JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 9-1-1989 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 14th May, 1985 (Annex. 12) passed by the respondent No. 2 Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur be quashed and the respondents be directed to treat the petitioner confirmed with effect from 2-2-1977 or at least with effect from 2-2-1979 and further to consider his case for promotion to the post in Rajasthan Police Service (Junior/Scale) and promote him with effect from the date, when first promotions were made on the strength of merit in Sept. 1983 or at least from the date when his juniors and batch mates were promoted with all consequential benefits. The petitioner has further prayed that the orders dated 9-9-1897 (Annex.6) and 30-10-1897 (Annex.7) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") be quashed etc. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : The petitioner was regularly appointed in the cadre of R.A.C. as Platoon Commander in the year 1965. When the qualifying examination for the post of Company Commander was held in the year 1976, he passed that examination. After being successful in the said qualifying examination, the petitioner was given urgent temporary appointment as Company Commander vide order dated 13-5-1976, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 1. The petitioner also successfully completed the promotion cadre course, as is evident from the order Annex.2 dated 26-3-1977. 3. It was submitted by the petitioner that a final seniority list of Inspectors of Police was prepared by the respondents and it was published on 14-2-1980 and in that seniority list, the names of such Inspectors were included, who had been confirmed as Inspectors and the seniority was assigned on the basis of their date of confirmation and those Inspectors who were not confirmed till then were not included in that list. The post of Inspector of Police is equivalent to the post of Company Commander in R. A. C. 4. It may be stated here that the seniority list published on 14-2-1980 was later on quashed by the Tribunal. 5. The post of Inspector of Police is equivalent to the post of Company Commander in R. A. C. 4. It may be stated here that the seniority list published on 14-2-1980 was later on quashed by the Tribunal. 5. The case of the petitioner is that seniority should be assigned to him from the length of service and not from the date of his confirmation and in this respect, he made a representation to the Inspector General of Police, Jaipur in April, 1982, a copy of which is marked as Annex-3. 6. Thereafter, inter-se seniority list was also published on 11-3-1983 and in that list, the name of the petitioner was not shown. Therefore, the petitioner submitted another representation on 26-3-1983 (Annex.4) against the said seniority list dated 11-3-1983. 7. However, the representations of the petitioner were not considered by the respondents in its letter and spirit and therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal a copy of which is marked as Annex.5. 8. The appeal submitted by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 30-10-1987 (Annex.7) in view of the reasons given by it in its earlier order dated 9-9-1987 (Annex. 6) 9. The petitioner and other persons were confirmed on the post of Police Inspector/Company Commanders vide order dated 14-5-1985 (Annex. 12) passed by the respondent No. 2 Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur though the case of the petitioner is that he should have been confirmed from the date of passing qualifying examination. Thus, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the prayers as stated above.A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it was submitted by the respondents that order dated 14-5-1985 (Annex. 12) passed by the respondent No. 2 Director General of Police, Jaipur is based on concrete findings of facts and it does not suffer from any vice, infirmity or illegality. On point of confirmation, it was submitted by the respondents that the confirmation has to be bestowed upon one only if he was appointed against the substantive vacancy or if the substantive vacancy is available. Since the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, therefore, he could not be said to have been appointed on substantive vacancy and thus, he was not entitled to claim confirmation from the date of passing qualifying examination as on that date, substantive vacancy was not available. Since the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, therefore, he could not be said to have been appointed on substantive vacancy and thus, he was not entitled to claim confirmation from the date of passing qualifying examination as on that date, substantive vacancy was not available. It was further submitted by the respondents that no person junior to the petitioner was taken up for being considered for promotion nor at the relevant point of time, any objection was ever raised by the petitioner in this respect. Hence, no case is made out for interference with the orders dated 14-5-1985 (Annex.12) passed by the respondent No. 2 Director General of Police, Jaipur and 9-9-1987 (Annex.6) passed by the Tribunal. It was further submitted by the respondents that final seniority list was published on 3-9-1983 and the name of the petitioner could not be included in that seniority list, as he was not confirmed on the post of Inspector till then. It was further submitted by the respondents that for assignment of seniority, one has to be confirmed and for being confirmed one has to hold the permanent or substantive post. The petitioner has no valid cause to agitate the respondents regarding assignment of seniority for the period for which he remained under urgent temporary appointment as Company Commander without being appointed on a substantive post of Company Commander. No person junior to the petitioner was ever confirmed or promoted earlier to him. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the petition and the same be dismissed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. 4. From perusing the writ petition as well as the reply of the respondents, one thing is very much clear that no person junior to the petitioner was ever promoted or confirmed earlier him. This is one of the aspects of the matter. 5. The other aspect is that through order dated 14-5-1985 (Annex. 4. From perusing the writ petition as well as the reply of the respondents, one thing is very much clear that no person junior to the petitioner was ever promoted or confirmed earlier him. This is one of the aspects of the matter. 5. The other aspect is that through order dated 14-5-1985 (Annex. 12) passed by the respondent No. 2 Director General of Police, Jaipur, the petitioner and some other persons were confirmed on the post of Police Inspector/Company Commanders when the substantive vacancies were made available and prior to that though the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis, he was continuing on that post and since substantive vacancies were not available, therefore, he was not confirmed. 6. When this being the position, the petitioner should have no grievance and it cannot be said that any legal right of the petitioner has been infringed, inasmuch as, no person junior to him was ever confirmed or promoted or made senior to him. As soon as the substantive vacancies were made available, the petitioner and some other persons were confirmed on the post of Police Inspector/Company Commander vide order dated 14-5-1985 (Annex. 12) and, therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents in doing so was arbitrary or illegal or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. There is no dispute on the point that seniority should be reckoned from the date of initial appointment where the initial appointment is regular one and not from the date of confirmation. 8. In the present case, the petitioner and some other persons were confirmed on the post of Police Inspectors/Company Commanders through order Annex. 12 dated 14-5-1985 and while doing so, the seniority as was coming forward from the length of service was kept in mind by the respondents and thus, the petitioner should have not felt any grievance. 9. There is no dispute on the point that confirmation order of the petitioner was passed later on with some delay, but it does not mean that confirmation order Annex. 12 dated 14-5-1985 is bad in law. 10. I have also gone through the orders dated 9-9-1987 (Annex.6) and 30-10-1987 (Annex.7) passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, for the reasons given by it in its earlier order dated 9-9-1987 (Annex.6) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order (Annex.7) dated 30-10-1987. 12 dated 14-5-1985 is bad in law. 10. I have also gone through the orders dated 9-9-1987 (Annex.6) and 30-10-1987 (Annex.7) passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, for the reasons given by it in its earlier order dated 9-9-1987 (Annex.6) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order (Annex.7) dated 30-10-1987. In my considered opinion, the order of the Tribunal dated 9-9-1987 (Annex.6) is based on correct appreciation of facts and law and all points raised by the petitioner were rightly considered and decided by the Tribunal and it does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity requiring interference by this Court under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 11. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******