This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 11.9.2000 in C.R. No. 536 of 1998. By the said order, the prayer of the present appellants for quashing the office Order No. 1 dated 3.4.1998, which had been issued by the Chief Engineer (Power), Electricity Department regularizing the service of the present private respondent No. 4 as Section Officer-Grade-I (Electrical) with retrospective effect from 29.3.1990 and also fixing his seniority above the present appellants, was dismissed as not maintainable on the sole ground of not challenging the Government letter being No. 17/14/85-Power dated 19.3.1998 by which the Government had conveyed its approval about the said retrospective regularization and fixing of seniority. 2. We have heard Mr. H.S.Paonam, learned Advocate appeanng on behalf of the appellants and Mr. R.S.Reisang, learned Addl.Govt.Advocate appearing on behalf of the state respondents. None has appeared on behalf of the private respondent No. 4 without showing any cause. We have also perused the materials before the court produced by the learned senior counsel of the private respondent No. 4 as Government order and as such, the said letter is found to have been referred to as Government order in the later portion of the order impugned in this appeal. The said letter dated 19.3 .1998 is reproduced below: "No. 17/14/85-Power GOVERNMENT OF MANWUR SECRETARIAT: POWER DEPARTMENT Imphal, the 19th March,1998. To The Chief Engineer (Power), Electricity Department,Manipur. Sub:- Compliance of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court's order 7/12/95 passed in Civil Original Cont. 140 ofl1995 filed by Shri A.Satyabrata Singh. Sir, In continuation to this Government letter of even number dated 30.3.96, I am directed to convey the approval of the Government to the appointment of Shri A. Satyabrata Singh as Section Officer Grade-I (Elect.) with retrospective effect from 29.3.90, the initial appointment as Section Officer Grade-II (Elect) under die-in harness Scheme in the Electricity department, Manipur. His seniority shall be counted from 29.3.90 without financial benefit. This issued in pursuance of the High Court order dated 17.2.95 in Civil Rule INo.64/1995. You are, therefore, requested to issue necessary order under intimation to this Government. Yours faithfully, Sd/ ( K.Shimreingam) Under Secretary(Power) to the Govt. His seniority shall be counted from 29.3.90 without financial benefit. This issued in pursuance of the High Court order dated 17.2.95 in Civil Rule INo.64/1995. You are, therefore, requested to issue necessary order under intimation to this Government. Yours faithfully, Sd/ ( K.Shimreingam) Under Secretary(Power) to the Govt. ofManipur." By the above said letter, the Chief Engineer (Power), Electricity Department, Manipur was informed about the approval of the Government to the appointment of the said private respondent No. 4 as Section Officer Grade-I (Elect.) with retrospective effect from 29.3.90 and also about counting of his seniority from the said date without financial benefit. It was, thus, only an official communication made from the Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Power Department to the Chief Engineer (Power), Electricity Department, Manipur about the said Government's approval mentioned therein. No copy of the said communication was endorsed to any other persons or officials. It was not also published for information of any of the persons likely to be affected by it. In our considered opinion, what is really affecting the rights and interest of the present appellants is the said office order No. 1 dated 3.4.1998 issued by the Chief Engineer (Power), Electricity Department and not the said official letter in between the Secretariat, Power Department and the Chief Engineer (Power), Electricity Department giving information about the Government's approval. In other words, the said official letter in between the two departments of the Government cannot be considered as a formal order issued by the competent authority giving retrospective regularization and seniority to the said private respondent and thereby affecting the rights and interests of the present appellants. In Puranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others; 1994 SUUP (3) SCC 471, it was held to the effect that noting in the departmental files did not create any rights in favour of a person. It is the orders issued by the competent authorities and received by him which alone can create rights in his favour. In Tagin Litin v. State of Aninchal Pradesh and others; (1996) 5 SCC 83 , it was held that uncommunicated order of appointment was ineffective. 3. It is the orders issued by the competent authorities and received by him which alone can create rights in his favour. In Tagin Litin v. State of Aninchal Pradesh and others; (1996) 5 SCC 83 , it was held that uncommunicated order of appointment was ineffective. 3. I n the light of the above considerations, in our considered opinion, it was illegal on the part of the learned Single Judge to dismiss the said C.R. No. 536 of 1998 filed by the present appellants merely on the ground of not assailing or challenging the said Government letter dated 19.3.1998. The order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned counsel of the appellants submits for considering the legality or otherwise of the said office order No. 1 dated 3.4.1998 on merit by this court in stead of remanding the case to the Single Bench for proceeding afresh. However, in our considered opinion, since the case has not been heard on merit by the Single Bench, it will not be proper and just for this court to proceed with the case on merit. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench on 11.9.2000 in C.R. No. 536 of 1998 is hereby set aside. This appeal is allowed. 4. The case is to be heard and decided by the Single Bench afresh. This case belisted before the Single Bench for hearing after registration. No order as to costs.