ORDER : S. Mohan and S.P. Bharucha, JJ. Delay condoned, 2. Leave granted. 3. The short facts leading to the special leave petitions are as follows : 4. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No. 9871/92. - The respondent after his selection in Provincial Civil Services was issued an appointment letter on 19-7-1975. However, he joined service on 16-12-1975 as Deputy Collector. He was assigned the year 1972 as the year of allotment He was confirmed on the post of Deputy Collector on 16-12-1977 and he was accorded senior scale of pay w. e. f. 1-7-1979 and was confirmed in that scale on 2-2-1985. 5. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9872/92. - The respondent-Ram Surat Dubey is P.C.S. officer belongs to 1972 batch. He was appointed as Deputy Collector in the year 1975. He joined the post on 9-8-1975. He was confirmed in the cadre of Deputy Collector on 1-10 1977. He joined the post of senior scale of pay on 23-8-1979 and was confirmed on 2-2-1985 in the senior scale. 6. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No 9873/92. - The respondent-Hardeo Singh was appointed in the year 1972. He was given the appointment on the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools and remained there upto 13-4-1975. Later on, he was posted as Deputy Collector on 14-4-1975. He was confirmed in the cadre of Deputy Collector on 15-4-1977 He joined the post of senior scale on 17-7-1979. He was also confirmed on 2-2-1985. 7. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9874/92.-The respondent-Deo Nath Singh Yadav took the Civil Service Examination in 1972. He was initially given the appointment as Sales Tax Officer. Later on, he was given appointment as Deputy Collector which post he joined on 1-5-1975. He was confirmed as Deputy Collector. He was accorded the senior scale of pay w. e. f. 17-7-1979 and he was confirmed in the senior scale of pay. 8. In the year 1985, a selection committee was held on 20-11-1985 for promotion to the special grade in accordance with the provisions of Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1982 (for short the Rules). The said rule reads as follows : "Rule 18. 8. In the year 1985, a selection committee was held on 20-11-1985 for promotion to the special grade in accordance with the provisions of Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1982 (for short the Rules). The said rule reads as follows : "Rule 18. - Selection to the Special Grade shall be made on the recommendation of a Selection Committee on the basis of merit from amongst such officers as have either been confirmed or are officiating in the senior scale of the service and have put in at least 16 years service on the date of selection. The Selection Committee shall be constituted by- (1) the Chief Secretary to the Government ...Chairman (2) the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh ...Member (3) the Secretary to Government, Personnel Department .. .Member (4) the Secretary to Government, Appointment Department …Member Provided that the Government may, in special circumstances, relax the limit of service filed for promotion to the Special Grade : Provided further, that officers recruited against the quota reserved for ex-army officers, who become due for promotion to the Special Grade on the basis of their year of allocation, will be eligible for promotion to the Special Grade only after they have put in at least three years actual service in the senior scale." The mandatory condition of 16 years of service as laid down in this rule was relaxed by the State Government reducing to 13 years of service. 9. Pending selection, the respondent-Shanker Lal Jaiswal preferred W.P. No. 3993/87 praying for a writ of mandamus to the appellant herein, namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh that he should be treated as having been promoted in the special grade with effect from the date his juniors were promoted in the special grade and also for prohibiting the appellant from making promotion of juniors in special grade without considering his candidature and further to command the State not to promote the juniors on the basis of selection held by the departmental promotion committee on 18-6-1987 without considering his candidature. The State opposed the claim of the present respondent stating that he has not fulfilled the requirement of 13 years of service ; his service being reckoned from the year 1975. 10. The State opposed the claim of the present respondent stating that he has not fulfilled the requirement of 13 years of service ; his service being reckoned from the year 1975. 10. Similarly, Ram Surat Dubey filed W. P. No. 2201/89, Sri Hardeo Singh filed W.P. No. 672/89 and Deo Nath Singh Yadav filed W. P. No. 702/89. On 3-2-1988 an order was passed to the following effect: "So far as condition of 13 years is concerned it applies to those who are officiating in the senior scale of service. In view of the above the Rule does not apply to the petitioner who is confirmed in senior scale and he was wrongly been passed over. The opposite parties are directed to promote the petitioner provisionally in the special grade of P. C. S. within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order." That was unsuccessfully challenged in the special leave petition since the same was dismissed on 9-12-1988. Thereafter, the main writ petition itself came up before (he-Court and the impugned orders came to be passed. 11. The Learned Judge reasoned that the order dated 3-2-1988 has become final. Rule 18 does not apply to the petitioners before it, who were confirmed in the senior scale and had been wrongly passed over. On these two reasoning's, he issued a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the State to promote the petitioners before it in the special grade of P. C. S. with effect from the date the juniors have been promoted. 12. In assailing the correctness of this order, it is urged on behalf of the State that the High Court has committed an error in misreading Rule 18. That Rule qualifies the service of both those who have been confirmed as well as those who are officiating. To hold that the qualification relating to service applies only to those who are officiating is incorrect. 13. Even otherwise, the requirement of at least 13 years of service must be reckoned from the actual date of joining i.e. the date when the service actually commenced. It cannot be reckoned from the date of mere selection. Even assuming that the petitioners before the High Court were senior to those who were accorded the special grade without satisfying the requirement of Rule 18, they were not entitled to succeed. 14. It cannot be reckoned from the date of mere selection. Even assuming that the petitioners before the High Court were senior to those who were accorded the special grade without satisfying the requirement of Rule 18, they were not entitled to succeed. 14. The order dated 3-2-1988 was only an interim order pending adjudication of the rights in the main writ petition. 15. Lastly, it is submitted that in any event the High Court went wrong in commanding the State to promote the present respondents in the special grade. If at all it could have merely directed the State to consider their case. In opposition to this, learned counsel would urge though Rule 18 uses the words "at least 13 years of service." Having regard to the second proviso occurring under the Rule, a distinction requires to be made between "the service" and "actual service". In this case, admittedly, the respondents belong to 1972 batch. They were accorded seniority from the date of selection so it is from that date of selection service must be counted. In other words, the respondents must be deemed to be in service. Otherwise, an anomaly would result. Those who are graded as juniors having joined the service earlier would be entitled to the special grade while the senior respondents would be denied the same. Tire order dated 3-2-1988 having been confirmed by this Court the rights of the parties would be governed by the same. 16. On a careful consideration of the above averments, we arc clearly of the view that the impugned judgment cannot be supported for reason., more than one. 17. We have extracted Rule 18. That clearly requires the officers who have been confirmed or officiating in the senior scale have put in 13 years of service on the date of selection. This means service from the date of joining such service and not mere selection. We are unable to see any distinction between "service" or "actual service" used in the main part of the Rule and in the second proviso respectively. Mere selection cannot confer an officer to contend that he had put in service while he was not in service. We are unable to agree with the High Court that the qualification relating to 13 years of service applies only to those who are officiating in the senior scale of service. Mere selection cannot confer an officer to contend that he had put in service while he was not in service. We are unable to agree with the High Court that the qualification relating to 13 years of service applies only to those who are officiating in the senior scale of service. As we said above, it qualifies the service of both namely officers who are confirmed and officiating. 18. Rule 23 has no relevance whatever. That merely talks of seniority with which we are not concerned. 19. As rightly urged on behalf of the State the order dated 3-2-1988 is an interlocutory order. The mere fact that this Court refused to interfere on 9-12-1991 with interlocutory order, does not mean that there has been adjudication on the rights of parties so as to make it binding even in the final hearing of the writ petition. 20. We are constrained to observe that we are surprised that the Learned Judge should have commanded the State to promote the petitioners before it to the special grade. Normally speaking, it being special grade, the Court if it was convinced that the petitioners before it had made out the case, could have merely directed consideration therefor and not commanded the promotion. 21. For all these reasons, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.