JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of “Force Order no. 250 of 2017” (Annexure-3), whereby, the seniority list has been published for the post of Company Commander, Home Guard, Government of Jharkhand, wherein, the marks obtained during the training has been added for determination of seniority due to which private respondents (Appointees of 2014 ) who are juniors to the petitioners (Appointees of 2012) have considered seniors to the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for consideration of objection regarding the seniority list pursuant to Memo No. 714, dated 06.04.2017 (Annexure-1) and issue afresh seniority list. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Company Commander on 30.11.2012 after being declared successful pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2008. At the time of the advertisement and during the appointment process, admittedly there was no service rule available with respect to determining the seniority/promotion of the Company Commander (Home Guards). Further, in the terms of the advertisement as well as appointment letter, nowhere, it is mentioned that the marks of the training will be added while preparing the seniority list. Subsequently, vide Memo No. 714, dated 06.04.2017 issued under the signature of Commandant, Jharkhand Home Guard, whereby, a provisional seniority list was prepared inviting objections (Annexure-1), thereafter, the petitioners have filed objections on 18.04.2017 (Annexure-2), opposing the stand of the respondents that the marks of the training cannot be added for determination of the seniority list. Thereafter, without considering the objection raised by the petitioner, the seniority list was prepared by the respondent State vide Force Order No 250/2017 issued under the signature of Deputy Inspector General, Home Guards, by determining the seniority on the basis of marks obtained during the training not as per the merit of recruitment process and length of service. The petitioner no. 1 being ranked 1 in the merit list, appointed in the year 2012 has been made junior to private respondent who have been appointed in the year 2014 also they are less meritorious in the merit list. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent nos. The petitioner no. 1 being ranked 1 in the merit list, appointed in the year 2012 has been made junior to private respondent who have been appointed in the year 2014 also they are less meritorious in the merit list. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent nos. 1 to 4 have filed their counter affidavit on 05.09.2018, wherein, at Para – 11, they have taken the stand that clause -18 of Jharkhand Home Guard (Non-Gazetted) Service Rule, 2015 provides that in absence of any specific rule, all the rules, circulars and orders of the State Government will apply upon the members of the service, others subjects, which are not mentioned in the Rule, shall be dealt with in accordance, with the provisions of POLICE MANUAL . The respondent-State further pleaded in Counter Affidavit that since there is no specific rule of seniority is mentioned in the aforesaid rule, police order no. 102, shall apply in the case of the petitioners for fixation of their seniority, wherein, it has been clearly mentioned that the seniority of direct recruit Sub Inspectors, shall be decided after adding the marks obtained in the final examination of training with the marks of the selection examination for appointment. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on records it appears that on bare perusal of Jharkhand Home Guard (Non-Gazetted) Service Rule, 2015 (Annexure-2), it specifically states that this rule will be made affected from the date of publication in the Gazette; hence, it has no retrospective effect, therefore, it will not be applicable in the case of the petitioners as the said rule has been made for determining the appointment and promotion process published in the year 2015, however, the petitioners have been appointed in the year 2012 and the private respondents in the year 2014, pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01 of 2008. Hence the said service Rule of 2015 will not be applicable for the case of the petitioners. 6. Hence the said service Rule of 2015 will not be applicable for the case of the petitioners. 6. It further appears that the Rule – 18 of aforesaid Rule of 2015, specifically states that all the rules, regulations of State Government will be applicable, which is not stated in the present rule and for other subjects, which is not mentioned in the present rule, the provisions of POLICE MANUAL will be applicable and all other previous rules, regulations and orders will be deemed to be cancelled from the date of publication of this notification. 7. Thus, from the aforesaid provision of Rule of 2015 as well as stand taken by the respondent-State in their counter affidavit, it is clear that the Rule of 2015, by which the respondents are claiming the implementation of police order no. 102 of 1982 will not be made applicable in the present case as this provision is made implemented prospectively for appointment and promotion w.e.f. 2015; not for the case of the petitioner, who have been appointed pursuant to the advertisement no. 01 of 2008, meaning thereby, at the time of appointment, there were no specific rules available for determining the seniority of Company Commander, Home Guard, Government of Jharkhand. 8. Further, it is well settled principle of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in series of judicial pronouncement that in absence of any specific rule governing the seniority, the general principle may be held applicable on the basis of order of merit in the recruitment process and from the length of the service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.P Das v. Union of India , (2011) 8 SCC 115 in Para 18 has held as under:- “18. The law is clear that seniority is an incidence of service and where the service rules prescribe the method of its computation, it is squarely governed by such rules. In the absence of a provision ordinarily the length of service is taken into account. The Supreme Court in M.B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pandey has laid down that it is the well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that in the absence of any specific rule the seniority amongst persons holding similar posts in the same cadre has to be determined on the basis of the length of the service and not on any other fortuitous circumstances.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and ors , (2003) 5 SCC 604 , stated in Para 47, 49, and 52, which is quoted herein below:- “47. It is also well settled that 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.” “49. 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. Only in absence of any statutory rules, the general principles may be held to be applicable.” “52. In this case also, although there does not exist any statutory rule but the practice of determining inter se seniority on the basis of the merit list has been evolved on interpretation of the rules. A select list is prepared keeping in view the respective merit of the candidates. Not only appointments are required to be made on the basis of such merit list, seniority is also to be determined on that basis as it is expected that the candidates should be joining their respective posts almost at the same time. Yet again, in Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank v. Ananda Chandra Das17 this Court held: (SCC p. 301, para 2).” 10. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Jha v. State of Bihar and ors , (2007) 1 SCC 405 stated in para 7 which is quoted herein below:- “7. This Court in Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank v. Ananda Chandra Das held as follows: (SCC p. 301, para 2) 2. This appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court of Orissa in OJC No. 1007 of 1988, dated 4-3-1992. The respondent and others were selected by direct recruitment as managers of Rural Bank. His rank was No. 9 in the merit list. He was directed to be given seniority on the basis of the date of his reporting to duty. It is reported that the first respondent is dead. The only question in this case is that what shall be the ranking among the direct recruits? His rank was No. 9 in the merit list. He was directed to be given seniority on the basis of the date of his reporting to duty. It is reported that the first respondent is dead. The only question in this case is that what shall be the ranking among the direct recruits? Is it the date on which they joined duty or according to the ranking given by the Selection Board? On comparative evaluation of the respective merits of the candidates for direct recruitment, the Board has prepared the merit list on the basis of the ranking secured at the time of the selection. It is settled law that if more than one are selected, the seniority is as per ranking of the direct recruits subject to the adjustment of the candidates selected on applying the rule of reservation and the roster. By mere fortuitous chance of reporting to duty earlier would not alter the ranking given by the Selection Board and the arranged one as per roster. The High Court, is, therefore, wholly wrong in its conclusion that the seniority shall be determined on the basis of the joining reports given by the candidates selected for appointment by direct recruitment and leneth of service on its basis. The view, therefore, is wrong. However, we need not interfere with the order, since the first respondent has died. 11. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Atrey v. Union of India, , [ (2022) 1 SCC 352 ] , stated in para 17 which is quoted herein below:- “17. We are also of the view that in the matter of adjudging seniority of the candidates selected in one and the same selection, placement in the order of merit can be adopted as a principle for determination of seniority but where the selections are held separately by different recruiting authorities, the principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation may be the valid principle to be considered for adjudging inter se seniority of the officers in the absence of any rule or guidelines in determining seniority to the contrary. 18. 18. Adverting to the facts of the instant case when all the five Commands have initiated the process of selection independently at the same time pursuant to the directives of the Engineer-in- Chief, Army Headquarters dated 9th December, 1982 while adjudging their combined inter se seniority list, the principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation may be the valid principle to be considered for determination of inter se seniority in the absence of any rule or guidelines to the contrary keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 12. Even otherwise, as per the State Government’s guideline, the seniority of direct recruit should be made in following manner: - a. Direct recruits at the time of their first appointment may be given an opportunity to supply any information which may be value in determining their seniority. b. When direct results have been placed in order of merit by a selection board, full consideration should be given to the opinion of such Board. c. Seniority may be determined by general consideration of merit, by educational qualifications, or by age. 13. Further, Rule 688 C of Chapter–22 of POLICE MANUAL also states that “seniority of all the Sub Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents in their respective ranks, whether recruited directly or promoted will be counted from the dates on which they were actually recruited or promoted against permanent post”. 14. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned seniority list deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the same has been prepared considering the Rule – 18 of Jharkhand Home Guard (Non-Gazetted) Service Rule, 2015, which has been made affective from the date of publication in Gazette and the same is prospective in nature, which is evident from the very first page of the said rule (Annexure – 2), therefore, the same is not applicable for the petitioners as they are appointees of the year 2012 prior to the publication of the said Rule. Further, the police order no. 102 of 1982 has been made applicable in light of Rule -18 of the said rule, which has been given affect from 2015 onwards, therefore, the said order will only be applicable for those, who have been appointed after the publication of the said rule not for the petitioners. 15. Further, the police order no. 102 of 1982 has been made applicable in light of Rule -18 of the said rule, which has been given affect from 2015 onwards, therefore, the said order will only be applicable for those, who have been appointed after the publication of the said rule not for the petitioners. 15. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions and the judicial pronouncement, force order no. 250 of 2017 (Annexure-3), whereby, the seniority list has been published for the post of Company Commander, Home Guard, Government of Jharkhand, is hereby, quashed and set aside. Consequently, the Respondents are directed to prepare a fresh seniority list on the basis of rank in the merit list and length of the services, which is the general principle of determining the seniority in absence of any specific rule and also the same guidelines are being followed by the State Government. 16. As a result, the instant application stands allowed. Pending I.A. if any also stands disposed of.