As per case facts, petitioners in CWP-2787-2018, appointed as DSPs under sports quota, challenged the denial of seniority from their initial appointment date, arguing that Rules 10 and 12 of ... the Haryana Police Service Rules, 2002, which link seniority to confirmation and mandate training, were inconsistent and ultra vires. They stated their training was delayed due to sports commitments. Conversely, petitioners in CWP-22713-2017, appointed through open selection, contended that seniority should be based on timely confirmation after completing training as per rules. The State later confirmed the sports quota petitioners from their training completion date by relaxing rules. The question arose whether Rule 10 and 12 of the Rules, linking seniority to confirmation after training, were inconsistent or violative of constitutional articles, and if sports quota DSPs were entitled to seniority from their initial appointment despite delayed training. Finally, the High Court upheld Rules 10 and 12 as valid and consistent, emphasizing that confirmation and seniority require successful training and examination completion for police efficiency. It found the State's confirmation of sports quota petitioners from their training completion date reasonable, differentiating them from open selection recruits who completed training on time. The first petition was dismissed, and the second allowed.