JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on 16.9.1980 seeking two reliefs ; one for quashing the seniority list dated 3.9.1979 Annx.2 to the writ petition with a direction to respondent No.1 to prepare a fresh seniority list according to law showing him as Senior to respondent No.2 to 10 and second relief for a direction to respondent No.1 not to promote respondents No.2 to 10 without considering him for promotion on the post of Senior Geo-Physicist (Instrumentation)/Executive Engineer (Electronics) on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. 2. The petitioner was initially seeking the aforesaid two reliefs on the ground, inter alia , that the petitioner along with respondents No.2 and 12 were promoted on the post of Junior Geo-Physicist (Instrumentation) by selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 1.3.76 while respondents- No.2 to 10 were appointed by direct recruitment on the post of Junior Geo- Physicist (Instrumentation) with effect from 12.3.76 on the direct recruitment quota post. According to the petitioner, since respondents No.2 to 10 were direct recruitees, therefore, they would be junior to him along with the other promotees respondents No.11 and 12. It is pertinent to mention here that the writ petition was admitted by the learned Single Judge on 1.10.80 and notices were issued to the respondents making the rule returnable within four weeks and on the same day, the following ex parte ad interim order was passed. ''Issue notices returnable within four weeks. Meanwhile respondent No.1 is restrained from promoting the respondents No. 2 to 10 to the post of Senior Geo-Physicist (Instrumentation)/Executive Engineer (Electronics)." 3. Looking into the administrative exigencies immediately after service of notices, respondent No.1 filed a reply to the writ petition along with application for vacation of ex parte stay order granted by the learnedSingle Judge on 1.10.80. After hearing both the parties, learned Single Judge passed a fresh ad interim stay order on 6.2.81 and the said ex parte stay order dated 1.10.80 was modified. The modified ad interim stay order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 6.2.81 after hearing both the parties, is reproduced below for ready reference:- ''6.2.81. Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. B.L. Purohit and Mr. J.L. Purohit, for the Petitioner. Mr. N.P. Gupta, for non-petitioner No.1. Shri Surendra Singh petitioner and his counsel Mr. The modified ad interim stay order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 6.2.81 after hearing both the parties, is reproduced below for ready reference:- ''6.2.81. Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. B.L. Purohit and Mr. J.L. Purohit, for the Petitioner. Mr. N.P. Gupta, for non-petitioner No.1. Shri Surendra Singh petitioner and his counsel Mr. B.L. Purohit had filed an application that the respondent No.1 i.e. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Dehradoon has agreed to provisionally promote the petitioner along with respondent Nos. 2 to 10. The petitioner, therefore, undertakes that in case his writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner is required to be reverted, he will make good the loss to respondent No.1 on account of his provisional promotion. This application is signed by Mr. N.P. Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, who also submits that the petitioner will be provisionally promoted along with respondent Nos.2 to 10. Hence, the ad interim stay order passed by this Court on 1.10.1980 is modified accordingly. Sd/- K.D. Sharma." 4. It is undisputed before me that on the basis of modified ad interim stay order passed by Hon'ble Chief Justice with consent of both the learned counsel, the petitioner along with respondent Nos. 2 to 10 was promoted on the post of Senior Geo. Physicist (Instrumentation) /Executive Engineer (Electronics) on 26.9.83 Annx. 6 to the writ petition w.e.f. the date of issuance of the promotion order dated 26.2.83 with a stipulation that promotion of the candidates is on provisional basis and is subject to the final decision of the Civil Court, Dehradoon including the Appellate and Revisional Courts and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1684/80 pending in this Court and its resultant consequences. An undertaking to this effect was obtained from the aforesaid employees, before promotion was given to them. The order dated 26.2.83 was rectified by respondent No.1 on 8.1.87 making it retrospective w.e.f. 1.1.1983 vide Annx. 6A to the writ petition. It is to be mentioned here that along with promotion order dated 26.2.83, other promotion orders passed on 2.3.83 and 15.4.83 were also given retrospective effect from 1.1.83, which is not relevant for deciding the present lis between the parties. 5. It is borne out from perusal of record that the name of Shri Surendra Singh Chouhan found place at S.No.14 in the order dated 8.1.87 Annx. 5. It is borne out from perusal of record that the name of Shri Surendra Singh Chouhan found place at S.No.14 in the order dated 8.1.87 Annx. 6-A to the writ petition by virtue of which, the initial promotion order dated 26.2.83 was given retrospective effect from the date 1.1.83. Thus, it is apparent on the face of record that vide order dated 8.1.87 Annx.6A, the benefit, which was extended to respondents No.2 to 10 by giving retrospective effect to their provisional promotion order with effect from 1.1.83 was also extended to the petitioner. 6. It is important to mention that the earlier seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers Annx. 2 to the writ petition which was initially challenged by the petitioner, was corrected by respondent No.1 and was substituted by another seniority list Annx.4 to the writ petition showing the petitioner senior to respondents No.2 to 10. Similarly, the seniority list of Executive Engineer (Electronics) was also prepared and was circulated in the department showing the petitioner to be senior to respondents No.2 to 10 vide Annx.5 to the writ petition. 7. It is true that the seniority list of Assistant Engineers dated 3.3.87 Annx.4 to the writ petition and seniority list of Executive Engineers (Electronics) dated 13.7.87 Annx.5 to the writ petition, do not disclose the correct placement of respondents No.2 to 10 showing them to be junior to the petitioner. But in paragraphs 9A and 9C of the amended writ petition, the petitioner has averred that the Commission has corrected the seniority list on 3.3.87 and 13.7.87 vide Annx. 4 and 5 respectively and according to the corrected seniority list, the petitioner became senior to respondents No. 2 to 10 as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electronics) as well as Executive Engineer (Electronics) also. 8. In additional reply to the aforesaid averments made in paragraphs 9A and 9-C of the amended writ petition filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it is stated in reply to paragraph 9-A about issuance of the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers and Executive Engineers (Electronics) Annx. 4 and 5 showing the petitioner as senior to respondents No.2 to 10, are not disputed and stated to be a matter of record in paragraph 1. 4 and 5 showing the petitioner as senior to respondents No.2 to 10, are not disputed and stated to be a matter of record in paragraph 1. Similarly, in paragraph 3 of the additional reply, while giving reply to paragraph 9C of the amended writ petition, respondent No.1 instead of disputing the fact that the petitioner vide Annx.4 and 5 is not shown to be senior on the post of Asstt. Engineer (Electronics) and on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) to respondents No.2 to 10. Respondent No.1 started to give reply about provisional promotion of the petitioner on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) stating therein that the said promotion has been given to the petitioner on account of ad interim stay order granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 9. The aforesaid discussion leads towards an inescapable conclusion that respondent No.1 is not disputing the correctness of the corrected seniority list dated 3.3.87 Annx.4 of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electronics) and seniority list dated 13.7.87 Annx. 5 of Executive Engineers (Electronics) showing the petitioners senior to respondents No.2 to 10 on the post of Asstt. Executive Engineer as well as on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics). The additional reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1, in paragraph 1 to the averments made in paragraph 9A of the amended writ petition amounts admission on the part of respondent No.1 that corrected list of seniority of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electronics) dated 3.3.87 Annx.4 and seniority list of Executive Engineers (Electronics) dated 13.7.87 Annx.5 to the writ petition are correct seniority lists showing the petitioner senior to respondents No.2 to 10 on the aforesaid two posts. 10. A careful scrutiny of paragraph 3 of the additional reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1, in reply to the averments made in paragraph 9C of the amended writ petition filed by the petitioner indicates that respondent No.1 has given an evasive reply to the averments made in paragraph 9C of the amended writ petition, which also amounts admission. In my humble opinion, evasive reply given on behalf of respondent No.1 is paragraph 3 of his additional reply to the averments made in paragraph 9-C of the amended writ petition are evasive reply, which should be treated to be admission on behalf of respondent No.1. In my humble opinion, evasive reply given on behalf of respondent No.1 is paragraph 3 of his additional reply to the averments made in paragraph 9-C of the amended writ petition are evasive reply, which should be treated to be admission on behalf of respondent No.1. In my considered opinion, looking to the representation made by the petitioner and the existing law regarding fixation of seniority, the respondent No.1 has correctly prepared the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers on 3.3.87 Annx.4 and also correctly prepared the seniority list of Executive Engineers (Electronics) on 13.7.87 Annx. 5 to the writ petition. This was the reason why instead of giving a direct reply to the averments made in paragraphs 9A and 9C to the amended writ petition, the former paragraph has been admitted while evasive reply was given to the latter paragraph 9C to the amended writ petition, which also amounts admission on behalf of respondent No.1. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the seniority list dated 3.9.79 Annx.2 to the writ petition showing the petitioner to be junior to respondents No.2 to 10 was wrongly prepared and after taking into account the representation made by the petitioner, the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electronics) and seniority list of Executive Engineer Annx. 4 and 5 respectively were correctly prepared showing the petitioner senior to respondents No. 2 to 10 in corrected seniority list Annx.4 and 5. 12. In the initial writ petition, the second grievance of the petitioner was that since the petitioner is senior to respondents No.2 to 10, therefore, a direction may be issued to respondent No.1 not to promote respondents No.2 to 10 without considering him for promotion on the post of Senior Geo-Physicist (Instrumentation) /Executive Engineer (Electronics) on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. It is not disputed before me that in pursuance of the consent ad interim stay order dated 6.2.81 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the petitioner as well as respondents No. 2 to 10 had been promoted by respondent No.1 from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) on 26.2.83 Annx.6 to the writ petition. It is also not disputed before me that in the initial promotion order Annx. It is also not disputed before me that in the initial promotion order Annx. 6 to the writ petition dated 26.2.83, the petitioner as well as respondents No. 2 to 10 were promoted from the date of issuance of the promotion order i.e. 26.2.83 Annx. 6 to the writ petition. Later on the aforesaid promotion order dated 26.2.83 Annx. 6 to the writ petition was given retrospective effect by the Commission vide order dated 8.1.87 Annx. 6A to the writ petition. By Annx. 6 to the writ petition, giving promotion to the petitioner as well as respondents No. 2 to 10 was made retrospective with effect from 1.1.83 vide Annx. 6A to the writ petition. The benefit of retrospective effect of promotion, which was earlier from the date of its issuance 26.2.83 was made retrospective by rectifying the aforesaid order vide Annx.6A to the writ petition by the Commission on 8.1.87 making it retrospective w.e.f. 1.1.83 and the said benefit of retrospective effect w.e.f. 1.1.83 was extended to the petitioner as well as to the respondents No.2 to 10. 13. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent on the face of record that at the initial stage, when the instant writ petition was filed on 16.9.80, the petitioner was seeking the aforesaid two reliefs mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. As regard the first relief about the seniority of the petitioner, the same has been corrected by the Commission vide Annx.4 and 5 showing the petitioner senior on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electronics) as well as senior on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) to respondents No.2 to 10 for all time to come. Since the first relief sought by the petitioner in the instant writ petition has already been given by correcting the incorrect seniority list Annx.2 to the writ petition by correcting and circulating the correct seniority list Annx.4 and 5, therefore, in my humble opinion, the first grievance put-forth by the petitioner does not survive. Since the first relief sought by the petitioner in the instant writ petition has already been given by correcting the incorrect seniority list Annx.2 to the writ petition by correcting and circulating the correct seniority list Annx.4 and 5, therefore, in my humble opinion, the first grievance put-forth by the petitioner does not survive. In my considered opinion although it would be an empty formality to quash Annx.2 to the writ petition showing the petitioner junior to respondents No.2 to 10 by the Commission but in order to avoid legal complications the incorrect seniority list dated 3.9.79 Annx.2 to the writ petition is hereby quashed and it is held that the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electronics) dated 3.3.87 Annx.4 to the writ petition as well as seniority list of Executive Engineers (Electronics) dated 13.7.87 Annx.5 to the writ petition showing the petitioner senior to respondents No.2 to 10 on the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electronics) as well as Executive Engineerss (Electronics) circulated by the Commission are hereby declared to be valid and an argument contrary to it raised on behalf of respondent No. 1, is not acceptable to me. 14. As regard the second relief sought by the petitioner in his initial writ petition about issuance of a direction to respondent No.1 not to promote respondents No.2 to 10 without considering him for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) has also been granted by the Commission itself vide Annx. 6 as well as Annx.6A to the writ petition. 15. A close scrutiny of Annx.6 as well as Annx.6A to the writ petition reveal that the petitioner has been promoted from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electronics) along with respondents No.2 to 10 on 26.2.83 Annx.6 to the writ petition initially from the date of its issuance but later on, vide Annx.6A dated 8.1.87, the promotion of the petitioner as well as respondents No.2 to 10 was made retrospective w.e.f. 1.1.83. Therefore, in my considered opinion, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and he has been given equal treatment along with respondents No.2 to 10. Therefore, in my considered opinion, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and he has been given equal treatment along with respondents No.2 to 10. In the present controversy, the only question survives for consideration is as to whether the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) which was provisionally given to him along with respondents No.2 to 10 vide Annx.6 to the writ petition on the basis of ad interim consent order passed by the learned Single Judge on 6.2.81 and was made subject to the result of the instant writ petition, can be re-opened. The promotion order was passed long back on 26.2.83 vide Annx.6 to the writ petition not only in favour of the petitioner but also in favour of Respondent No.2 to 10 along with many others who are not impleaded as party in the instant writ petition. On perusal of Annx.5, it is crystal clear that vide order dated 26.2.83, the Commission has promoted 21 persons from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics). Out of them, only 13 persons are impleaded as party in the instant writ petition and rest of 8 promotees are not before this Court. In my humble opinion, it would not be proper to re-open the validity of promotion order of the petitioner and others after a long interval of more than 111/2 years, which may lead to administrative complications in the office of the Commission. 16. There is yet an another reason not to interfere with the provisional promotion order dated 26.2.83 Annx.6 to the writ petition, inasmuch as, the petitioner as well as respondents No.2 to 10 have been further promoted to the higher post i.e. from the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Deputy Superintending Engineer (Electronics). It is borne out from the record that respondents No.2 to 10 have been promoted on the post of Deputy Superintending Engineer (Electronics) on 9.1.87 with retrospective effect along with others w.e.f. 1.1.86 and the petitioner has also been promoted from the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Deputy Superintending Engineer (Electronics) on 17.11.88 with retrospective effect from 1.1.88 vide Annx.10 to the writ petition. 17. 17. A close scrutiny of Annx.10 dated 17.11.88 to the writ petition promoting the petitioner from the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Dy.Superintending Engineer (Electronics) with retrospective effect from 1.1.88 reveals that the subsequent promotion of the petitioner from the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) was not made provisionally, and it was also not made subject to the result of the present writ petition. The petitioner, by the aforesaid order dated 17.11.88 Annx.10 to the writ petition, was placed on probation for a period of one year from the date of assumption of charge on the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics). Nothing has been brought to my notice by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the petitioner has not successfully completed the probation period of one year. Further nothing has been brought to my notice that after completion of the probation period of one year, the petitioner has not been confirmed on the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics). It is true that the aforesaid promotion order dated 17.11.88 Annx. 10 to the writ petition has been made subject to the result of SCA No.514 of 1984 filed by All India SC/ST Welfare Association. In my considered opinion, the stipulation made in paragraph 4 of order dated 17.11.88 Annx.10 to the writ petition, where promotion of the petitioner has been made subject to the result of SCA No. 514/84 filed by All India SC/ST Welfare Association has nothing to do with the present lis between parties. In paragraph 4 of Annx.10, All India SC/ST Welfare Association itself indicates that, that litigation appears to have been filed by All India SC/ST Welfare Association and nothing has been brought to my notice by respondent No.1 how that decision affect the promotion of the petitioner. Be that as it may, in my considered opinion, since the aforesaid promotion of the petitioner from the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) has not been made subject to the result of the present writ petition, therefore, it would not be proper to re-open the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) made by the Commission on 26.2.83 vide Annx.6 to the writ petition. As a matter of fact, after promotion of the petitioner on the higher post of Dy. As a matter of fact, after promotion of the petitioner on the higher post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) on probation for a period of one year from the date of assumption of charge the validity of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) which has been made long back should not be re-opened. Really speaking the lis between the petitioner and respondents regarding promotion on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) after promotion of the petitioner on a higher post from the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) on probation for a period of one year from the date of assumption of charges of the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) will be deemed to be washed off and does not survive. 18. Now, I would like to give one more reason in support of the aforesaid conclusion that the Chapter of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) could not be re-opened after a long interval of 111/2 years, inasmuch as, it must be taken to be settled law that mere illegality or material irregularity is not a ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if this Court is satisfied that material justice has been done between the parties. In the instant case, I am fully satisfied that by order dated 26.2.83 Annx.6 to the writ petition and order dated 8.1.87 Annx.6A to the writ petition promoting the petitioner along with respondent No.2 to 10 by the Commission from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics), material justice has been done between the parties and as such, it would not be proper to interfere with the promotion order of the petitioner dated 26.2.83 Annx.6 and order dated 8.1.87 Annx.6A to the writ petition merely because the petitioner along with others was promoted provisionally. No Service Rule or Regulation applicable to the petitioner along with respondents No.2 to 10 has been brought to my notice which could be said to have been violated in passing the impugned promotion orders Annx.6 and Annx.6A to the writ petition. 19. No Service Rule or Regulation applicable to the petitioner along with respondents No.2 to 10 has been brought to my notice which could be said to have been violated in passing the impugned promotion orders Annx.6 and Annx.6A to the writ petition. 19. The earlier provisional promotion of the petitioner was made subject to the result of the instant writ petition from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) on 26.2.83 Annx.6 to the writ petition making it retrospective on 8.1.87 Annx.6A to the writ petition from 1.1.83 merged into subsequent promotion of the petitioner from the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) on probation for a period of one year from the date of assumption of charge on the said post vide Annx.10 dated 17.11.1988 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1988. It is to be noticed that subsequent promotion on the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) was not made subject to the result of the present writ petition but has been made subject to the result of another litigation seems to have been filed by All India SC/ST Welfare Association, with which the lis between the parties in the present writ petition is not demonstrated to be affected in the said litigation. 20. During pendency of the instant writ petition, some new cause of action has been accrued between the petitioner and respondent No.1 to 12, due to which, the petitioner had moved an application to amend his initial writ petition, which was allowed and reply to the amended writ petition has also been filed on behalf of respondent No.1. 21. Now the Court is called upon to decide the relief sought by the petitioner in the amended writ petition for giving him consequential benefits as a result of correction in the seniority list during pendency of the instant writ petition by the Commission (respondent No.1) on the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) on the ground, inter alia , that since the petitioner was senior to respondents No.2 to 10 according to the corrected seniority list Annx.4 and 5 on both the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electronics) and Executive Engineer (Electronics), therefore, he was entitled to be promoted on the post of Deputy Superintending Engineer (Electronics) along with respondents No.2 to 10 on 9.1.87 with retrospective effect from 1.1.86. 22. 22. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. B.L. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was senior to respondents No.2 to 10 on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electronics) as well as on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics), therefore, he ought to have been promoted on the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) along with respondents No.2 to 10 on 9.1.87 with retrospective effect from 1.1.86. 23. In reply to the aforesaid argument advanced by Mr. B.L. Purohit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 Shri N.P. Gupta urged before me firstly that since the selection made in the year 1987 for promotion from the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Deputy Superintending Engineer (Electronics) of respondents No.2 to 10 was on merit quota and promotion of the petitioner on the said post in the year 1988 was made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness relates to subsequent cause of action, which are alleged to have been accrued during pendency of the present writ petition, therefore, these subsequent developments cannot be adjudicated by this Court. 24. Secondly, Mr. N.P. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also brought to my notice that along with his written submissions, the petitioner himself has filed Annx.17 the notification issued by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 32 of the Oil & Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (Act No.43 of 1959) with the previous approval of the Central Government. According to the said notification, the Rules applicable for promotion of the petitioner are known as ''the Oil & Natural Gas Commission (Recruitment & Promotion) Regulations, 1980 laying down categorically that 100% vacancies of Deputy Superintending Engineer (Electronics) are to be filled by promotion. Out of which, 25% vacancies are to be filled on the basis of merit alone while 75% vacancies are to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. According to Mr. Out of which, 25% vacancies are to be filled on the basis of merit alone while 75% vacancies are to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. According to Mr. N.P. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1, since the petitioner was eligible along with respondents No.2 to 10 to be considered against 25% vacancies of merit quota after completion of three years experience on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) along with respondents No.2 to 10, therefore, he was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee along with respondents No.2 to 10 for promotion on the post of Deputy Superintending Engineer (Electronics) but could not compete on merit with respondents No.2 to 10, hence, respondents No.2 to 10 were promoted on 9.1.87 vide Annx.7 to the writ petition with retrospective effect from 1.1.86 but the petitioner could not be promoted. After completion of five years experience on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) the petitioner earned eligibility to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness was again considered for promotion against 75% quota of seniority-cum-fitness by the Departmental Promotion Committee and after objective consideration, he was found to be suitable to be promoted on the said post and as such, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Deputy Superintending Engineer (Electronics) on 17.11.88 with retrospective effect from 1.1.88 vide Annx.10 to the writ petition. 25. I have been given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar and gone through the relevant material available on record as is borne out from the amended writ petition as well as from the additional reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1. 26. As regard the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 about the accrual of subsequent cause of action during pendency of the instant writ petition regarding dispute relating to promotion from the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) between the parties could not be adjudicated by this Court, is not acceptable to me. 27. The aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of respondent No.1 is not acceptable to me, inasmuch as, in my humble opinion, the law is a living organism, therefore, it must take care of the present need of the society for which, the law and law courts are created. 27. The aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of respondent No.1 is not acceptable to me, inasmuch as, in my humble opinion, the law is a living organism, therefore, it must take care of the present need of the society for which, the law and law courts are created. Thus, this nice academic question about accrual of subsequent cause of action during pendency of the present writ petition should not be allowed to be raised by the courts of law looking into the pendency of large number of writ petitions before this Court awaiting decisions for 14 years. The present writ petition was filed in the year 1980 and it is posted for hearing after 14 years, therefore, denial of adjudication of a relief based on subsequent cause of action would amount travesty of justice. There is yet an another reason not to accept the aforesaid preliminary objection because if it is allowed to be raised the decision on such question may lead to multiplicity of the proceedings by compelling the parties to start second inning of litigation wasting the public time of the court. Now at the end of 20th Century where number of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are pending and awaiting decisions for more than 14 years, such technical and pure academic question having no bearing on merits, should not be allowed to be raised. Such course of action are not suited to social necessity and social opinion of today. Looking into the back-log of the writ petitions pending in this Court and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondent No.1 is hereby repelled being fallacious. 28. Now, I propose to take up and deal with the second contention raised on merit of the case on behalf of respondent No.1 to the effect that since after attaining eligibility of three years experience on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics), the petitioner was considered by the Departmental promotion Committee against 25% quota ear marked to be filled on merits and he was not found suitable and was not able to compete with respondents No.2 to 10, therefore, he could not be promoted on merit quota but immediately after five years experience as Executive Engineer (Electronics),. the petitioner earned an eligibility to be promoted on the post of Dy. the petitioner earned an eligibility to be promoted on the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) by the Departmental Promotion Committee against 75% quota to be filled in on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. He was immediately promoted on the said post on 17.11.88 with retrospective effect from 1.1.88 vide Annx.10 to the writ petition. 29. A conjoint reading of the amended writ petition, additional reply to the amended writ petition filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and Oil & Natural Gas Commission (Recruitment & Promotion) Regulations, 1980 applicable in the case of promotion of the petitioner, revealed that it is true that the promotions were made to the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) on 9.1.87 and separate orders for promotion were issued in favour of each of the promotees strictly in accordance with the Regulations of 1980. It is apparent from perusal of Regulations of 1980 that 100% vacancies on the post of Deputy Superintending Engineer (Electronics) are to be filled in by promotion and out of them, 25% vacancies are to be filled in purely on the basis of merit and rest of 75% vacancies are to be filled in on the basis of seniority-cum- fitness. The eligibility criteria for consideration in merit quota is three years' experience while against the seniority-cum-fitness, five years' experience as Executive Engineer (Electronics) is required. It was for filling up 25% vacancies of merit quota, the Departmental Promotion Committee comprising two Senior Officers of the Commission, in order to avoid injustice to any of the incumbents of the Department, eligible for promotion on the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) declared all of them eligible to be considered on the said post after completion of three years' experience on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) including the petitioner. It is averred in paragraph 4 of the additional reply filed on behalf of the Commission (respondent No.1) that all the eligible candidates including the petitioner were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and whosoever were found suitable, were selected on merit quota and were promoted on 9.1.87 with retrospective effect from 1.1.86. It is also averred in the said paragraph of the additional reply that the petitioner could not compete in the merit along with respondents Nos.2 to 10 and others, therefore, he was not promoted on 9.1.87. It is also averred in the said paragraph of the additional reply that the petitioner could not compete in the merit along with respondents Nos.2 to 10 and others, therefore, he was not promoted on 9.1.87. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner did not file any rejoinder to the additional reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 denying that he was not considered by the D.P.C. along with respondents No.2 to 10 after completion of his three years' experience on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) for promotion on the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics), therefore, it is held that after completion of three years' experience on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics), the petitioner was treated to be eligible to be considered for promotion on the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) under 25% merit quota but he was not found to be suitable and also, was not able to compete with others, therefore, he could not be promoted. The aforesaid act of the Commission is eminently just and proper declaring the petitioner to be eligible after completion of 3 years' experience on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) and the Commission has rightly considered his name under 25% merit quota along with respondents No.2 to 10 and if after consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner could not be able to compete with respondents No.2 to 10 then merely on account of his seniority to respondents No.2 to 10, he has no justification to claim promotion along with respondents No.2 to 10. The promotion on the higher post is not a vested right of the petitioner nor denial of promotion is a punishment within the ambit of Service Jurisprudence. The petitioner has only a vested right after earning objective test of eligibility of 3 years experience on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) to be considered along with respondents No.2 to 10 for promotion on the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) against 25% merit quota and once it is found that the Departmental Promotion Committee considered him and not found suitable for promotion is sufficient, See 1992(2) WLC P-1 Full Bench decision of this Court. 30. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) against 25% merit quota and once it is found that the Departmental Promotion Committee considered him and not found suitable for promotion is sufficient, See 1992(2) WLC P-1 Full Bench decision of this Court. 30. In case of promotion, the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee should not be ordinarily interfered by the courts unless it is vitiated by malafide or bias and an officer would not claim a right to be promoted merely on the basis of satisfactory remarks in his confidential report and merely on the basis of his seniority where promotion is to be made on merit alone. 31. A close scrutiny of the amended writ petition reveals that there is no allegation about malafide or bias either against any member of the D.P.C. or with respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to demonstrate whisper regarding malafide and bias from his written submission, which is not acceptable to me. The allegations of malafide and bias should be specific making the officer against whom mala fide or bias is alleged as a party. The officer against whom mala fide or bias is alleged must get an opportunity to submit his reply and must be allowed to put forth before the court his explanation to such allegations. It is well to remember that it is easy to allege malafide and bias but it is difficult to prove it. In the present case neither there is any allegation about malafide or bias against any one nor any proof in support thereof. 32. A perusal of the material on record further leads towards an irresistible conclusion that immediately after completion of five years' experience on the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics), the petitioner was again considered for promotion on the post of Dy. Superintending Engineer (Electronics) against 75% ear marked quota for seniority-cum-fitness and against that quota, he was promoted on 17.11.88 with retrospective effect from 1.1.88 vide Annx.10 to the writ petition, which was also eminently just and proper and does not require any indulgence of this Court. 33. Mr. B.L. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention on many other points raised in his written submissions filed by him supported by an affidavit. 33. Mr. B.L. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention on many other points raised in his written submissions filed by him supported by an affidavit. In my considered opinion, the point for which no factual foundation has been led in the amended writ petition or in the writ petition and for which, no opportunity has been afforded to respondents No.1 to 12, such point cannot be looked into. If such points are looked into then it will cause a serious prejudice to the other side and secondly, I am of the opinion that such type of pleas raised in the written submissions supported by an affidavit amounts an attempt to raise a point by back-door so that respondents may be taken by surprise. Such attempt on the part of the petitioner is being deprecated. The respondents cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by allowing the petitioner to raise some new points for which no factual or legal foundations are laid by the petitioner either in his writ petition or in the amended writ petition.As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the instant writ petition is partly allowed quashing the seniority list dated 3.9.79 Annx.2 to the writ petition showing the petitioner to be junior to respondents No.2 to 10 and corrected seniority list dated 3.3.87 Annx.4 to the writ petition showing the petitioner as Senior on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electronics) to respondents No.2 to 10 and seniority list dated 13.7.87 Annx.5 to the writ petition showing the petitioner to be senior Executive Engineer (Electronics) to respondents No.2 to 10 are hereby declared to be correct and valid seniority lists and provisional promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) on 26.2.83 Annx.6 to the writ petition making it retrospective vide order dated 8.1.87 Annx.6A to the writ petition w.e.f. 1.1.83 is hereby made absolute and the same is declared to be perfectly legal and valid for the reasons stated above.As regard the amended relief sought by the petitioner treating him to be promoted on the post of Deputy Superintending Engineer (Electronics) with effect from 9.1.87 with retrospective effect from 1.1.86 along with respondents No.2 to 10 against 25% merit quota is hereby dismissed. The promotion of the petitioner dated 17.11.88 made with retrospective effect from 1.1.88 from the post of Executive Engineer (Electronics) to the post of Deputy Superintending Engineer (Electronics) against 75% ear marked quota to be filled in on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness is hereby made absolute.Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs. *******