JUDGMENT R. S. Garg, Ag. CJ. -- 1. This judgment shall dispose of Writ Appeal No. 510/2009 (Suresh Kumar v. The State of M.P. & others) and Writ Appeal No.511/2009 (Sandeep Kumar Mawkin v. The State of M.P. & others). 2. By common judgment dated 6.10.2009 the learned Single Judge disposed of W.P. No. 5056/05 (s) [SureshKumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh] and W.P. No. 5075/05 (s) [Sandeep Kumarv. State of Madhya Pradesh]. The learned Single, Judge dismissed the petitioner's writ petitions, therefore, the appellants have filed these writ appeals before us under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya [Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal] Adhiniyam, 2005. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellant's submitted that each of the petitioner had come to the Court with a short submission that as they could not complete the probation period successfully and the same had to be extended, the State Government might have a right under Rule 12 (1) (f) of Civil Services (General Conditions of Services ) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1961") to fix the seniority but the State Government could not place the petitioners below the candidates who were selected in subsequent selections held in 1995, 1996 and/or 1997. It is also contended that as the State Government itself had extended the period of probation, each of the petitioners was certainly entitled to the increments which they had successfully earned while discharging their duties as probationers. 4. Placing reliance upon Rule 12 (1) (a) and Rule 12 (1) (t) of Rules of 1961 it was submitted that the Rules are to be read in just a position and only then a reasonable conclusion should be arrived at. It is submitted that persons appointed as a result of earlier selection would always be senior to those who are appointed as a result of a subsequent selection. Drawing a distinction between the selection and confirmation, it is submitted that the petitioners, if were selected ill the selection process of 1994, they could be confirmed w.e.f. 23/7/1997 but they could not be taken to be selected in the selection process of 1997. 5. Shri Jain, learned Advocate General submitted that Rule 12 (1) (a) and Rule 12 (1) (f) of Rules of 1961 operate in different fields. 5. Shri Jain, learned Advocate General submitted that Rule 12 (1) (a) and Rule 12 (1) (f) of Rules of 1961 operate in different fields. According to him, if there is no question of the probation period then the seniority is to be maintained in accordance with Rule 12 (1) (a) but if there is a question of probation, the successful completion of the same and/or extension of the same, then Rule 12 (1) (a) would have no application. 6. The short question for consideration thus is that Rule 12 (1) (a) and Rule 12(1) (f) of Rules of 1961 are to be read in juxtaposition or Rule 12(1) (a) and Rules 12 (1) (f) operate differently and would adversely affect the seniority of a person who was appointed in the earlier selection process and such a person would be liable to be placed below the persons who are appointed in subsequent selection process. 7. For proper appreciation of the dispute it would be necessary to look into the language of Rule 12 of Rule of 1961: "12. Seniority -- The seniority of the members of a service or a distinct branch or group of posts of that service shall be determined in accordance with the following principles, viz, - (1) Seniority of Direct Recruits and Promotees.-- (a)The seniority of persons directly appointed to a post according to rules shall be determined on the basis of the order of merit in which they are recommended for appointment irrespective the date of joining. Persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection. (b) Where promotions are made on the basis of selection by a Departmental Promotion Committee, the seniority of such promotes shall be in the order in which they are recommended for such promotion by the committee. (c) Where promotions are made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit, the seniority of persons considered fit for promotion at the same time shall be the same as the relative seniority in the lower grade from which they are promoted. Where however a person is considered as unfit for promotion and is superseded by a junior, such person shall not, if subsequently found suitable and promoted, take seniority in the Higher grade over the junior persons who had superseded him. Where however a person is considered as unfit for promotion and is superseded by a junior, such person shall not, if subsequently found suitable and promoted, take seniority in the Higher grade over the junior persons who had superseded him. (d) The seniority of a person whose case was deferred by the Departmental Promotion Committee for lack of Annual Character Rolls or for any other reasons but subsequently found fit to be promoted From the date on which his junior was promoted, shall be counted From the date of promotion of his immediate junior in the select list or from the date on which he is found fit to be promoted by the Departmental Promotion Committee. (e) The relative seniority between direct recruits and promote shall be determined according to the date of appointment/promotion order: Provided that if a person is appointed/promoted on the basis of roster earlier than his senior, seniority of such person shall be determined according to the merit/select/fit list prepared by the appropriate authority. (f) If the period of probation of any direct recruit or the testing period of any promote is extended, the appointing authority shall determine whether he should be assigned the same seniority as would have been assigned to him, if he had completed the normal period of probation testing period successfully, or whether he should be assigned a lower seniority. (g) If orders of direct recruitment and promotion are issued on the same date, promote persons enblock shall be treated as senior to the direct recruitees." 8. From perusal of Rule 12 (1) (a) of Rules of 1961, it would clearly appear that seniority of a person will have to be determined in order of merit in which he is re-commanded for appointment irrespective of date of joining. Persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of subsequent selection. A perusal of Rule 12 (1) (a) of Rules of 1961 would make it clear that it refers to inter se seniority of the persons which is based upon the order of merit in which they are re-commanded by the concerned Selection Board. It would also be clear from Rule 12 (1) (a) that a person appointed in the earlier selection process shall be senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection. It would also be clear from Rule 12 (1) (a) that a person appointed in the earlier selection process shall be senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection. From the language it would clearly appear that if a person is appointed in the earlier year then he would always be senior to a person appointed in the latter year. However, Rule 12 (1) (a) of the Rules of 1961 would be subject to certain disciplinary actions, which can be taken and the seniority of such person may be adversely affected. In any case, if there are no adverse reports nor there is any disciplinary action the seniority is to be maintained vertically and horizontally. The horizantal seniority is to be maintained in order of the merits in which they are recommended for their appointment while the vertical seniority is to be maintained in order of selection of the year by holding that the person who was appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection. 9. The horizontal seniority, however is subject to Rule 12 (1) (f) of Rules of 1961 which clearly provides that if the period of probation of any direct recruit or the testing period of promote is extended, the appointing authority shall determine whether he should be assigned the same seniority as would have been assigned to him if he had completed the normal period of probation testing period successfully or whether he should be assigned a lower seniority. A perusal of Rule (f) would again make it clear that if the probationer completes the period of probation or testing period in case he is promo tee then his original seniority as determined in the order of merits by the selecting authority shall be maintained but in case he is unable to complete the probation period successfully and the same is required to be extended then the appointing authroity shall be entitled to decide the question of seniority. In such a case the appointing authority can restore the original seniority or may place such person to some lower seniority. In such a case the appointing authority can restore the original seniority or may place such person to some lower seniority. In case the original seniority is maintained then that would be end of the matter but in a case where lower seniority is assigned, the question which assumes importance is whether such assignment of the seniority would adversely affect the selection process. 10. At this stage, it would be necessary to observe that a person who is directly appointed in order of merit in which they are recommended of appointment they have their inter se seniority, their seniority cannot be compared with any person who has been appointed in a subsequent selection process. The authority only has a right to fix the seniority of such probationer who could not complete his probation period successfully within his own cadre or within the persons who had been selected in the same selection process. If the arguments of learned Advocate General is accepted, the samel is likely to create an administrative anarchy because in a given case a person may complete the probation period successfully within one year and the other may not complete the same within two years and in between if another selection process takes place and the other person of the subsequent selection process completes the probation in less than one year and is confirmed then he is likely to become senior to the person who still had some valid period of probation. It is also to be seen that there is always a distinction between appointment and confirmation. Once Public Service Commission or the appointing authority undertakes the process for selection then for that class this is the end of matter. After such selection the persons would be appointed on probation or permanently. In case persons are appointed on probation then they would be required to complete the period of probation successfully and on completion of the period they would not be reappointed or reselected but they would be confirmed on the post. If there is a marked and sharp distinction between selection, appointment and confirmation then such distinctions could not be kept in oblivion by the State Government and the petitioners could not be awarded seniority below the persons who had been selected/appointed under the subsequent selection process. . 11. If there is a marked and sharp distinction between selection, appointment and confirmation then such distinctions could not be kept in oblivion by the State Government and the petitioners could not be awarded seniority below the persons who had been selected/appointed under the subsequent selection process. . 11. Insofar as the order of Government relating to non-granting of increment is concerned, in our opinion the said order would also require to be quashed because each of the petitioner had passed the examination within the extended period. 12. The appeals are allowed, it is hereby held that each of the petitioner would be entitled to count his seniority in the cadre of selection process of 1994 but however they would stand confirmed from 23/7/1997 and the State would be entitled to place them in accordance with Rule 12 (1) (f) of Rules of 1961. Each of the petitioner would also be entitled to the increments which they had earned during the period of probation. 13. Appeals to the extent indicated above are allowed with a further direction to the State Government to re- frame the seniority list. 14. There shall be no order as to costs.