JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, C.J.—The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 17.05.2001 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, holding that the appellant-petitioner was not entitled to be considered for promotion from the post of Store Khalasi to that of Store Assistant ahead of Krishan Dutt-respondent no. 5. The basic reason which permeate the judgment of the learned Single Judge is that the appellant-petitioner had entered the service as Store Khalasi on 07.08.1985 whereas respondent no. 5 had joined on 01.07.1978. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following para of the judgment which reads thus- 7. The petitioner submits that action of respondents in passing order dated 30.08.1995 whereby respondent no. 5 was ordered to be considered for the higher post of Junior Assistant and his retrospective promotion as Store Assistant cannot be quashed. This is on the plea that petitioner was senior. The further fact is that on 31.12.1996 this court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Store Assistant. The claims of the petitioner were considered. It was observed that as post is not available, therefore, no relief was granted to the petitioner. The question which requires to be gone into is as to whether the petitioner can claim seniority over and above the respondent no. 5. For this it is submitted that he came to be appointed in the year 1981 and this factor should be taken note of for determining his seniority. Services of respondent no. 5 were regularized vide order issued on 07.08.1985. Thereafter a seniority list was issued on 22.07.1986. In this respondent no. 5 is shown to have been appointed in 1978. His appointment as Store Khalasi is taken as 07.08.1985. From the perusal of the documents and from the stand taken by the petitioner it becomes apparent that the petitioner's date of appointment is 22.07.1981. This is mentioned in annexure P-B. This so stated in para 3 of the writ petition. So far as respondent no. 5 is concerned, his date of appointment is 01.07.1978. He came to be appointed as Store Khalasi on 07.08.1985. If this be the position then the petitioner cannot contend that he came to be appointed earlier to the respondent no. 5. The respondent no. So far as respondent no. 5 is concerned, his date of appointment is 01.07.1978. He came to be appointed as Store Khalasi on 07.08.1985. If this be the position then the petitioner cannot contend that he came to be appointed earlier to the respondent no. 5. The respondent no. 5 having entered the service as Store Khalasi in January 1978, the petitioner having joined the same status on 22.07.1981, cannot claim seniority over and above the respondent no. 5. This petition is as such found to be without merit and dismissed accordingly. Facts in the present case need to be revisited. The appellant-petitioner was working as a Daily wager in the respondent department for a number of years. He was regularized on the post of Store Khalasi in the pay scale of Rs. 170-230 vide order dated 22.07.1981 (annexure PA). According to the official record, respondent no. 5 was appointed as Store Khalasi on 08.08.1985. It has also come on record that like the appellant-petitioner, respondent no. 5 was also working on Daily wage basis. Some seniority lists in respect of a particular period were issued. However, the aforesaid seniority list would not be of much assistance as the inter se seniority of the appellant-petitioner viz-a-viz respondent no. 5 had not been determined for the purposes of further promotion to the post of Store Assistant. 2. The service of the appellant-petitioner as well as that of respondent no. 5 is governed by the Statutory Rules known as the Jammu and Kashmir Geology and Mining Department (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1990 (for brevity 1990 Rules). For appointment to the post of Store Assistant, a provision has been made by Rule 5 read with Schedule II. According to Schedule II, entry F (IV), the post of Store Assistant is incorporated. It provides that 80% of the posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment and 20% by promotion from Store Khalasi (category V) with five years experience on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. However, Director Geology and Mining Department-respondent no. 2 granted promotion to respondent no. 5 on the ground that directions were issued by this Court in SWP no. 653/1992 filed by respondent no. 5 along with others on 31.01.1995. However, Director Geology and Mining Department-respondent no. 2 granted promotion to respondent no. 5 on the ground that directions were issued by this Court in SWP no. 653/1992 filed by respondent no. 5 along with others on 31.01.1995. According to the directions the official respondents were asked to consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant against the available posts subject to their eligibility under the Rules. As a consequence of the aforesaid direction, the Director respondent no. 2 passed an order dated 30.08.1995 (Annexure PF) and while accepting the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee, respondent no. 5 was given promotion as Store Assistant with effect from 01.12.1994. Feeling aggrieved the appellant-petitioner challenged the aforesaid order, claiming that he has a prior right of consideration for promotion to the post of Store Assistant because he was appointed to the feeder cadre of Store Khalasi on 22.07.1981 whereas the respondent no. 5 could secure appointment to that post on 07.08.1985. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of a mistaken impression that respondent no. 5 has actually entered service as Store Khalasi in January 1978 upheld the order of his promotion and dismissed the writ petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. It would first be necessary to understand the principle of seniority enshrined in the Rules. Rule 11 of 1990 Rules provides that the seniority of the members of the service shall be regulated as per the principles laid down in the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. A reference to Rule 24 of 1956 Rules would show that seniority of a member is required to be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. It would be profitable to read the Rule, which is set out below in extenso- 24. Seniority.-(1) The seniority of a person who is subject to these rules has reference to the service, class, category or grade with reference to which the question has arisen. Such seniority shall be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade as the case may be. Note. Seniority.-(1) The seniority of a person who is subject to these rules has reference to the service, class, category or grade with reference to which the question has arisen. Such seniority shall be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade as the case may be. Note. 1.- The rule in this clause will not effect the seniority on the date on which these rules come into force of a member of any service, class, category or grade as fixed in accordance with the rules and orders in force before the date on which these rules come into force. Interpretation.-The words "date of first appointment" occurring in the above rule will mean the date of first substantive appointment, meaning thereby the date of permanent appointment or the date of first appointment on probation on a clear vacancy, confirmation in he latter case being subject to good work and conduct and/or passing of any examination or examinations and/or tests: 5. A perusal of the Rule would show that continuous length of service is the principle adopted by sub-rule 1 of Rule 24. According to the well known canons of interpretation the words, 'date of first appointment' occurring in sub-Rule 1 of Rule 24 was to mean the date of first 'substantive appointment'. In other words, it is the date of permanent appointment or the date of first appointment on probation on clear vacancy. It has remained undisputed that after working as a Daily Wager for long period the appellant-petitioner was regularized as Store Khalasi on 22.07.1981 whereas the respondent no. 5 was also regularized on 07.08.1985. If that be so then by no stretch of imagination the appellant-petitioner could be regarded as junior to respondent no. 5. Accordingly, the promotion order passed in favour of respondent no. 5 on 30.08.1995 would not be sustainable because it fails to consider the case of the appellant-petitioner. 6. It is true that this Court while disposing of SWP no. 653/1992 filed by respondent no. 5 along with others, has issued directions on 30.01.1995 for consideration of their cases for promotion. It would be appropriate to read the directions issued by this Court in SWP no. 653/1992, which are set out below for a ready reference- After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the admission of this petition. 653/1992 filed by respondent no. 5 along with others, has issued directions on 30.01.1995 for consideration of their cases for promotion. It would be appropriate to read the directions issued by this Court in SWP no. 653/1992, which are set out below for a ready reference- After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the admission of this petition. This petition is disposed of at this very stage with the consent in the following terms: The petitioners are admittedly working as daily wagers and qualified also for promotion to the higher posts of Junior Assts. They have not considered so far, for such promotion though they have been working as such, since 1978 for more than 15 years. The respondents 1 to 3 are therefore directed to consider the petitioners for promotion tot eh posts of Junior Assistants against the posts available in the department within eight week's time subject to their eligibility under rules. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid direction would show that this Court has directed that Krishan Dutt and others may be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant against the available vacancies subject to their eligibility under the Rules. Accordingly the respondent-department was obliged to consider the cases in accordance with the seniority of the appellant-petitioner viz-a-viz that of respondent no. 5. The appellant-petitioner, as already held, was senior to respondent no. 5 because he was substantively appointed to the post of Store Khalasi earlier then respondent no. 5. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. For the reasons aforementioned this appeal succeeds. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.05.2001 is hereby set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner is allowed. The order dated 30.08.1995 (Annexure PF), giving promotion to respondent no. 5 on the post of Store Assistant, is hereby quashed. We have been told that the appellant-petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 have retired from service. However, their cases have to be considered afresh keeping in view their date of substantive appointment as Store Khalasi which has been found to be 22.07.1981 (Appellant-petitioner) and 07.08.1985 (Respondent no. 5). 5 on the post of Store Assistant, is hereby quashed. We have been told that the appellant-petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 have retired from service. However, their cases have to be considered afresh keeping in view their date of substantive appointment as Store Khalasi which has been found to be 22.07.1981 (Appellant-petitioner) and 07.08.1985 (Respondent no. 5). If, on due consideration, the appellant-petitioner is found to be meritorious for promotion to the post of Store Assistant then he would be entitled to all the consequential benefits including consideration of his case for further promotion to the post of Storekeeper. We have been apprised by the learned State counsel that the appellant-petitioner was promoted as Store Assistant on 27.02.2008. But the aforesaid date may also undergo change, if on consideration he is found worthy of promotion to the post of Store Assistant from 1995. As respondent no. 5 has already retired from service, we make it clear that in case he faces reversion then no recovery be effected from his salary but re-fixation prospectively shall be permissible. 9. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.