Order According to the petitioner, he is entitled for seniority as a Sub Inspector of Police w.e.f. 11th June, 1976 in view of judgment rendered by the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court of India in the case of Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1607 : 1990(2) PLJR (SC) 23. 2. It was submitted that even if the initial appointment is not made according to the rules, there being continuous uninterrupted service until regularization against the higher post, the period of officiating service to be counted for determination of seniority as per aforesaid decision mentioned at Paragraph-44(B), as quoted hereunder : "(b) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted." 3. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that he was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, vide Memo No. 9088 dated 26th June, 1976 w.e.f. 11th June, 1976. Subsequently, he was confirmed to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, vide Memo No. 478 of 1990 w.e.f. 1st February, 1983. 4. In this background according to the petitioner, the Respondents should count the seniority w.e.f. 11th June, 1976 and not w.e.f. 1st February, 1983, the date of confirmation. 5. The Respondents in their counter affidavit have not disputed the fact that no order of regular promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police was issued in respect to the petitioner. He was promoted on officiating basis in June, 1976 and thereafter confirmed to the post. It is, in this background, the petitioner has requested to make applicable the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, as referred above. 6. The Respondents in their affidavit while pleaded that there are certain allegations pending consideration before the Vigilance Department and a departmental proceeding initiated in 1992 is pending and thereby pleaded that the case of the petitioner for promotion to higher post has been rejected, but not disputed the fact that the petitioner was promoted as Sub Inspector of Police on officiating basis w.e.f. 11th June, 1976 and later on confirmed in the year 1983. 7. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has not prayed for any direction on the Respondents to consider his case for promotion to the higher post, but such promotion has been sought for as consequential benefit on fixation of seniority w.e.f 11th June, 1976. 8. In this background, it is not necessary to decide in this case whether the petitioner was fit or unfit for promotion or his case should have been kept pending till finalization of the departmental proceeding. The Respondents should first determine the question whether the petitioner is entitled for his seniority as Sub Inspector of Police w.e.f. 11th June, 1976 i.e. from the date he was promoted on officiating basis or not. 9. For determination of the aforesaid issue, the case is remitted to the State with direction to decide it, taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court and other relevant facts relating to the petitioner, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. As the petitioner is to superannuate from service, they will also take decision in respect to the allegations as were made and pending against the petitioner on an early date. 11. If the petitioner' is allowed seniority as Sub Inspector of Police w.e.f. 11th June, 1976, even after retirement he will be entitled for consequential benefits, if person junior to him is found to have been promoted to the higher post from the date prior to the retirement of the petitioner. 12. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.