JUDGMENT P S. Mishra, J. - The petitioner herein, who has been working as Sub-Inspector of Police, has sought a direction to quash memo no. 1028/A dated - 27.1.1982 of the Inspector General of Police as contained in Annexure 5', and to consider his case for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police or in the alternative treat him as a confirmed Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 1.5.1973 and accordingly consider his case for promotion. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a literate con• stable in November, 1951, promoted to officiate as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 13.6.1963 and confirmed in the said capacity with effect from 1.7.1971. He was thereafter given promotion to officiate as Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 1.5.1973, vide D. O. No. 987 dated 20.3.1973 of the Superintendent of Police (C), CID Patna as directed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the said department. He has been officiating in the said capacity since then, when on 18.3.1978 the Central Selection Board met• for deciding the suitability of the Assistant Sub-Inspector for confirmation and in the list prepared by it the petitioner was shown as fit for such promotion. According to the petitioner, he was given an arbitrary date of confirmation in. the rank of Sub-Inspector with effect from 1.3.1979. He represented against the said discrimination and claimed that his seniority and confirmation with effect from 1.5.1973 be restored. While his representation remained unattended, the memo inviting nomination and promotion as Inspector of. Police was issued, in which it was stated that names of such Sub-Inspectors be included therein, who were either probationers or confirmed on or before 31.12.1976. 3. According to the petitioner, in his case the respondents have ignored Rule 668 of the Bihar Police Manual Rules which states that officers', whether appointed direct or promoted, shall in the first instance be appointed or-promoted on probation and where the period of probation is not provided for in the rules, it shall be for the period of two ye1us in the case of the Executive Officers, and one year in the case of Ministerial Officers. It also states that the authorities authorised to make such appointments may at any time during such probationary period and without the formalities laid down remove or revert such an officer who has not fulfilled the conditions for such appointment or promotion. It empowers the competent authority to extend the period of probation. But in the case of the petitioner his continuous appointment remained uninterrupted and no order was ever issued either reverting him or removing him from his appointment or extending the period of probation which by virtue of the statute itself could not exceed the period of two years unless extended by an order of the competent authority. Contending inter alia that the continuous officiation of the petitioner itself has to be taken as the basis to reckon his seniority with effect from the date of the continuous officiation irrespective of the fact whether there was any order to confirm him as Sub-Inspector or not and irrespective of the fact whether there was any order appointing him on probation or extending his period of probation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court that during the pendency of the application the petitioner has been selected and promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police but his promotion has been made subject to the result to this application. 4. There is no return to the petition filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned Advocate General has, however, submitted that since the petitioner has already been promoted, this case may be disposed of making it specific that his seniority may be determined in the rank of Inspector depending upon the continuous officiation in the rank of Sub-Inspector after re-fixing his date of seniority as Sub-Inspector which may for the purpose of re-determination refer to Rule 668 of the Bihar Police Manual Rules, on which learned counsel for' the petitioner has placed reliance. 5. 5. I see no reason to hold otherwise than accepting the principle that continuous officiation in the absence of any rule to the contrary has to be taken as the basis to reckon seniority of an employee; of the Government of the State of Bihar, and since the petitioner has been officiating continuously with effect from 1.5.1973, any person, whether appointed direct or promoted after he was made to officiate, has to rank below him Any selection for promotion to the higher rank of Inspector of Police on the basis of the date of confirmation, as stated in Annexure 5' shall infringe the petitioner's right under Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India for being considered for promotion alongwith other eligible candidates, for, it appears, several persons who were appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police, either directly or on promotion after the petitioner started his officiation, have been confirmed as Sub-Inspector of Police before the confirmation of the petitioner is recorded with effect from 1.3.1970. 6. The petitioner, however, has been promoted as Inspector of Police. The only question now to be decided is whether those who were confirmed as Sub-inspector of Police before the petitioner was confirmed will rank senior to him or not in the rank of Inspector of Police. The law is not in doubt. There is no reason to think that the respondents shall not respect the continuous officiation of the petitioner and reckon his seniority as Sub-Inspector of Police over those who have been shown to have been confirmed but entered a5 Sub-Inspector of Police after the petitioner started his officiation. The promotion given to petitioner, since it is said several persons appointed as sub-Inspector after he started his officiation, has been promoted as Inspector, is justified. This application is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall consider the question of reckoning the seniority of the petitioner treating his continuous officiation as Sub-Inspector with effect from 01.05.1973 and the date of appointment as Sub-Inspector irrespective of any date of confirmation given to him and similarly treating other Sub-Inspectors promoted as Inspector of Police not with effect from the date of confirmation as senior in the rank of Sub-Inspector but from the date of appointment or continuous officiation. There shall be no order as to cost.