ORDER 1. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 2. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the Gradation-List dated 8.9.2017 (Annexure-P/1) showing seniority the Sub Inspector (Finger Print) of dated 30.11.2009, by which the Gradation-List has been prepared contrary to the provision of Madhya Pradesh Police Executive (Non-Gazette) Recruitment Rules, 1997 (which shall be referred hereinafter as “Rules, 1997”) and against the Rule 12 of the M.P. Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 (for brevity “Rules, 1961”) 3. Brief facts of the case are that the the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub Inspector in Finger Print Branch of M.P. Police by order dated 30.4.1998. The petitioner was selected on the basis of meritlist prepared after the completion of the examination and the petitioner was placed on top of the merit-list. The Gradation-List of Sub Inspector (Finger Print) was published in the year 2000 showing the seniority of the Sub Inspector wherein the name of the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.18 in the list. The said Gradation-List was prepared on the basis of the merits as per the Rule 12 of the Rules, 1961. The service of the petitioner was governed with the Rules known as Rules, 1997. According to the rule 12(2) of the Rules, 1961, the candidate will be appointed and the list prepared by the Selection Committee will be followed. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents without considering the Rules, 1961, the seniority list has been reconstituted on the basis of marks obtained in the fundamental training and the seniority list dated 11.7.2001 was published resulting him on lower position in the Gradation-List. The petitioner made several representations and filed the objections but to no avail. 5. The Director General of Police, contrary to the provisions and the demand raised in the representation, issued an order dated 30.10.2009 directing to prepare the Gradation-List on the basis of marks obtained in the three months Basic Training Course and six months Basic Technical Training Course. Vide order dated 26.11.2012, the Director General of Police has cancelled the order dated 30.10.2009 considering the provisions of Recruitment Rules of 1997 and the provisions of Rules, 1961. The respondents were obliged to re-frame the Gradation-List in light of the order dated 26.11.2012 but no fresh Gradation-List was prepared. Vide order dated 26.11.2012, the Director General of Police has cancelled the order dated 30.10.2009 considering the provisions of Recruitment Rules of 1997 and the provisions of Rules, 1961. The respondents were obliged to re-frame the Gradation-List in light of the order dated 26.11.2012 but no fresh Gradation-List was prepared. Again representations and reminders were filed before the Competent Authority. 6. It is worthy to mention that other branches of the Police Department have already issued Gradation-List following the rules. It is well settled law that inter se seniority of a one batch of employee are required to be assigned on the basis of the provisions contained in Rules, 1961. The recruitment rules also provides for preparation of GradationList on the basis of merit list prepared by the Selection Committee. 7. Since the representation filed by the petitioner was not decided, therefore, he filed W.P. No.7744/2016, which was disposed off vide order dated 25.11.2016 with a direction to the respondents authority to decide the representation and prepare the Gradation-List on the basis of relevant rules. In compliance a tentative Gradation-List was prepared and objections were called from the concerned persons. Petitioner submitted his objections that tentative Gradation-List was prepared ignoring the provisions of law. However, a wrong Gradation-List was issued dated 8.9.2017, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that inspite of reconstruction of earlier Gradation-List and direction by Additional Director General of Police, Administration, the Gradation-List has been prepared as per their wishes without following the rules, therefore, the impugned Gradation-List deserves to be rejected and a fresh GradationList in accordance with the Rules be directed to be prepared. 9. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State opposed the prayer submitting that the Gradation-List is being prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the training for the purpose of selection for appointment and not on the basis of marks obtained in the examination conducted for recruitment purpose. Learned Panel Lawyer also relied on the judgment of M.P. State Administrative Tribunal to contend that the O.A. was dismissed, where the Gradation-List was prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the basic training examination, therefore, this petition also deserves to be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Learned Panel Lawyer also relied on the judgment of M.P. State Administrative Tribunal to contend that the O.A. was dismissed, where the Gradation-List was prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the basic training examination, therefore, this petition also deserves to be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It is an admitted position that Director General of Police had once set-aside the Gradation-List and directed the Competent Authority to frame Gradation-List in accordance with Rules, 61 and Rules, 1997, then too without taking into consideration the direction, again same mistake has been committed. Moreover, order passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal has not considered the effect of Rules, 1961 and Rules, 1997, therefore, the judgment cannot be of any help to the respondents/State, since it is per incuriam. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the Gradation-List dated 8.9.2017 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby set-aside. The respondents are directed to prepare the Gradation-List considering the provisions of Rules, 1997 and rule 12 of the Rules, 1961 and shall grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner. 13. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed off. No order as to costs.