1. Heard Mr. A. Bimol Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Modhuchandra Singh, learned G.A. appearing for the state respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4. 2. Office note dated 7.6.2003 indicates that service of notice to the respondents 6 and 7 had returned after proper service. In spite of proper service of notice to the private respondents, none appears for and on behalf of the respondents 6 and 7. 3. The present writ petition was filed in the month of April, 2003. At the time of motion hearing, this court also passed an interim order dated 2.5.2003 to the effect that the operation of the impugned order dated 17.3.2003 (Annexure-A/11 to the writ petition) shall remain suspended until further orders. However, till to-day neither the state respondents nor the private respondents have filed any application for modification, alteration or cancellation of the interim order dated 2.5.2003 and till to-day none of the respondents has filed their affidavit-in-opposition. 4. Mr. A. Bimol Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner heavily relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Bir Singh Chauhan -vrs - State of Haryana and Another: (1997) 6 SCC 282 submits that as the respondents have neither filed counter affidavit nor produced any documents in support of their case denying the case of the petitioner in the present writ petition, plea of the petitioner that the private respondents 5,6 and 7 are not eligible for appointment by promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer may be accepted. In the above circumstances, this court is of the considered view that there is no point in lingering this writ petition. Accordingly this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at this order stage. 5. The factual panorama of the petitioner's case is that the petitioner is a Diploma holder in Agri. Engineering and he was initially appointed to the post of Section Officer Grade-I on ad hoc basis on 16.6.1989. By an order of the Govt. of Manipur being No.80-M/24/96-Agri (CAD), Imphal, the 5th February, 1998 ad hoc services of the petitioner as Section Officer Grade-I had been regularized with retrospective effect from 16.6.1989. A copy of the said order of the Govt. of Manipur dated 5.2.1998 is available at Annexure-A/1 to the present writ petition. The Govt. By an order of the Govt. of Manipur being No.80-M/24/96-Agri (CAD), Imphal, the 5th February, 1998 ad hoc services of the petitioner as Section Officer Grade-I had been regularized with retrospective effect from 16.6.1989. A copy of the said order of the Govt. of Manipur dated 5.2.1998 is available at Annexure-A/1 to the present writ petition. The Govt. of Manipur issued notification dated 16.9.1996 to the effect that in pursuance of all the previous orders issued in this regard and in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Manipur hereby makes the rules called “the Agriculture/Horticulture & Soil Conservation/ CADA Department, Manipur (Assistant Engineer) Recruitment Rules, 1996”, a copy of which is available at Annexure-A/2 to the writ petition. According to the said recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Engineer, 60% are to be filled up by promotion and 40% by direct recruitment and 60% of the promotion quota shall be filled up by the Section Officers having Degree with 3 years regular service/ Diploma with 8(eight) years' regular service and Section Officers not in possession Degree/AMIE or its equivalent or Diploma with 15 (fifteen) years with outstanding records of service. 6. From the mere perusal of the said recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Engineer under notification dated 16.9.1996, the Section Officers not in possession of Degree/AMIE or its equivalent or Diploma having 15 years with outstanding records of service shall be eligible for appointment by promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. In this regard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that mere competition of 15 year's service by the Section Officers who are not in possession Degree/AMIE or its equivalent will not be eligible for appointment by promotion inasmuch as 15 years regular service should be with outstanding records of service. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, outstanding records of service is the essential requirement for those Section Officers Grade-I who are not in possession of Degree or AMIE or its equivalent or Diploma. In the present case the private respondents 5, 6 and 7 are the Section Officers who are not in possession of Degree/AMIE or its equivalent or Diploma but they are the only Certificate holders. In the present case the private respondents 5, 6 and 7 are the Section Officers who are not in possession of Degree/AMIE or its equivalent or Diploma but they are the only Certificate holders. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the private respondents 5,6 and 7 are not having 15 (fifteen) years with outstanding records of service. Such being the situation, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the private respondents 5,6 and 7 are not eligible for appointment by promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer according to the said recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Engineer dated 16.9.1996. 7. It is also said that in the earlier instances also the Government of Manipur had passed orders dated 4.1.1990 for appointing the respondent no.7 to the post of Assistant Engineer on officiating basis. It is also said that the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 4.1.1990 had been challenged by one Khwairakpam Brajamani by filing a writ petition, i.e. C.R. No.87 of 1990, before this court. This court in the said C.R.No.87 of 1990 passed an interim order dated 12.1.1990 for suspending the said order dated 4.1.1990 whereunder the respondent no.7 had been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on officiating basis. The appointment of the private respondent no.7 to the post of Assistant Engineer on officiating basis under the said order of the Govt. of Manipur dated 4.1.1990 had been challenged by other Section Officers by filing different civil rules. Ultimately, in compliance of the interim order dated 12.1.1990 of this court passed in C.R.No.54 of 1990, the Govt. of Manipur had passed an order dated 31.3.1990 for cancellation of the said order of the Govt. of Manipur dated 4.1.1990 for appointing the private respondent no.7 to the post of Assistant Engineer on officiating basis. Later on, even the order of the Govt. of Manipur for appointing the private respondents 5,6 and 7 to the post of Assistant Engineer on in-charge basis had been cancelled under the order of the Govt. of Manipur dated 12.11.2002. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is the seniormost eligible Section Officer for appointment by promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer inasmuch as the respondents 5, 6 and 7 are not eligible for appointment by promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on the facts and circumstances discussed above. of Manipur dated 12.11.2002. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is the seniormost eligible Section Officer for appointment by promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer inasmuch as the respondents 5, 6 and 7 are not eligible for appointment by promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on the facts and circumstances discussed above. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Govt. of Manipur had already issued a number of office memoranda to the effect that even for appointment on officiating basis by promotion, case of the eligible senior officers/employees should be considered. The impugned order dated 17.3.2003 for appointing the private respondents 5,6 and 7 to the post of Assistant Engineer on in-charge basis is in clear violation of the office memoranda of the Govt. of Manipur. It is also a clear violation of the settled position under the service jurisprudence that only the eligible persons shall be considered for appointment to a particular post. It is also the constitutional scheme that eligible persons should be appointed or promoted to the particular post. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the instant case, the respondents 5, 6 and 7 are not at all eligible for appointment by promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. This court is constraint to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as respondents have not filed their affidavit-in-opposition even if they are given sufficient opportunities to file their affidavit-in-opposition. Having regard to the above discussions, this court is of the considered view that a clear case has been made out for interference to the impugned order of the Govt. of Manipur dated 17.3.2003 which had already been stayed by this court by passing interim order dated 2.5.2003. Accordingly the impugned orders of the Govt. of Manipur dated 17.3.2003 is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed.