ORDER 1. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANTS AND THE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS HAVE SINCE RETIRED, THESE APPEALS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 2. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIVIL APPEALS• ARE DISMISSED AS HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. NO COSTS. 3. RESPONDENT 1 HAD APPROACHED THE MADHYA PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, GWALIOR AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS DATED 23-9-1994 AND 20-4-1995 BY WHICH JUNIORS TO HIM HAD BEEN PROMOTED. HE SOUGHT DIRECTION FOR CONSIDERATION FOR HIS PROMOTION TO THE POST OF CHIEF ENGINEER FROM THE DATE WHEN HIS JUNIORS WERE PROMOTED WITH CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. AT THE TIME HE APPROACHED THE TRIBUNAL HE WAS HOLDING THE POST OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND WAS POSTED AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (E&M), CIRCLE GWALIOR. HE HAD JOINED PWD SERVICE AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (E&M) IN THE YEAR 1969, WAS PROMOTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER ON 22-12-1972, TO THE POST OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VIDE ORDER DATED 6-5-1980 AND THEN TO THE POST OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ON 5-5-1988. ACCORDING TO HIM, HE WAS SENIOR ON THE POST OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WAS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS AND KEEPING IN VIEW RULE 4 AND RULE 6 OF THE M.P. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF AND CHIEF ENGINEER) AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE RULES, 1983, ALLOWED THE APPLICATION AND DIRECTED THE AUTHORITIES TO HOLD A REVIEW DPC FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH SOME OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERS WERE PROMOTED TO THE POST OF CHIEF ENGINEER AND TO CONSIDER HIS CASE FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF CHIEF ENGINEER OVER AND ABOVE HIS JUNIORS AND IF HE WAS FOUND FIT, HE COULD BE PROMOTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT GIVING ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH FILED WRIT PETITION NO. 1356 OF 1998 QUESTIONING ITS CORRECTNESS AND VALIDITY. THE HIGH COURT DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION BY A SHORT ORDER STATING THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL BASED ON THE DIVISION BENCH DECISION WAS CORRECT. CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION. HENCE THIS APPEAL. 4. MR. ANOOP G. CHAUDHARI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE APPELLANTS CONTENDED THAT RESPONDENT 1 HAD ALL ALONG BEEN WORKING IN E&M FORMATION OF PWD; HE WAS APPOINTED AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (E&M) AND THROUGHOUT HE HAS BEEN WORKING EVEN AFTER PROMOTION FROM TIME TO TIME AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER IN E&M BRANCH. HENCE THIS APPEAL. 4. MR. ANOOP G. CHAUDHARI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE APPELLANTS CONTENDED THAT RESPONDENT 1 HAD ALL ALONG BEEN WORKING IN E&M FORMATION OF PWD; HE WAS APPOINTED AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (E&M) AND THROUGHOUT HE HAS BEEN WORKING EVEN AFTER PROMOTION FROM TIME TO TIME AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER IN E&M BRANCH. AT THE TIME HE HAD CLAIMED PROMOTION HE WAS WORKING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (E&M). HE POINTED OUT THAT SEPARATE GRADATION LISTS ARE MAINTAINED FOR THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERS (E&M) AND SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERS (B&R); THEN HE POINTED OUT TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE DEPARTMENT SAYING THAT E&M FORMATION OF PWD IS A SEPARATE CADRE AND IN THAT CADRE AS EXISTING THEN, THERE WAS NO POST OF CHIEF ENGINEER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE SAID RULES 4 AND 6 REFERRED ABOVE MUST BE READ HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PWD MANUAL AND ALSO THE AMENDMENTS BROUGHT TO THE RULES IN 1997 AND 1999. HE ADDED THAT THE HIGH COURT WAS NOT RIGHT IN SIMPLY APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH MADE IN ANOTHER CASE WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE DECIDED AND IN THAT VIEW, THE CASE MAY REQUIRE REMAND TO THE HIGH COURT. 5. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING RESPONDENT 1 MADE SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. TO APPRECIATE THE RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO NOTICE THE VERY RELEVANT RULES 4 AND 6 WHICH READ THUS: "4. APPOINTMENTS.-(1) APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF SHALL BE MADE BY PROMOTION OF THE PERSONS ON THE POSTS OF CHIEF ENGINEERS IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND APPOINTMENTS TO THE POSTS OF CHIEF ENGINEER SHALL BE MADE BY PROMOTION OF THE PERSONS ON THE POSTS OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERS IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. (2) APPOINTMENTS TO THE POSTS OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF AND CHIEF ENGINEERS SHALL BE MADE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. 5. * * * 6. (2) APPOINTMENTS TO THE POSTS OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF AND CHIEF ENGINEERS SHALL BE MADE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. 5. * * * 6. CONDITION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION.-(1) FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, THE PROMOTION COMMITTEE SHALL CONSIDER THE CASES OF ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE COMPLETED 3 YEARS SERVICE ON THE POST OF CHIEF ENGINEER, WHETHER IN OFFICIATING CAPACITY OR IN SUBSTANTIVE CAPACITY AND FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF CHIEF ENGINEER THE PROMOTION COMMITTEE SHALL CONSIDER THE CASES OF ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE COMPLETED 5 YEARS SERVICE ON THE POSTS OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERS IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. (2) SELECTION FOR INCLUSION IN THE LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION SHALL BE BASED ON MERIT AND SUITABILITY IN ALL RESPECTS WITH DUE REGARD TO SENIORITY.