JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner, who is working as Assistant Sales Tax Officer, is claiming seniority over respondents 4 to 110. ( 2. ) THE petitioner entered service as Sales Tax Inspector on 7-11-1963 on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. He was confirmed by order dated 30-7-1966 with effect from 18-12-1965. The respondents Nos. 4 to 9 and 88 to 110 had also entered service as Sales Tax Inspectors directly recruited as the petitioner while respondents Nos. 10 to 87 are the personnel drawn from Block, Panchayat, Social welfare and Industries Department and being surplus they were absorbed as Sales Tax inspectors between the period 13-2-1967 to 28-9-1970 but they were given seniority with effect from 31-3-1967. All these respondents were junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Sales Tax Inspectors. Next promotion is to the post of Assistant Sales Tax officer to be made in accordance with M. P. Sales-tax Subordinate Executive Class III recruitment Rules, 1966. Under Rule 14 on completion of 5 years service as Sales Tax inspector he becomes eligible for being promoted to the post of Assistant Sales Tax officer. In the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held in April and october 1972 the petitioner was not found fit for promotion as Assistant, Sales-tax officer. The next meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held in march 1973 and considered cases of direct recruits and absorbed Inspectors but the name of the petitioner could not be considered as his representation was pending against adverse confidential remarks. Again in the meeting of the D. P. C. held in June 1974 the petitioners name was not considered as his representation was still pending but the respondents 4 to 9 and 88 to 110 were found fit and promoted as Asstt. Sales-tax Officers from 1972 onwards. Thereafter the representations of the petitioners were rejected but on 31-12-1977, 146 promotions were made including that of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sales-tax Officer on ad hoc basis as there were a large number of vacancies. The names were cleared by the D. P. C. in Feb. 1979 and has been ratified by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner and the respondents 4 to 110 were confirmed as Assistant Sales-tax Officers on 17-1-1978 but the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 110 were confirmed as Assistant Sales-tax Officers on 1-4-1982. The names were cleared by the D. P. C. in Feb. 1979 and has been ratified by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner and the respondents 4 to 110 were confirmed as Assistant Sales-tax Officers on 17-1-1978 but the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 110 were confirmed as Assistant Sales-tax Officers on 1-4-1982. In the gradation list of Assistant Sales-tax Officers prepared on the basis of continuous officiation on the post, the petitioner was shown below respondents 4 to 110. ( 3. ) THE petitioners case is that the seniority has not been correctly fixed as required under Rule 12 (c) of M. P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service)Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). The inter se seniority of the promoted Assistant Sales-tax Officers should be the same as that in their substantive grade i. e. Sales-tax Inspector. The petitioner being senior to all these respondents in the cadre of Sales-tax Inspectors, he should be placed above all of them. The petitioners further contention is that since the petitioner and respondents 4 to 9 and 88 to 110 have been confirmed as Assistant Sales-tax Officers on 1-4-1982 the petitioner continued to remain senior to these respondents. During pendency of this petition, a single Bench of this Court in Madem Mohan vs. State of M. P. , 1985 M. P. L. J. 533, held that all those persons working as Sales-tax Inspectors even prior to framing of M. P. Sales-tax Subordinate Executive Class III Recruitment Rules, 1966, and persons who were working in some other Government departments and were subsequently recruited as Sales-tax Inspectors, the subsequent appointees cannot be allowed to claim deemed seniority on the basis of their earlier service in different departments. In view of this decision, the gradation list of Assistant Sales-tax Officers was revised and the petitioner has been placed above respondents 10 to 87 who were absorbed as sales-tax Inspectors from different departments. The State of M. P. has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court and status quo was ordered to be maintained. It may be useful to refer to Rule 12 (c) proviso (i) : "12. The State of M. P. has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court and status quo was ordered to be maintained. It may be useful to refer to Rule 12 (c) proviso (i) : "12. The seniority of the members of service of a distinct branch or group of posts of that service shall be determined in accordance with the following principles viz.- (c) The inter se seniority of Government servants promoted to officiate in a higher service or a higher category of posts shall, during the period of their officiation, be the same as that in their substantive service or grade irrespective of the dates on which they began to officiate in the higher service or grade : provided that - (i) If they were selected for officiation from a list in which the names of government servants considered suitable for trial in a promotion, to the higher service or grade were arranged in order of merit, their inter se seniority shall be determined in accordance with the order of meirt in such list". Under this clause, the inter se seniority of Government servants promoted to officiate in a higher grade shall be the same as in their substantive grade irrespective of the date of their promotion to the higher grade, but if the promotion is on the basis of selection to the higher grade, then the inter se seniority shall be determined in accordance with the order of merit in such list. In support of the petitioners case, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Tejinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1978 SC 1326 , that seniority of officers promoted to Class I from the Class II cadre cannot be determined according to the dates of their continuous officiation in Class I posts and according to the dates on which they completed their probationary period, but the seniority has to be determined on the basis of their seniority in the substantive rank in Class II posts. That case has no application to the facts of the present working in permanent class II cadre on ad hoc basis and, therefore, their seniority in class II had to prevail in class I also. The petitioner has also placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Umeshnarayan Mishra and others vs. State of M. P. and ors. The petitioner has also placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Umeshnarayan Mishra and others vs. State of M. P. and ors. , M. P. No. 181/82 decided on 15-3-1984, holding that inter se seniority of Government servants promoted to officiate in a higher grade shall, during the period of officiation, be the same as that in their substantive service or grade irrespective of their date of promotion. Special Leave Petition filed against the order of the Single Bench of this Court has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19-10-1984 in S. L. A. (Civil) No. 9022/84. It appears from the certified copy of the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court, it was a case of ad hoc promotion and not promotion after due selection and that is why the consideration of first proviso to Rule 12 (c) has been excluded. Therefore, in that case clause (c) applied and the inter se seniority had to be fixed during the period of officiation as per their seniority in substantive grade. ( 4. ) THE Supreme Court in N. K. Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1977 SC 251 has held that seniority, normally, is measured by length of continuous, officiating service, the actual is easily accepted as the legal. This does not preclude a different prescription, constitutionality that being satisfied. Again, the Supreme Court in S. B. Parwardhan vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 2051 , has held that all other factors being equal continuous officiation in a non-fortuitous vacancy ought to receive due recognition in determining rules of seniority as between persons recruited from different sources, so long as they belong to the same cadre, discharge similar functions and bear similar responsibilities. Recently, the Supreme Court in Ashok Gulati vs. B. S. Jain, AIR 1987 SC 424 has held that in the absence of any other valid principle of seniority, the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees should as far as possible be determined by the length of continuous service whether temporary or permanent in a particular grade or post. This should exclude periods for which an appointment is held in a purely stopgap or fortuitous arrangement. Seniority of a person appointed must be reckoned from the date he becomes a member of the service. This should exclude periods for which an appointment is held in a purely stopgap or fortuitous arrangement. Seniority of a person appointed must be reckoned from the date he becomes a member of the service. In view of this decision, normally seniority has to be determined on the basis of continuous officiation in the post unless the service rules provide otherwise. The respondents 4 to 9 and 88 to 110 were duly selected for promotion by the D. P. C. which has been approved by the P. S. C. earlier in point of time than the petitioner to the promoted post of Assistant Sales-tax Officer and, therefore, they have been rightly shown senior to the petitioner. Their confirmation on the same day will not change the position as the petitioner was found unfit when those respondents were promoted. ( 5. ) HERE the D. P. C. in its meetings held in April and October, 1972 found the petitioner unfit for promotion as Assistant Sales-tax Officer while his juniors were cleared and were promoted as Assistant Sales-tax Officers. The D. P. C. took into consideration character rolls of 1968 to 1972 and except the year 1972, there were serious adverse remarks which were duly communicated to the petitioner and the petitioners representations were also rejected. The State Government also expressed its displeasure about his conduct on 24-6-1970 and one increment was stopped in the year 1971, It is true that in the subsequent meetings of the D. P. C. held in March 1973 and June 1974 the petitioners case for promotion was not considered as his representations were pending against adverse annual confidential remarks. The petitioner was given ad hoc promotion as Assistant Sales-tax Officer on 31-12-1977 and his name was cleared in the meeting of the D. P. C. held in February 1979 and his promotion was confirmed by the P. S. C. on 7-12-1979. The ad hoc promotions were regularised on 10-12-1982. So the petitioners case was duly considered in the D. P. C. held in April and October 1972 and he was declared unfit while others junior to him and directly recruits i. e. respondents 4 to 9 and 88 to 110 were promoted. So since their promotions were after due selection, the petitioner cannot claim seniority over them. So the petitioners case was duly considered in the D. P. C. held in April and October 1972 and he was declared unfit while others junior to him and directly recruits i. e. respondents 4 to 9 and 88 to 110 were promoted. So since their promotions were after due selection, the petitioner cannot claim seniority over them. Their seniority has to be fixed as per first proviso to Rule 12 (c) and not under clause (c) i. e. not on the basis of seniority in the substantive rank of Sales-tax Inspector. Their seniority has to be fixed on the basis of their selection for promotion by the D. P. C. which has been approved by the P. S. C. So they have been rightly fixed above the petitioner. So far as the absorbed Inspectors are concerned, though they were promoted earlier but in view of the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in 1985 m. P. L. J. 533, in the revised list the petitioner has become senior to them and this is subject to the decision of the Supreme Court as appeal is pending there against that order. ( 6. ) WITH the result, the petition fails and it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.