JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - This petition arises out of competitive claims to seniority between the petitioners and the respondents Nos. 3 and 5, namely, Beni Prasad Goel and P.K. Trivedi. The petition was initially filed by Jiya Lal Jain and Jagdish Prasad Gupta. Subsequently, upon an application moved by Jiya Lal Jain the petition was dismissed as withdrawn in so far as Jiya Lal Jain was concerned by an order dated 3-4-1985 of this Court. P. K. Trivedi was not impleaded initially in the petition but subsequently he got himself arrayed as respondent No. 5. There thus remain in the field only Jagdish Prasad Gupta, the petitioner No. 2 and Beni Prasad Goel and R.K. Trivedi. 2. The petition is directed against an order dated 14-2-1978 passed by the Tribunal dismissing a reference petition filed by the petitioners under Section 4 of U.P. Public Services Tribunal's Act against an order passed by the State Government dated 31-5-1972 by which Beni Prasad Goel was declared as senior to the petitioners as Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in the Department of Irrigation. 3. The controversy raised in this petition is, in my opinion Squarely covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baleshwar Das v. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1981 SC 41 as well as a Division Bench decision of this Court in writ petition No. 244/ of 1980 connected with a number of other petitions rendered on 14th January 1982. Shortly stated the question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether inter se seniority between the petitioners and the said respondent has to be determined with reference to the date of their appointment to the service or the date or dates on which they were confirmed in their posts as Assistant engineers. The Tribunal has held that inasmuch as Beni Prasad Goel was confirmed as Assistant Engineer prior to the petitioners though appointed to the service on the same date as the latter, he must be deemed to be senior to the petitioners. This opinion of the Tribunal runs directly counter to the ratio in Baleshwar Das's case as well as the consistent view of the Supreme Court expressed in subsequent decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. This opinion of the Tribunal runs directly counter to the ratio in Baleshwar Das's case as well as the consistent view of the Supreme Court expressed in subsequent decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. In Baleshwar Das's case the Supreme Court held that when Engineer are appointed to temporary posts but after the fulfilment of all the tests for regular appointment, including consultation with the Public Service Commission, as here they must be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity. Their Lordships observed that the claim of temporary appointees cannot be rejected on the nomical score of the terminology of the post or the manner in which the appointment may have been characterised. In the present case it is not disputed that the petitioners as well as the aforesaid respondents were all appointed for the first time to the service on 31-5-1954 in accordance with the applicable Rules for regular recruitment to the service after consultation with the Public Service Commission and that both the petitioners were placed in the merit list of selection prepared by the Public Service Commission about the said respondent. However, as it happened, Beni Prasad Goel was confirmed on 10-2-1958 while the petitioners were confirmed on 20-1-1961. In the opinion of the Tribunal for the purpose of determining inter se seniority the petitioners would be deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity only on 20-1-1961 i.e. after Beni Prasad Goel and consequently, the petitioners must be held to be junior to Beni Prasad Goel. This view, as I shall presently demonstrate, is entirely unsustainable and is in direct conflict with the ratio in Baleshwar Das's case. 4. In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be necessary to have a look at the relevant Service rules hearing on the issue. It was not disputed that Rules of the U.P. Service of Engineers (Hydro Electric) Branch were adopted and followed in the matter of appointments and the conditions of service to the mechanical cadre of U.P. Engineering (Irrigation Services (See Government orders dated 1-9-1949 and 7-12-1953 respectively, Annexures 1 and 2 to the petition). It was not disputed that Rules of the U.P. Service of Engineers (Hydro Electric) Branch were adopted and followed in the matter of appointments and the conditions of service to the mechanical cadre of U.P. Engineering (Irrigation Services (See Government orders dated 1-9-1949 and 7-12-1953 respectively, Annexures 1 and 2 to the petition). Rule 3 (i) (b) of the aforesaid Rules provides :- "Members of the services means a Government Servant appointed under provisions of these Rules to a post in the cadre of the service." We next have Rule 3 (i) (c) which reads :- "Directment appointment or direct recruitment means recruitment or appointment in the manner prescribed in Rules 5 (i) and (ii) of these Rules." Rule 5 (ii) of the Rules reads as under : "Recruitment of the service will be made by the Government Sources of recruitment by direct appointment and after consulting a permanent Board of selection." The term permanent Board of selection has not been substituted by U.P. Public Service Commission. We have then Rule 20 winch is the main provision around which the entire controversy hinges. It reads :- "Seniority in the service shall be determined according to the date or order of appointment to it, provided that if the order of the appointment of two or more candidates bears the same date seniority inter se shall be determined according to the order in which their appointment has been notified." 5. The question, therefore, which falls for consideration is whether the petitioners would be deemed to be appointed to the service only when they were confirmed in the year 1961 or they became members of the service when after having been selected through the Public Service Commission in accordance with the applicable rules prescribed for recruitment of the service they were appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers on 31-5-1954. The Tribunal seems to think that the petitioners seniority will be recknoned only from the date of their confirmation which was subsequent to the date on which the respondents were confirmed. The Tribunal seems to think that the petitioners seniority will be recknoned only from the date of their confirmation which was subsequent to the date on which the respondents were confirmed. Obviously, the Tribunal was labouring under the notice that for the purpose of determining Seniority, it is only when an officer is appointed permanently to a permanent post in the cadre that he becomes a member of the service and inasmuch as prior to their confirmation the petitioners were holding only a temporary appointment as Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) the period prior to their confirmation could not be taken into account in computing their seniority. 6. It is this approach which was categorically rejected by the Supreme Court as wholly untenable in Baleshwar Das's case. In Paragraph 26 of the judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed at page 50 of the report (1981 Supreme Court page 41):- "We see no reason to hold that when engineers are appointed to temporary posts but after fulfilment of all the tests for regular appointments, including consultation with the Public Service Commission, they are not appointments in a substantive capacity. In Service term - logy. perhaps, eye, - brows may be raised when we say so, but then, we must remember that the State itself in its counter - affidavit has construed Rule 17 of the Rules as providing that all persons appointed to the service who are not already in the permanent employment of the Irrigation Department Shall be placed on probation for four years (since reduced to two years). This means that persons who are not permanently appointed but only temporarily appointed are also placed on probation and Officers are not put on probation unless they are on their way to membership in the service on completion of probation. That is to say, although they are temporary appointees, if their probation is completed and other formalities fulfilled, they become members of the Service. It follows that merely because the person is a temporary appointee it cannot be said that he is not substantively appointed if he fulfilis the necessary conditions for regular appointment Such as probation and consultation with the Public Service Commission etc. It follows that merely because the person is a temporary appointee it cannot be said that he is not substantively appointed if he fulfilis the necessary conditions for regular appointment Such as probation and consultation with the Public Service Commission etc. From this stand of the State Government it follows that the temporary appointees, whose appointments have received the approval of the Public Service Commission and who have run out the two years of probation must be deemed to be appointed in a substantive capacity The only advantage for permanent appointees, i. e. Assistant Engineers who have been appointed to vacancies in the permanent cadre is what belongs to permanent public servants under various rules in different areas of official life." 7. The above dictum provides a complete answer to the claim of the respondent. The Tribunal was in my opinion, clearly in error in holding that the relevant date for determining inter se seniority between the parties was the date of their confirmation. In fact the Supreme Court in Baleshwar Das's case referred to and relied on the Supreme Court decision in Patwardhan's case reported in 1977 Supreme Court page 2051 and held that confirmation in the service could not afford a valid basis for determining, seniority. It quoted the following passage from Patwardhan's case with approval: "Confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of Government Service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on availability of substantive vacancies. A glaring instance widely known in a part of our country is of a distinguished member of the judiciary who has confirmed as District Judge years after he was confirmed as a Judge of the High Court. It is on the record of these writ petitions that officiating Deputy Engineers were not confirmed even though substantive vacancies were available in which they could have been confirmed. It shows that confirmation does not have to conform to aN.S.t rules and whether an employee should be confirmed or not depends on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government." 8. Again in Chauhan's case reported in IR 1977 S. C. page 251 their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that seniority, normally is measured by the length of continuous officiating in the service. It was observed. "The actual is easily accepted as the legal." 9. Again in Chauhan's case reported in IR 1977 S. C. page 251 their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that seniority, normally is measured by the length of continuous officiating in the service. It was observed. "The actual is easily accepted as the legal." 9. It will thus be seen that the law on the subject has been put beyond the controversy by series or pronouncements of the Supreme Court or along. 10. That being the legal position on the facts which are not disputed, the petitioners were clearly entitled to be treated as senior to the said respondents. The petitioners as well as the respondents were all appointed on the same date after consultation which the Public Service Com fission as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the aforesaid department under an office memorandum dated 31-5-1954 and in the list of candidates selected for appointment, petitioners were placed above the respondents. In the said memorandum, it was stated that orders regarding inter se seniority will be issued later on. By the office memorandum dated 8-10-1955, the Government fixed the relative seniority of the Assistant Engineer so selected and placed the petitioners above the respondents. However, in December, 1957, the Departmental Selection Committee considered the question of confirmation of temporary Assistant (Mechanical) Engineers, Irrigation Department and by a notification dated 10-2-1958 a member of temporary Mechanical Assistant Engineers including Beni Prasad Goel were confirmed. The petitioners were excluded from the list on the ground that the Departmental Promotion Committee decided that persons having at least four years' experience as Assistant Engineers alone would be considered for appointment as permanent Assistant Engineers even though the applicable service rules has prescribed only two years as the period of probation. In any case, this norm w as adopted by the Departmental Selection Committee on its own without there being and Statutory support therefor. Be that as it may, the petitioners made a representation to the Government against their non - confirmation and the Government realising the mistake issued a notification on 28-1-1961 confirming the petitioners subject to their seniority being determined later. By an office memorandum dated 12-7-1961, the Government fixed the inter se seniority of Assistant (Mechanical) Engineers who were confirmed under notifications dated 10-2-1958 and 29-1-1961 by placing the petitioners above the respondents including Beni Prasad Goel. By an office memorandum dated 12-7-1961, the Government fixed the inter se seniority of Assistant (Mechanical) Engineers who were confirmed under notifications dated 10-2-1958 and 29-1-1961 by placing the petitioners above the respondents including Beni Prasad Goel. Beni Prasad Goel submitted a number of representations to the Government against the above seniority list dated 12-7-1961 but without and Success. Finally Beni Prasad Goel was told by the Government by its letter dated 17-9-1964 that no further representation on the subject would be entertained. After a lapse of nearly four years, Beni Prasad Goel filed a writ petition, namely, writ petition No. 2444 of 1968 impleading the petitioners as respondents which was also dismissed by this Court. 11. By an order dated 26-10-1961 the Government approved the appointment of the petitioners and Beni Prasad Goel as Officiating Engineer (Mechanical) and in the order of appointment the petitioners were shown senior to Beni Prasad Goel. By another order dated 16-4-1953, the Government fixed the seniority of the temporary cadre of U.P. Service of Engineers (Senior Scale) Irrigation Department of the Engineers approved for appointment as Officiating Executive Engineers (Mechanical) and again the petitioners were shown above Beni Prasad Goel, The petitioners and Beni Prasad Goel were eventually promoted as temporary/Officiating Executive Engineers respectively on 4-1-1962 and 9-1-1962 and they were also confirmed as Executive Engineers (Mechanical) in the senior scale. In the permanent cadre of Executive Engineers again in the seniority list, the petitioners were shown above Beni Prasad Goel. 12. The above position continued until 31-5-1972 when upon a representation of Beni Prasad Goel, the Government issued an office memorandum dated 31-5-1972 and reversed all previous decisions fixing inter se seniority showing the petitioners as junior to Beni Prasad Goel without any notice or opportunity to the petitioners. When the petitioners came to learn of this office memorandum, they submitted representation to the Government but to no avail. Thereafter, they filed a reference before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal with the result mentioned above, their reference was rejected by the Tribunal by an order dated 14-2-1978. 13. When the petitioners came to learn of this office memorandum, they submitted representation to the Government but to no avail. Thereafter, they filed a reference before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal with the result mentioned above, their reference was rejected by the Tribunal by an order dated 14-2-1978. 13. It will thus be seen that the petitioners and the respondents were all appointed to the service on the same date in accordance with the procedure laid down for recruitment to the service on regular basis after consultation with the Public Service Commission and the petitioners were all through placed above the respondents until the Government chose to reverse the position after a lapse of nearly two decades on the erroneous notion that seniority had to be reckoned from the date of confirmation a view which is ex facie unsustainable in law in view of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court noticed above. 14. As the petition is entitled to succeed on the interpretation of the relevant Service rules alone, it is rot necessary to enter into any detailed discussion of an alternative submission advanced by the learned counsel, namely, that the State Government was not justified in disturbing the seniority of the petitioners after such a long lapse of time. It was urged relying on Ravindra Nath's case reported in AIR 1970 S.C. page 470 that every one is entitled to sit back and assume that his promotion and other benefits accruing to him on the basis of seniority validly fixed once and allowed to remain undisturbed for a substantial length of time shall not be overturned all of a sudden. That being so the State Government was wholly unjustified in upsetting the seniority of the petitioners. It was argued that the Tribunal ought to have set aside the order passed by the State Government on this ground alone. 15. There is considerable substance in this submission and it cannot be rejected out of hand. Right from the inception and entry into the service in the year 1954, the petitioners were in every single list of seniority, shown above the respondents until the Government erroneously and by an ex parte order overturned the petitioners' seniority after nearly two decades. I cannot conceive of a more glaring instance where the State Government may have acted in this manner un-setting a state of things so casually, if not callously. 16. I cannot conceive of a more glaring instance where the State Government may have acted in this manner un-setting a state of things so casually, if not callously. 16. Thus in either view, the orders passed by the State Government and the Tribunal are both liable to be quashed. 17. In the result, the petition filed by Jagdish Prasad Gupta, Petitioner No. 2, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 31-5-1972 (Annexure XVI) and the order dated 14-2-1972 (Annexure XX) passed respectively by the State Government and the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (2) are quashed in so far as the claim of Jagdish Prasad Gupta Petitioner No. 2 is covered. He will be entitled to his costs from the respondent No. 1. The writ petition already stands dismissed as withdrawn viz a viz petitioner No. 1 namely, Jiya Lal Jain by this Court's order dated 3-4-1985.