S.N Phukan, J.:— The petitioner has challenged the final seniority list of officers belonging to Grade II of Tripura Police Service-published on 7th November, 1981 by the Government of Tripura, vide Annexure ‘I’ to the petition.

2. On 3rd May, 1966, the petitioner on being selected by the Union Public Service Commission joined the post of Assistant Commandant, Tripura Armed Police. Subsequently, he was sent on deputation to the Border Security Force in the year 1966 and while on deputation the Government of Tripura constituted Tripura Police Service, for short ‘the service’, by framing Rules, namely, the Tripura Police Service Rules, 1967, for short ‘the Rules’ under Article 309 of the Constitution. There is no dispute that at the initial constitution of the said service the name of the petitioner was considered along with other eligible officers but the petitioner was not found suitable for inclusion in the service. It is alleged that though petitioner was not included into the service he was allowed to continue-without any break to officiate in the duty post of the Assistant Commandant of Tripura Armed Police meant for the members of the service. However, subsequently his case was considered by the selection committee and he was absorbed in the-service with effect from 20.10.72 against promotion quota, On 30th October, 1978, a provisional seniority list was published wherein the petitioner was shown junior to respondent nos. 3 to 8 and the said list was made final though petitioner raised objection. The main grievance of the petitioner is that as he joined the Police Department prior to the joining of respondent nos. 3 to 8 fixation of seniority of the petitioner below the said respondent nos. 3 to 8 in the seniority list is void, arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner has claimed seniority in this present petition from the date of his initial appointment, i.e, 3rd May, 1966.

3. Respondent nos. 3 to 8 did not contest the present petition. The State in the counter has raised various grounds but the main contention is that at the time of initial constitution the petitioner's case along with others was duly considered by a selection committee which was constituted with a member of the Union Public Service Commission and the said committee did not recommend the name of the petitioner for inclusion into the service. As there was no provision in the Rules to reconsider the case of the officers who were not selected at the time of initial constitution the Government amended the Rule by Notification issued on 26.7.76 increasing the promotion quota from 50% to 60% and provisions were also made to reconsider the case of the aforesaid officers. Accordingly, a selection committee was constituted with the Chairroan of the Tripura Public Service Commission as Chairman of the Committee and the said committee considered the case of the petitioner along with others for appointment to Grade-II service against promotion quota. The committee recommended the name of the petitioner along with others for selection, which was duly accepted by the State Government and accordingly the petitioner was appointed to the service with effect from 21.10.72 It has also been stated that respondents nos. 3, 4 and 5 were included at the initial constitution of the service with effect from 4.3.67 and respondent nos. 6 to 8 were appointed to this service on regular basis prior to the petitioner. In the counter, it has been stated that the seniority list was prepared on the basis of regular appointment to the service and as such the seniority of the petitioner in the service was considered with effect from the date of his regular appoint ment in the service, i.e, from 21.10.72 The allegation of malafide has been denied and it has also been urged that the seniority list was prepared duly according to law. The objections filed by petitioner and other officers were duly re-considered by the Government ‘with the concurrence of the Commission’ (Public Service Commission). Only point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to get his seniority from the date of his induction into the service, i.e, 21st day of October, 1977| or from the date of his initial appointment, i.e, 3rd May, 1966.

4. Part III of the Rules which contains Rules prescribes the method of recruitment. Part VI of the Rules contains Rule 17 prescribing the mode of initial appointment of persons to the service. In Rule 5, two methods have been prescribed, namely, by direct recruitment and by promotion from amongst the officers of the cadre of inspectors of Police. According to sub-rule (2) of Rule 17, it is required to appoint a committee to make preliminary selection from among the officers who, at the commencement of the Rule, were holding the posts specified in the Schedule to the Rules and the names of officers shall be arranged by the committee in the order of merit with due regard to seniority and thereupon the list shall be forwarded to the Public Service Commission. Initial appointment to the service shall be made in order of merit of persons included in the list finally approved by the Commission. The proceedings of the selection committee constituted under Rule 17 is at Annexure ‘R-1’ to the counter of the State. We have perused the said proceedings along with its Annexures ‘I’, ‘II’ and ‘III’ and we find that the committee which was presided over by a member of the Union Public Service Commission did not consider the petitioner fit for absorption in the Tripura Police Service at its initial constitution. We do not find any irregularity or illegality in the said proceedings. As admitted in the counter of the State, the petitioner was allowed to continue to officiate against one of the duty posts of the Assistant Commandant of the service. Mr Kundu, learned Advocate-General rightly pointed out that under Rule 33 of the Rules the Government was competent to allow the petitioner to hold a cadre post. Rule 33 is found in Part X and it is a transitional provision. Under the said Rule, a duty post may continue to be held by officers until the officers are appointed to hold the duty posts in accordance with provisions of the Rules. This provision was to continue only for two years from the date of commencement of the Rules. By amendment dated 15th July, 1970, this sub-rule (2) of the said Rule 33 was amended and the life of the Rule was extended to four years. Another amendment was made to the Rules on 5th June, 1972, and a new sub-rule namely, sub-rule (4) was incorporated in Rule 17. The said new sub-rule (4) provided that a person who was not appointed at the initial constitution of the service will continue to hoid the post to which he was appointed regularly. By the said amendment, Rule 27 was substituted by a new Rule and according to the said new Rule, it was specified that save as provided in sub-rule (4) of Rule 17, every duty post shall be held by a member of the service or by an officer appointed to officiate under Part VIII of the Rules. Part VIII of the Rules empowers the administration to make officiating appointments. Mr Kundu, learned Advocate-General rightly pointed out that as the petitioner was not found suitable to be inducted into the service at the time of initial constitution, he was holding the post by virtue of Rule 33. On 26th July, 1976, the Rules were futher amended and the said amendment also took effect from the 21st day of October, 1972. Though this amendment was given retrospective effect we need not consider whether such effect can be given, as this has not been urged before us. From the amended Rules, it appears that promotion quota was increased from 50% to 60% and in subclause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules, it is provided that officers who might have been considered for appointment to the service at its initial constitution though not actually appointed thereto under Rule 17 and who substantively held any of the posts specified in the Schedule to the Rules or any other posts under the Government of Tripura carrying same designation as specified in the Schedule may be considered for appointment against the promotion quota of 60%. Accordingly, a committee was constituted and the petitioner along with others was selected with effect from 21.10.72, as the Rules were given effect from that date. The proceedings of the committee headed by the Chairman of the Tripura Public Service Commission and the list of persons selected are available at Annexure ‘R-2’ of the counter of the State.

5. From the above facts, it is abundantly clear that petititioner was appointed to the service only from 21.10.72 and respondents 3 to 8 admittedly were appointed to the service prior to the petitioner. The seniority of officers belonging to the service has to be determined in accordance with Rule 28 of the Rules. Sub-rule (i) of Rule 28, inter alia, provides that the-seniority shall be determined in case of persons appointed on the result of competitive examination or by selection under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 by the order in which the appointments are made to the service. (Emphasis added). Thi??? Rule is clear and there is no ambiguity. From the Rule, it follows that seniority shall be determined by the order in which appointments are made to the service. As the petitioner was appointed to the service with effect from 21st day of October, 1972, his seniority shall have to be counted from that date only. The vires of this Rule has not been challenged. However, Mr. Das, learned counsel submitted that this Rule is not applicable for the purpose of determining the seniority of the petitioner but Mr. Das could not draw attention to any other Rules for determining the seniority of the petitioner. We shall deal with the contentions raised by Mr. Das presently, but we are of the opinion that as the petitioner was appointed to the service from 21st day of October, 1972, his seniority in the service is to be counted from that date alone in view of the clear provision of Rule 28.

6. Mr. Das urged that as the petitioner was appointed on the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission to the post of Assistant Commandant, Armed Police, from 3rd May, 1966, his seniority should be counted from that date. From the advertisement of the Union Public Service Commission, vide Annexure ‘A—1’ to the petition, we find that applications were invited for the posts of two Assistant Commandants, Armed Police, Government of Tripura, Central Services Class-II. From Annexure ‘B’ to the petition, we find, that by a Notification dated 15th July, 1966, issued by the Government of Tripura, the petitioner was appointed to officiate as Assistant Commandant, Tripura in the Tripura Armed Police with his headquarters at Agartala with effect from the forenoon of 3rd May, 1966 and he was to remain on probation for two years from the date of his joining the post. From the advertisement and the above Notification, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed to a particular post, namely, Assistant Commandant, Tripura in the Tripura Armed Police with headquarters at Agartala. Sub-sequently the service, namely, Tripura Police Service was constituted in 1967. As the earlier appointment of the petitioner was against a particular post for absorption in the service, his case will be governed by the said statutory Rules. We are afraid we cannot accept the contention of Mr. Das that in view of his earlier appointment he is entitled to get seniority in the servic??? as specific statutory provision was made for appointment of persons to the service and determining their seniority. We, therefore, reject the contention of Mr Das.

7. Mr Das. has drawn our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Baleshwar Das v. State of U.P, (1980) 4 SCC 226, in support of his contention regarding seniority of the petitioner from the date of his first appointment. This case relates to seniority of officers between two groups of Engineers (Irrigation Branch), namely graduate Engineers directly recruited by the Public Service Commission by competitive examination, graduate engineers once appointed but later absorbed after consultation with the Public Service Commission and diploma holders later appointed as Assistant Engineers. Mr. Das has drawn our attention to paragraphs 30, 33 and 35 of the report. After careful consideration, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid decision is not attracted for the present purpose, as the three categories of engineers were appointed to the service which is not the case in the instant case. Mr. Das also placed reliance in Paramjit Singh v. Ram Rakha, (1979) 3 SCC 478 : (1979) 3 SCC 478 : AIR 1979 SC 1073. This case also relates to determination of seniority between promotees and direct recruits. In our opinion, this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is also not relevant for the present purpose. Mr. Das has drawn our attention to the observation of the Supreme Court in G.P Doval v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P, (1984) 4 SCC 329 : (1984) 4 SCC 329 : AIR 1984 SC 1527, wherein it was observed that if there was no binding rule of seniority it is well-settled that length of continuous officiation prescribes a valid principle of seniority and that if a stop-gap appointment is made and the appointee appears before the Public Service Commission when the latter proceeds to select the condidates and is selected, there is no justification for ignoring the past service. In the instant case, the petitioner was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for a specific post of Assistant Commandant and not as a member of the service and we are of the view that merely because the petitioner was selected for a particular post he cannot claim seniority in service in view of the specific statutory provision contained in the Rules. Reliance has also been placed in the decision of the Supreme Court in Paramjit Singh Sandhu v. Ram Rakha Mal, (1982) 3 SCC 191 : (1982) 3 SCC 191 : AIR 1983 SC 314 and in para 9 of the report, the Hon'ble Court observed that the persons who were recruited/promoted to the service prior to the constitution of the service under 1959 Rules would maintain their seniority as given and they cannot be disturbed by retrospective operation of the 1959 Rules. In the instant case, the Rules were not given retrospective effect and on the other hand, specific provisions were made as to how a person will be selected for appointment to the service at its initial constitution. This decision also does not support the contention of the petitioner. In Ashok Gulati v. B.S Jain, 1986 Supp SCC 597 : 1986 Supp SCC 597 : AIR 1987 SC 424, it was held as follows:—

“It would be repugnant to all accepted concepts of services jurisprudence if the claim of persons like respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who were employed as temporary Engineers on ad hoc basis dehors the rules for six months at a time were extended the benefit of their continuous officiation as such ad hoc employees in reckoning their seniority vis-a-vis direct recruits in considering their eligibility under R. 6(b) of the Class I Rules for promotion to a higher grade or post of Executive Engineer.”

8. This case also is regarding seniority of two classes of officers to the same service which is not the case in the instant proceeding and as such it is not relevant for the present purpose.

9. In Ashok Gulati (supra) at para 22 the Supreme Court laid down the general principle of reckoning seniority and held that according to the accepted canons of service jurisprudence seniority of person appointed must be reckoned from; the date he becomes a member of the service. It was further held that the date from which seniority is to be reckoned may be laid down by rules or instructions (a) on the basis of the date of appointment (b) on the basis of confirmation (c) on the basis of regularisation of service (d) on the basis of length of service, or (e) on any other reasonable basis. It was also-held that it is well settled that an ad hoc or fortuitous appointment on a temporary or stop-gap basis cannot be taken into account for the purpose of seniority even if the appointee was qualified to hold the post on a regular basis; as such temporary tenure hardly counts for seniority in any system of service jurisprudence.

10. Following the ratio laid down in Ashok Gulati (supra) we hold that seniority of a person appointed to a particular service normally should be reckoned from the date he becomes a member of the service. We are further of the opinion that it is for the rule making authority to lay down the mode of reckoning the seniority of a member for a particular service either by rules or by executive instructions and prescribe any of the following basis for considering the seniority, namely, (1) date of appointment, (2) date of confirmantion, (3) date of regularisation in the service, (4) length of service, or (5) any other reasonable basis.

11. In view of the above, we are firmly of the view that the seniority of the petitioner should be counted according to Rules 28 of statutory Rules which was done in the instant proceeding. The petitioner cannot get seniority from the date of his original appointment, i.e; 3rd May, 1966, as he was not considered suitable for appointment as a member of the service at the time of initial constitution. In view of what has been stated above, we find no merit in the contention of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to get his seniority from 3rd May, 1966 and we hold that the impugned final seniority list dated 7th November, 1981 (Annexure ‘I’ to the petition) was legally and validly made.

12. In the result, the present petition is dismissed and rule sis discharged. Parties to bear their own costs.