JUDGMENT K. K. Birla, J. 1. In all these writ petitions common question arises, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners seek for a direction for promotion for the post of Head Masters of the Basic Schools. The petitioners in Writ Petitions nos. 21168/87, 19851/87, 21169/87 and 4695/88 are the Assistant teachers in the Junior Basic Schools (Primary Schools) and the petitioners of writ petitions nos. 14093/87 and 19942/87 are teachers in Senior Basic Schools. They were temporarily appointed as Assistant teachers in various Schools on various dates ranging from 1959 to 1960 except Sri Surya Narain Tripathi, one of the petitioners in writ petition no. 13093/87, who was initially appointed on 4-8-52. They were untrained at the time of their appointments. They received training on various dates in the years ranging from 1972 to 1976 except Harihar Prasad one of the petitioners in writ petition no. 19851 of 1987 who received training in 1968 and Sri Badri Prasad Tripathi, petitioner of writ petition no. 4695/88 in 1970 vide Annexure III. For the purpose of these writ petitions it is not necessary to mention the respective dates of appointments or the date of training of these petitioners. All these petitioners have been in continuous service from the date of their appointments. The petitioners of all the writ petitions except writ petition nos. 4695/ 1988 and 19942/87 were serving in the Schools under Zila Parishad Deoria while Sri Badri Prasad Tripathi and Badri Deo Pandey were working in the Schools under the Zila Parishad, Mirzapur. On the enforcement of the U. P. Basic Education Act 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act) all these petitioners became the teachers of the Board of Basic Education (hereinafter referred as the Board). As mentioned above, the petitioners thereafter under took the training. Later on, the U. P. Basic Education Teachers Services Rules 1981 came into force. Under the Rule 18 the criterion for promotion in respect of any post shall be seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit. The grievance of the petitioners is that those teachers who were appointed subsequently to them have been promoted as Head Masters and many of them have been shown senior to them in the seniority list. Under the Rule 18 the criterion for promotion in respect of any post shall be seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit. The grievance of the petitioners is that those teachers who were appointed subsequently to them have been promoted as Head Masters and many of them have been shown senior to them in the seniority list. The grievance of the some of the petitioners is also that their names have not been shown in the prepared list of seniority. They made representations to the concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari but of no avail. Sri Harideo Mani Tripathi also filed a writ no. Nil of 1987 Harideo Mani Tripathi v. U. P. Shiksha Allahabad. The Division Bench of this Court passed the order to the effect that we direct the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, respondent no. 2 to dispose of the representation of the petioner and consider his case for promotion as Head Master. This shall be done within a period of 2 months from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order of this Court before the respondent no. 1 by the petitioner. By the order dated 9th October, 1987, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Deoria passed the order (Annexure 10 of writ petition no. 21168/87) to the effect that he was appointed as untrained teacher. He received B. T. C. training in 1973. He was given scale of trained teacher since then, the seniority is to be determined from the date of the appointment in a substantive capacity. Therefore, under rule 22 of the Rules 1981 the Basic Shiksha Adhikari held the date of training as the date of appointment of the petitioner are rejected his representation. In case the date of training is taken to be the date of the appointment in the substantive capacity, all these petitioners are not yet senior enough for being promoted as Head Masters. But in case such date of appointment is taken the date of initial appointment as teachers, they should be promoted as such. The main contention is that it is the initial date of appointment as teacher which should be taken as the date of appointment in the substantive capacity and not as the date of training. 3. As mentioned earlier, some of the petitioners are in the Junior Basic Schools (Primary Schools) while some of the petitioners are in Senior Basic Schools (Junior High Schools). 3. As mentioned earlier, some of the petitioners are in the Junior Basic Schools (Primary Schools) while some of the petitioners are in Senior Basic Schools (Junior High Schools). It is the common case of the petitioners that their substantive appointment should be taken from the date of their initial appointment irrespective of the fact that they were untrained teachers at that time. According to them, trained and untrained teachers were of the same class i.e. Assistant teachers and after the petitioners have received the training, any disparity between them had come to an end; that there were no rules governing the seniority also and as such now for the purposes of their seniority it is the date of their initial appointment which is relevant. AS regards the teachers of the Senior Basic Schools, their further case is that they are special teachers and by the government orders the condition of training had been waived and as such in either case their seniority has to be determined from the date of the initial appointment. On the other hand, the main contention on behalf of the Board is that the eligibility of Primary Schools teachers was the training Certificate as well. On the non-availability of trained teachers untrained teachers could have also been appointed but their scale was less and they were appointed on a fixed pay and formed a different class. The case of the untrained teachers and trained teachers could not be equated. It was only after the training, they got the scale of trained teacher and it is from the date of getting this scale that they shall be deemed to have been substantively appointed on this post. 4. Formerly the teachers working under the District Boards were governed by the provisions contained in Chapter XI of the District Board Manual. Later on, the teachers came under the control of Zila Parishad. 4. Formerly the teachers working under the District Boards were governed by the provisions contained in Chapter XI of the District Board Manual. Later on, the teachers came under the control of Zila Parishad. After the enforcement of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act) such teachers became the teachers of the U. P. Board of Basic Education (hereinafter referred as the Board) section 9 (1) of the Act interalia provides that on and from the appointed day every teacher, officer and other employees serving under a local body exclusively in connection with the basic schools (including any supervisory or inspecting staff) immediately before the said day shall be transferred to and become a teacher, officer or other employee of the Board and shall hold office by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same other terms and conditions of service as he would have held the same, if the Board had not been constituted and shall continue to do so unless and until such tenure, remuneration and other terms and conditions are altered by the rules made by the State Government in that behalf. Thus according to this provision the services of the petitioners stood transferred to the Board. On the same tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions on which they were serving under the Zila Parishads. These conditions etc. were to remain the same unless altered by the rules made by the State Government. Such rules namely, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules 1981, were for the first time framed in 1981. They now contain the necessary provisions governing the appointments, confirmation, seniority and promotions etc. Under rule 3, these rules were to apply to all teachers of Local Bodies transferred to the Board under section 9 of the Act. Rule 4 provides for a separate cadre of service for each local area. In view of Rule 18, no untrained teacher can now be appointed as Assistant Master of Junior Basic School. Now the appointment in a substantive capacity is to be on probation for one year u/o 23. The mode of appointment to substantive, temporary and officiating capacity is given in Rule 19. Under Rule 18 the criterion for promotion in respect of any post shall be seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit. Now the appointment in a substantive capacity is to be on probation for one year u/o 23. The mode of appointment to substantive, temporary and officiating capacity is given in Rule 19. Under Rule 18 the criterion for promotion in respect of any post shall be seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit. Under Rule 22 the seniority of a teacher in a cadre will be determined by the date of his appointment in a substantive capacity. The provisions were not exhaustive prior to the enforcement of these rules. The service of the teachers serving under the District Boards was regulated by the provisions of Chapter XI of the District Boards Manual (hereinafter referred as the Manual). Under these provisions, no person was to be appointed as Assistant Master of a Primary School unless he held a training certificate (Primary Teachers' Certificate) but it was also provided that if no such qualified candidate was available, the Board could appoint teachers with lower qualification. This permitted the appointment of an untrained teacher. But his pay was to be less. It is under this exception that the petitioners were so appointed. It appears that on account of the enforcement of the Act, the petitioners took the training. As pointed earlier the representation of Sri Harideo Mani Tripathi, the petitioner, was rejected by order dated 9th October, 1987 (Annexure 10 of writ petition no. 21168/ 1987) on the grounds that the petitioner has taken training in 1973 and he was given the grade of trained teacher since then, that training was the essential minimum qualification for the appointment as assistant teacher and as such the untrained teachers were treated as temporarily appointed and that the date of substantive appointment is, therefore, date of training. 5. It has not been disputed on behalf of the petitioners that before obtaining training they were being paid the salary of untrained teachers and after taking the training they were paid the salary of a trained teacher. IT is in the light of the above that it is to be seen whether their seniority is to be reckoned from the date of the initial appointment as an untrained teacher or from the date when the petitioners took the training. IT is in the light of the above that it is to be seen whether their seniority is to be reckoned from the date of the initial appointment as an untrained teacher or from the date when the petitioners took the training. Before considering the cases of the petitioners serving in Junior Basic Schools, the cases of the petitioners serving in the Senior Basic Schools may be considered which stand on a different footing in one respect. 6. The petitioners of writ petitions nos. 13093/87 and 19942/87 are teachers of Sanskrit, Urdu and Arts (Dhatu Kalan) in Senior Basic Schools. They are known as special teachers, R. A. 2 in writ petition no. 13093/87 is the government order dated 21st May, 1985 by which the earlier G. O. dated 8th March, 1978 was modified and the services of these untrained special teachers who were appointed on regular pay before July 1968 and subsequently obtained training shall be treated in continuous service. In Annexure 3 of W. P. No. 13093/87 the petitioner has averred that he has been getting such pay. Thus in the cases of special teachers of the senior basic schools this initial disqualification of being untrained was waived. The cases of these petitioners are squarely covered by the principle laid down in the case of Jagdish Narain Shashtri v. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Etawah, 1986 AWC 1126. In this case Sri Jagdish Narain Shashtri was appointed as Sanskrit teacher in 1962 in a Junior High School. He took the training in 1972-73. He claimed to be promoted as Head Master of the Junior High School on the ground of his being in continuous service from 1962. His seniority was however, being reckoned with from the date, he completed his training. Rule 18 and one G. O issued in 1981 was considered. It has been observed that "eligibility for promotion under rule 18 of the Basic Education Teachers (Service) Rules is seniority alone. Therefore, petitioner or any other teacher who was appointed as teacher in 1962 or onwards was eligible to be called for interview...........Exclusion of petitioners because they received training later than opposite parties is not supported by any rule or Government order. Training for the post of head master of Junior High School may be imperative. But that in absence of any rule could not be basis of seniority. Training for the post of head master of Junior High School may be imperative. But that in absence of any rule could not be basis of seniority. Requirement is training and not the period of length of training. Although even if that would have been necessary petitioner took training in 1972-73, is more than ten years before selection. In any case the scope of any ambiguity has been ruled out as the Government by its order issued in 1981 clarified that training shall not result in break of service and all those appointed prior to 1968 shall be entitled to be treated as in continuous service." On this basis, exclusion of petitioner from being called for interview for the post of Head master of the Junior High School was held not to be justified. In this case the direction to the opposite parties was "to treat all those teachers of Junior Basic Schools who were appointed prior to 1968 but received their training later on as senior in order of their appointments and called them for interview for the post of head master. Therefore, in this case it has been held that seniority was to be reckoned with from the date of their initial appointments and not from the date of the training. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that the relevant Rules or the government orders could not be placed before that Bench and as such the observations regarding the determination of seniority from the date of initial appointment has been made. Be as it may so far as the cases of the petitioners of writ petitions nos. 13093/87 and 19942/87 are concerned they are clearly entitled for their seniority being determined from the date of their initial appointments and not from the date of their training. 7. Now as regards the petitioners who were teachers in the Primary Schools, the provisions relating to their appointments are more or less analogous. They too were appointed, though did not fulfill the qualification of training and they too took the training later on. Rule 18 and 22 of the Rules 1981 cover both the cadres. 7. Now as regards the petitioners who were teachers in the Primary Schools, the provisions relating to their appointments are more or less analogous. They too were appointed, though did not fulfill the qualification of training and they too took the training later on. Rule 18 and 22 of the Rules 1981 cover both the cadres. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the principle laid down in the case of Sri Jagdish Narain Shashtri (Supra) regarding the determination of seniority from the date of initial appointment will be applicable to these petitioners as well. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that case related to a special teacher of Senior Basic School. There was G. O. waiving the qualification of training in such cases has also been relied in that case, therefore, the principle laid down in that case will not be apalicable to these petitioners. 8. From the discussions made in the cited case it is clear that what was proposed to be held was that the exclusion of the petitioners from being called for interview on the ground that they had received the training lateron was not supported by any Rule or Government order. Therefore, in the absence of any. such rule or Government order the seniority could not have been determined with effect from the date of the training but should have been from the date of the initial appointment. According to the Court, the government order squarely ruled-out the scope of the ambiguity. Therefore, the G. O. was not the basis of the decision but its aid was taken to reinforce the conclusion already made above. Therefore, in my opinion, this case goes a long way in favour of the petitioners and against the contention of the respondent no. 1. The same question came up for consideration in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18384 of 1987 Madan Mohan Pathak v. The Basic Shiksha Parishad, U. P. Allahabad and others. In that case Sri Madan Mohan Pathak was an Assistant teacher in a Primary Pathshala. 1. The same question came up for consideration in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18384 of 1987 Madan Mohan Pathak v. The Basic Shiksha Parishad, U. P. Allahabad and others. In that case Sri Madan Mohan Pathak was an Assistant teacher in a Primary Pathshala. His seniority was sought to be determined from the date of his training on the ground that he shall be deemed to have become substantively appointed in 1973 only and the period during which he was untrained could not be taken into account, it has been held in that case the seniority of the petitioner was to be determined from the date of appointment and not from the date of substantive appointment (which was taken to be the date of training by the authorities). Therefore, the facts and principles laid down of this Division Bench case were squarely applicable to the case of these petitioners as well. However, a review application was moved in that case on the ground that the order was passed without hearing the opposite parties. It was contended that the provisions relating to appointments and promotions of Assistant teachers in Primary Schools does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Court resulting in error apparent on the face of the record. As the petitioner had died during the pendency of the review application the review application was rejected with the observations that "as regards the legal issue decided by this judgment it may not be treated as precedent since the doubt has been cast on its correctness". 9. The question regarding the determination of seniority has arisen in a number of cases and it is settled principle of law that in absence of any substantive appointment seniority is determined from the date of appointment. In the case of a Direct Recruit Class II Engineerring Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra, JT 1990 (2) SC 264, the principles regarding the determination of the seniority have been laid down. The principles which may be attracted in the present case are to the effect :- (1) Once an - incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The principles which may be attracted in the present case are to the effect :- (1) Once an - incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post can not be taken into account for considering the seniority. (2) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the Rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. 10. In the case of A. K. Bhatnagar v. Union of India, JT 1990 (4) SC 610, it has been held that the law is clear that seniority is an incidence of service and where the service rules prescribe the method of its computation, it is squarely governed by such rules. In the absence of a provision ordinarily the length of service is taken into account. In the case of G. P. Doval v. Chief Secretary Govt., of U. P., AIR 1984 SC 1527 , it has been held that where officiating appointment is followed by confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment cannot be ignored for reckoning length of continuous officiation for determining the place in the seniority list. No government order or notification governing the appointments of the Assistant Masters or their grades has been produced by the parties. Reference was made to the notifications of 1933, 1934 and 1944 contained in the Education Rules as mentioned earlier. What has come out is that the untrained teachers were given the lessor emoluments. From the. material on record it is clear that the cadre was that of the Assistant Masters of the Primary Schools. Only trained teachers could have been appointed but in case they were not available, teachers with lesser qualification including untrained teachers could have been appointed. They did not form two classes with two sources of recruitment nor their quota was fixed. material on record it is clear that the cadre was that of the Assistant Masters of the Primary Schools. Only trained teachers could have been appointed but in case they were not available, teachers with lesser qualification including untrained teachers could have been appointed. They did not form two classes with two sources of recruitment nor their quota was fixed. Therefore, in my opinion, they form the same cadre, the only disadvantage attached to the untrained or lesser qualified teachers was that they were to get lesser emoluments on that account. This disadvantage or disqualification came to an end after they took the training. It may be pointed out that in some of the appointments letters of these petitioners, for example Ram Nakshatra and Harideo Maui Tripathi the appointment letter simply says that they were temporarily appointed as Assistant Masters. It is also clear that there is no subsequent formal order of confirmation or showing that they were substantively appointed on the post at some later date. It is also clear that the petitioners have been in a long uninterruptedly continuous service for merely 20 years in most of the cases when these rules 1981 came into force. Not only this, they had taken the training long before these rules came into force. As pointed out earlier, Harihar Singh took his training in 1968 and Badri Prasad Tripathi in 1-970. In view of the above discussions I am of the opinion that it is a case where there was no rule governing the seniority, that these appointments were regular and continuous and not as stop gap arrangements and that as such their seniority should be determined from the date of the initial appointment and there is no justification for holding their substantive appointment from the date of the training. Therefore, the case of these petitioners also succeeds. 11. On determination of the seniority in the above light the petitioners may become senior to some of the teachers who have already been promoted as Head Masters of the Basic Schools. They have not been impleaded as parties in these petitions. It has been rightly conceded on behalf of the petitioners that they are interested in getting the promotion and getting their seniority fixed and do not want to disturb the selections already made. 12. In the result, the petitioners succeed. They have not been impleaded as parties in these petitions. It has been rightly conceded on behalf of the petitioners that they are interested in getting the promotion and getting their seniority fixed and do not want to disturb the selections already made. 12. In the result, the petitioners succeed. The orders dated 9-10-87 and 12-10-87 Annexures-10 and 11 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21168 of 1987 are quashed. It is directed that the seniority of all the petitioners shall be determined afresh from the date of their initial appointment and not from the date of their training in the light of the observations made above and as far as possible within two months from today. Thereafter the petitioners shall be considered for promotion in accordance with rules. However, the selections already made or promotions already made will not be disturbed or affected by this order. The petitions are disposed off accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear own costs.