These two cases involves same and similar question of facts and laws and accordingly these were heard together and these two cases are finally disposed of with the following common judgment and order. 2. In both the cases the petitioners made a prayer for a direction to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to promote them to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer with retrospective effect i.e. on and from 9.10.98 on which date their junior officers/private respondents have been given promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer and for placing them as seniors to the private respondents in the said category of service as Assistant Accounts Officers. 3. In Writ Petition (C) No.67 (SH) of 1999, the writ petitioner 1 in number sought for quashing of the recommendation of the DPC concerned as well as the impugned appointment order dated 9.10.98 by contending inter alia, that petitioner Shri Haroldson Dympep, initially joined his service in Meghalaya State Electricity Board herein after referred to as MeSEB, as Assistant Divisional Accountant on 1.6.79 and promoted to the post of Junior Divisional Accountant on 13.11.82 and thereafter he was given promotion to the post of Divisional Accounts Officer/Divisional Accountant after successfully qualifying in the examination held for the purpose and that is the post he is presently holding, and in the related inter-se seniority list of the Divisional Accounts Officer/Divisional Accountant circulated by the MeSEB authority, his name appears at serial No.4 and, as the person at serial No. 1 has already retired, he is No.3 in the related seniority list, but, the private respondents as they are juniors to him their names appeared after the petitioner. Likewise, the petitioners 19 in numbers in WP (C) 170 (SH) of 1999 as their names appear at serial No. 6, 8, 10,11, 12,14,21,22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 39 in the related seniority list, some of them are senior to the private respondent Nos. 4 to 18 whose names appear at serial No.9,23,31, 19,20, 39,17, 14,13,27, 30,5 and 7 in the inter-se seniority list and the particulars of it finds its place at Annexure 1 - document appended to the writ petition. 4 to 18 whose names appear at serial No.9,23,31, 19,20, 39,17, 14,13,27, 30,5 and 7 in the inter-se seniority list and the particulars of it finds its place at Annexure 1 - document appended to the writ petition. It is also the case of the petitioners that the post of Assistant Accounts Officer is a promotional post from the feeder post of Divisional Accounts Officer/Divisional Accountant as per related rules and procedures followed by the MeSEB. The said posts of Assistant Accounts Officer was to be filled up on the basis of seniority cum merit from amongst the illegible Divisional Accounts Officers/ Divisional Accountants prior to 14.8.97 on which date the new regulation namely the Meghalaya State Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1996, herein after referred to as Regulation, 1996 was published. But the respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 have filled up these 15 vacant posts of Assistant Accounts Officer in terms of the Regulation, 1996, which was inoperative at the relevant time of the holding of the related DPC or, in other words, selection process for such appointments. 4. Mrs T. Yangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the appointment of the private respondents to the post of the Assistant Accounts Officer was done not in accordance with the related service rules which was in force at the time of the creation of the post of Assistant Accounts Officer but such selection and appointment was done in terms of the said Regulation, 1996, which was not in operation at the relevant time for want of necessary authority as required under section 79A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and as such, the impugned order dated 9.10.98 promoting the junior officers to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer is null and void. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners preferred appeal in the form of representation to the Chairman of the MeSEB as they are aggrieved by the order of promotion, but the authority concerned did not pay heed to thus depriving the legitimate rights of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. 5. At the hearing, Mr. 5. At the hearing, Mr. SR Sen, learned senior counsel for the respondents MeSEB, submitted that the said Regulation, 1996, was framed by the Board in exercise of their power under section 79 (c) read with section 79 (k) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the said Regulation 1996, came into force from the dale of the publication in the Meghalaya Gazette on 14.8.97 and the authority concerned has placed the Regulation 1996, before the State Legislature as required under section 79A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It is also argued by the learned senior counsel, that the inter-se seniority has been fixed under Rule 15 of the ASEB Subordinate Accounts Services Regulation, adopted by the MeSEB. As the said regulation was framed by the composite ASEB in the year 1969, as such the question of even placing the said Regulation, 1996, before the Legislative Assembly under section 79 A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, does not arise. According to Mr. Sen, the promotion of the private respondents was made on the basis of the merit cum seniority as provided under Regulation 37 (4) (ii), 3 (a) of the Regulation, 1996, and the DPC considered the markings under the system of Annual Performance Appraisal Report from 1995-97 as well as standardisation marking in respect of ACRs of previous years. The authority namely the Departmental Promotion Committee, considered the case of the petitioners as well as the private respondents and found that the performance of the private respondents were better than the petitioners and according to the principle of merit cum seniority, as well as the related Regulation, 1996, the private respondents were given promotion to the posts of Assistant Accounts Officer under the impugned appointment order dated 9.10.98. The learned senior counsel also argued that, there is no infirmity or irregularity or illegality in the impugned appointment order as the private respondents were rightly given promotion in terms of the related service Rules and as such, no interference of it is called for, and that the petitioners have no right to claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer wef 9.10.98. 6. 6. Now, this Court is to see and examine as to whether these writ petitioners have enforceable legal rights in the instant case or not, and, whether the selection and appointment made by the authority concerned particularly the respondents 1, 2 and 3 in the instant case, in the matter of appointment on promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer to and in favour of the private respondents is justified or tenable in the eye of law or not. 7. It is not disputed that all the 15 vacant posts of Assistant Accounts Officer, occurred prior to the publication of Regulation, 1996 on 14.8.97 in the Gazette of Meghalaya. This fact is also supported by the related office order dated 19.7.97 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer of the MeSEB, as in Annexure B to the additional affidavit filed by the MeSEB on 28.6.2000 wherein nine other posts of Assistant Accounts Officer were created. This fact was also not disputed by the official-respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. But the said official respondents contended that these vacant posts have been filled up as per Regulation, 1996. According to me, as these vacancies for the post of Assistant Accounts Officers, the promotional posts occurred prior to the operation and enforcement of Regulation, 1996, those posts were/are to be filled up in accordance with old rules or the related rules which was in force at the relevant time. It is an admitted position that the service conditions of those Assistant Accounts Officers, Senior Accounts Officers etc, were governed by related rules prior to the publication of the Regulation 1996, hence, the official respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, ought to have filled up those 15 vacant posts of Assistant Accounts Officers in terms of the related Rules prevailing at the relevant period i.e. on the basis of seniority cum merit and not on the revised rule of merit cum seniority under Regulation, 1996 which was not in force at the time of holding of the related DPC/selection process. At this stage, I hereby recall the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the State of Andhra Pradesh & others vs. Sreenivasa Rao & others, reported in (1983) 3 SCC 285, wherein the Apex Court held thus : "We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules.” It is also an admitted position that the said Regulation. 1996, was published in the Gazette on 14.8.97 and the same was placed before the State Legislature on 11.6.99 but the selection process and appointment of the private respondents were made/done prior to it, ie on 9.10.98. Though Mr. Sen, learned senior counsel for the official respondents submitted that section 79A does not specify any time limit for placing Regulations before the Assembly of State Legislature there has been no intentional delay in placing the said Regulation, 1996 before the Assembly as required under section 79A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the said Regulation is operative and applicable to all the employees of the Board and there is no infirmity or illegality in the selection process and the appointment of the private respondents to the posts of Assistant Accounts Officers, I am not inclined to agree with the submissions so far advanced by the learned senior counsel for the reasons that the Regulation, 1996 cannot be treated as valid and operative at the relevant time of selection and appointment of the private respondents in the month of October, 1998 as discussed above for having not being placed before the State Legislature as required under section 79A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which is a mandatory provision of law to be followed by the authority concerned in laying of certain rules and regulations before the State Legislature for enforcement of it rather validity and operation of it. The purpose of laying of the Regulations or Rules before the State Legislatures is to make the Rules and Regulations valid and operative in the eye of law after its adoption and approval , by the State Legislature. According to me, no Rules or Regulations which are to be placed before the State Legislature under the law can be valid and operative till the same is placed before the State Legislature for its adoption and approval. 8. According to me, no Rules or Regulations which are to be placed before the State Legislature under the law can be valid and operative till the same is placed before the State Legislature for its adoption and approval. 8. In view of the above position, the selection process and appointment of the private respondents to the posts of Assistant Accounts Officer are void ab initio and as such, appointment shall be treated as an appointment which was e made in defiance with the related service rules namely Assam State Electricity Board Subordinate Accounts Service Regulations since adopted by the State of Meghalaya at the relevant time. 9. I am also of the view that, the said Regulation, 1996, were invalid and inoperative at the relevant period mentioned above for having not been placed before the State Legislature as required under section 79 A of the Act of 1948 at the relevant time as discussed above. 10. For the reasons, observations and discussions made above, I am of the view that these petitioners could make out a case to justify the interference with the selection process and the appointments of the private respondents in the posts of Assistant Accounts Officers under the impugned order dated 9.10.98 and accordingly, the impugned order dated 9.10.9 8, to the extent of appointment of the private respondents to the post of Assistant Accounts Officers is hereby quashed with a direction to the official respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to fill up those vacant posts of Assistant Accounts Officers in accordance with the relevant service rules which was in force when those vacant posts of Assistant Accounts Officer fell vacant or, in other words, the vacancies in the said promotional posts occurred prior to Regulation, 1996, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order and, it is made clear that if the services of Assistant Accounts Officers are required by the official respondents due to exigencies of service under them, the senior officials holding the substantive post of Divisional Accounts Officer/equivalent shall be allowed to hold the charge of the said vacant posts of Assistant Accounts Officer as an interim a arrangement till the said vacant posts of Assistant Accounts Officers are filled up as per related service rules as discussed above. It is further made clear that the official respondents/competent authority shall take into consideration and count the seniority position of the incumbents/official while allowing them to hold such charge in the post of Assistant Accounts Officers for such temporary period mentioned above, in other words seniority position of the incumbents should not be ignored. For the reasons, observations and directions made above these two writ petitions are disposed finally but, no order as to costs.