P. K. Sarkar, J.— Three significant questions have been raised in these two writ appeals and have been referred to the Full Bench for adjudication by the Division Bench of this Court in the following terms : "(i) What is the 'true and correct interpretation of Rule 5 (1) (b) of the Manipur Police Service Rules coupled with other relevant Rules ? (ii) Whether in view of the decision of the Hon' ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India vs. Harish Chandra Bhatia reported in (1995) 2 SCC 48 , the law laid down by the learned Single Judge which was subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 55 of 1995 needs to be reviewed/changed ? (iii) Whether the provisions of DANI Police Service Rules 1971 is so far as officiating promotion to the service is concerned is a statute in pari materia with the provisions of Rules 5,14,15,16,24,25 and 28 of the MPS Rules, 1965? If so, whether the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harish Chandra Bhatia's case (supra) and other judicial pronouncements would apply to the facts of the present case; the purpose of counting the officiating period of officers promoted to the MPS on officiating basis under Rule 25 read with Rule 24 of the MPS Rule, 1965 towards seniority and when the promotees would become members of service?" 2. Writ Appeal No. 162 of 1997 is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.9.97 in Civil Rule No.166 of 1990 (1998 (1) GLJ 160) and Writ Appeal-No. 101 of 1997 is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.6.97 in Civil Review Petition No. 7 of 1996. Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh, respondent No. 1 as petitioner, filed Civil Rule No. 166 of 1990 for regularising his officiating appointment in Manipur Police Service Grade II wef 12.10.83 after quashing the order of his regular appointment issued by the respondent State Govt on 16.8.89, Annexure 3 of the writ petition and also for quashing the Seniority List at Annexure 7 of the writ petition. Petitioner-respondent No. 1 Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh joined the service in the Police Department, Govt of Manipur as Sub Inspector on 16.8.69. He was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police on regular basis by an order of the Govt dated 3.6.80. Petitioner-respondent No. 1 Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh joined the service in the Police Department, Govt of Manipur as Sub Inspector on 16.8.69. He was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police on regular basis by an order of the Govt dated 3.6.80. He was confirmed as Inspector of Police wef 14.1.85 by an order of the Govt dated 16.9.85. It is stated that the petitioner is rendering a meritorious service in the Police Department and he has earned many meritorious awards of the Govt of Manipur as well as of the Govt of India in recognition of his service. The petitioner along with others were appointed to the Manipur Police Service (MPS) Grade II on officiating basis by an order of the Govt dated 12.10.83. From the aforesaid order it appears that the respondent No. 1 -petitioner, was appointed from the select list prepared under Rule 24 of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 (herein after referred to as MPS Rules) in the year 1987. The case of the petitioner was considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 24.3.87 and the DPC recommended the name of the petitioner along with others for appointment in MPS Grade II against short term vacancy. In the DPC held on 26th, 27th and 28th April, 1989 the petitioner was again considered and he was recommended along with others for appointment on promotion to the MPS Grade II on regular basis. Pursuant to the recommendation of the DPC held in 1989, the petitioner along with others have been promoted to MPS (Junior Grade) with immediate effect by an order of the Govt dated 16.8.89. Thereafter, a tentative seniority list of MPS Grade II officers have been published on 6.12.89 and after inviting objections, the Govt a published a final Seniority List on 30.3.90. In that final Seniority List, the name of the petitioner-principal respondent No.l, is placed at SI. No. 71. The grievance of the respondent No. 1 -petitioner, is that he was appointed in MPS Grade II on officiating basis by an order dated 12.10.83 and his officiating appointment was followed by a regular appointment by the Govt by an order dated 16.8.89 and therefore, his seniority should have been counted from his date of initial appointment b in MPS Grade II on officiating basis from 12th October, 1983. It is also asserted that by denying the benefits of officiating service of about six years of the petitioner-respondent No. 1, Govt has committed an illegality and as a result he has been placed below the direct recruits of the MPS of the year 1988 in the Seniority List. 3. Having felt aggrieved by the final Seniority List the petitioner filed Civil Rule No. 166 of 1990. The appellant Nos 1 to 3 are the direct recruits to the MPS Grade II of the year 1986 and appellant Nos 4 and 5 are the direct recruits of the year 1988. These appellants as respondents in the original civil rule contended that if the prayer of the respondent No.l-petitioner, is allowed it would not only violate the provisions of MPS Rules, but it would also affect their seniority adversely. It is also stated that the recruitment and conditions of service in the MPS, namely, selection, promotion and seniority etc are strictly governed by the MPS Rules. It is also contended that appointment by promotion of eligible officers who are substantively born in the feeder grade of Inspector of Police, Prosecution Inspectors, etc to MPS Grade II has to be made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 (1) (b) and Rule 13 to 16 of the MPS Rules. It is also contended that the words, substantively born appearing in Rule 5 (1) (b) and Rule 14(1) of MPS Rules has been interpreted by the State Govt as an officer confirmed in the feeder grade/post since the inception of service and such interpretation is in practice and has been followed by the Govt all through. Therefore, such legal position/practice cannot be disturbed at this stage as that will create a chaotic situation in the service. It is also contended that the petitioner was not initially appointed under Rule 5(1) (b) read with Rule 14 (1) of the MPS Rules. On the contrary, he was appointed from the panel prepared under Rule 24 and therefore he cannot claim his seniority on the basis of officiating appointment from 12.10.83. The officiating service cannot be counted towards seniority as by such appointment the respondent No. 1 does not become a member of the MPS. On the contrary, he was appointed from the panel prepared under Rule 24 and therefore he cannot claim his seniority on the basis of officiating appointment from 12.10.83. The officiating service cannot be counted towards seniority as by such appointment the respondent No. 1 does not become a member of the MPS. Rule 28 of the MPS Rules provides for fixing seniority in the service and as per provisions of the MPS Rules length of service cannot be a criteria or basis for fixation of seniority in the service. The petitioner was confirmed in the grade of Inspector on 14.1.85 and his case was considered by the DPC in 1987 and 1989 along with the cases of other eligible officers. There is no illegality in the regular promotion of respondent-petitioner from 16.8.89 and from that date he is entitled to count his seniority as per provisions of Rule 28 of the MPS Rules. 4. The State Govt has filed counter affidavit wherein they asserted the stand of the Govt that only confirmed Inspectors having two years regular service are eligible for promotion in MPS Grade II (Junior Grade). The Govt also asserted that the seniority has been fixed as per provisions of Rule 28 of the MPS Rules. It is also asserted in the counter affidavit of the State respondents that there is a qualitative difference between the candidates who are selected for regular appointment under Rule 16 of the MPS Rules and the Select List prepared for officiating appointment under Rule 24 of the aforesaid Rules. According to the provisions of the MPS Rules, there is no scope to count the seniority of the officers who are appointed on officiating basis. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his service from the date of his initial appointment on officiating basis cannot be considered. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and after considering the documents, allowed the prayer of the petitioner-respondent No. 1. It is held by the learned Single Judge that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & another vs. Harish Chandra Bhatia & others reported in (1995) 2 SCC 48 . It is held by the learned Single Judge that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & another vs. Harish Chandra Bhatia & others reported in (1995) 2 SCC 48 . Learned Single Judge further held that Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Island Police Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as DANI) is in pari materia with the MPS Rules. In Harish Chandra Bhatia's case, the Apex Court held that there is no substantial or qualitative difference between the list prepared under Rule 15 (4) and Rule 24 of the DANI Rules. Following Harish Chandra Bhatia's case, learned Single Judge held that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 is entitled to be regularised in service wef the date of his officiating appointment in MPS Grade II. The learned Single Judge also held that the writ petitioner is entitled to count his officiating period wef 12.10.83 towards his seniority in the MPS Grade II in view of the conclusion of paragraph 47 of the judgment referred to by the Apex Court in the case of Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officers Association vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715 . The learned Single Judge, therefore, directed the State respondents to treat the initial date of officiating appointment of the petitioner-respondent No. 1, as the date of his regular appointment to the MPS Grade II wef 12.10.83. The Court also set aside the Seniority List dated 303.90 in so far it relates to the writ petitioner, and the respondents were directed to refix his seniority. Having felt aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the direct recruits have filed the present writ appeal. 6. In the earlier case in Civil Rule No. 636 of 1990 and Civil Rule No. 633 of 1991 the same learned Single Judge took a contrary view. In that case the petitioner, The Ibohal Singh was appointed as Sub Inspector on 27.5.65 on regular basis. He was promoted as Inspector of Police on 27.4.79 on ad hoc basis. -He was regularised in the post of Inspector on 16.11.84. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner in that case as Inspector of Police was regularised wef 29.4.79. He was confirmed in the post of Inspector wef 27.5.87. He was promoted as Inspector of Police on 27.4.79 on ad hoc basis. -He was regularised in the post of Inspector on 16.11.84. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner in that case as Inspector of Police was regularised wef 29.4.79. He was confirmed in the post of Inspector wef 27.5.87. By an order dated 12.10.83 the Govt in exercise of its power under Rule 24, appointed the petitioner The Ibohal Singh in MPS Grade II on officiating basis. In the writ petition the petitioner The Ibohal Singh claimed regularisation of his service in MPS Grade n wef the date of his officiating appointment from 12.10.83 and claimed his seniority accordingly. 7. The stand of the Govt in the earlier case was same as that of the present appeal. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and after considering the documents, dismissed the prayer of the writ petitioner. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that only confirmed Inspector of Police with 2 (two) years regular service are eligible for promotion to MPS Grade II. The learned Single Judge also held that, 'substantively borne' in the cadre of Inspector will mean the Inspectors who have been confirmed in their posts. The petitioner was confirmed in the post of Inspector only on 27.5.87 and therefore his claim for regularisation of his appointment in Grade II of the MPS wef 12.10.83 i.e. the date of his officiating appointment in MPS Grade II is dehors the rules. The learned Single Judge also held that the Govt interpreted 'substantive appointment' as confirmed Inspector and this practice has been followed by the Govt for a long time and therefore, the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the aforesaid practice of the Govt. In that case though the petitioner was appointed in MPS Grade II on officiating basis on 12.10.83 he was not recommended by the DPC in their meeting held in April, 1989 for regular appointment in the MPS Grade II. Since the petitioner has not become a member of the MPS on the basis of his officiating appointment, his prayer for seniority from the date of his officiating appointment has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. Since the petitioner has not become a member of the MPS on the basis of his officiating appointment, his prayer for seniority from the date of his officiating appointment has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner, The Ibohal Singh, having felt aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, filed writ appeal before this Court and the writ appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment and order dated 11.4.97 in WA 35 of 1994/55 of 1994. The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the writ appeal, held that there is no provision in the Manipur Police Service Rules by which the candidate appointed under Rule 24 of the MPS Rules could be regularised. It is also held that since the petitioner has not been recommended by the DPC in its meeting in April, 1989 for regular appointment in MPS Grade II any direction for regularisation of his service w.e.f. the date of his officiating appointment would be contrary to the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Since the appellant petitioner of the earlier writ appeal has not been regularly appointed in MPS Grade II, he does not become a member of the said service. 8. The points discussed by the learned Single Judge in both the cases are virtually similar. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in the earlier case has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 35 of 1994/55 of 1994. The present Division Bench of this Court has considered this aspect also and observed that if the present appeal filed by the direct recruits has to be allowed, then any observation made by the earlier Division Bench are likely to be contrary to the observation made by the said Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 55 of 1994. Accordingly, the present Division Bench was of the view that a bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction should normally avoid such a situation. This is also one of the reasons for referring the present appeal to the Full Bench by the Division Bench. 9. In Writ Appeal No. 101 of 1997 the petitioner Mr. N. Bijoy Singh was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police on 16.8.69. He was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police on regular basis wef 3.6.80. This is also one of the reasons for referring the present appeal to the Full Bench by the Division Bench. 9. In Writ Appeal No. 101 of 1997 the petitioner Mr. N. Bijoy Singh was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police on 16.8.69. He was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police on regular basis wef 3.6.80. In 1987, the petitioner was appointed on officiating basis in MPS Grade II under Rule 24 of the MPS Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner was regularly appointed in MPS Grade II by an order dated 16.8.89. The petitioner was confirmed in MPS Grade II by an order dated 28.10.91 wef 16.8.91. The grievance of the petitioner appellant in this case is that he should have ,been considered for promotion in MPS Grade II in the year 1982 along with the persons similarly situated. It is further stated that some of his juniors were appointed on officiating basis in MPS Grade II by orders dated 12.10.83 and 13.10.83. The petitioner filed representation for his appointment in MPS Grade II wef the date of his juniors were appointed on officiating basis, ie from 12.10.83, but his request has been turned down by the Govt. In the appeal a ground has been taken that in Civil Rule No. 166 of 1990, the petitioner Shri L. Chandrakishore was given the relief by the Court and therefore he is also entitled to the same relief. The learned Single Judge dismissed the prayer of the petitioner appellant holding that the petitioner was appointed in MPS Grade II in substantive capacity wef 16.8.91 and therefore his name for appointment in MPS Grade II from 12.10.83 is untenable. Having felt aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has filed the present appeal. This appeal is also referred to the Full Bench. 10. The Division Bench of this Court, while referring the appeals, posed three questions for consideration and decisions. For deciding these questions, it is necessary to examine the provisions of Rules 4,5,14,15,16,24,25 and 28 of DANI Rules and the corresponding promotions in the MPS Rules, 1965. The comparative statement of Rules 4,5,14,15,16,24,25 and 29 of the DANI Rules and provisions of Rule 5,14,15,16,24,25 and 28 of the MPS Rules are relevant to determine the controversy at hand they read as follows : DANI Rules 4. The comparative statement of Rules 4,5,14,15,16,24,25 and 29 of the DANI Rules and provisions of Rule 5,14,15,16,24,25 and 28 of the MPS Rules are relevant to determine the controversy at hand they read as follows : DANI Rules 4. Strength of the service : (1) The authorised permanent strength of the service and the posts included therein shall be as specified in the Schedule. (2) The number of selection grade posts in the service shall be 13% of the authorised permanent strength of the service. (3) The Central Govt or the Administrator, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified by the Central Govt, may, by order, create duty posts for such period as may be specified therein. 5. Method of recruitment: (1) Save as provided in Rule 17, appointments to the service shall be made by the following methods, namely : (a) 50% of the substantive vacancies which occur from time to time in the authorised permanent strength of the service shall be filled by direct recruitment in the manner specified iii Part IV of these Rules; and (b)"the remaining such substantive vacancies shall be filled by selection in the manner specified in Part V of these Rules from amongst officers who are substantively borne on the cadre of Inspectors of Police employed in the Union : Provided that nothing in this rule shall preclude the Central Govt from holding a vacancy in the service in abeyance, or filling it on an officiating basis in accordance with the provisions of Part VIII of these Rules. (2) If the exigencies of public service so require the Central Govt may for reasons to be recorded in writing and in consultation with the Commission vary the percentage of vacancies to be filled by each method specified. 14. Conditions of eligibility and procedure for selection: (1) The committee shall consider from time to time the cases of officers eligible under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, who have served in the respective cadre or posts, as the case may be, for not less than two years and prepare a list of officers recommended for appointment after taking into account the actual vacancies at the time of selection and those likely to occur during a year. The selection for inclusion in the list shall be b based on merit and suitability in all respects for appointment to the service with due regard to seniority. (2) The seniority of the officers eligible for consideration by the committee under sub-rule (1) shall be determined by the Central Govt with due regard to the dates of their appointments on a regular basis to the respective cadre or posts, the pay scales of the posts etc : Provided that the persons belonging to the same parent service or Department shall be ranked inter se in order of their relative seniority in the parent service or department as the case may be; (3) The names of persons included in the list shall be arranged in order of merit. (4) The list so prepared shall be forwarded by the committee to the Central Govt. 15. Consultation with the Commission: (1) The list prepared under Rule 14 together with the relevant records shall be forwarded by the Central Govt to the Commission, where consultation with the Commission is necessary or where the Chairman of the Committee desires that reference be made to the Commission along with the relevant records. (2) If the Commission considers it necessary to make any change in the list received from the Central Govt of the changes proposed by it. (3) The list shall finally be approved by the Central Govt, after taking into account the changes, if any, proposed by the Commission, and where any change suggested by the Commission is not accepted, the reasons for such non-acceptance shall be recorded in writing. (4) The list thus finally approved shall be in force until a fresh list is prepared for the purpose in accordance with these rules. All persons except those under the Himachal Pradesh Administration who immediately before the commencement of these Rules where borne on the list approved by the Central Govt under sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of the Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Island Police Services Rules, 1965, shall be deemed to have been included in the same order in a list approved under sub-rule (4) of this rule. 16. Appointment to the service: Appointment to the service shall be made in order of merit in the list referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 with due regard the proportion specified in Rule 5. 24. 16. Appointment to the service: Appointment to the service shall be made in order of merit in the list referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 with due regard the proportion specified in Rule 5. 24. Selection for officiating appointments: If at any time the Central Govt is of the opinion that the number of officers available in the list referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 for appointments to duty posts is not adequate having regard to the vacancies in such posts, it may direct the Committee to consider the case 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 appointment to duty posts with due regard to seniority. The provisions of sub-rule (3) and (4) of Rule 14 arid Rule 15 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the preparation of the selection list under this rule. 25. Officiating appointment to duty posts of 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 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 public service so require, a duty post for which a member of the service is not available may be filled up on an officiating basis by the appointment with prior consultation with the Commission of an officer belonging to a State Police Service on deputation for such period or periods ordinarily not exceeding three years as the Central Govt may consider necessary. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, where appointment to a duty post is to be made purely as a local arrangement for a period of not exceeding six months. 29. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, where appointment to a duty post is to be made purely as a local arrangement for a period of not exceeding six months. 29. Seniority: The Central Govt shall prepare a list of members of the service arranged in order of seniority as determined in the manner specified below : (i) Members of the service appointed at the initial constitution under Rule 17 shall be ranked inter se in the order of their relative seniority in the Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service: Provided that if the seniority of any such officers had not been specifically determined before the commencement of these Rules, it shall be as determined by the Central Govt. (ii) Seniority of persons appointed to the service under clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 after the initial constitution under Rule 17, shall be determined as follows: (a) Persons recruited on the results of the competitive examination in any year shall be ranked inter se in the order of the merit in which they are placed at the competitive examination on the result of which they are recruitee, those recruited on the basis of an earlier examination being ranked senior to those recruited on the basis of later examination. (b) The seniority inter se of persons recruited by selection shall be determined on the basis of the order in which their names are arranged in the list prepared under Rule 14, those recruited on the basis of an earlier selection being ranked senior to those who recruited on the basis of a later selection. (c) The relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion under Rule 5. MPS Rules 4. Strength of the service: (1) The authorised permanent strength of the service and the posts included therein shall be as specified in the Schedule. (2) The Central Govt or the Administrator subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed by the Central Govt in this behalf, may by order, create duty posts for such period as may be specified therein. 5. (2) The Central Govt or the Administrator subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed by the Central Govt in this behalf, may by order, create duty posts for such period as may be specified therein. 5. Method of recruitment: (1) Save as provided in Rule 17, appointment to the service shall be made by the following methods, namely. (a) 50% of the sanctioned strength of Manipur Police Service (Junior Grade) post shall be filled up by direct recruitment in the manner specified in Part IV of these Rules; and (b) another 50% of the sanctioned strength of MPS (Junior Grade) posts shall be filled up by selection in the manner specified in Part V of these Rules from amongst officers who are substantively borne on the cadres of Inspector of Police. Inspector of Police (Legal) and Subedar/ Subedar Majors of Manipur Rifles employed under the State of Manipur : Provided that in the case of a person, who had been appointed to a post, which post is subsequently declared as duty post, he shall be deemed always been appointed to a duty post from the date on which he was so appointed : Provided further that nothing in this rule shall preclude the Governor from holding a vacancy in abeyance or filling it on a officiating basis in accordance with the provision of Part VIII of these Rules. (2) If the exigencies of service so required, the Governor may, in consultation with the Commission, vary the percentage of vacancies to be filled by each method specified in sub-rule (1). 14. Conditions of eligibility and procedure for selection: (1 The Committee shall consider from time to time the cases of officers eligible under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, who have served in their respective cadres for not less than two years, and prepare a list of officers recommended taking into account the actual vacancies-at the time of selection and those likely to occur during a year. The selection for inclusion in the list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects, for appointment to the service with due regard to seniority. (1) The names of persons included in the list shall be arranged in order of merit. (2) The list so prepared shall be forwarded by the Committee to the Governor. 15. The selection for inclusion in the list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects, for appointment to the service with due regard to seniority. (1) The names of persons included in the list shall be arranged in order of merit. (2) The list so prepared shall be forwarded by the Committee to the Governor. 15. Consultation with the Commission: (1) The list shall finally be approved by the Governor after taking into account the changes, if any, proposed by the Commission. (2) The list thus finally approved shall ordinarily be in force until a fresh list is prepared for the purpose in accordance with these Rules. 16. Appointment to the service : (1) Subject to sub-rule (2) of this rule, appointment to the service shall be made in order to merit in .the list referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 with due regard to the proportion specified in Rule 5. (2) If the name of a person eligible for selection under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 read with sub-ruled) of Rule 14 (hereinafter called 'the eligible person') is considered by the Selection Committee and is included not in a list recommended for appointment to the service (hereinafter called the 'first substantive list') but in a list recommended for officiating appointment (hereinafter called 'the first officiating list') and it is apparent from proceedings of the Committee that his name has been so included solely for want of an adequate number of substantive vacancies, he may be appointed to the service in the event of a substantive vacancy becoming available with effect from a date falling within the period for which the first substantive list is in force under sub-rule (2) or Rule 15 of these Rules. (3) The appointment of the eligible person to the service shall take effect from the date on which a person junior to the eligible person is appointed to the service on the basis of a fresh list prepared by the Selection Committee (hereinafter called 'the fresh substantive list'). 24. (3) The appointment of the eligible person to the service shall take effect from the date on which a person junior to the eligible person is appointed to the service on the basis of a fresh list prepared by the Selection Committee (hereinafter called 'the fresh substantive list'). 24. Selection for officiating appointment: If at any time the Governor is of the opinion that the number of officers available in the list referred to in sub-rule (2) of 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 had officiated for a period of not less than three years in any of the cadres mentioned in clauses (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) and (3) of Rule 14 and Rule 15 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the preparation of the list under this rule. 25. Officiating appointment to the service: (1) If a member of the service is not available for holding a duty post, the posts may be filled on an officiating basis : (a) By the appointment of an officer included in the list referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 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 anything contained in these Rules, where appointment to duty post is to be made purely as a local arrangement for a period of 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) or 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. 28. Seniority : The Governor shall prepare a list of members of the service arranged in the order of seniority as determined in the manner specified below: (1) In the case of persons appointed on the result of competitive examination or by selection under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, seniority in the service shall be determined by the order in which appointments are made to the service: Provided that: (a) Persons recruited on the results of the competitive examination in any year shall be ranked inter se in the order of merit in which they are placed at the competitive examination on the results of which they are recruited, those recruited on the basis of an earlier examination being ranked senior to those recruited on the basis of a later examination; (b) The relative seniority inter se of persons recruited by selection shall be determined on the basis of the order in which their names are arranged in the list prepared under Rule 14. (c) The seniority of persons recruited by selection under sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 shall be determined as follows : (i) If the name of the eligible persons is included in the fresh substantive list, his seniority shall be determined on the basis of order of merit in that list. If the Selection Committee which has prepared the fresh substantive list has recommended his name for officiating appointment, he shall be accorded seniority below all persons whose names are included in the fresh substantive list; if there is more than one eligible person so recommended for officiating appointment, the inter se seniority of such eligible persons shall be determined on the basis of the order of merit in the fresh list of officers recommended for officiating appointment. If the name of the eligible persons has not been considered by the Selection Committee which has prepared the fresh substantive list, or even though the name of the eligible person has been considered by the Selection Committee, no fresh officiating list has been prepared, he shall be accorded seniority immediately above all persons junior to him whose names are included in the fresh substantive list, if there is more than one such eligible persons shall be determined on the basis of the order of merit in the first officiating list. (ii) The seniority of members of the service appointed at the initial constitution of the service in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of these Rules, shall be determined ad hoc by the Governor in consultation with the Commission, due regard being had to the posts previously held by them under the Govts concerned and the length of service rendered by them therein : Provided that in the case of persons appointed under the provision in sub-rule (1) of Rule 17, if two or more persons belong to the same parent service of Department are thus appointed, they shall be ranked inter se in the order of their relative seniority in the parent service or Department, as the case may be. (iii) The relative seniority list of direct recruits and promotee shall be determined according to rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees as determined under Rule 5 for that year and the additional direct recruits selected against the carried forward vacancies of the previous years would be placed enable below the last promotee (or direct recruits as the case may be)." 11. It is an admitted fact that MRS Rules was notified by Central Govt in 1965 when the Manipur was a Union Territory. The DANI Rules have also been framed by the Central Govt. Therefore, it is evident that Central Govt is the Rule making authority of both the Rules. However, after attaining the Statehood, the Govt of Manipur adopted the MPS Rules, made certain amendments in the MPS Rules from time to time and provisions indicated above are the relevant provisions of MPS Rules which stands after the latest amendment. On a bare perusal of the provisions of both the Rules, it appears that the Rules -are almost in the same line except some minor modifications in certain Rules. On a bare perusal of the provisions of both the Rules, it appears that the Rules -are almost in the same line except some minor modifications in certain Rules. The major deviation is in sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the MPS Rules, but in the present case, we are not concerned with sub-rule (2) of Rule 16, because Harish Chandra Bhatia's case reported in (1995) 2 SCC 48 did not deal with candidates whose names appears in the first officiating list, prepared under sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of MPS Rules and in the present case before us also we are not required to deal with any person whose name appears in the first officiating list as contemplated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 16. Rules 5, 24 and 25 of both the Rules are relevant and these Rules appear to be substantially same except some certain minor modification which do not affect materially. In Harish Chandra Bhatia's case the Apex Court dealt with the case of the respondent who has been appointed on officiating basis from the panel prepared under Rule 24 of the DANI Rules and here also we are dealing with the case of the respondent No. 1 who has been appointed in MPS Grade II from the panel prepared under Rule 24 of the MPS Rules. The Apex Court, after interpreting Rule 14 read with Rule 15 of the DANI Rules, came to a conclusion that the person selected under Rules 14 and 15 stand almost at par with the candidate selected under Rule 14 of that Rule. We are also to deal with the same question. In addition, it has to be seen whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Harish Chandra Bhatia's case will apply in the present appeal. 12. Mr. NPC Singh, learned counsel for the appellant argued that before coming to any conclusion whether MPS Rules are in pari materia of DANI Rules, it is necessary to examine the intention of the framers of the Rules. Mr. NPC Singh relying on a case of Dr. MK Salpekar reported in (1988) 4 SCC 21 submitted that a question of policy is involved for framing a particular law. Mr. NPC Singh relying on a case of Dr. MK Salpekar reported in (1988) 4 SCC 21 submitted that a question of policy is involved for framing a particular law. It is further submitted that while framing DANI Rules the Central Govt may have taken a particular policy and that policy decision may not be same with the Govt of Manipur when they have framed the MPS Rules. Mr. NPC Singh consequently submitted that the intention must be gathered from each legislation independently even if the field of legislation is same. 13. Judicial decision given to the areas advanced in one statute does not afford a guide, but construction of the same areas in another statute unless statutes are pari materia legislation. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that both the Rules were framed by the Central Govt and even after adoption of the MPS Rules by the State of Manipur, no major change has been made in the provisions of the Rules 5, 14, 15, 24 and 25 of the MPS Rules. The minor modifications which have been made in the MPS Rules does not materially affect the provisions of the Rules or it does not change the basic structure of the MPS Rules. Since both the Rules were framed by the Central Govt, there is no difficult to hold that the intention of the Central Govt is same in both the Rules. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the DANI Rules is in pari materia with the MPS Rules. The first part of question No. 3 is answered accordingly. The second part of this question will be discussed later on in the judgment. 14. Several points were raised before us by the learned counsel of all the parties and large number of decisions were cited in support thereof while arguing question No. 1 referred to by Division Bench, Mr. NPC Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the direct recruits appellants submitted that the respondent No.l was appointed as Inspector of Police on 3.6.80 and he was confirmed in the post of Inspector of Police wef 14.1.85. Before he was confirmed in the post h of Inspector of Police, he was appointed in MPS on officiating basis on 12.10.83. Mr. Before he was confirmed in the post h of Inspector of Police, he was appointed in MPS on officiating basis on 12.10.83. Mr. NPC Singh submitted that the respondent No. 1 was appointed on officiating basis from a panel prepared under Rule 24 of the MPS Rules and such appointee do not become a member of the service as they have not been substantively appointed in MPS service. Mr. NPC Singh consequently submitted that since the respondent No.l does not become a member of the service by virtue of his officiating appointment, he cannot claim regularisation of his service with seniority w.e.f. the date of his officiating appointment. It is further argued by Mr. NPC Singh that the respondent No. 1 was not eligible for being appointed on substantive basis in Grade of the MPS as on that date he was not eligible for being considered for appointment in Grade II of MPS on substantive basis. Drawing our attention to Rule 5 (1) (b) and Rule 14 (1) of the MPS Rules, Mr. NPC Singh argued that only the Inspectors of Police who are substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police and having two years of service in the grade are eligible for promotion in MPS Grade II. It is further argued that the respondent No. 1 was appointed in the post of Inspector of Police on 3.6.80 and after his appointment, he is to undergo 2 years probation period according to the order issued by the Govt of Manipur under Article 309 of the Constitution on 28.7.77. Consequently, learned counsel submitted that unless the respondent No.l is confirmed in the post of Inspector of Police, it cannot be said that he has been substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police. The learned counsel also argued that the respondent No.l was appointed as Inspector of Police on regular basis until further orders. Therefore, such appointment cannot be termed as substantive appointment in the post of Inspector of Police. It is also argued that regular appointment is not the same thing as of substantive appointment. Regular appointment is an appointment made according to the Rules while substantive appointment gives certain additional rights. When an employee was confirmed on a subsequent date, the earlier appointment could not have been substantive, even though he might have been appointed against a substantive post. According to Mr. Regular appointment is an appointment made according to the Rules while substantive appointment gives certain additional rights. When an employee was confirmed on a subsequent date, the earlier appointment could not have been substantive, even though he might have been appointed against a substantive post. According to Mr. NPC Singh confirmation is, in fact, nothing but appointment on substantive basis to a service or post. Relying on a decision in Baleshwar Das's case reported in (1980) 4 SCC 226 , Mr. Singh submitted that a person is said to hold a post in a substantive capacity, when he holds it for an indefinite period especially of long duration in contradiction to person who holds it for a definite or temporary period or holds it on probation subject to confirmation. If the appointment is to a post and the capacity in which the appointment is made is of indefinite duration, if the Public Service Commission has been consulted and has approved, if the tests prescribed for regular appointments have been taken and passed, if probation has been prescribed and has been approved, one may well say that the post was held by the incumbent in a substantive capacity. Mr. NPC Singh, consequently, argued that after appointment of the respondent No.1 as-Inspector of Police on 3.6.80, he has to undergo a probation period of two years and after successful completion of the period of probation when he is confirmed in the post of Inspector, then only he becomes eligible for promotion in Grade II of the MPS. Mr. NPC Singh consequently submitted that the respondent No. 1 was confirmed in the post of Inspector of Police from 14.1.85 and after completion of two years service as confirmed Inspector of Police he became eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Grade II of MPS. Mr. NPC Singh, therefore, submits that the respondent No. 1's claim for regularisation of his service from 12th October, 83 ie from the date of his officiating appointment in MPS Grade II is untenable in law. Mr. NPC Singh also argued that since the inception of the service, Govt is considering only the confirmed Inspectors of Police for promotion to Grade II of MPS. Govt has interpreted the words 'substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police' as the Inspector of Police who are confirmed in the post of Inspector, of Police. Mr. NPC Singh also argued that since the inception of the service, Govt is considering only the confirmed Inspectors of Police for promotion to Grade II of MPS. Govt has interpreted the words 'substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police' as the Inspector of Police who are confirmed in the post of Inspector, of Police. This way the Govt is promoting the confirmed Inspector of Police in MPS Grade II from the very inception of the service and this practice is being followed for the last two decades and none has challenged the same. Mr. NPC Singh accordingly submitted that the long practice followed by the Govt should not be disturbed as that will upset the settled position of seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees in the service. 15. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 argued that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Inspector of Police on regular basis on 3.6.80. He further argued that according to the Recruitment Rules for the post of Inspectors published by the Govt on 4.6.64, there is no provisions for undergoing any probation. Therefore, Mr. Nilamani submits that for the post of Inspector of Police, there is no probation and therefore as and when Inspectors of Police is appointed on regular basis, his appointment should be treated as substantive appointment in the post of Inspector of Police. During the course of argument, Mr. Nilamani Singh produced two sets of Recruitment Rules in the post of Inspector of Police one is dated 4.6.64 and the another is dated 5.7.96. Mr. Nilamani Singh submits that in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Inspector of Police framed in 1996, it has been provided that the Inspector of Police, after their regular appointment, will be on probation for two years. He further submitted that the respondent No. 1 was appointed under the Recruitment Rules of 4.6.64 and there is no provision for probation in that Recruitment Rules. The respondent No. 1 should, therefore, be treated to have been appointed in the post of Inspector on substantive basis when he has been regularly appointed in the said post. Mr. He further submitted that the respondent No. 1 was appointed under the Recruitment Rules of 4.6.64 and there is no provision for probation in that Recruitment Rules. The respondent No. 1 should, therefore, be treated to have been appointed in the post of Inspector on substantive basis when he has been regularly appointed in the said post. Mr. Nilamani Singh further submitted that according to the Govt of India's decision under FR 9 (13) it has been provided that if the Recruitment Rules do not prescribe any probation, officer promoted on regular basis (after following the prescribed DPC etc procedures) will have all the benefits of a person confirmed in the grade. Accordingly, Mr. Nilamani Singh submitted that the petitioner was confirmed in the grade of Sub Inspector of Police and therefore his promotion in the post of Inspector on regular basis is an appointment on substantive basis as no probation period has been prescribed in the Recruitment Rules of 1964. 16. We cannot agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Nilamani Singh on this point, because from the order of the Govt issued under Article 309 of the Constitution on 28.7.77, it has been clearly stated that officers appointed on direct recruitment and also by promotion shall be on-probation for a period of two years. In the aforesaid order it has been further stated that all the Recruitment Rules and service laws under the Govt of Manipur shall stand amended to the extent. Therefore, even if no period of probation has been prescribed for the post of Inspector under 1964 Rules, we are of the view that the Inspector of Police will have to undergo a probation period of two years as per Govt order dated 28.7.77 after their appointment and when the probation has been prescribed, confirmation in the post of Inspector can only be made after the incumbent has successfully completed the period of probation. Mr. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel argued that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 has been appointed on regular basis after consulting the MPSC. Therefore, his appointment cannot be termed as officiating or temporary. The respondent No. 1 has been appointed after following all the procedures prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. Consequently, his appointment should be treated as a substantive appointment in the post of Inspector of Police. Mr. Therefore, his appointment cannot be termed as officiating or temporary. The respondent No. 1 has been appointed after following all the procedures prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. Consequently, his appointment should be treated as a substantive appointment in the post of Inspector of Police. Mr. Nilamani Singh further submits that normally Rules concerning with equity is that even officiating or temporary services before confirmation in the service or post have relevancy to seniority and there will be no infirmity in allowing seniority to past service of officiating or temporary even if confirmation exists. Mr. Nilamani Singh also argued that when a person is confirmed in a post, his confirmation should relate back to the date on which he was initially appointed in the post. Consequently, Mr. Nilamani Singh submitted that even if the respondent No. 1 was confirmed in the post of Inspector of Police by an order dated 16.9.85, he should have been confirmed in the grade of Inspector of Police with effect from 3.6.80 and not from 14.1.85 as has been done by the respondent Govt. Mr. Nilamani further argued that the respondent was appointed in the post of Inspector of Police on regular basis on 3.6.80 and after two years he became eligible for being considered for promotion in Grade II of MPS. The learned counsel also argued that the respondent No.l was promoted to MPS on officiating basis on 12.10.83 and in the meantime he has completed three years regular service in the grade of Inspector. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that as the respondent No. 1 -petitioner has been regularly appointed in the grade of Inspector of Police on 3.6.80, he should have been appointed on regular basis in MPS Grade II from 12.10.83, ie the date of his officiating appointment. Learned counsel further submitted that as the respondent No. 4 petitioner is continuously officiating in MPS Grade II from 12.10.83 and he has been regularly appointed in MPS Grade II on 16.8.89 (Annexure X/7) his entire period of officiating appointment should be counted towards his seniority and his appointment in MPS Grade II is required to be regularised wef 12.10.83 ie the date of his appointment on officiating basis. Mr Nilamani Singh further submitted that the continuous and uninterrupted service of the respondent No. 1 -petitioner from 12.10.83 to 16.8.89 on officiating basis cannot be thrown out as that will be a gross injustice to the respondent-petitioner and will also be volatile of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 17. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel of both the parties, it is necessary to examine from which date the respondent-petitioner has been substantially borne or appointed in the post of Inspector of Police and when he earned his eligibility for being considered for promotion in MPS Grade II. The respondent-petitioner is aggrieved by the Govt's policy of considering the confirmed Inspectors of Police for promotion to MPS Grade II. According to Mr. Nilamani Singh, as soon as a person is regularly appointed after following the Rules for the post of Inspector of Police that should be treated as the date of substantive appointment. The Govt policy of treating the confirmed Inspectors as substantive appointees has caused a great injustice to the promotees. 18. Much argument has been made by the learned counsel of both the parties regarding the words "officers who are substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police" appearing in Rule 5 (1) (b) of the MPS Rules. According to the counter affidavit of the State Govt and according to Mr. NPC Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Direct Recruits appellant substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police will mean only those Inspectors of Police who have been confirmed in the post of Inspector of Police. But according to Mr. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 -petitioner, substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police who have been regularly appointed in the post of Inspector of Police after following the Recruitment Rules and also the procedure laid down in the Recruitment Rules. 19. What is involved here is the rival claim of the true meaning of the words 'substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police'. The claim of respondent No. 1-petitioner is for consideration of the period of his service after his regular appointment in the post of Inspector of Police for promotion in Grade II of MPS. 20. 19. What is involved here is the rival claim of the true meaning of the words 'substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police'. The claim of respondent No. 1-petitioner is for consideration of the period of his service after his regular appointment in the post of Inspector of Police for promotion in Grade II of MPS. 20. Rule 5 (1) (b) of the MPS Rules provides inter alia that 50% of the sanctioned strength of MPS (Junior Grade) posts shall be filled up by selection from amongst the officers who are substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police. If an Inspector of Police were appointed substantively in the post of Inspector of Police he is borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police. The touchstone then, is the substantive capacity of the appointment. The appointment in substantive capacity has been discussed by the Apex .Court in Baleshwar Das's case reported in (1980) 4 SCC 226 . According to the Apex Court, 'substantive capacity' is a flexible expression which cannot be frozen by current officials. On the contrary, its meaning must be consistent with Article 16 and must avoid the pitfalls of arbitrariness and irrational injustice. 21. What, in the context, is a substantive capacity vis-a-vis an appointment to a post ? In our view the emphasis imported by the adjective 'substantive' is that a thing is substantive if it is "an essential part or constituent or relating what is essential." We may describe capacity a substantive if it has 'independent existence' or is of 'considerable amount of quantity'. What is independent in a substantial measure may reasonably be described as substantive. Therefore, when a post vacant, however designated in officials, the capacity in which the person holds the post has to be ascertained by the State. Substantive capacity refers to the capacity in which a person holds the post and not necessarily to the nature and character of the post. Therefore, it can be said that a person holds a post in a substantive capacity when he holds it for an indefinite period especially of long duration in contradiction to a person who holds it for a definite or temporary period or holds it on probation subject to confirmation. Therefore, it can be said that a person holds a post in a substantive capacity when he holds it for an indefinite period especially of long duration in contradiction to a person who holds it for a definite or temporary period or holds it on probation subject to confirmation. If the appointment is to a post and the capacity in which the appointment is made is of indefinite duration, if the Public Service Commission has been consulted and has approved, if the tests prescribed have been taken and passed, if probation has been approved, one may well say that the post was held by the incumbent in substantive capacity. Govt will ascertain from this angle whether the capacity in which the post has a been held, was substantive or temporary. If it is not with further point to notice is as to whether the appointments are regular and not in violation of any Rule, whether the Public Service Commission's approval have been obtained and whether the probation is complete. Once these formalities are complete, the incumbent can be taken as holding the post in substantive capacity and entire officiating service can be considered for seniority. For other purposes they may remain temporary. 22. In the present case, Govt decided that the Inspector of Police who have been confirmed will alone be treated to have holding the post of Inspector of Police substantive capacity in the cadre of Inspector of Police. Having regard to the points discussed above, we cannot agree with the policy or decision of the Govt or with the argument advanced by Mr. NPC Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that the words "substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police" will mean only those Inspectors of Police who have been confirmed in the post of Inspector of Police. 23. A point has been raised by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-respondent No. 1 that confirmation in the post of Inspector of Police should not be taken as an eligibility criteria for promotion d to the MPS Grade II. Relying SB Patwardhan's case reported in AIR 1977 SC 2051 Mr. 23. A point has been raised by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-respondent No. 1 that confirmation in the post of Inspector of Police should not be taken as an eligibility criteria for promotion d to the MPS Grade II. Relying SB Patwardhan's case reported in AIR 1977 SC 2051 Mr. Nilamani Singh submitted that in that event the promotees will have to depend on the arbitrary decision of the Govt for their confirmation in the post of Inspector of Police, even though they might serve a long period on regular basis in the post of Inspector. Such a policy will cause injustice to the promotees as they will have to depend on the unguided pleasure of the Govt for orders of confirmation. In the pre-constitution era such hostile treatment had to be suffered silently as a necessary incident of Govt service. In the SB Patwardhan's case it has been held by the Apex Court that confirmation is one of the uncertainty of Govt service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancy. Consequently, Mr. Nilamani Singh submitted that confirmation in a post of Inspector of Police should not be a criteria or / eligibility for promotion to grade n of MPS. 24. We agree with the submission of Mr. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1-petitioner that confirmation should not be taken as eligibility for consideration for promotion to Grade II of MPS. It is the settled law of the Apex Court 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 is on the records of these writ petitions that regular appointment of Inspector of Police were not confirmed even though substantive vacancies were available in which they could have been confirmed. It shows that confirmation does not have to conform to any set rules and whether an employee should be confirmed or not depends on the sweet will and pleasure of the Govt. It shows that confirmation does not have to conform to any set rules and whether an employee should be confirmed or not depends on the sweet will and pleasure of the Govt. While temporary and permanent posts and appointments therein have great relevancy in regard to the career of Govt servants keeping the holder of the post unconfirmed for several years and denying the claim of the incumbents for promotion in the higher grade or post on the score that they are not confirmed in the post makes no sense and strikes as arbitrary. If such a situation is allowed to continue then we are of the opinion that the long service of the Inspector of Police before their confirmation will turn into ashes. Consequently, we held that confirmation in the post of Inspector of Police cannot be taken as an eligibility for promotion to Grade II of MPS. We, therefore, reject the contention of the State Govt and the argument of Mr. NPC Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that from the date of confirmation in the post of Inspector of Police, they will be treated as "substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police". It is further held that the Inspectors of Police who have been appointed on regular basis as indicated by us in above paragraphs and who have completed his probation shall be treated as substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police and after completion of two years of service in the post of Inspector of Police they shall be eligible for being considered for promotion in Grade II of MPS subject to the condition that vacancy in the promotion quota is available and they are within the zone of consideration. 25. We have given our decision that what should be the true and correct interpretation of Rule 5(1) (b) of the MPS Rules so far it relates to the words "substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police". We have also indicated d what should be the correct interpretation of appointments on substantive capacity. Apart from the general principles, laid down by us in the above paragraphs, it is necessary to examine whether in the present case the appointment of respondent No.1 petitioner can be treated as substantive appointment in the post of Inspector of Police. 26. We have also indicated d what should be the correct interpretation of appointments on substantive capacity. Apart from the general principles, laid down by us in the above paragraphs, it is necessary to examine whether in the present case the appointment of respondent No.1 petitioner can be treated as substantive appointment in the post of Inspector of Police. 26. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police on 3.6.80 (Annexure X/2) on regular basis until further orders. When a person is appointed in a post with the qualifying words 'until further order' it cannot be said that he has been substantively appointed to the grade or post even though his appointment is regular after observing Rules. Appointment with the condition of 'until further orders' is purely on a temporary capacity subject to further orders made in this behalf by the competent authority. Regular appointment in a cadre or post should not follow with the qualifying words, 'until farther orders'. If the appointment is made until further orders, it cannot be said to be a regular appointment. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the petitioner's appointment in the post of Inspector of Police cannot be termed as a regular appointment. Further, it appears that the respondent No. 1 -petitioner was confirmed in the post of Inspector of Police on 14.1.85 by an order of the Govt dated 16.9.85 (Annexure X/3). His initial appointment in the post of Inspector of Police was followed by his confirmation order dh 16.9.85. The petitioner did not raise any objection against the date of his confirmation in the post of Inspector of Police from 14.1.85. Thereafter, we are of the view that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 was regularly appointed in the h post of Inspector of Police wef 44.1.85. Respondent No. 1-petitioner's initial appointment of until further orders was confirmed by an order of the Govt only on 14.8.85 and he remained silent and satisfied with the order for more than five years and therefore we are of the view that he has no right to challenge his regular appointment from 14.1.85 at this belated stage. 27. Respondent No. 1-petitioner's initial appointment of until further orders was confirmed by an order of the Govt only on 14.8.85 and he remained silent and satisfied with the order for more than five years and therefore we are of the view that he has no right to challenge his regular appointment from 14.1.85 at this belated stage. 27. Even though we are not interfering with the confirmation of respondent No. 1 -petitioner in the post of Inspector of Police because of inordinate delay, we must observe that it was irrational on the part of the Govt to ignore the long five years of service of the petitioner in making his substantive appointment in the post of Inspector of Police. When there is no substantive difference either functionally or qualitatively in the service rendered by an Inspector of Police appointed on regular basis and an Inspector of Police appointed until further order, there is no reason to arbitrarily cut off long years of service in the case of an Inspector of Police who has been appointed on until further order basis. While the Rules regulating the condition of service are within the executive powers of the State or its Legislative power under proviso to Article 309, even so, such Rules have to be reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust if they are to survive the test of Articles 14 and 16. Consequently, we are of the view that to avoid injustice, the Govt should always resort to appointments in the post of Inspector of Police on substantive basis as and when substantive vacancies are available. 28. Now, we will discuss the second question referred by the Division Bench. In the earlier judgment of CR No. 636 of 1990, 633 of 1991 the learned Single Judge held that only the confirmed Inspector of Police are eligible for being considered for promotion in Grade II of MPS as only after confirmation in the post of Inspector a person can be treated as substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police. This findings of the learned Single Judge has not been interfered with by the Division bench of this Court in WA No. 35 of 1994/55 of 1994. This findings of the learned Single Judge has not been interfered with by the Division bench of this Court in WA No. 35 of 1994/55 of 1994. However, the Division Bench has upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that the petitioner appellant of that case was not borne in the cadre of MPS Grade II and accordingly his appeal was dismissed. 29. We have already discussed and held that confirmation in the grade of Inspector of Police cannot be a criteria for considering the case of Inspector of Police for promotion to MPS Grade II. We have further held that person's appointed in the post of Inspector of Police on regular basis after following the Rules other than appointments for the officiating, ad hoc or for a particular duration shall be treated as holding the post of Inspector on substantive basis. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Inspector of Police or the holders of any feeder posts regularly appointed after following the Rules shall be deemed to be holding their posts in substantive capacity-for the purpose of Rule 5(1) (b). The view of the learned Single Judge expressed in CR No. 636 of 1990 and 633 of 1991 that only confirmed Inspector of Police are eligible-for promotion in Grade II of MPS has not been interfered by the Division Bench in WA No. 35 of 1994/WA No. 55 of 1994. The above view of the learned Single Judge in earlier cases is contrary to our view. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the decision of the learned Single Judge cannot be held to be a good law. 30. The learned Single Judge has discussed in detail the decision of Harish Chandra Bhatia's case reported in (1995) 2 SCC 48 . After discussing the judgment of the Apex Court and after considering the present writ petition, under appeal, the learned Single Judge came to a definite finding that DANI Rules are in pari material of Manipur Police Service Rules and the judgment and order of the Apex Court in Harish Chandra Bhatia's case shall be squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Single Judge has also held that on this score alone the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the case. The learned Single Judge has also held that on this score alone the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the case. It is true that Harish Chandra Bhatia's case is similar to the present appeals, but before applying or relying on the decision of Harish Chandra Bhatia's case with the present case, two things are required to be considered. Firstly, whether the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Harish Chandra Bhatia's case is under the provisions of Article 141 or Article 142. Secondly, whether Harish Chandra Bhatia's case shall apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 31. Mr. NPC Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in Harish Chandra Bhatia's case the Apex Court passed the order for treating the date of officiating appointment of the respondent as the date of their regular appointment having regard to the fact that the respondent in that case served for about 12 years in officiating capacity. Mr. NPC Singh draws our attention to paragraph 7 of Harish Chandra Bhatia's case and submitted that it has been held by the Apex Court that "an officiating appointment for over a decade cannot be treated as frustrating appointment with no service benefits to be-given. In other view it would very seriously prejudice who-, even after rendering service given to those of permanent appointees for long period, and that too for proper functioning of the service, would he denied the benefits of the same for no cogent reason. The other view is bound to have demoralising effect in the service as a whole." Mr. NPC Singh submitted that considering the long service of the respondents in Harish Chandra Bhatia's case, the Apex Court regularised the services of the respondents from very officiating appointments in the peculiar fact of that case by invoking the provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution and that could not be treated as a ratio for placing reliance on this case. Mr. NPC Singh further submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in applying Baleshwar Das's case in the present case without considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. Mr. NPC Singh has relied on a decision in JNK Public Service Commission's case reported in AIR 1994 SC 1808 . It appears from paragraph 11 of the aforesaid case that the Apex Court in Dr. Mr. NPC Singh has relied on a decision in JNK Public Service Commission's case reported in AIR 1994 SC 1808 . It appears from paragraph 11 of the aforesaid case that the Apex Court in Dr. Jain's case reported in (1988) 1 SLR 335 gave direction under Article 142 to regularise the service of the ad hoc Doctors appointed on or before October, 1984. The 'Apex Court held that the High Court was not right in placing reliance on the judgment as a ratio as such direction is conferred only on the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. In the present case, the MPS Rules provides for direct recruitment as well as promotion. There is nothing in the MPS Rules to regularise the service of any ad hoc or officiating appointee. The Apex Court in the said case further held that, "this Court do not appear to have intended to allow as a general rule that any other category of ad hoc appointment. If the ad hoc appointee continues for long period, the Rules of recruitment should be relaxed and the appointment by regularisation be made." In the present case also relying on Harish Chandra Bhatia's case the learned Single Judge has passed an order for regularising the officiating appointment of respondent No.l. Before giving such a direction it was necessary to examine a whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Harish Chandra Bhatia's case will be applicable or not. Mr. NPC Singh also referred to the case of Ambica Quarry Works reported in (1987) 1 SCC 213 and submitted that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the back ground of the fact of the case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically followed from it, but in view of the mandate of Article 141 that the ratio of decision of this Court is the law of the land. Mr. NPC Singh consequently submitted that before applying Harish Chandra Bhatia's case, the learned Single Judge should have held that decision of the Apex Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be taken as ratio. 32. Mr. Mr. NPC Singh consequently submitted that before applying Harish Chandra Bhatia's case, the learned Single Judge should have held that decision of the Apex Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be taken as ratio. 32. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 relied on a case of BC Chaturvedi reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 and submitted that the Apex Court in that case held that Article 142 of the Constitution has specifically conferred the power of doing complete justice on this Court to achieve which result it may pass such decree or order as deemed necessary; it would be wrong to think that other Courts are not to do complete justice between the parties. Consequently, Mr. Nilamani Singh submitted that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in relying the case of Harish Chandra Bhatia's case even if the said judgment is passed under Article 142 of the Constitution. Mr. Nilamani Singh further submitted that to make complete justice the High Court can also mould the relief and High Court is within its jurisdiction to rely on any decision of the Apex Court to make complete justice to the parties. Mr. Nilamani Singh further submitted that the respondent No.l petitioner will be deprived of his 5 years officiating service if his services are not regularised wef the date of his officiating appointment. Relying on Air India Statutory Corporation reported in AIR 1997 SC 645 , Mr. Nilamani Singh submitted that the arms of the Court is long enough to reach injustice wherever it is found. Consequently, Mr. Nilamani Singh submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly relied on the decision of the Harish Chandra Bhatia's case and has given the relief to the respondent No. 1 -petitioner. The MPS Rules or the DANI Rules do not contemplate regularisation of officiating appointment, but having regard to the long 12 years of service rendered by the respondents in Harish Chandra Bhatia's case the Apex Court granted the relief by regularising the appointment of the respondents of that case from the date of officiating appointment. However, in paragraph 6 of the judgment the Apex Court held that, "Rule 24 shows that the list prepared as required by that Rule has also to satisfy the requirements of provisions of sub-rule (3) and (4) of Rules 14 and 15. However, in paragraph 6 of the judgment the Apex Court held that, "Rule 24 shows that the list prepared as required by that Rule has also to satisfy the requirements of provisions of sub-rule (3) and (4) of Rules 14 and 15. This shows that the incumbent whose names find place in the list prepared as contemplated by Rule 24 are also those who have been duly selected and consultation with Commission has also been made and list prepared has been forwarded to the State Government as well for its doing the needful. There is, thus, no difference in substance between the list prepared as contemplated by Rules 14 with Rule 15 and the one visualised by Rule 24. So, there appears no distinguishable reason to regard Rule 24 selectee as in any way inferior to Rule 14 selectee. According to us, they stand almost at par." 33. It is true that as in DANI Rule two types of select lists are contemplated and under MPS Rule also. For regular appointment the list is to be prepared under Rule 14 read with Rule 15 of the MPS Rules and for officiating appointment, a list is to be prepared under Rule 24. But for preparing the list in both the categories, some procedures would have to be adopted. Therefore, there cannot be any difference while preparing the lists under Rule 14 read with Rule 15 and list prepared under Rule 24. But the Apex Court held that the selectees of both the lists stand almost at par. We want to emphasise on the words 'almost at par'. Using of this phraseology 'almost at par' makes it clear that the selectees of the aforesaid two lists do not stand identical or some, and there is some difference between the selectees under Rule 14 read with Rule 15 and Rule 24. But, in spite of this small difference the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the relief to the respondents of Harish Chandra Bhatia's case and it appears to us that for making a complete justice to the respondents who have rendered 12 years of officiating service, the Apex Court has passed the order for regularising the officiating service of the respondents by invoking the provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution. No records of Harish Chandra Bhatia's case are available before us to see whether permanent vacancies were available in the quota of promotee for the regularisation with retrospective effect ie from the date of their officiating appointment. But in the present case materials are available from the minutes of DPC proceeding that even in the year 1987 the respondent No. 1-petitioner could not be recommended for regular appointment in MPS Grade II due to non-availability of permanent vacancy in the quota against the promotee. Therefore, we are of the view that unless the facts and circumstances of the present appeals squarely covers the decision rendered in Harish Chandra Bhatia's case, the same cannot be taken as a ratio. 34. In the present appeal, the respondent No. 1-petitioner is aggrieved by his regular appointment in MPS Grade II wef 16.8.89 (Annexure A/3) of the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed in MPS Grade II on officiating basis on 12.10.83 and his officiating appointment has been followed by substantive appointment on 16.8.89. Therefore, Mr. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent No.l, submitted that the entire period of officiating appointment of the respondent No. 1 should count towards his seniority after regularising his appointment from the date of his officiating appointment on 12.10.83. It appears that the petitioner was confirmed in the post of Inspector of Police on 14.1.85 and thereafter DPC met on 24.3.87. From the proceedings of the DPC, it appears that the vacancies that fall within the quota of the promotees have been filled up by the promotees who are much senior in service than the respondent No.l-petitioner. From the aforesaid DPC proceedings, it further appears that after filling up the regular vacancies with the promotees who are senior to the petitioner-respondent No.l, there were some short term vacancies for which the DPC recommended some candidates. So from the aforesaid minutes of the DPC proceedings, it appears that the vacancies that fall within the quota of promotees upto the year, 1986 have been filled up by persons who are much senior to the respondent No. 1 -petitioner in service. The proceedings of the DPC held on 26th, 27th and 28th April, 1989 has also been a produced before the Court. The proceedings of the DPC held on 26th, 27th and 28th April, 1989 has also been a produced before the Court. It appears from the minutes of the DPC proceedings that there are five regular vacancies of the year, 1987 and 11 regular vacancies of the year 1988 within the quota of the promotees. Out of the 16 vacancies of the years, 1987, 1988 one vacancy is reserved for SC and 5 vacancies were reserved for ST candidates. The DPC recommended 5 names under promotion quota for the recruitment year, 1987 and those candidates who are admittedly senior to the petitioner-respondent No.l in service. For the recruitment year 1988, the DPC recommended eleven candidates in promotee quota and name of the respondent No. 1-petitioner appears at SI No. 3 on perusal of the DPC proceedings for the year, 1987 and 1988, it appears that there was no scope to entertain the respondent No.l-petitioner in a vacancy under promotion quota prior to the recruitment year, 1988. 35. From the seniority list (Annexure X/8) of the writ appeal, it appears upto the recruitment year the name of 53 persons have been shown and out of these 53, 27 posts are held by direct recruits and 26 posts are held by the promotees. On a perusal of the Seniority List (Annexure X/8) it appears that the Govt has not followed the MPS Rules while making appointment in MPS Grade II. For a very small period and small number of direct recruits and promotees were appointed as per provisions of the MPS Rules. It further appears from the Seniority List that in most of the time either en-block direct recruits were appointed in the service or en-block promotees were appointed in the service. Rule 28 (iii) of the MPS Rules provides that the relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees shall be determined according to ratio of vacancies between the direct recruits and promotees as determined under Rule 5 for that year and the additional direct recruits selectee against the carried forward vacancies of the previous year would be placed en-block below the list of promotees or the direct recruits as the case may be. On perusal of the Seniority List, it appears that while making appointment rotation of vacancies between the direct recruits and the promotees have not been properly followed by the State Govt. On perusal of the Seniority List, it appears that while making appointment rotation of vacancies between the direct recruits and the promotees have not been properly followed by the State Govt. However, there is no dispute in the Seniority List upto the seniority position at SI No. 53. It further appears that the persons whose names appears at SI Nos 54 to 63 are all direct recruits of the year, 1988. The petitioner-respondent No.l along with 10 others were recommended for appointment in MPS Grade II under the promotion quota of the recruitment year, 1988. The same DPC recommended five candidates for appointment in MPS Grade II in the five promotees quota against 1987 vacancy. The names of these 16 persons appear from SI Nos 64 to 78. The persons whose name appears from SI Nos 64 to 68, though entertained against promotion quota of 1987 they have been shown junior to the direct recruits of 1988 as their appointment have been issued in 1989. Similarly, the persons whose names appear from SI Nos 69 to 78 of the seniority list have been entertained against the promotion quota of the recruitment year, 1988 and they were also shown junior in the seniority list than the direct recruits of 1988. There is no provision in the Recruitment Rules for regularising the officiating appointment of the promotees with retrospective effect and therefore, they have been shown as junior to, 1988 direct recruits on the basis of their regular appointment issued in the year, 1989. The promotees from SI Nos 64 to 70 did not challenge their seniority as against the direct recruits of 1988. Since there was no DPC in 1988 the direct recruits of 1988 became en-block senior even though the promotees from SI Nos 64 to 70 were entertained against the vacancies of 1987-88 recruitment year. Perhaps, these promotees could not be appointed in MPS Grade II as there was no DPC in the year, 1988. It appears that the-respondent No. 1 -petitioner did not challenge his seniority position or he did notify for regularisation of his service for more than six years. Perhaps, these promotees could not be appointed in MPS Grade II as there was no DPC in the year, 1988. It appears that the-respondent No. 1 -petitioner did not challenge his seniority position or he did notify for regularisation of his service for more than six years. Consequently, we sag of the view that any interference at this belated stage will upset the settled seniority position and further we do not like to interfere with the final seniority list as the same is being acted upon for more than eight years and during this long period most of the direct recruits and promotees have been promoted to the next higher grade of MPS. 36. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are clearly of the view that the respondent No. 1 petitioner could not have been appointed to MPS Grade II under promotional quota prior to 1988 and therefore, it is not possible to regularise his service wef 12.10.83. For regularisation of service clear permanent vacancy is required and in the present case only a substantive vacancy will not be sufficient in addition to that, vacancy must be under promotee quota. It appears from the DPC proceedings that there was no vacancy for the petitioner in direct recruitment quota prior to 1988. Therefore, we are of the view that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in applying the Harish Chandra & Bhatia's case. It is not clear whether there was any vacancy available for the promotee respondent in Harish Chandra Bhatia's Case to regularise them from the date of their officiating appointment, but in our case we are satisfied that the respondent-petitioner could not be appointed prior to 1988 because of non-availability of substantive vacancy under promotional quota. Consequently, we are of the opinion that even after applying Harish Chandra Bhatia's case in the present appeal, the services of the petitioner cannot be regularised wef the date of his officiating appointment on 12.10.83 because of non-availability of substantive vacancy under promotion quota. 37. Mr. HNK Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in WA No. 101 of 1997 argued on the same line as advanced by Mr. 37. Mr. HNK Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in WA No. 101 of 1997 argued on the same line as advanced by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent No; 1 -petitioner in WA No.565 of 1997,162 of 1997, the appellant of WA No. 101 of 1997 is a similarly situated as that of respondent No.l of WA No. 565 of 1997, 162 of 1997. Since we have rejected the claim of the respondent No. 1 -petitioner for the same reason, we cannot allow the appeal of the appellant of this WA No. 101 of 1997. 38. The MPS Rules provides for two types of appointment-in MPS Grade in, one is substantive appointment under Rule 16 and another officiating appointment under Rule 24. For substantive appointment in MPS Grade II, the Inspector of Police must be substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police and the list of such officers shall be prepared in accordance with Rule 14 read with Rule 15 and appointments are to be made under Rule 16. Rule 24 of the MPS Rules contemplates selection of officers from amongst the Inspector of Police who are a holding the post of officiating basis and such officers can also be appointed in MPS Grade II post on officiating basis. The Inspectors of Police who are appointed from the panel prepared under Rules 14 and 15 and appointed in the MPS Grade II on substantive basis become the members of the service as soon as they are appointed on substantive capacity. The MPS Rules do not provide any provision that Inspectors of Police appointed on officiating basis shall be the members of the MPS. Proviso (b) of Rule 28 (1) (i) of the MPS Rules provides that seniority of the persons appointed from the list prepared under Rule 14 shall count their seniority on the basis of the order in which their names are arranged in the list. There is no provision to count the seniority of the officiating appointee under Rule 24 of the MPS Rules. However, from proviso (c) to Rule 28(1) (i) of the MPS Rules, it appears that there is a provision for counting the seniority of officiating appointees who are appointed from the panel prepared under Rule 16 (2) of the MPS Rules. There is no provision to count the seniority of the officiating appointee under Rule 24 of the MPS Rules. However, from proviso (c) to Rule 28(1) (i) of the MPS Rules, it appears that there is a provision for counting the seniority of officiating appointees who are appointed from the panel prepared under Rule 16 (2) of the MPS Rules. On a plain reading of Rule 16 (2) of MPS Rules, it is clear that a list can be prepared for officiating appointment under that rule from amongst the Inspectors of Police who are substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police. In the instant case, the respondent No. 1 -petitioner has not been included in the list prepared under Rule 16 (2) and admittedly he has been included in the list prepared under Rule 24. Therefore, there is no scope to count the officiating service of the respondent No. 1 -petitioner towards seniority from the date of his officiating appointment. The persons who are appointed from the list prepared under Rule 16 (1) or Rule 16 (2) become the members of the service when they are appointed in Grade II of the MPS. But the persons who are appointed on officiating basis from the list prepared under Rule 24 do not become the members of the service. Such a differentia is permissible and it is within the limits of the Govt to ignore the officiating service and count only regular service of the persons appointed on substantive capacity when claims of seniority come up. The MPS Rules are clear on this point and therefore, we do not find any ambiguity in the Rules. Consequently, we hold that the promotee Inspectors of Police will become the members of the MPS when they are substantively appointed in MPS Grade II from the list prepared under Rule 16 (1) or Rule 16 (2) of the MPS Rules and they will count their seniority from the date they have been appointed in the service. The officiating period of the Inspector of Police who have been appointed from the panel prepared under Rule 16 (2) will count their seniority from the date they have been appointed in MPS Grade II The second part of question No. 3 referred to by the Division bench is answered accordingly. ' 39. The officiating period of the Inspector of Police who have been appointed from the panel prepared under Rule 16 (2) will count their seniority from the date they have been appointed in MPS Grade II The second part of question No. 3 referred to by the Division bench is answered accordingly. ' 39. To sum up: A. When an Inspector of Police is appointed on regular basis after following the rules and with the approval of the Public Service Commission and has completed the period of probation, such Inspector of Police shall be treated to have been substantively borne in the cadre of Inspector of Police for the purpose of Rule 5 (1) (b) of the MPS Rules. B The reasons for which confirmation cannot be the sole touchstone of the seniority, for the same reason confirmation in the post cannot be fixed as the date of eligibility for promotion in the higher grade, post or service; C. In view of our decision at A and B above, the law laid down by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 636 of 90 and Civil Rule No. 633 of 91 which was subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 34 of 1994 /Writ Appeal No. 55 of 1994 is held to be no longer a good law and is overruled. D. The provisions of DANI Police Service Rules, 1991 in so far as officiating promotion to the service is concerned, is a statute in pan materia with the provisions of MPS Rules, 1965. But in the facts and circumstances of the present writ petitions before us, the decision of the Apex Court in Harish Chandra Bhatia's case cannot apply in the present writ appeals; (E) Inspectors of Police appointed on officiating basis from a panel prepared under Rule 16 (2) of the MPS Rules will count their seniority from the date of their appointment and the Inspectors of Police appointed from a panel prepared under Rule 16 (1) and Rule 16 (2) become the members of the MPS with their appointment in Grade II of the MPS. The Inspectors of Police appointed on officiating basis from a panel prepared under Rule 24 do not become the members of the MPS and they are not entitled to count their seniority from the date of their officiating appointment. The Inspectors of Police appointed on officiating basis from a panel prepared under Rule 24 do not become the members of the MPS and they are not entitled to count their seniority from the date of their officiating appointment. The promotee Inspectors of Police will become the members of the service when they are appointed from the panel prepared under Rule 16 (1) or Rule 16 (2) of the MPS Rules. 40. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel of all the parties and after going through the papers and documents as produced in these appeals, we are of the view that there is merit in the Writ Appeal No. 565 of 1997 (Gauhati) 162 of 1997 (Imphal) and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge i» liable to be set aside. 41. Accordingly, Writ Appeal No. 565 of 1997 (Gauhati) 162 of 1997 (Imphal) allowed in the terms indicated above and both the writ petitions are dismissed.. Writ Appeal No. 101 of 97 is also dismissed. All the connected misc cases shall stand disposed of. Under the facts and circumstances, we made order as to costs.