regulation 25, to Bankey Behari whose substantive appointment was made on the 5th April, 1963, the date of his confirmation. 3. The learned counsel for Petitioner Prem. Pal Mital contended that the substantive appointment of Prem Pal Mital as Superintendent was on the date of his confirmation, namely, 24th July, 1962, and he is senior, under Regulation 25, to Bankey Behari whose substantive appointment was made on the 5th April, 1963, the date of his confirmation. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that the date of confirmation is not the date of substantive appointment for the purpose of Regulation 25 and the (late on which a member of the staff is appointed on probation against a permanent vacancy is the date of his substantive appointment; Bankey Behari was appointed on probation on 5th April, 1962 while there was no such appointment on probation in the case of Prem Pal Mital who was merely officiating till he was confirmed on 24th July, 1962. On this argument, the seniority of Bankey Behari over Prem Pal Mital, as shown in the gradation list, is sought to be defendant. 4. The crucial question which arises on these arguments is regarding the true meaning of the expression "substantive appointment" appearing in Regulation 25. It is necessary in this connection to refer to some other Regulations which throw light on the question. Regulation 17 deals with substantive appointments and reads thus : "The appointing authority shall make substantive appointments to the respective posts on the occurrence of permanent vacancies in the order in which names of candidates are arranged in the waiting list or lists maintained by it." Regulation 19 provides for appointments under Regulation 17 and reads : "All appointments made under regulation 17 will be on probation and the period of probation in each case will he one year. The Chairman of the Com. mission may for special reasons extend the period of probation by a period not exceeding one year. Service rendered in officiating or temporary capacity may be taken into account in computing the period of probation". Regulation 21 is about confirmation and is as follows : "A person appointed on probation will be confirmed in his post at the end of his probationary period provided that he is reported to be fit for confirmation". 5. Service rendered in officiating or temporary capacity may be taken into account in computing the period of probation". Regulation 21 is about confirmation and is as follows : "A person appointed on probation will be confirmed in his post at the end of his probationary period provided that he is reported to be fit for confirmation". 5. Regulations 17, 19 and 21, read together, indicate that a substantive appointment has to be made only when a permanent vacancy occurs and such substantive appointment would be initially on probation for one year and, after completion of probation, the substantive appointee would be confirmed in his post. In this scheme, the date of substantive appointment is the date of appointment made on probation against a permanent vacancy and not the date of confirmation. Since Regulation 25 envisages fixation of seniority with reference to the date of substantive appointment i.e. the date of appointment on probation against a permanent vacancy, the date of confirmation is irrelevant in determining seniority. It is true that in general service parlance, date of confirmation is ordinarily the date of substantive appointment, but the U. P. Public Service Commission, (Conditions of Service) Regulations have adopted a different concept of 'substantive appointment' and seniority of the staff of the U. P. Public Service Commission has to be fixed under Regulation 25 in accordance with this concept. That being so, the Petitioner's argument that because he was confirmed as Superintendent earlier than Bankey Behari, he is senior to Sankey Behari, cannot be accepted. 6. It has thus to be seen then when the substantive appointment of the Petitioner and Bankey Behari was made under Regulation 17. A permanent vacancy arose on 5th April, 1962 and against that vacancy Bankey Behari was appointed on probation and this would be the date of his substantive appointment. So far as the Petitioner is concerned, he was not appointed on probation at any time, but he was merely officiating at the time of his confirmation on 24th July, 1962. The period for which he was oiciating.was regarded, when he was confirmed, as his period of probation and it was argued that he should hence be deemed to have been appointed on probation before the date of his confirmation i.e. on 24th July, 1961, which should be regarded as the date of his substantive appointment. The period for which he was oiciating.was regarded, when he was confirmed, as his period of probation and it was argued that he should hence be deemed to have been appointed on probation before the date of his confirmation i.e. on 24th July, 1961, which should be regarded as the date of his substantive appointment. The benefit of probation given to the Petitioner was by way of fiction and it cannot follow from the fiction that the petitioner was in truth and in fact appointed on probation on 24th July, 1961. According to Respondent No. 1 Commission, there were two permanent vacancies-one on 5th April, 1962, against which Bankey Behari was appointed on probation and the other on 24th July, 1962, against which the petitioner was confirmed and there was no permanent vacancy on 24th July, 1961 against which the Petitioner's substantive appointment could have been made. The Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that there was another vacancy on 16th January, 1962, as indicated in Annexure X to his Rejoinder-Affidavit. The fact remains that no substantive appointment was in fact made against that vacancy even if it existed. 7. The date of substantive appointment, on the facts mentioned above, must be taken to be. 24th July, 1962 for the Petitioner and 5th April, 1962 for Bankey Behari. In that event, the seniority fixed by the Commission would be consistent with Regulation 25. 8. The result is that the petition is not sustainable and is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.