1. Petition on consideration is admitted to hearing and in view of short controversy involved, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties taken up for final disposal 2. Heard and considered. 3. Petitioner is a member of J&K Police (Gazetted) Service and holds the post of Senior Superintendent of Police. He claims to have been posted as Incharge Superintendent of Police (Operations) in District Budgam (Kashmir) vide PHQ Order No. 2002 of 98 dated 24-06-1998 against a clear vacancy of Superintendent of Police and to have continued as such till his substantive promotion vide Order No. Home 524(P) dated 01.12.1999 to the post of Superintendent of Police. Petitioner insists that his substantive promotion to the cadre/post of Superintendent of Police is to be reckoned/given effect from his date of promotion on Incharge basis and seniority in the cadre counted accordingly. Petitioner is aggrieved that the respondents notwithstanding his promotion on Incharge basis, are avoiding to reckon his seniority w.e.f 24-06-1998 i.e, the date he was promoted as Incharge, Superintendent of Police (Operations), Budgam. 4. Petitioner claims to have served the Police Department with distinction and to have been awarded Commendation Certificates and medals, for his excellent and outstanding performance. The commendation awards, certificates and medals earned by the petitioner during his police service are catalogued in para 6 of the Petition. Petitioner on the strength of his promotion on Incharge basis as Superintendent of Police w.e.f., 24-06-1998, his Annual Confidential/Performance Reports and the distinction earned during his service career, claims to have right to be considered for induction in Indian Police Service (IPS) against the slots available in the relevant years. 5. Petitioner on the basis of averments made in the Petition and the documents placed on record seeks following relief: (a) Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to treat and reckon the service of the petitioner w.e.f 1998 for the purpose of induction into Indian Police Service (IPS). (b) Writ of Mandamus further commanding the respondents to place the case of the petitioner before the Selection Committee on the basis of length of service as Superintendent of Police w.e.f 1998 and consequently allot appropriate year of allotment for induction into Indian Police Service (IPS) by placing the petitioner at appropriate place in the selection list. 6. The respondent Nos. 6. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 oppose the Writ Petition on the ground that PHQ Order No. 2002 of 1998 dated 24-06-1998 merely posted the petitioner as Incharge (Operations), Budgam and that the order cannot be construed an order of officiating promotion, as claimed by the petitioner. It is pleaded that petitioner's seniority can only be reckoned w.e.f 1-12-1999 i.e., the date on which the petitioner and his other 18 colleagues vide Govt. Order No. 524(P) of 1999 dated 01-12-1999 were promoted on substantive basis as Superintendents of Police on the recommendations of the Selection Committee of the Home Department headed by the Chief Secretary of the State Government. 7. It is further pleaded that petitioner's claim to seniority w.e.f 24-06-1998 is untenable on the ground that the PHQ Order No. 2002 of 1998 dated 24-06-1998 was issued by an incompetent authority and that it was a temporary arrangement necessitated by operational exigency. It is next pleaded that substantive promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police was made after an exercise was undertaken by the Selection Committee of the Home Department headed by the Chief Secretary and no such exercise was undertaken at the time the petitioner was posted as Incharge (Operations), District Budgam vide PHQ Order No. 2002 of 1998 dated 24-06-1998. 8. The respondents 3 and 4, referring to the petitioner's claim for induction into Indian Police Service (IPS) plead that the petitioner having regard to his seniority w.e.f 1-12-1999 in the cadre of Superintendent of Police has been placed in the consideration zone for induction into Indian Police Service (IPS) against the three vacancies in the year 2009 and four vacancies in 2010. It is denied that the petitioner is eligible to be placed in the consideration zone of Senior Superintendents of Police against the four IPS slots/vacancies available for the year 2007 and two vacancies available for the year 2008. It is denied that the petitioner is the senior most officer in J&K Police Gazetted Service. Reference in this regard is made to Govt. Order No. Home 524(P) dated 01-12-1999 wherein the petitioner figures at serial No. 19 with 18 officers ahead of the petitioner. 9. It is denied that the petitioner is the senior most officer in J&K Police Gazetted Service. Reference in this regard is made to Govt. Order No. Home 524(P) dated 01-12-1999 wherein the petitioner figures at serial No. 19 with 18 officers ahead of the petitioner. 9. The respondent No. 2-Union Public Service Commission in its reply details the procedure set out in Indian Police Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955 followed by the Commission, while according consideration to the proposal for induction in Indian Police Service forwarded by State Government with record, seniority list of the officers and other relevant documents. The Commission claims to have accorded consideration to the petitioner's induction, in Selection Committee Meeting held on 29th December, 2010 and to have considered the petitioner at serial No. 8 in the eligibility list of 2009. The Commission admits to have no role in re-fixation of seniority in J&K Police (Gazetted) Service. 10. I have gone through the pleadings and heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. The petitioner's claim has its roots in PHQ Order No. 2002/98 dated 24-06-1998 whereby petitioner holding the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and posted as Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Kothibagh, Srinagar has been transferred and posted as Incharge (Operations), Budgam and directed to draw his pay against the post of Superintendent of Police (Operation), Budgam. 12. It is nobody's case that the petitioner was not vide aforesaid order posted as Ihcharge (Operations), Budgam and asked to draw his pay against the available post of Superintendent of Police (Operations), Budgam. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4, however, in their reply insist that the order did not amount to and cannot be construed as officiating promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police. The petitioner, it may be pointed out, does not claim to have been promoted on officiating basis. His claim is that he was placed on Incharge basis as S.P. operations. It is admitted case of the parties that anti-militancy operations in district Budgam like other militancy infested districts of the state were looked after by officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police. The State Government to meet the challenge posed by insurgency created/sanctioned several posts of Superintendent of Police (Operations) for the militancy infested districts, including district Budgam. It is admitted case of the parties that anti-militancy operations in district Budgam like other militancy infested districts of the state were looked after by officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police. The State Government to meet the challenge posed by insurgency created/sanctioned several posts of Superintendent of Police (Operations) for the militancy infested districts, including district Budgam. Prior to creation of aforesaid posts anti militancy operation were looked after by Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police of the district otherwise, responsible for law and order in a district. There used to be no other post of Superintendent of Police at the district level. The State Government created a distinct wing at district level exclusively engaged in anti-militancy operations headed by Superintendent of Police (Operations). The Superintendent of Police (Operations), therefore, was a sanctioned post borne on J&K Police (Gazetted) cadre and at the relevant time, the post of Superintendent of Police was vacant/available in district Budgam. 13. The petitioner vide aforesaid PHQ Order No. 2002 of 1998 dated 24-06-1998 was transferred and posted as Incharge (Operations), District Budgam. He performed duties of the Superintendent of Police (Operation). The post was available and vacant at the relevant time. He was asked to draw pay against the post of Superintendent of Police (Operations), Budgam. Against the said backdrop, the PHQ Order dated 24-06-1998 in effect placed the petitioner as Incharge Superintendent of Police (operations) Budgam in his own pay and grade, permitting him to draw pay against the said post. The petitioner admittedly continued to perform duties of Superintendent of Police (Operations), Budgam from 24-06-1998 till 1st December, 1999 when vide Govt. Order No. Home 524(P) dated 01-12-1999 he was on substantive basis promoted as Superintendent of Police in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15200. 14. The question arises as to whether period, the petitioner worked as Superintendent of Police (Operations) Budgam in his own pay and grade, is to be reckoned, for his seniority as Superintendent of Police. In case the question is answered in affirmative and petitioner's promotion as Superintendent of Police on substantive and regular basis vide order dated 1-12-1999 given retrospective effect from the date of his placement as Superintendent of Police (Operations) on incharge basis, the petitioner's claim for consideration of his induction into Indian Police Service w.e.f 1998 may have to be accepted. In case the question is answered in affirmative and petitioner's promotion as Superintendent of Police on substantive and regular basis vide order dated 1-12-1999 given retrospective effect from the date of his placement as Superintendent of Police (Operations) on incharge basis, the petitioner's claim for consideration of his induction into Indian Police Service w.e.f 1998 may have to be accepted. The fate of the present petition, therefore, hinges on answer to the aforesaid question. 15. The PHQ Order No.2002 of 1998 dated 24th June, 1998 though posting the petitioner as Incharge, (Operations) district Budgam, in effect placed him as Incharge Superintendent of Police (Operations), Budgam. The petitioner, performed the duties of Superintendent of Police (Operations), Budgam in his own pay and grade, drawn against the aforesaid post from 24th June, 1998 to 1st December, 1999, i.e. the date, he was on substantive basis, promoted as Superintendent of Police in the'grade of Rs.10,000-15200. The phraseology or nomenclature used by the respondents while placing the petitioner as Incharge, Superintendent of Police (Operations), Budgam is of no consequence and cannot help the respondents to deny the status that the petitioner enjoyed in wake of said order. 16. The respondents also cannot dilute and downplay PHQ Order No. 2002 of 1998 dated 24th June, 1998 on the ground that the author of the order was not competent to pass the order. The order has been acted upon not only qua petitioner but also other officers affected by the order. It is too late in the day for the respondents to question power and competence of Director General of Police, to make the PHQ Order No. 2002 of 1998 dated 24th June, 1998 depriving the petitioner of benefit otherwise available to him in terms of the aforesaid order. 17. The petitioner, having been placed as Incharge, Superintendent of Police (Operations), vide aforesaid order with effect from 24th June, 1998, cannot be denied benefit of service rendered as such for the purpose of seniority, once the petitioner was, thereafter, considered fit and eligible and substantively promoted as Superintendent of Police. The service rendered as Incharge, Superintendent of Police (Operations) with effect from 24th June, 1998 to 1st December, 1999, is to be reckoned and computed while determining the petitioner's seniority in the rank of Superintendent of Police. The service rendered as Incharge, Superintendent of Police (Operations) with effect from 24th June, 1998 to 1st December, 1999, is to be reckoned and computed while determining the petitioner's seniority in the rank of Superintendent of Police. It is admitted case of the parties that a number of posts in the cadre of Superintendent of Police were vacant on the date, i.e. 24th June, 1998, the petitioner was placed as Incharge, Superintendent of Police (Operations), Budgam. The non-availability of the post in the aforesaid cadre, therefore, is not as a ground available to the respondents to deny benefit to the petitioner. 18. It is pertinent to point out that service rendered by an officer in a promotional post on adhoc, incharge, stop gap basis is not to be treated as non-est and an officer holding such position has a right to get his service counted, once he is promoted on substantive basis. The only impediment that may stand in his way would be non-availability of the post or its non availability in his quota in case the post is to be filled up through direct as well as promotional avenues. Reference in this regard may be made to following observation of Supreme Court in "Suraj Parkash Gupta and others v. State of J and K and others" AIR 2000 SC 2386 (1): 2010(5)JKJSC-497; "Thus, there is overwhelming authority of this Court to hold that ad hoc, stop gap service could be regularized from an anterior date after consulting the Service Commission from the date of vacancy in promotee quota, after considering fitness, eligibility suitability and ACRs. Therefore, the ad hoc/stop gap service rendered by promotees beyond six months and without the consent of the Public Service Commission as per Regulation 4(d)(ii) cannot be treated as non-est. It can be regularized later after consulting the Commission in respect of posts in the promotion quota and subject to eligibility and suitability based on ACRs, etc. Only the period rendered outside quota or the period rendered within quota when the promotee was not eligible or found fit has to be excluded." 19. Resultantly, the petitioner is to be considered for his induction in Indian Police Service for the year other similarly placed Superintendent of Police, i.e. his colleagues holding the post of Superintendent of Police in the grade of Rs. 10,000-15000 as on 24th June, 1998 and his induction ordered accordingly. Resultantly, the petitioner is to be considered for his induction in Indian Police Service for the year other similarly placed Superintendent of Police, i.e. his colleagues holding the post of Superintendent of Police in the grade of Rs. 10,000-15000 as on 24th June, 1998 and his induction ordered accordingly. His induction in IPS, taking him to have been promoted w.e.f 24th June, 1998 is not to raise any eyebrows by his colleagues, placed as Deputy Superintendents of Police on 24th June, 1998 and senior to him in the cadre, because his placement as Incharge SP (Operations) Budgam was not resented or questioned by them. In case the petitioner had dash, dedication and direction as a police officer to accept the challenge and because of his courage and commitment was picked up to man a key position in anti-militancy operations, those who watched the show on sidelines and stood at the fence, allowing the petitioner to jump into arena and did not challenge his placement as I/C (Operations), Badgam would be least aggrieved and without a cause to question his induction from an earlier date. 20. For the reasons discussed, the writ petition is allowed and respondents by a Writ of Mandamus commanded to reckon the petitioner's seniority as Superintendent of Police from the date, he joined as Incharge, Superintendent of Police (Operations) in compliance of PHQ Order No.2002 of 1998 dated 24th June, 1998 and after computing the petitioner's seniority as directed, recommend him for consideration/place his case before the Competent Authority, for induction in Indian Police Service, against the quota available in appropriate year, having regard to his seniority as Superintendent of Police in the grade of Rs.10,000-15000 from the aforesaid date.