JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J. Strange though it may in the first Instance appear that an employee should challenge his own promotion as illegal and seeking quashing too in this case, this precisely is one of the reliefs sought, to with quashing of the notification dated 2nd June, 1982 (Annexure-3) so far as it relates to the petitioner, promoting him as an Assistant Engineer. Also under challenge are notification dated 26th June 1989 (Annexure-1) whereby the petitioner's services have been returned to his parent department, namely, Road Construction Department and the notification dated 30th June 1989 (Annexure-2) whereby respondent no. 7, Ravi Prakash Lokesh, has been posted as Resident Engineer, Bihar Bhawan at New Delhi. 2. The petitioner contends, relying on the notification dated 29th March 1986 (Annexure-15) that he holds a permanent ex-cadre post, namely, that of Resident Engineer, Bihar Bhawan on substantive basis with effect from 23rd December 1982 and, therefore, in teems of Rule 68 of the Bihar Service Code (in short 'the Code') his lien in the Bihar Subordinate Engineering Service must be deemed to have ceased with effect from the said date and as such he cannot be treated to be a member of the said service and promoted as Assistant Engineer, or disturbed from that post. Alternatively, it is contended that he having been promoted as Incharge Assistant Engineer firstly, on ad hoc basis and later, on regular basis, which orders were unsuccessfully challenged in this Court as also in the Supreme Court, he is entitled to reckon his seniority from 23rd December 1980 or 30th November 1981 and, as such, there is no question of his further promotion on the said post by the impugned notification dated 2nd June 1989. 3. The undisputed facts appearing from the pleadings of the parties, so far as they are relevant, are that the petitioner was appointed as an Overseer (now designated as Junior Engineer) in the Bihar State Subordinate Engineering Service) (in short 'the said Service') on 13th July 1960. In course of time he was made permanent and he acquired a lien on the said post. One leave reserve post of the rank of Assistant Engineer in the cadre of Bihar Engineering Service Class II was provided by the State Government to look after the maintenance work of Bihar Bhawan at New Delhi. In course of time he was made permanent and he acquired a lien on the said post. One leave reserve post of the rank of Assistant Engineer in the cadre of Bihar Engineering Service Class II was provided by the State Government to look after the maintenance work of Bihar Bhawan at New Delhi. The incumbent of the post was also supposed to do necessary liasoning with the various departments of the Government of India and whenever required, to act as Technical Advisor at the time of construction of State pavilions in different trade fairs organised from time to time. In December 1976 the petitioner was posted as Incharge Assistant Engineer against the said post. Later, having regard to the nature of the duties of the said post, the State Government took a decision to re-designate the aforesaid post of Assistant Engineer as Resident Engineer and to make it an excess cadre post. It would appear from the Government decision, as contained in communication dated 23rd December 1980 (Annexure-4), that although the post of Resident Engineer was made an ex-cadre post, it was to comprise of one of the ninety leave reserve posts of the cadre of the Bihar Engineering Service Class II. On 23rd December 1980 itself, the State Government issued notification giving ad hoc 'promotion' to the petitioner, against the aforesaid ex-cadre post of Resident Engineer. The period of six months of the aforesaid ad hoc promotion was extended for another six months by notification dated 9th September 1981 and finally a notification was issued on 30th November 1981 purporting to regularise the aforesaid ad hoc promotion on the ex-cadre post of Resident Engineer. True copies of the said notifications dated 23rd December 1980, 9th September 1981 and 30th November 1981 have been marked Annexures 5, 7 and 9 respectively to this writ application. 4. It may be stated here that the first notification dated 23rd December 1980 was challenged by one Devendra Prasad Sinha in C.W.J.C. No. 493 of 1981, which was withdrawn on 1st May 1981, with an observation that if any regular promotion is given the writ petitioner should approach this Court again. 4. It may be stated here that the first notification dated 23rd December 1980 was challenged by one Devendra Prasad Sinha in C.W.J.C. No. 493 of 1981, which was withdrawn on 1st May 1981, with an observation that if any regular promotion is given the writ petitioner should approach this Court again. The second notification dated 9th September 1981 also was challenged by the said Devendra Prasad Sinha in C.W.J.C. No. 3342 of 1981, which was disposed of stating "that it will be open to the petitioner to agitate his claim when the question of promotion in the regular cadre would arise" (emphasis added). The said Devendra Prasad Sinha again came to this Court challenging the notification dated 30th November 1981 in C.W.J.C. No. 4699 of 1981 but without any success. The special leave petition was also dismissed and so was the review petition by orders passed on 25th June 1983 and 18th July 1984. The aforesaid orders of this Court and the Supreme Court have been marked Annexure 6, 8, and 10 to 12 respectively. 5. In the meantime, the then Public Works Department of the State Government was bifurcated into two departments, namely, Road Construction Department and the Building Construction and Housing Department by resolution of the Government No. 3360 dated 23rd September 1982. It is an admitted position that in spite of the said bifurcation, the cadre of the Engineers serving in the two departments remained joint, the Road Construction Department being the Cadre Controlling Authority. The service of the petitioner, accordingly, was transferred to the Building Construction Department by Government order dated 5th May 1984 (Annexure-13). Thereafter, on 29th March 1986, a notification (Annexure-15) was issued, purportedly by the Building Construction Department, confirming the petitioner on the said ex-cadre post of Resident Engineer retrospectively with effect from 23rd December 1982. It was further said in the notification that, consequently, the lien would automatically stand terminated with effect from 23rd December 1982. These orders as contained in the notifications, Annexures 5, 9 and 15, are the foundation of the petitioner's claim. 6. Mr. S.J. Mukhopadhya submitted that once a substantive appointment is made on a permanent post, the incumbent acquires lien on that post and since no person can hold lien on two posts at the same time, the lien held by him on the previous post must be deemed to have ceased. 6. Mr. S.J. Mukhopadhya submitted that once a substantive appointment is made on a permanent post, the incumbent acquires lien on that post and since no person can hold lien on two posts at the same time, the lien held by him on the previous post must be deemed to have ceased. He, accordingly, submitted that the petitioner having been substantively appointed against the post of Resident Engineer, which is an ex-cadre post, he acquired a lien on that post with effect from 23rd December 1982 and, therefore, the petitioner ceased' to be member of the Bihar Subordinate Engineering Service and the notification dated 2nd June 1989 promoting the petitioner as an Assistant Engineer was redundant. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to Rule 68 of the Code. He also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Lal Khurana v. State of Punjab. (1989) 4 S.C.C. 99 . Learned counsel for the State took a stand that even if the post of Resident Engineer, Bihar Bhawan, be treated as a permanent post, any order making a substantive appointment on the post could be issued only by the Road Construction Department. Since the aforesaid notification was issued by the Building Construction Department, it has no binding effect so far as acquisition, or cessation of lien in respect of cadre post is concerned. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, then took the plea that the notification dated 30th November 1981, Annexure-9, regularising the ad hoc promotion of the petitioner against the said post had been issued by the then Public Works Department which was competent to do so. Learned counsel submitted that although the orders as contained in Annexures 5, 7 and 9 are described as orders of promotion but they must be deemed to he orders of appointment against an ex-cadre post and since a substantive appointment by the aforesaid notification dated 30th November 1981 had already been effected and the notification had been issued by the competent department, the requisites of Rule 68 must be deemed to have been fulfilled. In other words, learned counsel contended that whether on the basis of the notification dated 29th March 1986 or the notification dated 30th November 1981 the petitioner must be deemed to have been substantively appointed with effect from 23rd December 1982 or 10th November 1981 against the said post of Resident Engineer and, accordingly, deemed to have acquired a lien on that post. Alternatively, it was submitted that if his plea of cessation of lien in the present department is not accepted, he is entitled to count his seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer with effect from the date his ad hoc promotion was regularised i.e. 30th November 1981. Thus, on the submission of the learned counsel the questions that arise for consideration are (a) whether by virtue of the aforesaid orders dated 30th November 1981 or 29th March 1986, the lien on the post held by the petitioner in his parent Road Construction Department had ceased and (b) whether he is entitled to reckon his promotion to the rank/cadre of Assistant Engineer from 30th November 1981. 7. As regards the first question, the sheet anchor of the petitioner's claim is Rule 68 of the Code which reads :- "Unless in any case it be otherwise provided in the these rules a Government servant on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on that post and ceases to hold any lien previously acquired to any other - post." (emphasis added) The argument as to acquisition of lien on the post of Resident Engineer, Bihar Bhawan, and consequential cessation of the lien in the parent cadre on the basis of Rule 68 is, no doubt, ingenious and specious too but a perusal of the other related provisions, as contained in the Code would show that the same is without substance. Rule 68 embodies a general rule of service jurisprudence that a Government servant cannot hold lien simultaneously on two posts in two different cadres. But as the rule itself mentions, it is circumscribed by other relevant rules in the Code. Rule 68 embodies a general rule of service jurisprudence that a Government servant cannot hold lien simultaneously on two posts in two different cadres. But as the rule itself mentions, it is circumscribed by other relevant rules in the Code. In this connection Rules 70 and 71 may be noticed, they, in so far as they are relevant, read thus :- "70 (a) The lien of a Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively shall be suspended if he is appointed in a substantive capacity.- (1) xx xx xx (2) to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne, or (3) xx xx xx 71(a) xx xx xx (b) In a case covered by sue-clause (2) of clause (a) of rule 70, the suspended lien may not, except on the written request of the Government servant concerned, be terminated while the Government servant remains in Government service." It would, thus, appear that every case of substantive appointment, even if it is valid, does not amount to acquisition of lien on the new post and it may be a case of suspended lien and in cases where clause (2) of Rule 70 (a) is applicable such a suspended lien can be terminated by an express order only on the written request of the Government servant concerned. 8. In the instant case we have to first consider the legal effects of the three orders as contained in annexures 5, 9 and 15. It is true that on 5th May 1984 by Annexure-13, the services of the petitioner had been transferred to the Building Construction Department since he held a particular post which was under its administrative control. The establishment of Bihar Bhawan is, no doubt, under the administrative control of that department but so far as the Engineering staff serving in the said department are concerned, their service conditions including recruitment, seniority, promotion etc. are admittedly controlled by the Road Construction Department. It is obvious that the order dated 29th March 1986, Anncxure-15, could not have been issued by the Building Construction Department purporting to confirm the petitiol1er on the post of Resident Engineer retrospectively from 23rd December 1982 and to unilaterally terminate the lien in his parent cadre. are admittedly controlled by the Road Construction Department. It is obvious that the order dated 29th March 1986, Anncxure-15, could not have been issued by the Building Construction Department purporting to confirm the petitiol1er on the post of Resident Engineer retrospectively from 23rd December 1982 and to unilaterally terminate the lien in his parent cadre. As regards the other two orders/notifications, there is nothing on the record to show that at any stage the petitioner had made any written request to terminate his lien in the parent cadre on the basis of which any order of the competent department could have been issued, as provided under rule 71 (b). On the contrary, it would appear from the office order issued by the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner of the Road Construction Department c1ated 26th December 1985, Annexure-14, that the petitioner and others were granted selection grade as admissible to the Junior Engineers of the cadre. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner did not accept the grant of selection grade on the post of Junior Engineer. If the petitioner on his own conduct, accepted his status as member of the Subordinate Service till 25th December 1985, it is difficult to accept the contention that he stood substantively appointed on an ex cadre post of Resident Engineer amounting to termination of his lien in terms of Rule 68 on the post of Junior Engineer in the parent cadre by the said orders. It appears to me that the instant case is covered by sub-clause (2) of clause (a) of Rule 70. In other words, during his tenure of appointment or posting as Resident Engineer, Bihar Bhawan, his lien on the permanent post of Junior Engineer in the Subordinate Service, which he admittedly held on substantive basis, remained suspended under Rule 70. Thus, according to me, it was a case of suspended lie n and not cessation of lien and further in the absence of any express order by the competent department to that effect, as provided by clause (b) of rule 71, the suspended lien could not be deemed to have been terminated. Thus, according to me, it was a case of suspended lie n and not cessation of lien and further in the absence of any express order by the competent department to that effect, as provided by clause (b) of rule 71, the suspended lien could not be deemed to have been terminated. It would, thus, follow that the order as contained in impugned notification dated 26th June 1989 as contained in Annexure-1 by which the Building Construction Department has returned the petitioner's services to his parent cadre in the Road Construction Department does not suffer from any infirmity because the petitioner had all along retained his lien in his parent cadre. The order as contained in the notification dated 30th June 1989, Annexure-2, by which Respondent no. 7, an Assistant Engineer, has been posted as Resident Engineer, Bihar Bhawan, is also in accordance with law. 9. As regards the alternative claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to reckon his promotion and seniority as an Assistant Engineer from 30th November 1981, when his 'ad hoc promotion' against the post of Resident Engineer was purportedly regularised, it has already been noticed above that the post which was later re-designated as Resident Engineer, Bihar Bhawan, was a post of the cadre of Bihar Engineering Service Class II (in short 'Class II Service') meant to be held by an officer of the rank of Assistant Engineer i.e. a member of Class II Service. The rules regarding the method of recruitments to the Class II Service for the Works Department, including the Building and Road Constructions Departments of the State Government are contained in Appendix I of the 2nd Volume of Bihar P.W.D. Code. Rule 1 of the said Rules provides that the members of the Class II Service shall be recruited by direct recruitment in accordance with the rules set out in Part II or by the promotion or transfer of officers already in Government service in accordance with the rules set out in Part III. Part III laying down the procedure of promotion consists of rules 11, 12 and 13 :- “11. (a) The Chief Engineer, shall nominate for appointment to the Service such number of Officers not exceeding one and a half times the number of vacancies to be filled as may be fixed in each year by the Governor. Part III laying down the procedure of promotion consists of rules 11, 12 and 13 :- “11. (a) The Chief Engineer, shall nominate for appointment to the Service such number of Officers not exceeding one and a half times the number of vacancies to be filled as may be fixed in each year by the Governor. The Officers nominated by the Chief Engineer will be arranged in order of preference. (b) The Chief Engineer shall send all papers re1ating to the candidates nominated by him direct to the Commission together with relevant papers of any officer whose super-session is proposed and shall at the same time submit list of such candidates to the Governor. 12. The Commission shall advise the Governor in respect of each candidate nominated whether his qualifications are sufficient and whether his record proves him to have the requisite character and ability for the services. 13. The final selection of officers to be promoted shall be made by the Governor after considering the recommendations made by the Commission under rule 13." It is not in dispute that in December 1976 when the petitioner was posted as Incharge Assistant Engineer, Bihar Bhawan, he was a member of the Subordinate Service in the cadre of Overseer/Junior Engineer. It is also not in dispute that the said post was borne in the cadre of Assistant Engineer i.e. a member of Class II Service. As has been noticed above and as would appear from Annexure-4, while re-designating the post as 'Resident Engineer' a leave reserve post of that cadre had been carved out. It is true that by orders as contained in the notification dated 23rd December 1980 the petitioner was said to have been promoted on ad hoc basis against the said post and later by notification dated 30th November 1981 the so called ad hoc promotion was regularised, but these orders cannot be said to be valid orders of promotion; so as to entitle the petitioner to reckon seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in Class II Service with effect from 30th November 1981. That would be contrary to the express provision as contained in the aforementioned rules governing the procedure of promotion from the Subordinate Engineering Service to the Class II Service. That would be contrary to the express provision as contained in the aforementioned rules governing the procedure of promotion from the Subordinate Engineering Service to the Class II Service. It has to be borne in mind that the position of the petitioner in the cadre of the Junior Engineers was quite low inasmuch as he was considered for promotion as Assistant Engineer in Class II Service only in 1989, although effective from 1987, against the quota of the Junior Engineers. If such a prayer is granted and he is allowed to reckon his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in Class II Service from the aforesaid date; it is bound to adversely affect the rights of third parties those who are admittedly senior to him. It is true that the aforesaid orders of ad hoc promotion were unsuccessfully challenged in writ petitions as mentioned hereinabove but since they were not orders of promotion in the regular cadre they were disposed of with observation that the grievance could be agitated "when the question of promotion in the regular cadre would arise". It is also to be borne in mind that the aforesaid challenge was made by only one person, obviously claiming consideration for being posted as Incharge Assistant Engineer' or later Resident Engineer, and the fact of those writ petitions cannot decide or adversely affect the rights of other members of the Subordinate Engineering Service, who were senior to the petitioner. In my view therefore, the result of the previous writ petitions does not improve the petitioner's case. It is well settled law that an ad hoc promotion does neither create a right in favour of the person concerned nor adversely affect the rights of others. It is a common phenomenon in the Government service that in certain exigencies of situation, even junior employees are posted on higher posts. The orders dated 23rd December 1980 and 30th November 1981 are orders of that nature. If, therefore, this Court refused to interfere with those orders, or for that matter with the order dated 29th March 1986, the petitioner cannot be allowed any benefit on the basis of those orders. In my considered opinion therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to reckon his promotion or seniority as an Assistant Engineer from any previous date. If, therefore, this Court refused to interfere with those orders, or for that matter with the order dated 29th March 1986, the petitioner cannot be allowed any benefit on the basis of those orders. In my considered opinion therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to reckon his promotion or seniority as an Assistant Engineer from any previous date. It would, thus, follow that the notification, Annexure-3, giving the petitioner and others promotion as Assistant Engineers in the Class II Service, after following the procedure laid down in Part III of the aforesaid Recruitment Rules cannot be said to be either irregular or illegal or redundant. 10. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Dharmpal Sinha, J. - I agree.