ORDER S.C. Sharma, J. 1. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in this batch of writ petitions they were heard analogously together and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience the facts in Writ Petition No. 5056/2005 (S) are exposited herein. 2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition claiming proper fixation of seniority. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was selected in the Civil Services Examination conducted by the M.P. Public Service Commission in the year 1992 and was placed at Serial No. 14 of the select list/merit list of Deputy Collector of the year 1994 and an appointment order was also issued on 4th June, 1994. The petitioner has further stated that in the merit list the petitioner was placed between Vivek Singh and Anil Kumar Khare and he has submitted his joining on 1-7-1994. The petitioner has further stated that he was posted on probation, however, was not able to clear the departmental examination during probational period and his period of probation was extended by an order dated 6-11-1996. The petitioner has further stated that he has finally qualified the examination on 22-7-1997 and he has been declared as confirmed Deputy Collector by an order dated 4th June, 1999, w.e.f. 23-7-1997. The petitioner has further stated that a gradation list was issued of the year 2002 and the name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No. 414 whereas his name should have been placed at Serial No. 335-A. The petitioner's grievance is that about 88 Deputy Collectors have been placed over and above him in the gradation list. The petitioner has placed reliance over the Rule 12 of the M.P. Civil Services (General Condition of Services) Rules, 1961 and his contention is that the order of merit fixation by PSC cannot be disturbed and he has to be placed between the Vivek Singh and Anil Kumar Khare as he was placed by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission while issuing a merit list. The petitioner has enclosed a gradation list of the year 2005 and his placement is reflected at Serial No. 326, the petitioner's contention is that his batch mates are placed at Serial Nos. 244 to 252 and, therefore, his placement at Serial No. 326 is bad in law. The petitioner has enclosed a gradation list of the year 2005 and his placement is reflected at Serial No. 326, the petitioner's contention is that his batch mates are placed at Serial Nos. 244 to 252 and, therefore, his placement at Serial No. 326 is bad in law. The petitioner has further stated that various representations were submitted by him however, the respondents have not granted him a proper seniority and therefore, he is left with no other choice except to approach this Court by filing this present writ petition. 3. A reply has been filed by the respondent-State and the respondent-State has also placed reliance over the Rule 12 (1)(f) of the M.P. Civil Services (General Condition of Services) Rules, 1961. The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner did not qualify the departmental examination even during the period of probation and on account of non-qualifying the departmental examination the period was extended and he has been confirmed only after he has qualified the departmental examination. The respondent has further stated that the petitioner has been given proper seniority from the date of qualifying the departmental examination w.e.f. 23-7-1997 keeping in view the provisions of the M.P. Civil Services (General Condition of Services) Rules, 1961. The respondent has prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. 4. An application for taking documents on record has been filed by the petitioner and it has been stated that his seniority has been depressed on account of misrepresentation of statutory provisions and he is entitled for the same seniority which was assigned to him by the MPPSC. Not only this an application for amendment has also been filed by the petitioner and it has been stated that amended rules came into force w.e.f. 2-4-1998 and, therefore, the same could not have been made applicable in the case of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated in the amendment application that the amendment in respect of the M.P. Civil Services (General Condition of Services) Rules, 1961 came into force w.e.f. 2-4-1998 and, therefore, he is entitled for the same seniority which was assigned to him by the M.P. Public Service Commission. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was selected by the M.P. Public Service Commission for the post of Deputy Collector and an appointment order was also issued on 4th June, 1994. The petitioner was placed at Serial No. 14 of the appointment order, between Vivek Singh and Anil Kumar Khare. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was not able to qualify the departmental examination and he has finally qualified the same during the extended period of probation. The petitioner's seniority has been fixed on the date he has qualified the departmental examination, i.e., w.e.f. 23-7-1997. The unamended rules, i.e., Rule 12 also provides for extension of period of probation, the aforesaid rule was amended vide notification dated 2-4-1998. Thus, it is clear that under the unamended provision as well as after amendment the power vests with the State Government to assign seniority to an individual from the date he completes his probational period and qualified the examination. Not only this the matter relating to grant of seniority in respect of M.P. Administrative Service Officers has already been adjudicated by a Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Manohar Pande 2002 (4) M.P.H.T. 13 (NOC), in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7, has held as under: 4. The petitioner here in this petition opposed the averments as well as the prayer of respondent made in the original application before the Tribunal by filing the return. The stand taken before the Tribunal was that M.P. Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 permit to confirm the respondent from the date he has passed his examination and his seniority is required to be fixed from that date. 5. The Tribunal allowed the original application by extending the relief in toto. The State of M.P. has thus, come in this writ petition assailing the validity of the order impugned. Shri A.K. Mishra, learned Deputy Advocate General by placing reliance upon the decision of State of M.P. v. Ramesh Bhandari and Ors. JT 1999 (10) SC 268, has contended that Tribunal committed gross error by allowing the application of respondent. The State of M.P. has thus, come in this writ petition assailing the validity of the order impugned. Shri A.K. Mishra, learned Deputy Advocate General by placing reliance upon the decision of State of M.P. v. Ramesh Bhandari and Ors. JT 1999 (10) SC 268, has contended that Tribunal committed gross error by allowing the application of respondent. On the other hand Shri Anoop Nair, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Tribunal runs contrary to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Ramesh Bhandari (supra). The Apex Court while considering its earlier judgment in the case of M.P. Chandoria v. State of M.P. JT 1996 (5) SC 38, referred to Rules 8 and 12 of the M.P. Civil Services (Executive) Classification Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules, 1975, and in Paragraph 9 held as under: 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 the seniority. In the present case the decision of the State Government was that he should be assigned the 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 Madhya Pradesh and Ors. JT 1996 (5) SC 38. The principle laid down by this Court in Chandoria's case (supra), was that if a person does not pass the test then the appointing authority is empowered to assign the seniority in a lower level than the one which was assigned by the Public Service Commission. That being so the decision to assign the seniority to respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 19-1-1984 is in accordance with Rules. 7. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, laid down by Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal is totally unsustainable in law. The writ petition is allowed. That being so the decision to assign the seniority to respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 19-1-1984 is in accordance with Rules. 7. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, laid down by Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal is totally unsustainable in law. The writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is quashed and the original application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal stands dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. 7. A Division Bench of this Court relying upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Chandoria v. State of M.P. and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2397 , has upheld the order passed by the State Government granting confirmation and seniority to a Deputy Collector from the date he has qualified the departmental examination and, therefore, as the matter has been settled by the Apex Court as well as a Division Bench of this Court no case is made out warranting interference in the matter. 8. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.