B. L. Hansaria, J.-The petitioner is fighting for his seniority which is very dear to a civil servant inasmuch as the same takes care not only of the pay scale but of the status also, apart from opening promotional avenues. The petitioner at hand while serving as Block Development Officer and Assistant to Deputy Commissioner was put in charge of the post of Deputy Chief Electoral Officer in addition to his own duties with effect from 1.3. 1972 vide Notification dated 25.3. 1974 (Annexure-III) to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondents 2 to 4. By another Notification dated 28th October, 1975, he was appointed to officiate as Deputy Chief Electoral Officer with retrospective effect from 1. 3. 1972. This was in the pay scale of Rs. 350-1000/-p.m. As the post of Deputy Chief Electoral Officer appears in Schedule -1 under serial No. 13 of Mizoram Civil Services Rules, 1977, hereinafter the Rules, a claim was made by the petitioner that his seniority in the aforesaid service should be reckoned from 1. 3. 1972. This not having been done, the present petition has been filed. 2. Shri Choudhury has drawn our attention to Government communications which are agalore and some of which have been filed with the aforesaid affidavit-in-opposition which clearly show that the petitioner was exercising the duties and functions of the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer ever since 1. 3. 1972. We may first refer in this connection to Annexure-XVI of the aforesaid affidavit in-opposition which is a communication from the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, General Administration Department, to the Accountant General. Assam etc, Shillong, in penultimate para of which it was stated that though the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Electoral Officer on regular basis vide Notification dated 31. 3. 1975, he had been performing the duties of the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer since 1. 3. 1972. The letter farther states that the petitioner was given the work due to his standing experience in election work. By another letter dated 12. 6. 1976 (Annexure-XVIII) to the Accountant General, the same averments have been made. Similar is the statement in the letter dated 13.10. 1976 (Annexure-XIX). 3. The above being the position, it has been contended by Shri Choudhury that the petitioner's seniority has to be reckoned from 1. 3. By another letter dated 12. 6. 1976 (Annexure-XVIII) to the Accountant General, the same averments have been made. Similar is the statement in the letter dated 13.10. 1976 (Annexure-XIX). 3. The above being the position, it has been contended by Shri Choudhury that the petitioner's seniority has to be reckoned from 1. 3. 1972 as he held the post of Deputy Chief Electoral Officer continuously with effect from' 1.3. 1972. In this' connection, our attention has been invited to Rule 26 (ii) of the Rules which has stated that seniority shall be determined by the Administrator having due regard to the nature and responsibility of the posts held by the incumbents, the scale of pay attached to the post and the length of service rendered by the incumbent. Our attention has been invited to a decision of this Court in Civil Roles 395,396 and 487 of 1979, wherein it -was held that period of officiating service shall also count towards seniority. This decision concerns the seniority in the Mizoram Civil Service and it is submitted by Shri Choudhury that had the petitioner also come earlier he would have got the benefit of the judgment which was made available to the three petitioners. 4. By now there is nothing to dispute that while determining seniority, continuous officiating appointment has to be taken into consideration. This Court had occasion to deal with most of the judgments on this point in a recent decision rendered in Benu Gohain vs. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation, 1988 (2) GLJ 400. We, therefore, do not propose to traverse the entire ground again. It is sufficient to refer to some decisions on this point to which our attention has been invited by Shri Choudhury. We may first refer to Baleshwar Dass vs. State of U. P., AIR 1981 SC 41 , wherein it was held officiating service shall also be counted towards seniority. The same view was taken in A. Janardhana vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 769 and G. P. Doval vs. Chief Secy., Govt of U. P., AIR 1984 SC 1527 . It is of course correct as pointed out in Ashok Gulati vs. B. S. Jain, AIR 1987 SC 424 , that if the officiating appointment be in the nature of a stop-gap arrangement or fortuitous in nature, the benefit of the same cannot be given to the incumbents in determining their seniority. It is of course correct as pointed out in Ashok Gulati vs. B. S. Jain, AIR 1987 SC 424 , that if the officiating appointment be in the nature of a stop-gap arrangement or fortuitous in nature, the benefit of the same cannot be given to the incumbents in determining their seniority. 5. In the present case, though the petitioner came to be promoted to officiate as Deputy Chief Electoral Officer vide Notification dated 28. 10. 1975 the same was not made effective from 1. 3. 1972 as it is from that date that the petitioner had started discharging the functions of Deputy Chief Electoral Officer. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the legal position, we have no doubt in our mind that the petitioner's inter seniority has to be counted in the Mizoram Civil Service with effect from 1.3.1972, and not from 1.4. 1975 as is the case of the State. 7. In the result, we allow the petition and direct the official respondents to determine the seniority of the petitioner taking the starting date from 1. 3. 1972. The seniority list dated 22nd April, 1982 (Annexurc-H) shall be modified accordingly. S.K.Homchaudhuri, J.- I agree.