Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner vide communication dated 11.07.1984, was intimated by the Gujarat Public Service Commission that his name has been recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, Class-II. It appears that thereafter, vide order dated 01.03.1985, the petitioner was sent for training together with other candidates since his name was allotted to the cadre and he was required to undergo the training of State Forest Trainees for the period from 1985-1987. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner completed the training and he reported back on 04.04.1987. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.10.1987, the petitioner was regularly appointed on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, Jamnagar. It appears that the State Government thereafter, did not give the deemed date of service to the petitioner from the date on which he started his training, i.e. 01.04.1985, but considered the date of joining as 01.04.1987 and as a result thereof, the period which was spent by the petitioner for training from 01.04.1985 to 31.03.1987 was excluded and therefore, the present petition. 2. Heard Mr. Bambhania, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Raval, learned AGP for the State officers. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the admission of the present petition, in case of the very cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forest, this Court vide its decision in the case of S.M. Dubey vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 (2) GLH 99 , has taken the view that the period during which the officer concerned was on training is required to be considered for the purpose of fixing the seniority treating the same as of officiation by the officer concerned. He submitted that against the said decision of this Court (Coram : S.D. Shah, J.), the matter was carried before the Letters Patent Bench which had taken a different view in its decision in the case of S.M. Dubey vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1995 (1) GCD 264 (Gujarat). Subsequently, the matter was carried before the Apex Court and the Apex Court in its decision in the case of R.S. Ajara vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported at 1997 (1) GLH 516, has confirmed the view of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported at 1993 (2) GLH 99 . Subsequently, the matter was carried before the Apex Court and the Apex Court in its decision in the case of R.S. Ajara vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported at 1997 (1) GLH 516, has confirmed the view of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported at 1993 (2) GLH 99 . It was therefore, submitted that now as the issue is no res integra, this Court may direct the Government to give the same treatment to the petitioner by giving the date for officiation from the date on which he joined the training. 4. Mr. Raval, learned AGP submitted that there cannot be any dispute to the decision of this Court and the decision of the Apex Court which has been referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, he submitted that the department would be required to consider as to whether the said Judgement applies to the facts of the present case or not. 5. Under these circumstances, it appears that if the law is already settled by the Apex Court, it would be binding to the State Government, more particularly, when the issue is pertaining to the very cadre and on the very aspect. No material is brought to the notice of this Court providing a specific rule for excluding the period during which the officer concerned was sent for training. In any case, it will be for the concerned authority of the State Government to examine the case of the petitioner in light of the above referred two decisions of this Court as well as of the Apex Court and to take the final decision for giving a deemed date for the purpose of seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forest. 6. Hence, it is directed that the Secretary, Forest and Environment Department of the State Government, respondent No.2 herein, shall examine the case of the petitioner in light of the decision of this Court in case of S.M. Dubey vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 (2) GLH 99 read with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Ajara & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported at 1997 (1) GLH 516 on the aspects of deemed date of seniority of the petitioner on the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forest. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported at 1997 (1) GLH 516 on the aspects of deemed date of seniority of the petitioner on the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forest. The petitioner shall also be at the liberty to make additional representation including by furnishing a copy of the decision of this Court to the respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from today. After the same is received together with the copy of the order of this Court, the concerned Secretary of the State Government shall take the appropriate decision as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of the order of this Court and the decision shall be given effect within one month thereafter. 7. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Liberty to apply in case of difficulty. D.S. permitted.