Vedpal, J.—Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned order by which respondents had declined to count the petitioner's services of the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police on the ground that petitioner working on the post of Deputy Collector executive.It has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner was selected on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by the Public Service Commission and served for about three years. Later on, on account of non-joining of certain person petitioner's cadre was upgraded and he was called to join in PCS cadre. Petitioner resumed duty on 24.10.1987 on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and later on he joined in PCS cadre on 12.9.1989.Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court reported in (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1079 , Sanjeev Tripathi Vs. Chief Secrtary, Department of Jails, Government of Uttar Pradesh and others in which it has been held that in such situation incumbent shall be entitled for counting of past services rendered in other cadre.Relevant portion from the judgement of Sanjeev Tripathi (supra) is reproduced as under:-Para 4. According to Government Orders dated 8.3.1995 and 16.3.1994 selection grade is to be granted on completion of 8 years service vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In our opinion the petitioner's service as Manager has to be added to his services of Additional Superintendent (Jail) for the purpose of grant of selection grade. In M. Ramachandran Vs. Govind Ballabh and others, 2000 (1) LBSER 90, the Supreme Court following its earlier judgement in K.Madhavan Vs. Union of India and others JT 1987 (IV) SC 43, observed:It will be against all rules of service jurisprudence if a Government servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same or an equivalent post in another Government department, the period of his service in the post before his transfer is not taken into consideration in computing his seniority in the transferred post. The transfer cannot wipe out his length of service in the post from which he has been transferred. The transfer cannot wipe out his length of service in the post from which he has been transferred. It has been observed by this Court that it is a just and wholesome principle commonly applied where persons from different sources are drafted to serve in a new service that their pre-existing total length of service in the parent department should be respected and presented by taking the same into account in determining their ranking in the new service cadre."In the present case, we are of the view that post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and PCS both are class 2 post and persons are selected by the combined examination convened by Public Service Commission.Though learned Standing counsel tried to distinguish that post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and PCS both are different cadre and different pay scale but we are of the view that keeping in view the judgement of Sanjeev Tripathi (supra) petitioner is entitled for counting of past services rendered in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police.However, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish the judgement on the ground that according to government circular services of only person selected in the executive cadre may be counted while transferring to other post or executive cadre.Submission of learned Standing counsel does not seem to be correct appreciation of law. In case, argument advanced by respondents counsel is accepted then it shall amount to discriminatory treatment with regard to counting of past services of the selectees through Public Service Commission.Accordingly, we allow the writ petition. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 19.4.2003 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Respondents shall count the petitioner's past services rendered on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police with consequential benefit._____________