S. R. THAKUR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH — 1981 DIGILAW 19 (HP)

JUDGMENT T. R. Handa, J.—The petitioner and respondents 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11 to 15 and 17 are all holding the substantive rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State. They are all members of the service known as the Himachal Pradesh Police service. This service was constituted on 25-1-1971 under Section 40 (1) of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The inter se seniority of the petitioner and the respondents in this service as determined by respondent No. 1, the State of Himachal Pradesh is reflected in the seniority list Annexure ‘O’. In this list the petitioners name finds mentioned at S. No. 23 below the names of all the respondents 3, 4, 5, 7, 10,11 to 15 and 17. 2. The petitioner claims that he is senior to all these respondents. He has, therefore, filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. I and 2 to treat the petitioner as senior to respondents 3, 4, 5, 7, 10,11 to 15 and 17 and to amend the seniority list Annexure O accordingly. He also prays that he be declared as confirmed Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 3-5-1970 and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to treat him as such. 3. The material facts on which the petitioner has based his claim are practically undisputed and may be stated as under. 4. The petitioner after haying joined the Police Department of the State was promoted to the rank of Police Inspector on 20-12-1959. He was confirmed in this rank of Inspector with effect from 1-5-1966 vide Annexure A. He was then promoted to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in an officiating capacity with effect from 29-4-1968 vide Annexure ‘D’ This promotion order Annexure D purports to have been issued by the then Administrator (Lt. Governor) Himachal Pradesh after obtaining the approval of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. 5. The order dated 29-4-1968 Annexure D was, however, subsequently amended vide order dated 25-7-1968 found at Annexure ‘D’ 1. This amendment directed that the promotions earlier made vide order Annexure D be treated as having been made purely on ad hoc and provisional basis subject to review as a result of the final inter se seniority of Inspectors of Police. The order dated 29-4-1968 Annexure D was, however, subsequently amended vide order dated 25-7-1968 found at Annexure ‘D’ 1. This amendment directed that the promotions earlier made vide order Annexure D be treated as having been made purely on ad hoc and provisional basis subject to review as a result of the final inter se seniority of Inspectors of Police. 6. In the meanwhile with the reorganization of the State of Punjab certain officers from Punjab were allocated to the then Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. A provisional joint seniority list of the Police Inspectors of the erstwhile Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh and those allocated to it from Punjab was prepared and circulated for inviting objections from the concerned officers. After hearing the objections received against the provisional list, the Central Government on the advice of the Advisory Committee constituted for the purpose, announced the final seniority list of Inspectors as it stood on 1-11-1966. This list was announced on 9-12-1970 vide Annexure B-4.’ The name of the petitioner finds mention at No. 2 in this list. The names of Shri Amar Singh respondent No. 7 and Bhagwant Singh respondent No. 10 find mention at S. No. 7 and 11 of this list. The names of Sarvshri Hardayal Singh and Chuni Lal respondents Nos. 4, and 5 do not figure in this list. 7. It is an admitted position that before 25-1-1971 Himachal Pradesh was a Union Territory and it had a common Police Service with the other Union Territories, namely, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Islands. That service was known as Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service, shortly DHANIC Police Service. This service was governed by the Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service Rules, 1965, shortly called the 1965 Rules. 8. As from 25-1-1971, the State of Himachal Pradesh wa§ established under the provisions of the Act. This new State comprised of the territories which immediately prior to this date comprised of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. From the same date a new Police Service known as the Himachal Pradesh Police Service was constituted for the State of Himachal Pradesh. This was done by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the Act. From the same date a new Police Service known as the Himachal Pradesh Police Service was constituted for the State of Himachal Pradesh. This was done by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 40 of the Act provided for the change of name of the erstwhile DHANIC Police Service and sub-section (4) of this section provided for the allocation of certain members of the erstwhile DHANIC Police Service to the cadre of the newly constituted Himachal Pradesh Police Service. These provisions read as under: "(3) On and from the appointed day, the existing Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service (hereinafter referred to as the existing Civil Service) shall be known as the Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service and the Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service (hereinafter referred to as the existing Police Service) shall be known as the Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service.” "(4) Such members of the existing Civil Service, as the Central Government may, by order, specify, shall be allocated to the cadre of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service and such members of the existing Police Service as the Central Government may, by order, specify, shall be allocated to the cadre of the Himachal Pradesh Police Service and any such order may specify the date or dates from which the allocation made thereunder shall be effective. Sub-section (6) of Section 40 next provided that the rules and regulations applicable to or in relation to the members of the erstwhile DHANIC Police Service as in force immediately before 25-1-1971, shall, so far as may be, apply to and in relation to the members of the Himachal Pradesh Police Service, until altered, repealed or amended by the competent authority. Subsequently rules for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Himachal Pradesh Police Service were promulgated with effect from 13-3-1973. These rules are known as the Himachal Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1973, for short, the 1973 Rules. 9. After the enforcement of the 1973 Rules, certain officers including respondents 4, 5, 7, and 10 were appointed to the Himachal Pradesh Police Service with effect form 12-2-1974 vide order found at Annexure G’ These appointments were made under Rule 14 of these Rules. 9. After the enforcement of the 1973 Rules, certain officers including respondents 4, 5, 7, and 10 were appointed to the Himachal Pradesh Police Service with effect form 12-2-1974 vide order found at Annexure G’ These appointments were made under Rule 14 of these Rules. Vide the same notification, Annexure G, the persons so appointed to this service were confirmed with effect from the same date under Rule 16 (a) of the 1973 Rules. Subsequently vide order Annexure H, the petitioner was also appointed to this Service with effect from 4-3-1974. He was also confirmed with effect from the same date. 10. Respondent No. 3, Shri S. P. Dogra, who is an ex-commissioned officer of the Indian Army was appointed to the Himachal Pradesh Police Service with effect from 8-9-1975. He was, however, given notional seniority and the date of joining as of 1964 on the basis of .the Rules known as Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972. 11. Respondents 11 to 15 and 17 were appointed to the Himachal Pradesh Police Service under Rule 14 of the 1973 Rules on different dates during the period 6-7-1974 to 1-11-1976. They are all direct recruits. 12. Now Rule 2 (g) of the 1973 Rules defines the expression "Member of the Service" as meaning a person :— (i) who immediately, before the commencement of these rules, was appointed to the Himachal Pradesh Police Service as constituted with effect from the 25th January, 1971, under Section 40 (1) of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970 (Act No. 53 of 1970), read with the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No G. S. R. 43, dated the 6th January, 1971, and holds a duty post, substantively or on probation ; or (ii) who is appointed to the service in accordance with the provisions of these rules." Rule 5 of these Rules is in these terms : "5. Appointing Authority. —All appointments to the service shall be made by the Government. Appointing Authority. —All appointments to the service shall be made by the Government. Provided that nothing herein shall effect the appointment to the service of members who were allocated to Himachal Pradesh by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs under subsection (4) of Section 40 of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970 (53 of 1970): Provided further that the officers on Select List framed under Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service Rules. 1^65, before 25th January, 1971, and appointed to officiate against the duty posts before the commencement of these rules, shall continue to hold such officiating appointments, irrespective of the fact whether posts held by them are earmarked for any of the categories mentioned under Rule 6, till they are regularly appointed to the service in accordance with these rules or till the candidates become available for appointment to the service from the lists of direct and promotee candidates or till their names are removed from the Select List, whichever is earlier/ The provisions of Section 40 of the Act referred to above read with the above quoted provisions of the 1 73 Rules would contemplate three categories of Members of the Service known as the Himachal Pradesh Police Service. The first category would comprise of such members as were allocated to the cadre of this Service by the Central Government in exercise of the powers vested in it under subsection (4) of Section 40 of the Act. The second category would comprise of such members as were inducted in this Service under the 1965 Rules after 25-1-1971 and before 13-3-1973 when the 1973 Rules were promulgated. The third category would comprise of such members as were inducted in this Service after the promulgation of and under the 1973 Rules. 13. It is an admitted position that respondents 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11 to 15 and 17 were all appointed to the Himachal Pradesh Police Service after the promulgation of and under the 1973 Rules. All of then, therefore, fall in the third category. The contention of the petitioner, however, is that he falls within the first category and as such he is senior to all these respondents. All of then, therefore, fall in the third category. The contention of the petitioner, however, is that he falls within the first category and as such he is senior to all these respondents. This contention is obviously devoid of force inasmuch as neither the petitioner was a member of the erstwhile DHANIC Police Service nor was he allocated to the Himachal Pradesh Police Service by the Central Government under subsection (4) of Section 40 of the Act. in any case this is not the allegation made in the writ petition. The petitioners allegations in support of his contention find mention in para 4-A of the petition where it has been alleged that the petitioners appointment to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police made on 29-4-1968 vide Annexure ‘D was in accordance with the 1965 Rules. The further allegation of the petitioner is that he had been appointed on substantive basis against one of the permanent vacancies of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and in accordance with Rule 21 of the 1965 Rules he was deemed to have been appointed on probation for a period of two years. That period of probation expired on 3-5-1970 and from that date he became a regular member of the DHANIC Police Service. Even on these allegations the petitioner could not be treated as a member of the Himachal Pradesh Police Service from the date of its initial constitution for the simple reason that he had not been allocated to this Service by the Central Government under Section 40 (4) of the Act. Otherwise also a reference to the relevant provisions of the 1965 Rules would show that the petitioners appointment made vide Annexure D was neither an appointment to the DHANIC Police Service nor was it made in accordance with the 1965 Rules. The 1963 Rules provided for two modes of recruitment, one by direct recruitment and the other by selection from amongst the officers who were substantively borne on the cadre of Inspectors of Police, Prosecuting Inspectors or Police Prosecutors employed in the Union Territory of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The petitioners claim is that ho was recruited by selection from the cadre of Inspectors of Police. Part V of the 1965 Rules comprising of Rules 13 to 16 deals with the recruitment by selection. These provisions read as under: "13. The petitioners claim is that ho was recruited by selection from the cadre of Inspectors of Police. Part V of the 1965 Rules comprising of Rules 13 to 16 deals with the recruitment by selection. These provisions read as under: "13. Constitution of Selection Committee.—Recruitment under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, shall be made on the recommendation of a Selection Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee), consisting of:— (i) the Chairman or a Member of the Commission ... Chairman Members (ii) an officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India ; (iii) the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration ; (iv) the Chief Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Administration ; (v) Administrator of the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands or the Chief Secretary of the Andaman and Nieobar Administration ; (vi) the Inspector-General of Police, Delhi; (vii) the Inspector-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. 14. Conditions of eligibility and procedure for selection.— (1) The Committee shall consider from time to time the cases of officers eligible under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, who have served in the respective cadre or posts, as the case may be, for not less than two years and prepare a list of officers recommended for appointment after taking into account the actual vacancies at the time of selection and those likely to occur during a year. The selection for inclusion in the list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects for appointment to the Service with due regard to seniority. (2) the names of persons included in the list shall be arranged in order of merit. (3) The list so prepared shall be forwarded by the Committee to the Central Government. 15. Consultation with the Commission.— (1) The list prepared under Rule 14 together with the relevant records shall be forwarded by the Central Government to the Commission, where consultation with the Commission is necessary or where the Chairman of the Committee desires that a reference be made to the Commission. (2) If the Commission considers it necessary to make any changes in the list received from the Central Government, the Commission shall inform the Central Government of the changes proposed by it. (3) The list shall finally be approved by the Central Government, after taking into account the changes, if any, proposed by the Commission. (2) If the Commission considers it necessary to make any changes in the list received from the Central Government, the Commission shall inform the Central Government of the changes proposed by it. (3) The list shall finally be approved by the Central Government, after taking into account the changes, if any, proposed by the Commission. (4) The list thus finally, approved shall be in force until a fresh list is prepared for the purpose in accordance with these rules. 16. Appointment to the Service. Appointment to the service shall be made in order of merit in the list referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 with due regard to the proportion specified in Rule 5. Rule 17 deals with the initial appointment of persons to the service. There is then Rule 21 which provides for the period of probation. This rule reads as under: 21. Period of probation. (1) Every person appointed under Rule 5 or Rule 17 to Grade II of the Service shall be on probation for a period of two years. (2) The Central Government may in the case of any person extend or reduce the period of probation. (3) A person on probation shall be liable to be discharged from the service at any time without assigning any reason provided that if he holds a lien on any permanent post under the Central Government, or a State Government, he shall be liable to be reverted to that post. (4) A person on probation who holds a lien on any permanent post under the Central or State Government may, if he so desires during the period of probation, have the option to revert back to his parent Department or Government, as the case may be, after giving such notice as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 14. It is also considered pertinent to give the definition of the expression "Member of the Service as given in Rule 2 (d) of these Rules which is as under : "Member of the Service means a person appointed in a substantive capacity to either grade of the Service and includes a person appointed on probation to Grade II of the Service. It is apparent from the above quoted provisions of the 1965 Rules that before a person could call himself a Member of the DHANIC Police Service he must show that he had been appointed to that Service in a substantive capacity to either grade of the Service or had been appointed on probation to Grade II of the Service. Such appointment in a substantive capacity or on probation could be made only from the list referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 extracted above. Now before a person could be included in such list, his case should have been considered by a selection committee constituted under Rule 13 and recommended for appointment to the Service. The committee could consider the cases of only such persons who were eligible for selection under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5. The petitioner in the instant case was of course eligible for such selection but his case was never considered by a duly constituted Selection Committee "within the contemplation of Rule 13. Nor was his name ever included in any list prepared by such selection Committee under Rule 14. The petitioner thus could certainly not claim to be a member of the DHANIC Police Service and perhaps that is the reason why he was not allocated to the Himachal Pradesh Police Service at its initial constitution under sub-section (4) of Section 40. 15. Admittedly the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police vide order Annexure D’ as amended vide order Annexure Dl\ The order of promotion Annexure D was passed by the Administrator though after the approval of the petitioners name for that appointment by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. Under the 1965 Rules the Administrator was not competent to make any appointment to the DHANIC Police Service even after obtaining the prior approval of the Government of India except as provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 25. Under this sub-rule the Administrator was competent to make appointment purely as a local arrangement and for a period not exceeding six months. A person so appointed under this sub-rule could obviously claim no benefit of that appointment for the purposes of induction or confirmation in the DHANIC Police Service. Under this sub-rule the Administrator was competent to make appointment purely as a local arrangement and for a period not exceeding six months. A person so appointed under this sub-rule could obviously claim no benefit of that appointment for the purposes of induction or confirmation in the DHANIC Police Service. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, that he was a Member of the DHANIC Police Service and for that reason he should be deemed to have been inducted in the Himachal Pradesh Police Service at the time of its initial constitution must fail. 16. The alternate contntion put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that even if it be found that he was not entitled to induction in the Himachal Pradesh Police Service at the time of its initial constitution and that he was inducted in the Service after the promulgation of and under the 1973 Rules, he must rank senior to respondents 4, 5, 7, and 10 all of whom ranked junior to him in the cadre of Police Inspectors before their selection to the Himachal Pradesh Police Service. Rule 7 of the 1973 Rules provide for the selection of candidates from the cadre of Inspectors and Prosecuting Inspectors. This rule reads "7. Selection of candidates from Inspectors and Prosecuting Inspectors.—(1) Recruitment under clause (b) of sub-rule (J)of Rule 6, shall be made on the recommendation of a Selection Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) consisting of: (i) The Chairman or a member of the Commission ... Chairman. (ii) The Chief Secretary or the Secretary to the Government in the Chief secretarys Branch .., Member (iii) The Inspector General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. ... Member (2) The Committee shall consider from time to time the cases of Inspectors eligible for appointment to the Service and prepare a list of officers according to the percentage fixed under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6. The list shall contain the names of the selected candidates twice the number of the vacancies at the time of selection or likely to occur during the next one year. The selection for inclusion in the list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects for appointment to the service with due regard to seniority. (3) The names of persons included in the list shall be arranged in the order of merit. The selection for inclusion in the list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects for appointment to the service with due regard to seniority. (3) The names of persons included in the list shall be arranged in the order of merit. (4) The list so prepared along with relevant record shall be forwarded by the Committee to the Government. The Government shall send the list along with the record to the Commission and obtain its concurrence where after the list shall be considered final. (5) The list shall remain operative for one year from the date of its approval by the Commission. The selection of the Police Inspectors in terms of this rule was to be based on merit and suitability in all respects for appointment to the Service though of course with due regard to seniority. The Minutes of the Selection Committee which considered the cases of respondents 4, 5, 7, and 10 for selection were placed before the Court at the time of hearing. Such minutes revealed that, the case of the petitioner was also considered along with these respondents All these four respondents were assessed as Very Good whereas the petitioner, was assessed as only Good by the Selection Committee. These respondent were, therefore, selected on account of their better merit and not on account oe’ seniority. No mala fides have been alleged against the Selection Committee or any Member of such Committee and in the absence thereof the assessment as made by the Selection Committee is not open to question in these proceedings. It is thus found that respondents 4, 5, 7 and 10 having been selected to the Himachal Pradesh Police Service in accordance with the 1973 Rules and by a duly constituted Selection Committee on the basis of their better merits in preference to the petitioner, ha cannot question such selection on the sole plea that he ranked senior to these respondents in the cadre of Police Inspectors. This alternate contention of the petitioner must also fail. 17. The third contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3, Shri S. P. Dogra was not entitled to any benefit under the rules known as Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 and he was entitled to the seniority in accordance with his actual date of joining in the service which was 8-9-1975. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 was entitled to the benefit of his service rendered in the Army for the purpose of seniority at the time when he joined a civil post for the first time. This respondent after his release from the Army was absorbed in the I. T. B. P. where the service rendered by him in the Army was duly taken into consideration. Respondent No 3 thus having once availed of the benefit of his service rendered in the Army, was not entitled to avail of such benefit for the second time when he joined as the Deputy Superintendent of Police in Himachal Pradesh. The contention appears to be devoid of any force. A copy of the Damoblised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 is found at Annexure P’ Rule 3 of these Rules provides for reservation of vacancies for the Reserved Indian Armed Forces Personnel who joined service or were commissioned on or after the 1st day of November 1962 and are released at any time thereafter to the extent mentioned in this rule. Rule 5 of these Rules provides for Seniority and Pay of the persons recruited against such reserved vacancies. Rule 5(1) as initially framed was in the following words: "5. (1) Services rendered in the Armed Forces, including the period spent on training prior to commission in case of commissioned officers, shall count, in full, towards seniority and fixation of pay under the State Government in the post to which he is first appointed against the vacancy reserved under Rule 3." The aforesaid sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 was subsequently amended with effect from 4-3-1974 vide notification Annexure P-l’ This amended sub-rule reads like this: Amended Rule 5 (1): "Seniority and pay of the candidates who are appointed against the vacancies reserved under Rule 3, shall be determined, on the assumption that they joined the service or the post, as the case may be, under the State Government at the first opportunity they had after they joined the military service or training prior to the Commission." The language of this amended sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 admits of no ambiguity. The only interpretation that can be placed on this sub-rule is that in the case of a person appointed to any post or service under the State Government against a vacancy reserved under Rule 3, it shall be assumed for the purposes of his pay and seniority that he joined such post or service at the first opportunity which could be available to him for joining such service after he had joined the military service or training prior to the Commission. The sub-rule perhaps assumes that in case such a person bad not joined the military service or training prior to the Commission, he would have joined the service under the State Government as and when the opportunity arose for that purpose after the day of his joining the military service. For example if a person joined the military service in October 1963 and thereafter recruitment to the service under the State took place in January, 1964 for the first time, such person in case he is appointed against the reserved vacancy to that service post, shall be assumed to have joined the State Government in January, 1964. The seniority of 1964 has been allotted to respondent No. 3 in accordance with this interpretation of the rule and the same is not open to challenge. The third contention of the petitioner must also fail. 18. The fourth and the last contention of the petitioner is that vis-a-vis the direct recruits who are respondents 11 to 15 and 17 he must rank senior inasmuch as he was appointed and confirmed in the Service earlier than these respondents. There appears to be a good deal of force in this contention. The seniority of the members of the Himachal Pradesh Police Service is governed by Rule 18 of the 1973 Rules which is in the following words: “18. There appears to be a good deal of force in this contention. The seniority of the members of the Himachal Pradesh Police Service is governed by Rule 18 of the 1973 Rules which is in the following words: “18. Seniority of Members of the Service.—The seniority of officers appointed to the service shall be determined in accordance with the order of their appointment to the service ; provided that— (a) if the order of appointment of any candidate is cancelled under the provisions of Rule 17, and such candidate is subsequently appointed to the service the date of his appointment to the service for the purpose of this rule shall be the date of such subsequent appointment; (b) if any officer appointed to the service fails to qualify himself for substantive permanent appointment within the prescribed period of probation the Government may determine whether the date of his appointment for the purpose of this rule shall be postponed by a period not exceeding the period by which such officers substantive permanent appointment is delayed beyond the prescribed period of probation ; (c) The seniority of those Himachal Pradesh Police Service Officers allocated to Himachal Pradesh under Section 4 of Section 40 of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970, whose seniority has been finalised and circulated under various letters issued by the Government of India shall remain unchanged." In terms of the rule extracted above the petitioner as also respondents 4, 5, 7, 10, 11 to 15 and 17 are to be allotted their seniority in accordance with the order of their appointment to the service. In other words a person who had been appointed to the service earlier must rank senior to the person who were appointed to the Service after him. The date of appointment to the service would, therefore, in the case of persons appointed on different dates, be the governing factor for the purposes of determination of the seniority. The seniority list, Annexure Q obviously does not reflect the inter-se seniority of the various members in accordance with the dates of their appointment to the service. 19. It was argued on behalf of the State, though half-heartedly, that the impugned seniority list had been framed after taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 14, which provide for rotation of posts between the direct recruits and the promotees. Rule 14 is in the following terms: "14. 19. It was argued on behalf of the State, though half-heartedly, that the impugned seniority list had been framed after taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 14, which provide for rotation of posts between the direct recruits and the promotees. Rule 14 is in the following terms: "14. Appointment of selected candidates to the service.—The Government shall make appointments to the service in pursuance of Rule 6 and subject to provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 and Rule 13 from among the selected candidates in rotation as follows : 1. Direct One candidate. 2. Promotee One candidate. 3. Direct One candidate. 4. Promotee Two candidates. and thereafter, in the same rotation beginning again from direct candidates : Provided that all such appointments shall in the first instance be either officiating or substantive provisional." This rule as its language suggests has to be read along with Rules 6, 7 and 13. Rule 6 does provide for 4% of recruitment to the service by direct recruitment and 60% by selection from Inspectors. The proviso to this rule, however, mentions that the posts available against the direct quota on the commencement of the rules would be filled over a period of four years. In other words all the posts available against direct quota on the commencement of the Rules were not required to be filled in immediately. No such provision was, however, made in the case of promotees. The rotation between the direct recruits and the promotees within the contemplation of Rule 14 would, therefore, start only after the posts available against direct quota on the commencement of the Rules had been filled up and for filling such posts a period of four years was allowed under the Rules. The petitioner as also all the promotee respondents had been appointed to the Service in 1974 within one year of the date of promulgation of the Rules and before the vacancies against the direct quota existing at the commencement of the Rules had been filled. The rotation formula was not, therefore, applicable in their case. They must be held entitled to the seniority in accordance with the order of their appointment to the Service. The rotation formula was not, therefore, applicable in their case. They must be held entitled to the seniority in accordance with the order of their appointment to the Service. The impugned seniority list in so far as it ignores the order of appointment of the petitioner and respondents 4, 5, 7, 10, 11 to 15 and 17 is in violation of Rule 18 of the 1973 Rules and deserves to be quashed. 20. In the result this writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned seniority list Annexure ‘Q in so far as it reflects the inter-se seniority of the petitioner and respondents 4, 5, 7, 10, 11 to IS and 17 is quashed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to reconstitute this seniority list reflecting the inter-se seniority of the petitioner and respondents 4,5,7,10, 11 to 15 and 17 in accordance with the order of their appointment to the service ignoring the rotation of posts between the direct recruits and the promotees as enjoined in Rule 14. Petition partly allowed.