Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 10539 of 1983. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.1983 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in Representation Petition. 1899 and 1950 of 1982. A. Subba Rao for the Appellant. 1013 P.P. Rao	 K. Ram Kumar	 Vimal Dave	 C. Markendeya and Gururaja Rao for the Respondents. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal	 Hydera bad	 holding that the appellant was appointed to the post of Sub Inspector of. Police (Civil) as a direct recruit and directing that he shall be accorded seniority from the date when he joined the post on such appointment. On December 30	 1968	 the appellant	 who was then an undergraduate	 was appointed to the post of Reserve Sub Inspector of Police. During his service in that post	 he passed the B.A. Examination of the Osmania University in April 197 1. Pursuant to an advertisement in the local newspaper inviting applications for the posts of SubInspec tor of Police (Civil)	 the appellant applied for the post and appeared in the written test and viva voce test. He was selected and appointed to the post on December 14	 1976 on probation for two years along with thirtyseven others. After the completion of his probationary period	 he was confirmed in the post on November 29	 1978. It appears that the Inspector General of Police did not accede to the request of the appellant to take into account the period of his service as Reserve Sub Inspector of Police in computing his seniority in the new post of Sub inspector of Police (Civil). Thereafter	 the appellant made a repre sentation to the Government. The Government in its order being GOMS No. 344 dated June 11	 1982	 took the view that the entire period of service of the appellant as Reserve SubInspector of Police should be counted under Rule 15(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules and directed that the appellant would be accorded seniority from the date of his first appointment to the post of Reserve Sub Inspector of Police	 that is. from December 30	 1968	 placing him below Shri Khaja Mohiuddin and above Shri S.K. Ahmed in the list of Sub Inspectors of Police (Civil). It was further directed that "this order shall	 however. not become	 a precedent for others. " Being aggrieved by the said Government order	 a number of Sub Inspectors of Police (Civil) filed three sets of applications to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal under paragraph 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal order	 1975 challenging the validity of the said Government order and praying for setting aside of 1014 the same. The Tribunal by the impugned order struck down the said Government order and directed that the appellant would be accorded seniority from the date when he joined the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) treating him as a direct recruit. Further	 it was directed that the promotional benefits given to the appellant would be regulated on and from the date he joined the said post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil). Hence this appeal by special leave. The principal question that is involved in this appeal is whether the appellant was appointed to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) as a direct recruit or was recruited in that post by transfer or was simply transferred to that post from the post of Reserve SubInspector of Police following his selection as a direct recruit. In the impugned Government order	 the Government took the view that the appellant was transferred from the post of Reserve SubInspector of Police to that of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) under Rule 15(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules. Rule 15(c) is as follows: "Rule 15(c). The transfer of a person from one class or category of the service to another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for purposes of seniority and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the date of his first appointment to the class or category from which he was trans ferred. Where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying this sub rule	 seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority. " The Tribunal has taken the view that appointment of the appellant to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) was not by way of transfer under Rule 15(c)	 nor was it by way of recruitment by transfer. It has been pointed out by the Tribunal	 and that rightly	 that Annexure I read with Rule 2(a) of Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules provides for two modes of appointment which are: (1) by promotion	 and (2) by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from any other service. It is not disputed that Sub Inspectors of Police (Civil) and 1015 Reserve Sub Inspectors of Police both belong to Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service. Recruitment by transfer can only be made from "any other service. " As both the posts of Sub Inspectors of Police (Civil) and Reserve Sub Inspec tors of Police are under the same Service	 the question of recruitment in the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) by transfer from the post or Reserve Sub Inspector of Police does not arise. Mr. Subba Rao	 learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant	 has not made any attempt to sub stantiate that the appellant 's appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) was by way of recruitment by transfer. We are	 therefore	 left with the question whether the appellant 's appointment was by way of direct recruitment or it was really a case of transfer of the appellant from the post of Reserve Sub Inspector of Police to that of SubInspector of Police (Civil). While it is strenuously urged on behalf 01 ' the appellant that he was transferred from the post of Reserve SubInspector of Police to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) under Rule 15(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules	 it is submitted by Mr. P.P. Rao	 learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents	 that the appellant was directly recruited to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil). It has been already noticed that the appellant applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) pursuant to an advertisement in the newspapers issued by the Police department inviting applications for appointment to the said post by direct recruitment in the pay scale of Rs. 150 300. The minimum academic qualification required for the post was graduation. The vacancies to be filled up were 149 in num ber. The appellant succeeded in the preliminary interview and he was directed to appear at the written test. Thereaf ter	 he was also called upon to appear at the final inter view before the Selection Board on February 25	 1976 and was asked to bring with him original certificates	 evidence of his date of birth	 school/college conduct certificate	 no objection certificate in original	 if he was a Government Servant	 etc. In other words	 the appellant had to undergo the entire procedure prescribed for selection of direct recruits. It has also been noticed earlier that the appel lant was appointed on probation for two years and after the satisfactory completion of his probationary period	 he was confirmed in the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil). In view of the manner in which the appellant was appointed to the post of SubInspector of Police (Civil)	 it is difficult to accept any contention that the appellant was transferred to that post. When a Government servant in transferred from one post to another	 the question of his selection after a written and a viva voce test does not at all arise. If the 1016 appellant had been transferred simpliciter	 the appellant would not have been directed to appear at the written test and the interview for the purpose of selection along with other candidates. who also applied for the posts of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) pursuant to the said advertise ment in the local newspaper. It is not disputed that the said advertisement was published for filling up the posts of Sub Inspectors of Police (Civil) by direct recruitment. We are	 therefore	 unable to accept the contention made on behalf of the appellant that it was a case of transfer and not of direct recruitment. It is true that the Government has power to transfer under Rule 15(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Police Service Rules. The question	 however	 it whether the Government intended to transfer the appellant from the post of Reserve Sub Inspector of Police to that of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil). It has been rightly pointed out that such transfer can be made only in the public interest	 but there was no question of any public interest so far as the appellant was concerned. Indeed	 in the impugned Government order	 it was directed that the same would not be treated as a precedent. If the appellant 's appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) was by way of transfer in exercise of the power under Rule 15(c)	 there was no necessity for a direc tion that the order would not be treated as a precedent for others. The impugned order was not made by the Government out of its own	 but on the representation of the appellant which was made after the appellant 's request to take into account his period of service at the Reserve Sub Inspector of Police in computing his seniority in the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) was turned down by the Inspector General of Police. In support of the case for transfer	 the appellant has strongly relied upon two facts	 namely	 (1) that he did not submit any resignation from the post of Reserve Sub Inspec tor of Police; and (2) that he was allowed to draw last pay as Reserve Sub Inspector of Police even on his appointment as the Sub Inspector of Police (Civil). These two facts have also been relied upon by the Government in the impugned order. These two circumstances are no doubt the criteria of a transfer	 but merely because of the presence of these circumstances	 it will not justify a finding that the appel lant was transferred	 as contended by him	 having regard to the manner in which the appellant was appointed to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil). Although a Government servant can be transferred from one post to another	 but when he chooses to get himself recruited to that another post after subjecting himself to all requirements and for malities of direct recruit 1017 ment along with other independent candidates and is con firmed after satisfactory completion of the probationary period	 his appointment as a direct recruit cannot be sub stituted by an order of transfer to the prejudice of the other direct recruits in the matter of computation of sen iority. It may be that the appellant had not resigned from the post of Reserve Sub Inspector of Police	 and that the Government allowed him the last pay drawn as Reserve Sub Inspector of Police on his appointment as Sub Inspector of Police (Civil)	 that would not	 in our opinion	 wipe out the appointment of the appellant as a direct recruit. The Tribu nal	 in our view	 is perfectly justified in holding that the appellant was directly recruited to the post of Sub Inspec tor of Police (Civil)	 and that his seniority should be computed from the date of such appointment. For the reasons aforesaid	 the appeal is dismissed. There will	 however	 be no order as to costs. We	 however	 make it clear that this judgment will not affect the present position of the appellant and the emolu ments which are being paid to him. S.L. Appeal dismissed.

On December 30	 1968	 the appellant	 then an under graduate	 was appointed to the post of Reserve Sub Inspector of Police. During his service in that pest	 he passed the B.A. Examination in April	 1971	 whereafter he applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) pursuant to an advertisement in the newspaper. He was selected and appoint ed to the pest of Sub Inspector on December 14	 1976	 on probation for two years along with thirty seven others	 and was confirmed in the post on November 29	 1978. The appellant made a representation to the Government that the period of his service as Reserve Sub Inspector of Police should be taken into account in computing his senior ity in the new post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil). The Government by its order dated June 11	 1982	 took the view that the entire period of service of the appellant as Re serve Sub Inspector of Police should be counted under Rule 15(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules	 and directed inter alia that the appellant would be accorded seniority from the date of his first appointment to the post of Reserve Sub Inspector of Police	 that is	 from December 30	 1968	 and further that the order would not become a precedent for others. Aggrieved by the above said Government order	 a number of Sub Inspectors of Police (Civil) moved the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal under paragraph 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order	 1975	 challenging the validity of the said Government Order. The Tribunal passed an order	 striking down the Government order in question and directing (i) that the appellant would be accorded seniority from the date when he joined the post of the SubInspector	 of Police (Civil)	 treating him as a direct recruit	 and (ii) that the promotional benefits given to the appellant would be regulated on 1011 and from the date he joined the said post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil). The appellant appealed to this Court by special leave against the order of the Tribunal above said. Dismissing the appeal	 the Court	 HELD: The principal question that was involved in the case was whether the appellant was appointed to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) as a direct recruit or was recruited in that post by transfer or was simply transferred to that post from the post of Reserve Sub Inspector of Police following his selection as a direct recruit. [1014B C] The Tribunal took the view that the appointment of the appellant to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) was not by way of transfer under Rule 15(c)	 nor was it by way of recruitment by transfer; it was pointed out by the Tribu nal	 and rightly; that Annexure I read with Rule 2(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules provided for two modes of appointment	 viz.	 (1) by promotion	 and (2) by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from any other service. [1014F H] The Sub Inspectors of Police (Civil) and the Reserve SubInspectors of Police both belonged to the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service. Recruitment by transfer could only be made from "any other service". As both the said posts were under the same service	 the question of recruit ment in the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) by transfer from the post of Reserve Sub Inspector of Police did not arise. Therefore	 the only question left before the Court was whether the appellant 's appointment was by way of direct recruitment or it was really a case of transfer from the post of Reserve Sub Inspector of Police to that of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil). [1014H	 1015A C] The appellant had applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) pursuant to an advertisement in the news papers	 issued by the Police Department	 inviting applica tions for appointment to the said post by direct recruit ment. The appellant had to undergo the entire procedure (like	 preliminary interview	 written test	 final interview	 production of certificates	 etc) for selection of direct recruits. Also	 he was appointed on probation and after the satisfactory completion of his probationary period	 he was confirmed in the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil). In view of the manner in which the appellant was appointed to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil)	 it was diffi cult 1012 to accept any contention that the appellant was transferred to that. When a Government servant is transferred from one post to another	 the question of his selection after a written test and a viva voce test does not arise. If the appellant had been transferred simpliciter	 he would not have been directed to appear at the written test and inter view for selection along with other candidates who had applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) pursuant to the advertisement in the newspaper. The Court was	 therefore	 unable to accept the contention that the appellant 's was a case of transfer and not of direct re cruitment. It was true that the Government had the power to transfer under Rule 15(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Police Service Rules	 but such a transfer could be made only in public interest	 and there was no question of any public interest so far as the appellant was concerned. The Govern ment had directed in its order that order would not be treated as a precedent; there was no necessity for this direction if the appellant 's appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) was by way of transfer in exercise of power under Rule 15(c). The Government order impugned had not been made by the Government out of its own but on the representation of the appellant. [1015D H	 1016A B] The appellant contended that he did not submit any resignation from the post of Reserve Sub Inspector of Police and that he was allowed to draw last pay as Reserve Sub Inspector even on his appointment as the Sub Inspector of Police (Civil)	 but merely because of the presence of these circumstances	 it would not justify a finding that the appellant had been transferred	 having regard to the manner in which he came to be appointed to the post of Sub Inspec tor of Police (Civil). [1016F G] The Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the appellant was directly recruited to the post of Sub Inspec tor of Police (Civil) and that his seniority should be computed from the date of such appointment. This judgment	 however	 would not affect the present position of the appel lant and the emoluments being paid to him. [1017B D]