Judgment Birendra Prasad Sinha, J. 1. This is yet another journey by these writ petitioners to this Court for the settlement of their competitive claim to seniority. Thanks to the unimaginative and perfunctory acts of the sadist bureaucracy, when these police officers should have found themselves busy and engaged in controlling the ever increasing primes and maintaining law and order which has become a real casualty, they have to over-crowd the Court rooms and its corridors. On the previous two occasions, in C.W.J.C. No. 2011 of 1976 and again in C.W.J.C. Nos. 204 and 205 of 1978, they had to face the directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police. The controversy in the present case has, however, arisen as a result of a subsequent change in the gradation list published on 19. 6. 80. (Annexure 9) affecting the petitioners and placing them below respondents Nos. 3 and 4. In order to appreciate the controversy it may be necessary to set out a few facts. 2. The two petitioners along with respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and some others were appointed as Inspectors of Police in the year 1953 after passing the Second Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission. After working as such for about twelve years, they appeared for their promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (D.S.P.) before the Inspectors General s Selection Board on 6th, 7th and 8th of July, 1964. The Board, after examining the service records of all the directly recruited Inspectors appointed in June 1953 and interviewing such of them as had been nominated for promotion by the Range D. I. G. considered the two petitioners and six others suitable for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and recommended their case to the Commission for Promotion. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and four others were superseded as their records were found indifferent and they were kept under watch. The recommendation of the Board is contained in Memo No. 3788/XB-7 64 dated the 20th of July, 1964 (Aunexure 1). The Commission in its turn vide letter No. 254-PSC/C dated the 21st November, 1964 (Annexure 2), giving a reference to the Boards recommendation, recommended the petitioners and 33 others for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (D. S. P.). Respondents Nos. The Commission in its turn vide letter No. 254-PSC/C dated the 21st November, 1964 (Annexure 2), giving a reference to the Boards recommendation, recommended the petitioners and 33 others for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (D. S. P.). Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 obviously not recommended by the Commission since they had been superseded and not found fit by the Inspector Gonerals Selection Board for promotion. By notification Nos. 5109 and 5111 dated the 16th June, 1965, the petitioners were given officiating promotion after duly observing Rules 22 to 24 of the Bihar Police Service Retruitment Rules 1953, on the Post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, which they joined on 12, 7. 65, and 13. 9. 65. respectively, (vide (Annexure 3). They were, however, confirmed on the Post of D. S. P. vide Government Notification No. 7544 dated the 22nd August, 1974. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were again considered by the next I. G. S. Selection Board on the 3rd and 4th June, 1965, and were found suitable. Their case was also recommended to the Commission (vide Annexure A) and the Commission by its Memo No. 311 PSC/C dated the 15th September, 1966, recommended their names for Promotion to the post of D. S. P. It has been asserted by the petitioners that no formal notification was ever issued by the Government appointing them on the post of D. S. P. This fact has not been denied either on behalf of the respondent State Government or on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and no notification formally appointing them as D. S. P. has been brought to our notice. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were deputed to work as Assistant Security Officers in the Bokaro Steel Ltd., with effect from 15. 10. 65. and 1. 11. 65, respectively (vide Annexure C), in the replacement scale of pay of D. S. P. of the State Government plus 20 percent as deputation allowance, pending finalisation of the terms and conditions of deputation. The terms and conditions, however, seem to have been settled (vide Annexure D dated the 21st June, 1967) and they were allowed deputation on foreign terms for two years in the first instance with pay in the replacement scale of D. S. P. plus 20 percent of the pay as deputation allowance. The terms and conditions, however, seem to have been settled (vide Annexure D dated the 21st June, 1967) and they were allowed deputation on foreign terms for two years in the first instance with pay in the replacement scale of D. S. P. plus 20 percent of the pay as deputation allowance. It is relevant to mention here that no recommendation of the Commission had been received recommending them for promotion to the rank of D. S. P. prior to September 1966, as stated above, nor they had been given any ad hoc promotion in the meanwhile. From the terms of deputation, it would appear that they had been deputed to Bokaro Steel Ltd., in their substantive cadre of Inspector of Police. In fact, petitioner No. 1, on his officiating promotion to the post of D. S. P. in the year 1965, had been succeeded by respondent No. 4 as Inspector of Police, Patna City, and respondent No. 3 succeeded a Inspector of Police one Lakshmi Narain Patbak who also had been given promotion as D. S. P. along with the petitioner on 1. 9. 74. a combined gradation list was published in which the petitioners were shown junior to even the directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police appointed in the year 1974. The petitioners filed certain representation to the Government for reckoning their seniority on the basis of their continuous officiation in the Post of D. S. P. but having failed there, they along with some others filed C.W.J.C. No. 2011 of 1976 in this Court. That was their first journey to this Court. While the said writ application was pending, Government of Bihar constituted a high power committee consisting of Shri Saran Singh, the then member, Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar, as the Chairman and the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar and the Financial Commissioner as members. The said committee suggested some remedies one of which was to reckon the seniority of the promoted officers vis-a-vis the direct recruits by taking into account the continuous officiating service instead of on the basis of length of substantive service in the cadre. These recommendations were accepted by the Government vide Resolution dated the 11th April. 1977, published in the Bihar Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated the 27th April, 1977. These recommendations were accepted by the Government vide Resolution dated the 11th April. 1977, published in the Bihar Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated the 27th April, 1977. The Government converted 54 temporary posts in existence since 1948 to 1970 permanent posts and the officers officiating on these posts were placed on probation from their respective dates of officiation C.W.J.C. No. 2012 of 1976 was disposed of on 2. 12. 77. in the light of the abovementioned Government Resolution, with a direction to re-examine the matter and prepare a fresh gradation list. Pursuant to the abovementioned Government Resolution dated the 11th April, 1977, two notifications were issued, one, on 30. 12. 77, converting 54 temporary posts of D. S. Ps. into permanent posts from the date of their creation and, the others, on 7. 1. 78. appointing 54 persons on probation with effect from the date of their continuous officiation (vide Annexures 4 and 5 respectively. In Annexure 5. petitioner No. 1 has been shown to be appointed on probation with effect from 12. 7. 65. and petitioner No. 2 from 13. 9. 65, at serial Nos. 24 and 25 respectively, whereas respondents Nos. 3 and 4, both from 29. 8. 67, at serial Nos. 32 and 33 respectively. These orders were challenged by some direct recruits in C.W.J.C. Nos. 204 and 205 of 1978 as mentioned above. While the two writ applications were still pending, the Government of Bihar Published a fresh gradation list on 24. 2. 78. and invited objections. The said gradation list is contained in Annexure 6; in which the petitioners are shown at serial Nos. 55 and 56, respectively, whereas respondents Nos. 3 and 4 at serial Nos. 77 and 78, respectively. This was also challenged by the petitioners in C.W.J.C. Nos. 204 and 205 of 1978 by filing a petition for amendment. C.W.J.C. Nos. 204 and 205 of 1978 were decided by a common judgment on 29. 6. 78. and the orders contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6 herein were quashed. The petitioners and one Rajendra Narain Singh, who were respondents in the said two writ applications, went to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1309 and 1310 of 1978, and the Supreme Court by its Judgment and order dated 10. 4. 80. 6. 78. and the orders contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6 herein were quashed. The petitioners and one Rajendra Narain Singh, who were respondents in the said two writ applications, went to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1309 and 1310 of 1978, and the Supreme Court by its Judgment and order dated 10. 4. 80. set aside the judgment and order of this Court and upheld the Government orders and the gradation list contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6 herein vide the case of Rajendra Narain Singh and Ors. (I). 3. It appears that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had filed some representation before the Government for giving their date of offciation in the rank of D. S. P. with effect from 15. 10. 65. and 1. 11. 65, respectively i. e., the date when they were deputed to Bokaro Steel Ltd., as Assistant Security Officers. The Government in its Memo No. 3927 dated 6. 4. 78. (Annexure 7) acceded to their demand and corrected their date of offciation in the post of D. S. P. as 15. 10. 65. and 1.11.65, respectively. C.W.J.C. Nos. 204 and 205 of 1978 were then pending in this Court but the order contained in Annexure 7 was not brought to the notice of this Court. It was also not brought to the notice of this Court. It was also not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court when the matter went there. The State Government had, on the other hand, taken the stand that the orders contained in Annexures 4 and 5 and the gradation list contained in Annexure 6 herein were valid and correct when the petitioners came to know about the order contained in Annexure 7, they filed a common representation on 3. 6. 80. requesting the Government that their position in the gradation list (Annexure 6) be maintained. No decision was taken on their representation. A revised gradation list of the permanent D. S. Ps, however, was published along with Memo No. 4895 dated the 19th June, 1980, in which respondent No. 3 has been placed at serial No. 55, respondent No. 4 at serial No. 56 and the petitioners at serial Nos. 57 and 59, respectively. This gradation list is contained in Annexure 9. A revised gradation list of the permanent D. S. Ps, however, was published along with Memo No. 4895 dated the 19th June, 1980, in which respondent No. 3 has been placed at serial No. 55, respondent No. 4 at serial No. 56 and the petitioners at serial Nos. 57 and 59, respectively. This gradation list is contained in Annexure 9. The petitioners, in this writ application, have challenged Annexure 7 and the gradation list contained in Annexure 9 to the extent it concerns them and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In Annexure 9, the date of continuous offciation as D. S. P. of respondent No. 3 has been given as 15. 10. 65. and of respondent No. 4 as 1.11.65, whereas the date of continuous officiation as D. S. P. of petitioner No. 1 has been given as 12. 7. 65. and that of petitioner No. 2 as 13. 9. 65. Even so, the respondents have been placed above the petitioners. 4. In a bulky counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, it has been stated that the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were directly recruited as Inspectors of Police in June 1953 in which respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were senior to the petitioners. They were confirmed in the rank of Inspector of Police on 8. 9, 60. and their seniority was retained. It has been admitted that the petitioners were recommended for promotion to the rank of D. S. P. by the I. G.s Selection Board held in the month of July 1964 and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were not recommended for the reason that certain adverse entry had been made in their confidential Character Rolls. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were found fit for promotion by the I. Gs Selection Board held in June 1965. It is, however, stated that the basis on which the I. G.s Selection Board of July 1964 did not consider respondents Nos. 3 and 4 fit for promotion was not proper and legal, because that could not have been taken into account for declaring respondents Nos. It is, however, stated that the basis on which the I. G.s Selection Board of July 1964 did not consider respondents Nos. 3 and 4 fit for promotion was not proper and legal, because that could not have been taken into account for declaring respondents Nos. 3 and 4 unfit for promotion in view of the fact that their representation for expunging the remarks had not been disposed of by then It is further stated that the petitioners, who were recommended by the July 1964 I. Gs Selection, Board, as well as the respondents and five others, who were recommended by the I. Gs Selection Board of June 1965, were promoted as D. S. P. at the same time by notification dated the 16th June, 1965 contained in Annexure 3 of the writ application. This is, however, not borne out by the records. Annexure 3, which is a notification dated the 16th June 1965, contains the names of 17 persons who were promoted to officiate in the rank of D. S. P. It does not contain the names of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and five others who were recommended for promotion by the I. G.s Selection Board held in June 1965. In fact, the recommendation by the I G.s Selection Board itself was made after July 1965 and the recommendation of the Commission is dated 15. 9. 66. The statement made in the counter-affidavit of the State in this respect is not only false but also mis-leading. It is then stated that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were posted as Security Officers in Bokaro Steel Ltd., vide I. G.s letters dated 5-10-1965, and 21-10-67, (Annexures C and D respectively) in the rank of D. S. P. According to the respondent State, these letters show that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted in the rank of D. S. P. and were deputed as Security Officers in the replacement scale of pay of D. S. P. This is also, however, wrong inasmuch as Annexures C and D do not indicate that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted to the rank of D. S. P. By these two letters, they were merely deputed to Bokaro Steel Ltd., as Security Officers, although in the replacement scale of pay of D. S. P. plus 20 percent deputation allowance. 3 and 4 were promoted to the rank of D. S. P. By these two letters, they were merely deputed to Bokaro Steel Ltd., as Security Officers, although in the replacement scale of pay of D. S. P. plus 20 percent deputation allowance. It has been further stated in the said counter-affidavit that the petitioners and respondents Nos 3 and 4 were promoted on officiating basis as D. S. P. on the basis of the recommendation of the I. G.s Selection Board of July 1964 and June 1965 and the case for their substantive appointment was taken up at a later stage. Finally the order of appointment and promotion on substantive basis was issued on the 22nd August, 1974, with effect from the date of notification. A copy of the Governments order in this connection, dated the 22nd August, 1974 has been annexed an Annexure E. It was this order which had been challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 2011 of 1976. Although the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were confirmed in the post of D. S. P. by this Government order (Annexure E), no notification was placed before us to show as to when respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted in the rank of D. S. P. 5. A show cause has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 adopting the counter-affidavit of the respondent State of Bihar. 6. When the case was taken up for hearing, Shri Balbhadra Prasad Sineh appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, in his characteristic fairness submitted that the matter should again go back to the State Government for deciding the inter se seniority between the parties, conceding that the petitioners had not been given any opportunity of being heard. Shri Prabha Shankar Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the other hand, wanted the case to be decided on merits and submitted that the petitioners had been made to run to this Court several times in connection with their seniority in service and it would be futile to ask the State to consider the matter once again. In the facts and circumstances of this case and protracted litigation of these career-conscious police officers, we also felt to hear and decide the matter once for all. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case and protracted litigation of these career-conscious police officers, we also felt to hear and decide the matter once for all. 7. So far as the seniority inter se of direct recruits and promotees is concerned, admittedly, there is no statutory rules. After Patwardhan case(2) the principle of continuous officiation has been accepted to be a reasonable basis for fixation of seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees. As between the promotees, we have been referred to Government Order No. 6509-A dated the 12th December, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the 1934 Rules), the order contained in Memo No. 2763-A dated the 15th July, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 1944 Rules) and Government Order No. 322-A dated the 9th September, 1944. These orders were modified by Order No. 5805 dated the 27th April, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Rules). Copies of these Government Orders have been annexed as Annexures F, F/l and F/2, respectively, in the counter-affidavit of the State. These Government orders, however, relate to the persons promoted substantively at the same time. They only show that such persons will retain seniority inter se irrespective of the fact when they first officiated in the higher post. 8. In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Government of Bihar made a rule called the Bihar Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1953, to regulate the method of recruitment to the Bihar Police Service. Part HI of these Rules refers to Promotion of Inspectors, Subedars, Subedar - Majors and Sergeant - Majors and lays down a detailed procedure how they will be considered for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Rule 22 provides for a preliminary Selection of Officers for promotion by the Range Selection Board consisting of the Deputy-Inspector General of the Range concerned and two Superintendents of Police of another Range. Such Range Selection Board shall interview the district nominee and shall select from amongst them in order of merit those who are to appear before the I. Gs Selection Board. Rule 23 thereafter provides that the I. G.s Selection Board shall nominate for appointment to the Service twice as many candidates as there are vacancies to be filled by promotion. The names of officers so selected shall ordinarily be arranged in order of seniority. Rule 23 thereafter provides that the I. G.s Selection Board shall nominate for appointment to the Service twice as many candidates as there are vacancies to be filled by promotion. The names of officers so selected shall ordinarily be arranged in order of seniority. It further provides that the I. G.s Selection Board shall send all papers including the confidential records relating to the candidates nominated by it direct to the Commission and shall at the same time submit a list of such candidates to the Governor. The Board shall also send to the Commission similar papers and confidential records of any officer whose supersession is recommended. After examination of the papers and records, the Commission shall submit its recommendations to the Governor, Rule 24 then provides that the final Selection of Officers to be promoted shall be made by the Governor after considering the recommendation made by the Commission under Rule 23. 9. The admitted position is that the petitioners were recommended for promotion to the post of D. S. P. by the I. G.s Selection Board of July 1964 and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were not found fit for promotion. This is evident from Annexure 1 which is the recommendation made under rule 23 of the Rules. By Annexure 2, dated 21-11-64, the Commission recommended to the Government that 35 Inspectors, Subedars, Subedar-Majors and Sergeant-Majors, named therein, were suitable for promotion to the rank of D. S. P. The petitioners, as stated above, are at Serial Nos. 30 and 33 of Annexure 2, which does not contain the names of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, whose records had also been sent to the Commission. Obviously, they were not found suitable for promotion then. The Government of Bihar thereafter issued a notification (Annexure 3) on the 16th June, 1975, by which the two petitioners and 15 others were promoted to the rank of D. S. P. Annexure 3 also does not contain the names of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were considered by the next I. G.s Selection Board held in June 1965 and were found suitable for promotion. Their case was recommended to the Commission vide Annexure A and the Commission also recommended their case for promotion on the 15th September, 1966. Although no formal notification promoting respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were considered by the next I. G.s Selection Board held in June 1965 and were found suitable for promotion. Their case was recommended to the Commission vide Annexure A and the Commission also recommended their case for promotion on the 15th September, 1966. Although no formal notification promoting respondents Nos. 3 and 4, like the one at Annexure 3, was placed before us, a Government notification dated 22-8-74, contained in Annexure shows that they along with the petitioners were confirmed with effect from the date of the said notification, i. e., 22nd of August, 1974. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioners and the respondents were not promoted to the rank of D. S. P. in the same transaction. The petitioners were promoted earlier than respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and on this ground alone they must rank senior to them. The date of confirmation would not make any difference. Their inter se seniority must be reckoned from the date of their appointment as D. S. P. and cannot be referred back to their inter se seniority as Inspectors. 10. It was contended on behalf of the respondents, on the basis of Annexures C and D, that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were posted in the rank of D. S. P. but worked as Security Officers in Bokaro Steel Ltd. According to the respondents, these letters show that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted to the rank of D. S. P. and were deputed as Security Officers. As has been stated earliec, these two letters merely show that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were deputed as Security Officers in the replacement scale of pay of D. S. P. by the Inspector-General of Police. The promotion of an Inspector has to be made in accordance with the rules referred to above. They were recommended for promotion by the Commission for the first time in September 1966. It is difficult to understand how these two deputation letters can be taken to be orders of Government promoting respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to the rank of D. S. P. 11. Reference has been made earlier to the recommendations of the Saran Singhs Committee which were accepted by the Government by a Resolution dated the 11th of April, 1977. It is difficult to understand how these two deputation letters can be taken to be orders of Government promoting respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to the rank of D. S. P. 11. Reference has been made earlier to the recommendations of the Saran Singhs Committee which were accepted by the Government by a Resolution dated the 11th of April, 1977. The Government converted 54 temporary posts in existence since 1948 to 1970 into permanent posts and officers officiating in those posts were placed on probation from their respective dates of officiation. Pursuant to this Government Resolution, two notifications were issued one, on 30th of December, 1977, converting 54 temporary posts of D. S. Ps. into permanent posts, and the other on 7-1-78, appointing 54 persons on probation with effect from the date of their continuous officiation. They are at Annexures 4 and 5. Annexure 5 is a notification dated 7-1-1978. appointing 54 persons on probation with effect from the dates mentioned against their names on permanent posts of D. S. P. At the end of this notification it is mentioned that the notification promoting the above officers on officiating basis issued previously is cancelled. In this notification, the petitioners were appointed with effect from 12-7-1965, and 13-9-1965, respectively, and they were placed at Serial Nos. 24 and 25. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who are at Serial Nos. 32 and 33, are shown to have been appointed with effect from 29-8-1967. There is nothing on the record to show that they were previously appointed to the post of D. S. P. on 29-8-1967. Annexure 4 shows that there were four posts available on 29-8-1967, and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 seem to have been given this fictional date as the date of their appointment although no formal order of their appoinment as D. S. P. seems to have been passed earlier. Along with these two respondents. Shri Mukut Ekka and Shri Matiur Rahman, placed at Serial Nos. 34, and 35 of Annexure 5, have also been given the same date as 29-8-1967 Even this date (29-8-1967) is not consistent with the case of the respondents made out on the basis of Annexures C and D. Annexure C is dated the 5th of October, 1965, and relates only to respondent No. 3 Vishwanath Singh. 34, and 35 of Annexure 5, have also been given the same date as 29-8-1967 Even this date (29-8-1967) is not consistent with the case of the respondents made out on the basis of Annexures C and D. Annexure C is dated the 5th of October, 1965, and relates only to respondent No. 3 Vishwanath Singh. There is no similar letter of deputation on the records of this case in relation to respondent No. 4, Rajendra Prasad Sharma nor any such letter was placed before us at the time of hearing. By Annexure D, which is dated 21-6-67, the sanction of the Government, under rule 267 (b) of the Bihar Service Code, to the deputation of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 was conveyed. It has been held above that neither Annexure C nor Annexure D are orders of promotion of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to the rank of D. S. P. Obviously, therefore, the date 29-8-1967, given is Annexure 5, appointing respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on probation does not refer to Annexure C or D. The gradation list of permanent Deputy Superintendents of Police was published on 31st January 24th February, 1978, which is at Annexure 6. In this gradation list the date of continuous officiation as D. S. P. is shown. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are shown to have continuously officiated with effect from 29-8-1967. The same date is mentioned in Annexure 5. The petitioners are placed above them and are shown to have continuously officiated with effect from 12-7-1965, and 13-9-1965. It may be noted that it was this gradation list which had been challenged in C.W.J.C. Nos. 204 and 205 of 1978 and the consistent stand of the State up to the Supreme Court was that this was valid and legal. It is true that "the date of officiation to be decided after disposal of representation has been written in Annexure 6 against the names of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. On the basis of this, the contention on behalf of the respondents was that their representation was pending and had not been decided until then. It was decided on the 6th of April, 1978, vide Annexure 7. On this date, the litigation was pending in the High Court but the matter was not brought to the notice of this Court or to the notice of the Supreme Court. It was decided on the 6th of April, 1978, vide Annexure 7. On this date, the litigation was pending in the High Court but the matter was not brought to the notice of this Court or to the notice of the Supreme Court. By Annexure 7, the date of continuous officiation as given in Annexure 6 was corrected as 15-10-1965, and 1-11-1965, in respect of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, respectively. 15-10-1965. in respect of respondent No. 3 refers to Annexure C by which respondent No. 3 had been deputed as Security Officer to Bokaro Steel Ltd. As regards 1-11-1965, which relates to respondent No, 4, no letter, even of deputation, was placed before us. In any view of the matter, the deputation of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be said to be their promotion to the rank of D. S. P. under the rules. The dates from which respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are said to have worked on deputation as Security Officers cannot be said to be the dates from which they will be deemed to have officiated as D. S. P. in the absence of any order promoting them to the post of D. S. P. Besides this there is another difficulty for the respondent State in giving to respondents Nos. 3 and 4, 15-10-1965, and 1-11-1965. as the dates of their promotion for the purposes of continuous officiation. From Annexure 4, it is clear that there were no posts available on 15-10-1965, and 1-11-1965, against which these two respondents could be given their promotion, even fictional. The order contained in Annexure 7 altering the date of continuous officiation of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 from 29-8-1967, to 15-10-1965, and 1-11-1965, must, therefore, be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. 12. Annexure 9, the final gradation list, was published on the 19th June, 1980. after the Judgment of the Supreme Court ( -- , (supra). The seniority position of the petitioners vis-a-vis respondents Nos. 3 pnd 4 has been changed in this gradation list with reference to Annexure 7. The relevant extract from this revised gradation list is given below: TABLE Although the date of continued officiation of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 has been shown as 15-10-1965. and 1-11-1965, respectively, they have been placed above the petitioners whose date of continuous officiation is from an earlier date, viz 12-7-1965 and 13-9-1965, respectively. The relevant extract from this revised gradation list is given below: TABLE Although the date of continued officiation of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 has been shown as 15-10-1965. and 1-11-1965, respectively, they have been placed above the petitioners whose date of continuous officiation is from an earlier date, viz 12-7-1965 and 13-9-1965, respectively. This could probably be possible only if the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had been promoted to the rank of D. S. P. in the same transaction and had joined their respective posts on different dates. But that is not the case here. They were not promoted together as has been stated above. It is difficult to understand how the petitioners who are shown to have continuously officiated from an earlier date have been placed below respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who are shown to have continuously officiated from a later date. Learned Counsel for the State of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 could not explain this anomaly. On the face of it, Annexure 9 is wrong and illegal so far it concerns the petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The earliest date from which respodents Nos. 3 and 4 can be said to have officiated as D. S. P. can be 29-8-1967. the date which has been mentioned in Annexure 5 and 6, and not before. That being the position, Annexure 9 to the extent it relates to the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 and 4, is also quashed. 13 In the result, this application is allowed and the order contained in Annexure 7 and the gradation list Annexure 9, to the extent it concerns the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 and 4, are quashed. The respondent State is directed to prepare the seniority list of the petitioners vis-a-vis respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in the light of the findings given herein, and make suitable amendments in the final gradation list (Annexure 9). Having regard to the history of this litigation, the petitioners are entitled to costs from the State. Hearing fee Rs. 500/-. It shall be open to the State Government to realise this cost from the erring officials concerned, M.P.Verma, J. 14 I agree.