JUDGMENT M.M. Dutt J. These two appeals have been preferred by the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as the CMDA, and its Chief Executive Officer against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Judge has made absolute the Rules Nisi issued on the applications of two sets of petitioners, one set being the respondents nos. 1 to 11 in F.M.A.T. No. 209 of 1982 and the other being respondents nos. 1 to 9 in F.M.A.T. No. 210 of 1982. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners challenged the validity of the resolution of CMDA passed at its 63rd meeting held on September 3, 1979 in so far as the same laid down the weight-age formula for the benefit of deputationists affecting the seniority of the directly recruited employees of the CMDA. 2. The CMDA was established and/or created by the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1970. The said Act was subsequently substituted or replaced by the West Bengal Act XI of 1972. The CMDA is a statutory body and a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and has the power to acquire, hold and dispose of property and enter into contracts subject to the provisions of the Act and can sue and be sued in its name. The purposes for which the CMDA has been created are formulation and execution of plans for the development of the Calcutta Metropolitan Area, the co-ordination and supervision of the execution of such plans and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In 1974 the CMDA, in exercise of its power conferred by S. 22 of the Act, framed regulations called Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (Recruitment) Regulations, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Regulations. Regulation 4 provides as follows : "4. Methods of Recruitment :- Posts under the Authority shall be filled by- (1) direct recruitment, or (2) promotion, or (3) obtaining suitable employees on deputation from the Central or the State Government, or any statutory or Local Authority or public sector undertaking; as the Authority may in each case decide : Provided that the appointing authority may, in the absence of any decision of the Authority in respect of any case, fill up any post in his discretion by any of the above methods.” 3. On February 22, 1977, the CMDA at its 51st meeting made some amendments to the Recruitment Regulations. On February 22, 1977, the CMDA at its 51st meeting made some amendments to the Recruitment Regulations. Regulation 11 was numbered as Regulation 12 and a new Regulation 11 was incorporated. The Regulations 11 and 12 are as follows : "11. Absorption of deputationist. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the appointing authority may, in the exigencies of works, absorb in the service of the Authority an employee obtained on deputation in terms of Regulation (4) : Provided that no employee on deputation shall be absorbed in a post superior to the one held by him immediately prior to such absorption. (2) Selection of an employee to be absorbed under sub-regulation (1) shall be made on the recommendation of the special Selection Committee formed under sub-regulation (3): Provided that the appointing authority may not in a particular case, for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, accept the recommendations of the Committee and may in that case refer the matter to the Chairman if the post in which absorption is proposed carries a pay or scale of pay the maximum of which does not exceed Rs. 1500/- per month or to the Authority if the post in which absorption is proposed carries a pay or scale of pay the maximum of which exceeds Rs. 1500/- per month and the decision of the Chairman or the Authority, as the case may be, thereon shall be final. (3) The Authority shall from time to time constitute, by general or special orders, Selection Committees for different categories of posts Each Committee shall consist of a Chairman and such other number of members, being not less than two and not more than four, as may be deemed fie. In the case of difference of opinion among the members, the decision of the majority shall prevail. In the case of equality of votes, the Chairman of the Committee shall have a casting vote in addition to his own, (4) (i) In determining the fitness of a candidate for absorption, the Committee shall take into consideration the following : (a) The Annual assessment reports of the employee : (b) Recommendations of the Head of Unit or in the case of the Head of Unit himself, the recommendation of his immediate superior : (c) Reports regarding disciplinary actions if any, taken against the employee or any other report concerning him. (ii) If the Committee is of opinion that from the various reports referred to in clause (i) of this sub-regulation, it is not possible to make any recommendation it may interview the candidate or take any or all the measures enumerated in sub-regulation (2) of regulation 9 (5) The period of service rendered by an employee, absorbed in the service of the Authority in terms of sub-regulation (1), during the period of deputation shall be counted for the purpose of confirmation, leave, seniority and membership to the Contributory Provident Fund in such manner as may be laid down by the Authority by a general or special order. 12. Relaxation-Nothing in these regulations shall he construed to limit the power of the Authority to dispense with or relax the requirement of any of these regulations to such extent and subject to such conditions as the Authority may consider necessary for dealing with a case in a just and equitable manner and for exigencies of work.” 4. During the period between 1970 and 1977, the CMDA borrowed the services of various Government employees and the employees of the statutory or local authorities from time to time on deputation basis. These deputationists are regular deputationists for specified periods or terms which are extended from time to time on mutual agreement between the CMDA on the one hand and the Government and the statutory or local authorities on the other. In 1973 and 1974, the P.W.(Rds) Department, C.M.P.O. and P.H.E. Departments were brought under "one umbrella scheme" adopted by the Government of West Bengal, as a result of which the personnel of the said departments have been transferred with works to the CMDA. In other words, these departments were practically abolished and the personnel of the departments were transferred to the CMDA deputationists. These deputationists are called transferee deputationists. In other words, these departments were practically abolished and the personnel of the departments were transferred to the CMDA deputationists. These deputationists are called transferee deputationists. The terms and conditions of the transferee deputationists are inter alia as follows: "(a) Work-charged employees with less than three years service on the date of transfer will have no lien in their parent Department posts and will be deemed to be the employees of the CMDA from the date of transfer; (b) all other employees will have lien in the parent department and for them shadow posts will be maintained till such time as they retire or finally opt for CMDA terms; in the meanwhile their services in posts held under Government and services in posts to which they may be appointed by CMDA on transfer or to which they may be subsequently appointed or promoted substantively shall be continuous and shall qualify for pension; (c) their terms and conditions will be guided generally by Chapter XII of WBSR - Part I (which deals with foreign service deputation).” 5. There cannot be any manner of doubt that these transferee deputationists, although they have shadow liens in the parent departments from which they have been transferred with works to CMDA, cannot go back to the parent departments inasmuch as for all practical purposes the same have been abolished in view of the "one umbrella scheme" of the Government of West Bengal. So CMDA now consists of three kinds of personnel-(1) direct recruits, (2) regular deputationists and (3) transferee deputationists. In pursuance of the decision of the CMDA taken at its 56th meeting held on January 21, 1978, a Service Committee was set up on May 6, 1978 to examine some aspects or service conditions of the employees of the CMDA. The Service Committee submitted its report on June 20, 1979. One of the matters being item no. 2(iii) that was referred to the Service Committee for its consideration was about fixing up of the percentage of vacancy in respect of various posts to be filled up by various modes of recruitment, namely, direct recruitment, (b) deputation, (c) absorption and (d) promotion. The recommendations on item no. 2(iii) of the Service Committee at page 71 of the report are as follows : "SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS. On terms of reference 2 (iii) 1. The recommendations on item no. 2(iii) of the Service Committee at page 71 of the report are as follows : "SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS. On terms of reference 2 (iii) 1. There cannot be any question of fixing up any percentage of vacancies by deputationists. 2. Induction of regular deputationsists for fixed period terms can be made from State and Central Government and other statutory bodies or undertakings only when direct recruitment or promotion fail to provide suitable candidates. Deputationsits should not normally be retained beyond their term and fresh deputationists may be brought in rotation, if it is intended that particu1ar posts should be manned by deputationists at any point of time. 3. Terms of absorption in CMDA are to be given to transferees who came with transfer of work. For determining their seniority, this should count from the date of their entry to this organisation. The same terms may be given to such employees of the Calcutta Corporation who also came with transfer of works. 4. Some terms as in (3) above may be offered to selected few regular deputationists of the State Government whom the CMDA wants to retain in the interest of work. The remaining deputationists are to be reverted to their parent departments in suitable phases. 5. Such deputationists as came to the organisation with transfer of work and do not want to get absorbed are to be kept in a separate group till their retirement. They will not be eligible for promotion within the organisation other than pro-forma promotions by virtue of their position in parent cadre. 6. Absorbed employees will be equated with direct recruits with seniority counted from date of their entry to the organisation, There shall be no percentage of vacancies reserved for absorbed employees. 7. Percentage of vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment and promotion in particular cadres will be determined by State Government norms.” 6. It appears from the recommendations of the Service Committee that the seniority of both the transferee deputationists and the regular deputationists retained in the services of CMDA will be counted after their absorption from the date of their entry into the organisation. This means that the seniority of a deputationist will be computed not from the date of his absorption, but from the date of his entry into CMDA. 7. This means that the seniority of a deputationist will be computed not from the date of his absorption, but from the date of his entry into CMDA. 7. On September 3, 1979, the CMDA at its 63rd meeting considered the report and the recommendations of the Service Committee and passed a resolution. The relevant portion of which is as follows : "CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 3A, AUKLAND PLACE, CALCUTTA-17. Proceedings of the 63rd of the Authority held on 3.9.1979 at 11.00 a.m. in CMDA's Conference room. Present : 1. Shri Jyoti Basu, Chairman, CMDA. 2. Shri Prasanta Sur, Vice-Chairman CMDA. 3. Shri Barindra Kumar Chattopadhyaya, Member, CMDA. 4. Shri Sachin Mukherjee, Member, CMDA. 5. Shri Amiya Nandi, Member, CMDA. 6. Shri M.G. Kutti, Finance Commissioner, Govt. of West Member, CMDA. 7. Shri N. Krishnamurti, Secretary, P.W. (MD) Deptt., Government of West Bengal, Member, CMDA. 8. Shri S.B. Roy, Member, CMDA. 1. Proceedings of the 62nd meeting of the Authority hold on 2.8.79 (Circulated earlier) were confirmed. 2. The recommendations of the Committee on Service Matters were considered and following decisions were taken on the terms of reference : Item-I : The recommendations of the Committee were accepted with the modification that State Government norms for different categories of services should be followed regarding minimum number of years for earning eligibility for promotion. Item-II : The recommendations of the Committee were accepted; for cases where re-promotional line was in existence in the organisation the recommendation as given by the Committee should be examined expeditiously and finalised within the three months. Item-III : Regarding items III, IV & V of the Committee on Service IV & V Matters, the Authority discussed the various aspects of the issues involved and the different formulas which could be applied for the purpose of fixation of inter se seniority of different groups of employees, i.e. direct recruits, transferee deputationists (i.e. those have been transferred along with the works) and the deputationists. The alternative formulae available for consideration were : (i) The date of entry formula i.e. counting of seniority of employees of CMDA irrespective of their method of recruitment on the basis of their date of entry into CMDA. The alternative formulae available for consideration were : (i) The date of entry formula i.e. counting of seniority of employees of CMDA irrespective of their method of recruitment on the basis of their date of entry into CMDA. (ii) Weight-age formula i.e, giving weight-age to the past services on the basis of one year for every three years of past service subject to a maximum of three years, broken periods less than three years being discounted. The recommendation of the Committee on Service matters in this respect was that the date of entry into CMDA should be the criterion for fixation of inter se seniority. The Authority, however, considered the fact that the past services of the employees on deputation to CMDA could not be totally disregarded. Having considered the pros and cons of these two formulas and going through the analysis provided in this purpose, the Authority was of the view that weight-age formula as explained giving due recognition to the past services of the employees who have been transferred to CMDA along with the works or sent to CMDA on deputation, will also provide promotion scope to the direct recruits. Moreover, the weight-age formula will also be in conformity with the views expressed by the Finance Department of the State Government. The Authority was of the view that the problem was of such a nature that a universally acceptable formula without affecting any group of employees was not possible. The aim of the Authority, therefore, was to ensure that while on the one hand past services in the parent organisations were given due recognition, on the other hand the interest of the direct employees of the CMDA were not lost sight of. On this position the weight-age formula would be meeting of these the principles. In view of foregoing the Authority decided to adopt the principle of weight-age formula, i.e. giving weight-age to the past service on the basis of one year for every three years of past service, subject to maximum of three years, broken periods less than three years being discontinued, for the different groups of employees of CMDA namely transferee deputationists/deputationists, The recommendation of the Committee on Service matter in this respect was modified to that extent by the Authority. Since a large number of posts were lying vacant as all promotions were kept pending, in the interest of works the Authority decided to give immediate effect to the promotions according to the weight-age formula. The promotions would, however, be on an officiating basis and subsequent action depending on the options of the employees should be taken later on. The exercise for obtaining option should commence immediately. Item –VI The recommendations of the Committee were accepted. It was also decided that placing of officers in P.W.D./P.H.E planning streams as recommended by the Committee would be made on present posting basis. The recommendations of the Committee were accepted. Sd/-S. B. Ray Sd/-P. K. Sur, Sd/-Jyoti Basu Chief Executive Officer, Vice-Chairman Chairman C.M.D.A C.M.D.A. C.M D A. 8. So far as items I and II of the said resolution passed in the 63rd meeting of the CMDA are concerned, they have not been impugned in the writ petitions. Under clause (i) of items III, IV and V, the resolution laid down the computation of seniority of the employees of CMDA irrespective of their method of recruitment from the date of entry into CMDA. Under clause (ii) of the said items, a weight-age formula has been laid down and that is obviously for the benefit of the deputationists absorbed in the service of the CMDA. Under the weight-age formula, weight-age of the past services of the deputationists will be given on the basis of one year for every three years of past service subject to a maximum of three years. It is not disputed that some deputationists have been granted ad hoc promotions before their absorption into the CMDA, and in giving such promotions the weight-age formula has been applied. After such promotions were given applying the weight-age formula, the petitioners, who are direct recruits felt aggrieved and moved this Court by filing two writ petitions, inter alia, challenging the computation of seniority of the deputationists from the date of their entry into CMDA and also the weight-age formula. 9. After such promotions were given applying the weight-age formula, the petitioners, who are direct recruits felt aggrieved and moved this Court by filing two writ petitions, inter alia, challenging the computation of seniority of the deputationists from the date of their entry into CMDA and also the weight-age formula. 9. At the hearing of the Rules Nisi, it was inter alia contended by the petitioners that the deputationists retained in the services of the CMDA on deputation by way of temporary measures were not entitled to be promoted to higher posts in CMDA on account of their service conditions and the service Rules of the Central Government, the State Government or the local body, as the case might be, by which they were governed. According to the petitioners, none of the deputationists could claim any seniority over the regular employees of CMDA until they were absorbed in the CMDA and gave up their original services in the parent departments from which they were transferred on deputation. In other words, the date of their absorption would be the date when they would become full fledged employees of CMDA. It was contended that there could not be any retrospective absorption in violation of the rules to the detriment of the rights of the regular employees of the CMDA. The petitioners challenged clause (5) of Regulation 11 as introduced by the CMDA by its resolution passed in the 51st meeting held on February 22, 1977 as inoperative and void on the grounds that the same was repugnant to the fundamental rules and the West Bengal Service Rules and was also ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and S. 22 of the Calcutta Metropolition Development Authority Act, 1972. 10. The learned Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on behalf of either party, has taken the view that the CMDA did not follow the procedure enjoined by clause (2) of Regulation 11 in passing the impugned resolution directing absorption of deputationists in the services of CMDA, In any case, the learned Judge observes, the weight-age formula laid down by the said resolution for the benefit of deputationsts is in clear violation of clause (5) of Regulation 11. It has been held by the learned Judge that it was not a case of relaxation by CMDA in exercise of its power under Regulation 12, for there was no application of mind and fulfillment of the conditions under Regulation 12, Further, the regular employees of CMDA not being the employees of the State Government, subsequent rules or regulations framed to their disadvantage affecting their promotions or seniority could not be made unless the CMDA Act, 1972 so empowered, but no such powers have been conferred by the Act on the CMDA. According to the learned Judge, the grant of weight-age to the deputationists who have continued and retained their shadow posts in the parent departments would amount to a discriminatory treatment, as benefit is given to their past services in other organisations a part from CMDA, while such benefit is dented to the direct recruits of CMDA. Another ground that has weighed with the learned Judge is that the weight-age formula has affected the conditions of service of the regular employees of CMDA with retrospective effect and, as such, the same is invalid. It has also been held by the learned Judge that the deputationists are not employees of the CMDA. 11. In the light of the above findings, the learned Judge observed that the decision of the CMDA at its 63rd meeting regarding items III, IV and V could not be accepted to be correct or permissible under the law. The learned Judge, however, observes that those people who have come to the CMDA on deputation along with works and have no place to go back, in their case, there can be relaxation only to the extent that their absorption should relate back to the date on which they joined the CMDA on deputation, that is to say when they were transferred to CMDA along with their works. Such relaxation would be permissible by giving an extended meaning to the expression "employee". The impugned resolution passed at the 63rd meeting of the CMDA relating to items nos. III, IV and V and the subsequent actions taken by the CMDA on the basis of the impugned resolution have been set aside by the learned Judge and the CMDA has been directed to re-consider the position and prepare a new list of employees in the light of the above observations. III, IV and V and the subsequent actions taken by the CMDA on the basis of the impugned resolution have been set aside by the learned Judge and the CMDA has been directed to re-consider the position and prepare a new list of employees in the light of the above observations. It has been further directed that before such relaxation, an opportunity should be given to the association of the petitioners and also those in whose favour the relaxation will be made and after giving reasons therefor. If is directed that such re-consideration should be made by the CMDA by January 31, 1982 and the ad hoc promotions which have been granted will continue till then. Both the Rules Nisi were made absolute to the extent indicated above. Hence, these two appeals. 12. First of all we propose to deal with the question as to the legality of Regulation 11 (5) of the Recruitment Regulations. Regulation 11(5), inter alia, directs that the period of service rendered by the deputationists absorbed in the services of CMDA during the period of deputation shall be counted for the purposes of confirmation, leave, seniority etc. In other words the date of entry of a deputationist into the service of the CMDA will be taken into consideration for the above purpose. This is in conformity with the recommendation of the Service Committee. Clause (6) of the recommendations provides that absorbed employees will be equated with direct recruits with seniority counted from the date of their entry into the organisation. We do not find any unreasonableness and unfairness in Regulation 11(5). If the length of service rendered by the absorbed deputationists during the period of deputation had not been taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority. in that case, it would have been unreasonable and improper enabling the deputationists to challenge any rule to the contrary as violative of the provision of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In K.B. Shukla v. Union of India, 1979 SC 1136, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that length of service is infinitely the best criterion which could ever be devised by any rule governing the conditions of a service, to ensure fairness and equitable treatment guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution. In K.B. Shukla v. Union of India, 1979 SC 1136, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that length of service is infinitely the best criterion which could ever be devised by any rule governing the conditions of a service, to ensure fairness and equitable treatment guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution. In an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1977 SC 2051 , it has been observed that the rule which leaves the valuable right of seniority to depend upon mere accident of confirmation suffers from the vice of unfair discrimination which is impermissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The contention of the petitioners that the seniority of the deputationists should be counted from the date of their absorption in CMDA stands overruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Patwardhan's case. It is therefore, difficult for us to accept the contention of the petitioners that Regulation 11(5) is ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 13. The principal attack of the petitioners is on the weight-age formula as laid down by the CMDA in its 63rd meeting held on September 13, 1979. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that even assuming that the Regulation 11(5) is legal and valid, the weight-age formula has been laid down in violation of Regulation 11(5). This contention proceeds on the assumption that the weight-age formula has been made by the CMDA in the purported exercise of its power under Regulation 11(5). It is contended that as Regulation 11(5) does not provide for giving any weightage to the deputationists for past for past services and, in the absence of any provision in that regard in any other regulation or in the CMDA Act, the weightage formula should be struck down as invalid. 14. There is no indication in the resolution dated September 3, 1979 as to any provision of the Recruitment or Service Regulations or of the Act under which the weightage formula has been made by the C.M.D.A. Regulation 11(5) does not authorize the CMDA to lay down any weightage formula. Before the learned Judge, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the said formula was made by the CMDA in exercise of its power of relaxation under Regulation 12 of the Recruitment Regulations. Before the learned Judge, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the said formula was made by the CMDA in exercise of its power of relaxation under Regulation 12 of the Recruitment Regulations. Regulation 12, inter alia, provides that nothing in these regulations shall be construed to limit the power of the CMDA to dispense with or relax the requirement of any of the regulations. There is also no indication in the resolution that weightage has been granted to the absorbed deputationists in relaxation of any provision of the Recruitment Regulations. If any relaxation has to be made under Regulation 12 the provision of the regulation which has been relaxed and the extent of such relaxation should be considered and also indicated before such exercise of power of relaxation under Regulation 12 is made. In the circumstances we are of the view that the weightage formula has not been made by the CMDA in exercise of its power under Regulation 12. 15. The question, however, is whether the CMDA has any power to lay down any such weightage formula for the purpose of computation of the seniority of the deputationists absorbed in the services of the CMDA. Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has drawn our attention to Regulation 18 of the Service Regulations framed by the CMDA under S. 22 of the Act. Regulation 18 provides that seniority of employees within a cadre shall be determined in accordance with the principles to be laid down by the CMDA. The weigh age formula is a rule with regard to the computation of seniority of the deputationists absorbed in the services of CMDA. In view of Regulation 18, the CMDA is, therefore, authorised to lay down the principles to be followed in the matter of computation of seniority. The weightage formula which has been made by the CMDA, is obviously a rule of seniority and comes within the purview of Regulation 18. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. R.C. Deb, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, who are respondents in these appeals, that Regulation 18 relates to the seniority of employees, and that the deputationists not being employees of the CMDA, Regulation 18 is not applicable to them. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. R.C. Deb, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, who are respondents in these appeals, that Regulation 18 relates to the seniority of employees, and that the deputationists not being employees of the CMDA, Regulation 18 is not applicable to them. In other words, no rule for seniority can be laid down by the CMDA in exercise of its power under Regulation 18. This contention, in our opinion, is misconceived. The weightage formula will apply to the deputationists only when they are absorbed in the services of the CMDA, thereby becoming its employees, assuming that such deputationists before their absorption are not employees of the CMDA. It cannot, therefore, be said that the CMDA has no power or authority to lay down the weightage formula for the grant of weightage to the deputationists on the basis of their past services in the parent departments. 16. Now we are to consider the reasonableness of the grant of weightage to the absorbed deputationists under the weightage formula. It is the case of the appellants that the CMDA can ill-afford to lose the services of the deputationists, having varied experience and expertise in their respective jobs, without a serious set-back to the organisational plans, objectives and achievements. Under item II(iii), 21 at page 39 of the Service Committee report, it has been observed "it may well he, the Committee feels, that some direct recruits lack in experience what their counterparts in previous parent departments have earned due to greater service experience." Thus it appears that services of these deputationists - whether transferee deputationists or regular deputationists-were indispensable in view of the exigency of public service. These deputationists are much more experienced than the direct recruits. When the CMDA was created, they were already in service either under the Government or under the Statutory or local authorities. In that sense, they are seniors in service to the direct recruits. In our opinion, it will be unreasonable to ignore the past services of the deputationists after their integration into regular service of the CMDA. Under the weightage formula, weightage will be given to the deputationists on the basis of their past services at the rate of one year for every three years of past service subject to a maximum of three years. Under the weightage formula, weightage will be given to the deputationists on the basis of their past services at the rate of one year for every three years of past service subject to a maximum of three years. Thus past services of absorbed deputationists will be recognised only to the maximum extent of three years, however, much the length of past service of a deputatinost may be and, in our opinion, the period of weightage, is, quite justified, reasonable and fair. It is not that the cases of direct recruits will not be considered for the purpose of promotion. Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations provides that promotion to a higher post shall be based on merit, relative suitability of a candidate for a particular post and seniority. Thus seniority is not the only criterion for promotion to a higher post. When the question of promotion will arise, the cases of absorbed deputationists and the direct recruits will be considered together. The weightage that has been granted to the absorbed deputationists enables them to have an equal chance with the direct recruits having regard to their past services. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in Bishan Sarup Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1 618 , we have to take an overall view to determine whether the weightage rule now framed by the CMDA is just and fair. 17. When recruitment has been made from different sources, it is the duty of the CMDA to lay down the principles of inter se seniority between the depurationists and the direct recruits. It is submitted by Mr. R.C. Deb that such principles should have been laid down at the initial stage when the CMDA was created or brought into existence, but it is highly improper to confer benefits on the deputationists in the mid-Stream and that has been done by the weightage formula it is true that at the initial stage the conditions of service should be clearly specified, particularly the rule as to the inter se seniority, but that does not mean that the CMDA is precluded from making such a rule of seniority which will lake effect after the deputationists are absorbed in the services of the CMDA in accordance with the Recruitment Regulation, to be precise, Regulation 11. It is now an accepted - principle of law that in order to remove disparity between two sets of employees recruited from different sources, as in the present case, direct recruits and deputationists, some weightage has to be given to the deputationists having regard to their past services in the departments wherefrom they have been drawn, As to what should be the weightage will depend absolutely on the policy of the organisaton where they would be integrated. Further, such a rule, if framed, granting weight age to the depulationists some hardship, inconvenience or injustice is bound to result to some members of the employees, but that is unavoidable. It is difficult to devise any full-proof scheme which will satisfy all section of employees. Such a rule will no doubt falsify the expectations of some employees who are, in the instant cases, the direct recruits. The above views find support from a number of decisions of he Supreme Court - The Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1980 SC 379 ; Debi Prasad v. Government of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 1185 : Kamal Kanti Dutta v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2056 ; S. S. Moghe v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1495 ; R.S. Makasi v. I. M Menon, AIR 1982 SC 101 and V.T. Khanzode v. Reserve Bank of India, AIR 1982 SC 917 . 18. In the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Wing Commander J. Kumar v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 116 , all the above principles have been reiterated. The facts of that case are that the personnel of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (R & D), which is a specialised technological organisation set up under the Ministry of Defence, consist of a large number of civilian scientists and a much smaller number of service officers drawn from the three Defence Services. The service officers are initially taken on short tenure and are permanently seconded to the R & D Organisation, if found suitable and willing. The service officers are initially taken on short tenure and are permanently seconded to the R & D Organisation, if found suitable and willing. The secondment of service officers depends upon exigencies and the special type of need of the Organisation at each relevant point of time, and the officers who fulfil by virtue of their qualification experience aptitude and suitability in that particular branch for which the need for personnel has arisen and whose services can be spared are taken into the Organisation from time to time. Those service officers who were permanently seconded and absorbed in the R & D Cadre are thereafter governed by the terms and conditions of service applicable to officers of the said cadre As regards seniority and promotion, the practice followed in the R & D Organsation was to reckon the seniority of the permanently seconded officers with reference to the date of their attaining substantive rank of Major/equivalent. The principle underlying the said practice was later formally incorporated in Rule 16 of the O.M. dated November 23, 1979 issued under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. In all the three wings of the Defence Services viz., Army Air Force and Navy, the promotions up to and inclusive of the rank of Major/equivalent are time scale promotions based only on fixed length of service and not on any selection. The appellant a Wing Commander in the Air Force was permanently seconded to the R & D Organisation in 1970, that is, long prior to the promulgation of the impugned Rule. Certain service officers who were seniors to the appellant in parent service were seconded to the R & D Organisation subsequent to the secondment of the appellant, but by virtue of the practice/Rule followed in the Organistion those officers superseded the appellant in the Organisation. The appellant, therefore, filed a Writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed and his Letters Patent appeal to the Division Bench having been dismissed in limine, he filed an appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave. The appellant, therefore, filed a Writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed and his Letters Patent appeal to the Division Bench having been dismissed in limine, he filed an appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave. The main contentions failed by the appellant before the Supreme Court were: (1) that the inter se seniority of the officers should be reckoned only with reference to the dates of their selection for such permanent secondment and Rule 16 which provides otherwise is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution : and (2) that he having been permanently seconded to the R & D Organisation long prior to the coming into force of Rule 16, his rights regarding seniority and promotions cannot be affected by the provision of that Rule. In dismissing the appeal, it has been inter alia held by the Supreme Court as follows : 19. It is settled law that the service conditions pertaining to seniority are liable to alteration by subsequent changes that may be introduced in the rules and except to the extent of protecting promotions that have already been earned under the previous rules, the revised rules will operate to govern the seniority and future promotion prospects of all the persons in the concerned service. It will not be reasonable, just or fair to determine the seniority of the permanently seconded service personnel merely on the basis of the date of their secondment to the Organisation. Since officers from different sources are taken into the R & D for meeting the discipline-wise requirements arising in the Organisation from time to time and they are brought into a common pool on such permanent secondment, it is inevitable that a reasonable principle has to be evolved for fixation of their inter se seniority within the R & D Cadre. The rule provides for the reckoning of the seniority of the seconded officers by taking into account the length of their service in the parent service, for which the date of attainment of the rank of substantive Major/equivalent would furnish a safe index, The said principle cannot be said to be arbitrary, unjust or unreasonable. The rule provides for the reckoning of the seniority of the seconded officers by taking into account the length of their service in the parent service, for which the date of attainment of the rank of substantive Major/equivalent would furnish a safe index, The said principle cannot be said to be arbitrary, unjust or unreasonable. Slight disparity in promotion prospects between the Navy and the other two services will not, however, affect the reasonableness of the impugned rule because it is impossible to achieve arithmetical precision in such matters where officers drawn from different sources are to be integrated into one common cadre and the rule for fixing their inter se seniority is formulated. It is a just and wholesome principle commonly applied in such situations where persons from different sources are drafted to serve in a new service that their pre-existing length of service in the parent department should be respected and preserved by taking the same into account in determining their ranking in the new service Cadre. Such a provision does not involve any discrimination violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. 20. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the case and the principles laid down in the above decisions of the Supreme Court, we do not see any unreasonableness or lack of fairness or bona fide in the weightage rule that has been laid down in the impugned resolution passed by the CMDA at its 63rd meeting held on September 3, 1979. 21. The next contention of the petitioners is that the CMDA being a statutory authority cannot frame any rule affecting the rights of the direct recruits with retrospective effect. It is submitted that if the weightage rule is given effect to, it will affect the conditions of service or the vested rights of the direct recruits, with retrospective effect, and that on that ground, the weightage rule or formula should be struck down. The learned Judge is also of the view that the weight age rule is retrospective in effect. There can be no doubt that as the statute, namely, the CMDA Act, 1972, not having authorised the CMDA, either expressly or by necessary implication, the framing of rules relating to the conditions of service with retrospective effect, the CMDA has no authority to frame such a rule. But the question is whether the weightage rule is retrospective in operation. There can be no doubt that as the statute, namely, the CMDA Act, 1972, not having authorised the CMDA, either expressly or by necessary implication, the framing of rules relating to the conditions of service with retrospective effect, the CMDA has no authority to frame such a rule. But the question is whether the weightage rule is retrospective in operation. It cannot be said that whenever service conditions of same employees are affected to their detriment by any rule, such rule is retrospective in operation. The weightage rule will be operative after the absorption of the deputationists in the services of the CMDA. Prima facie, therefore, the rule is prospective in operation. It may be that the operation of the weightage rule will affect some direct recruits, but it will not be reasonable to think that their vested rights are affected with retrospective effect. No one has any right to promotion. The only right that can be claimed by an employee is the right to be considered for promotion. It has been already observed that whenever the question of promotion will arise the cases of direct recruits and absorbed deputationists will be considered in accordance with Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations, that is to save, on the basis of merit, relative suitability for the post and seniority. Thus it appears that the right of the direct recruits to be considered for promotion is not in the least, affected by the weightage rule. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Kosha, AIR 1974 SC 1 . In that case, Supreme Court observed as follows : “It is wrong to characterise the operation of a service rule as retrospective for the reason that it applies to existing employees. A rule which classifies such employees for promotional purposes undoubtedly operates on those who entered service before the framing of the rule but it operates in future, in the sense that it governs the future right of promotion of those who are already in service. The impugned rules do not recall a promotion already made or reduce a pay-scale already granted. They provide for a classification by prescribing a qualitative standard, the measure of that standard being educational attainment. The impugned rules do not recall a promotion already made or reduce a pay-scale already granted. They provide for a classification by prescribing a qualitative standard, the measure of that standard being educational attainment. Whether a classification founded on such a consideration suffers from a discriminatory vice is another matter which we will presently consider but surely, the rule cannot first be assumed to be retrospective and then be struck down for the reason that it violates the guarantee of equal opportunity by extending its arms over the past. If rules governing conditions of service cannot ever operate to the prejudice of those who are already in service, the age of superannuation should have remained immutable and schemes of compulsory retirement in public interest ought to have founded on the rock of retroactivity. But such is not the implication of service rules nor is it their true description to say that because they affect existing employees they are retrospective. It is well settled that though employment under the Government like that under any other master may have a contractual origin, the Government servant acquires a 'status' on appointment to his office. As a result, his rights and obligations are liable to be determined under statutory or constitutional authority which, for its exercise, requires no reciprocal consent. The Government can alter the terms and conditions of its employees unilaterally and though in modern times consensus in matters relating to public services is often attempted to be achieved consent is not a pre-condition of the validity of rules of service, the contractual origin of the service notwithstanding.” 22. The Government can alter the terms and conditions of its employees unilaterally and though in modern times consensus in matters relating to public services is often attempted to be achieved consent is not a pre-condition of the validity of rules of service, the contractual origin of the service notwithstanding.” 22. In the instant case also, the weightage rule operates in future, although it may affect some of the direct recruits, But surely, it cannot be said to be retrospective in operation In this connection, we may once more refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in J. Kumar's case (supra) where it has been observed that when statutory rule governing seniority is issued in respect of a service, the said rule would govern the personnel in the service with effect from the date of its promulgation and in so giving effect to the rule in future, there is no element of retrospectivity involved, Further, it has been observed that of course, the rules will not operate to deprive any person of promotions already earned in the post, but for purposes of future promotion and seniority in the department, this principles laid down in the impugned rule will necessarily govern all the personnel alike. In the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the learned Judge that the weightage rule is retrospective in operation and should be struck down. 23. It is, however, contended on behalf of the petitioners that while it is permissible for the Government to alter the existing conditions of service of government servants, it is impermissible for a statutory authority to alter the conditions of service of its employees, It is admitted that so far as employment under any statutory authority is concerned, the contractual rights and obligations remain and the relationship between the statutory authority and the employees does not become more of status than of contract as it is in the case of Government and its servants, It is, accordingly urged that the CMDA cannot at its sweet will change the conditions of service on the basis of which the direct recruits were employed. 24. The contention that the service under the statutory authority is more of a contract than of status is a mere assumption without any valid reason supporting the same. 24. The contention that the service under the statutory authority is more of a contract than of status is a mere assumption without any valid reason supporting the same. A person after his appointment under a statutory authority acquires a statutory status and his conditions of service will be governed by the rules and regulations that may be framed under the statute. It may be that the origin of the employment under a statutory authority is the contract, but as the statutory authority is empowered to lay down rules relating to conditions of service, it will not be correct to assume that the conditions of service under the contract cannot be altered or changed by the statutory rules and regulations. In this respect, we do not find any reasonable distinction between a Government servant and a servant under a statutory authority. In our opinion, the CMDA being a statutory authority empowered to frame regulations relating to the conditions of service of its employees can alter such conditions prospectively. We are, therefore unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that the CMDA has no authority to affect the conditions of service of the direct recruits even prospectively. 25. The next attack that is leveled against the weightage rule is that it is violative of Rules 97, 100, 101 and 102 of Chapter XII of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part I and Rules 113, 114, 115 and 126 of Part V of Chapter XII of the Fundamental Rules, which deal with the Government servants on deputation on foreign service terms. These rules relate to the terms and conditions of deputationists to foreign service and are binding on Government servants on deputation vis a vis the Government departments concerned. The CMDA is not a Government department and it has its own rules and regulations. So long as a deputationist is not absorbed in the organisation to which he has been transferred for a specified period, he may have to observe the above rules relating to foreign service. But after his absorption in the service of a statutory authority like the CMDA, he ceases to be a Government servant and the above rules relating to foreign service will no longer be applicable to him. He will then be governed by the rules and regulations of the statutory authority. But after his absorption in the service of a statutory authority like the CMDA, he ceases to be a Government servant and the above rules relating to foreign service will no longer be applicable to him. He will then be governed by the rules and regulations of the statutory authority. The weightage rule does not apply to a deputationist who is yet to be absorbed in the services of the CMDA. But it will apply only when the deputationists are so absorbed in the CMDA. Moreover, if there be any violation of the above rules relating to foreign service the Government departments concerned from which the deputationis's have been drawn into the services of CMDA, may complain about the violation of the foreign service rules and, if thought necessary, they can be withdrawn. No such complaint has been made by the Government and in our opinion, the direct recruits have no locus standi to challenge the weightage rule on the ground that it is violative of the rules relating to foreign service. As has been pointed out above, the weightage rule will apply to the deputationists after they are permanently absorbed in the services of the CMDA and, as such, question of violation of the above rules relating to foreign service does not arise. We are, therefore unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that the weightage rule should be struck down, because it violates some of the provisions of the foreign service rules as laid down in the West Bengal Service Rules, Part I and the Fundamental Rules. 26. Another grievance of the petitioners is that even before the absorption of the deputationists some of them have been granted ad hoc promotions to higher posts by applying the weightage rule. It is submitted that no promotions can be granted to a deputationist, for he is not an employee of the CMDA. It. is urged that Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations dealing with promotion relates to the employees of the CMDA, that if to say, the direct recruits but not to the deputationists and as such, the ad hoc promotions granted to the deputationsts even before their absorption were illegal and invalid. At this stage, we may once more refer to Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations which provides as follows : “17. At this stage, we may once more refer to Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations which provides as follows : “17. Promotion-Promotion to a higher post shall be based on merit, relative suitability of a candidate for a particular post and seniority. Subject to these conditions the Authority shall frame regulations or issue, by general or special order, direction governing the principles and procedures to be followed in the matter of promotion from one post to the other.” When ad hoc promotions were granted to the deputationists, no regulation and no general or special order or direction governing the principles and procedures for promotion was framed or issued by the CMDA. We may assume that the deputationists are not employees of the CMDA. but on such assumption the question is whether the deputationists can at all be granted ad hoc promotions before the framing of any regulation or issuance of any general or special order or direction laying down the principles of promotion. It has been earlier noticed that under Regulation 4 of the Recruitment Regulations, one of the modes of recruitment is by deputation. It will be quite unreasonable it the deputationists who have been recruited to fill up some particular posts in CMDA will be in such posts during the entire period of deputation. In such a case, a deputationist will have to serve under a direct recruit of the CMDA after such employee is granted a promotion, although he might have served under the deputationist before such promotion. A deputationist may be well qualified or his qualifications may excel those of other employees and it would be quite improper and unfair to refuse to such deputationist any ad hoc promotion only because he is not an employee. An ad hoc promotion does not confer on the promotee any right to or lien on the post to which he is promoted Such promotions are granted for the purpose of meeting the exigencies of circumstances pending framing of rules or regulations laying down the procedures and the principles to be adopted for such promotions. When such a situation arises, there can be no impediment to the granting of an ad hoc promotion to a deputationist in the interest of public service. When such a situation arises, there can be no impediment to the granting of an ad hoc promotion to a deputationist in the interest of public service. Further, in granting ad hoc promotion if the weightage formula had been applied in recognition of the past services of the deputationists, such weightage being one year for every three years of service subject to a maximum of three years, we do not think that there was anything unfair or unreasonable. 27. We have so long proceeded on the assumption that a deputationist is not an employee of CMDA. Regulation 5(14) of the Service Regulations defines "employee" as meaning a person in the employment of the CMDA. Such a definition has been given with a view to including a deputationist who. It cannot be denied, is for time being, in the employment of the CMDA. Indeed, there is ample indication in Regulation 85 of the Service Regulations that a deputationist is an employee of the CMDA. We, therefore, hold that during the period of deputation a deputationist is an employee of the CMDA within the meaning of the definition of the term under Regulation 5(14) of the Service Regulations which will apply to him. So, there is no bar to the granting of ad hoc promotions to the deputationists. It is the case of the CMDA that between the period from January 1970 up to date, posts have been filled up by way of promotions and in the matter of such promotions not only the regular and transferee deputadonists were considered, but also the cases of directly recruited employees were considered. In other words, it is submitted on behalf of the CMDA that all categories of employees under the CMDA have been given the benefit of being considered for promotion keeping in view the real need, and such promotions have been given to experienced and capable persons. In S.S. Moghe's case (supra) ad hoc promotions granted to deputationists were challenged. In other words, it is submitted on behalf of the CMDA that all categories of employees under the CMDA have been given the benefit of being considered for promotion keeping in view the real need, and such promotions have been given to experienced and capable persons. In S.S. Moghe's case (supra) ad hoc promotions granted to deputationists were challenged. In overruling such challenge, the Supreme Court observes that no illegality of any kind was involved in the action so taken by the concerned authorities to fill up the vacancies in the higher posts by ad hoc appointments of persons possessing a requisite ability and experience Another contention that is significant to notice as advanced in S.S. Moghe's case (supra) is that the grant of such promotions to the deputationist, amounted to contentment of double benefits on them since they were simultaneously earning promotions in their parent departments. A similar contention has been made before us on behalf of the petitioners. The Supreme Court, however overruled such a contention. In our opinion, therefore, no illegality was committed by the CMDA in granting ad hoc promotions to the deputationists in the best interest of public service. 28. So far as F.M.A.T. No. 210 of 1982 is concerned. Mr. Kanan Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners who are respondents in the said appeal adopts the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners in the other appeal. He, however, makes a further contention that the CMDA cannot pass any resolution which has no nexus to the existing regulations, particularly Regulation 11(5) of the Recruitment Regulations, We have already dealt with Regulation 11(5) and it has been held by us that the impugned weightage rule has not been framed under Regulation 11(5), but under Regulation 18 of the Service Regulations and, accordingly, the question as posed by Mr. Ghosh does not arise. 29. It may he recorded that Mr. Somendra Chandra Bose, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 17, Upendra Nath Das, in F.M.A.T. no. 210 of 1982. Mrs. Archana Sengupta for respondent no. 18, Shyamlal Bose, in F.M.A.T. no 209 of 1982 and Mr. Bhupen De for respondents nos. 14, 22 and 53 in F.M.A.T, no. 209 of 1982 and for respondent no. 22 in F.M.A.T. no. 210 of 1982, have adopted the arguments of Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 30. Mrs. Archana Sengupta for respondent no. 18, Shyamlal Bose, in F.M.A.T. no 209 of 1982 and Mr. Bhupen De for respondents nos. 14, 22 and 53 in F.M.A.T, no. 209 of 1982 and for respondent no. 22 in F.M.A.T. no. 210 of 1982, have adopted the arguments of Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 30. Before we part with this case, we may dispose of a contention of the petitioners that there cannot be en block absorption of deputationists in view of Regulation 11(1) of the Recruitment Regulations. This contention is unsound and we are unable to accept the same. If all the deputationists are found suitable we fall to understand why all of them cannot be absorbed. These deputationists are highly skilled and efficient and it will not at all be surprising if all of them are absorbed. The absorption of deputationists should be made in accordance with the provision of Regulation 11 of the Recruitment Regulations and for that purpose, a special Selection Committee should be constituted by the CMDA in accordance with Regulation 11(3) of the Recruitment Regulations. In considering the questions, the cases of direct recruits should also be considered along with the deputationists in accordance with the provision of Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations. 31. In view of the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the learned Judge is set aside and both the Rules are discharged, subject to this that the absorption of deputationists shall be made in accordance with Regulation 11 of the Recruitment Regulations as may be recommended by the Special Selection Committee to be set up by the CMDA. Further, the CMDA will also give equal opportunity to the direct recruits for being considered for promotion along with the deputatioinsts in accordance with Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations. 32. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 33. On behalf of the petitioners, who are respondents in the appeals, Mr. Kanan Kumar Ghosh, learned Counsel prays for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134A of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, these appeals do not involve any substantial question of law of general importance which is necessary to be decided by the Supreme Court. Kanan Kumar Ghosh, learned Counsel prays for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134A of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, these appeals do not involve any substantial question of law of general importance which is necessary to be decided by the Supreme Court. Indeed, in disposing of the appeals we have placed reliance on several decisions of the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, the oral prayer for a certificate is disallowed. Manoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.-I agree. Appeals allowed with directions; Leave to appeal refused.