JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel representing the appellants-State authorities and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1. 2. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are proforma respondents in this appeal, who despite notices having been issued did not put in their appearance in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. 3. We have also perused the records available before us on this special appeal. 4. This special appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule V of the Rules of the Court, lays a challenge to the judgment and order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ Petition No. 34799 (SS) of 2019 filed by the petitioner-respondent no.1 has been allowed and the opposite parties therein have been directed to prepare a fresh joint seniority list of the Inspectors (Civil Police) and Inspectors (Armed Police)/Company Commanders in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1991’) and, thus, to undertake the exercise of promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 5. Submission on behalf of learned counsel representing the appellants-State impeaching the judgment and order under appeal is that Rule 7 of the Rules of 1991 does not have any application so far as the preparation of joint seniority list for the purposes of making promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is concerned and, as such, learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order under appeal has clearly erred in law in directing preparation of the joint seniority list in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1991. It has further been argued on behalf of the appellants-State authorities that as a matter of fact it is the Government Order dated 24th of July, 2003, prescription of which will govern the exercise of preparation of joint seniority list to be prepared for the purposes of making promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It has further been argued on behalf of the appellants-State authorities that as a matter of fact it is the Government Order dated 24th of July, 2003, prescription of which will govern the exercise of preparation of joint seniority list to be prepared for the purposes of making promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. His further submission is that the Government Order dated 24th July, 2003 having been issued in exercise of powers vested in the State Government under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1861’) has statutory force and by ignoring the prescriptions available in the said Government Order, learned Single Judge has clearly erred. 6. On the other hand, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1 submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the light of the discussions made by learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order under appeal, no interference in this special appeal is needed, which is liable to be dismissed at its threshold. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel representing the respective parties. 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and going through the records available before us, the issue which emerges for consideration of the court is as to what is the procedure available for determination of joint seniority list as prescribed in Rule 16 of U.P. Police Service Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2016’) for the purposes of making promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 9. The case put forth by the petitioner-respondent no.1 in the writ petition before learned Single Judge was that he was appointed initially on the post of Sub-Inspector (Armed Police)/Company Commander on 11.11.1986 and thereafter he was promoted on regular basis to the post of Inspector (Armed Police)/Platoon Commander on 24.02.2014. It was pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition that one Ram Pal Singh was appointed in the year 1990 i.e. four years after the appointment of respondent no.1-petitioner, on the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and subsequently he was promoted as Inspector (Civil Police) on 12.7.2013. It was pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition that one Ram Pal Singh was appointed in the year 1990 i.e. four years after the appointment of respondent no.1-petitioner, on the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and subsequently he was promoted as Inspector (Civil Police) on 12.7.2013. Further case sought to be established by respondent no.1-petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that in July, 2019 a joint seniority list for the purposes of making promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police which comprised of the Inspectors (Armed Police)/Company Commanders and Inspectors (Civil Police), was prepared where the petitioner was placed below Ram Pal Singh though initial appointment on the post of Sub Inspector of the petitioner was made on 11.11.1986, whereas Ram Pal Singh was appointed initially on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) after four years of his appointment. The respondent no.1-petitioner also pleaded before learned Single Judge with a view to consider the issue relating to the preparation of joint seniority list for the purposes of making promotions to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, a Two Members Committee was constituted which has submitted its report on 4.10.2019. According to the said report submitted by the Two Members Committee the joint seniority list was required to be prepared in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 7 of Rules of 1991. The report of the said Committee is on record as Annexure No.2 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.1. 10. In view of the said submissions, prayer made in the writ petition by the respondent no.1 was to issue a direction to the State authorities to quash the joint seniority list issued vide letter dated 22.11.2019 and also the order dated 20.11.2019, whereby the claim of the respondent no.1-petitioner for placing him over and above Ram Pal Singh was rejected. 11. 11. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by means of the judgment and order under appeal, dated 22.09.2021 has observed that the basis of the joint seniority list which was under challenge in the writ petition, is the Government Order dated 24.07.2003, however, as per the report submitted by the two members committee, dated 4.10.2019 the Government Order dated 24.07.2003 is non-existent and in view of the promulgation of Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Services Rules, 2015 and Uttar Pradesh (Pradeshik Armed Constabulary) Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015 the joint seniority list is to be prepared in accordance with Rule 7 of Rules of 1991. In view of the said observation, joint seniority list which was under challenge before learned Single Judge has been quashed and accordingly a direction has been issued to prepare a fresh joint seniority list in accordance with Rule 7 of Rules of 1991. 12. The issue which emerges, as observed above, for our consideration is, as to whether there is any procedure prescribed for the purposes of preparing the joint seniority list as envisaged in Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016 and as to whether while preparing the joint seniority list, which was under challenge before learned Single Judge, such prescription was followed or not. 13. The Rules of 2016 have been framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred on it under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2016 provides that there shall be two sources of recruitment to service in the Ordinary Grade. Fifty percent posts are to be filled in by way of direct recruitment through Public Service Commission on the basis of a competitive examination and fifty percent posts in the service in Ordinary Grade is to be filled in by promotion through U.P. Public Service Commission from amongst substantively appointed Inspectors of Civil Police and Inspectors of Armed Police, who have completed five years of service on the first day of their recruitment and are also confirmed in their respective posts. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2016 is quoted hereinunder: “5. (1) Recruitment to the Service in the Ordinary Grade shall be made from the following sources :- (i) Fifty percent by direct recruitment through the Commission on the basis of competitive examination. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2016 is quoted hereinunder: “5. (1) Recruitment to the Service in the Ordinary Grade shall be made from the following sources :- (i) Fifty percent by direct recruitment through the Commission on the basis of competitive examination. NOTE-A Combined Competitive Examination is held by the Commission for recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Executive Branch), Uttar Pradesh Police Service, Uttar Pradesh Finance and Accounts Service etc. (ii) Fifty percent by promotion through the Commission from amongst substantively appointed Inspectors of Civil Police and Armed Police who have completed five years service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment and are also confirmed in the said Post: Provided that two percent of the vacancies for a year of recruitment may be filled by out of turn promotion through the Commission on the specific recommendation of the Government from amongst such Police Inspectors/Company Commanders of Uttar Pradesh Police Force who have achieved the following awards :- (a) After having been selected to the Indian team should have participated in World Championship, either in a team or individual event, which is recognised by the International Olympic Association and should have earned a Gold or Silver or Bronze Medal or up to the fourth place, or (b) After having been selected to the Indian team should have participated in Olympic Games which is recognised by the International Olympic Association and should have earned a Gold or Silver or Bronze Medal or up to the fourth place, or (c) After having been selected to the Indian team should have participated in Asian Games/ Asian Championship which is recognized by the International Olympic Association and should have earned a Gold or Silver Medal, or (d) If he/she has earned country's highest award or excellence in sports "Arjuna award"/ "Rajeev Gandhi Khel Ratna". If any Inspector of Civil Police or Armed Police qualifies the criterion laid down for promotion in such case then a proposal would be forwarded to the Government by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh with clear recommendation and the out of turn promotion will be awarded by the State Government with the concurrence of the Commission. If any Inspector of Civil Police or Armed Police qualifies the criterion laid down for promotion in such case then a proposal would be forwarded to the Government by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh with clear recommendation and the out of turn promotion will be awarded by the State Government with the concurrence of the Commission. If such person or sufficient number of such persons are not available for out of turn promotion under this proviso, the remaining vacancies shall be filled in accordance with the general procedure prescribed in this rule. (2) Recruitment to the posts in Senior Scale, Additional Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Grade-11, Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Grade-I and Additional Superintendent of Police, Higher Grade shall be made by promotion as per provisions of rule 17 of these rules.” 14. The procedure for recruitment by promotion to Ordinary Grade of service under the Rules of 2016 can be found in Rule 16 according to which recruitment by promotion is to be made on the basis of merit in accordance with the provisions contained in Uttar Pradesh Promotion by Selection in Consultation with Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1970, as amended from time to time from amongst substantively appointed Inspectors of Civil Police and Armed Police as per their joint seniority list to be prepared by the Head of the Department. Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016 is also extracted hereinbelow. “16. Recruitment by promotion to the Ordinary Grade shall be made on the basis of merit in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Promotion by Selection in Consultation with Public Services Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1970, as amended from time to time, from amongst substantively appointed Inspectors of Civil Police and Armed Police as per their combined seniority list to be prepared by the Head of Department.” 15. Thus, from a perusal of afore-quoted Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016 what we find is that the criteria for making promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is the merit and recruitment by promotion is to be considered in terms of the procedure Rules 1970. Thus, from a perusal of afore-quoted Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016 what we find is that the criteria for making promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is the merit and recruitment by promotion is to be considered in terms of the procedure Rules 1970. The zone of consideration for the purposes of making promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, according to Rule 16, comprises of the Inspectors of Civil Police and Inspectors Armed Police, that is to say those Sub-Inspectors who are initially appointed as Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and also those Sub-Inspectors who are initially appointed as Sub Inspector (Armed Police)/Platoon Commander and are subsequently promoted to the post of Inspector (Civil Police) or Inspector (Armed Police)/Company Commander, as the case may be, are eligible to be considered for promotion provided they have put in five years of substantive service on their respective posts of Inspectors and are also confirmed in their respective posts. 16. Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016, thus, speaks about making promotions from combined seniority list to be prepared by the Head of the Department which shall comprise of Inspectors (Civil Police) and Inspectors (Armed Police). Thus there are two feeding cadres which from the eligibility zone for making promotions to the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police namely; (1) the cadre of Inspectors (Civil Police) and, (2) cadre of Inspectors (Armed Police)/Company Commander. 17. The Rules of 2016 do not contain any provision or prescription as to how the combined seniority list for the purposes of utilizing the same for making recruitment by way of promotion under the Rules of 2016 is to be prepared. As a matter of fact the phrase ‘combined seniority list’ occurring in Rule 16 of Rules of 2016 is clearly a misnomer. The list which is mentioned in Rule 16, in fact, would be better described as eligibility list prepared for the purposes of making promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police which will include the eligible Inspectors coming from both the cadres, namely, Inspectors (Civil Police) and Inspectors (Armed Police). It cannot be termed to be a 'seniority list' in the traditional sense of the word; rather it is an eligibility list as observed above. It cannot be termed to be a 'seniority list' in the traditional sense of the word; rather it is an eligibility list as observed above. At the cost of repetition, we may observe that the Rules of 2016 do not provide for any provision as to how the combined seniority list is to be prepared. 18. Thus, it is in this background that we are called upon to consider the submissions made by learned counsel representing the appellants-State authorities and learned counsel representing the respondent no.1. 19. It has been argued by learned State Counsel representing the appellants that in absence of any statutory prescription available in the Rules of 2016 for the purposes of preparation of 'combined seniority list' as envisaged in Rule 16, such combined seniority list is to be prepared as per the prescriptions available in the Government Order dated 24.07.2003. Submission is that the Government Order dated 24.07.2003 has statutory force as it is referable to the powers of the State Government available to it under Section 2 of the Act of 1861. In this view the submission is that the Government Order dated 24.07.2003 is not an ordinary executive circular or administrative order; rather it is a statutory instrument having been issued under Section 2 of the Act of 1861. Contention, thus, is that in absence of any prescription available in the Rules of 2016 for the purposes of preparation of 'combined seniority list', the said list is to be prepared in terms of the provisions available in Clause 9 of the Government Order dated 24.07.2003. 20. When we examine the said submission advanced by learned counsel appearing for the appellants-State authorities vis-a-vis the findings recorded by learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal, what we find is that the learned Single Judge has observed that on promulgation of the 2015 Service Rules for both the cadres, the Government Order dated 24.07.2003 lost its existence and as such determination of combined seniority list is to be made in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1991. 21. For reflecting upon the aforesaid issue, we need to consider the statutory prescriptions governing the conditions of service of members of both the cadres. 22. 21. For reflecting upon the aforesaid issue, we need to consider the statutory prescriptions governing the conditions of service of members of both the cadres. 22. Prior to the year 2008, recruitment to the post of Sub Inspectors in both the cadres, namely, in the cadre of Civil Police as also in the cadre of Armed Police/P.A.C. used to be made in terms of certain government orders issued which were referable to Section 2 of the Act of 1861, however, in the year 2008, two sets of statutory rules were framed by the State Government which are known as (1) Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008 and (2) Uttar Pradesh Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2008. The first set of Rules relating to Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors in Civil Police were framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred on it under Section 46 (3) and 46 (2) (c) read with Section 2 of the Act of 1861, whereas 2008 Service Rules relating to the Subordinate Officers of U.P. Armed Constabulary were made by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred on it under Section 15 of United Provinces Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act, 1948. Thus, these two sets of Rules framed in 2008 by the State Government are statutory in nature. The 2008 Service Rules pertaining to Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Civil Police) were notified by the State Government on 02.12.2008. The said notification itself states that 2008 Service Rules were framed in supersession of all existing Rules. Similarly the 2008 Service Rules framed by the State Government in respect of the Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors pertaining to equivalent rank officers in the Armed Police/P.A.C. also provides that the said Rules were framed in supersession of all the then existing Rules. Thus, if we read the two notifications issued by the State Government both on 02.12.2008, whereby the two sets of aforesaid 2008 Service Rules were notified, what we find is that on promulgation of those Rules the earlier Rules stood issued in this behalf stood superseded. 23. Subsequently, in supersession of even 2008 Service Rules, the State Government promulgated Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Services Rules, 2015 which were notified in August 19, 2015. 23. Subsequently, in supersession of even 2008 Service Rules, the State Government promulgated Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Services Rules, 2015 which were notified in August 19, 2015. Similarly, for the purposes of governing the conditions of service of the Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Armed Police)/P.A.C., the State Government promulgated another set of Rules known as Uttar Pradesh (Pradeshik Armed Constabulary) Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015 which were notified on August 14, 2015. 24. In the instant case the appointment of the petitioner-respondent no. 1 was made in the year 1986 on the post of Sub-Inspector (Armed Police) and he was promoted to the post of Inspector (Armed Police) on 24.02.2014, whereas the combined seniority list for the purposes of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016 has been prepared in the year 2019. Thus, so far as the determination of seniority on the post of Inspector separately these two separate cadres is concerned, the provisions of the aforementioned two sets of Service Rules, 2015 will have to be seen. 25. In the Service Rules, 2015 pertaining to Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Civil Police) the relevant provision relating to determination of seniority is available in Rule 22 of Rules of 2015. Similarly so far as the determination of seniority of Sub-Inspectors/Inspectors (Armed Police)/P.A.C. is concerned, the relevant Rule available in 2015 Rules and applicable to them is Rule 22. 26. We may make it clear that Rule 22 in both the aforesaid two sets of Rules 2015 does not anywhere speak that determination of seniority in the respective cadres shall be made in accordance with the provisions contained in Rules of 1991, which have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India whereas the aforesaid two sets of Service Rules, 2015 were framed by the State Government by virtue of the powers conferred on its under the Police Act or the United Provinces Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act, 1948. 27. However, what we further notice is that the Service Rules governing the conditions of service which will include the process of recruitment as well on the post of the Deputy Superintendent of Police have been framed by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 27. However, what we further notice is that the Service Rules governing the conditions of service which will include the process of recruitment as well on the post of the Deputy Superintendent of Police have been framed by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Rules of 2016 clearly do not make any mention that they were framed under the Police Act; rather the notification whereby the Rules of 2016 were notified makes it abundantly clear that the same have been framed by the State Government under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Thus, in our considered opinion, any prescription made by the State Government by issuing an executive circular or order which owes its existence to either the Police Act or the P.A.C. Act, 1948 will have no application so far as the regulation of conditions of service of the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police is concerned. 28. Having observed as above, what we also notice is that though Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016 envisages preparation of a 'combined seniority list' for the purposes of making promotions to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, however, as to what will be the criteria for preparation of the said 'combined seniority list' is not provided in 2016 Rules. Learned State Counsel has also not been able to place any other Government Order, executive circular/statutory Rules which provide for any procedure or criteria for determining the 'combined seniority list' mentioned under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016 except the Government Order dated 24.07.2003, which, admittedly, has been issued by the State Government under Section 2 of the Act of 1861. 29. An attempt has been made by the learned State Counsel to submit that in fact the entire police force is one having been created under the Police Act and existence of the entire Police Force including the Deputy Superintendent of Police can be traced in the provisions of Police Act and, as such, the Government Order dated 24.07.2003 will have application so far as the determination of 'combined seniority list' for the purposes of making the promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is concerned. 30. 30. In his submissions to the extent that entire police force is one, learned State Counsel may be correct, however, for regulating the conditions of service of Deputy Superintendent of Police, no Service Rules have been framed under the Police Act. The Service Rules regulating the conditions of service of the Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors both in Civil Police and Armed Police have been framed under the Police Act and the P.A.C. Act whereas the Rules governing the conditions of service including the recruitment on the post of the Deputy Superintendent of Police have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The submission of learned State Counsel may have been correct, had the Rules regulating the conditions of service of Deputy Superintendent of Police been also framed under the Police Act. 31. As already observed above, there is no document on record, statutory or non-statutory, which can be said to throw some light as to how and on what criteria the 'combined seniority list' as envisaged in Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016 is to be prepared. There is no doubt to the submissions made by learned counsel representing the appellants that it is general law acceptable to all canons of service jurisprudence that the seniority of any government employee is to be reckoned from the date of his substantive appointment, however, for the purposes of preparing the 'combined seniority list' in terms of the requirement of Rule 16 of 2016 Rules no prescription is available. What we notice in this case is that the respondent no.1-petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector four years ahead of the appointment of one Ram Pal Singh, who has been shown to be senior in the 'combined seniority list' which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge. Despite having been appointed on the initial post prior in time if a government employee faces reduced chances of promotion, it may cause some heart burning. In this case the respondent no.1-petitioner was placed below an incumbent belonging to a different cadre who was appointed on the initial post after him which may give rise to some anomalous situation, however, all this lies in the realm of policy decision in respect of which is to be taken by the Government. 32. In this case the respondent no.1-petitioner was placed below an incumbent belonging to a different cadre who was appointed on the initial post after him which may give rise to some anomalous situation, however, all this lies in the realm of policy decision in respect of which is to be taken by the Government. 32. In the light of the discussions made above, what this court finds is that unless and until the State Government provides for some objective criteria for the purposes of preparing the 'combined seniority list' as envisaged in Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016, which can more appropriately be described as 'eligibility list for the purpose of promotion', there will always be chances of there being a grey area which may not be conducive to proper cadre management. 33. As far as the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge, which is under appeal herein is concerned, the learned Single Judge has though found that the Government Order dated 24.07.2003 is non-existent after promulgation of two sets of 2015 Service Rules, however, learned Single Judge has further proceeded to give a direction to prepare the joint seniority list in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1991. 34. We are unable to agree with the said directions given by learned Single Judge vide judgment and order under challenge herein. U.P. Government Service Seniority Rules, 1991 have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, thus will have full application for the purposes of determination of seniority on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, however, in the instant case the seniority on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police or even on the post of Inspector (Civil Police) or on the post of Inspector (Armed Police) is not to be reckoned; rather what needs to be prepared is the 'combined seniority list' for the purposes of making promotions on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in terms of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016. 35. Rule 7 of Rules of 1991 is extracted hereinbelow: “(7). Where according to the service rules, appointments are to be made only by promotion but from more than one feeding cadres, the seniority inter se of persons appointed on the result of any one selection shall be determined according to the date of the order of their substantive appointment in their respective feeding cadres. Where according to the service rules, appointments are to be made only by promotion but from more than one feeding cadres, the seniority inter se of persons appointed on the result of any one selection shall be determined according to the date of the order of their substantive appointment in their respective feeding cadres. Explanation:- Where the order of the substantive appointment in the feeding cadre specifies a particular back date with effect from which a person is substantively appointed, that date will be deemed to be the date of order of substantive appointment and, in other cases it will meant the date of issuance of the order: Provided that where the pay scales of the feeding cadres are different, the persons promoted from the feeding cadre having higher pay scale shall be senior to the persons promoted from the feeding cadre having lower pay scale: Provided further that the persons appointed on the result of a subsequent selection shall be junior to the persons appointed on the result of a previous selection.” 36. The afore-quoted Rule 7 of the Rules of 1991 provides for the procedure as to how the seniority is to be determined in a situation where appointment on a particular post is made by promotion from several feeding cadres that is to say Rule 7 will have an application for the purposes of determination of seniority once the promotion from the feeding cadres is made. In this case Rule 7 of the Rules of 1991 will have application only once promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is made from the two feeding cadres, namely the cadre of Inspectors (Civil Police) and the cadre of Inspectors (Armed Police) and thereafter seniority list is to be determined on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Rule 7 is thus available and applicable for the purposes of determining the seniority once the promotion is made and not prior to that. The seniority list to be prepared under the Government Servant Seniority Rules is not to be confused by the 'combined seniority list' which phrase occurs in Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016. 37. Rule 7 is thus available and applicable for the purposes of determining the seniority once the promotion is made and not prior to that. The seniority list to be prepared under the Government Servant Seniority Rules is not to be confused by the 'combined seniority list' which phrase occurs in Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016. 37. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered opinion that Rule 7 of Rules of 1991 does not have any application for the purposes of preparation of the 'combined seniority list' as envisaged under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016. 38. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to agree with the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge, dated 22.09.2021, in Writ Petition No.34799 (SS) of 2019. 39. The Special Appeal is, thus, allowed and the said judgment passed by learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. 40. We, however, while allowing the special appeal, also direct the State Government to consider framing of some objective criteria for the purposes of preparation of combined seniority list to be prepared as per the requirement of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016 for making promotion to the Ordinary Grade of service as described in the Uttar Pradesh Police Service Rules, 2016. The said criteria shall be framed by the State Government within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is furnished. The necessary exercise for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall be undertaken thereafter. 41. There will be no order as to costs.