JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has claimed the following reliefs :
"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix seniority of the petitioner alongwith the candidates of 1989-90 session of Sub-Inspector, all consequential benefits.
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give all benefits after fixing his seniority from 1989-90 session.
(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the difference of the salary as the arrear with penal interest.
(iv) To issue any such other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(v) To award the costs of this writ petition to the petitioner."
3. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition arc that in response to an advertisement issued in the year 1986 application for selection of direct candidates to undergo Sub-Inspector (Civil Police Course) at the Police Training College, Moradabad was invited. The petitioner, according to the assertion made in the petition, being fully eligible applied and was selected and thereafter, he was sent to appear before the Medical Board on 20th April, 1989. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board as well as before the Interview Board but he was shocked that his name did not find place in the list of selected candidates when he contacted the opposite parties, he was told that despite the fact that he was found eligible by the Interview Board but he was not selected because of the recommendation of the Medical Board whereby the Medical Board him medically unfit for the post. The petitioner contested the aforesaid decision of the Medical Board as the petitioner states in the writ petition, the petitioner has come up this Court and he filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15456 of 1989, Bhuwaneshwar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors., in which affidavits were exchanged and this Court vide its order dated 26th February, 1990 directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within one month with a further direction that the petitioner may approach the State Medical Board which was directed to decide the case of the petitioner's fitness within six weeks, The petitioner has been declared medically fit by the State Medical Board. Thereafter, the petitioner's representation was decided, though, according to the petitioner, he has been declared medically fit by the State Medical Board, he was allowed to join only after about three years of the selection held in the year 1989. The petitioner has successfully completed the training and is now appointed Sub-Inspector (Civil Police). The petitioner by means of this writ petition claims that he should be assigned the seniority alongwith the batch of the year 1989 and not with the batch in which he actually undergone the training.
4. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Rule 8 of U.P. Government Servant Jestata Niyamawali, 1991, which runs as under :
"8. (1) Where according to the Service Rules appointments arc made both by promotion and by direct recruitment, the seniority of persons appointed shall, subject to the provisions of the following Sub-rules, be determined from the date of the order of their substantive appointments and if two or more persons are appointed together, in the order in which their names are arranged in the appointment order :
Provided that if the appointment order 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 mean the date of issuance of the order :
Provided further that a candidate recruited directly may lose his seniority, if he fails to join without valid reasons, when vacancy is offered to him the decision of the Appointing Authority as to the validity of reasons, shall be final.
(2) The seniority inter se of persons appointed on the result of any one selection-
(a) through direct recruitment, shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or by the Committee, as the ease may be;
(b) by promotion, shall be as determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Rule 6 or Rule 7, as the case may be, according as the promotion arc to be made from a single feeding cadre or several feeding cadres.
(3) Where appointments arc made both by promotion and direct recruitment on the result of any one selection the seniority of promotees vis-a-vis direct recruits shall be determined in a cyclic order (the first being a promotee) so far as may be, in accordance with the quota prescribed for the two sources."
5. Definition clause defines Service Rules. Sri Ravi Kant has relied upon particularly on Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules, which, according to him, provides that as a result of direct recruitment the persons appointed then inter se seniority shall be in the same year in which they have been shown in the select list. Taking recourse to the aforesaid Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8, Sri Jain submitted that since the petitioner has been selected in the year 1989, when others were selected and the decision of the petitioner having medically unfit was, ultimately, set-aside by the State Medical Board. In view of the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner referred to above, the petitioner's seniority should be fixed alongwith the batch of 1989, in the same year, they were shown to have been selected as after the result of the State Medical Board, the petitioner shall be deemed to be selected in the year 1989.
6. I am afraid, this argument cannot be accepted. The selection of the petitioner is subject to completion of training at the Police Training College. A person cannot be said to be selected only he successfully complete the training in the Police Training College. In the present case, the petitioner has completed training only subsequent to the year 1989, as stated in the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner, in my opinion, can be said to be selected when he completes the training at Police Training College, Moradabad. Thus, even accepting the interpretation to be forthwith by Sri Jain to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8, the petitioner's seniority shall be fixed only alongwith the batch in which he has completed the training and not with the batch of the year 1989, as suggested by Sri Jain.
7. In this view of the matter, the argument made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.