Judgment ( 1. ) BY this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the pregnability of the order dated 14-12-1999 passed by Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dismissing the Original Application (O. A. No. 171/95) filed by the petitioner. ( 2. ) IN brief the case, as putforth by the petitioner before the Tribunal is that vide order dated 29-4-1989 he was appointed on the post of Deputy Collector on probation of two years on the recommendation by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner was liable to be confirmed on the said post with effect from the date after passing the departmental examination immediately on the expiry of period of probation, however, as he did not pass the requisite examination, the authorities did not confirm him from the said date. The respondents confirmed the petitioner only after he passed the departmental examination by extending the period of his probation by one year vide order dated 3-7-1993 with effect from 23-7-1992. ( 3. ) THE seniority of the petitioner was then accordingly fixed on the basis of his confirmation and his seniority was down graded under many of his juniors. The petitioner thereafter submitted representation which was rejected by the respondents. After the representation was rejected, the petitioner filed original application before the Tribunal on 16-1-1995 for claiming his seniority and confirmation above to his juniors. ( 4. ) THE respondents opposed the averments and prayer made by the petitioner by filing a return. In the return, the factual averments were not denied, however, it was submitted that the petitioner was required to clear the prescribed departmental examination during the probation period which he failed and, therefore, as per Rule 13 of the M. P. State Administrative Service (Classification, Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1975 and Rules 8 and 12 of the M. P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 as the petitioner failed to complete his probation period successfully nor he passed the requisite departmental examination during his probation period as provided under the Rules, he had no right to claim confirmation on the post of Deputy Collector on the expiry of his probation period. It was further contended by the respondents that the petitioner was rightly confirmed after clearing his departmental examination as his probation period was also extended by one year under the said Rules. ( 5. ) THE Tribunal after considering the rival contentions of the parties and after considering the entire material placed before it on the basis of the relevant rules did not find any merit in the case of the petitioner and eventually dismissed the original application. ( 6. ) IN this petition Shri S. K. Gangele, learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same submissions which were raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The complete answer to the argument of petitioner has been given by the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkinkar Gupta and Ors. , (2000) 10 SCC 77 , wherein Their Lordships of the Supreme Court after analysing Rule 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 as well as Rule 13 of the M. P. Civil Services (Executive) Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1975 which pertains to probationer as well as Rule 12 of the General Conditions of the Service Rules, in Paras 9 and 10 came to hold thus :- "9. According to Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Rule 12 in a case like the present where a person had been allowed to continue in service after the period of probation had been completed and he is confirmed subsequently, it is for the appointing authority to decide as to from what date he should be assigned seniority. In the present case the decision of the State Government was that he should be assigned seniority w. e. f. 19-1-1984. The aforesaid rules have been considered by this Court in the case of M. P. Chandoria v. State of M. P. The principle laid down by this Court in Chandoria case was that if a person does not pass the test then the appointing authority is empowered to assign seniority in a lower level than the one which was assigned by the Public Service Commission. That being so the decision to assign seniority to respondent No. 1 w. e. f. 19-1-1984 is in accordance with rules. 10. Mr. That being so the decision to assign seniority to respondent No. 1 w. e. f. 19-1-1984 is in accordance with rules. 10. Mr. Verma, however, contends that Rule 12 Clause (a) (ii) postulates a speaking order being passed in order to assign a lower seniority to respondent No. 1 not w. e. f. 11-2-1982 but w. e. f. 19-1-1984. It appears that a representation was made for the first time by respondent No. 1 on 5-12-1990. Apart from the fact that the said representation was very belated, nearly six years after the fixation of seniority, the State Government rejected that representation vide order dated 20-5-1993. This shows that, when called upon, the State Government had once again applied its mind and had substantially complied with the provisions of Rule 12. We do not, therefore, find any reason as to why respondent No. 1 should be assigned seniority w. e. f. 11-2-1982. This being so, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court and that of the Administrative Tribunal are set aside and we hold that the seniority of respondent No. 1 fixed from 19-1- 1984 is in order. However, there will be no order as to costs. " If the ratio decidendi of the case of Ramkinkar Gupta (supra) is tested on the touchstone of the present facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Tribunal did not commit any error in dismissing the original application of the petitioner. In the present case also the petitioner did not clear the requisite qualifying examination and cleared it after considerable long time during the extended period of his probation and, therefore, he had no right to claim confirmation on the post of Deputy Collector from an earlier date. The respondents had rightly confirmed and given seniority to the petitioner after he had cleared his departmental examination. ( 7. ) ON the basis of aforesaid premised reasons, we do not find any error to deviate ourselves from the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, indeed the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is in consonance to the ratio decidendi of the case of Ramkinkar Gupta (supra) in which Their Lordships had placed reliance on the earlier decision in the case of M. P. Chandoria v. State of M. P. , (1996) 11 SCC 173 . ( 8. ( 8. ) IN the result, the petition is devoid of any substance, the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.