PER S. NAINAR SUNDARAM, C. J. :, J. ( 1 ) WE are being asked to settle the question of inter se seniority of teachers in the services of the Municipal School board of Jamnagar, which was in the erstwhile State of Saurashtra. One batch of teachers like the appellants say that the passing of the qualifying examination should be the criterion for fixing the seniority and the another batch of teachers like respondents Nos. 1 to 27 say that their seniority should be fixed taking note of the continuous officiation in the post. The question of inter se seniority has come to prominence in view of the upgradation of the 20 % of the posts as selection posts. The learned Single judge, who dealt with the Special Civil application preferred by respondents 1 to 27 expressed his view in the following terms:"15. The question, therefore, that falls now to be determined is as to what should be done for the purpose of deciding inter se seniority of teachers. In the service law, in the absence of any other criteria, the seniority is co-existent with the factual seniority, which in its turn is another name for continuous officiation. If that is taken as the basis, the petitioners can rightly claim to be seniors because of their having passed the qualifying examination earlier than the petitioners. The period of continuous officiation is a safe guide for the purpose of deciding inter se seniority where the Government has not exercised administrative powers to rely on any other criteria, which it is open to the Government to adopt in the interest of services in general. "untimately, the learned Single Judge allowed the Special Civil Application as follows:"in the above view of the matter, the petition is allowed by declaring that the principle of continuous officiation is the only basis for deciding the seniority and for the purpose of granting selection grade posts. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. It is obvious that the seniority list that has been prepared pursuant to the aforesaid resolution is not good at law and a fresh seniority list will be required to be prepared on the basis of the guidelines conclusively found by me in this representative petition. " ( 2 ) IN this Letters Patent Appeal directed against the decision of the learned Single judge, the endeavour of Mr. " ( 2 ) IN this Letters Patent Appeal directed against the decision of the learned Single judge, the endeavour of Mr. P. K. Jani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of mr. D. D. Vyas, learned Counsel on record for the appellants, is to show that there are prescriptions, come by way of a letter dated 24-2 1954 issued by an officer bearing the designation vidhya Adhikari, saurashtra State and there guidelines have been set down and those guidelines indicate passing in the qualifying examination as the criterion and not continuous officiation in the post for fixing seniority. It is not as if that the said letter was not adverted to by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single judge after adverting to this letter, expressed his view that the said officer was not competent to lay down any policy decision on behalf of the Government The contrary position is not demonstrated before us. Otherwise, the learned Single judge found that none of the parties was in a position to disclose any policy decision or rule or regulation issued by the erstwhile State of Saurashtra for the purpose deciding the seniority of teachers. We do not think that on the materials placed before us, we could express a different view on the letter and elevate this letter to a binding rule, speaking on the subject contrary to the well accepted norm that continuous officiation in the post should be the guiding factor for deciding the question of seniority. ( 3 ) IN this connection, we deem it worthwhile to refer to a few pronouncements of the Apex Court in the land wherein this question has been looked at and the principle has been settled. In N. K. Chauhan and Others v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1977 supreme Court 251, this is what has been observed:"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 tests being satisfied. "in Baleshwar Dass and Others v. State of UP. This does not preclude a different prescription, constitutionality tests being satisfied. "in Baleshwar Dass and Others v. State of UP. and Others reported in AIR 1981 supreme Court 41, opining that it is irrational to reject the claim of the temporary appointee for seniority, on the nominal score of terminology of the post, the principle settled run as follows:"officiating service in a post is for all practical purposes of seniority as good as service on a regular basis. It may be permissible, within limits, for government to ignore officiating service and count only regular service when claims of seniority come before it, provided the rules in that regard are clear and categoric and do not admit of any ambiguity and cruelly arbitrary cut-off of long years of service does not take place or there is functionally and qualitatively, substantial difference in the service rendered in the two types of posts. While rules regulating conditions of service are within the executive power of the State or its legislative power under Proviso to article 309, even so, such rules have to be reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust if they are to survive the test of Articles 14 and 16. "in A. Janardhana v. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1983 supreme Court 769, it is held as follows: it is a well recognised principle of service jurisprudence that any rule of seniority has to satisfy the test of equality of opportunity in public service as enshrined in Article 16. It is an equally well recognised canon of service jurispurdence that in the absence of any other valid rule for determining inter se seniority of members belonging to the same service, the rule of continuous officiation or the length of service or the date of entering in service and continuous uninterrupted service thereafter would be valid and would satisfy the tests of Article 16. " in Delhi Supply and Sewage Disposal committee and Others v. R. K. Kashyap and Others reported in AIR 1989 supreme Court 278, dealing with a case of ad hoc appointments followed by regularisation of service, it was observed that such persons should get their service in the ad hoc appointment for determining seniority in the absence of any specific rule to the contrary. ( 4 ) HERE in the present case, the learned counsel for the appellants though advanced the plea that the passing of the qualifying examination should be the criterion for fixing the inter se seniority, yet no binding rule or regulation or policy decision, could be exposed by him before us in support of his plea. The same was the position before the learned Single judge and he was obliged to follow the well accepted principle. In our view, there could be no other alternative way presented before the Court, to decide the case. Accordingly, concurring with the view of the learned Single Judge, we dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal and we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .