JUDGMENT : N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. 1. This L.P. appeal is preferred by the Union of India and its Officers against the order made in SWP No. 792/2009 dated 21.09.2015, allowing the writ petition of the respondent seeking quashing of notice dated 23.04.2009, proposing reversion of the writ petitioner from the post of Sub Inspector to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector and holding that the writ petitioner is entitled to all the benefits by taking his initial appointment as 25th of September, 1989 instead of 26th of October, 1994. 2. The case pleaded by the respondent before the writ court was that advertisement to fill up the backlog vacancies of ST/SC categories in a special drive was issued and the respondent came to be appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector/Clerk on 28.09.1989. The appointment of the respondent was subject to passing of type writing test within one year from the date of his appointment. The respondent continued in service and passed the said type writing test on 26.10.1994. Thereafter by order dated 23.12.1994 the respondent and four others were appointed on regular basis. The name of the respondent was reflected in the seniority list and respondent was considered in his category for promotion by the Departmental promotion Committee and was promoted as Sub Inspector (Ministerial) with effect from 12.10.2000. The respondents thereafter issued show cause notice dated 19.07.2005 whereby the respondent was asked to show cause as to why his seniority be fixed from the date of confirmation. The respondent replied to the show cause notice. Again by virtue of communication dated 23.04.2009 the respondent was asked to show cause as to why he should not be reverted. 3. The said notice was challenged by the respondent and the learned Writ Court, after considering the fact that the date of appointment of the respondent has to be taken into consideration for fixing his seniority and applying the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 1607 (The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association and ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.), holding that seniority has to be counted from the date of appointment and not from the date of confirmation, allowed the writ petition, against which this appeal is filed. 4. Mr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.), holding that seniority has to be counted from the date of appointment and not from the date of confirmation, allowed the writ petition, against which this appeal is filed. 4. Mr. Raghu Mehta, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the appellants submitted that as the respondent has passed the type writing test in the year 1994, his seniority has to be reckoned from the date of passing of the type test and he was erroneously considered for promotion by taking his date of appointment as 25.09.1989 and the erroneous promotion having been brought to the notice of concerned authority, a Court of Inquiry was ordered which recommended re-fixation of his seniority and either promotion be regularised or review DPC be made. 5. Mr. Ajay Abrol, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that in terms of Office Memorandum dated 4th November, 1992 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) it has been decided that seniority of a person regularly appointed to a post according to rule would be determined by the order of merit indicated at the time of initial appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. Learned counsel stated that the Writ Court has rightly allowed the writ petition by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 1607 (The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association and ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) based on which the office Memorandum aforesaid was issued. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 7. It is not in dispute that respondent was appointed in the year 1989 after he appeared in the selection process. It is also not in dispute that appointment of the respondent was subject to passing of type writing test within one year. The respondent passed the said type writing test in the year 1994 and was regularised along with others. It is also a fact that no notice for not passing the required test within one year was issued to the respondent by the appellants. The respondent passed the said type writing test in the year 1994 and was regularised along with others. It is also a fact that no notice for not passing the required test within one year was issued to the respondent by the appellants. The respondent having been promoted on the basis of his seniority reckoned as per his date of initial appointment, the issuance of show cause notice to revert him after his promotion that too after 9 years cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (1999) 8 SCC 287 (S.L. Chandrakishore Singh and ors. v. State of Manipur and ors.) wherein it has been held as under:- "13. It is now well settled that even in cases of probation or officiating appointments which are followed by a confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment or on probation cannot be ignored for reckoning the length of continuous officiating service for determining the place in the seniority list. Where the first appointment is made by not following the prescribed procedure and such appointee is approved later on, the approval would mean his confirmation by the authority shall relate back to the date on which his appointment was made and the entire service will have to be computed in reckoning the seniority according to the length of continuous officiation. In this regard we fortify our view by the judgment of this Court in G.P. Doval & Anr. v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. & Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 329 ." 8. Having regard to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the fact that Circular dated 04.11.1992 clearly holds that seniority has to be counted from the date of initial appointment, the Writ Court has rightly allowed the writ petition. We are unable to find any reason to interfere with the said order and the L.P. Appeal is dismissed. No costs.