Judgment : The Court: Sree Rabindra Nath Mukherjee is the petitioner in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. He challenges the resolution dated 28th of September, 1977, the decision made at the meeting of the West Bengal Cabinet on the 6th of October, 1977 and the orders in consequences thereof. He further challenges what he calls reduction in rank of the petitioner and asks for consequential orders and directions. In order to appreciate the challenge it would be necessary to refer to certain facts. The petitioner is a qualified engineer from Bengal Engineering College with a First Class Degree standing fourth in the University of Calcutta in the year 1955. He states that he is holding various other post greduate qualifications and is a member of the various Engineering Institutes. He states that in or about 1961 he became a senior covenanted officer of Jessop & Co. The Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation briefly referred to hereinafter as C.M.P.O. came into existence as an autonomous body in 1961 initially for the purpose of operation of development plans for the Calcutta Metropolitan District and other regions in the State of West Bengal. From time to time its sphere of operation, according to the petitioner, was extended to many other regions in the State of West Bengal. In March, 1964 C.M.P.O. ceased to be an autonomous body and became one of the units of the Town and Country Planning Branch of the Development and Planning Department. The petitioner states that in 1964 advertisement was issued by the Public Service Commission for the post of Structural Engineer in the scale of Rs. 1500-60-1800/- and on or about 3rd of April, 1965 the petitioner applied for the said post and was appointed with two higher initials in the pay of Rs. 1620/- in the Department of Development and Planning at its Unit C.M.P.O. The petitioner further c1aims that having appreciated his ability the Commissioner of the Town and Country Planning Department, Government of West Bengal in or about 1967 recommended the petitioner for the post of Additional Chief Engineer or Deputy Chief Engineer. It is further stated that the post of the petitioner was re-designated as Superintending Engineer on or about 1st of August, 1968 for the said organisation without any addition to his emoluments. It is further stated that the post of the petitioner was re-designated as Superintending Engineer on or about 1st of August, 1968 for the said organisation without any addition to his emoluments. On or about 31st of December, 1970 the petitioner was given according to the petitioner the permanent status in the post of Superintending Engineer, Town and Country Planning Department, Government of West Bengal. The notification dated 31st December, 1970 which is annexure "D" to the petition and which has not been challenged makes the permanent status of petitioner, in the Cadre of Superintending Engineers in the service of State beyond doubt. The petitioner further claims that on or about 28th of July, 1971 the petitioner was confirmed in the post of Superintending Engineer. The petitioner was asked by the Government in December, 1971 to act as the, Chief Engineer during the absence of the then Chief Engineer. On or about 12th of May, 1972 the petitioner was appointed as Chief Engineer of the Development and Planning Department in the Town and Country Planning Branch, Government of West Bengal. On or about 12th of September, 1972 the designation of the petitioner according to the petitioner was changed to, Executive Director and Chief Engineer without any enhancement of the scale of pay. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Deputy Secretary of the Government of West Bengal informed the Accountant General West Bengal about the scale of pay of the Executive Director & Chief Engineer plus other allowances. The petitioner states that in or about October, 1974 the petitioner was drawing his salary in the said scale and had reached the optimum limit of Rs. 2350/-, It appears that in or about April, 1976 the jurisdiction of C.M.P.O. was extended to other areas in the State of West Bengal. The petitioner claims that on the 8th of November, 1976 the petitioner was confirmed and substantially appointed in the said post of the Executive Director and Chief Engineer w.e.f. 12th of October, 1972. This contention and/or assertion, is, however, disputed seriously by the respondents and will have to be referred to in detail later on. The petitioner, further, states that by a notification the petitioner was made Chairman of the joint technical team to conduct the technical survey and identify souitable sources of unpolluted water for a large area of West Bengal. This contention and/or assertion, is, however, disputed seriously by the respondents and will have to be referred to in detail later on. The petitioner, further, states that by a notification the petitioner was made Chairman of the joint technical team to conduct the technical survey and identify souitable sources of unpolluted water for a large area of West Bengal. The said notification was extended on the 10th of September, 1977 by another notification upto 30th of June, 1978. It is the case of the petitioner that the jurisdiction of C.M.P.O. was extended over almost the whole of the State of West Bengal. The petitioner has sought to annex a long list of areas and works outside the city of Calcutta where the jurisdiction of C.M.P.O, was extended. The significance of this rather innocuous controversy would be manifested later when the contentions in this case are examined. According to the petitioner the petitioner was confirmed and substantially appointed in the post of Executive Director and Chief Engineer with effect from 12th of October, 1972. This contention and or assertion is, however, seriously disputed by the respondents and the dispute will have to be examined in detail later on. On or about 3rd of December, 1976 the commissioner Town and Country Planning and Ex-Officio Secretary to the Government of West Bengal informed the Public Service Commission that the Government had decided not to re-designate the said post but to retain the same because the petitioner had already been confirmed in the said post. In order to understand this position it would be necessary to refer to the contentions of the respondents. It appears that the petitioner was originally recruited through the Public Service Commission as Superintending Engineer and was confirmed in that post on 31st December, 1978 as noted earlier. 2. Later on the petitioner was appointed as Executive Director and Chief Engineer, a post created in lieu of two posts. This position was brought to the notice of the public Service Commission and the public Service Commission took serious and categorical objection to the course adopted by the Government. According to the public Service Commission prior approval of the Public Service Commission was necessary. This position was brought to the notice of the public Service Commission and the public Service Commission took serious and categorical objection to the course adopted by the Government. According to the public Service Commission prior approval of the Public Service Commission was necessary. Further, according to the Public Service Commission consultation with Public Service Commission was necessary in view of Article 320 of the Constitution and before the question of appointment of the petitioner could be considered recruitment rules should have been framed and upon the framing of such recruitment rules the question of appointment of the petitioner as Chief' Engineer and Executive Director might be taken up and the Public Service Commission was, further, of the view that the confirmation of the petitioner in violation of the procedure indicated above would be contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution. These views of the Public Service Commission were categorically communicated to, the Government by latters which are annexed to the affidavit of Sub has Ranjan Das affirmed on the 5th of December, 1977 and filed on behalf of the respondents in this application. It appears at one stage that the then Hon'ble Minister Sree B.N. Sen was also of the same view. This would be apparent from the endorement of the Hon'ble Minister in the notes on the files which were produced before me. The Cabinet, however, by a resolution which is annexed also to the affidavit of the said Sree Subhas Ranjan Das at its meeting on the 2nd of May, 1973 approved the proposal of creation of a permanent post of Executive Director and Chief Engineer under the Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 2001-125-2350/- and also the appointment of the petitioner in that post. Inspite of this by a letter dated 4th of April, 1977 the Public Service Commission categorically informed the Government that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular, unconstitutional and illegal, contravening, according to the Public Service Commission, provisions of Articles 320(3) and 16 of the Constitution. The Commission, further, stated that the above facts would be mentioned in the annual report of the Commission. The Commission requested the Government to frame recruitment rules. In the background of this controversy the Government sought the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer. 3. The files containing the notes and opinion of the Legal Remembrancer make interesting reading. The Commission, further, stated that the above facts would be mentioned in the annual report of the Commission. The Commission requested the Government to frame recruitment rules. In the background of this controversy the Government sought the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer. 3. The files containing the notes and opinion of the Legal Remembrancer make interesting reading. The same are annexed to the affidavit of Subhas Ranjan Das affirmed on the 20th of March, 1978. Opinion, it seems was sought on two points, (a) Whether Sree Mukherjee's appointment as Executive Director and Chief Engineer could be looked upon as a regularised one and secondly, whether he could be confirmed in that post without reference to any recruitment rules and without consulting the Public Service Commission. The Legal Remembrancer sent the matter to Special Legal Remembrancer for disposal. Legal Remembrancer gave a one line opinion by stating that he did not find any bar in doing the above on 27th of August, 1976. In view of this there was again some hesitancy as the opinion of the Special Legal Remembrancer was characterised as laconic and the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Minister. In that view of the matter the Government again approached the Legal Remembrancer for further opinion and the Legal Remembrancer this time passed on the buck to the Additional Joint Legal Remembrancer. The Additional Joint Legal Remembrancer has said in his note that the opinion given by the Special Legal Remembrancer is "a rare instance where the Special L. R. hazarded to give his opinion on a point of law." The Additional Joint Legal Remembrancer expressed his opinion and the matter finally went to the Legal Remembrancer and the Legal Remembrancer on the 29th of September, 1976 answered by saying that according to him the appointment of Sree Mukherjee an Executive Director and Chief Engineer could not be considered to be regularised but on the question no. 2 namely, that whether he could be confirmed to that post without reference to any recruitment rules and without consulting the Public Service Commission that this could be done. The Cabinet accepted the course and appointed him in that post without reference to any recruitment rules and without consultation with the Public Service Commission. 2 namely, that whether he could be confirmed to that post without reference to any recruitment rules and without consulting the Public Service Commission that this could be done. The Cabinet accepted the course and appointed him in that post without reference to any recruitment rules and without consultation with the Public Service Commission. I have referred to this controversy because one of the points taken on behalf of the respondents is that the appointment of the petitioner as Executive Director and Chief Engineer was irregular. Therefore, it was urged that removal from that post could not entail curtailment of any of his rights. In view of the Cabinet decision confirming Sree Mukheljee in that post this contention legally cannot be accepted. The petitioner was validly as a result of the Cabinet decision appointed as the Chief Engineer and Executive Director. It is well settled that in respect of the provisions of Article 320 of the Constitution appointment without consultation with the Public Service Commission does not make the appointment invalid or void. See in this connection the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) State of U. P. v. Manbodhan Lal, AIR 1957 SC page 913 and (2) Ram Gopal v. State of M. P. AIR 1970 SC page 158. In view of the Cabinet decision dated 8th November 1976 which is annexed to the petition of Sree Rabindra Nath Mukherjee it cannot therefore be held that the appointment of Sree Mukherjee was irregular and his removal for that reason from that post would not have been improper. But I do not think that the circumstances and the manner in which the appointment was made though legal lose their significance in judging the propriety or the impropriety of the subsequent action of the Government. It appears according to the petitioner that on or about March, 1977 the Government declared various areas in the State of West Bengal as being areas within the jobs of C.M.P.O. 4. According to the petitioner since August, 1977 the respondents started taking various steps against the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that statutory powers and rights of the post held by the petitioner were sought to be curtailed by the respondents. On or about 27th of September, 1977 the petitioner was asked by the department to involve himself and decide on various matters partaining to different regions regarding preparation of maps. The petitioner alleges that statutory powers and rights of the post held by the petitioner were sought to be curtailed by the respondents. On or about 27th of September, 1977 the petitioner was asked by the department to involve himself and decide on various matters partaining to different regions regarding preparation of maps. It appears that on or about 14th of March, 1977 about the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority there was a notification which was as follows:- "WHEREAS it is considered expedient to undertake Land Use Planning Work for Urban Areas within the Calcutta Metropolitan District on behalf of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority, constituted under the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1972 ; AND WHEREAS the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority has agreed to entrust the said work in respect of Howrah area of the Calcutta Metropolitan District for the present; AND WHEREAS: the Town and Country Planning Branch of the Development and Planning Department has trained hands to undertakes the said work; Now, therefore, the Governor is pleased hereby to order as follows: (I) A separate Cell under the Town and Country Planning Branch of the Development and Planning Department to undertake Land Use Planning Work in respect of Howrah Area be created with immediate affect under the control, and Supervision of Shri K.N. Chatterjee, Senior Regional Planner of the Town and Country Planning Branch of the Development and Planning Department of the Government of West Bengal. (II) The aforesaid Cell shall consist of the officers and staff of the Town and Country Planning Branch of the Development and Planning Department as indicated in the enclosed list. (III) This order will take effect immediately". (II) The aforesaid Cell shall consist of the officers and staff of the Town and Country Planning Branch of the Development and Planning Department as indicated in the enclosed list. (III) This order will take effect immediately". Thereafter, on the 28th of September, 1977 the Government issued and passed a resolution to the following effect :- "Whereas the Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation was established with the object of Preparing Plans for development of the Calcutta Metropolitan District, and Whereas the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority has since been established and is entrusted with the responsibility of development of the Calcutta Metropolitan District; and Whereas the continuation of the Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation is no longer considered necessary or expedient in the public interest, and Whereas it is proposed to undertake preparation of plans for development of areas outside the Calcutta Metropolitan District in the Town and Country Planning Branch of the Development and Planning Department, and Whereas continuation of the post of Executive Director and Chief Engineer, Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation is incompatible in the set-up after abolition of the Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation; Now, therefore the Governor is pleased to order as follows:- (1) The Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation will cease to exist. (2) All posts other than the post of the Executive Director and Chief Engineer, in the Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation, will be deemed to be posts in the town and country planning Branch of the Development and planning Department. (3) The terms and conditions of service of incumbants of all posts in the Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation other than the post of Executive Director & Chief Engineer, shall continue unaffected. (4) The post of Executive Director and Chief Engineer in the Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation shall stand abolished. (5) Any function which under any provision was required to be done by any Officer in the Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation shall continue to be done by such Officer who will be continuing to function in the Town & Country Planning Branch of the Development and Planning Department under foregoing orders (6) In case of any difficulty arising in the implementation of these orders, the Government will take any action as may be considered necessary to resolve such difficulty." 5. It is this resolution and the consequential abolition of the post of Executive Director and Chief Engineer which was held by the petitioner at the relevant time, that is under challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner alleges that the Government decision was announced in the Newspapers. There was a decision of the Cabinet on the 6th of October. 1977 to put the petitioner into the post called Special Officer (Structural), at a scale 1600-60-1900/-. The petitioner contends that petitioner has been reduced in rank, and the action taken by the Government is malafide and in a id of the contention that the action taken by the Government was malafide the petitioner has purported to refer to certain proceedings of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly on the 29th of September, 1977 as reported in the newspapers. There is some discrepancy on this point. According to the petitioner the original utterances of the Hon'ble Finance Minister as published were as follows :- "We assure the House that the Government would see that public money was not squandered or thoughtlessly wasted as "Was done during the Congress regime". He gave instances of how a State Government undertaking had "scandalously used" the money received from a nationalised bank and how the post of Executive Director of the Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation was created disregarding all Government rules and procedures. The post was created in 1972 to "push up" an employee of CMPO on the sole consideration that "he was a relation of a Congress Minister". "I am happy to inform you that I have abolished this post." Mr. Mitra announced papers regarding the use of bank loans by the ownertaking has been sent to the commission set up by the State Government". The petitioner states that the action of the abolition was motivated by the alleged and false plea that the petitioner was related to a Minister of the previous regime. The petitioner states that the petitioner was not related to any Minister past or present and petitioner's appointment was solely on merit and in consideration of his performances and out of the vindictiveness against the petitioner the said allegations have been made or concocted. The petitioner states that the petitioner was not related to any Minister past or present and petitioner's appointment was solely on merit and in consideration of his performances and out of the vindictiveness against the petitioner the said allegations have been made or concocted. It is further stated that there are various other works done by the petitioner and the establishment of Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority briefly mentioned as C.M.D.A. does not necessiate the abolition of the organisation of C.M.P.O. and the alleged ground given in the resolution of 28th of September, 1977 that the abolition was due to the fact that there was no need was a colourable one and not genuine one. Furthermore, petitioner contends that the petitioner was at an material time a confirmed Chief Engineer and his position could not be interfered with except in accordance with the rules appertaining to the same. In this connection my attention was drawn to West Bengal Service Rules, Part I. Rules 20, 23, 24 and 28. My attention was also drawn to the West Bengal Public Service Commission (Consultation by Governor) Regulations, 1955 and the Rules of Business of the Government of West Bengal. There is a corrected version of the statement alleged to have been made by the Hon'ble Finance Minister on the floor of the assembly where he was reported to have said that the petitioner was not a relative of any Minister of old regime but the petitioner claimed that he was so related to a Minister. Even this corrected allegation is disputed and denied by the petitioner. I need not refer to certain allegations contained in the departmental notes against the petitioner about grant of certain contracts in respect of certain projects and about certain pending investigations by vigilance cell of the Government because nothing of much substance turns upon this question. 6. In view of the background of the facts and circumstances of this case the facts as I see these are as follows :- (1). The petitioner \vas regularly appointed through the Public Service Commission and confirmed as a Superintending Engineer, such appointment was made on 21st of December, 1970 in a permanent status and it appears from Annexure D to the petition. (2). The petitioner \vas regularly appointed through the Public Service Commission and confirmed as a Superintending Engineer, such appointment was made on 21st of December, 1970 in a permanent status and it appears from Annexure D to the petition. (2). The petitioner was subsequently appointed as Chief Engineer and Executive Director of C.M.P.O. and though the appointment was made in an unsatisfactory manner in view of the Cabinet decision dated 8th November, 1976, the appointment cannot be said to be either illegal or regular (3). There is the resolution of the Government abolishing C.M.P.O. as such on the plea that the need for C.M.P.O. has ceased to exist in view of the creation of C.M.D.A. the question is whether in those circumstances the abolition of the post of Executive Director and Chief Engineer C.M.P.O. was malafide or not. It is well settled that if a post is abolished bonafide then the abolition of such post and the consequential losing of that post by the incumbent therof cannot be challenged. The abolition of such post may have the consequence of termination of service, but such termination is not dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. Reliance in this connection may be placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (3) N. Ramanarhe v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC page 2641. But if however such abolition is done malafide then of course different considerations will arise. 7. My attention was drawn to the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of (4) Ramanatha v. State of Kerala 1971 (2) Services Law Reporter, Page 32. This case reiterates the principle that termination as a result of the abolition of a post does not give any right to complain under Article 226 of the Constitution. I have referred to the Supreme Court decision from this decision in the case of (3) N. Ramanatha v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 2641 . It is not necessary to discuss the High Court decision in any detail any longer. Attention was also drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case (5) R. N. Nanjundappa v. Tithimminh, 1972 (2) Services Law Reporter, Page 94, in aid of the proposition that if the appointment initially was irregular and in fraction of rules it cannot be regularised by subsequent action. Attention was also drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case (5) R. N. Nanjundappa v. Tithimminh, 1972 (2) Services Law Reporter, Page 94, in aid of the proposition that if the appointment initially was irregular and in fraction of rules it cannot be regularised by subsequent action. In view of the Cabinet decision as referred to hereinbefore in my opinion the said principle would not also be applicable to the instant case. Reliance was also placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of (6) V.B. Badami v. State of Mysore, 1976 (2) SC Cases, Page 901 at page 910. In the facts and in the circumstances of this case I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to discuss the aforesaid decision in any detail. In the case of (7) S.C. Sharma v. Union of India, AIR 1970 Delhi Page 1 a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court also reiterated the view that losing one's job on total abolition of a post is not removal from service. As a matter of fact, this proposition was not seriously disputed on behalf of the petitioner. But the contention was that the abolition of the post of Chief Engineer and Executive Director was colourable and malafide. It was emphasised that all other functionaries of C.M.P.O. have been absorbed except the Executive Director and Chief Engineer. I have already referred to the Supreme Court decision whereon more or less, similar, though not on identical facts the Supreme Court was unable to sustain the charge of malafide against a Minister of the Kerala Government in abolishing a particular post. It is well settled that the burden of establishing malafide is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of malafide are often made easily than proved and the very seriousness of such allegations demand proof of high order of credibility. See the observation's of the Supreme Court in the case of (8) E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 1974 SC page 555. See also the decision to this effect of the Supreme Court in the case of (6) V.B. Badami v. State of Mysore, 1976 (2) SC Cases 901. See the observation's of the Supreme Court in the case of (8) E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 1974 SC page 555. See also the decision to this effect of the Supreme Court in the case of (6) V.B. Badami v. State of Mysore, 1976 (2) SC Cases 901. In this case the petitioner alleges malafides in abolishing the post of Chief Engineer and Executive Director of C.M.P.O. The said charge of malafide is based mainly on the alleged statement of the Hon'ble Minister made on the floor of the House on or about 29th of September, 1977 and the publication made in the newspapers to that effect. The statement is perhaps not happily restrained as one would have wished for. There is no proof before me that the petitioner is either related to any Minister, past or present, or that he ever had claimed or obtained his position and influences by claiming his connection with any particular Minister; Therefore the factual basis of the alleged allegation of the Hon'ble Finance Minister has not been sustained before me. It is, however, common knowledge that uncontaminated objectivity in a particular situation is a rarity in politicians; and Ministers cannot help being politicians, hardly ever lose an opportunity to make political capital of every situation and to have a sting at the opponents sometimes unnecessarily. This statement of the Hon'ble Minister will have therefore to be judged in this background that there is no evidence of any personal enmity or animosity as such towards the petitioner by the Hon'ble Minister or for that matter any member of the present Government. The petitioner has not alleged any such animosity. There is no evidence of such animosity. Therefore, there is no particular reason as such why out of malice any particular action would be taken against the petitioner. It is true that other employees of C.M.P.O., others than the Executive Director and Chief Engineer have been absorbed in the new set up as per notification or resolution dated 28th of September, 1977. But the head of an organisation stands entirely on a different footing and whether the particular head should ramain as such is a policy decision on an administrative matter the propriety of which cannot be substituted by a judicial opinion except where the decision is motivated by malice or by illegality. But the head of an organisation stands entirely on a different footing and whether the particular head should ramain as such is a policy decision on an administrative matter the propriety of which cannot be substituted by a judicial opinion except where the decision is motivated by malice or by illegality. The petitioner has further alleged that the various works done by the C.M.P.O. were not confined to Calcutta proper and therefore the need for a separate organisation like C.M.P.O. had not ceased to exist merely by the creation of the organisation of C.M.D.A. This again is a matter of administrative decision and policy whether from a planner's point of view or developer's point of view C.M.D.A. and C.M.P.O. or similar organisation should co-exist or not or one should substituted the other is a matter on which I am afraid the Court is not competent to express any opinion. It is then contended that the plea taken that the original appointment of the petitioner as Chief Engineer and Executive Director of C.M.P.O. both in the floor of the House as well as in the opposition to this application indicated that the respondents had acted mala fide in taking action against the petitioner. I am unable to accept this position. Even though as I have held that the appointment of the petitioner was not illegal, if in future re-organisation the Government takes into consideration the fact that appointment had been made though not illegally but in violation of the recommendations of the Public Service Commission and suggestions of the Public Service Commission and with great deal of hesitancy on the part of the legal advisers of the Government, then in my opinion, the Government cannot be accused of acting malafide. Various powers and position and amenities of the petitioner had from time to time being curtailed and the petitioner was being humiliated. These again in my opinion in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant the conclusion that the petitioner was removed malafide in the absence of more cogent and reliable materials. 8. It was suggested that the petitioner was a confirmed Chief Engineer in the cadre of the West Bengal Engineering Services. Therefore the abolition of the post does not abolish the petitioner's right to the rank and position of a Chief Engineer. 8. It was suggested that the petitioner was a confirmed Chief Engineer in the cadre of the West Bengal Engineering Services. Therefore the abolition of the post does not abolish the petitioner's right to the rank and position of a Chief Engineer. But the appointment in my opinion, indicates that the petitioner was substantially appointed to the post of Executive Director and Chief Engineer in the organisation of the Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation and was confirmed in that position in that organisation. Therefore, with the abolition of that organisation, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot claim the position of remaining in the cadre and status of Chief Engineer. Reliance in this connection may be placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of (9) State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh, AIR 1964 SC Page 521. 9. On behalf of the respondents it was urged that in view of Rule 16 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 this application under Article 226 of the Constitution was not maintainable under amended Article 226(3) of the Constitution because the petitioner had an alternative remedy. But in view of the fact that in this application the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents on the ground of mala fide, in my opinion, this opposition cannot be sustained and the petition was entertainable. 10. On behalf of the petitioner my attention was drawn to the West Bengal Public Service Commission (Consultation by Governor) Regulation 1955 in aid of the submission that originally consultation in the facts in the circumstances with the Public Service Commission was not necessary. In the view I have taken as indicated before it is not necessary for me to refer to the said contention in detail. As mentioned before my attention was also drawn to the West Bengal Service Rules and to the Rules of the Business of the West Bengal Government and West Bengal Secretariate Manual in aid of the submissions that the petitioner being a confirmed Chief Engineer and Executive Director had a lien on that position. Therefore the same could not be interferred with in the manner done. In the view I have taken and for the reasons I have already mentioned it is also not necessary for me to refer to this contention in any detail. 11. Therefore the same could not be interferred with in the manner done. In the view I have taken and for the reasons I have already mentioned it is also not necessary for me to refer to this contention in any detail. 11. I have held the petitioner was a confirmed Superintending Engineer and therefore is entitled to all the amenities and emoluments and promotions that the petitioner was entitled to in law, treating the petitioner' as a confirmed Superintending Engineer with affect from 31st of December, 1970. On that basis in the light of the resolution of the Government dated 28th of September, 1977 the petitioner is entitled to be provided with a similar position in the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority or any position in any other department at the Government considers fit and proper. The Government has sought to appoint the petitioner as Structural Engineer; if the said appointment is commensurate with petitioner's confirmed position a8 a Superintending Engineer since 1970 then no further action need be taken. But if the same is not commensurate with the rights of the petitioner as indicated then the respondents are directed to place the petitioner in a proper position. The petitioner was directed to be paid Rs. 1900/- per month until the disposal of this application without joining work. This payment the petitioner is entitled to receive and if not already received should be received by him. The petitioner should join his duties either as Special Officer (Structural) or any other similar position assigned to him as indicated above with in six weeks from this date and the respondents are directed to give to the petitioner facilities of such joining. Except the directions given as indicated above the rule is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of this case there will, however, be no order as to costs.