ORDER The writ petitioner challenges arbitrary and discriminatory treatment meted out to him by Damodar Valley Corporation (for short the said Corporation) and grant of undue, unauthoised and illegal promotion and service benefits to the respondent no. 7 and the respondent no. 8 in contravention of the Rules and Regulations and for a re-fixation of inter-se seniority of the petitioner and the respondents no. 7 and 8 for the purpose of promotion to the post of Senior Chief Engineer. The petitioner prayed for setting aside the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1986-87 recorded against the petitioner. 2. The respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition and the petitioner also filed affidavit-in-reply. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties filed respective written arguments. The facts of the case are stated as follows:- 3. The petitioner after his appointment to the post of Shift-in-Charga with effect from December 22, 1952 joined as Assistance Engineer (Electrical) (hereinafter referred to as A.E.(E) on May 15, 1954, pursuant to an open advertisement after due compliance of the recruitment process. The DVC Service Regulations (for short the Service Regulation hereinafter) governed the service conditions of the petitioner. The Corporation had and has adopted the Rules, Circulars Notifications applicable to the Central Government employees for its own employees, in cases not covered by the provisions of the Service Regulation. 4. Tile promotion in the Corporation service is governed by the Regulation 14 which is to the following effect:- "Promotion shall be based on merit, relative suitability of a candidate for a particular post and seniority and shall, in the case of promotion to Class-I be made ordinarily after considering the advice of the Departmental promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as DPC) to be set up for the purpose. Their functions and procedure shall be similar to such committee functioning under the Central Government with suitable modifications". 5. By Circular No. PL-P-OE (Con)-2/PE. 365 dated March 21, 1961, the Corporation by and under the signature of Director of Personnel laid down the guidelines as to the manner to be observed for the confirmation of Officers to be promoted out of turn. Such out of turn promotion in terms of the said guidelines requires the possession of a certain specialized qualifications/experience. The final gradation list of Engineers as on July 1, 1969 showed that the date of appointment of the respondent no. 7 in the rank of A.E.(E) is March, 1957. Such out of turn promotion in terms of the said guidelines requires the possession of a certain specialized qualifications/experience. The final gradation list of Engineers as on July 1, 1969 showed that the date of appointment of the respondent no. 7 in the rank of A.E.(E) is March, 1957. The respondent no. 7 was accorded out of turn promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in officiating capacity superseding the claim of seniors including petitioner ranked as AE(E) numbering 55. The Corporation issued a Circulur being No. EA/CENT/E-227 dated 4/7/68 laying down the guidelines for fixing seniority for Engineers directly appointed on the following basis:- (a) For those appointed in the rank : Presumptive date of appointment. upto 30/11/58 (b) For those appointed in the rank : Actual date of appointment in the rank. upto 30/11/58 but holding sub-ordinate post in the DVC (c) For those appointed in the rank after : Actual date of appointment. 30/11/58 but before 1/7/65 (d) For those appointed in the rank on : Preference is laid down by the Selection or after 1/7/65 Board for the appointment. 6. Seniority of the promoted candidates were cast on the basis of white of approval of the promotion, but if the promotion of two or more employees is approved on the same date, seniority in promoted rank is based on infer se seniority in the lower rank. Respondent no.7 was accorded the status of permanent AE(E) an 29th February, 1968. During the period between 1967 and 1968 respondent no. 7 was sought to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Electrical/(Instrumentation), but the said attempt according to the petitioner failed. 7. On August 31, 1963 the respondent no.7 submitted his letter of resignation which was accepted by the Corporation with effect from the afternoon of November 30, 1968 by its letter dated November 7, 1968, By its letter dated November 22, 1968 the Corporation released the petitioner for joining the Bokaro Steel Limited (for short the BSL hereinafter) but respondent no. 7 was allowed lien on his post in the Corporation and if he did not come back within the said period, his lien would be terminated. 8. Mr. M.K. Prosad, the then Director of Personnel, endorsed note on November 26, 1968 which is quoted below:- "Perused the letter referred to above, called for the file and discussed with the Chairman. 7 was allowed lien on his post in the Corporation and if he did not come back within the said period, his lien would be terminated. 8. Mr. M.K. Prosad, the then Director of Personnel, endorsed note on November 26, 1968 which is quoted below:- "Perused the letter referred to above, called for the file and discussed with the Chairman. It was not his intention that we should accept the resignation at this stage. The idea was to release him and take up the question of lien with the BSL and to treat Sri Bhattacharjee's letter as a letter of resignation only if BSL did not agree. To-day he told me that if we did not propose to retain for ourselves the right of recall then we need not ever consult the ESL. We can tell Sri Bhattacharjee that we are allowing him a lien for 3 years but if he does not come back within this period then his lien will be terminated. We may release him on this basis and merely inform BSL that we have released him but have allowed to retain a lien, Sri Bhattacharjee can however come back to us only after resigning the BSL job." 9. Later on the irregularities and illegalities committed by the Corporation In respect of aforesaid respondent no. 7 was severely condemned by its own statutory Audit in the report which is inter alia quoted below:- "On 1st December, 1968 an officiating Project Engineer (Elec.) of the Corporation who was holding a substantive post in the grade of Assistant Engineer was appointed in the BSL as SE(E) against an open advertisement. On 31st August, 1968 when the officer was offered the appointment by BSL he expressed his desire equivalent scope and incentive or otherwise he intended to sever his connection with the Corporation. As the officer could not be accommodated in a higher post on 22nd November, 1968. However, when he was released (30th November, 1968) he was allowed to retain lien for 3 years in the post of Project Engineer (Elec.) without consulting BSL and the lien was to be terminated after that period in case he did not rejoin DVC. As the officer could not be accommodated in a higher post on 22nd November, 1968. However, when he was released (30th November, 1968) he was allowed to retain lien for 3 years in the post of Project Engineer (Elec.) without consulting BSL and the lien was to be terminated after that period in case he did not rejoin DVC. On expiry of three years period of lien (30th November, 1971) the officer did not report back to the Corporation and hence his service was finally terminated by the Corporation on 16th June, 1972 and his P.F. accumulations were transferred in BSL in August, 1972, Subsequently in the daily co-ordination meeting held on 10th September, 1974 a further lien of 3 years upto December, 1974, was granted to the concerned officer by an order of the Chairman. In December, 1974 the Corporation extended the said lien upto June, 1975 and the concerned officer on being returned from BSL joined the DVC as SE(E) on 25th June, 1975. Although the service of the officer was terminated in June, 1972 the reason for granting lien for a further period of 3 years on 10th September, 1974 were not made available...Even in appreciation of the outstanding performance Sri Bhattacharjee could not be promoted in the normal course. The Chief Electrical Engineer, therefore, felt that it was absolutely necessary to recall Sri Bhattacharya as soon as the Corporation was able to accommodate him and recommended that his lien period be extended". 10. The Corporation by a letter dated November 25, 1971 was requested to allow extention of further lien. Thereafter, the Director of Personnel, Corporation informed BSL by a letter dated December 29, 1971 to the following effect:- "With reference to your letter dated 25/11/71 in connection with above, I am directed to inform you that the Corporation has not agreed to any further extension of your lien beyond 30th November, 1971. In this connection, your attention is invited to our revised office order No. PL-20/205/15544-15722 issued on 28/11/68 substituting the earlier order No. PL-20/205/15544 dated 22/11/68 wherein it was clearly mentioned that your lien was for a period of three years and if you do not come back within this period, your lien will be terminated automatically. In this connection, your attention is invited to our revised office order No. PL-20/205/15544-15722 issued on 28/11/68 substituting the earlier order No. PL-20/205/15544 dated 22/11/68 wherein it was clearly mentioned that your lien was for a period of three years and if you do not come back within this period, your lien will be terminated automatically. In this office letter No. PL-20/205-13572 dated 26th October, 1971 you were accordingly intimated that your lien was due to expire on 30/11/71 A.N. and you were also requested to let us know whether you intend to come back within this period. The question of further extension of your lien has again been considered and it has been decided that as you have not come back by 30/11/71, your lien stands a automatically terminated with effect from 30/11/71 A.N." 11. It is also claimed by the writ petitioner that the respondent no. 7 after the presentation of resignation made application before the Corporation for settlement of his dues which the Corporation under its letters EDCON 1/6/180/Orig/6246 dated 1/3/69 to the Accounts Officer (AO)(Fund), P-28/587-6386 dated 22/3/69 to AO (Fund) and EDCON-l/6/180/9246 dated 1/4/69 to DP finally settled and his CPF A/C was permanently closed and the amount transferred to BSL by a latter dated December 28, 1978. It is further claimed by the writ petitioner that No Demand Certificates were called for from all formations of the Corporation and such. Certificates were all issued by all the Departments. Respondent no. 7 by a letter dated 25/11/71 to the Director of Personnel, Corporation prayed for extension of lien from November 30, 1971 for a further period of 3 years. 12. The Corporation by a letter dated October 26, 1971 informed that the period of 3 years for which the respondent no. 7 was allowed to retain lien on his post in the Corporation would expire on the afternoon of November 30, 1971 and in the meantime, it respondent no. 7 failed to come back to the Corporation by the aforesaid date the lien would stand terminated automatically. The respondent no. 7 was further requested to intimate the Corporation as to whether he was interested in coming back by November 30, 1971 and if so, the date on which he would be reporting for duty. 13. On November 29, 1971 the Corporation again informed the respondent no. The respondent no. 7 was further requested to intimate the Corporation as to whether he was interested in coming back by November 30, 1971 and if so, the date on which he would be reporting for duty. 13. On November 29, 1971 the Corporation again informed the respondent no. 7 that the Corporation did not agree to any further extension of his lien beyond November 30, 1971, "You do not come back by November 30, 1971 your lien would stand automatically terminated with effect from November 30, 1971." After the termination of the lien of the respondent no. 7 by the said office order No. PL-20/205-9928 dated October 21, 1974, respondent no. 7 was allowed to retain his lien upto December, 31, 1974. Respondent no. 7 did not come back to the Corporation in terms of the office order dated October 26, 1971. Even then, his lien was extended and thereafter, Corporation extended lien of respondent no. 7 from time to time upto June 30, 1975. By office order dated January 18, 1975 the respondent no. 7 was appointed to officiate as Superintending Engineer with effect from forenoon of 7/11/74 and he would continue to hold lien on his post in DVC upto 30/6/75 afternoon. The aforesaid letters of the Corporation, according to the writ petitioner, were not endorsed to the BSL. On May 29, 1974 the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short the "DPC" hereinafter) sat for consideration of the cases of the candidates for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Elec.) and for the post of Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) whereby the petitioner along with 6 others and respondent no. 8 were recommended for promotion, which recovered the approval of the Board at its meeting dated October 5, 1974. Respondent no. 7 did not figure in either of the lists of eligible officers before the Departmental Promotion Committee nor did his name appear in the year, 1974 draft seniority list. Respondent no. 8 was appointed on officiating basis in the post of Superintending Engineer (Mechanical in E&P section to which he joined on November 5, 1974. 14. On December 2, 1974 a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was called for undisclosed reasons to consider the cases of two of the officers, whose cases were already rejected in the DPC held on May 29, 1974 vis-a-vis the case of the respondent no. 14. On December 2, 1974 a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was called for undisclosed reasons to consider the cases of two of the officers, whose cases were already rejected in the DPC held on May 29, 1974 vis-a-vis the case of the respondent no. 7 for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Elec) E&P. The Board of the Corporation approved the case of respondent no. 7 by treating him on deputation to BSL. 15. On January 21, 1975 an order of promotion was issued by the Corporation in favour of the respondent no. 7. No order in respect of the six selected Engineers on the basis of earlier DPC held on May 29, 1974 which included the name of the petitioner was issued contrary to Service Regulations. Strangely, although in the year, 1974, in Approved Gradation List, the petitioner was shown as Superintending Engineer (Elec-) but in 1975 his name was omitted therefrom. The petitioner submitted representations dated October 21, 1974 and January 24, 1975 to the then Chairman, DVC for rectification of inter se seniority vis-a-vis the respondent no. 7 particularly in view of the fact that on the basis of a deemed date of appointment as was resorted to and actually acted upon in the case of respondent no. 8 whose inter se position was below the petitioner in the rank and post of Executive Engineer in 1969. In preparing the draft gradation list, the position of respondents no. 7 and 8 on the basis of the said policy should have been re-fixed in the said rank and post, but the petitioner did not receive any reply. 16. The petitioner after due recommendation for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Elec.) in the DPC held on May 29, 1974 as approved by the DVC at its meeting held on October 5, 1974 was not given promotion to the post until July 10, 1975. Before promotion of the petitioner, the petitioner by his letter of protest dated June 3, 1976 to the then Chairman, DVC pointed out the gross injustice meted out to him by not treating the respondent no. 7 as new recruit and unless the same be rectified and proper seniority in the post of Superintending Engineer (Elec.) be recast, he would suffer further injustice and prayed for fixation of seniority vis-a-vis the respondent no. 7 and restoration of his position. 7 as new recruit and unless the same be rectified and proper seniority in the post of Superintending Engineer (Elec.) be recast, he would suffer further injustice and prayed for fixation of seniority vis-a-vis the respondent no. 7 and restoration of his position. The Corporation under the signature of the respondent no. 4 informed the petitioner by a letter dated February 1, 1977 that as Sri Bhattacharjee having lien was entitled to be considered for promotion before his juniors were promoted and his case for promotion was considered by the Corporation when his turn came and approved for proforma promotion and as Sri Bhattacharjee was senior in the rank of Executive Engineer (Elec.) he maintained his seniority over the petitioner in the higher rank of Superintending Engineer (Elec.) also. The unprecendented, unusual and unilateral lien for 6½ years from November 30, 1968 to June 30, 1975 in gaps and phases given to respondent no. 7 was severely condemned by DVC’s own statutory Audit in its report dated August 4, 1977. 17. On September 28, 1977 the petitioner again took up the matter with the Director of Personnel, DVC with a request that the basic grievance of the petitioner raised in his representation dated June 3, 1976 was not considered and prayed for reply to all the points covered by representation dated September 28, 1979. On April 21, 1978 the DPC considered the case of the petitioner and others including that of the respondent no. 7 and 8 for promotion to the post of G.S./Deputy Project Manager/Deputy Chief Engineer and recommended their names in which the name of the respondent no. 7 was wrongly shown above the petitioner and that of the respondent no. 8 below. DVC promoted respondents no 7 and 8 on regular basis to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (System Planning and Monitoring) and Deputy Chief Engineer (Mech.) respectively by Office Order dated September 29, 1978. 18. On May 30, 1980 the petitioner was promoted on officiating basis to the post of General Superintendent, On December 10, 1981 DPC considered the case of respondents nos. 7 and 8 and others for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer/Director (Training) and recommended for promotion. 18. On May 30, 1980 the petitioner was promoted on officiating basis to the post of General Superintendent, On December 10, 1981 DPC considered the case of respondents nos. 7 and 8 and others for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer/Director (Training) and recommended for promotion. While considering the case of promotion, the Committee recorded that the case of the officers were taken up for consideration not necessarily "is of seniority but for promotion in the interest of higher post." On January 4, 1982 the petitioner by a DO letter to the then General Manager, the respondent no. 3, Sri S.N. Sarkar, recorded his meeting with the respondent no. 3 whom he met him along with the respondent no. 8. The said letter also contained the protest of the petitioner as regards the records of the wrong fixation of seniority and for that purpose request was made to the respondent no. 3 for looking into the matter before any promotion order was issued in super-session of his legitimate claim. 19. On February 5, 1982 the respondent no. 8 was promoted on an officiating basis to the post of Additional Chief Engineer (General Project). On May 28, DPC considered cases of the petitioner and another for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer/Chief Engineer-II. On August 10, 1983 the petitioner was promoted on officiating basis to the post of Additional Chief Engineer (Hydel.). DPC again sat for consideration of the case of officers including the respondents no. 7 and 8 for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Level-II) on September 16, 1984. The petitioner's name was omitted for vacancy then existed. Respondent no. 8 was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer-I. On June 5, 1986 DPC considered cases of the petitioner and others for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Level-I) and recommended their names with the observations that based on records, recommended for promotion subject to positive ACR for 1984-85. 20. On July 9, 1986 and August 12, 1986 two Circulars issued by the respondent no. 4 annexing draft gradation list of Superintending Engineer and above inviting objections. On July 17, 1986 the petitioner was promoted on purely provisional and temporary basis to the post of Chief Engineer (Level-I) (Central Maintenance and R&M). The petitioner raised his protest by his objection dated August 25, 1986. 4 annexing draft gradation list of Superintending Engineer and above inviting objections. On July 17, 1986 the petitioner was promoted on purely provisional and temporary basis to the post of Chief Engineer (Level-I) (Central Maintenance and R&M). The petitioner raised his protest by his objection dated August 25, 1986. By the said objection, the petitioner pin-pointed that the respondents no. 7 and 8 were shown to be senior to the petitioner. The said gradation list also showed the petitioner as Chief Engineer (Level-II). Restoration of seniority was the foundation of prayer of the petitioner. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that no reply to the said representation was received by the petitioner nor any action was taken thereon. 21. By an order dated March 27, 1987 the petitioner was transferred to the Chief Engineer-I, Head Quarters and G.M. (Mython). The petitioner by his letter dated March 30, 1988 apprehended that further injustice in the matter of promotion would be meted out to him. By the said representation, the petitioner requested the authority to solve the problem. While all the representations are pending, the petitioner was sought to be fastened with the adverse remarks by Memo dated May 18, 1987. It was recorded in the said Memo that the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year, 1986-87 would show certain adverse remarks had been made by the Head of Department and the petitioner could only be considered for the promotion after improvement of his performance in Item No. 5-1, 5-6 and 5-7. The petitioner claimed that Annual Confidential Reports were recorded and retained in an irregular and illegal manner and the same was done just before the meeting of the DPC. The petitioner was informed by a letter dated June 10, 1987 that the representation of the petitioner was under consideration. On June 12, 1987 the petitioner wrote to the respondent no. 1 suggesting creation of three posts of Senior Chief Engineer instead of two as made by it. During the pendency of the proceedings before this as Court, the Corporation redesignated the post of Chief Engineer-I (PP & OM) as Senior Chief Engineer. 22. By Order dated July 9, 1987 respondent no. 7 was to be counted against the post of Senior Chief Engineer (PP & C) with immediate effect and posted in P.C.E's Office, Calcutta. By a second Order dated July 9, 1987 respondent no. 22. By Order dated July 9, 1987 respondent no. 7 was to be counted against the post of Senior Chief Engineer (PP & C) with immediate effect and posted in P.C.E's Office, Calcutta. By a second Order dated July 9, 1987 respondent no. 6, Sri B.P. Mukherjee, Senior Chief Engineer (O&M) was promoted to the post of Principal Chief Engineer, respondent no. 5. By a third Order dated July 9, 1987 the respondent no. 8 who was holding the post of Chief Engineer-I was transferred and posted in the Office of the Senior Chief Engineer (O&M), DVC, Maithan with immediate effect and he would be counted against the post of Senior Chief Engineer (O&M), DVC, Maithan. 23. Respondent no. 8 holding the post of Chief Engineer I was posted in the office of Senior Chief Engineer (O&M), DVC, Maithan on transfer with an immediate effect in terms of the order dated July 9, 1987. Respondent no. 8 made representation before the authority on diverse dates for rectification of his seniority vis-a-vis respondent no. 7. In his such representation, respondent no. 8 informed the Corporation that he would take legal action. The petitioner was transferred as Chief Engineer-I (E&S) DVC, Maithan in the interest of the Corporation in term, of order dated July 9, 1987. Respondent no. 8 by an order dated November 3, 1987 passed by the Deputy General Manager, DVC was delegated temporary powers to function as Senior Chief Engineer (O&M), DVC, Maithan. The Corporation filed Affidavit-in-Opposition and after concluding the argument Mr. R.N. Das duly assisted by Mr. Ashim Cumar Ghosh, filed a written argument. The Corporation in the Affidavit-in-Opposition denied and disputed each and every allegations made in the writ application and further claimed that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same ought to have been dismissed in limine for the factors as are, in brief, indicated hereunder: (i) The writ petition suffers from an inordinate delay and incurable laches. Inter-se seniority of the petitioner and respondents nos. 7 and 8 was known to the petitioner long before even then he did not prefer to challenge the same. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief on the facts as pleaded in the petition. The writ petition presents inconsistent and disputed questions of facts. Inter-se seniority of the petitioner and respondents nos. 7 and 8 was known to the petitioner long before even then he did not prefer to challenge the same. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief on the facts as pleaded in the petition. The writ petition presents inconsistent and disputed questions of facts. The seniority lists which have been effective for several years and after lapse of so many years can not be disturbed and the same would create great administrative difficulties as well as resentment amongst the staff. On the question of factual aspect of the entire matter the Corporation contends that Engineering Department, DVC comprising of electrical wing and mechanical wing having two separate cadres from the Assistant Engineer to the level of Superintending Engineer, cadres of Electrical and Mechanical Wings of form a single and combined cadre from the level of General Superintendent now designated as Deputy Chief Engineer to the level of Principal Chief Engineer. The Corporation did not deny the following assertion of the petitioner:- (a) The appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) pursuant to the open advertisement, selection of the petitioner for the pose of Executive Engineer and Project Committee by the Departmental Promotion Committee. On May 29, 1974 Departmental Promotion Committee considered the case of promotion of all the candidates including the petitioner in respect of the post of superintending Engineer (Electrical) and the recommendation of the names of the Officers was made in order of seniority. The post of the petitioner in the list of seniority was at Serial no. 12; (b) The appointment of the petitioner as officiating Superintending Engineer by an order dated July 10, 1975; (c) The position of the petitioner and the respondents no. 7 and 8 were 20, 15 and 17. The post of the petitioner in the list of seniority was at Serial no. 12; (b) The appointment of the petitioner as officiating Superintending Engineer by an order dated July 10, 1975; (c) The position of the petitioner and the respondents no. 7 and 8 were 20, 15 and 17. Promotion of the petitioner to the post of General Superintendent (T) in terms of the Order da1ed May 30, 1980; (d) Consideration of the case of the petitioner and H.C. Ghosh for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer-II by Departmental Promotion Committee on May 28, 1983; (e) Promotion of the petitioner on the basis of the selection to the post of officiating Additional Chief Engineer (Hydel); (f) Consideration of the case of the petitioner and two other officers for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer-I by Departmental Promotion Committee which in its turn made recommendation the names of the petitioner and K.B. Sinha; (g) The promotion of the petitioner to the post of Chief Engineer-I, Central Maintenance and R & M on the basis of office order dated July 17, 1986; 24. The said Affidavit-in-Opposition deals with also the case of respondents No.7 and 8 and their respective promotions effected from time to time. The said Affidavit-in-Opposition also presents the procedure as regards Annual Confidential Report and refers to the following orders:- By an order being No. G-28(a)/SR-14A/70-4495 dated December 9, 1970, Damodar Valley Corporation laid down certain principle in connection with the preparation and maintenance of Annual Confidential Report. By an order being No. PL-28/36-Con-438 dated February 26, 1978 Damodar Valley Corporation laid down certain principle regarding assessment of officers/employees and recording of the same in the Annual Confidential Report; By an Office Order No. PL-28-653 (Con)/Vol.-II(pt) dated February 4, 1980, Damodar Valley Corporation laid down certain guidelines regarding procedure in writing of Annual Confidential Report of the Corporation's employees; The Under Secretary, Government of India; Cabinet Secretariate, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, by an Office Order No. 210/11/1/76. Est. (A) dated March 30, 1976 informed the Damodar Valley Corporation that the average reports in the Annual Confidential Report should not be treated as adverse; By an Office Memo No. PL-28/36 (Con). Genl. Est. (A) dated March 30, 1976 informed the Damodar Valley Corporation that the average reports in the Annual Confidential Report should not be treated as adverse; By an Office Memo No. PL-28/36 (Con). Genl. 202 dated September 6, 1966, the Director of Personnel of the Corporation circulated the decision of the Corporation that in the matter of appointment to selection post, employees with an overall rating average or below in their records of service (ACRs) for promotion would not be considered for promotion; The synopsis of all the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioners as referred to in paragraph 6 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition reads thus: Year Observation in ACR 1965-66 Average merit; not fit for promotion. 1967-68 Gradually settling well. 1970-71 He requires more experience and not fit for promotion. 1982-83 He is not able to achieve target/schedule time mainly due to lack of proper co-ordination and supervision. 1986-87 He should improve co-ordination work with plant chiefs and Resident Engineer, Central Services Organisation for Turbo-Generator maintenance and overhauling work. He may be considered for promotion only after improvement of his performance in co-ordination supervision and knowledge of own work. He should improve programming of work and achieve the targets set His relation with his colleagues in the power station has to improve considerably" 25. The said Affidavit-in-Opposition also deals with the respective merits and demerits of the concerned candidate, namely, the petitioner and respondents nos. 7 and 8. It also deals with the question of lien which, according to the stand of the Corporation was allowed initially for a period of three years and thereafter, lien was extended from time to time. Various documents in support of the extension of lien being Annexures to the Affidavit-in-Opposition are also relied on by the Corporation. The Corporation further deals with the representation of the petitioner against the adverse remarks and asserted that the petitioner Suppressed the fact of sending the letter dated June 6, 1987. The petitioner filed also reply denying all the allegations made in the writ application. 26. Affidavit-in-Opposition was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 7. After effective denial of the material allegations as made in the writ application, it is also claimed that the respondent no. 7 had received all promotions on the basis of his merit and suitability for the post and the seniority which had all along been above the petitioner. 26. Affidavit-in-Opposition was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 7. After effective denial of the material allegations as made in the writ application, it is also claimed that the respondent no. 7 had received all promotions on the basis of his merit and suitability for the post and the seniority which had all along been above the petitioner. The writ petitioner could not claim of the reliefs as he made repeated representations raising issues which were not otherwise challenged by the writ petitioner. 27. Affidavit-in-Opposition was filed on behalf of respondent no.8. The Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by respondent no. 8 presents the relevant data so far as his service with the Corporation. Respondent no. 8 claimed that the petitioner and respondent no. 7 were in entirely different cadres with distinct promotional processes and these two cadres got merged only at the rank of Deputy Chief Engineer. The respondent 8 at no point of time could be said to be junior to the petitioner. Respondent no. 8 being in the mechanical cadre was promoted as a Project Engineer (Mechanical) on October 26, 1962. The writ petitioner who was in electrical cadre could not be posted to the post to which respondents nos. 7 and 8 were promoted. It is also claimed by respondent no. 8 that the merger of the electrical and mechanical cadres from the post of Deputy Chief Engineer was not decided by the respondent authorities on April 24, 1978, but this practice had been continuing since 1959 onwards when the first gradation list was issued. It is also asserted by respondent no. 8 that on April 4, 1978 he already started working as Deputy Chief Engineer and the said posting was a regular one with regular pay scale. From April 4, 1978 he was working in the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (Mechanical) in the engineering and projecting wing of the Corporation prior to the promotion of the petitioner, and the respondent no. 7. It is also effectively denied by the respondent no. 8 that the promotion of the respondent no. 8 was either illegal or irregular and his posting was regularised from 4/1/85 though he had taken charges from Chief Engineer-I (Construction) on 31/1/84 upon his retirement. The posting of the respondent no. 8 was regularised with effect from January 4, 1985. 7. It is also effectively denied by the respondent no. 8 that the promotion of the respondent no. 8 was either illegal or irregular and his posting was regularised from 4/1/85 though he had taken charges from Chief Engineer-I (Construction) on 31/1/84 upon his retirement. The posting of the respondent no. 8 was regularised with effect from January 4, 1985. The case of the regularisation of the posting as Chief Engineer-I from January 31, 1984 to January 3, 1985 is still pending before the respondent no. 1. 28. The representation of the petitioner dated May 25, 1985 did not mention any grievance about the promotion of the respondent no. 8 to the said post. The name of the respondent no. 8 should have been moved above the respondent no. 7 because he was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer much before the respondent no. 7 and as such, his name had been illegally kept under the name of the respondent no. 7 vis-a-vis seniority in the permanent list prepared by the respondent authorities on April 18, 1985. It is also the grievance of the respondent no. 8 that the petitioner made representation against the said irregularity in preparation of the seniority list. The real grievance of the writ petitioner as, in fact, originated in the year 1978, when the respondent no. 8 was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer. The said grievance of the petitioner cannot now be agitated by the writ petitioner on the ground of laches and lapses. 29. The petitioner filed affidavit-in-reply in answer to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Corporation and the respondents nos. 7 and 8. The writ petitioner effectively denied the basic and material assertion made by the said respondents in denial of the statements made in the writ application. The petitioner in answer to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on, behalf of the Corporation, while dealing with the basic questions of the channel of promotion and also about the separate cadres, the petitioner emphasized that the Engineering Department of the respondent Corporation at all material times comprised Electrical and Mechanical Wings having two separate but interchangeable c1dres from the level of Assistant Engineer to the level of Superintending Engineers and thereafter, such cadres formed a single and combined cadre from the level of Deputy Chief Engineer to Principal Chief Engineer. The respondent no. The respondent no. 7 could not claim that the lien was allowed to continue upto June 30, 1975. After the decision reached by the Board of the Corporation, the lien would automatically terminate after November 30, 1971. There was no legal basis for reviewing the question of lien after lapse of almost 3 years that is in the year 1974. When the lien was terminated, the order of Corporation extending lien was according to the petitioner, unauthorised and without jurisdiction on the ground that the Corporation without authority of law treated the respondent no. 7 as on deputation. In the year 1974 when the lien of the respondent no. 7 ceased to exist respondent no. 7 according to the respondent no. 8 was not shown in the gradation list published in the year, 1974 and respondent no. 7 was given proforma promotion in violation of the established Rules and Procedures. Respondent no. 8 further claimed that his name should have been placed before the respondent no. 7 because he was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer much before the respondent no. 7 and his name had been illegally kept under the respondent no. 7 vis-a-vis seniority in the permanent list prepared by the respondent Corporation on April 18, 1935. 30. The petitioner in his reply claimed that the as ertion of the Corporation as regards the two separate cadres in respect of Electrical Department and Mechanical Department had and has no foundational basis and the lien of the respondent no. 7, after his resignation from service, could not resustitate after November 30, 1971. The petitioner seriously assailed that the action of the respondents in granting proforma promotion in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as the grant of proforma promotion is glaring instance of execution high-handedness. Despite the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee on May 29, 1974 the petitioner was not promoted until July 10, 1975 to the post of Superintending Engineer though the fact remains that the vacancy then existed. The respondent no. 7 before he joined his service with effect from June 30, 1975 was allowed promotion. The Corporation ignored the rightful claim and prospect of promotion bf the petitioner. The promotion of the respondents no. 7 and 8 was unwarranted. The seniority of the respondents no. 7 and 8 was wrongfully and arbitrarily fixed. The respondent no. 7 before he joined his service with effect from June 30, 1975 was allowed promotion. The Corporation ignored the rightful claim and prospect of promotion bf the petitioner. The promotion of the respondents no. 7 and 8 was unwarranted. The seniority of the respondents no. 7 and 8 was wrongfully and arbitrarily fixed. It is also claimed by the petitioner that the guidelines in the matter of procedure for the maintenance of the adverse remarks as contained in the letter dated April 24, 1987 should prevail over the earlier office order dated February 2, 1980 which also laid down certain guidelines regarding procedure in writing of the Annual Confidential Report of the employees of the Corporation. As regards the Annual Confidential Report for the year, 1986-87 the petitioner claimed that save the Annual Confidential Report of 1986-87 has been impugned in these proceedings, he has no knowledge of the allegations made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition. It is also claimed by the petitioner that un-communicated adverse remarks have and had prejudicial effect on the service career. It is also claimed by the petitioner that the respondents no. 7 and 8 are also second class Engineering Graduates. Despite the said un-communicated adverse remarks, the Corporation placed upon the petitioner onerous responsibility which he has and had carried out all through his service career. As regards the lien, the petitioner asserted that the Corporation in its 396th meeting held on December 30, 1974 belatedly adopting the resolution No. 3421 was not posted with correct facts about the respondent no. 7 which could warcant an ex-employee's promotion, as respondent no.7 was not on deputation at the time when the 396th meeting was held. The Corporation by his letter dated December 29, 1971 finally intimated the respondent no. 7 about automatic termination of lien. Further extension of lien beyond November 30, 1971 could not be accorded. By another letter dated June 16, 1972 the respondent no. 7 was informed that his service stood terminated with intimation to BSL but strangely the Corporation extended his lien in the interest of the Corporation upto December 30, 1974 without approval of the competent authority which was finally extended upto June 30, 1975. By another letter dated June 16, 1972 the respondent no. 7 was informed that his service stood terminated with intimation to BSL but strangely the Corporation extended his lien in the interest of the Corporation upto December 30, 1974 without approval of the competent authority which was finally extended upto June 30, 1975. Grant of lien beyond the period of November 30, 1971 and the extension thereof in exercise of power as conferred upon the Authority in Regulation 5 is seriously assailed by the petitioner. The petitioner, further, asserted that the consideration and rejection of his prayer for restoration of seniority was not communicated to him in the year 1981. It is also claimed by the petitioner that no decision of the Corporation with regard to the seniority was ever communicated to him and the question of challenging the legality and validity of the said decision earlier does not at all arise. The petitioner also denied that he was ever told of the rejection of his prayer by letter dated February 18, 1982 verbally or in writing and there is no question of acquiescence in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that no self-approval form was sent to him as is enjoined upon the Reporting Officer for filling up and the return the same to him. No self-appraisal form for the assessment year, 1986-87 was received by the petitioner. The adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner just on the eve of promotion to the post of Senior Chief Engineer. Such communication of adverse remarks in such manner as was done by the respondent adversely affected the petitioner. The petitioner denied the allegations made in paragraph 53 of the affidavit-in-reply by contending, inter alia, that the said Unit was commissioned on the basis of the expertise of the superior officers. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the de-rated capacity of the fourth unit is 55 M.M. with hydrogen cooling but when the petitioner commissioned the fame the capacity was 40 M.W in air which was also the de-rated capacity of the unit with air cooling. The petitioner asserted that the Corporation did not disclose material facts as regards the reply of the petitioner dated June 8, 1987. The petitioner asserted that the Corporation did not disclose material facts as regards the reply of the petitioner dated June 8, 1987. By a letter dated April 21, 1987 the petitioner was requested by the authority to send the self-approval form duly filled in. In reply to which the petitioner sent his letter dated June 6, 1987 asking for a copy from the Special Assistant to the Principal Chief Engineer. The petitioner denied the allegations that the petitioner in order to make out a case of arbitrary or illegally recording in the Annual Confidential Report sent the letter dated June 6, 1987 to the concerned authority. 31. The petitioner moved the writ application praying for withdrawal and cancellation of the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1986-87 communicated to him under Memo dated May 18, 1987 and his representation remains under the consideration of the General Manager, Damodar Valley Corporation. 32. The petitioner filed affidavit-in-reply in respect of respondents no. 7 and 8 and also effectively dealt with the basic assertions and the allegations made therein, on such basis as is indicated in the writ petition as also the reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Corporation and also the claim of the petitioner that the lien of respondent no. 7 could neither be extended by reason of the termination of lien with effect from November 30, 1971. The respondent no. 7 could not be granted any proforma promotion nor he was eligible for his placement in the seniority list above the petitioner. The petitioner raised grievance that respondent no.8 could not be placed above the petitioner on various grounds as are contained in the affidavit-in-reply. It is also claimed by the petitioner that the Corporation had no power to treat the respondent no. 7 on deputation at the time when the lien ceased to exist. Respondent no. 7, according to the petitioner, obtained final settlement report as would appear from the following documents:- Sl. Letter of Reference Subject in brief No. 1. EDCON-1/6/180/Orig/6245 Final settlement report of CPF A/C in dt. 1/3/69 to Accounts officer respect of Sri B. Bhattacharjee (AC) (Fund) 2. PL-30/205-13572 dt. 26/10/71 The petitioner asked to return as his lien was to Sri Bhattacharjee. due to expire on 30/10/71 (The petitioner asked for further extension on 25/11/71) 3. PL-20/205-15070 dt. 29/12/71 Lien was terminated automatically with (By Regd. EDCON-1/6/180/Orig/6245 Final settlement report of CPF A/C in dt. 1/3/69 to Accounts officer respect of Sri B. Bhattacharjee (AC) (Fund) 2. PL-30/205-13572 dt. 26/10/71 The petitioner asked to return as his lien was to Sri Bhattacharjee. due to expire on 30/10/71 (The petitioner asked for further extension on 25/11/71) 3. PL-20/205-15070 dt. 29/12/71 Lien was terminated automatically with (By Regd. post through Personnel effect from 10/11/71 since the petitioner did Manager. BSL) to Sri not revert back to DVC in accordance with Bhattacharjee. Ministry of Home Affairs Memorandum No. 60/37/63-Ests (A) dt. 14/7/67, which stipulates that deputationist should either revert to the parent Department after expiry of 3 years or resign from the parent department. 4. A/CPF/14-8150(311) 903 dt. Final settlement of CPF A/C of Sri B. 26/6/72 from Ac. (Funds) to Bhattacharjee. Administrative Officer, CEE's office. 5. EDCON-1/6-180/31315 dt. Transfer of CPF money on termination of 28/12/72 (Forwarding Memo lien (asked for by Sri to Bhattacharjee on DP & OM) 19/12/72). 6. A/CPF/14-8150 (311) dt. 2/4/74 Settlement of PF accumulation of Sri from AO(F), DVC to AO(F), BSL Bhattacharjee A/C No. 8033 with DVC and transferring the balance amount to Staff No. 045816 allotted by BSL (Note : Rule 17 of CPF stipulates that when an employee leaves DVC service the amount at his credit is payable). 33. BSL did not agree to the service of respondent no. 7 on deputation. Respondent no. 7 by Memo dated October 26, 1971 was asked to return to parent department as his lien was due to expire on 30/10/71. Respondent no. 7 asked for further extension of lien by letter dated November 25, 1971, but lien was terminated automatically with effect from November 30, 1971 since respondent no. 7 did not revert back to the Corporation in accordance with Ministry of Home Affairs' Memorandum no. 60/37/63-Ests. (A) dated July 14, 1967 which stipulates that deputationist should either revert to the parent Department after expiry of three years or resign from the parent department. Six Officers including the petitioner were found suitable for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The name of respondent no. 7 did not appear in the List. Lien was automatically terminated on November 30, 1971. No Resolution was adopted by the Board for condoning the break in service of respondent no. 7. DPC recommended the promotion of the respondent no. The name of respondent no. 7 did not appear in the List. Lien was automatically terminated on November 30, 1971. No Resolution was adopted by the Board for condoning the break in service of respondent no. 7. DPC recommended the promotion of the respondent no. 7 on the basis of record upto 1968 and his current records was not called for from BSL for appraising his performance in BSL from 1968 to 1974. The claim of the petitioner is that in the event, such recommendation for promotion of the respondent no. 7 had to be adopted the Corporation was required to appraise current service records. Promotion was to be regulated in terms of Circular no. PL-OE (Con)/2 Pt. 365 dated March 31, 1961. The Departmental Promotion Committee did not clarify whether the earlier DPC empanelled candidates would get priority over the candidate whose lien ceased to exist. 34. On January 29, 1975 proforma promotion was accorded to respondent no. 7 in, respect to the post of Superintending Engineer (E) with effect from November 7, 1974. Respondent no. 7 was not on deputation at the time when the Departmental Promotion Committee sat for consideration for promotion of the candidates to the post of Superintending Engineer. Six candidates ought to have been accorded the promotion that the proforma promotion in favour of the respondent no. 7 is contrary to Service Regulation which states that panel will be valid for one year and candidates selected in subsequent panels will be promoted later. Lien of respondent no. 7 was extended upto June 30, 1975. While extending the lien on October 21, 1974, the Corporation acted with a procedural impropriety by treating the petitioner on deputation. The petitioner was not on deputation on October 21, 1974. The recital "on deputation" being wholly non-existent, the extension of lien funded upon the non-existent basis is wholly unauthorised, unwarranted and illegal. Sri P.K. Sengupta, the then Section Officer of the DVC pointed out all the irregulaities as regards the extension of lien. The said report as contained in Annexure X to the affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent no. 7 is quoted below:- "On scrutiny of personal file of Sri Biswanath Bhattacharjee, Superintending Engineer (P), DVC, Calcutta, the following observations were made in audit: That Sri B.N. Bhattacharjee, Project Engineer (O.E.E.) DVC, Calcutta was permitted to apply for the post of Supdt. Engr. 7 is quoted below:- "On scrutiny of personal file of Sri Biswanath Bhattacharjee, Superintending Engineer (P), DVC, Calcutta, the following observations were made in audit: That Sri B.N. Bhattacharjee, Project Engineer (O.E.E.) DVC, Calcutta was permitted to apply for the post of Supdt. Engr. in Bokaro Steel Ltd. vide letter No. PL-20/205-8365 dt. 9/4/68. Subsequently, Sri Bhattacharjee was offered the said post by BSL and Sri Bhattacharjee desired to continue in DVC, if he could be given equivalent scope and incentive in DVC. He also requested the Corporation to accept his letter dt. 31/8/68 as his resignation if the said facilities could not be given to him. His above resignation was accepted by the Corporation vide letter dt.22/11/63 with effect from 30/11/68. Further vide an amendment letter dt.28/11/68 Sri Bhattacharjee was released from DVC on 30/10/68 (AN) and was allowed to retain lien on his post of Project Engineer in DVC for 3 years upto 30/11/71. It was also mentioned in the release order that in case of failure to come back within 30/11/71 the service of Sri Bhattacharjee in DVC would be terminated automatically. The matter relating to lien of Sri. Bhattacharjee was intimated to M/s B.S.L which did not accept any liability whatsoever arising out of this. On 25/11/71 Sri Bhattacharjee requested for extension of lien for 3 years beyond 30/11/71 which was not accepted by the Corporation. The same was intimated to Sri Bhattacharjee vide Corporation's letter dt. 29/12/71. On receipt of the Corporation's non-acceptance of extension letter dt.29/11/71, Sri Bhattacharjee requested the Corporation to transfer his C.P.F accumulation to M/s. B.S.L. and also to remit the money towards encashment of his leave due to him. The request of leave encashment was turned down by the Corporation and the decision was communicated vide letter dt.16/6/72. The C.P.F accumulation was sent to M/s B.S.L. with a bank draft. On 21/10/74 the Corporation had extended the lien of Sri Bhattacharjee upto 31/12/76 vide Office Order dt.21/10/74. Further in 396th meeting of the Corporation held on 30/12/74 the Corporation extended the lien of Bhattachrjee for a further period of 8 months upto 30/6/75 vide Resolution No. 3421. Sri Bhattacharjee was appointed to officiate as Superintending Engineer (Elec.) (Proforma Promotion in DVC) with effect from 7/11/74 (AN) vide office order No. PL-20/205-1523 dated 28/1/75. Sri Bhattacharjee was released from M/s. BSL with effect from 24/6/75 (AN) to join DVC. Sri Bhattacharjee was appointed to officiate as Superintending Engineer (Elec.) (Proforma Promotion in DVC) with effect from 7/11/74 (AN) vide office order No. PL-20/205-1523 dated 28/1/75. Sri Bhattacharjee was released from M/s. BSL with effect from 24/6/75 (AN) to join DVC. It was also mentioned in the release order that M/s BSL would not bear any liability whatsoever arising out of his lien with DVC. Finally Sri Bhattacharjee joined in DVC as Superintending Engineer (Elec.) Calcutta on 25/6/75 (FN). In view of the above the Corporation was requested to furnish following papers/information to audit immediately: 1. Whether Sri Bhattacharjee was appointed substantively as Project Engineer in DVC. If so, a copy of such appointment order may be furnished. 2. Terms of conditions of retention of lien for the post of Project Engineer in DVC. 3. Whether the lien allowed to Sri Bhattacharjee had been approved by the Corporation. If so, the relevant Resolution and Agenda Papers may be furnished. 4. It appears that service of Sri Bhattacharjee was terminated vide Corporation letter No. PL-20/205-5336 dated 16/6/72. But it is seen from the office order dated 21/10/74 and resolution No. 3421 held in 396th meeting dated 30/12/74 that Sri Bhattacharjee was allowed to retain his lien upto 31/12/74 and 30/6/75 respectively. The reasons for re-opening such a case may please be furnished. 5. It also appears that the office order dated 21/10/74 extending the lien was issued on behalf of Director of Personnel. It may be confirmed whether the case put up to Corporation who is the competent authority in this regard. If so, decision taken by the Corporation may please be furnished. 6. It may also please be confirmed whether the matter regarding revival of the terminated case of Sri Bhattacharjee was placed before the Corporation, before considering extension of lien. If so, Corporation's decision in this regard may be furnished along with the relevant papers. 7. Whether the period of service of Sri Bhattacharjee in M/s. Bokaro Steel Limited will be counted towards pensionable service of the incumbent. 8. Whether CPF contributions of both M/s. Bokaro Steel Limited and Sri B. Bhattacharjee were received by DVC, from M/s. Bokaro Steel Ltd. 9. It appears from M/s. Bokaro Steel Limited Office letter dated 13/6/75 that M/s. Bokaro Steel Limited would not bear any liability as regards leave/pension contributions. 8. Whether CPF contributions of both M/s. Bokaro Steel Limited and Sri B. Bhattacharjee were received by DVC, from M/s. Bokaro Steel Ltd. 9. It appears from M/s. Bokaro Steel Limited Office letter dated 13/6/75 that M/s. Bokaro Steel Limited would not bear any liability as regards leave/pension contributions. It may also be confirmed, therefore, whether the said contributions were recovered from Sri Bhattachajee before his joining DVC on 25/6/75. 10. Rule 17 of CPF Rules. 11. Copy of Corporation's letter No. PL-13R/11(1) (Pt. III)-5116 dt.27/5/77. 12. Copy of Corporation's letter no. PL-POE (Con) II/Pt. 365 dt.21/3/61. 13. Copy of the Corporation's letter no. A/PF/Transfer/Balance/71/338 dt.8/10-2-72. 14. Copy of the Corporation's letter no. 60/37/63-Est. (A) dt.14/7/67" 35. The petitioner did cavil of, inter alia, the actions taken by the respondents as being wholly arbitrary. There was no basis for counting the respondent no. 7 against the position of Senior Chief Engineer (PP&C) with immediate effect nor was there any warrant for issue of the second order dated July 9, 1987 promoting the respondent no. 6 to the post of Principal Chief Engineer. By order dated July 9, 1987 on being posted on transfer in the office of Senior Chief Engineer (O&M), respondent no. 8 was sought to be counted against the post of Senior Chief Engineer (O&M). 36. Respondent no. 8 by an order dated November 3, 1987 was delegated to exercise temporary powers of function of Senior Chief Engineer. The said order dated November 3, 1987 was stayed by Mr. Umesh Chandra Banerjee J. The petitioner further made grievances that during the pendency of the writ application, he had to suffer three transfers. Respondent no. 7 excepting for six months has and had earned the benefit of staying in Calcutta. 37. Mr. Basu referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Parsottamlal Dhingra v. Union of India reported in AIR 1958 SC 36 and also referred to the following judgments: 1. Full Bench decision in the case of K. Ananthan Pillai v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1968 Ker. 234 . 2. Full Bench decision in the case of Tuhiram Sharma v. Prithivi Kapoor AIR 1971(2) SLR 184. 38. Mr. Basu also referred to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of A.K. Venkateswar v. Union of India reported in 1978(1) SLR 65. 39. It is also claimed that the respondent no. 234 . 2. Full Bench decision in the case of Tuhiram Sharma v. Prithivi Kapoor AIR 1971(2) SLR 184. 38. Mr. Basu also referred to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of A.K. Venkateswar v. Union of India reported in 1978(1) SLR 65. 39. It is also claimed that the respondent no. 7 after joining the BSL could not be allowed to claim the lien in the said Corporation, nor his past services could be taken into consideration for the purpose of revival of the lien on the ground that the respondent no. 7 was on deputation, that the seniority of the respondent no. 7 having been founded upon the extension of the lien and/or the revival of the lien is wholly ultra vires the relevant rules of the said Corporation, that the presumptive date of joining of the respondent no. 7 laying the fixation of the seniority is illegal, unwarranted and wholly unauthorised. The seniority of the respondent no. 7 according to Mr. Basu having been determined on presumption is ex facie ultra vires the fundamental principles of determination of seniority apart from being vitiated by arbitrariness and illegality. The Corporation could not be permitted to take the plea that respondent no. 7 having been found the brilliant officer was accorded the extension of lien from time to time. Promotion of respondent no. 7, according to Mr. Bose, was effected without any active consideration of the performance of respondent no. 7 during the period between 1969 and 1974 in BSL. 40. Mr. Bose while extending his submission on this aspect straneously argued that respondent no. 7 after resignation joined the service of BSL and never cared to return to the Corporation after November 30, 1971, that the respondent no. 7 by his own conduct effected the termination of lien and the Corporation after such termination of lien could not treat him on deputation and revive the lien which was lost, that the fixation of seniority of the petitioner founded upon ultra vires extension of lien which suffers from incurable infirmity and the said infirmity is that respondent no. 7 ought not to have been accorded the benefit of a number of years of service when he had no lien in the said Corporation. 41. Mr. Bose seriously challenged the action of the Corporation in espousing the cause of the respondent no. 7 ought not to have been accorded the benefit of a number of years of service when he had no lien in the said Corporation. 41. Mr. Bose seriously challenged the action of the Corporation in espousing the cause of the respondent no. 7 by unwarrantedly bringing back the respondent no. 7 to the post of Superintending Engineer and thereby, allowed the respondent no. 7 to hold the lien against a temporary post without the authority of law. In extension of this aforesaid challenge, Mr. Bose further claimed that the moment the letter of resignation was accepted, the lien of respondent no. 7 even for sake of argument could only be validly extended in respect of the post held by respondent no. 7 on substantive or permanent basis, that the infirmity in allowing respondent no. 7 to retain the lien in respect of the post which was held by him on temporary basis is incurable, that the super-session of the petitioner by respondent no. 7 on the basis of ultra vires fixation of seniority is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, that adverse remarks for the Annual Confidential Report for the year, 1986-87 did not conform to the requirements of the Rules, Regulations and By-laws, that the respondent no. 6 could not step into any role of the Reporting Officer of the petitioner for the full 1986-87. Extension of lien of the respondent no. 6 being wholly ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, that the petitioner could not be denied justice on the ground of the delay and/or laches and/or lapses as claimed by the Corporation. Mr. Bose finally submitted that in view of the said infirmities, reliefs prayed for are warranted to be accorded. Mr. Bose claimed further that continued wrong having been worked out to the petitioner by reason of ultra vires extension of the lien, the petitioner could not be thrown out of the Court on the ground of delay, that there was no delay in moving the writ application. 42. Mr. R.N. Das, the learned Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Mr. Bose claimed further that continued wrong having been worked out to the petitioner by reason of ultra vires extension of the lien, the petitioner could not be thrown out of the Court on the ground of delay, that there was no delay in moving the writ application. 42. Mr. R.N. Das, the learned Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Ashim Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation while seriously joining all the issues streneously submitted that the writ petition should fail on the ground of delay, that the claims of the petitioner are overstate in character, that there is no warrant for interference of the Court with the decision and/or orders passed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; that respondent no. 7 was rightfully accorded the extension of lien, that the fixation of inter se seniority of the petitioner, respondents no. 7 and 8 was valid, proper and legal; that there was no foundation of showing in favour of the respondents no. 7 and 8. 43. Some officers objected to the extension of lien of the respondent no. 7 and others strongly recommended the said extension of lien during the period between December, 1971 and October 16, 1974, that the Corporation ultimately decided to extend the lien of respondent no. 7 upto December 31, 1974, that the lien of the respondent no. 7 was extended validly and properly, that there being no provision either for extension or termination of lien in the Service Regulations of the Corporation, the corresponding provisions relating to lien in the Fundamental Rules would be applicable in such matter; in accordance with the Rules and Orders issued from time to time by the Central Government, that the Agenda of the meeting of the DVC and Resolution No. 3421 dated December 31, 1974 recorded reasons for extension of lien of respondent no. 7 with the Corporation. Lien of respondent no. 7 could not be terminated even with the consent of the respondent no. 7 under Fundamental Rules 14(A), that respondent no. 7 did not acquire any lien with BSL. Lien of respondent no. 7 with the Corporation in such a situation could not be terminated with his consent under Rule 14(A) that the Corporation of acted bona fide and passed the orders allowing the extension of respondent no. 7 under Fundamental Rules 14(A), that respondent no. 7 did not acquire any lien with BSL. Lien of respondent no. 7 with the Corporation in such a situation could not be terminated with his consent under Rule 14(A) that the Corporation of acted bona fide and passed the orders allowing the extension of respondent no. 7's lien with the Corporation after due and proper application of mind and in the interest of the Corporation as respondent no. 7 was reportedly found to be a highly efficient Engineer whose retention in service was found to be conducive to the interest of the Corporation. 44 Mr. Das in support of his contention submitted that lien of the respondent no. 7 with the Corporation could not be terminated and referred to a decision in case of B.S. Birthere v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in AIR 1969 MP 60 . In any event, respondent no. 7 having joined the Corporation in June, 1976 and having rendered valuable service with the promotion effected from time to time could not be frustrated and/or defeated after 12 years of efficient service, that the petitioner is grossly negligent for the demy in filing the writ petition after 12 years more so after acquiescing in four promotions namely, the Superintending Engineer, Deputy Chief Engineer, Additional Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer, Level-I between the years, 1975-81. The writ petition, according to Mr. Das, should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. 45. Mr. Das also referred to the following judgments: 1. G.L. Lamba v. Union of India; 1985 (2) SCC 627 at 628 2. Narender Chadha v. Union of India; AIR 1986 SC 638 3. Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi & Others, AIR 1975 (4) SCC 714 4. M.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty and Another v. State of Mysore and Others, AIR 1967 SC 993 5. Nanda Kumar Banerjee & Another v. Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta and another AIR 1987 Cal. 578. 46. Mr. Das elaborately placed reliance on the aforesaid decisions in support of the objection that the delay and laches should alone constitute the ground of dismissal of the writ petition that mere irregularity in Governmental action should not be allowed to be assailed many years after accrual of cause of action. As such, the delayed challenge will go against the public policy. Mr. As such, the delayed challenge will go against the public policy. Mr. Das referred to paragraphs 27 and 28 of judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1985 Vol.-II SCC 627 and 628 (G.S. Lamba v. Union of India (supra) and Narender Chadha v. Union of India (supra). 47. Mr. L.K. Gupta, the learned Advocate, appearing along with Mr. Sumit Panja, the learned Advocate, claimed and contended that respondent no.7 is senior to the writ petitioner and as also respondent no. 8. Respondent no. 7 in the gradation list of 1978-83 was shown as senior to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner did not challenge the said two gradation lists which are reproduced in the gradation list of 1986. On the ground of delay on the part of the writ petitioner in assailing the question of seniority of the respondent no. 7 the promotions had already been effected on the basis of the said gradation list can not be disturbed. Old matters, if allowed to be raked up after such long time may result in administrative complications and difficulties and should be given a quietus after lapse of sometime in the interest of smoothness of service, that respondent no. 7 while serving BSL held his lien on the post under the Corporation, that respondent no. 7 joined the Corporation as Superintending Engineer after his release from BSL on the basis of seniority of higher post, that the Corporation is now estopped from refixing seniority or denying the higher post to the respondent no. 7, that the extension of lien was valid and the same was approved by the Corporation, that respondent no. 7 never resigned from the service of the Corporation as would appear from the letter dated August 31, 1968 wherein respondent no. 7 expressed his intention to continue in service of the Corporation, on condition that he should be given equivalent scope and incentive in the Corporation, that respondent no. 7 was allowed to retain lien in the Corporation for three years, that BSL informed the Corporation that it had no objection if respondent no. 7 retained his lien with the Corporation, that the petitioner should not be allowed to challenge the decision of the Authority to extend lien of respondent no. 7 was allowed to retain lien in the Corporation for three years, that BSL informed the Corporation that it had no objection if respondent no. 7 retained his lien with the Corporation, that the petitioner should not be allowed to challenge the decision of the Authority to extend lien of respondent no. 7 and grant of promotion in the rank of Superintending Engineer and subsequent promotion by reason of principles of acquiescence applicable in the facts of this case. The petitioner was duly intimated the fact of extension of lien and grant of proforma promotion in favour of respondent no. 7 by a letter dated February 1, 1977. The writ petitioner on the ground of delay and laches should not be accorded any relief. Mr. Gupta referred to and relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of G.C. Gupta & ors. v. N.K. Pandey & ors. (1981) 1 SCC 316 and Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1269 . 48. As regards the rival contention on the question of the extension of lien of respondent no. 7 as advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is now necessary for this Court to effectively determine the basic and fundamental issues. The assertion of the petitioner as canvassed elaborately by Mr. Bose is that the lien of respondent no. 7 could not be resuscitated nor could be revived after automatic termination of lien with effect from November 30, 1971 requires active consideration of the pros and cons of the matter. Respondent no. 7 was in clear and unequivocal terms informed that in the event respondent no. 7 failed to come back to Corporation his lien would be terminated automatically. After the automatic termination of lien the Corporation according to Mr. Bose was incompetent to revive the same. The action of respondent in extending the lien on the bogey that respondent no. 7 was on deputation was subject to close scrutiny of the Audit Department of the Corporation. It is also to be noted that respondent no. 7 failed to come back within November 30, 1971. The lien of respondent no. 7 by reason of unequivocal terms as contained in letter dated November 20, 1963 stands automatically terminated. The BSL did not accept any liability whatsoever arising out of the aforesaid decision. It is also to be noted that respondent no. 7 failed to come back within November 30, 1971. The lien of respondent no. 7 by reason of unequivocal terms as contained in letter dated November 20, 1963 stands automatically terminated. The BSL did not accept any liability whatsoever arising out of the aforesaid decision. There was full and final settlement of all the dues including the Contributory Provident Fund standing to the credit of respondent no. 7 and after that there could not be any extension of lien on an arbitrary basis. Without consideration of the fundamental aspects of the entire matter the said extension of lien of respondent no. 7 was made. The contentions of the respondents that the extension of lien of respondent no. 7 was properly made and there was no illegality involved in it. The lien of respondent no. 7 was extended from time to time after proper application of mind and in the interest of the Corporation. Reference is made to Regulations 5 and 6 of the Service Regulation of the Corporation read with Rule 14(a) and 14A of the Fundamental Rules. The said Regulations 5 and 6 read with clause (a) of Fundamental Rules 14(a) are quoted below:- Regulation 5:-''If the Corporation is satisfied that in the special circumstances of any case it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, after specifying those special circumstances in writing relax the provisions of any of these Regulations in such case." Regulation 6:-"Any matter not provided for in these Regulations shall, until requisite provisions in that behalf are made in these Regulations, be dealt with and disposed of, as far as may be, in accordance with the rules and orders issued from time to time by the Central Government in relation to similar matters." Rule 14(a) of Fundamental Rule's:- "The President shall suspend the lien of a Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively if he is appointed in a substantive capacity:- (1) to a tenure post, or (2) Omitted. (3) Provisionally, to a post on which another Government Servant would hold a lien had his lien not been suspended under this Rule." Rule 14A of Fundamental Rules:- "(a) Except as provided in clauses (c) and (d) of this rule and Rule 97, a Government servant's lien on a post may, in no circumstances, be terminated, even with his consent, if the result will be to leave him without a lien or a suspended lien upon a permanent post. (b) Deleted. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 14(a), the lien of a Government servant holding substantively a permanent post shall to terminated while on refused leave granted after the date of compulsory retirement under Rule 86 or corresponding other rules or on his appointment substantively to any of the offices referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 99 or to the post of Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department (or on his appointment as the Chairman or any other member of the Union Public Service Commission or as the Chairman or any other member of a State Public Service Commission). (d) A Government servant's lien on a post shall stand terminated on his acquiring a lien on a permanent post (whether under the Central Government or a State Government) outside the cadre on which he is borne." 49. The contentions of the Corporation that the extension of lien was made by recourse to Regulation 5 of the Service Regulation read with the Fundamental Rules 14A read with clause (a) of the said Rules. The contentions of the Corporation that the extension of lien was made by recourse to Regulation 5 of the Service Regulation read with the Fundamental Rules 14A read with clause (a) of the said Rules. While considering the aspect, it is appropriate to refer to Rule 13 of the Fundamental Rules which is quoted below:- Rule 13 of the Fundamental Rules:- "Unless his lien is suspended under Rule 14 or transferred under Rule 14-B a Government servant holding substantively a permanent post retains a lien on that post- (a) While performing the duties of that post; (b) While on foreign service, or holding a temporary post, or officiating in another post; (c) during joining time on transfer to another post, unless he is transferred substantively to a post on lower pay, in which case his lien is transferred to the new post from the date on which he is relieved of his duties in the old post; (d) subject to the exception in sub-rule (2) of Rule 97, while on leave other than refused leave granted after the date of compulsory retirement under rule 86 or corresponding other rules; and (e) while under suspension." 50. The reference to decision of B.S. Birthera v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) was straneously relied on by Mr. Das in support of the contention that in terms of the Regulations 5 and 6 read with Rules 9(13) and 14A of the Fundamental Rules, the extension of lien or respondent no. 7 could not be termed as unauthorised. It is also the contention of Mr. Das that the Fundamental Rule 14(a) fully applies in the facts and circumstances of the case. There could not be any termination of lien of respondent no. 7 even with his consent. 51. The contention of the Corporation, in my view, cannot be accepted. Respondent no. 7 held the post of Project Engineer in an officiating capacity. The retention of lien of respondent no. 7 for the post of Project Engineer in the Corporation is unauthorised. The line of respondent no. 7 was terminated by a letter No. PL-20/205/5336 dated June 16, 1972 issued by the Corporation. The Corporation by treating the respondent no. 7 on deputation to the BSL committed incurable infirmities inasmuch as the termination of lien of the respondent no. 7 was effected by a letter as aforesaid and this became fait accompli. The line of respondent no. 7 was terminated by a letter No. PL-20/205/5336 dated June 16, 1972 issued by the Corporation. The Corporation by treating the respondent no. 7 on deputation to the BSL committed incurable infirmities inasmuch as the termination of lien of the respondent no. 7 was effected by a letter as aforesaid and this became fait accompli. After termination of lien the question of extension of lien on non-existent ground "now on deputation" cannot and does not arise at all. The decision to treat the respondent on deputation, being clear case of malice in law which means total non-application of mind connected with the extension of lien of respondent no. 7 vis-a-vis his promotion for higher post by treating the same as proforma promotion founded upon (a) incorrect data, (b) arbitrariness, (c) illegality, and (d) violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Corporation Rules is challenged as unwarranted. The extension of lien by Office Order dated October 21, 1974 was based on extraneous consideration. There could not be any extension of lien when the termination of lien was effected long before. The service of respondent no. 7 with the BSL, in my view, would not be counted towards the pensionable service of the respondent no. 7 in the Corporation. The letter dated February 18, 1975 of Sri B.K. Ghosh on behalf of the Director (Personnel) addressed to the Personnel Manager, BSL is very relevant. The said letter is quoted below:- "I am to state that Sri Biswanath Bhattacharjee was allowed to join Bokaro Steel Limited retaining a lien on his service in DVC. He joined Bokaro Steel Limited on 1.12.1968 and he has now been allowed to retain his lien up to 30-6-1975 vide this office order No. PL-20/205-1523 dated the 28th January, 1975. For the purpose of keeping continuity of his service in DVC, the period of Sri Bhattacharjee's service under Bokaro Steel Limited is required to be regularised by payment of leave salary contribution and CPF or pension contribution as the case may be, to DVC. For the purpose of keeping continuity of his service in DVC, the period of Sri Bhattacharjee's service under Bokaro Steel Limited is required to be regularised by payment of leave salary contribution and CPF or pension contribution as the case may be, to DVC. Sri Bhattacharjee did not opt for pension and therefore, in his case payment of CPF contribution only arise, Sri Bhattacharjee's CPF money including DVC's contribution upto the period, he was in DVC, was transferred to Bokaro Steel Limited for credit to his fund account in Bokaro Steel Limited to which he subscribed from the date he Joined Bokaro Steel Limited for which perhaps Bokaro Steel Limited grants contribution under the rule of the Bokaro Steel Ltd. On his reversion to DVC on the expiry of the lien period, the amount at his credit on this account with Bokaro Steel Limited is required to be transferred to DVC. As regards leave salary contribution payable by Sri Bhattacharjee it is to be worked out on the basis of the pay drawn by him from 1/12/68 to 30/6/75 in Bokaro Steel Ltd. I am accordingly to request you to furnish month-wise the pay drawn by Sri Bhattacharjee in Bokaro Steel Ltd. from December 1, 1968 to June 30, 1975. Immediately the details of pay upto 31st March, 1975 may please be furnished so as to enable us to work out the leave salary contribution". 52. Mr. Teg Bahadur Singh, the Assistant Personnel Manager issued an office order dated June 13, 1975. The said order is quoted below:- "At his own request, Sri Bhattacharjee, Superintending (TPP & TBS) (O), Staff No. 045916 who has been maintaining lien with the Damodar Valley Corporation is being released from the services of Bokaro Steel Ltd w.e.f. 24th June, 1974 (A/N) to join his parent department i.e. DVC. Bokaro Steel Limited shall not bear any liability whatsoever arising out of his lien with Damodar Valley Corporation. This issues with the approval of Managing Director". 53. After the termination of lien respondent no. 7 could not be treated to be the holder of lien in the post of the officiating Project Engineer. The respondent no. 7 being an officiating Project Engineer had no right to claim any lien in the post. This issues with the approval of Managing Director". 53. After the termination of lien respondent no. 7 could not be treated to be the holder of lien in the post of the officiating Project Engineer. The respondent no. 7 being an officiating Project Engineer had no right to claim any lien in the post. Relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India reported in AIR 1958 SC 36 is quoted below:- "The appointment of a Government servant to a permanent post may be substantive or on probation or on an officiating basis. A substantive appointment to a permanent post in public service confers normally on servant so appointed a substantive right to the post and he becomes entitled to hold a lien on the post. This lien is defined in Fundamental Rules S. III, Ch. II R. 9(13) as the title of a Government servant to hold substantively a permanent post, including a tenure post, to which he has been appointed substantively". 54. The respondent no. 7 in the instant case was not transferred to any department nor to any post. It is a case of resignation of respondent no. 7 from the service of the Corporation. Such resignation letter after due and valid acceptance thereof by the Corporation on certain terms and conditions could not be treated as a case of tram for of the respondent no. 7 from service of the Corporation. 55. The identity and entity of the Corporation and the entity of BSL are altogether different. Respondent could not be permitted to take the plea that respondent no. 7 was allowed to retain his lien beyond November 30, 1971. It does not require in the facts situation a moment's scrutiny as regards the plain fact that respondent no. 7 on his own volition left the service of the Corporation with the continuity of lien only for a period of three years. No one could have any dispute as regards the continuance of lien till November 30, 1971 but such lien could not be extended beyond the period of November 30, 1971. 7 on his own volition left the service of the Corporation with the continuity of lien only for a period of three years. No one could have any dispute as regards the continuance of lien till November 30, 1971 but such lien could not be extended beyond the period of November 30, 1971. Respondent joined the service of the BSL and connection with the Corporation stood severed with effect from the date of termination of lien on November 30, 1971 and by no stretch of imagination could be treated as a holder of the lien or the title. The respondent could have claimed the extension of lien only on the happening of his corning back to the Corporation before November 30, 1971. It is not a case of appointment with the Corporation from one cadre to another cadre but it is an appointment altogether in a new set up and Organisation. The very recital on deputation as would appear in the document of the Corporation whereby respondent no. 7 was treated to be on deputation warrants a severe criticism inasmuch as the Corporation after a lapse of almost three years could not treat respondent no. 7 on deputation. This recital shows that the earlier decision of the authority of the Corporation was conciously by passed and overlooked. 56. The contention of Mr. Das is that Rule 14A and 97 of the Fundamental Rules are applicable in the facts of the case cannot be sustained for the sole reason that it was not a case of transfer nor was it a case of appointment of respondent no. 7 to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he was borne. The lien of respondent no. 7 could neither be extended nor it could be revived. The case of respondent no. 7 could not be covered by Fundamental Rule 14A. When the Service Regulations remain silent in respect of the matter, the Rules and the Government Orders in terms of Regulation 6 of the Service Regulations are to be made applicable. Relevant portion of Administrative instructions and supplementing Fundamental Rule 13 of Fundamental Rule are quoted below:- "In the case of permanent Government servants their lien may be retained in the parent department/office for a period of two years. They should either revert to the parent department/office within that period or resign from the parent department/office at the end of that period. They should either revert to the parent department/office within that period or resign from the parent department/office at the end of that period. An undertaking to abide by these conditions may be taken from them at the time of forwarding the applications to other Departments/Offices. In the case of quasi-permanent Government servants who wish to revert to the parent department/office within a period of two years, they may be taken back in the parent Department/Office, provided the posts held by them prior to their joining the new Department/Office continue to exist. In any case, at the end of two years from the date of release from the parent Department/Office, if reversion does not take place, an undertaking to abide by those conditions may be taken from them at the time of forwarding the applications." (G.I., M.H.A., O.M. No. 60/37/63-Ests (A), dated the 14th July, 1967) "The permanent/quasi-permanent Government servant should either revert to the parent department/office within the period of two years or resign from the parent department/office at the end of that period". 57. The lien can only be retained for a period of two years or three years. In the instant case, the lien was allowed to be retained for three years. Respondent no. 7 did not revert to the Corporation within a period of three years. Apart from the above he resigned and the said resignation was accepted on the condition that in the event he reverted to the Corporation he would be allowed to have his lien on his post for a period of three years from December 1, 1968. Respondent no. 7's lien on the post held by him substantively or permanent basis was protected for a period of three years but his officiating appointment to the post of Project Engineer is not covered by Regulations 5 and 6 of the service Regulations read with Rules 9(13), 94(a) and 14A of the Fundamental Rules. In this connection, the relevant Government Circulars being No. PL-P-OE(Con)-2/PB. 365 dated March 21, 1961 and No. EA/CENT/E-227 dated July 4, 1963, supplementing Fundamental Rules do not provide for extension of lien beyond the period of three years. 58. The facts and circumstances of the instant case being entirely dissimilar to the facts and circumstances case of B.S. Birthera v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1969 Madhya Pradesh 60, Rule 14A of the Fundamental Rules cannot be invoked. 59. 58. The facts and circumstances of the instant case being entirely dissimilar to the facts and circumstances case of B.S. Birthera v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1969 Madhya Pradesh 60, Rule 14A of the Fundamental Rules cannot be invoked. 59. The stand of the Corporation is mutually inconsistent and self-contradictory. After the termination of the lien of respondent no. 7, the Corporation has and had no power to resuscitate the lien on the sound principle that if lien is once lost then it can not be revived. The Resolution adopted in 396th meeting of the Corporation, if tested, on the touchstone of the aforesaid fundamentals cannot save itself from the doctrine of ultra vires both substantive and procedural on the ground that "lien once lost can not be revived". The said Resolution so adopted was beyond the scope of the power of the Corporation. There being automatic termination of lien of respondent no. 7 the inescapable conclusion that would follow is the lien once terminated cannot be revived. The view that I have taken finds its support from the Full Bench Decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sri Tuhiram Sharma v. Sri Prithivi Singh (supra). 60. In my view, once his lien is forfeited there is no law resuscitating the lien which ceased to exist. It is to be borne in mind that the extension of lien as claimed by respondent no. 7 could not be said to have been inhered in the condition of service of respondent no. 7 and thereby what right respondent 7 could claim as regards his extension of lien after the termination thereof. No answer could be found. The extension of lien does not depend upon the ipse dixit of the Corporation. The decision of the concerned authority to treat respondent no. 7 "on deputation" on careful consideration of the rival contentions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties is to be declared illegal and without jurisdiction for the simple reason that after November 30, 1971, respondent no. 7 could not be treated on deputation, nor did he have any lien. The above findings reached by this Court derives its force from the decision of the Corporation as contained in Memo dated December 29, 1971. 61. It is fit and proper for this court to refer to and set out letters of respondent no. 7 could not be treated on deputation, nor did he have any lien. The above findings reached by this Court derives its force from the decision of the Corporation as contained in Memo dated December 29, 1971. 61. It is fit and proper for this court to refer to and set out letters of respondent no. 7 and also the orders issued by the Corporation;- "Dear Sir March 19, 1968 Sub: Permission to apply outside. Please permit me to apply for the post of "Superintending Engineer (Electrical)" in Bokaro Steel Limited. It would be exteremely helpful if the permission is given by 26/3/68" "Memo No. PL-20/205-15544-15722 dt. November 28, 1968 Office Order Sri Biswanath Bhattacharjee, Offg. Project Engineer (Elec.) Office of Chief Electrical Engineer, DVC, Calcutta, is hereby released from the afternoon of 30th November, 1968, for joining the Bokaro Steel Limited. He is allowed to retain lien on his post in DVC for three years and if he does not come back within this period; his lien will be terminated automatically. In conformity with the procedure followed in the DVC, his attention is drawn to the fact that he shall be held responsible for any irregularity due to his negligence, in efficiency or conduct direct or indirect and any loss or damage caused thereby during the term of his employment upto 30/11/68 afternoon in the Corporation. Sd/- S.K. Roy Director of Personnel" "Memo No. PL-20/205/15721 November 28, 1968 The Deputy Personnel Manager, Bokaro Steel Limited, Bokaro Steel City, Bihar. Dear Sir, Please refer to your letter No. PERS-R/Elec/SE(E)/68-719 dated 26/8/68 addressed to Sri B. Bhattacharjee, Offg. Project Engineer, DVC. We are releasing Sri Bhattacharjee. He is being allowed to have lien on his post under this Corporation for a period of three years from 1st December, 1968. Yours faithfully, Sd/- S.K. Ray Director of Pasonnel" "The Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Calcutta-27. (Through: Chief Engineer/Elect.) Sub: Extension of lien. Ref: Letter No. PL-20/205/15544 dt.22/11/71 Dear Sir, Corporation had kindly allowed me to retain my lien in DVC till 30/11/71. I would be greatful if the same is extended for a further period of three years. Yours faithfully, Sd/- B. Bhattacharjee S.E. (Power Plant) B.S.L." Bokaro Steel City, Dated the 25th November, 1971. "No. PL-20/206/9928 October 21, 1974 Office Order In partial amendment of this office substituted order No. PL-20/205-15544 dated 22/11/68, Sri Biswanath Bhattacharjee, Offg. I would be greatful if the same is extended for a further period of three years. Yours faithfully, Sd/- B. Bhattacharjee S.E. (Power Plant) B.S.L." Bokaro Steel City, Dated the 25th November, 1971. "No. PL-20/206/9928 October 21, 1974 Office Order In partial amendment of this office substituted order No. PL-20/205-15544 dated 22/11/68, Sri Biswanath Bhattacharjee, Offg. Project Engineer (Elect.) office of the principal Chief Engineer, DVC, Calcutta, is allowed to retain lien on his post in DVC up to 31/12/74 A.N. and if he does not come back within this period, his lien would be terminated automatically." "(b) DPC recommendation regarding promotion of the officers to the rank of SE (Elect.) E & P is placed below as Annexure B along with the list of the Engineers in order of seniority that was placed before the DPC, Sri B. Bhattacharjee, occupies the position at Sl. No. 3 Sri K.P. Bhowmick above him who is Sl. No. 1, is a non-design engineer and hence the Committee has not considered his case. In view of this Sri Bhowmick does not stand superseded in this promotion, Sri S.K. Mukherjee, who is a Design Engineer in PCE's office, is not considered for promotion by the Committee on the basis of record and overall suitability. He, therefore, stands superseded. Sri Bhattacharjee is now in Bokaro Steel Ltd. as Superintendent of their thermal power plant and TBS and his lien on DVC is upto 31/12/74. The reports about him for the period of his service in DVC are outstanding. The PCE is of the opinion that Sri Bhattacharjee has proved himself very competent and efficient engineer in BSL also. Since the Design Section of PCE's office is short of such capable persons as Sri Bhattacharjee, the PCE wants to being him back in DVC on promotion which the DPC recommends now. The matter is placed before the Corporation for approval of the promotion of Sri B. Bhattacharjee and his recall to DVC. Sd/- S.S. Rao Director of Personnel 10/12/74" "Resolution No 3421 : .........The Corporation also decided that Sri B. Bhattacharjee, now on deputation to BSL, should be given proforma promotion as a Superintending Engineer (Elec.) with effect from the date on which his junior is promoted as Superintending Engineer. The Corporation extended the lien of Sri Bhattacharjee for a further period of six months beyond 31/12/74. The Corporation extended the lien of Sri Bhattacharjee for a further period of six months beyond 31/12/74. Sri Bhattacharjee's pay should also be protected on his reversion to the DVC. The Corporation directed that the panel of Engineers who are considered fit for promotion as Superintending Engineers should be prepared afresh on the basis of upto-date confidential reports. All persons found fit on the basis of latest reports should be empanelled according to their seniority even though all of them cannot be considered on suitability basis for promotion in immediate future on the basis of existing or probable vacancies which might occur in different wing. As a general principle the Corporation agreed that the Engineers who might be superseded due to paucity of higher posts according to their suitability should be given in situ promotion even by creating higher posts. .........Recommendation The Committee while considering the promotion of Executive Engineer Sr. Divisional (Elec.) for the post of Superintending Engineer (E) Engg. & Planning, took up only the ca5es of such engineers who had planning and design experience to meet the job description of the post as given above. The two cases of the engineers falling within the above purview are that of Sarbasree S.K. Mukherjee and B. Bhattacharjee Sri Bhattacharjee being junior of the two. On the basis of the records of these two engineers and also on the basis of the views expressed by PCE, the Committee recommends that Sri B. Bhattacharjee (Elec.) Engg. & Planning. Sri Bhattacharjee in the overall seniority of the EEs/SDEs (Elect) occupies the position which is Sl. No.3 His promotion now to the SE's. rank in view of his special attainment in the design shall not construe super-session of engineers above him except Sri Mukherjee. His promotion will be covered by the provision of O.C. No. PL-OE (Con) Pt. 365 dated 21/3/61" 62. In the background of the facts and circumstance of the case, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties presented their respective cases in an elaborate manner as are detailed above:. The contentions and the submissions of the learned Counsel were duly recorded above. It is now appropriate for the Court to reach his findings that: 63. That the lien once lost cannot be revived. After the termination of the lien, the respondent acted improperly, illegally and without jurisdiction in reviving the lien on a non-existent ground namely, respondent no. The contentions and the submissions of the learned Counsel were duly recorded above. It is now appropriate for the Court to reach his findings that: 63. That the lien once lost cannot be revived. After the termination of the lien, the respondent acted improperly, illegally and without jurisdiction in reviving the lien on a non-existent ground namely, respondent no. 7 was on deputation. 64. The termination of lien and consequent acceptance of all legal dues and Central Provident Fund money left no room for respondent no. 7 in the said Corporation nor could the Corporation after the full and final settlement of all his legal dues and Contributory Provident Fund money resuscitate the lien which was lost; that after the termination of lien respondent no. 7 could not be brought back as a Superintending Engineer on the ground that the petitioner held the post of Project Engineer on temporary basis and his substantive appointment was to the post of A.E.E. The action of the Corporation in not fixing the inter se seniority of the respondent no. 7 and 8 on the basis of length of service under the Corporation read with Circular No. PLP-CE Con)2/PB/365 dated 21/3/1961 is arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted both factually or legally. 65. After careful and active consideration of the rival submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the view that the following aspect are required to be determined:- 1. Whether the lien of respondent no. 7 was terminated with effect from November 30, 1971. 2. If lien of respondent no. 7 was once terminated by an act of respondent no. 7, then it could not be revived. 66. On a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid documents, the materials on record and the respective submissions of the parties this Court cannot but hold that respondent no. 7 was not on deputation with effect from December 1, 1971, when his lien after automatic termination of lien in terms of Memo dated November 28, 1968 and memo dated December 29, 1971 could not be extended with retroactive operation. The recital "on deputation" was erroneously, improperly, illegally and unauthorisedly incorporated in the relevant records. The import of the word "on deputation", in my view, could neither be supported nor the extension of the lien by reason of incurable infirmity could be effected. The recital "on deputation" was erroneously, improperly, illegally and unauthorisedly incorporated in the relevant records. The import of the word "on deputation", in my view, could neither be supported nor the extension of the lien by reason of incurable infirmity could be effected. Two conclusionary points, which have emerged, constituted the foundation of illegality crept in the extension of lien of respondent no. 7. i) Automatic termination of lien was effected on December 29, 1971, the Corporation has and had no authority to effect extension of lien. ii) Respondent no. 7 had no lien for the post of Officiating Project Engineer. 67. The decision cited by Mr. Das in the case of B.S. Birthera v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the case. The said decision does not apply in the facts of the case. In the aforesaid decision there was automatic termination of lien. 68. In the case of B.S. Birthera (supra), the petitioner was confirmed Government servant on permanent post of Lower Division Clerk in Forest Department. Afterwards his service was transferred to Jail Department but not substantively. At the time of transfer the Government servant himself gave voluntary declaration that he would not claim any lien on his permanent post of Forest Department. Later on his service in Jail Department was terminated "as no longer required" and he was placed at the disposal of the Forest Department. The Forest Department took the view that because the servant undertook voluntarily not to claim lien in Forest Department, he had no right of re-appointment on his former post. It was inter alia held that the refusal to replace him on his permanent post contravened Rule 14(a) and 14(A) of the Fundamental Rules. 69. The decisions cited by Mr. Sunit Krishna Dutt, in my view, are applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reasons as are indicated above:- 1. Parsottamlal Dhingra v. Union of India (supra) 2. Full Bench decision in the case of K. Ananthan Pillai v. State of Kerala (supra). 3. Full Bench decision in the case of Tuhiram Sharma v. Prithvi Kapoor (supra) 70. The next challenge of the petitioner to the fixation of seniority centres round arbitrary and ad hoc basis of seniority of respondent no. 7. Respondent no. Full Bench decision in the case of K. Ananthan Pillai v. State of Kerala (supra). 3. Full Bench decision in the case of Tuhiram Sharma v. Prithvi Kapoor (supra) 70. The next challenge of the petitioner to the fixation of seniority centres round arbitrary and ad hoc basis of seniority of respondent no. 7. Respondent no. 7 not being in the service of the Corporation could not be accorded the seniority on the basis of the total length of service. The seniority of respondent no. 7 without taking into account automatic termination of lien, in my view, is wholly illegal. Inasmuch as the length of service of respondent no. 7 was required to be determined from dale of his joining the Corporation that is June 26, 1975. The previous service to the Corporation could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the total length of service. Seniority being a valuable right cannot be bestowed upon respondent no. 7 to the prejudice of the petitioner. When the seniority depends on continuous service if service is interrupted, the seniority cannot be determined on the basis of total service of the lien after November 30, 1971. The interrupted period or break in service could not be condoned with retrospective effect so as to confer right of seniority upon the respondent no. 7 without taking into the period of his break in service. Termination of lien, in my view, entails forfeiture of past service of respondent no. 7. The period between the date of automatic termination of lien and the date of extension of lien cannot be taken into account for the purpose of bestowing the seniority on respondent no. 7 after arbitrarily treating the interrupted period on deputation. Seniority of respondent no. 7 ought to have been determined from June 26, 1975. In the instant case, there was interruption of service. The service of respondent no. 7, in BSL could not be treated as service rendered by him towards the Corporation. The Corporation never decided the effect of automatic termination of lien nor consequences flowing from resignation of respondent no. 7 from the service of the said Corporation. The seniority in the facts and circumstances of this case depends upon the termination of lien, but not on the basis of ultra vires extension of lien. 71. Termination of lien of respondent no. 7 from the service of the said Corporation. The seniority in the facts and circumstances of this case depends upon the termination of lien, but not on the basis of ultra vires extension of lien. 71. Termination of lien of respondent no. 7 could not have carried his seniority with it. The determination of ad hoc and arbitrary basis for conferment of seniority upon the petitioner is unwarranted. The Corporation while determinating the seniority of respondent no. 7 vis-a-vis the petitioner counted interrupted period of service of respondent no. 7 for seniority. It is well settled that the service which should be taken into account for fixing the seniority of an employee or Government servant is regular service with effect from the date of appointment as a regular member of service; that should be taken for fixing seniority amongst substantive class of Government servants as the case may be. Counting of irregular service of respondent no. 7 so as to give him seniority in preference to the claim of eligible candidates appointed as regular member of the service, in my opinion, is arbitrary and discriminatory and that being so, it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as Article 14 of the Constitution forbids arbitrariness in the action of the State. The seniority of the respondent no. 7 is to take effect from the date of his appointment namely, June 26, 1975. The corporation ought not to have taken into account the period of service rendered by respondent no. 7 during the period when he wets in employment under BSL. Counting of seniority of respondent no. 7 was warranted to be made after taking into account the effect of automatic termination of lien and the effect of officiating appointment of respondent no. 7 in the post of Project Engineer. Respondent no. 7 could not be accorded the benefit of extension of lien on such grounds as are indicated above. Extension of lien being ex facie unauthorised and de hors the Fundamental Rules as are detailed above, counting of seniority on the basis of mere assignment of notional date is wholly incurably invalid in nature. The Corporation committed incurable infirmity in assigning the seniority of respondent no. 7 on certain non existent grounds vitiated by illegality and arbitrariness. Extension of lien being ex facie unauthorised and de hors the Fundamental Rules as are detailed above, counting of seniority on the basis of mere assignment of notional date is wholly incurably invalid in nature. The Corporation committed incurable infirmity in assigning the seniority of respondent no. 7 on certain non existent grounds vitiated by illegality and arbitrariness. Presumptive date of joining and/or proforma promotion in the facts of the case is to be considered with reference to automatic termination of lien. Respondent no. 7 was retrospectively promoted and notional seniority was assigned. Mere assignment of notional date for the purpose of giving seniority to respondent no. 7 is wholly unauthorised. The fixation of seniority vis-a-vis the service benefits in favour of respondent no. 7 flowing therefrom being arbitrary to the core, the seniority, thus assigned to respondent no. 7 is without any jurisdiction. 72. I, therefore, hold that the seniority of respondent no. 7 is warranted to be recast without taking into account the service of respondent no. 7 in BSL during the period between December 1, 1968 and June 26, 1975 when respondent had no lien on the post of Corporation. 73. As regards two different channels of promotion it is not necessary for the Court to express any opinion on the ground that the automatic termination of lien having effected the seniority thus, assigned, to the respondent no. 7 on the basis of extension of lien calls for scrutiny of this court. The seniority, thus bestowed upon respondent no. 7 by reason of incurable infirmity as indicated above is ad hoc and arbitrary. The assignment of seniority of respondent no. 7, vis-a-vis the subsequent promotions to respondent no. 7 cannot be sustained and they are set aside. 74. The formidable challenge of the Corporation and respondents no. 7 and 8 is that the writ petition must fail on the ground of laches and lapses requires deeper probe. The following decisions cited by Mr. Das arc as follows:- 1. Nanda Kumar Banerjee & Others v. Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta & Others (supra) 2. K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty & Other v. State of Mysore and Another (supra) 3. Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi (supra) 4. G.S. Lamba v. Union of India (supra) 5. Naredha Chandra v. Union of India (supra) 75. According to Mr. K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty & Other v. State of Mysore and Another (supra) 3. Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi (supra) 4. G.S. Lamba v. Union of India (supra) 5. Naredha Chandra v. Union of India (supra) 75. According to Mr. Das the aforesaid decisions lay down the principle that the writ petition is warranted to be dismissed on the ground of laches and lapses alone. The claim of Mr. Das that the petitioner should not be allowed to challenge all the actions and/or orders impugned in the application after lapse of so many years inasmuch as such delayed challenge will be against the public policy. Such challenge according to Mr. Das can not succeed. Similar challenge is made by respondent no. 7. Reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of G.C. Gupta & Ors. v. N.K. Pandry & Ors. (supra) and Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'souza v. Union of India & Ors. (supra). 76. All the decisions, in my view, are clearly distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Before I embark upon this determination of the issue of the delay it is fit and proper to record the rule which says that the Court may not enquire into the belated or stale-claims is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion and there is no inviolable rule whenever there is delay the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. The question is one of the discretion to be followed in the facts of each case. In a given case, the court in exercise of jurisdiction is competent to condone the delay. The seniority list of 1985-86 having been challenged the Court would not be justified in throwing out the petition on the ground of delay. The extension of lien vis-a-vis fixation of the seniority of respondent no. 7 being wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to law, delay, in my view, is not fatal to the maintainability of this application. 77. In the instant case, the petitioner prayed for an appropriate writ or writs and direction or directions on the ground of complete lack of jurisdiction. Arbitrary extension of lien giving rise to the assignment of seniority and promotion of respondent no. 7 constitutes the foundation of continuing wrong being perpetrated by the Corporation. 77. In the instant case, the petitioner prayed for an appropriate writ or writs and direction or directions on the ground of complete lack of jurisdiction. Arbitrary extension of lien giving rise to the assignment of seniority and promotion of respondent no. 7 constitutes the foundation of continuing wrong being perpetrated by the Corporation. Considering this aspect of the matter, the writ court in my View, will not be justified in throwing out the writ petition on the ground of delay. 78. The plea of delay as raised by the Corporation and the respondent no. 7 and 8 is wholly ill-conceived inasmuch as the impugned actions or orders are vulnerable more so they are allowed to be continued to the detriment of the petitioner. The continuing wrong and injustice thus worked our to the petitioner is the basis of the acceptance of the writ petition by this Court. The challenge of the Corporation and the respondent no. 7 therefore cannot but fail. 79. In the circumstances, I allow the writ petition by directing the Corporation to refix inter se seniority of the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 and 8 for the purpose of promotion and other service benefits. I further direct that the Corporation shall determine seniority of respondent no. 7 on the basis of the automatic termination of lien but not on the basis of extension of lien of Respondent no. 7. The Corporation is also directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for expunction of adverse remarks for the year, 1986-87. Respondent no. 7 till the determination of the matter in issue shall not be granted any promotion to higher post. The seniority list shall remain inoperative till the inter se seniority of the petitioner and respondent no. 7 and 8 is recast after due observance of essentials of justice and fair-play. 80. Accordingly, the application is allowed to the extent as is indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. On the prayer of respondent, operation of the order shall remain stayed within three weeks from the date of passing of the order. Application allowed; direction given.