Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Soniya Chawla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Mr. Vinay Kumar and Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the private respondents and the interveners at length on various occasions.

2. The petitioners before this Court are Sub-Inspectors in Uttarakhand Civil Police, who have filed these writ petitions with the prayer of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 13.07.2016 and 28.03.2016 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition respectively). The prayer is common in the two writ petitions, however, for the sake of convenience the facts which are narrated are the ones which relate to Writ Petition No. 1432 of 2016 (S/S).

3. Primarily the prayer of the petitioners before this Court is for quashing the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the Principal Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand by which the representation of the petitioners for calculating their seniority from the year 2001 on the post of Sub-Inspector has been rejected and it has been held that the petitioners will be given seniority from 2008, when they were substantially appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector.

4. As this case has a somewhat chequered history, the facts must be stated first. These are as follows:

5. Prior to the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, when the present territory of Uttarakhand was a part of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, the petitioners were serving in the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Civil Police as Constables or Head Constables (as the case might be), when in the year 1999 the process for filling up 2956 posts of Sub-Inspector in Uttar Pradesh Civil Police was initiated. Admittedly 50% of the posts were to be filled by way of direct recruitment and the remaining 50% posts were to be filled by a process of selection from amongst the feeding cadre of Constables and Head Constables in U.P. Civil Police. The petitioners who were already in service of U.P. Police as Constables or Head Constables were candidates in the promotional exercise. This was not a simple promotional exercise, but it required a detail selection process where there was initially a preliminary examination and only such successful candidates, who qualified the preliminary examination could appear for the Physical Test and Infantry Test. After qualifying these tests they were made eligible for the main examination. Ultimately the candidate who qualified all the above tests/examinations had to appear in an interview and thereafter the select list was to be published. Finally these selected candidates had to undergo a training for a period of about six moths and only after completing successfully their training, were they appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector and were considered to be substantially inducted in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors!

6. Unfortunately there was rupture in the selection process, for two reasons. The preliminary examination as well as Physical Test and Infantry Test held between 16.10.1999 to 20.11.1999 and the results were declared, which came to be challenged in a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The writ petition of such petitioners was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court on 10.03.2000. The result of Physical Test and Infantry Test was quashed and the respondent State as well as Police Authority was directed to hold selection process afresh. The decision of the learned Single Judge, however, was challenged by the State Government before the Division Bench in special appeal. The Division Bench ultimately allowed the special appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 02.12.2004 with a direction that the selection process be initiated from the stage it was stopped. Four to five years were thus lost in this litigation. It is ultimately after the order of the Divisi