P.C. PHUKAN, J.— Since W.P.(C) 75(K) 2000 and W.P.(C) 115(K) 2000 involves similar facts and similar questions of law, both the writ petitions are taken for analogous hearing. 2.1 have heard learned counsel Mr Tali Ao and Mr C.T. Jamir for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Mr I. Jamir, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State respondents in both the writ petitions, and both the writ petitions are being disposed by the following common judgment and order. 3. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) 75(K) 2000 were appointed as Overseer Grade-I, non-gazetted posts, in the Government of Nagaland Engineering Service. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 in W.P.(C) 115(K) 2000 were appointed as Overseer Grade-II, non-gazetted posts, and the petitioner Nos. 10,11 and 12 were appointed as Sub-Divisional Officers, Class-II gazetted posts, through Nagaland Public Service Commission, and petitioner No. 13 was initially appointed as Overseer Grade-II, non-gazetted post. Petitioner No. 1 in W.P.(C) 75(K) 2000 is presently posted as Junior Engineer, PHED, Peren Division, petitioners in W.P.(C) 75(K) 2000 have been presently posted as Jr. Engineers Medzhiphema Sub-Division, Public Health Engineering Department. Petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer by notification dated 25.5.1998. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were promoted to the post of Junior Engineer by notification dated 18.7.1997. It is stated that the post of Junior Engineer is a separate higher cadre than the Sectional Officers/Overseer Grade-I. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) 115(K) 2000 have been presently posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, PHED, Wokha division, and petitioner No. 3 of the said writ petition is presently posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, PHED, Niuland Sub-Division. Petitioner No. 4 of the said writ petition is presently posted as Sub-Divisional Officer at Tobu and Aboi division. Petitioner No. 5 was also promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer and posted at Aboi Sub-Division. Petitioner No. 6 is presently posted as Sub-Divisional Officer PHED Wokha division. Petitioner No. 7 is presently posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, PHED Peren division. Petitioner No. 8 is presently posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, PHED, Dimapur division. Petitioner No. 9 is presently posted as Executive Engineer at Kiphire, District Tuensang. Petitioner No. 10 is presently posted as Executive Engineer, PHED in Chief Engineer's Office, Kohima. Petitioner No. 11 is presently posted as Executive Engineer, PHED Mon Division. Petitioner No. 8 is presently posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, PHED, Dimapur division. Petitioner No. 9 is presently posted as Executive Engineer at Kiphire, District Tuensang. Petitioner No. 10 is presently posted as Executive Engineer, PHED in Chief Engineer's Office, Kohima. Petitioner No. 11 is presently posted as Executive Engineer, PHED Mon Division. Petitioner No. 12 is presently posted as Executive Engineer in Chief Engineer's Office, Kohima, and Petitioner No. 13 is presently posted as Executive Engineer, PHED, Peren Division. 4. The respondent No. 3, the Chief Engineer, PHED, vide his letter No. CE/ PHE/PER-61/75 dated 28.2.2000 (Annexure-N to W.P.(C) 115(K) 2000 announced for holding of Departmental Promotion Examination (D.P.E.) of all Engineers, i.e. technical staff from S.O/ Computer level to Executive Engineer, and all ministerial staff on 17.4.2000 and 18.4.2000 respectively. The relevant portion of the letter reads as under: "In accordance with new Government policy of Merit-cum-Seniority, Government has ordered Chief Engineer (PHE), Department to conduct Departmental Promotion Examination of all Engineers from S.O/Computer level to Executive Engineer level and also all ministerial staff and submit result to Government on or before 30.3.2000 in order to help determine seniority list of all officers and staff during Departmental Promotion Committee sittings. Examination has been ordered compulsory for all stated staff whether one has passed such examination earlier or not. Officers/staff on leave/suspension are also ordered to appear Departmental Promotion Examination. (1) Failed officers/staff will lose subsequent annual increment of pay till she/he passes the subsequent examinations. (2) Absentees pay will be held up (even on medical ground) till the next examination." 5. The officers and staff of PHE Department made an appeal to the respondents for revocation of the above impugned letter for conducting the Departmental Promotion Examination inasmuch as it was against the relevant rules, namely, the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1997 (Class-I and Class-II), which came into force w.e.f. 15.2.1999 i.e. the date of publication of these rules in the Official Gazette of Nagaland. Inspite of such appeal, the State respondents decided to go ahead with the holding of the DPE as is evident from W/T message dated 3.5.2000 (Annexure-N-1). The officers and staff of PHED then threatened to boycot the examination, vide letter dated 6.5.2000 (Annexure-N-2). Inspite of such appeal, the State respondents decided to go ahead with the holding of the DPE as is evident from W/T message dated 3.5.2000 (Annexure-N-1). The officers and staff of PHED then threatened to boycot the examination, vide letter dated 6.5.2000 (Annexure-N-2). Thereafter, the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, PHED, issued a corrigendum dated 9.5.2000 (Annexure-N-3) stating therein: "The words 'Departmental Promotion Examination' may kindly be read as 'Departmental Examinations'." deleting the word 'Promotion' and also stating that; "Also the penalties imposed on those who fail to appear in the examination will be as per the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1997 (Class-I and Class-II)." However, with this corrigedum, the respondents wanted to go ahead and issued another W/T message dated 9.5.2000 (Annexure-N-4) that: "Matter was discussed with the Government and to inform you that decision of Govt. stand and decided to conduct the examination as scheduled on 13th May 2000." The Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Department of PHE issued an Office Memorandum dated 11.5.2000 (Annexure-N-5) stating that: "Examinations are being conducted on lines with the provisions of the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1997 (Class-I and Class-II) as per para 19(a) ii so as to enable the officers to be confirmed in the service as per para 21 of the said rules. Attention of all concerned is also invited to para 20 and 24 of the same rules." The memorandum reiterated that "those not appearing for the examinations without written permission of the concerned authority or boycotting the examinations will liable for actions as laid down in the rules. 6. In the face of the Government's insistence to hold examination on 13.5.2000 as scheduled, three of the aggrieved officers appointed this Court by filing a writ petition registered as W.P.(C) 75(K)2000 and in the Misc. Case No. 61(K)2000 arising out of this writ petition, this Court by order dated 12.5.2000 directed that; "Notice dated 9.5.2000 in the matter of conduct of test for departmental promotion for the officers and staff of PHED scheduled to be held on 13th May, 2000 shall remain suspended." and in view of the above order of this Court, the DPE has not been held so far. 7. Affidavit-in-opposition have been filed on behalf of the State respondents in both the writ petitions. 7. Affidavit-in-opposition have been filed on behalf of the State respondents in both the writ petitions. In para 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed in W.P.(C) 115(K) 2000 on behalf of the State respondents, it is stated that: "The petitioners in the present case are all holder of Class-I Gazetted on temporary/ officiating basis. As per definition, temporary or officiating are required to be confirmed against their respective post. The Department Authority by the power delegated at para-24 of the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1997, made the decision that, all officers and staffs holding temporary or officiating post should be confirmed in their respective post against a substantive vacancy post, only after passing the Departmental Examination." In para 9 of their affidavit it is stated that: "The executive instructions are only to fill the gaps and supplement the said rules, wherever it is silent on any matter, as is in para 21 of the said rules, where it is silent about the confirmation of promotees and their permanency in that particular post. Hence the action of respondents No. 2 and 3 are fully justified and protected under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and para 24 of the .said rules." 8. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents in W.P.(C) 75(K) 2000, it is stated in para 4 that; "The petitioners in the present case are all holders of Class-II gazetted posts on temporary/ officiating basis whose services at the Class-II post are required to be regularised/confirmed. Though the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1997 para 21 is silent about confirmation of services of promotees/upgraded officers, the PHE department on the power delegated at para 24 of the said Service Rules has decided that all officers whose services are at the level of Class-II or Class-I on temporary/officiating/ad hoc basis should get confirmed after passing through a Departmental Examination in the interest of public service." The rational behind this decision of the Department is as follows: "Rules 19, 20 and 21 of the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1997 clearly states that even for an officer directly recruited through NPSC examination is required to appear another examination called "Departmental Examination" during or at the end of 2 years probation period for confirmation of his/her service. All officers recruited/promoted confirmed at Class-II or Class-I gazetted post are meant to be very responsible and efficient, and hence required to be selected with utmost care. Accordingly rules have been framed. However, none of the petitioners in the present case or for that matter, any of other sectional officers whose services were promoted/upgraded along with them were promoted through the prescribed Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) as provided at para 17(b). In contrast, the officers directly recruited to Class-II/I gazetted post not only undergoes a tough competition through open NPSC examination but also are required to pass another examination of the department to get their services regularised/confirmed. The question therefore naturally arises as to why there should be such stringent examination rules in respect of one group of officers as regards to their services, and no examination at all to test the efficiency of officers of another group (Promotees). Moreover, these Promotees have never been through any Departmental Examination in their entire service careers, neither at the time of their recruitment nor at any other subsequent promotion time to test their efficiency/knowledge at any stage: Therefore, to allow the Promotees not to undergo any Departmental Examination, while allowing others to go for it will not only go against the principle of natural justice but not good for the Department." 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents and also to the submissions of the learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland in this regard. The contention that the authority in exercise of power delegated to the department authority at Rule 24 of the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, made a decision that, all officers holding temporary service should be confirmed in their respective posts only after passing the Departmental Examination is unsustainable in view of the express provisions in the rules. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Rule 24 confers any such power on the Government. Rule 24 is only an interpretation clause. 10. Rule 17 provides for recruitment by promotion. Sub-rule (2) thereof reads:- "Whenever any vacancy/vacancies arise(s) in the service to be filled in by promotion, the Head of the Department shall furnish the following particulars together with his comments, if any, to the Secretary, in the given proforma prescribed by the Commission for the purpose. 10. Rule 17 provides for recruitment by promotion. Sub-rule (2) thereof reads:- "Whenever any vacancy/vacancies arise(s) in the service to be filled in by promotion, the Head of the Department shall furnish the following particulars together with his comments, if any, to the Secretary, in the given proforma prescribed by the Commission for the purpose. i) Final upto date and undisputed seniority list of the cadre from which promotion is to be given. The list should contain at least twice as many names as the number of existing vacancy/vacancies available, ii) Dossiers of the person concerned, iii) Annual Confidential Reports at least for the last 3 (three) years duly reviewed and accepted by the concerned authorities, iv) Recommendation of the Head of the Department including Integrity Certificate, with clearance from the Vigilance Commissioner separately in respect of each eligible candidates." 11. It is absolutely clear that Rule 17 does not provide for holding examination for promotion. As per this rule, the matter as regards promotion is required to be referred to the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to make recommendation for promotion on the basis of Dossiers, Annual Confidential Report (ACR), Recommendation of the Head of the Department concerned and the clearance from the Vigilance Commissioner. It nowhere provides for holding examination for promotion. It is true that, Rule 19, 20 and 21 refer to Departmental Examination, but these rules are applicable to probationers only who were "recruited direct to the service" vide Rule 19(a)(i). 12. In view of what has been stated above, the question of holding Departmental Examination does not arise either in case of promotion or regularisation/confirmation of the petitioners, all of them being promotees. 13. In the result, the impugned letter No. CE/PHE/PER-61/75 dated 28.2.2000, the impugned W/T message No. CE/PHED/ EST-101/2000 dated 3.5.2000 and the impugned W./T message No. CE/PHED/ EST-101/2000 dated 9.5.2000 and the impugned office memo No. PHE/EST-35/ 99 dated 11.5.2000 so far as they relate to the petitions in both the writ petitioners are set aside and quashed. Both the writ petitioners are allowed accordingly. No costs.