JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. This writ appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 7.7.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 366/2013 and WP(C) No. 120/2014 of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal. Since a Division Bench to hear this intra-court appeal was not available in the same High Court, appellants had moved Transfer Petition (C) No. 2195/2017 before the Apex Court for transferring the appeal and the Apex Court vide order dated 23.1.2018 transferred the appeal to this court. That is how the appeal is laid before us for consideration. 2. We have heard Mr. M. Devananda Singh, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. S.B. Metiei, the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. To appreciate the controversy, relevant facts may be briefly noted at the outset. 4. The private respondents in the present writ appeal filed two separate writ petitions as aforesaid. The writ appellants were private respondent Nos. 14, 4, 7, 10, 3, 18 and 11 respectively in WP(C) No. 366 of 2013 and private respondent Nos. 21, 5, 14, 17, 12, 9 and 23, respectively in WP(C) No. 120 of 2014. 5. The private respondent Nos. 1 to 15 in the present appeal as petitioners had filed WP(C) No. 366/2013 challenging the 2 final inter se seniority lists of the Manipur Police Service Grade-II Officers (MPS Grade-II) issued on 17.5.2013 and 20.1.2014 on the ground that those were prepared de hors the relevant provisions of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 (‘the Service Rules’) as well as the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Training), Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 7.2.1986 which was adopted by the State Government vide Office Memorandum dated 13.11.1987. 6. The private respondents initially challenged the seniority list dated 17.5.2013 but as the final seniority list of MPS Grade-II was published subsequently, on 20.1.2014 the same was incorporated and challenged by filing a recast petition as permitted by the court. Thus, both the seniority lists of 17.5.2013 and 20.1.2014 came to be under challenge in WP(C) No. 366/2013. 7. 6. The private respondents initially challenged the seniority list dated 17.5.2013 but as the final seniority list of MPS Grade-II was published subsequently, on 20.1.2014 the same was incorporated and challenged by filing a recast petition as permitted by the court. Thus, both the seniority lists of 17.5.2013 and 20.1.2014 came to be under challenge in WP(C) No. 366/2013. 7. During the pendency of WP(C) No. 366 of 2013, a Departmental Promotion Committee (‘DPC’) was contemplated for considering the promotion of officers from MPS Grade-II to MPS Grade-I. Against such step, a miscellaneous case was filed in WP(C) No. 366 of 2013 and on 19.2.2014 court allowed the respondent-authorities to convene the DPC but directed that the proceedings be kept in sealed cover. However, the result of the DPC was declared and consequential promotion order was issued on the same day, i.e., on 19.2.2014. As a result, private respondent Nos. 1, 9 and 10 in the present appeal filed WP(C) No. 120/2014, praying for quashing of the entire DPC proceedings held on 18.2.2014 and the consequential promotion order dated 19.2.2014 issued by the State Government. Stand taken against the writ petition was that the final seniority list dated 17.5.2013 and promotion order dated 19.2.2014 were issued only in compliance of the court's order dated 18.2.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 235 of 2012 whereby the State Government was directed to finalise the inter se seniority of MPS Grade-II officers in accordance with law and also in the light of the OM dated 7.2.1986 as adopted by the State of Manipur on 13.11.1987. 8. Be it stated herein that as noticed from the pleadings, though WP(C) No. 235 of 2012 and WP(C) No. 222 of 2013 filed by the direct recruits and the promotees relating to their inter se seniority were disposed on 18.2.2013 and 5.4.2013 respectively, the lis between contesting parties on their inter se seniority in the post of MPS Grade-II was not decided. It is only by the present common judgment and order under appeal that the issue was decided and in favour of the promotees. 9. Private respondent Nos. 1, 9 and 10 were in fact serving as Inspector of Police till they were appointed on promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II vide order dated 1.3.2007. It is only by the present common judgment and order under appeal that the issue was decided and in favour of the promotees. 9. Private respondent Nos. 1, 9 and 10 were in fact serving as Inspector of Police till they were appointed on promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II vide order dated 1.3.2007. Appellants on the other hand, were appointed to the post of MPS Grade-II by direct recruitment vide 2 separate orders dated 14.8.2007 and 24.11.2007. 10. It was the case of the private respondents as writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge that as they were appointed earlier than the appellants, they are to be placed above them in the inter se seniority list. It was further contended by them that a ‘recruitment year’ is to be understood as similar to a ‘financial year’ which they explained starts from the 1st of April of every year and ends on the last day of March the following year. The appellants having been recruited a year behind them, i.e., the previous financial year, appellants will only be junior to them in service as MPS Grade-II. 10.1 They further contended that the State Government in this connection had also issued an Office Memorandum on 29.4.1999 which provides that the Departments under the State Government while calculating the vacancies for preparing a panel list is to calculate the vacancies financial year-wise. Therefore, it was only clear that they should be placed above the appellants in the final inter se seniority list of MPS Grade-II. The State respondents, however, published the final seniority list dated 17.5.2013 by ignoring this aspect and also their earlier appointment to MPS Grade-II. Therefore, the seniority lists cannot be sustained and should be set aside. 11. The appellants contested this claim and filed their affidavit-in-opposition contending, inter alia, that the final inter se seniority list between the direct recruits and the promotees is to be finalized as per their relative seniority and according to the rotation of vacancies as provided by the Service Rules. They contended that since they were appointed against the vacancies under the direct recruitment quota, they have to be given their due seniority irrespective of their appointment being made after the private respondents. They contended that since they were appointed against the vacancies under the direct recruitment quota, they have to be given their due seniority irrespective of their appointment being made after the private respondents. 11.1 It was their further case that there is no carrying forward of vacancy in making an appointment since the Service Rules clearly provide that 50% of the recruitment to the post of MPS Grade-II is to be done by direct recruitment. 12. Learned Single Judge by the common judgment and order dated 7.7.2017 allowed both the writ petitions by quashing the inter se seniority lists dated 17.5.2013 and 20.1.2014 as well as the consequential promotion order dated 19.2.2014, directing the State Government to prepare seniority list afresh in terms of the directions. 13. Hence, this appeal. 14. Facts undisputed are that the appellants were appointed as direct recruits to the post of MPS Grade-II vide order dated 14.8.2007 while the private respondents on the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission (‘MPSC’) were appointed by promotion from the feeder grades to the same post vide order dated 1.3.2007. Admittedly, two separate DPCs were held by the MPSC for this purpose. As per rule 5(1) of the Service Rules, 50% of the substantive vacancies in the MPS Grade-II are to be filled up by direct recruits and the other 50% substantive vacancies by promotees. MPS Grade-II is the entry Grade to the Manipur Police Service (‘the Service’). Rule 28(c)(iii) of the Service Rules provides for the manner in which the relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees are to be determined. For ready perusal, rule 28(c)(iii) of the Service Rules may be abstracted below: “28. (c)(iii) The relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees shall be determined according to rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees as determined under rule 5 for that year and the additional direct recruits selected against the carried forward vacancies of the present year would be placed en-bloc below the last promotee (or direct recruits as the case may be).” 15. It may further be noticed that the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur vide Memorandum dated 13.11.1987 adopted with immediate effect, the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India vide O.M. dated 7.2.1986 under the heading General Principles for determining the seniority of various categories of persons employed in Central Services’. Relevant portion, i.e., paragraph No. 3 of the guidelines may be abstracted below: “3. This matter, which was also discussed in the National Council has been engaging the attention of the Government for quite some time and it has been decided that in future, while the principle of rotation of quotas will still be followed for determining the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, the present practice of keeping vacant slots for being filled up by direct recruits of later years thereby giving them unintended seniority over promotees who are already in position, would be dispensed with. Thus, if adequate number of direct recruits do not become available in any particular year, rotation of quotas for purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of the available direct recruits and the promotees. In other words, to the extent direct recruits are not available, the promotees will be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list, below the last position up-to which it is possible to determine seniority, on the basis of rotation of quotas with reference to the actual number of direct recruit vacancies, would, however, be carried forward and added to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year (and to subsequent years where necessary) for taking action for direct recruitment for the total number according to the usual practice. Thereafter, in that year while seniority will be determined between direct recruits and promotees to the extent of the number of vacancies for direct recruits and promotees as determined according to the quota for that year, the additional direct recruits selected against the carried forward vacancies of the previous years would be placed en-bloc below the last promotees (or direct recruits as the case may be) in the Ministry of Finance, etc., are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all the attached/subordinate offices under them to when the general principles of seniority contained in O.M. dated 22.12.1959 are applicable within 2 weeks as these orders will be effective from the next month. ILLUSTRATION: Where the Recruitment Rules provide 50% of the vacancies in a Grade to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment, and assuming there are 10 vacancies in the grade arising in each of the years 1986 and 1987 and that 2 vacancies intended for direct recruitment remained unfilled during the year 1986 and they could be filed during 1987, the seniority position of the promotees and direct recruits of these two years will be as under: 1986 1987 1. P1 9. P1 2. D1 10. D1 3. P2 11. P2 4. D2 12. D2 5. P3 13. P3 6. D3 14. D3 7. P4 15. P4 8. P5 16. D4 17. P5 18. D5 19. D6 20. D7. 16. From the above abstract, what is to be seen is that there is no dispute in so far the manner in which the vacancies are to be filled up and also as to how unfilled vacancies are to be dealt with in the following year. The rival parties were appointed in the same year, i.e., 2007 but months apart. Learned Single Judge noticed that there is no definition of the word ‘year’ in the Service Rules prior to its amendment by the Manipur Police Service (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2009. The amendment came into force only w.e.f. 18.12.2009 and, therefore, rightly found it inapplicable to the rival parties as they were appointed in the year 2007. 17. On due consideration, learned Single Judge held as follows: “11. From the perusal of the decisions cited hereinabove, it is seen that seniority is not a fundamental right. It is merely a civil right. 17. On due consideration, learned Single Judge held as follows: “11. From the perusal of the decisions cited hereinabove, it is seen that seniority is not a fundamental right. It is merely a civil right. Inter se seniority of the candidates who are appointed on the same day would be dependent on the rules governing the same. In the absence of rules governing seniority, an executive order may be issued to fill up the gap. Only in the absence of a rule or executive instructions, the court may have to evolve a fair and just principle which could be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case. In service jurisprudence, a direct recruit can claim seniority only from the date of his regular appointment. He cannot claim seniority from a date when he was not borne in the service. Inter se seniority in a particular service has to be determined as per the Service Rules. The date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or the other or between one group of officers and the other recruited from different sources. Any departure therefrom in the statutory rules, executive instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the rules which govern and regulate the determination of relative seniority, are nothing but the MPS Rules, 1965 and the relevant rule is rule 28(iii) which provides that the relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees shall be determined according to rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees as determined under rule 5 for that year but the unfortunate part is that the expression “for that year” is not defined in the said rules. Therefore, the issue ultimately centres round the interpretation of the expression “recruitment year” and in other words, the short question that arises for consideration by this court is as to whether the petitioners and the private respondents are appointed in the same recruitment year or not. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the expression “recruitment year” means the financial year for the reason that in the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999, clause 4.2 provides that for preparation of a select panel, Departments may calculate the vacancies (for reporting to DPC) financial year-wise. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the expression “recruitment year” means the financial year for the reason that in the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999, clause 4.2 provides that for preparation of a select panel, Departments may calculate the vacancies (for reporting to DPC) financial year-wise. Moreover, the expression “recruitment year” is defined in section 2(b) of the Reservation Act, 1976 as the financial year during which a recruitment is actually made by the State Government. On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents have submitted that inter se seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees shall be determined in terms of rule 28(iii) of the MPS Rules, 1965 and in particular, the MPSC Rules, 1965 (2nd Amendment) 2009 published vide notification dated 18.12.2009 wherein the term “year” is defined as the calendar year. 12. The present controversy has arisen mainly because of the fact that the rule 28(iii) of the MPS Rules, 1965 do not lay down the manner as to how the inter se seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees be determined and it simply provides that the relative seniority shall be determined according to rotation of vacancies between the direct recruits and the promotees as determined under rule 5 for that year. Rule 5 of the MPS Rules, 1965 provides for method of recruitment 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. If the recruitment, both by direct recruitment and by promotion, takes place in the same recruitment year, there will be no difficulty in determining the inter se seniority. But it does not happen in the present case and the determination of inter se seniority will depend upon the interpretation of the expression “recruitment year” in the context of the State Government and in particular, in the context of the present case. As regards the interpretation of the expression “recruitment year” the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners appear to have some force. The Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 contains instructions to be followed by a DPC in matters of holding its meetings towards promotion which is one of the methods of recruitment. As regards the interpretation of the expression “recruitment year” the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners appear to have some force. The Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 contains instructions to be followed by a DPC in matters of holding its meetings towards promotion which is one of the methods of recruitment. Admittedly, the expression “recruitment year” is defined in section 2(b) of the Reservation Act, 1971 as the “financial year during which a recruitment actually made” which provides provisions for reservation of vacancies in posts and services in order to ensure adequate representation of the reserved categories. It is no doubt true that these two, namely, the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 and the Reservation Act, 1971 have nothing to do directly with the determination of inter se seniority but they do have some relevance indirectly as regards the interpretation of the expression of “recruitment year”. The conjoint reading of both makes it very clear that they are somehow related to recruitment either by way of the direct recruitment or the promotion and in other words, both are to be taken into account at the time of recruitment in respect of posts and services in the State. Moreover, the fact that the expression “year” has been defined in section 2(f) as “calendar year” only by way of an amendment of the MPS Rules, 1965 vide notification dated 18.12.2009 shows indubitably that the expression “recruitment year” was never intended to mean “calendar year” prior to amendment which was prospective in its operation. From the aforesaid circumstances, it can be safely inferred and held that the expression “recruitment year”, prior to amendment, will mean “financial year” so far as the State of Manipur is concerned as aforesaid hereinabove. The various decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and in particular, the decisions rendered in Amarjeet Singh v. Devi Ratan, (2010) 1 SCC 417 and Jogendra Sethi v. Rabindranath Behura, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 693 as regards the interpretation of the expression “recruitment year” will have no application for the reason that the expression “recruitment year”has been defined in the relevant rules mentioned therein. 13. 13. Having held that the expression “recruitment year” would mean “financial year”, the facts of the present case would be required to be examined to find out as to whether the inter se seniority between the petitioners and the private respondents has been properly and correctly determined in the impugned seniority lists. The petitioners were appointed on promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II vide order dated 1.3.2007 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Manipur on the recommendation of a duly constituted DPC associated with the Manipur Public Service Commission and, therefore, it can definitely be said that they were appointed in the recruitment year, 2006-07. On the other hand, the fact that the private respondent Nos. 3 to 32 were appointed to the post of MPS Grade-II vide order dated 14.8.2007 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government, of Manipur while the private respondent No. 33 was appointed vide order dated 24.11.2007, has shown that they were appointed in the recruitment year, 2007-08. Since both the petitioners and the private respondents are not appointed in the same recruitment year, the principles of dovetailing cannot be applied while determining the inter se seniority between the petitioners and the private respondents, as has been erroneously done by the State Government in the present case. The final seniority lists dated 17.5.2013 and 20.1.2014 are bad in law and consequently, all actions taken pursuant thereto including the orders issued by the State Government granting promotions to the post of MPS Grade-I, are rendered null and void so far as the petitioners and the private respondents are concerned. However, it is made clear that till the directions given by this court herein-below being complied with by the State Government, status quo as on date shall be maintained as regards the actions taken by the State Government pursuant to the said seniority lists.” 18. For the reasons mentioned above, learned Single Judge allowed the two writ petitions in the following terms: “14. For the reasons mentioned above, learned Single Judge allowed the two writ petitions in the following terms: “14. For the reasons stated herein above, the writ petitions being WP(C) No. 366 of 2013 and WP(C) No. 120 of 2014 are allowed and consequently, the Government orders dated 17.5.2013, 20.1.2014 and 19.2.2014, impugned herein, in respect of the petitioners and the private respondents, are quashed and set aside with the following directions: (a) The State Government shall prepare a seniority list afresh in respect of the MPS Officers, after taking into account the observations made by this court hereinabove, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order; (b) While preparing the seniority list of MPS Officers, the State Government shall follow the guidelines/instructions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 7.2.1986 which is adopted by the State Government vide its Office Memorandum dated 13.11.1987 as directed vide order dated 18.2.2013 passed by the hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 235 of 2012.” 19. The State Government through the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) issued consolidated instructions/guidelines for DPCs vide Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999. Clause 4.2 of the said Office Memorandum provides that the Departments for preparation of a select panel may calculate the vacancies for reporting to the DPC financial year-wise. However, despite the instructions, what is noticed is that there is no material on record to show that a panel list was duly prepared and that too financial year-wise to determine the maimer in which the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees is to be carried out in terms of rule 28(c)(iii) of the Service Rules. 20. It may be stated herein that the general principle for determining seniority in the absence of any express provision is length of service counted from the date of substantive appointment to the post concerned. In other words, seniority will be counted from the date when one is borne in the cadre and not before such entry. Learned Single Judge is correct in saying so in paragraph 11 of the judgment. 21. In the case of N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1977) 1 SCC 308 , the dispute was regarding seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees. Learned Single Judge is correct in saying so in paragraph 11 of the judgment. 21. In the case of N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1977) 1 SCC 308 , the dispute was regarding seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees. Apex Court held that direct recruits appointed after the promotees cannot claim deemed dates of appointment for their seniority, i.e., with effect from the time when vacancy for direct recruitment arose. Seniority, therefore, will depend upon length of service in the cadre. 22. In the case of Suraj Prakash Gupta v. State of J&K, (2000) 7 SCC 561 , wherein, the dispute of seniority was also between direct recruits and promotees, a claim was made that the appointment by direct recruitment can be antedated from the date of occurrence of a vacancy in direct recruitment quota, even if on that date the said person was not directly recruited. Stand that was taken was that if the promotees occupy the quota belonging to direct recruits, they had to be pushed down, whenever direct recruitment was made. Once they were so pushed down, even if the direct recruits came later, they should be put in the direct recruit slots from the date on which such slots were available under the direct recruitment quota. Rejecting this contention, Apex Court held that in service jurisprudence, a direct recruit can claim seniority only from the date of his regular appointment. He cannot claim seniority from a date when he was not borne in the cadre. Seniority will depend upon length of service. The same view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of A. Janardhana v. Union of India, (1983) 3 SCC 601 and in A.N. Pathak v. Secretary to the Government, 1987 Supp SCC 763. 23. In the case of Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh, (2011) 3 SCC 267 , the issue which came up for consideration before the Apex Court was as to how the seniority between two groups of direct recruits recruited to the post of Deputy Jailor, one through a selection made by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission and the other by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission was to be determined. Apex Court after examining a number of decisions in this regard including the above decisions summarized the manner in which seniority in service is to be determined. Apex Court after examining a number of decisions in this regard including the above decisions summarized the manner in which seniority in service is to be determined. Paragraph No. 45 of the judgment which is relevant may be reproduced as below for ready perusal: “45. From the above, the legal position with regard to determination of seniority in service can be summarized as follows: (i) The effective date of selection has to be understood in the context of the service rules under which the appointment is made. It may mean the date on which the process of selection starts with the issuance of advertisement or the factum of preparation of the select list, as the case may be. (ii) Inter se seniority in a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules. The date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or the other or between one group of officers and the other recruited from different sources. Any departure therefrom in the statutory rules, executive instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirement of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (iii) Ordinarily, notional seniority may not be granted from the backdate and if it is done, it must be based on objective considerations and on a valid classification and must be traceable to the statutory rules. (iv) The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules. It is so because seniority cannot be given on retrospective basis when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect the employees who have been appointed validly the meantime.” 24. Coming back to the present case, the admitted position is that selection to the post of MPS Grade-II for direct recruits and promotees were not held together but separately. The private respondents were earlier appointed on promotion to the post on 1.3.2007 while the appellants were appointed by direct recruitment on 14.8.2007 and 24.11.2007 respectively. Being promoted at an earlier point of time, the private respondents will naturally have seniority over the appellants as they had entered the cadre of MPS Grade-II earlier before the appellants were bom in the cadre. Being promoted at an earlier point of time, the private respondents will naturally have seniority over the appellants as they had entered the cadre of MPS Grade-II earlier before the appellants were bom in the cadre. Therefore, in our considered view, the above position being very clear there was no reason to embark upon the interpretation of the word/words ‘year’ or for ‘that year’ as gone into by the learned Single Judge. 25. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions of the Apex Court as referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the seniority of the rival MPS Grade-II officers will have to be counted from the dates of their substantive appointment to the post, i.e., the dates of their entry into the cadre of MPS Grade-II. 26. In the result, we uphold the Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge but in the background of our own reasonings. The writ appeal, thus, fails and is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 27. It is needless to mention herein that the State respondents shall now proceed to take necessary steps in terms of paragraph No. 14 of the Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge. 28. No cost.