AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, J.(Oral) - These 8 (eight) writ petitions involving the common question of fact and law seeking similar prayer are jointly heard for being disposed of by a common judgment and order.
Heard Mr. KC Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned Addl. Sr. GA appearing for the respondents No.1-5 and Mr. HS Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the respondents No.6, 8, 9 and 10.
In order to avoid repetition of facts, this Court is referring to the fact of the case leading to the filing of the Writ Petition No.290 of 2014 and the fact mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3 for deciding the matter in issue between the parties. Accordingly, the gist of the fact of the case leading to the filing of WP(C) No.290/2014 is recapitulated.
The petitioners are the Enforcement Checkers in the department of Transport, Govt. of Meghalaya. The Enforcement Checkers are the entry level in the department of Transport, Govt. of Meghalaya. The Commissioner of Transport, Govt. of Meghalaya had circulated the gradation list of the Enforcement Checkers vide letter dated 28.08.2012. In that gradation list, the name of the writ petitioners i.e. WP(C)No.290/2014, WP(C)No.291/2014, WP(C)No.292/2014, WP(C)No.293/2014, WP(C)No.294/2014, WP(C)No.295/2014, WP(C)No.296/2014 and WP(C)No.297/2014 appeared at serial number 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 respectively and the name of the private respondents i.e. respondents No.6, 8, 9 and 10 appeared at serial number 7, 15, 10 and 16 respectively. Mr. HS Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel submits at the Bar that the respondent No.7 had already expired. As per the seniority list of the Enforcement Checkers, the writ petitioners of WP(C)No.290/2014, WP(C)No.291/2014 and WP(C)No.292/2014 are senior to all the private respondents. Writ petitioners of WP(C)No.293/2014 and WP(C)No.294/2014 are senior to all the private respondents except private respondent No.6. The writ petitioners of WP(C)No.295, WP(C)No.296/2014 and WP(C)No.297/2014 are senior to all the private respondents except private respondents No.9 and 10. For easy reference, the gradation list of the Enforcement Checkers circulated vide the said letter dated 28.08.2012 is reproduced hereunder:-
"Gradation List Enforcement Checker
Sl. No.
Name of incumbent
Date of birth
Date of joining in service
Date of joining as Enforcement Checkers
Qualification
Present place of posting
Length of service
1.
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
2.
Shri.H.P. Syiem (*Petitioner of WP(C)No.290/2014
10.08.1960
24.08.1982
Enforcement Checker, 24.08.1982
Matriculate
Shillong
28 years
3.
Shri.Pillarson Marak (*Petitioner of WP(C) No.291/2014)
15.03.1964
16.11.1984
Enforcement Checker, 16.11.1984
PU (Arts)
Baghmara
26 years
4.
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
5.
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
6.
Shri.F. Wahlang (*Petitioner of WP(C)No.292/2014)
24.12.1966
24.09.1990
Enforcement Checker, 24.09.1990
PU (Commerce)
Byrnihat
21 years
7.
Shri.Damien Rongrin (*respondent No.6)
20.11.1967
3.4.1993
Enforcement Checker, 3.4.1993
Graduate
Nongstoin
18 years 9 months
8.
Shri.Bawal K.R. Marak (*Petitioner of WP(C)No.293/2014)
01.03.1966
12.7.1993
Enforcement Checker, 12.7.1993
PU (Arts)
Baghmara
18 years
9.
Shri.H.Kharkongor (*Petitioner of WP(C)No.294/2014)
14.8.1964
24.9.1990
Enforcement Checker, 26.9.1993
PU (Arts)
Shillong
17 years
10.
Shri.Oldash M. Sangma (*Respondent No.9)
22.2.1971
6.9.1993
Enforcement Checker, 6.9.1993
Graduate
Williamnagar
17 years
11.
Shri.Teilang Syiem (*Petitioner of WP(C)No.295/2014)
6.8.1971
1.6.1996
Enforcement Checker, 01.06.1996
Matriculate
Byrnihat
15 years
12.
Shri.Godfrey Balsam W. Momin (Petitioner of WP(C)No.296/2014)
4.10.1969
15.03.2004
Enforcement Checker, 15.03.2004
Matriculate
Williamnagar
8 years
13.
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
14.
Shri.W. Marbaniang (*Petitioner of WP(C)No.297/2014
11.11.1997
3.10.2006
Enforcement Checker, 03.10.2006
PU Passed
Shillong
5 years
15.
Shri.K.Syiemiong (*respondent No.8)
02.10.1984
4.10.2006
Enforcement Checker, 4.10.2006
Graduate
Nongstoin
5 years
16.
Shri.G.Lyngdoh (*respondent No.10)
22.03.1979
4.10.2006
Enforcement Checker, 4.10.2006
Graduate
Jowai
5 years
17.
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****"
Under the letter of the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya being letter No.TPT.16/2011/21 dated 26.09.2013 informed the Commissioner of Transport, Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong that the Governor of Meghalaya was pleased to accord sanction to the creation of 5 (five) posts of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors for the office of the Commissioner of Transport, Govt. of Meghalaya in the scale of pay Rs.9900-19370/- plus other allowances as admissible for a period upto 28.02.2014 with effect from the date of entertainment. The said letter dated 26.09.2013 is available at Annexure-II to the writ petition and it reads as follows:-
"GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
No.TPT.16/2011/21 Dated Shillong, the 26th September, 2013.
From: Shri. W. Nongsiej, MCS, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Transport Department.
To,
The Commissioner of Transport, Meghalaya, Shillong.
Subj: Sanction for creation of 5 (five) posts of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors.
Sir,
I am directed to convey the sanction of the Governor of Meghalaya to the creation of 5 (five) posts of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors for the office of the Commissioner of Transport, Shillong in the scale of pay
Rs.9900-250-11650-EB-320-14530-440-19370/- p.m. plus other allowances as admissible for a period upto 28-02-2014 with effect from the date of entertainment.
The expenditure is debitable to the Head of Account "2014-Taxes on Vehicles-101-Collection Charges (01) Establishment of District Transport Officers & Secretary, etc 01-Salaries-Sixth Schedule (Part-II) Areas Non Plan" during the current year''s Budget 2013-14.
This sanction is issued with the concurrence of Finance (EC.II) Department vide their ID.No. FIN.EC.II.724/12 dated 11.09.2013.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
Transport Department."
It is the further case of the petitioners that the Governor of Meghalaya/the Govt. of Meghalaya in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India has not yet framed the recruitment rules for the posts of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors for the office of the Commissioner of Transport, Govt. of Meghalaya. This fact is not disputed by the respondents including the State respondents. Thus, it is very clear that the Governor of Meghalaya/the Govt. of Meghalaya has not yet framed the recruitment rules in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for the posts of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors.
The respondent No.3 had filed affidavit-in-opposition for the State respondents. For convenience, the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3 is reproduced hereunder:-
"DISTRICT: EAST KHASI HILLS IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA (EXTRA ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)
IN THE MATTER OF :
WP(C) No. 290 of 2014
Shri Humbert Patrick Syiem
-V/S-
State of Meghalaya and others
-AND-
IN THE MATTER OF:
An affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of respondents no. 3
AFFIDAVIT - IN - OPPOSITION
I,Shri. I.W. Ingty,s/o (L) P.S. Ingty , aged about 50 years, resident of Laban, Shillong, East Khasi Hills in the State Meghalaya, solemnly affirm and states as follows:-
That I am the Commissioner to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Transport Department, Meghalaya and is impleaded as respondent No.3 in the instant case and I am competent to swear this Affidavit.
That a copy of the writ petition has been served upon me and on perusal of the same and after understanding the contents thereof, I am swearing this Affidavit in reply.
That it is submitted that there is no cause of action for the instant petition which is a misconceived one, filed malafide and deserves to be rejected outright.
That save and except what has been specifically admitted in this affidavit and what are matters of records, the answering respondent denies the rest of the allegations and averments made in the writ petition.
That this instant writ petition is not maintainable either in law or in fact and as such is liable to be dismissed.
That with regard to the averments made at paragraph 1-5 of the writ petition, the answering deponent has no comments to make.
That with regard to the averments made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the answering respondent states that it is admitted that five number of post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector is Created in the office of Transport.
Wherein it is clearly provided that "The post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector is to be filled up by promotion from amongst Enforcement Checkers who posses Graduate Degree and who have put in not less than 5 (Five) years services as such" and also to reserve 33% of the posts of Enforcement Inspectors to allow promotion from amongst the Assistant Enforcement Inspector and 67% by direct recruitment and to resubmit the same for further necessary action.
(A Copy of the letter dated 26.9.2013 are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure -1)
That with regard to the averments made in paragraph 7 -14 of the writ petition, the answering respondent states that the action of the answering respondent department has been in conformity with the office memorandum dated 27th March 2014 which lays down the procedure and qualification for promotion.
(A copy of the Office Memorandum Dated 27th March 2014 are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure -2)
That with regard to the averments made in paragraph 15- 19 of the writ petition, the answering respondent states that the office order dated 9th July 2014 of promotion was passed after thorough examination by the DPC which has examined the matter in detail as per the procedure laid down and qualification for promotion.
As such the said promotion order dated 9th July 2014 does not suffer from any legal infirmity as the said promotion order was based on seniority cum merit and inconsideration of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
Further more the petitioner here in has not questioned to the said letter dated 26th September 2013 nor the Office memorandum dated 27th March 2014 neither the proceedings of the DPC.
(A copy of DPC Dated 09.05.2014 are annexed herein and marked as Annexure 3)
That with regard to the averment made at paragraph 20-23 of the writ petition, the answering deponent has no comments to make.
That the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 10 of this instant Affidavit -in-Opposition are true to the best of my knowledge, belief and information derived from the records which I believe to be true and the rest are my humble submissions before this Hon''ble Court.
And I sign this affidavit on this the 14th day of April, 2015.
Identified by:
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Advocate)
DEPONENT"
It is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3 that the State Govt. had already taken steps for framing the recruitment rules for the posts of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors. In support of that contention, the respondent No.3 had also annexed the copy of the letter of the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Transport Department being No. TPT.16/2011/22 dated 26.09.2013 under which the Commissioner of Transport, Govt. of Meghalaya was directed that the Govt. had sanctioned 5 (five) numbers of posts of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors in order to provide promotional avenues to the senior graduate Enforcement Checkers, and in view of the above, the Commissioner of Transport, Govt. of Meghalaya has to modify the draft service rules as follows :-
"The post of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors is to be filled up by promotion from amongst Enforcement Checkers who possess Graduate Degree and who have put in not less than 5 (five) years service as such".
For easy reference, the said letter of the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Transport Department (Annexure-I to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3) is reproduced hereunder:-
"Government Of Meghalaya
Transport Department
No. TPT. 16/2011/22 Dated Shillong, the 26th September, 2013.
From: Shri. W. Nongsiej, MCS, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Transport Department.
To,
The Commissioner of Transport,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
Subj: Proposal for creation of post of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors.
Ref. enco: No.Com/Trans/2007/5/30, dated 13.01.2011.
Madam,
I am directed to inform you that the Government has sanctioned 5 (five) nos. of posts of Assistant Enforcement Inspection in order to provide promotional avenues to the senior graduate Enforcement Checkers.
In view of the above, you are advised to modify your Draft Service Rule as follows:-
"The post of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors is to be filled up by promotion from amongst Enforcement Checkers who possess Graduate Degree and who have put in not less than 5 (five) years service as such" and also to reserve 33% of the posts of Enforcement Inspectors to allow promotion from amongst the Assistant Enforcement Inspectors, to the post of Enforcement Inspectors and 67% by direct recruitment and to resubmit the same for further necessary action.
You are also requested to furnish the list of the qualified Enforcement Checkers according to their seniority along with ACRs for last 5 (five) years and their integrity.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
Transport Department."
On conjoint reading of the said letter of the Govt. of Meghalaya dated 26.09.2013 and the said letter dated 26.09.2013 (Annexure-I to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3), it is clear that the process for framing the recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector by the Governor in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India was in progress. It is the further case of the petitioners that while the process for framing the recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector was in progress, the State respondents without any plausible reason held the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ''DPC'') on 09.05.2014 and on the recommendation of the DPC held on 09.05.2014, the Commissioner of Transport, Govt. of Meghalaya vide order dated 09.07.2014 promoted the private respondents to the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors. The said DPC was constituted under the office memorandum being No.TPT.16./2011/24 dated 27.03.2014 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Transport Department. The copy of the said office memorandum dated 27.03.2014 is also annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3. The said office memorandum dated 27.03.2014 is reproduced hereunder:-
"Government Of Meghalaya
Transport Department
Office Memorandum
Dated Shillong, the 27th March, 2014
No.TPT.16/2011/24 - On creation of the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector and pending framing and finalization of the Meghalaya Transport (Subordinate) Service Rules, the Governor of Meghalaya is pleased to order that the following procedure should be followed in the manner of recruitment to the post below:-
Assistant Enforcement Inspector:- Promotion to the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector shall be made from the persons/incumbents holding the post of Enforcement Checkers who possess Graduate Degree and who put in not less than 5 (five) years service as such based on seniority-cum-merit subject to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
Departmental Promotion Committee - (1) For the purpose of consideration of the promotion to the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consist with the following members:
(i) Principal Secretary/Commissioner & - Chairman Secretary/Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Transport Department.
(ii) Commissioner & Secretary/Secretary. - Member to the Govt of Meghalaya, Personnel Department, or his Representative
(iii) Commissioner & Secretary/Secretary to - Member the Govt. of Meghalaya, Finance Department, or his representative
(iv) Commissioner of Transport, Meghalaya - Member Secretary
(2) The Committee may invite any other person to attend the meeting if it considered necessary.
The Appointing Authority :- The Appointing Authority shall be the Commissioner of Transport.
The number of posts with scale of pay is indicated in the Schedule-I enclosed.
These orders shall remain in force till the finalization/amendment of the Service Rules.
(Sd/-Y.Tsering)
Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
Transport Department"
On bare perusal of the said office memorandum dated 27.03.2014, it is clear that the said DPC was not associated with the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (for short ''MPSC'') inasmuch as none of the members of the DPC was from the MPSC. In other words, the DPC was not associated with the MPSC and on the recommendation of the DPC, the Commissioner of Transport, Govt. of Meghalaya issued the impugned promotion order dated 09.07.2014 for promoting the private respondents to the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors. It is the further case of the petitioners that even if the petitioners are the senior Enforcement Checkers who had rendered their services between 35 years and 5 years had not been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector and also the further case of the petitioners was that there was no special reason for holding the DPC urgently while the process for framing the recruitment rules of Assistant Enforcement Inspector under Article 309 of the Constitution of India was in progress. It is also the further case of the petitioner that the condition of service of the Assistant Enforcement Inspector should have been decided after consultation with the Public Service Commission as provided under Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India and also there is no intelligible differentia which have the nexus with the object of imposing educational qualification for promoting the Enforcement Checker to the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector.
The affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondents i.e. respondent No.3 surprisingly did not mention any reason as to why the said 5 (five) posts of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors were to be filled up urgently when the process for framing the recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector under Article 309 of the Constitution of India was in progress. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3 there is not even a whisper as to why the Public Service Commission as provided under Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India was not consulted before issuing the executive order under which the graduate was the essential criteria for consideration for promotion of Enforcement Checker to the higher post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector. Further the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3 did not even disclose the intelligible differentia having nexus with the object of issuing the executive order/decision under which the graduate was the essential criteria for promoting the Enforcement Checker to the higher post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector. For easy reference, under Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India reads as follows:-
"320(3) The Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted-
(a) on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts;
(b) on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers;
(c) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters;
(d) on any claim by or in respect of a person who is serving or has served under the Government of India or the Government of a State or under the Crown in India or under the Government of an Indian State, in a civil capacity, that any costs incurred by him in defending legal proceedings instituted against him in respect of acts done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India, or, as the case may be, out of the Consolidated Fund of the State;
(e) on any claim for the award of a pension in respect of injuries sustained by a person while serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State or under the Crown in India or under the Government of an Indian State, in a civil capacity, and any question as to the amount of any such award,
and it shall be the duty of a Public Service Commission to advice on any matter so referred to them and on any other matter which the President, or, as the case may be, the Governor [***] of the State, may refer to them:
Provided that the President as respects the all-India services and also as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and the Governor [***], as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of a State, may make regulations specifying the matters in which either generally, or in any particular class of case or in any particular circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be consulted."
On bare perusal of Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India, it is clear that the MPSC shall be consulted for the matter relating to methods of recruitment to the civil services and civil posts as well as suitability of candidates for such appointment and promotion. But in the present case, it appears from the record that the State Govt., while the process for framing the recruitment rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector was going on, had taken the executive decision that the graduate is the essential criteria for considering or promoting the Enforcement Checker to the higher post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector. In the course of hearing of the present writ petition, this Court put the pointed question to the learned Addl. Sr.GA appearing for the State respondents as to whether or not the State Govt. had framed any rule such as "Exemption for consultation from the MPSC Rules"?. However, the learned Addl. Sr.GA appearing for the State respondents utterly failed to give any reply.
Mr. H.S Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents supports the case of the private respondents by vehemently arguing that there are intelligible differentia having nexus with the object of issuing the executive order wherein the graduate is the essential criteria for consideration of the Enforcement Checker for promotion to the Assistant Enforcement Inspector. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to the different paras of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents. Intelligible differentia having nexus with the object of issuing executive order wherein the graduate is the essential criteria for considering or promoting the Enforcement Checker to the Assistant Enforcement Inspector are to the disclosed by the State respondents and not by the private respondents because it is the State respondents who have to justify their order. As stated above, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondent No.3 there is not even a whisper as to the intelligible differentia having nexus with the object of issuing executive instruction under which the graduate is the essential criteria for considering or promoting the Enforcement Checker to the Assistant Enforcement Inspector. It is also very clear that the State Govt. by issuing executive instruction which did not disclose any plausible reason for imposing the graduate as the essential criteria for promotion of Enforcement Checker to the Assistant Enforcement Inspector, did not consider the case of the petitioners who are senior non-graduate Enforcement Checkers for promotion to the Assistant Enforcement Inspector. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioners that the rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India had been infringed by not considering their case for promotion to the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector.
Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that both the Enforcement Checkers having educational qualification of graduate and non-graduate Enforcement Checkers are discharging the same function and same work and also there is no works for the Assistant Enforcement Inspectors for which the educational qualification of graduate is required. This being the situation, the rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector which are to be filled up cent per cent by promotion cannot be denied on the ground that the petitioners are not graduate in educational qualification. Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention that "the State respondents have to acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India" has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & Anr. v. State of Assam & Ors: (2013) 2 SCC 516 wherein the Apex Court held that:
"62. Almost a quarter century back, this Court in Balram Gupta v. Union of India: 1987 Supp SCC 228: 1988 SCC (L&S) 126: (1987) 5 ATC 246 had observed thus: (SCC p. 236, para 13)
"13. ..... As a model employer the Government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees."
In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh: (1992) 4 SCC 118: 1992 SCC (L&S) 825: (1992) 21 ATC 403 the Court had clearly stated: (SCC p.134, Para 21)
"21. .....The main concern of the court in such matters is to ensure the rule of law and to see that the Executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16".
In Secretary, State Of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753 (SCC p.18, para 6) the Constitution Bench, while discussing the role of state in recruitment procedure, stated that if rules have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution, then the Government can make appointments only in accordance with the rules, for the State is meant to be a model employer.
In Mehar Chand Polytechnic v. Anu Lamba: (2006) 7 SCC 161: 2006 SCC (L&S) 1580 (SCC p.166, para 16) the Court observed that public employment is a facet of right to equality envisaged under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and that the recruitment rules are framed with a view to give equal opportunity to all the citizens of India entitled for being considered for recruitment in the vacant posts.
We have stated the role of the State as a model employer with the fond hope that in future a deliberate disregard is not taken recourse to and deviancy of such magnitude is not adopted to frustrate the claims of the employees. It should always be borne in mind that legitimate aspirations of the employees are not guillotined and a situation is not created where hopes end in despair. Hope for everyone is gloriously precious and a model employer should not convert it to be deceitful and treacherous by playing a game of chess with their seniority. A sense of calm sensibility and concerned sincerity should be reflected in every step. An atmosphere of trust has to prevail and when the employees are absolutely sure that their trust shall not be betrayed and they shall be treated with dignified fairness then only the concept of good governance can be concretized. We say no more."
For the foregoing reasons, this Court has no alternative except to interfere with the impugned promotion order dated 09.07.2014. Thus, the impugned promotion order dated 09.07.2014 is hereby set aside. However, it is left to the State respondents to fill up the said 5 (five) posts of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors if there be any exigencies of service of Assistant Enforcement Inspector by following due process of law as expeditiously as possible. It is also left to the State Govt. to frame the recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector under Article 309 of the Constitution of India as expeditiously as possible by following due process of law and also may issue executive order, if necessary, for filling up the post of Assistant Enforcement Inspector keeping in view of the Articles 14, 16, 154, 162, 309 and 320 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.