Petitioner is stated to be having a distinguish service records in combating the undergrounds/extremists and also has earned many meritorious awards of the Govt. of Manipur as well as the Govt. of India in recognition of his service, because of his honest and courageous service, earned many medals including President's Police Medal. Chief Minister's Police Medals etc. He is also a Science graduate and also completed Diploma course in Ballistics and Orientation course in Forensic Science. 2. Petitioner joined the Manipur Police on 16.8.69 as Sub-Inspector. Thereafter, on the recommendation of Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) vide letter dated 3rd June, 1980. he was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police along with others on regular basis wef 3.6.1980. Thereafter, the petitioner along with others were appointed to the Manipur Police Service (MPS) on officiating basis by an order dated 12.10.1983. From the order dated 12.10.1983 (Annexure II), it appear that the power has been exercised under Rule 24 of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 (in short the Rules). 3. In 1987, the case of the petitioner was further considered by DPC in its meeting held on 24.3.87 and recommended the case of the petitioner along with others on short term vacancies. In the DPC held on 26, 27 and 28th April 1989. the petitioner's case was again considered and he was recommended along with others for appointment on promotion to the Manipur Police Service Grade II on regular basis. Pursuant to the recommendation of DPC held in 1989, the petitioner along with others have been promoted to the MPS (Junior Grade) with immediate effect by an order dated 16.8.89. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 4. I have heard Mr. A. Nilamani Singh and Mr. T. Nandakumar for the petitioner. Mr. NPC Singh for the respondent Nos.l to 4, 6,1, 9, 21, 23, 24 and 25. Mr. BP Sahu for the respondent Nos. 18, 19 and 22. The private respondent Nos.7, 20. 23, 24 and 25 have filed counter. At the time of hearing, the aforesaid respondents have adopted the argument of the learned counsel Mr. NPC Singh for the respondents 1 to 3. Private respondents', 19 and 22 have not filed any counter. However, they have adopted the argument of the respondents 1 to 3. 5. The private respondent Nos.7, 20. 23, 24 and 25 have filed counter. At the time of hearing, the aforesaid respondents have adopted the argument of the learned counsel Mr. NPC Singh for the respondents 1 to 3. Private respondents', 19 and 22 have not filed any counter. However, they have adopted the argument of the respondents 1 to 3. 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that, non regularisation of continued officiation service wef 12.10.83 while regularising the service of the petitioner to the post of MPS (Junior Grade) by an order dated 16.8.89 has caused great injustice to the petitioner. 6. The following contentions have been raised by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh. (a) That the officiating appointment was made on the recommendation of duly constituted DPC,- and therefore, no second DPC is required for regularising the petitioner's officiating appointment as has been done in the instant case. In this connection, counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in SS Grover & another vs. Union of India, 1987 (2) SLR 423 and Mohenlal & others vs. Union of India, 11 (1987) ATLT 108. (b) In absence of Rules, the length of service is the basic criteria for fixing seniority of the incumbent, because ordinarily the seniority of the incumbent would depend upon the length of service. In this connection, the counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in : (a) A. Janardhan vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 169; (b) PS Mahal vs. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1291 ; (c) Dr. Amritlal Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 984 ; (d) SB Patwardhan vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 2051 and (e) GS Ramaswamy vs. Inspector General of Police, AIR 1966 SC 175 . (c) The continuous and uninterrupted officiation confers claim of seniority. Reference was made to; (i) SS Grover & others vs. Union of India, 1987 (2) SLR 423. The respondents had arbitrarily cut-off the petitioner's continuous, uninterrupted a long officiating service as MPS officer of more than 6 years while regularising the petitioner's officiating appointment. (d) The substantive capacity means one who holds a post for indefinite period in contradiction to definite period. Reference was made to. 1980 (3) SLR 422 (SC) 32. 7. In short, the sum and substance of contentions raised by Mr. (d) The substantive capacity means one who holds a post for indefinite period in contradiction to definite period. Reference was made to. 1980 (3) SLR 422 (SC) 32. 7. In short, the sum and substance of contentions raised by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh as referred to above is that, even on officiating appointment if the incumbent continued on the officiating basis indefinitely for a long period, the same period must be counted towards his seniority. In the process, the following reliefs have been prayed : "(i) issue a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the direction should not be made to regularise the officiating appointment of the petitioner to the Manipur Police Service (MPS) with effect from the date of his initial appointment viz 12.10.1983 on officiating capacity by reviewing or/quashing/ or modifying the impugned order dated 16.8.89 at Annexure A/3 so far as the petitioner is concerned." 8. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that, if officiating period is not counted towards his seniority and if the petitioner's service is allowed to regularise wef 16.8.89, it would cause untold miseries to the petitioner, because the petitioner would be below the MPS officers of 1988 who are very junior to the petitioner both in service and in age and the service career of the petitioner would be doomed as petitioner would have no chance of further promotion. 9. Counter on behalf of the respondents particularly respondents 1 to 3 has been filed. The case of the respondents are that, the petitioner's case along with others has been considered on the basis of the-relevant rules, and particularly referred to Rule 5 (1) (b), Rules 14, 15, 16, 24 and 25 of the Rules. According to the respondents therefore, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the petitioner. 10. Before 1 advert further on the various contentions urged by the parties. 1 may at this stage observed that, once the rule is framed governing the conditions of service relating to appointment, promotions and seniority etc. it has to be decided strictly in accordance with the rules, and no other interpretation is permissible unless the rules are strike down as null and void or arbitrary. 11. In support of his contentions Mr. 1 may at this stage observed that, once the rule is framed governing the conditions of service relating to appointment, promotions and seniority etc. it has to be decided strictly in accordance with the rules, and no other interpretation is permissible unless the rules are strike down as null and void or arbitrary. 11. In support of his contentions Mr. A. Nilamani Singh referred to the following decisions of the Apex Court; (a) In Baleshwar Dass & others vs. State of UP & others, where it has been held by the Apex Court that, temporary appointment if continued for long assumed the character of substantive capacity. (b) OP Garg & others vs. State of UP & others, AIR 1991 SC 1202 . In that case the Apex Court was considering Rule 26 (1) (a) of the UP Higher Judicial Service Rules. 1975 and strike down the Rules as arbitrary and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution, because the first proviso of the rules which links the seniority with the date of confirmation was held to be arbitrary'. In the said case, the Apex Court also referred to the observation of the Apex Court in SB Patwardhan & another vs. State of Maharashtra & others, AIR 1977 SC 2051 , in which the Apex Court observed that; "confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of Govt. service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies." The Apex Court further directed in para 27 of its judgment that, the promotee shall be counted for determining his seniority only from the date when a substantive vacancy against a permanent or temporary post is made available in his quota under the 1975 Rules. (c) Union of India & another vs. Harish Chander Bhatia & others, (1995) 2 SCC 48 , In that case, the Apex Court was considering the appointment made under Rule 24 and 25 of Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service Rules. 1971 and held that, an officiating appointment for over a decade cannot be treated as fleeting appointment with no service benefits to be given. 1971 and held that, an officiating appointment for over a decade cannot be treated as fleeting appointment with no service benefits to be given. It was further pointed out that any other view would very seriously prejudice such a service holder who even after having rendered service equal to those of permanent appointees for a long period, and that too for proper functioning of the service, would be denied the benefit of the same for no cogent reasons. 12. Respondents in para 3.7 of their counter has categorically stated that the petitioner has been selected under Rule 24 of the Rules and not included in the select list under Rule 15 (4) of the Rules as he was not substantively borne on the feeder grade as visualised under Rule 5(1) (b) of the Rules. It is further contended that, there is distinct difference between the eligible criteria as visualised under Rule 15 (4) and for inclusion in the list prepared under Rule 24. The list to be included under Rule 15 (4). the eligibility criteria being, he should be substantively borne on the feeder grade, whereas, for inclusion in the list under Rule 24, the eligible criteria prescribed is only 3 years officiating in any one of the feeder grade. It is the further contention of the respondent Govt. that, Govt. has, right from the institution of the service interpreted the words "substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police" as meaning an officer confirmed to the post of Inspector. 13. At this stage. I may dispose of this argument of Mr. NPC Singh. The!argument that the words 'substantively borne' in the cadre of Inspector of Police as visualised in Rule 5 (1) (b) of the Rules, as meaning an officer confirmed to the post of Inspector, linking with the seniority of the incumbent has been deprecated by the Apex Court in SB Patwardhan & another, vs. State of Maharashtra & others, AIR 1977 SC 2051 and observed that: "confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of Govt. service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies." It would therefore, clearly appear from the aforesaid observation that the fixing of the seniority of the incumbent cannot be on the basis of the confirmation of his service. 14. service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies." It would therefore, clearly appear from the aforesaid observation that the fixing of the seniority of the incumbent cannot be on the basis of the confirmation of his service. 14. Reverting back to the facts of the case, there is no dispute that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of MPS (Junior Grade) on officiating capacity in terms of Rule 24 of the Rules by an order dated 12.10.83 (Annexure 11). 15. A bare perusal of Rule 5, 14. 15, 16, 24 and 25 of Manipur Police Service Rules are in pari materia of Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service Rules, 1971 (in short DANI) considered by the Apex Court in Harish Chander Bhatia & others (supra). 16. Rule 24 and 25 of the Rules which we are concerned for proper disposal of the writ petition and under which the petitioner has been promoted to officiate on 12.10.83 reads : "PARA-VIII OFFICIATING APPOINTMENTS 24. Selection for officiating appointments : If at any time the Governor is of opinion that the number of officers available in the list referred to in sub-rule (4) or Rule 15 for appointment to duty posts is not adequate having regard to the vacancies in such posts, he may direct the Committee to consider the cases of officers who have officiated for a period of not less than three years in any of the cadres mentioned in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 and prepare a separate list of officers selected. The selection for inclusion in the list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects for officiating appointments to duty posts with due regard to seniority. The provisions of sub-rule (2) (3) of Rule 14 and Rule 15 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the preparation of the list under this rule. (Emphasis supplied) 25. Officiating appointment to the service : (1) If a member of the service is not available for holding a duty post, the post may be filled on an officiating basis (a) by the appointment of an officer included in the list referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule (2) 15; or (b) if no such officer is available, by the appointment of an officer included in the list prepared under Rule 24. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if the exigencies of service so require, a duty post for which a member of the service is not available, may, after consultation with the Commission,, be filled on an officiating basis by the appointment of an officer belonging to any State Police Service on deputation for such periods ordinarily not exceeding three years as the Governor may consider necessary. (3) Notwithstanding any contained in these rules, where appointment to a duty post is to be made purely as a local arrangement for a period not exceeding six months, such appointment may be made by the Governor from persons who are included in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 or Rule 24 or who are eligible for inclusion in such a list. (4) Any appointment made under sub-rule (3) shall be reported by the administrator to the Commission forthwith." 17. Rules 24 and 25 of 'DANI' Rules has been interpreted by the Apex Court in Harish Chander Bhatia (supra) in paragraphs 4 and 6 of its judgment as under: "4. From the above, it is clear that for a person to be appointed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 25, he has to be an officer whose name is included in the list referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 or one prepared under Rule 24. In so far as sub-rule (3) is concerned, this requirement is not to be satisfied, and further, appointment under that sub-rule cannot exceed six months and is made as a local arrangement. The respondents are those whose names found place in the list prepared under Rule 24 and their appointments not having been made purely as a local arrangement for the period not exceeding six months, we have no difficulty in upholding view of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, whose judgment has been impugned in this appeal, that respondents were appointed under sub-rule (1)." Repelling the contention of the appellant that the appointment to the service can be made only as visualised by Rule 16 and this can be of those who names find place in the list referred in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15, the Apex Court held in paragraph 6 of its judgment: "6. This submission would not be correct if heart of the matter is looked into. This submission would not be correct if heart of the matter is looked into. To put it differently, the submission is not correct in substance, but is so only in form. We have taken this view because an examination of Rule 24 shows that the list prepared as required by that rule, has also to satisfy the requirements of provisions of sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rules 14 and 15. This shows that the incumbents whose names find place in the list prepared as contemplated by Rule 24 are also those who have been duly selected and consultation with the Commission has also been made and the list prepared has been forwarded to the Central Govt. as well for its doing the needful. There is thus no difference in substance between the list prepared, as contemplated by Rule 14 read with Rule IS, and the one visualised by Rule 24. So, there appears to be no justifiable reason to regard Rule 24 selectees as in any way inferior to Rule 14 selectees. According to us, they stand almost at par. It is because of this that clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 have virtually made no distinction between these two categories of incumbents. (Underline is mine) 18. Since the DANI Rules are in pari materia of Manipur Police Service Rules, the judgment and order of the Apex Court in Union of India & another vs. Harish Chander Bhatia & others (supra) snail be squarely applicable in the facts of the case at hand. On this score alone, this petition is succeeded. In my view, therefore, it may not be necessary to advert to the other points urged by the parties. 19. This apart, in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association, vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (1990) 2 SCC 715 , the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court held in paragraph 47 A' as under : "(A) 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." As already said, petitioner was appointed to the Manipur Police Service (Junior) with effect from 12.10.83 in accordance with Rules. 20.1 may also dispose one of the arguments advanced by Mr. NPC Singh. It is argued by Mr. 20.1 may also dispose one of the arguments advanced by Mr. NPC Singh. It is argued by Mr. Singh that the case of the petitioner was considered in 1989 DPC for regular appointment under Rule 16 of the Rules only after he was confirmed to the post of Inspector of Police as visualised under Rule 5 (1) (b) of the Rules. This question has already been answered negatively. But, even if we accept this argument, great injustice has been done to the petitioner in the instant case for more than one reasons. Firstly, respondents in their counter in paragraph 3.10 admitted that the petitioner was confirmed to the post of Inspector of Police wef 14.1.1985 by an order dated 16.9.1985. Therefore, the petitioner was already confirmed when the DPC held its meeting on 24.3.1987 for considering the eligible candidate. Secondly, no list was prepared as visualised under sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the rules either in the DPC held in 1987 or in 1989, thereby committed grave miscarriage of justice. 21. For the reasons aforestated, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to treat the dates of officiating appointment of the petitioner as the date of his regular appointment and refix his seniority in terms of the direction. Consequently, the seniority list published under Rule 28 of the Rules by notification dated 30.3.90 (Annexure 7) and the impugned order dated 16.8.89 (Annexure 3) are hereby set aside in so far petitioner is concerned. 22. Before parting with the record, I am constrained to observe that the methodology prescribed under 1965 Rules appears to be too cumbersome and needs a fresh look. With the aforesaid direction and observation, this petition is allowed. Parties are asked to bear their own costs.