Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In the present writ application, the petitioner prays for quashing of the criteria fixed for consideration within 3% special quota, as contained in the order issued by the Joint Secretary contained in human Resources Departments memo No.4036 dated 22nd December, 1992 (annexure 11) and the revised seniority list of Junior Engineers attached thereto as well as the order of promotion pursuant to the said seniority list made during the pendency of the writ application by notification dated 6th april.1993, contained in annexure 16 to the amendment petition filed in behalf of the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated the facts in the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Bihar Subordinate Engineering Cadre on the post of Junior Engineer on the temporary basis vide the order dated 25-1-79 contained in annexure 1 and he joined as such on 2-2-79. Later, on 13-1-87 his service as Junior Engineer was regularised on the basis of the recommendation of the Bihar Service Commission in the light of the Bihar Ordinance no.32/86 dated 29th October, 86, vide order, contained in memo No.289 dated 13-1-87 (annexure 2 ). The Government in the Public Works Department, vide resolution No.947 dated 17-1-79 (annexure 3) resolved to fix quota for promotion in the Bihar Engineering Service Class II for such Junior engineers of the works Department, who in course of his service acquired degree in Engineering or passed its equivalent examination. By the said resolution the State Government decided that 3% of the enhanced cadre of the Asst. Engineers from 31-12-73 as against the prescribed quota meant for appointment by direct recruitment on the post of Asst. Engineers in the Bihar Engineering service Class II shall be treated as promotion quota for such junior Engineers who have obtained degree in Engineering or has passed the equivalent examination. Further it provides that in case as per the mathematical calculation number of such Junior Engineers are found to be less or such Junior Engineers are not available for promotion, the Govt. will be entitled to relax the said quota and such vacancy shall not be carried forward to future years and be filled by direct recruitment for which the Government decision shall be obtained before making the appointment. will be entitled to relax the said quota and such vacancy shall not be carried forward to future years and be filled by direct recruitment for which the Government decision shall be obtained before making the appointment. It also provides that the said benefit for promotion of such Junior Engineers shall be available only if one acquires the qualification during his errvice career and has completed five years of minimum service. As per the said resolution the promotion as against the said quota is to be made on the basis of inter se seniority which shall be determined after obtaining the opinion of the Personnel Department. 3. The petitioner was given first time bond promotion, vide order dated 27-8-90, contained in annexure 6 with effect from 22-1-89. The petitioner in the meantime, had applied for grant of leave of three years for higher studies which was granted vide order dated 23-8-89 contained in annexure 7. The petitioner passed the final examination of the degree of B. A. in the first Division in 1992 from Nagpur University. A photo copy of the Provisional certificate in this regard, which was granted from the University on 30-7-92 has been annexed as annexure 8 to the writ application. Vide letter dated 30-4-92, contained in annexure 9 the biodata of such Junior Engineers who during his service tenure acquired the qualification of degree in Engineering or A. M. I. E. were called for by the Government and the petitioner claims to have furnished the details on 17-8-92 vide annexure 10. On 10-9-92 a tentative list of such Junior Engineers was published and the same was finalised vide impugned list dated 22-12-92, contained in annexure 11/1. According to the petitioner, no fixed criteria was adopted in preparing the said list, contained in annexure 11/1 and he was placed in the said list even below his juniors. He filed representation objection on 12-1-93, but when he learnt that the cases for promotion were being considered on the basis of the said list, he filed the present writ application 11-3-93 which was for the first time heard for admission on 29-3-93 when it was adjourned for 15th April 93 to enable the learned G. P. to take in instructions in the matter. Further this Court passed order that "any action taken by the respondents will be subject to the result of this writ application. Further this Court passed order that "any action taken by the respondents will be subject to the result of this writ application. " Later, at the request of the g. P.1 the matter was again adjourned for 6tb May, 93. In the meantime, as the order of promotion contained in annexure 16 was issued on 6-4-93 during the pendency of the writ application an amendment application was filed annexing the said order as annexure 16, which has also been impugned in the present writ application. 4. A petition for intervention has also been filed on behalf of Arun kumar Sinha, Anil Kumar, Manoj Kumar Pathak, Rajesh Ratnakar, Krishna kumar Madhukar and Mahanand Singh, who during the pendency of the writ application have been given promotion vide annexure 16. This Court, while admitting the application allowed the said amendment petition as well as the petition for intervenor and further directed for continuance of the aforementioned interim order during the pendency of the writ application. Later, by order of Hon ble the Chief Justice, the case was fixed for hearing and accordingiy. it has been heard. 5. Mr. Mukhopadhya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent intervenor has raised a preliminary objection that the present writ application is not maintainable as the person who is affected by quashing of the impugned list annexure 11 and/or the impugned order of promotion annexure (16)have not been made party and thus, according to him, the application suffers for non-joinder of necessary party and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Narendra Pd. , learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in view of the fact that the petitioner is challenging the policy/criteria for determination of seniority consequent upon which, the impugned list as well as the notification of promotion have been issued, the persons going to be adversely affected are not necessary parties and non-joinder of such employees is not fatal to the writ petition. In this regard he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of g. M. S. C. Rly V/s. A. V. R. Sidhanti ( AIR 1974 SC 1755 ). In this regard he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of g. M. S. C. Rly V/s. A. V. R. Sidhanti ( AIR 1974 SC 1755 ). The relevant passage of the said decision reads as follows : as regards the second objection, it is to be noted that the decisions of the Railway Board impugned in the writ petition contain administrative rules of general application, regulating absorption in permanent departments, fixation of seniority pay etc. of the employees of the erstwhile Grain Shop department. The Respondents-petitioners are impeaching the validity of those policy decisions on the ground of their being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The proceeding are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory rule regulating seniority of Government servant is assailed In such proceedings the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought, and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. In the present case, the relief is claimed only against the Railway which has been impleaded through its representative. No list or order fixing seniority of the petitioners vis a vis particular individuals pursuant to the impugned decision is being challenged. The employees who were likely to be affected as a result of the re-adjustment of the petitioners seniority in accordance with the principles laid down in the Boards decision of October, 16, 1952 were, at the most proper parties and not pccessary parties, and their non-joinder could not be fatal to the writ petition. " 7. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Janardhana V/s. Union of India and others (AIR 1989 SC 769)wherein the Supreme Court dealing with similar aspect held that the writ petition claiming seniority not against any individual petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of absence of direct recruits before the Court. The relevant passage of this decision reads as follows : ". . . that relief is sought only against Union of India and the concerned ministry and not against any individual nor any seniority is claimed by any one individual against another particular individual and therefore, even if technically the direct recruits were not before the court, the petition is not likely to fail on that ground. . . that relief is sought only against Union of India and the concerned ministry and not against any individual nor any seniority is claimed by any one individual against another particular individual and therefore, even if technically the direct recruits were not before the court, the petition is not likely to fail on that ground. The contention of the respondents for this additional reason must also be negatived. " 8. From the facts narrated above, I find that in fact, the petitioner is not asking any relief directly against any individual. The relief is sought only against the State of Bihar and not against any individual nor any seniority is claimed against any particular individual and therefore; even if the persons are going to be affected one way or the other by the decision in the present writ application, in my opinion, they are not necessary parties and non-joinder of such persons as party respondents cannot be fatal to the writ application. Those employees at the most can be said to be proper parties but not necessary parties. However, as I find that in the present case most of persons, who might be affected one way or the other are represented by. the learned counsel for the intervenor and further as I find that the state is also defending its policy by filing a detailed counter affidavit as well as by the assistance of the learned G. P.1 I do not find any substance in the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Mukhopadhya and accordingly, the same is rejected. 9. The Government resolution contained in annexure-3 gives special quota to the Junior Engineers who have enhanced their qualification during their service period for consideration of their cases for promotion against 3%of the quota fixed for being filled up by direct recruitment apart from 35% of the General quota and for which the Government has fixed five years service as minimum qualifying period. Thus, it has been contended by Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there cannot be any rationale to differentiate between Junior Engineers who qualified for promotion within five years and those who qualified after five years. Thus, it has been contended by Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there cannot be any rationale to differentiate between Junior Engineers who qualified for promotion within five years and those who qualified after five years. He submitted that by said order (annexure 11) which does not even purport to be a Government order, an attempt has been made to modify the Government resolution as contained in annexure 3 which does not lay down any such criteria for fixation of the seniority of the Junior Engineers acquiring minimum qualification while in service for promotion as Asst. Engineer in B. E. S. Class II service against the aforementioned 3% quota. Thus, Mr. Prasad contended that annexure 11 besides being contrary to the Government resolution is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that from perusal of the list contained in annexure 11/1 it would appear that no fixed criteria has been followed. In the cases of some persons the principle laid down in annexure 3 has been followed, whereas in some cases the criteria laid duwn in the impugned order (annexure 11) has been adopted for preparing the list. He also contended that there can not be any justification for laying down the impugned criteria, specially in the background of the fact that the vacancies which are being sought to be filled as against the said quota is of order dated 1-4-1990. In this regard, he referred to the order dated 18-6-91 determining different vacancies as contained in annexure 14 in which as against the said qubta the vacancies shown are 18 in number of 1-4-1990. He pointed out that all the persons, who have been shown above the petitioner in the said list who were junior to him in the original seniority list being appointees of much later dates became eligible by virtue of acquiring requisite qualification and completing their five years service only in the year 1992. Accordingly, he submitted that in view of the settled rule that the quota is to be determined every year and the promotion has to be made as against the same, there cannot be any justification/nexus to give them march over the petitioner only because they acquired qualification earlier, but admittedly became eligible after occuring of the vacancies in the year 1990. On the other band, Mr. On the other band, Mr. Mukhopadhya, learned Counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the pannel and/ or seniority prepared for the purpose of promotion to the higher post on the basis of date of eligibility has reasonable nexus, because it is well settled that for the purpose of promotion an eligibility can be determined and the cases are to be considered only of such persons who are eligible irrespective of their position in the seniority list. Thus, according to the learned Counsel for the intervenor, the order contained in annexure 11 laying down the criteria is not arbitrary and is in consonance with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 10. Learned G. P. also adopts the above submissions made on behalf of the intervenors. 11. Before considering the validity of the said policy or the criteria, it would be useful to quote the same hereunder for ready reference : 12. From reading of the said criteria obviously distinction has been made for determining seniority between junior Engineers acquiring the requisite qualification within the period of five years of his service which is the minimum period for being eligible to be considered for promotion as against the aforementioned 3% quota and the junior Engineers acquiring qualification after the said period of five years. In the earlier case the inter se seniority shall remain as per the service-seniority, whereas in the latters case the seniority has to be determined with reference to the date of acquisition of the qualification namely, A. M. I E. or degree in Engineering. Thus, in short the controversy arising in the present writ application relates to determination of seniority amongst the diploma holders. Junior Engineers who acquired the degree of graduation in Engineering or A. M. I. E. which is treated to be equivalent to the degree during the period of service qualifying them for promotion in five years to the post of Asst. Engineer. None of the learned Counsel for the parties have brought to my notice any specified rule goveining such situation except the Government resolution as contained in annexure 3, in which the criteria laid down are as follows : 13. It is also not disputed that the general rule which being followed for determining the seniority amongst the junior Engineers is the length of service in the cadre. Further, neither Mr. It is also not disputed that the general rule which being followed for determining the seniority amongst the junior Engineers is the length of service in the cadre. Further, neither Mr. Mukhopadhya, nor the learned state Counsel has referred to any rule contemplating any equivalence in period of service with the qualification of acquiring Degree of graduation in engineering. Thus, in my opinion, in view of the Government resolution, contained in annexure 3 which is the only guiding factor for determination of seniority it is the Junior Engineers having obtained a degree in Engineering while in service shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Asst. Engineers in five years of service and/or more against the aforementioned 3% posts which have been ear-marked for such category of persons. 14. Mr. Mukhopadhya also ventured to submit that it was necessary to obtain the degree of Engineering for being qualified for promotion to the post of Asst. Engineer within five years and thus, the persons obtaining the degree within the said period has formed a separate class than the persons obtaining degree later. Thus, according to him, in the case of latter, the Government has rightly decided to determine their seniority on the basis of the date of acquisition of the qualification of degree in engineering and not on the basis of service seniority. In support of this he tried to place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of n. Suresh Nathan V/s. Union of India (AIR 1992 S. C.564) wherein the dispute was whether a diploma holder Junior Engineer who obtained a degree while in service becomes eligible for appointment as Asst. Enginner by promotion on completion of three years service including therein the period of service prior to obtaining the degree or the three years service as a degree holder for this purpose is to be reckoned from the date he obtains the degree. The central Administrative Tribunal held that the Diploma holders were entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Asst. Engineers on par with other degree holder junior Engineers taking due note of their total length of service rendered in the grade of Junior Engineers and that such a consideration should be along side other Junior Engineers who might have acquired the necessary degree qualification earlier than the applicants, while holding the post of junior Engineers. Engineers on par with other degree holder junior Engineers taking due note of their total length of service rendered in the grade of Junior Engineers and that such a consideration should be along side other Junior Engineers who might have acquired the necessary degree qualification earlier than the applicants, while holding the post of junior Engineers. The Supreme Court while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Tribunal held as follows : "in our opinion, this appeal has to be allowed. Three is sufficient material including the admission of respondents diploma holders that the practice followed in the department for a long time was that in the case of diploma holder junior Engineers who obtained the degree during service, the period of three years service in the grade for eligibility for promotion as degree holders commenced from the date of obtaining the degree and the earlier period of service as diploma holders was not counted for this purpose. This earlier practice was clearly admitted by the respondents diploma holders in para 5 of their application made to the Tribunal at page 115 of the paper book. This also appears to be the view of the Union Public Service Commission contained in their letter dated December 6, 1968 extracted at pages 99-100 of the paper book in the counter affidavit of respondents 1 to 3. The real question, therefore, is whether the construction made of this provision in the rules on which the past practice extending over and long period is based on untenable to require up setting it. If the past practice is based on one of the possible constructions which can be made of the rules then upsetting the same now would not be appropriate. It is in this perspective that the question raised has to be determined. " 15. If the past practice is based on one of the possible constructions which can be made of the rules then upsetting the same now would not be appropriate. It is in this perspective that the question raised has to be determined. " 15. From the aforementioned quotation it would appear that the court on consideration of the recruitment Rules applicable in the said case held that the entire scheme indicates that the period of three years service in the grade required for degree holders according to the rule as a qualification for promotion in that category must mean three years service in the grade as degree holder and accordingly, it was held that the period of three years can commence only from the date of obtaining , the degree and not earlier and that the service in the grade as a Diploma holder prior to obtaining the degree may not be counted as service in the grade the service as a degree holder. 16. In my opinion, the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case, where it is not in dispute that there is no such rule, which provides for ignoring the services rendered prior to obtaining the degree in Engineering. In fact, clause cha of the Govt. resolution contained in annexure 3 provides that for the promotion as against the aforesaid quota shall be made on the basis of their seniority. Mr. Prasad in support of bis contention placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of N B. Joshi V/s. Satish Kumar Pandey (AIR 1993 S. C.267)in which the Supreme Court held the length of service to be a criteria for promotion in absence of rule governing the aspect in such cases and the length of service should be determined on the basis of appointment on the post and not from the date of acquiring qualification during service. In the said case also 50% of the post of Asst. Engineer had to be filled by direct recruitment of persons having degree of graduation in Engineering. In the said case also 50% of the post of Asst. Engineer had to be filled by direct recruitment of persons having degree of graduation in Engineering. The minimum 50% of the vacant post were to be filled by promotion from the lower cadre of Sub-Engineer and draftsman, out of the 50% 35%, quota was fixed for diploma holders, who have completed 12 years of service on the post of Sub-Engineer, 5% quota for draftsmen who have completed 12 years of service and remaining 10% which was under consideration, had been kept for such Sub-Engineers, who during continuation of the service obtained a degree of graduation or equivalent in Engineering and in that case the period of service was reduced from 12 years to 8 years. The Supreme Court while distinguishing the decision in N. Suresh NatHon s case (supra) where the rule contemplated enquivalence of the period of service with the qualification of acquiring degree of graduation in Engineering making three years service in the grade equivalent to* degree in Engineering held that in the rule with which the case was governed, clearly provided that the diploma holders having obtained a degree of Engineering while continuing in service as sub-Engineer shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Asst. Engineer in 7 years of service as against 10% quota earmarked for such category of persons. The relevant passage which have been referred to by Mr. Prasad from the supreme Court decision are as follows : "if we accept the contention of Mr. Ashok Sen, it would defeat the very scheme and the purpose of giving incentive of adding educational qualification by diploma holder while continuing in iservice in case the period of 8 years is counted from the date of obtaining graduate degree in engineering. It may be noted that no such argument was raised even from the side of the respondents before the Tribunal. If such interpretation as now sought to be advanced by Mr. Ashok Sen, learned senior Counsel is accepted, no relief could have been granted to the respondent satish Kumar Pandey. We would illustrate the above position on admitted facts that Sri Satish Kumar Pandey bad joined as sub-Engineer on 23-8-1987. In that situation, Mr. Satish Kumar becomes eligible only in May, 1995 and he could be considered as eligible in December, 1989 when these Sub-Engineers were considered for promotion as Asst. We would illustrate the above position on admitted facts that Sri Satish Kumar Pandey bad joined as sub-Engineer on 23-8-1987. In that situation, Mr. Satish Kumar becomes eligible only in May, 1995 and he could be considered as eligible in December, 1989 when these Sub-Engineers were considered for promotion as Asst. Engineers Even otherwise if this period of 8 years is counted from the date of accuiring decree then this incentive of adding the qualification during the continuation of service and getting the advantage of acceleration in promotion in 8 years would for all practical purposes become nugatory and of no benefit. " (Para 12) "it is further important to note that in the cases before us, the government itself has been adopting the practice and making promotion as contended by the appellant and we are upholding such practice. In N. Suresh NatHon s case (AIR 1922 SC 564)also this Court had upheld the practice followed by the Government it is also well settled principle of service jurisprudence that in the absence of any specific rule, the seniority amongst persons holding similar posts in the same cadre has to be determined on the basis of the length of service and not on any other fortuitous circumstances. " (Para 13) "in these circumstances mentioned above, we are clearly of the view that the Tribunal was wrong in determining the seniority from the date of acquiring degree of engineering and it ought to have been determined on the basis of length of service on the post of sub-Engineer and the State Government was right in doing so and there was no infirmity in the orders passed by the Government. . . 17 In the present case also the rule contained in the Government resolution at annexure 3 clearly contemplated that benefit of promotion to the post of Asst. Engineer against the aforementioned 3% quota shall be available to all junior Engineers including temporary, who during his service tenure acquires degree in Engineering or its equivalent and had completed 5 years of minimum service There is nothing in the said rule which contemplates equivalence of any period of service with the qualification of acquiring degree in Engineering. 18. Engineer against the aforementioned 3% quota shall be available to all junior Engineers including temporary, who during his service tenure acquires degree in Engineering or its equivalent and had completed 5 years of minimum service There is nothing in the said rule which contemplates equivalence of any period of service with the qualification of acquiring degree in Engineering. 18. From the perusal of the contents of the said rules it appears that the Junior Engineers having obtained degree of Engineering or its equivalent while continuing in service shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Asst. Engineer if they complete five years of minimum service, as against the quota mentioned above. For the first time by the impugned order contained in annexure 11 a distinction is sought to be made between the Junior Engineers acquiring degree in Engineering or its equivalent AMIE within five years with that of Junior Engineers acquiring the same qualification after five years of his service for which I do find any justification. In my opinion, by the rule contained in Government resolution (annexure 3) the incentive of adding the qualification during continuation of service has been provided for getting advantage of acceleration in promotion in five years. Thus, If the validity of sub-clause Ka and Kha of annexure 11is upheld, the object shall stand frustrated and for all practical purposes the incentive will become nugatory and of no avail. For example, the case of the petitioner even though he was appointed as Junior Engineer on 2-2-79 i. e.8 years before several other persons including Sri Baban Prasad Singh at Sl. No.34 who was appointed on 29-1-87 but he acquired the degree in Engineering in July, 1992, whereas Sri singh acquired the degree within on year of his appointment but as he acquired the degree in Engineering after 5 years his case shall not be considered with babap Singh, who acquired degree in Engineering within one year of his appointment, as in his case the criteria fixed in clause (Ka) shall be applicable and in the case of petitioner, criteria Kha will be applied even though both passed degree in Engineering before the consideration of the case for promotion as against the aforementioned 3% quota was taken up even the aforementioned criteria has not been adopted in preparing the seniority list (annexure 11/1), rather different criteria has been adopted for different sets of persons. For example Sl.7 Amarendra Pathak, who was appointed on 16-1-87 acquired qualification on 6-8-88 and whose case comes in first criteria, but he has been placed below sl.1 Akhilesh Kumar Singh who joined service on 27-2-79 and acquired qualification after Shri Pathak on 4-10-89, yet he has been shown senior or Shri Pathak. 19. Another example is of sl.8 Md. Ijaj who joined service on 16-1-87, acquired qualification on 25-3-90 i. e. within five years has been pieced below sl.5 Nirbhay Kumar Jha, who joined service on 7-2-79, but acquired qualification after him in April, 1991. In the case of Sl.42 Srinivas pd. , he joined service on 12-3-87, acquired qualification on 7-8-91, has been placed below sl.36 Sri Manoj Kumar Vidyarthi, merely because Sri Vidyarthi acquired qualification about a week earlier, even though the cases of both are governed by the first criteria and in the merit list Srinivas Pd, was placed at Sl.321. 20. Thus, from no angle annexure 11/1 can be held to be justified and valid. However, in fixing the criteria as contained in annexure 11. I do not find any reasonable nexus for the object to be achieved. The object as already stated earliar is to give incentive of adding the qualification during continuation of service and thereby getting the advant age of acceleration in promotion. 21. I do not find any justification, nor any justification has been pleaded either by the intervenor respondents or by the state officials respondents as to how in the case of persons acquiring degree in Engineering within 5 years of his service, the seniority shall be maintained as per the service seniority, whereas in the case of persons acquiring qualification after 5 years, the seniority shall be determined with reference to date of acquisition of qualification. It is true that a classification on the basis of educational qualification made with a view of achieving administrative efficiency is permissible but the same cannot be said to rest on any fortuitous circumstances. It is true that a classification on the basis of educational qualification made with a view of achieving administrative efficiency is permissible but the same cannot be said to rest on any fortuitous circumstances. It is also true that the rule providing the qualification for making a person eligible for promotion to the exclusion of others, who may even be senior is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but at the same time, in my opinion, on one who achieves the qualificatian and becomes eligible can be treated differently in the matter of fixation of seniority, which is one of the important factors for consideration of the cases for promotion. 22. Accordingly, I hold that the criteria fixed by annexure 11 has no rationale and consequently, the list purported to have been prepared on that basis also cannot be sustained, the same being wholly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, I find that annexure 3 which was a Government resolution could not have been superseded by the order contained in anneuure 11, issued by the Joint secretary of the Department specially when it does not even purport to have been issued by the State Government Thus, the said order as well as the list attached thereto cannot be sustained and the same are quashed, Consequently, the order of promotion, which was made during the pendency of the writ application and after interim order was passed on 29-3-93 that "any action taken by the respondents will be subject to the result of this writ application" which is also based on annexure 11 and 1 J/l as contained in annexure 16 cannot be sustained and the same is also quashed. The respondents are directed to prepare a fresh list in terms of the Government resolution, contained in annexure 3 of all such persons, who acquire/acquires the degree in Engineering or its equivalent before the case for promotion is taken up for consideration on the basis of the service seniority and accordingly consider their cases for promotion. 23. In the result, the writ application is allowed with the directions aforementioned, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs, writ Allowed.