V.K.Khanna, C.J.- At the very outset it may be mentioned that the three appeals have arisen out of the three connected Civil Rules which had been decided by the learned Single Judge by following the leading judgment given in Civil Rule No.2317 of 1988 on 16.3.94. The learned counsel for the parties have made a statement before us that except dates, the facts and the questions of law involved in all the three appeals are exactly the same and have addressed only one argument in all these three connected writ appeals and for these reasons, the aforesaid three appeals are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The brief facts for the purposes of adjudication of the controversy raised in the three connected appeals are that the three petitioners/respondents in the three Civil Rules out of which the present three connected writ appeals have arisen were initially appointed as Constables in the Police Administrative Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter, they were attached to the 'Fire Service Wing' in the Police Administrative Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. For the purposes of setting out the facts precisely, the dates applicable to the petitioner, Shri Ram Chandra Mishra, in Civil Rule No.2317 of 1988 are being mentioned. Shri Ram Chandra Mishra was appointed as a Constable on 20.1.79 and was attached to the 'Fire Service Wing' in the Police Administrative Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh on 8.9.80. On 24.12.80, he was sent for undergoing training for the post of Sub Fire Officer for one year and after successful completion of the training on 26.12.81, he was made the In-charge of Along Fire Station on 2.4.82. It has not been disputed that since then he has been working in the Fire Service Wing of the Police Administrative Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. On 17.6.88, options were asked from the persons who were working in the Fire Service Wing of the Police Administrative Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh as to whether they would like to be absorbed in the aforesaid Wing and the petitioner, Shri Ram Chandra Mishra, and the other petitioners gave their option, for being absorbed in the aforesaid Fire Service Wing. On 23.6.88, Shri Ram Chandra Mishra was promoted as Leading Fireman in the Fire Service Wing of the Police Administrative Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 3. On 23.6.88, Shri Ram Chandra Mishra was promoted as Leading Fireman in the Fire Service Wing of the Police Administrative Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 3. For the purposes of determining the controversy it will also be useful to notice the hierarchy of posts which exist in the Fire Service Wing of the Police Administrative Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Admittedly, at the lowest rung is the post of Fireman, thereafter the Leading Fireman, Sub-officer and then Station Officer who is In-charge of the Fire Service Station. 4. In the Civil Rule, the State of Arunachal Pradesh has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. But admittedly, the State has not placed the rules and procedures which were in force immediately before commencement of the statutory Rules which were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution for recruitment to the posts of Fireman, Leading Fireman, Sub Fire Officer and Station Officer. 5. The learned Single Judge in the leading judgment rendered in Civil Rule No.2317 of 1988 has arrived at a finding that the petitioner, Shri Ram Chandra Mishra, was discharging the duty of Sub Fire Officer from 2.4.82, and was thus entitled to get his pay from that date of that post. The learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding that the petitioner, Ram Chandra Mishra, in Civil Rule No.2317 of 1988 is entitled to promotion to the next higher post if it has fallen due because of his appointment in the cadre of Sub Officer on and from 2.4.82 as per the judgment. 6. It may be stated that in the other two connected Civil Rules, following the aforesaid decision given in Civil Rule No.2317 of 1988, similar directions had been given in favour of the other two petitioners in the other two Civil Rules through from different dates. 7. Mr. A. Roy, Senior Govt Advocate for the State of Arunachal Pradesh has contended that the petitioners in the three Civil Rules are not entitled to get the pay of Sub Fire Officer from the dates when they were given charge after completion of the training and has also urged that their seniority has to be counted only after they have given their option for being absorbed in the Fire Service Wing on 17.6.88. It has also been urged that in any view of the matter, the direction given by the learned Single Judge for promoting the petitioners to the next higher posts of Station Officers cannot be sustained as the same has be done in accordance with the statutory rules now in existence for making recruitment to the aforesaid posts. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner, Shri Ram Chandra Mishra, in Civil Rule No.2317 of 1988 and other two petitioners in the oilier two connected Civil Rules were entitled to get the pay from the date on which they assumed charge as In-charge of the Fire Stations after successful completion of training of one year requires no interference inasmuch as from a bare perusal of Rule 7 of the Rules which has been placed before us it is clear that even before the framing of the statutory rules under Article 3 09 of the Constitution, there were rules for recruitment to the aforesaid posts. The three petitioners in the three connected Civil Rules were sent for training for the posts of Sub Fire Officers and admittedly, they have successfully completed the training. Thereafter, they were in fact made In-charge of the Fire Stations and in our opinion they were thus rightly entitled to get the pay from the dates that they had been discharging their duties after successful completion of the training for the posts of Sub Fire Officers. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in so far as the aforesaid question is concerned requires no interference. 9. As far the argument raised regarding seniority is concerned, Mr. A. Roy has frankly stated that there are no statutory rules for seniority. In case there are no statutory rules for seniority, according to the law laid down by the Apex Court, the seniority will be counted from the date of continuous working by an employee on a particular post. The seniority of the three petitioners on the posts of Sub Fire Officers will therefore be counted from the dates they assumed charge after successfully completing the training imparted to them for the aforesaid posts. 10. The last argument which has been raised by Mr. The seniority of the three petitioners on the posts of Sub Fire Officers will therefore be counted from the dates they assumed charge after successfully completing the training imparted to them for the aforesaid posts. 10. The last argument which has been raised by Mr. A. Roy regarding promotion to the post of Station Officer is concerned, we are of the opinion that the statutory rules do require that the posts of Station Officers have to be filled by promotion amongst Sub Fire Officers having minimum five years' service in the grade and also those Sub Fire Officers who have passed Station Officers' course. (emphasis provided) 11. From the aforesaid, therefore, it is clear that there are three requisite qualifications for being promoted to the posts of Station Officers. They are : Those (i) Holding the post of Sub Fire Officer; (ii) Having worked in the post of Sub Fire Officer for a minimum of five years; and (iii) Having passed the Station Officers' course. 12. On our pointed query, Mr. A. Roy has not been able to tell us as to whether the three petitioners/respondents have been sent for doing course of Station Officer and there is no material on the record to indicate whether besides the three petitioners/respondents other officers have been sent for undergoing the aforesaid course. As stated above, it is one of the essential qualifications. However, the Rules prescribed that the qualifications can be relaxed under Rule 6 where the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for reasons to be recorded in writing and in consultations with the Arunachal Pradesh Selection Board relax any of the provisions of these Rules with respect to any class or category of persons. 13. Because of the stand of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, a very anomalous situation has arisen that the three petitioners/respondents who have worked as Sub Fire Officers since a long time may not get promotion to the post of Station Officers only because they have not been sent for completion of the course of Station Officers on the ground that they do not come within the field of eligibility. If that has happened, it will cause great injustice to these three petitioners/respondents. If that has happened, it will cause great injustice to these three petitioners/respondents. In such an eventuality, we are of the opinion that before making any further recruitment under the statutory rules, the cases of the three petitioners/respondents will be placed before the appropriate competent authority for consideration of their cases under Rule 6 of the statutory rules framed for recruitment to the post of Station Officers so that no injustice may be caused to the three petitioners/respondents. The further promotion will be made strictly in accordance with the statutory rules subject to the observations made in this judgment. To the aforesaid extent, in our opinion, the judgment of the learned Single Judge requires modification as for as the direction given for promoting the three petitioners/respondents to the posts of Station Officers is concerned. Under the interim order of this Court, it was directed that the DPC may complete the entire proceedings regarding the promotion of the petitioners/appellants and to keep the same under the sealed cover. The DPC will now sent its recommendations in accordance with the statutory rules and the observations made in this judgment. 14. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the present three appeals stand finally disposed of. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.