JUDGMENT Rajan Gogoi, J. 1. A decision to merge the post of Assistant Superintendent (Stores) with the post of Office Superintendent, to give the merged post the nomenclature of Superintendent and the consequential fixation of seniority of the Respondent No. 5 in the cadre of Superintendent above the writ Petitioner is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. To appreciate the challenge made, a brief recital of the core facts will be necessary . 2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as an Upper Division Clerk in the North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, hereinafter referred to as the NERIST, on 17.3.1986. The Respondent No. 5, on the other hand, was directly appointed to the post of Store Keeper on 8.5.1987. On 28.10.1991, the Petitioner was promoted to the next higher post of Assistant. The pay scale of the posts of Assistant and Store Keeper, which would be relevant, may be noticed at this stage. The pay scale of the post of Store Keeper was of Rs. 1400-2300/- (revised to Rs. 4,000-7,000/-) whereas the past of Assistant was in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600/- (revised to Rs. 5,000-8,000/-). On 1.12.1992, the Respondent No. 5 was promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Superintendent (Stores), which was in the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900/-, (revised to Rs. 5,500-9,000). The post of Office Superintendent was in the same scale of pay. The Petitioner was promoted to the said post of Office Superintendent on 12.1.1998. On the basis of such of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission which were accepted the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 was enacted and by a communication dated 5.6.1998 addressed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India, the Director of NERIST was informed that the pay scales as incorporated in the Part-A of the first Schedule to the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 is being extended to employees of NERIST. In paragraph 2.1 of the said communication dated 5.6.1998, it was mentioned that as the posts of Assistant Superintendent (Stores) and Office Superintendent were in the same scale of pay, the two posts may be merged and a new nomenclature of Superintendent be given to the post. In paragraph 2.1 of the said communication dated 5.6.1998, it was mentioned that as the posts of Assistant Superintendent (Stores) and Office Superintendent were in the same scale of pay, the two posts may be merged and a new nomenclature of Superintendent be given to the post. Acting pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Government of India, as contained in the communication dated 5.6.1998, the Board of Management of NERIST in its 42nd meeting held on 8.6.1998, considered the matter and took a decision for merger of the two posts in question. Thereafter, an Office Order dated 17.6.1998 was issued indicating the revised pay scales of different posts in the NERIST. In the said order dated 17.6.1998, it was reflected that the post of Assistant Superintendent (Stores) is being merged with the Office Superintendent. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid merger effected, a provisional seniority list of Superintendents was circulated by Office Memo dated 4.3.2002. In the said provisional list, the Respondent No. 5 was shown to be senior to the Petitioner. The seniority assigned, as can be understood from the remarks noted in the provisional seniority list, was on the basis of the earlier date of joining of the Respondent No. 5 in the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900 (revised to Rs. 5500-9,000/-) in the post of Assistant Superintendent (Stores), which was also the scale of pay of the post of Office Superintendent held by the Petitioner at the time of the merger of the two posts. The Petitioner by his representation dated 3.4.2002 sought a rectification of the seniority assigned. However, by O.M. dated 4.7.2002, the final seniority list of Superintendent was circulated reiterating the seniority of the incumbents as reflected in the provisional seniority list dated 4.3.2002. Thereafter, it appears that the Petitioner kept on protesting against the seniority assigned. A committee was, therefore, constituted by the authority of the NERIST to go into the matter. In the report of the aforesaid committee, as available on record, the committee appears to have taken the view that the merger affected and the consequential seniority assigned was not correct and that the matter needed to be reviewed. A committee was, therefore, constituted by the authority of the NERIST to go into the matter. In the report of the aforesaid committee, as available on record, the committee appears to have taken the view that the merger affected and the consequential seniority assigned was not correct and that the matter needed to be reviewed. In such circumstances, the authority of the NERIST referred the matter to the Ministry and the Ministry by its communication dated 9/19.7.2004 reiterated that the decision of merger was taken in public interest and that the Respondent No. 5 having come into the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900/- (pre-revised) earlier than the writ Petitioner, the seniority assigned to the Respondent No. 5, was correctly done and that the matter need not be reopened. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. I have heard Shri RK. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner, Shri N.N. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the NERIST and Shri A. Mannan, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Union of India. The Respondent No. 5, though served, has not appeared before the Court. 5. The submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner has been to the effect that the decision to effect a merger of the two posts in question has not been proceeded by any objective consideration of the need/necessity of such merger and the principles, which have been held by the Apex Court, to be the governing principles of merger of two posts. Shri Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner while submitting that any decision to effect a merger of posts, being essentially a policy decision, the scope of judicial scrutiny of such a decision will be limited has, however, submitted, whether the relevant circumstances as laid down by the Apex Court to be the governing principles for a decision of merger of posts had been followed and adhered to or not, will be within the scope of such scrutiny. In the present case, according to Shri Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the materials on record do not show that the said principles were kept in mind prior to the impugned decision of merger and the Government of India's communication dated 5.6.1998, on the basis of which merger was effected, merely recites that the pay-scales of the two posts are identical. Mere identity of pay scales of the two posts, according to Shri Tiwari, will not be sufficient for the Court to uphold the decision to merge the posts, unless, there are materials to show that the other governing principles had been duly considered. It is on the aforesaid basis that Shri P.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has sought to challenge the decision making process leading to the merger of the two posts, which argument has sought to be supplemented by questioning the power of the NERIST authority to give effect to the merger retrospectively, i.e., from 1.1.1996. Shri Tiwari has further argued that the principles for fixation of seniority of the incumbents, after the merger of posts, has to be laid down and any such principle has to conform to the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the present case, no such principles had been laid down by the Government of India or by the NERIST while effecting the merger. Reliance in this regard has been placed by Shri Tiwari on three Supreme Court's decisions in the cases of Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwai, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2345 , State of Maharastra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Ors. reported in (1981) 4 SCC 130 , S.P. Shivprasad Pipal v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1998) 4 SCC 598 . In so far as the power to effect merger retrospectively is concerned, reliance has been placed on a Supreme Court's judgment in the case of K. Rabindra Nath and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 246. 6. The arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioner have met with stiff opposition offered by Shri N.N. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the NERIST. At the outset, Shri Saikia has argued that the writ petition, in so far as it seeks to challenge the merger of the posts, is a highly belated one and, therefore, the aforesaid aspect of the case should not be gone into by the Court. The merger was effected in the year 1998 whereas the writ petition has been filed in the year 2004. There is no explanation for the delay. Citing two decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1974 SC 2271 and B.S. Bajwa and Anr. The merger was effected in the year 1998 whereas the writ petition has been filed in the year 2004. There is no explanation for the delay. Citing two decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1974 SC 2271 and B.S. Bajwa and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (1998) 2 SCC 523 , Shri Saikia has argued that the merger having been effected as far back as in the year 1998 and things having become settled by long efflux of time, the aforesaid question ought not to be reopened by the Court. On merits, Shri Saikia has submitted that the question of merger of posts is essentially a policy decision and unless the decision reflects lack of bonafides or is in any way arbitrary, the power of judicial review should not be exercised to scrutinize the merits of the decision. In the present case as the two posts were carrying identical scales of pay and the duties attached to the posts were inter-changeable, the Government of India had taken a policy decision, in public interest, to effect a merger of the two posts. The limited parameters of the exercise of the power of judicial review, it is, therefore, submitted would be non-existent in the present case. In this regard Shri Saikia has placed before the Court the statements made in the affidavit filed by the Respondents in support of the fact that the posts of Office Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent (Stores), though in separate cadres, involved duties and responsibilities which were inter-changeable and the incumbents holding the two posts, had from time to time, performed such duties. In so far as the determination of seniority is concerned, Shri Saikia has contended that the inter-se-seniority of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 has been fixed on an equitable principle, i.e., the date of the respective incumbents coming to the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900 (pre-revised). As the Respondent No. 5 had come into the said scale in the year 1992 and the Petitioner in the year 1998, Shri Saikia has argued that the higher seniority assigned to the Respondent No. 5 would be fully justified. Shri A. Mannan, learned Central Government Counsel has adopted and supported the arguments made by Shri Saikia, learned Senior Standing Counsel, NERIST. 7. Shri A. Mannan, learned Central Government Counsel has adopted and supported the arguments made by Shri Saikia, learned Senior Standing Counsel, NERIST. 7. The rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties have been duly considered. The power of merger of posts is certainly the prerogative of the Employer State and such a decision being a policy decision, the scope of judicial intervention would be extremely limited. Unless the decision of merger of two posts reflects an apparent lack of bonafide or is wholly arbitrary and irrational, it is not for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the executive. This appears to be the view expressed in long of judgments commencing with the views of the Constitution Bench in the State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, reported in AIR 1963 SC 913 . The aforesaid view found further manifestation in the decision of the Apex Court in Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal (supra), Chandrakant Anant Kukarni (supra) as well as S.P. Shiv Prasad Pipal (supra). The law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, particularly in the latter judgments, is to the effect that a decision to merge two posts has to be preceded by determination of the equation of the posts by consideration of the following factors: a) Nature and duties of a post; b) Powers exercised by the officers holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; c) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post, and d) The salary of the post. The following observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni (supra) would amply sum up the situation: It is not open to the Court to consider whether the equation of posts made by the Central Government is right or wrong. This was a matter exclusively within the province of Central Government. Perhaps, the only question the Court can enquire into is whether the four principles cited above had been properly taken into account. This is a narrow and limited field within which the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court can operate. 8. This was a matter exclusively within the province of Central Government. Perhaps, the only question the Court can enquire into is whether the four principles cited above had been properly taken into account. This is a narrow and limited field within which the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court can operate. 8. In the present case, while the pay scale of the two posts prior to their merger were the same, the nature and duties of the two posts as well as the powers and responsibilities attached though not reflected in the Government of India's letter dated 5.6.1998, has been satisfactorily explained in the affidavit of the NERIST to be largely similar. In this regard, the statement made to the effect that the incumbents in both the posts were from time to time posted in different branches of NERIST to perform similar and identical duties could be of particular significance. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the decision of merger, as impugned by the writ Petitioner, had not been preceded by consideration of the relevant principles as laid down by the Apex Court. That apart, the writ petition, in so far as it seeks to challenge the decision of merger, is a highly belated one. The delay has been sought to be explained by the Petitioner by contending that he had filed representations. The representations brought on record by the Petitioner are with regard to the assignment of seniority and not in respect of the merger of the two posts. A period of over 7 years has elapsed in the meantime. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that it would not be a prudent exercise of the writ power to reopen the said question and to unsettle what must be understood to have become a settled position by long efflux of time. 9. Coming to the question of inter-se-seniority of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5, it cannot be held that the principle or principles governing such inter se seniority must necessarily be laid down in the order of merger. 9. Coming to the question of inter-se-seniority of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5, it cannot be held that the principle or principles governing such inter se seniority must necessarily be laid down in the order of merger. The argument to the aforesaid effect made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner by placing reliance on the decision of Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwai (supra) can hardly be accepted as no such proposition of law can be said to have been laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment relied upon. The determination of inter-se-seniority of the incumbents after merger of two posts must be with reference to an acceptable principle and without offending the rights of the concerned incumbents guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the present case, the inter se seniority between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 has been determined with reference to the date on which the incumbents had come into scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900/-, (subsequently revised to Rs. 5590-9000/-). The Petitioner had come into the aforesaid scale of pay in the year 1998 whereas the Respondent No. 5 had come to the same scale in the year 1992. The circumstances in which the Respondent No. 5 had been promoted to the said scale, i.e., by what may be termed as accelerated promotion as he was the only incumbent in the feeder post of Store Keeper, in the considered view of the Court, cannot detract or dilute the effect of such promotion of the Respondent No. 5 to the higher scale of pay, which was earlier than the writ Petitioner. The inter-se-seniority of the incumbents having been determined on the basis of the respective dates of their coming into the relevant pay scale, must be held by the Court to have been made on an equitable and acceptable principle. Therefore, such determination of inter-se-seniority would not require to be invalidated by the Court. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to take the view that the present writ petition is without any merit or substance. It is accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, parties are left to bear their own cost.