JUDGMENT K.K. Birla, J. - These two writ petitions have been preferred by Sri Jitendra Nath regarding his seniority and promotion, Hence they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. In brief, the petitioner was in Army service from 10th August, 1987. He competed in the Provisional Civil Services (P.C.S. examination Under the Uttar Pradesh Non-Technical (Class-II) Service (Reservation of Vacancies for Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the rules) and joined the service in 1979. Such candidate are given certain benefits as regards the year of allotment to the service and the seniority as contained in 6 of the Rules. The period spent by such person in the Army is to be calculated for the purpose of this service besides the fact that the seniority is to be determined on the assumption that they entered the service concerned at their second opportunity, of competing for recruitment. The petitioner's case is that he entered in the Army service on 19.8.67 was discharge on 19.9.78 and this whole period should have therefore been considered for determining his year of allotment and seniority. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent is that according to the petitioners own showing namely, the certificate dated 19.9.78 (Annexure-C.A.-II) of the counter affidavit dated 19.4.90 in writ petition No 11775 of 1989) the date of release of the petitioner from Army service is 22.6.73. Acting upon this, the petitioner had been rightly given the year of allotment as 1970 and his seniority had been determined accordingly. 3. The only point canvassed before us on behalf of the petitioner is that the had been released from the Army on 19.9.78 and this should have been treated as his date of release. Therefore, the short point for consideration is whether the year of allotment and the seniority of the petitioner has been rightly determined by the Government or it should have been considered after taking 19.9.78 as the dated of release from the Army. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is War Casualty disabled Army Officer. The question, now the seniority of demobilised Officer of Armed forces who are appointed in Civil Services is to be determined, was considered in the case of Narendra Nath Pandey and others v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1988 SC 1949. Certain guide lines were enunciated in this case. The question, now the seniority of demobilised Officer of Armed forces who are appointed in Civil Services is to be determined, was considered in the case of Narendra Nath Pandey and others v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1988 SC 1949. Certain guide lines were enunciated in this case. At the instance of some Demobilised Officers the clarification was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in the case of Narendra Nath v. State of U.P., AIR 1989 SC 1131 . The seniority list (Annexure-7) to the writ petition No. 11775 of 1989 (hereinafter referred as the second writ petition) had been prepared in accordance with the directions contained in die above cited Supreme Court case. 5. It is not in dispute that whole of the army service besides a period of three years has to be computed for determining the year of allotment and die seniority. The petitioner claims die seniority of 1967 batch and according to him, he will be entitled for the same, if the date of his discharge from the army service is taken is September 1978 and not in June 1973. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel and perused the records. We find substance in the contention of the petitioner. 7. Annexure-S.A. I. filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit in writ petition No. 1390 of 1989 (hereinafter referred as the first writ petition) is two certificate issued by Army Head-quartars showing that the petitioners initial commission was up to 22.9.72 and it was extended for another five years. It further mentions that the petitioners finally released from the Army service with effect from 19.9.78. Annexure-4 of the first petition and Annexure S.A. II is the photostate, copy of the army notification dated. 7th December, 1978 showing that the petitioner was released with effect from 19.9.78. As against this in Annexure-C.A. II of the second petition, the date given is 22 June, 1973. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that this certificate was filed as a proof for the purposes of the competitive examination that he was a Demobilised Army Officer and not for the purpose of seniority. 8. As against this in Annexure-C.A. II of the second petition, the date given is 22 June, 1973. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that this certificate was filed as a proof for the purposes of the competitive examination that he was a Demobilised Army Officer and not for the purpose of seniority. 8. In para 12 of the above counter affidavit it is averred that the petitioner appeared in the competitive examination held in 1977 and if the date of release as intimated by him to the Public Service Commission was not correct then it is not understood as to how appeared in the examination before the date of his release from the Army. The contention is that if the date of release is taken in September, 1978 then the petitioner was not an Ex-Army Personnel in 1977 and could not appeared in the examination. This contention has been squarely by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit, of the second petition. In reply to para 12 of the counter affidavit it is inter alia averred that certificate (Annexure-C. A. II) was filed as a proof of being a Demobilised Army Officer for selection and appointment in Civil Service examination. It is further stated that an enquiry had already been held by the State Government whether he was in eligible for appointment as he was serving in the army and the enquiry has been finally dropped in his favour. We, are therefore, of the opinion, that the date of release of the petitioner from the army is w.e.f. 19.9.78 and not 22.6.73, and should have been so taken by the government. The petitioners seniority as determined on the basis of the date of release being 11.6. 1973 can not be maintained and is quashed we, therefore, direct the respondent No. 2 to determine the seniority of the petitioner afresh treating his date of release from the army as 19.9.78 in accordance with the rules and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narendra Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1988 SC 1649 and Narendra Nath v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1131 . The writ petitioner are disposed off accordingly.