These two writ petitions involve common question of fact and law inasmuch as both the writ petitions are seeking similar relief for quashing the order of Governor of Manipur being No. 20/2/2001HSC, Imphal the 14th December, 2004 for allowing the private respondent, Shri Y.Dorendro Singh to hold higher post of Deputy Director on incharge basis, as such, these two writ petitions were taken up jointly for disposal by a common judgment and order. 2. Heard Mr.H.S.Paonam, leamed counsel for the writ petitioner of W.P(C) No. 32/2005 and Shri M.Hemchandra, learned counsel for petitioner of W.P(C) No. 83/2005 and Shri N.Ibotombi, learned counsel for the State respondents as well as Mr.Ng.Kumar, learned counsel for private respondent, Sri Y.Dorendro Singh. 3. In super-cession of all previous orders issued in this regard and in exercise of the power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Manipur made the Rules called "Agriculture, Horticulture and Soil Conservation Department, Manipur Director of Agriculture/Horticulture and Soil Conservation and Deputy Director (Agri/Horti & Soil Conservation and ther identical scale of pay and similar duty)] Rules, 980 vide order of the Govemor of Manipur being No. l/82/77 /R.R/DP, Imphal, 18.6.1980. According to he said Recruitment Rules of 1980 the post of Deputy Director (Agri/Horti & Soil Conservation) were to be filled up by promotion and there were two sub-quotas in promotion. First quota - 40% from the cadre of Agriculture Officer possessing B. Sc (Agri & Hort.) Bachellors Degree in Scheice/ Arts with 12 years service in the grade and second sub-quota - 60% from he cadre of Agriculture Officer possessing B. Sc (Agri & Hort.) with M.Sc (Agri/Horti) or Graduate in Science /Arts with Masters Degree in Agricultural Science with 6 years service in the grade. Again, in super-cession of all previous Rules, issued in this regard, and in exercise of the power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, Governor of Manipur made the Rules, called "Horticulture & Soil Conservation Department, Manipur (Deputy Director/Equivalent) Recruitment Rules, 2003 and it came into force w.e.f. 27.8.2003, which was the date of publication in the Manipur Gazette. According to the aid Recruitment Rules, 2003 the post of Deputy Directors are to be filled by promotion from the cadre of HDOs/SCOs, AO /AO equivalent with six years regular service in the grade with educational qualification: (1) officer possessing B.Sc, Agri/Horti from a recognized University/Institute or (2) Officer possessing Bachelors' Degree in Science with Masters Degree in Agricultural Science vetted by the ICAR. 4. Shri N.Imo Singh, petitioner of writ petition(C )No.32/2005 is a Bachelors Degree holder i.e. B.Sc (Agri/Horti) and he was regularly appointed as Assistant Agriculture Oficer /Equivalent on 7.5.1977. Before trifurcation of the Department of Agriculture,Horticulture and Soil Conservation, the Govemment of Manipur prepared the final seniority list of Assistant Agriculture Officer (AAO)/ equivalent on 31.12.1985 vide order of Govemment of Manipur being No. 23- A/77/83-Agri(Pt)H Imphal, 14.1.1986. In that final seniority list of AAO, name of petitioner appeared at sl.no. 74 whereas the name of private respondent, Shri Y.Dorendro Singh appeared at sl.no.108. 5. Shri N.Imo Singh, petitioner of writ petition @ no.32/05 was appointed by promotion to the post of Agriculture Officer/Equivalent on adhoc basis vide order of the Govemor of Manipur dated 6.11.1979 and his adhoc appointment was subsequently regularized on the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission vide order of the Govemor of Manipur being No. 23-A/28/85-Agri, Imphal 8.3.91. The petitioner and others filed writ petitions being C.R.No.1117/92, 45/95, 68/93 and 112/93 in this Court for a direction to the State respondents to regularize their adhoc appointments to the post of AO w.e.f. their respective date of initial appointment. The said Civil Rules were disposed of by this Court by Degree in Science with Masters Degree in Agricultural Science vetted by the ICAR. 4. Shri N .Imo Singh, petitioner of writ petition© No. 32/2005 is a Bachelors Degree holder i.e. B.Sc (Agri/Horti) and he was regularly appointed as Assistant Agriculture Oficer/Equivalent on 7.5.1977. Before trifurcation of the Department of Agriculture, Horticulture and Soil Conservation, the Govemment of Manipur prepared the fmal seniority list of Assistant Agriculture Officer (AAO)/equivalent on 31.12.1985 vide order of Govemment of Manipur being No. 23- A/77/83-Agri(Pt)H Imphal, 14.1.1986. In that final seniority list of AAO, name of petitioner appeared at sl.no. 74 whereas the name of private respondent, Shri Y.Dorendro Singh appeared at sl.no.108. 5. In that final seniority list of AAO, name of petitioner appeared at sl.no. 74 whereas the name of private respondent, Shri Y.Dorendro Singh appeared at sl.no.108. 5. Shri N .Imo Singh, petitioner of writ petition©no.32/05 was appointed by promotion to the post of Agriculture Officer/Equivalent on adhoc basis vide order of the Governor of Manipur dated 6.11.1979 and his adhoc appointment was subsequently regularized on the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission vide order of the Govrnor of Manipur being No. 23-A/28/85-Agri, Imphal 8.3.91. The petitioner and others filed writ petitions being C.R.No.1117/92, 45/95, 68/93 and 112/93 in this Court for a direction to the State respondents to regularize their adhoc appointments to the post of AO w.e.f. their respective date of initial appointment. The said Civil Rules were disposed of by this Court by passing judgment and order dated 18.1.1993 giving direction to the State Respondents to regularize ad-hoc appointment of 1 7 writ petitioners (including the present writ petitioners) w.e.f. the date of their initial ad-hoc appointment in the post of AO /Equivalent. In pursuance of the said order of this Court, the Government of Manipur was pleased to issue order dated 13.10.1993 which was published in the Manipur Gazette, Extraordinary No. 257(A) dated 19.10.1993 to the effect that the service of petitioners to the post of AO/Equivalent was regularized w.e.f. 6.11.1979. The private respondent Shri Y.Dorendro Singh was also promoted to the post of AO/Equivalent on ad-hoc basis vide order of the Governor of Manipur being No. 22 A/59-Agri, Imphal, the 9.1.81 and subsequently regularized to the post of AO /Equivalent w.e.f. 5.11.88. The Government of Manipur also prepared the final seniority list of AO/Equivalent vide order of the Governor of Manipur being No. 7-A/20/94-HSC (Pt) Imphal, 3.6.98. In that seniority list name of petitioner appear at s1.no.18 whereas name of private respondent, Y.Dorendro Singh appear at s1.no.26. Thereafter, Government of Manipur, Department of Horticulture & Soil Conservation issued an Office Memorandum being No. 20/8/2000-SC, Imphal 18.12.2002 for preparing the tentative seniority list of AO /Equivalent as on 18.12.2002. In that tentative seniority list dated 18.12.2002, name of petitioner appear at s1.no.9 whereas the name of private respondent appear at s1.no.18. From this admitted fact, it is clear that the petitioner of writ petition No. 32/05, Shri N.Imo Singh is undisputedly senior to the private respondent, Shri Y.Dlorendro Singh in the grade of AO/Equivalent. In that tentative seniority list dated 18.12.2002, name of petitioner appear at s1.no.9 whereas the name of private respondent appear at s1.no.18. From this admitted fact, it is clear that the petitioner of writ petition No. 32/05, Shri N.Imo Singh is undisputedly senior to the private respondent, Shri Y.Dlorendro Singh in the grade of AO/Equivalent. The next higher post of AO/Equivalent is Deputy Director /Equivalent. 6. Shri Y.Ibochouba Singh, petitioner no. 1 of writ petition © No. 83/2005 is a PostGraduate Degree holder, i.e. M.Sc (Agri) and petitioner no.2, Shri Prameshwor Sharma is a Bachelor Degree holder, i.e.B.Sc (Agri). Both the writ petitioners of writ petition © No. 83/05 and private respondent Shri Y.Dorendro Singh were recommended by the Manipur Public Service Commission in order of merit for appointment to the post of AAO/Equivalent vide notification No. 7 /65/80- MPSC(DR), Imphal, 2.8.81 and in that merit list, name of petitioners appear at sl.nos.4 and 5 respectively whereas name of private respondent, Shri Y.Dorendro Singh appear at sl.no.9. On the recommendation of Manipur Public Service Commission, the Governor of Manipur was pleased to appoint the petitioners and private respondent, Y.Dorendro Singh to the post of AAO/Equivalent on regular basis in the year, 1982 and Governor of Manipur was also pleased to issue order being No. 23A/4/73-Agri(Pt-1), Imphal the 25.8.1982 for fixing the inter-se final seniority list of 115 AAOs/Equivalent. In that final seniority list dated 25.8.82 the name of petitioners of writ petition © No. 83/05 appeared at sl.no.4 and 5 respectively and that of private respondent Shri Y.Dorendro Singh appeared at sl.no.9. It is admitted position of fact that the two writ petitioners were senior to the private respondent in the grade of AAO /Equivalent. Latter on the petitioners were appointed by promotion to the post of AO/Equivalent on ad-hoc basis vide order of the Governor of Manipur dated 31.12.1983. Thereafter, the continuous ad-hoc service of the petitioners as AO/Equivalent were regularized vide order of the Govemor of Manipur being No. 23-A/28/85-Agri (TempA) dated 12.3.1993. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order of the Govemor of Manipur dated 12.3.1993 for regularizing their ad-hoc appointment to the post of AO /Equivalent w.e.f. 12.3.1993 by neglecting their continuous ad-hoc service as AO /Equivalent w.e.f. the date of their initial ad-hoc appointment, had approached this court by filing writ petition © No. 1013/2000 and 1171/2000. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order of the Govemor of Manipur dated 12.3.1993 for regularizing their ad-hoc appointment to the post of AO /Equivalent w.e.f. 12.3.1993 by neglecting their continuous ad-hoc service as AO /Equivalent w.e.f. the date of their initial ad-hoc appointment, had approached this court by filing writ petition © No. 1013/2000 and 1171/2000. The said two writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment and order directing the State Govemment to regularize their adhoc services to the post of AO/Equivalent w.e.f. 5.11.1988 for the purpose of counting their seniority and in compliance thereof, the Govrnor of Manipur issued order being No. 23-A-90/2000-HSC(HC), Imphal the 8.2.2001 (Anexure-A/5 to the writ petition) for regularizing ad-hoc appointment of the petitioners in the post of AO jEquivalent w.e.f. 5.11.88 for the purpose of counting their seniority. Both the writ petitioners of writ petition @ No. 83/2005 and private respondent Shri Y.Dorendro Singh were regularized in the post of AO/Equivalent w.e.f. 5.11.1988 for the purpose of counting seniority; but since the petitioners were senior to the private respondent, Shri Y.Dorendro Singh in the feeder post i.e. AAO/Equivalent, the petitioners would be senior to the private respondent in the grade of AO/Equivalent. It is also pertinent to mention that at the time preparation of final seniority list of AO/Equivalent vide order of the Govemor of Manipur being No. 7- A/20/94 HSC(Pt) Imphal 3.6.98, the said order of Govemment of Manipur dated 8.2.2001 for regularizing the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioners of writ petition @ No. 83/05 in the post of AO/Equivalent w.e.f. 5.11.1988 for the purpose of counting their seniority was not in existence and as such, the names of petitioners, were shown below the name of private respondent in the said final seniority list. Such being the situation, in consideration of the subsequent orders in respect of the writ petitioners and others for retrospective regularization in the post of AO/Equivalent for the purpose of counting seniority w.e.f. 5.11.1988, Government of Manipur was to prepare a tentative inter-se seniority list of AO/Equivalent and as such, the Governor of Manipur issued order being No. 20/8/2000-HSC, Imphal the 18th December, 2002 for preparing a tentative seniority list of AOsjHDOs and SCOsjEquivalent. In the said tentative seniority list dated 18.12.2002, names of petitioners of the WP@ No. 83 of 2005 appeared at sl.no.16 and 1 7 respectively and that of the private respondent, Shri Y. Dorendro Singh appears at sl.no.18. 7. Further case of the petitioners of both these writ petitions i.e. WP©No.32/05 and 83/05 are that, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, even for conferment of temporary higher status for temporary arrangement and also for appointment on incharge basis, the interest of the senior should not be ignored. But in the present case, the Govemment of Manipur issued the impugned order being No. 20/2/2001-SC, Imphal 14.12.04 for allowing the private respondent Shri Y.Dorendro Singh to hold higher post of Deputy Director (S.S) by neglecting the cases of petitioners who are senior to him, for the fact and reasons mentioned above, in the post of AO/Equivalent in contrary to the law laid down by the Apex. 8. The respondents and private respondent filed their affidavit-in-opposition stating, inter alia, that the vacancy in the post of Deputy Director, against which the private respondent, Shri Y. Dorendro Singh was allowed to hold on in-charge basis arose before the enforcement of the new Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Director, 2003 w.e.f. 27.8.2003 and that the private respondent being Post Graduate Degree holder was appointed on incharge basis under the second sub-quota of the promotion, i.e. quota for the post Graduate Degree holders under the old Recruitment Rules, 1980. In reply to the affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondents, writ petitioner of writ petition © No. 32/05 filed reply affidavit stating that the vacancy retirement of one Shri O. Surendro Singh on superannuation. Therefore, the s aid vacancy against which the private respondent was appointed on incharge basis arose after the enforcement of the new Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Director, 2003, which came into force w.e.f 27.8.2003. In order to satisfy this Court as to whether the vacancy in the post of Deputy Director against which the private respondent, Shri Y. Dorendro Singh was appointed was a vacancy arose before the enforcement of new Recruitment Rules for the purpose of Deputy Director, 2003 as per the counter affidavit of the State respondents, the relevant file is also perused as produced by the concemed Government Advocate. But from perusal of the relevant file of the State Government, it appears that transfer and posting as well as appointment on in-charge basis appeared to have been initiated on the basis of DO Note No. 1/M(Hort & SC)/04 10.11.04 prepared by the Minister. From careful perusal of the relevant Government file, it appeared that there is no material and supporting document to show that the vacancy in the post of Deputy Director against which the private respondent, Y.Dorendro Singh was appointed on incharge basis arose before the enforcement of the new Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Director, 2003 wherein there is no subquota for the degree holders and the post Graduate Degree holders. But without any supporting material in the relevant government file, there is a noting to the effect that "two senior-most AOs from amongst the Degree holders of B.Sc (Agri/Horti) be made to look after two post of Deputy Director/Equivalent on in-charge basis without extra remuneration and senior-most AO from amongst the Masters Degree holder of M.Sc (Agri/Horti) be made to look after one post of Deputy Director/Equivalent on in-charge basis without extra remuneration; and thereafter private respondent, Y.Dorendro Singh had been picked up for allowing to hold the higher post of/Deputy Director. As such the relevant government file does not support the case of State respondents mentioned in their affidavit-in-opposition in the present two writ petitions. 9. It appears that the government respondents had been trapped on both sides inasmuch as 1) in absence of clear cut indication from the relevant government file that the vacancy against which private respondent, Y.Dorendro Singh was appointed on incharge basis under the impugned order dated 14.12.2004 arose after the enforcement of the new post of Deputy Director without considering the case of petitioners of writ petition no.23/05 and 2) In case the vacancy against which the private respondent, Y. Dorendro Singh was appointed on in-charge basis arose before the enforcement of the new Recruitment Rules,2003, the of the petitioner, Shri Y.Ibochouba Singh, who is a post Graduate Degree holder and senior to the private respondent, Y. Dorendro Singh according to the latest seniority list prepared by the Government of Manipur, i.e. the said tentative seniority list dated 18.12.2002 should be considered for allowing to hold the higher post of Deputy Director. As stated above, the tentative seniority list dated 18.12.2002 was required for the reason that the said order being No. 23-A/90/200 HSC(SC) Imphal, 8.2.2001 for regularizing the petitioner of writ petition - No. 83j05 in the post of AO jEquivalent w.e.f. 5.11.88 for the purpose of counting seniority list was not available at the time of preparation of the earlier final seniority list of AO/Equivalent vide order of Govemor of Manipur above said i.e. order No. 7-A/20/94-HSC(Pt), Imphal, 3.6.1998. 10. This court is not deciding the final seniority list of the petitioners of the present two writ petitions as well as private respondent, Y.Dorendro Singh. But this court only considers the order of Govemor of Manipur dated 8.2.2001 for regularizing the service of petitioners of writ petition © No. 83j05 in the post of AO w.e.f. 5.11.88 for the purpoSe of counting their seniority list, the final seniority list dated 3.6.98 and latest seniority list dated 18.12.2002 for a limited purpose of deciding these two writ petitions. So far as the petitioner of writ petition© No. 32/05 is concemed it is admitted case of all the parties that petitioner Shri . N.Imo Singh is senior to private respondent, Y.Dorendro Singh in the grade of AO/Equivalent. 11. According to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of making in-charge appointment or/interim arrangement in the higher post, case of the senior-most officer in the feeder post shall be considered; and interim arrangement of allowing, the senior-most officer in the feeder post to hold the higher post is a good interim arrangement. In this regard we may refer to the decisions of the Apex Court in: 1) Dr.Suman Garwal Vs Vice Chancellor and Ors reported in (1996) 5 SCC 632, 2) Dr.L.M.Nath Vs Dr.S.K.Kacker & Ors reported in (1996) 1 SCC 229 and 3) Government of A.P and Ors Vs. A.V.Venugopal Rao reported in (1995) 1 SCC 179 . The Apex Court in Style (Dressland) Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr reported in (1999) 7 SCC 89 held that the Court can examine the reasons given by the Government in support of an action but cannot substitute its own reasons. It can strike down an executive order passed on irrelevant and extraneous reasons. The Apex Court in Style (Dressland) Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr reported in (1999) 7 SCC 89 held that the Court can examine the reasons given by the Government in support of an action but cannot substitute its own reasons. It can strike down an executive order passed on irrelevant and extraneous reasons. Para-11 of the SCC in Style (Dressland) (supra) is quoted hereunder "11 Even the administrative orders and not (sic only) quasi-judicial are required to be made in a matter in consonance with the rules of natural attributes of the property. While exercising the powers of judicial review the court can look into the reasons given by the Government in support of its action but cannot substitute its own reasons. The Court can strike down an executive order, if it finds the reasons assigned were irrelevant and extraneous. The courts are more concemed with the decision-making process than the decision itself." 12. The Apex Court, again in Haryana Financial Corpn and Anr Vs Jagadamba Oil Mills & Anr reported in (2002) 3 SCC 496 held that the court cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of administrative authorities. Only when the action of the administrative authority is so unfair or unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken that action, the court can interfere. Paragraph-10 of the SCC in Haryana Finance Corpn (supra) is quoted hereunder: "10. The obligation to act fairly on the part of the administrative authorities was evolved to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice. This doctrine is complementary to the principles of natural justice which the quasi-judicial authorities are bound to observe. It is true that the distinction between a quasijudicial and the administrative action has become thin, as pointed out by this Court as far back as 1970 in A.K.Kraipak V. Union of India. Even so the extent of judicial scrutiny/judicial review in the case of administrative action cannot be larger than in the case of quasi judicial action. If the High Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the decisions and orders of quasi-judicial authorities, it follows equally that it cannot do so in the case of administrative authorities. In the matter of administrative action, it is well known, more than one choice is available to the administrative authorities; they have a certain amount of discretion available to them. In the matter of administrative action, it is well known, more than one choice is available to the administrative authorities; they have a certain amount of discretion available to them. They have a "right to choosel between more than one possible course of action on which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is to be preferred" (as per Lord Diplock in Secy of State for Education and Science V. Metropolitan Borough Council of Tameside, All ER at p.695f). The court cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of administrative authorities in such cases. Only when the action of the administrative authority is to unfair or unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken that action, can the court intervene. To quote the classic passage from the judgment of Lord Grene M. R. in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd Vs. Wednesbury Corpn: (All ER pp.682H -683A) " It is true the discretion must be exercised reasonably. Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology commonly used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word 'unreasonable' in a rather comprehensive sense. It hasfrequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with the discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting 'unreasonably'. Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority." 13. For the above discussions, this court is of the considered view that the action taken by the State respondents by issuing impugned order dated 14.12.05 for allowing the private respondent, Y.Dorendro Singh to hold the higher post of Deputy Director/equivalent on in -charge basis by issuing order in the disguise of transfer and posting without considering the case of petitioners is unreasonable and unfair and also the relevant govemment file does not clearly spell out the reasons for picking up the case of private respondent by neglecting the case of others. Accordingly, there is no altemative left to this Court but to quash the impugned order dated 14.12.205 so far as the private respondent, Y.Dorendro Singh is concemed. This court, hereby quash the impugned order dated 14.12.2005 so far as the private respondent is concerned. No order as to costs.