1. The petitioner being a Diploma holder Civil Engineer was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) on 30.1.1990 by the Chief Executive Officer of the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (for short District Council) and in the final seniority list of Junior Engineers published on 9.9.1996 (Annexure-1), he was shown at serial No. 4. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were initially appointed as Overseers (later designated as Junior Engineer) by the Director of Welfare for Scheduled Tribes, Government of Tripura on 13.9.1984 and posted in the office of the District Council, Agartala (Annexure-A). While serving on deputation, they were absorbed in the services of the District Council with effect from 1.1.1997 as Junior Engineers (Notification at Annexure-4). They were absorbed against two personal posts created by the District Council and the absorption was with the consent of the parent department. One of the conditions contained in the said Notification, dated 20.1.1997 was that their absorption in the District Council would not affect other Junior Engineers of the District Council. Thus, in terms of length of service in the District Council, the petitioner, who was directly appointed on 30.1.1990, was senior to the aforesaid respondents, who were born in the services of the District Council only on 20.1.1997. But by Memorandum dated 18.8.1998 (Annexure-5), those two respondents were promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineers with effect from 1.7.1998 ignoring the case of the petitioner and without finalizing the seniority list of Junior Engineers Grade-1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid promotion order dated 18.8.1998. 2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the District Council and its Chief Executive Officer contested the claim contending that though the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed by the Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Tripura, they were posted from day one in the office of the District Council and, therefore, for an intent and purposes they should be treated as the employees of the District Council since their joining in 1984. In the first counter, which was later replenished by an additional counter-affidavit, the respondents admit that on 1.1.1997, the two private respondents were absorbed against two personal posts created by the District Council and so they did not in any way affect the seniority of the existing Junior Engineers. In the first counter, which was later replenished by an additional counter-affidavit, the respondents admit that on 1.1.1997, the two private respondents were absorbed against two personal posts created by the District Council and so they did not in any way affect the seniority of the existing Junior Engineers. Considering the length of service and performance, they were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in pursuance of a resolution taken by the Executive Committee on 30.9.1996. The posts of Assistant Engineer against which they were promoted, were also personal posts and, therefore, the petitioner had no reason to aggrieve by the impugned promotion order as the regular posts of Assistant Engineer under the District Council remained available for the regular Junior Engineers of the District Council. 3. The private respondents filed separate counter-affidavit in line with the stand taken by the first two respondents contending that though they were appointed by the Director of Tribal Welfare under the State Government, they were posted in the office of the District Council from the very inception and for all intents and purposes, they were employees of the District Council and considering the length of service, they were senior to the petitioner and accordingly their promotion by the impugned order was correctly done. 4. I have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Before adverting to the issue of inter se seniority and the impugned promotion, the admitted factual situation and legal position are to be taken note of. It is not in dispute that the District Council is a statutory body constituted under Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and, therefore, it is a juristic person having separate and distinct entity from that of the State Government. It is also not in dispute that the employees appointed by the District Council are not employees of the State Government and that the employees appointed by the State Government and sent on deputation to the District Council do not automatically become the employees of the District Council unless by specific order they are absorbed. Admittedly, the private respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed as Overseers by the Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Tripura in 1984 and, therefore, they are the employees under the State Government. Admittedly, the private respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed as Overseers by the Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Tripura in 1984 and, therefore, they are the employees under the State Government. Though from the very inception they were posted in the office of the District Council, after a long period of more than 12 years continuous service in the District Council, they were absorbed as Junior Engineers by order dated 20.1.1997, which was issued under the signature of the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the District Council. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the period of their deputation ended only with the order issued on 20.1.1997 and the Notification clearly mentioned that they were on deputation to the District Council before their absorption. This leaves no doubt that they became regular employee of the District Council only with effect from 1.1.1997. 6. As regards the position of the petitioner, it is also not in dispute that he was directly appointed on 30.1.1990 as Junior Engineer (Civil) by the District Council and, therefore, he was the regular employee of the District Council since the date of his appointment. The final seniority list of the Junior Engineers (Diploma holders) of the District Council was published in 1996 showing the petitioner at serial No. 4. When the private respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were absorbed on 20.1.1997, the respondent-District Council should have included them in the seniority list before considering their promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer. After their absorption on 20.1.1997, they were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 6.7.1998 by the impugned order dated 18.8.1998 even before they completed a period of two years while the petitioner, who completed about 8 years of service as Junior Engineer, was not considered for promotion. 7. Advancing his argument, Mr. Talapatra contended that the petitioner being senior to the private respondent Nos. 4 and 5 having regard to the length of service as regular employee under the District Council, it was his legal and fundamental right to be considered for promotion when his juniors were considered and that by not doing so, the respondent-District Council has violated articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 8. Mr. Bhattacharjee while defending the impugned promotion tried to bring home the point that the absorption as well as promotion of the respondent Nos. 8. Mr. Bhattacharjee while defending the impugned promotion tried to bring home the point that the absorption as well as promotion of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were against personal posts separately created for them only and, therefore, the petitioner had no right to be considered for promotion against those posts. He further argued that keeping aside the purely technical question relating to deputation and absorption, it should not be lost sight of that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 served under the District Council from the very date of their appointment since 1984 and in that view of the matter the petitioner, who was appointed only in 1990, was much junior to them. Mr. Bhattacharjee continues that at the initial stage of formation of the District Council, the Director of Tribal Welfare, who was the Head of the Administrative Department of the State Government for the District Council in fact acted for the Council only while appointing the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for the services of the District Council and considering from that angle, they being appointed for the District Council only, are to be treated as regular employees of the District Council since 1984 for all intent and purposes. This being the dominant intention, their appointment under the signature of the Director of Tribal Welfare and their later absorption r. . 97 were only paper formalities, which should not be taken as a ground for denying them seniority and benefit of long service as such denial can not advance the cause of substantial justice. 9. I have carefully taken into consideration the rival submissions. Though the submissions of Mr. Bhattacharjee that during the formation period of District Council, the appointment letters of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were issued by the Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Tripura acting on behalf of the District Council are fairly robust, the records available unfortunately do not support this position, particularly when the order of absorption clearly mentioned that they were on deputation to the District Council. 4 and 5 were issued by the Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Tripura acting on behalf of the District Council are fairly robust, the records available unfortunately do not support this position, particularly when the order of absorption clearly mentioned that they were on deputation to the District Council. No speaking order was ever passed either by the State Government or by the District Council that the Director of Tribal Welfare acted on behalf of the District Council while appointing the two private respondents and in the absence of any such action, it is difficult for this court to hold that they were the regular employees of the District Council from the very beginning. It is also not in dispute that while promoting the two private respondents, the petitioner and other regular Junior Engineers, who have claimed seniority over the two private respondents due to continuous length of service, were not taken into consideration and as such the impugned promotion order cannot stand to legal scrutiny. Strictly from the legal point of view once it is accepted that the petitioner or other regular Junior Engineers of the District Council were senior to the private respondents, creation of personal posts only to promote the juniors cannot also stand to legal scrutiny. 10. For the reasons discussed above, this writ petition succeeds holding that the impugned promotion order of the two private respondents by Memorandum dated 18.8.1998 is not sustainable in law. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, particularly the fact that the two private respondents were ; n service of the District Council from the date of their appointment, the respondent-District Council is at liberty to take suitable steps according to law for saving the impugned promotion order and while doing so it should be kept in mind that the regular Junior Engineers, who are senior to the private respondents, have a right to be considered for promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineer, if necessary by creating personal/supernumerary post with effect from the date when their juniors were promoted. Needless to mention that such seniors have only right to be considered for promotion but no right to be promoted. 11. Subject to the observations made above, this writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.