RANJAN GOGOI, J.— Both the writ petitions having raised common and connected questions of law were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. In WP© No. 4108/99, the writ petitioner who is a Research Officer in the Directorate of Higher Education, Govt. of Assam, has challenged the Govt. notification dated 30.10.90 by which, in exercise of power under Rule 3(2)(ii) of the Assam Education Service Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the post of Assistant Research Officer has been made a cadre post in service under Rule 11 (g) of the Rules with effect from the date of creation of the posts. The somewhat belated approach to this Court has been sought to be explained by the writ petitioner by taking the stand that though the notification was issued on 30.10.90, the same was not acted upon and the approach to this Court has been made by the writ petition at the stage when he apprehended certain actions adverse to his interest on the basis of the aforesaid notification dated 30.10.90. 3. In the connected writ petition i.e. WP© No. 7630/03, the challenge is with regard to the promotion of the respondent No. 5, Shri Kamaleswar Roy to the post of Assistant Director made under Regulation 4(d) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1951. The aforesaid promotion has been made by an order-dated 20.8.2003. 4. Insofar as WP© No. 4108/99 is concerned, the argument advanced by Shri G. K. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has been that the post of Assistant Research Officer being a lower post carrying a lower scale of pay, there is no power vested in the State Government by the provisions of the Rules to equate the aforesaid lower post with that of the higher post of Research Officer and in any case, as under Rule 11 (g), the post of Assistant Research Officer is not a feeder post for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, no action on the basis of the notification dated 30.10.90 can be initiated by the authority for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Director. 5. 5. In the connected case i.e. WP© 7630/ 03, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner has been to the effect that the promotion of the respondent No. 5 made by order dated 20.8.2003 is contrary to an earlier order dated 12.3.2003 passed by this Court in WP©No. 1656/99. By the said order dated 12.3.2003, this Court had directed the State Govt. to issue necessary clarifications with regard to the meaning and purport of the notification dated 30.10.90 and only thereafter, to hold the selection for promotion to the post of Assistant Director. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the respondent No. 5, prior to the impugned promotion to the post of Assistant director as made by order dated 20.8.2003, was earlier promoted to the post of Research officer in the year 2001, specifically by order dated 14.3.2001. Learned counsel has contended that till date the post of Assistant Research Officer has not been made a feeder post for promotion to the post of Assistant Director under Rule 11 (g) of the Rules. The Respondent No. 5 does not have the period of qualifying service in the post of Research Officer as prescribed under Rule 11 (g) so as to be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director. In such circumstances it is contended that promotion could not have been conferred on Respondent No. 5 to the post of Assistant Director. 6. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner have been vehemently resisted by Shri K. H. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the private respondent No. 5 in WP© 7630/03. Shri Choudhury has contended that by the notification dated 30.10.90, the post of Assistant Research Officer has not been equated with the post of Research Officer; what has been done is that along with the post of Statistical Officer/Information Officer/Planning Officer, which are in the same scale of pay as the post of Assistant Research officer and have been included as feeder posts for promotion to the post of Assistant Director under Rule 11 (g), the post of Asstt. Research Officer has also been made a feeder post for promotion to the post of Assistant Director. This, Shri Choudhury, contends is the purport and effect of the notification dated 31.10.90. Research Officer has also been made a feeder post for promotion to the post of Assistant Director. This, Shri Choudhury, contends is the purport and effect of the notification dated 31.10.90. Insofar as the promotion of the Respondent No. 5 to the post of Assistant Director is concerned, Shri Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, has submitted that pursuant to the order dated 12.3.03 passed in WP© 1966/99, a conscious decision was taken by the Govt. to hold the post of Assistant Research Officer to be a feeder post for promotion to the post of Assistant Director and, thereafter, the said fact was intimated to the Selection Committee, which Committee on the basis of the deliberations held, selected the Respondent No. 5 for promotion to the post of Assistant Director. Accordingly, promotion was made by the order-dated 20.8.2003. 7. Mr. M. R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education, while supporting the arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondent No. 5, has placed before the Court the connected records to defend the actions challenged. 8. The rival submissions advanced by the parties have been duly considered. A reading of the Govt. notification dated 30.10.90 would go to show that what has been done by the aforesaid Govt. notification is that the post of Assistant Research Officer has been declared to be a cadre post under Rule 11 (g) of the Rules. Though the reasons for the aforesaid exercise have not been disclosed by the Govt., non-disclosure thereof need not detain the present analysis. The power to declare a particular post as a feeder post for promotion to the next higher post, by adding to the list of existing feeder posts, is a power that must be conceded to an employer in the normal course. Rule 3(2) (ii) of the Service Rules empower the State Govt. to add to the list of cadre posts. What, however, is of significance is that the list of feeder posts insofar as promotion to the post of Assistant Director is concerned, has been enumerated in Rule 11 (g) of the Rules, Any addition or subtraction to the said list can, therefore, be made only by way of an amendment of Rule 11 (g) of the Rules. This is precisely the reason why this Court, in its earlier order dated 12.3.2003 passed in WP© 1656/99, had remanded the matter to the Govt. This is precisely the reason why this Court, in its earlier order dated 12.3.2003 passed in WP© 1656/99, had remanded the matter to the Govt. of Assam to clarify "Whether the post of Assistant Research Officer is a feeder post for promotion to the post of Assistant Director or whether the post of Assistant Research Officer is a feeder post for promotion to the post of Research Officer." This Court had further directed that only after the above clarification is made by the Govt. and intimation is sent to the APSC/ Selection Committee, necessary selection should be held. There is no material on record to indicate that any such clarification has been issued by the Govt. as directed by this Court in its order dated 12.3.2003 before holding the selection on the basis of which the Respondent No. 5 had been promoted. In any event, such a clarification could only be in form of an amendment to the Rule 1 l(g). The amendment, admittedly, is yet to be made. That apart, the promotion of the Respondent No. 5 to the post of Research Officer from the post of Assistant Research Officer by order dated 14.3.2001 is another significant fact that the court must take into account. The promotion of the Respondent No. 5 so made, would indicate that notwithstanding the notification dated 30.10.90, the post of Assistant Research Officer had been considered by the Govt. to be a feeder post for promotion to the post of Research Officer. If that be so, clearly and admittedly, the Respondent No. 5 did not have the qualifying service in the post of Research Officer at the time when he was promoted to the post of Assistant. Director by order dated 20.8.2003. The above facts would make the requirement of issuing the necessary clarifications as directed by this Court on 12.3.2003, absolutely imminent. No such clarification having been issued and that Rule ll(g) not having been amended, not much persuasion will be required for this Court to come to the conclusion that the promotion of the Respondent No. 5 to the post of Assistant Director will not be legally sustainable. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded above, I am of the considered view that promotion of the Respondent No. 5 to the post of Asstt. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded above, I am of the considered view that promotion of the Respondent No. 5 to the post of Asstt. Director made by order dated 20.8.2003 is bad in law and, therefore, the said promotion order is being interfered with, however, leaving it open to the Govt. to re-do the exercise after complying with the directions of this Court dated 12.3.2003 passed in WP© No. 1656/99. 9. A prayer has been made on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 to allow the said respondent to continue in service, notwithstanding interference made by this Court till the required exercise is performed by the State Govt. This Court has noticed that the promotion of the respondent No. 5 made by order dated 20.8.2003 is an officiating promotion under Regulation 4(d) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Function) Regulation, 1951. Promotions under Regulation 4 (d) of the aforesaid Regulation has been consistently held by this Court to be valid for a period of one year only unless it is regularized in the meantime. No evidence of regularization of the promotion of the Respondent No. 5 being discernible, any direction from this Court for the continuance of Respondent No. 5, even during the interregnum, will be contrary to the consistent pronouncements made by this Court in this regard. The aforesaid prayer, therefore, cannot be acceded to. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions writ petition No. 4108/99 shall stand answered accordingly, while WP(c) 7630/03 shall stand allowed, as indicated above.