JUDGMENT RADHA MOHAN PRASAD, J 1. The petitioners in the present writ application have prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.8.1979, as contained in annexure 3, whereby the office order dated 21.5.1979 issued by the Executive Engineer, Water Ways Division, Biharshariff adjusting them against the post of Moharrir has been cancelled. The said order is purported to have been issued under the direction of the Chief Engineer, Bihar, Water Development Corporation and the Superintending Engineer, Tube Well, Patna. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the Government order dated 9.8.1989, communicated by the Dy. Secretary to the Government rejecting their grievance for payment of salary of the post of Moharrir/L.D. clerk and further for issuance of direction to the respondents commanding them to pay arrears of salary for the post of L.D. clerk since 31.5.1979 and 1.6.1979 till 6.4.1988. 2. In short, the facts are that the Petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 joined as Tube Well operators on 2.6.1973 and 1.1.1973 respectively. In the year 1978 the petitioners and others appeared at the test held by the Appointment Committee for adjustment on the post of L.D. clerks. The petitioners and few others were selected for being adjusted on the post of Moharrir vide letter dated 21.5.1979 issued by the Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division, Biharshariff, a photo copy whereof has been annexed as annexure-1. Later, by the aforementioned order dated 10.8.1979 (Annexure-3) the order of their adjustment as Moharrir was cancelled. It appears that against the said order the petitioners flied a writ application in this Court which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 333 of 1988. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in spite of the aforementioned impugned order dated 10.8.1979 the petitioners were allowed to continue as Moharrirs. In this regard learned Counsel referred to the letter of the superintending Engineer as contained in annexure 6. He submitted that in fact, the petitioners continued to serve on the post of Moharrir up to 6.4.1988, i.e. even after filing of the aforesaid writ application. 4. The aforesaid writ application was finally heard and disposed of by judgment and order dated 27th September, 1988 a photo copy whereof has been annexed as annexure 11. He submitted that in fact, the petitioners continued to serve on the post of Moharrir up to 6.4.1988, i.e. even after filing of the aforesaid writ application. 4. The aforesaid writ application was finally heard and disposed of by judgment and order dated 27th September, 1988 a photo copy whereof has been annexed as annexure 11. From the said judgment it appears that a counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which it was specifically stated that the Chief Engineer of the Corporation was also delegated with the powers to pass order of promotion of Assistants. Further, it appears from the said judgment that the fact stated in paragraph 16 of the writ application, wherein it was stated that the order of promotion was passed on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee, which was chaired by the Chief Engineer of the Corporation was not controverted. However, this Court on noticing the fact that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing before passing of the aforementioned order dated 10.8.1979, held that the petitioners were entitled to a hearing before passing of the said order. Accordingly, this Court directed respondent no. 6 to the earlier writ application to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before taking any further action in the matter. This Court also recorded the statement of the learned lawyer for the petitioners that they would be filing a detailed representation before respondent no. 6 in this regard. Thereafter, the petitioners filed representation before the Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, who according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners was respondent no. 4 in the earlier writ application. The said representation has been disposed of by the aforementioned order as contained in letter dated 9.8.1989 (Annexure-12), issued by the Dy. Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department which has also been impugned in the present writ application. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the fact stated in the earlier writ application as well as in the present writ application that the petitioners were selected for adjustment on the post of Moharrir/L.D. clerk by the Selection Committee, chaired by the Chief Engineer is not in controversy. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the fact stated in the earlier writ application as well as in the present writ application that the petitioners were selected for adjustment on the post of Moharrir/L.D. clerk by the Selection Committee, chaired by the Chief Engineer is not in controversy. In this regard he referred to the statement made in paragraph 25 of the present writ application, which reads as follow: – "That the Secretary, Minor Irrigation failed to appreciate that the selection committee by which the petitioners were adjusted on the post of clerks, was chaired by the Chief Engineer and as such he bas proceeded on a wrong basis that the petitioners were adjusted on the post of lower division clerks by the Executive Engineer." 6. Although this writ application was admitted for hearing on 1.7.1992 two years back, but a counter affidavit has been filed only today by serving a copy of the same to the learned Counsel for the petitioners at 10.45 A.M. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has objected to its being entertained as it is a belated counter affidavit by and on behalf of respondent no. 2. It is true that the said counter affidavit cannot be entertained in view of the fact that the petitioners have not been given even 25 hours' notice of the same. However, even from perusal of the said counter affidavit. I find that the aforementioned paragraph 25 of the writ application has been answered in paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows: – "That in reply to the statement made in paragraph no. 25 of the writ application, it is stated that the department always reserve right to review any order of his subordinate officers if appears prima facie erroneous.'' Further, in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit it is only stated that "question of quashing the order of Secretary, Minor Irrigation and this office letter no. 2377 dated 10.8.1989 does not arise as the order to promote the petitioner from the post of Tube Well operator to Lower Division Clerk was irregular, incompetent and beyond jurisdiction of Ex-Engineer. Further more this order was provisional and subject to approval of Superintending Engineer (The Respondent No.3). The matter was examined by Superintending Engineer and Civil Engineer (Respondent No.3 & 4 of this case) and was out right rejected. Further more this order was provisional and subject to approval of Superintending Engineer (The Respondent No.3). The matter was examined by Superintending Engineer and Civil Engineer (Respondent No.3 & 4 of this case) and was out right rejected. The matter was referred to Secretary, Minor Irrigation, who, after examining all aspects of the case, up held the decision of Superintending Engineer and Civil Engineer, Petitioners were accordingly reverted to their previous held posts vide T.O. No. 2377 dated 10.8.1989 and since then they are regularly doing their duty on the post prior to their promotions and are receiving their salary regularly. As such payment of any arrear of any kind on the accounts does not arise." 7. It has been submitted by Mr. Sharma learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the promotion/appointment of the petitioners was not irregular. According to him the said appointments were made according to the Government policy decision and after complying with all the formalities including selection by a duly constituted selection committee of which the Chief Engineer was the Chairman. The said fact has never been controverted in counter affidavit filed on behalf of official respondents earlier or even in the present case. 8. On the other hand learned Counsel for the State with reference to the aforesaid statements made in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit has contended that as the order to promote the petitioner from the post of Tube Well operator to L.D. clerk was irregular, incompetent and beyond jurisdiction of the Executive Engineer, no legal right accrued in the petitioners which case been forced by a writ. He also submitted that even the said order was provisional and subject to approval of the Superintending Engineer (Respondent No.5) who out right rejected the said order, which has been upheld by the Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department also. Thus according to the learned State Counsel, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. 9. From the office order, whereby the services of the petitioners were adjusted as Moharrir/L.D. clerks, I do not find that their said appointments were made subject to approval of the Superintending Engineer or the Civil Engineer. It is true that in annexure-1 it is mentioned that the adjustment of the petitioners as Moharrir was in anticipation of the final decision, but nothing is mentioned as to who had to take the said final decision. It is true that in annexure-1 it is mentioned that the adjustment of the petitioners as Moharrir was in anticipation of the final decision, but nothing is mentioned as to who had to take the said final decision. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the official respondents nothing has been brought on the record to show that who is the competent authority in anticipation of whose approval, the aforementioned order (Annexure-1) was issued. 10. However, I have already noticed above, that the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier case was that the Chief Engineer had been delegated with the power to pass the order of promotion of the Assistants and that the Selection Committee, in which the petitioners were selected for adjustment/appointment as L.D. assistant was chaired by the Chief Engineer. Thus, I find that the reason assigned in the order contained in Annexure-2 for canceling the order of adjustment/appointment of the petitioners as Moharrirs (Vide Annexure-3) that the Executive Engineer was not the competent authority for appointment/promotion/ adjustment against the post of Moharrirs, is nonest. In fact the appointment/adjustment of the petitioners as Moharrir was done on the basis of their selection by a Selection Committee, headed by the Chief Engineer, who admittedly was the competent authority to make appointment. Accordingly, the orders contained in Annexure 3 and 12 can not be sustained and the same are quashed. 11. In the result the writ application is allowed, but in the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.