Judgment G. C. Bharuka, J. 1. In this writ application the three petitioners have come up for seeking a direction against the respondents to decide the seniority and confirmation of the petitioners in the rank of Inspector of Police in accordance with law and to consider their cases for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (in short Dy S. P.) before respondents No.1 to 19 and to grant consequential benefits and to quash the revised gradation list issued with letter Annexure 2/1. 2. According to the petitioners, as stated by them in the writ application, pursuant to advertisement and various examinations and tests, they having been found fit by the selection Board were appointed as steno-sub-Inspector of Police on temporary basis. They joined their posts on 1.3.1967. Subsequently, as opted by them, they were absorbed and confirmed on the post in the cadre of sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 2.1.1969. One of such orders passed in favour of petitioner No.2 has been filed as annexure 1 to the writ application. The further case of the petitioners is that respondents No.1 to 19 were appointed in the cadre of sub-Inspector of police on 2.1.1968 and they were confirmed with effect from 2.1.1970. It appears that keeping in view the date of initial appointment of the petitioners and the private respondents, a gradation list was prepared on 1.1.1980 in which the petitioners were shown senior to the respondents. Subsequently in the year 1979 the petitioners as well as the said respondents were promoted to the rank of inspector of Police. By a letter dated 18th May, 1988 (Annexure 2/1) the director-General of Police published a gradation list in respect of Inspectors of Police showing their inter se seniority. As is evident from the said letter, the seniority was determined on the basis of their seniority in the rank below. In other words Inter se seniority of the Inspectors were determined on the basis of their inter se seniority in the cadre of sub-Inspector of police. The petitioners are essentially aggrieved with the seniority list as contained in Annexure 2/1. In other words Inter se seniority of the Inspectors were determined on the basis of their inter se seniority in the cadre of sub-Inspector of police. The petitioners are essentially aggrieved with the seniority list as contained in Annexure 2/1. They filed representations for making corrections in the seniority list, inter alia, on the ground that keeping in view their date of appointment in the Government service they should be placed senior to the private respondents and accordingly it was requested that their cases be referred to the I. G Selection Board for considering their cases for their promotion in the cadre of Dy. S. P. But the respondents authorities refused to exceed to the said prayer. 3. The short question which has fallen for our consideration in this writ application is as to whether the date of appointment of the petitioners in the cadre of Steno. Sub-Inspectors of Police is to be treated as the basis for determination of their seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of police or their entry in the later cadre, would be the basis for the said purpose. 4. For answering this question it has first to be ascertained whether the posts of Steno. Sub-Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Police are of the same cadre or different cadres. 5. Chapter 1a of the Bihar Pojice Manual (Vol. I) sets out the details of ranks in cadres envisaged in the State Police Force. Rule 7-A (3) deals with forces at the district level and clause (e) (i) provides that : "a circle is divided into police stations. A sub-Inspector holds the charge of each police station. " Rule 7-A (9) of this Chapter provides for miscellaneous forces whieh reads as under : rule 7-A (9 ). "miscellaneous Force.- (a) For accounts, correspondence and crime record, there are Accountants, Head clerks, Upper Division Clerks and Lower Division clerks, etc. who are attached with the office of Inspector-General, deputy Inspector-General and Superintendent but they are not the members of the police force. (b) There are Stenographers of the ranks of sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector who are posted in the confidential section of the Offices of Inspector-General, deputy Inspector-General, Superintendent, Assistant and, Deputy Superintendent, etc. 6. who are attached with the office of Inspector-General, deputy Inspector-General and Superintendent but they are not the members of the police force. (b) There are Stenographers of the ranks of sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector who are posted in the confidential section of the Offices of Inspector-General, deputy Inspector-General, Superintendent, Assistant and, Deputy Superintendent, etc. 6. From the reading of the aforesaid Rules there cannot be any manner of doubt that the posts of Steno-Sub-Inspectors and Sub-Inspector of Police have been created for entirely different purposes involving different nature of duties and posting and therefor, essentially the two groups of post from different cadres. 7. Having reached the aforesaid conclusion now the other question needs to be answered is whether for determining the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police their entry in the said cadre will form the basis of it will dependent on their initial appointment in the cadre of Steno. Sub-Inspectors. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not been absorbed or confirmed in (heir existing cadre pursuant to any merger or any policy decision of the Government rather they have been so absorbed and confirmed because of exercise of their own options. 9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners their seniority should have been determined in the cadre of Inspector of Police with reference to their first entry in the Government service and not with reference to their entry in the new cadre. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mohd Sulaiman and others V/s. State of Bihar, reported ia 1981 BBCJ 513 . In this case the petitioners were directly recruited in the cadre of deputy Superintendent of Police during the period 1966 to 1972 and were confirmed latest by 21.1974. The respondents were appointed as senior district Prosecutors in a separate cadre created in 1953. Because of the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, some of the district Prosecutors were absorbed in the cadre of District Superintendents and because of this a dispute arose as to whether the seniority of senior district prosecutors has to be determined on the basis of their first appointment or on the basis of their entry in the new cadre. The Court in the process of answering that question took the view that the two cadres were of equal rank and since the respondents were transferred and absorbed to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police pursuant to a policy decision of the Government, therefore, they are entitled to determination of their seniority on the basis of their first appointment. For coming to the said conclusion their Lordships retained (sic) to a Government circular of 1972 laying Rules governing the general principles and procedure for fixation of inter se seniority in service cadres which as noticed in the said case are as under : (iii) "whether an incumbent is transferred from one service to another on his own request, services rendered by him in the previous posts shall not count for seniority But in case such transfer follows a policy decision taken by the Government, bis service in the previous post shall count for seniority. " 10. In the case of Direct Recruit, Class If Engineering association and others V/s. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 1990 SC 1607 (at para 4, page 1697) it has been held that : " (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of bis 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 cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. " 11. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the principles governing determination of seniority it has to be held that for the purpose of determining inter se seniority of the petitioners and respondents No.1 to 19, the respective dates of entry/appointment of these persons in the cadre of sub-Inspector of Police can be the only relevant basis and neither the date of first appointment of the petitioners in another cadre nor the date of confirmation of the respondents on their respective post is of any consequence for the said purpose. Accordingly, in our opinion, there is no merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed. But in keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.