JUDGMENT A.S. NAIDU, J. : As the controversy in all the aforesaid three cases is identical and based on similar facts and point of law, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 13108 of 2006 is a direct recruit to the post of Assistant Engineering (Electrical) in the establishment of Paradip Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as ‘PPT’). He has filed this writ petition inter alia praying as follows:- “Under these circumstances, the petitioner most humbly pays that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why: i) the Circular dated 22.9.2006 and the order dated 22.9.2006 issued by opposite party no.1 under Annexure-5 series shall not be quashed as illegal and arbitrary; ii) any other order/orders which may be deemed fit and proper shall not be granted to the petitioner; iii) the Board’s amendment vide Agenda Item No. 11 (04) 2006-07 dated 09.12.2006 under Annexure-7 series shall not be quashed as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.? W.P.(C) No. 11122 of 2007 was filed by ten petitioners who are also working as Assistant Engineers in the establishment of PPT. The prayer made in the said Writ Petition is almost identi¬cal to that of prayer made in W.P.(C) No. 13108 of 2006. 3. Before analyzing the controversy involved, it would be prudent to take note of the fact that out of ten petitioners who have filed W.P.(C) No. 11122 of 2007, petitioner no.3-Ajit Kumar Ray, petitioner no.4-Akshya Kumar Sahoo, petitioner no.8-Rabindra Jena and petitioner No.9-Paramananda Behera have already resigned from the service of PPT. Thus the Writ Petition at their in¬stances is no longer maintainable. Apart from the said fact, as it appears from the submission from Bar, none of the petitioners of the aforesaid Writ Petition are direct recruits to the mechan¬ical branch of PPT inasmuch as all the petitioners belong to electrical and civil branches. 4. The dispute in the aforesaid two Writ Petitions centers around the promotion of the Degree Holders and Diploma Holders Asst. Engineers to the rank of Executive Engineers of PPT. 4. The dispute in the aforesaid two Writ Petitions centers around the promotion of the Degree Holders and Diploma Holders Asst. Engineers to the rank of Executive Engineers of PPT. In consonance with the Recruitment Rules, 1990 (Annexure-A/2 in W.P.(C) No. 13108 of 2006), a Degree Engineer with five years experience and Diploma Engineer with twelve years experience were eligible for consideration for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineers. The relevant provisions reads as follows:- “Promotion from Asst. Engineers having graduate Engineering Degree/AMIE with five years experience as Asst. Engineer and promotion from Asst. Engineers having Engineering Diploma quali¬fication with twelve years experience as Asst. Engineer.” 5. In the year 1992 the said Recruitment Rules was amended as per the direction of Government of India and the promotion to the post of Executive Engineers was made in the ratio of 5:1 between Degree Holders and Diploma Holders respectively. The Board of Trustees of PPT in a meeting held on 05.9.1992 vide Resolution No. 73 resolved as follows:- “Resolved that the ratio of promotion in respect of Asst. Engineer (Degree Holder and Asst. Engineer Diploma Holder) to the post of Executive Engineer will be 5:1.” The said proposal was duly approved and the Rules were amended accordingly. 6. In the year 1993, it appears as per the direction of the Government of India some posts of Junior Engineers in Civil, Mechanical and Electrical were upgraded to the rank of Asst. Engineers. While matter stood thus in the year 1994 the Govern¬ment of India directed to maintain common seniority list for Diploma Holders and Degree Holders by merging both streams to one. Alleging that the said direction of the Government of India was not carried on, some of the Diploma Holder Asst. Engineers approached this Court in OJC No. 6044 of 1995 inter alia praying for issuance of a direction to issue a Writ of Mandamus to imple¬ment the direction of Government of India. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 12.2.1996 by observing as follows:- “Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Padhi for the Paradip Port Trust. We do not appreciate any ad hoc promotion being made contrary to the latest guidelines. It is submitted that the 1991 guidelines have been superseded by he 1994 guidelines. It is under review and/or for reconsideration. B.S. Tripathy for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Padhi for the Paradip Port Trust. We do not appreciate any ad hoc promotion being made contrary to the latest guidelines. It is submitted that the 1991 guidelines have been superseded by he 1994 guidelines. It is under review and/or for reconsideration. We direct that no step be taken in terms of the earlier guide¬lines. To enable the Port Trust authorities, in case of exigen¬cies, ad hoc promotions may be effected strictly without preju¬dice to the rights of any party which would be also subject to the result of the Writ Application. The ad hoc promotees be informed that they will have no claim for equity whatsoever. Since Union of India is a party to this Writ Petition, it is open to the petitioner and the Port Trust authorities to approach the Union of India to take an appropriate decision in the matter preferably within six months of communication of this order.” 7. After disposal of OJC No. 6044 of 1995 the Board of Trustees of PPT by Resolution dated 10.6.1997 (Annexure-D/2 of W.P. (C) No. 13108 of 2006) approved maintenance of common seniority list in the cadre of Asst. Engineers as per the direc¬tion of Government of India dated 28.6.1994. In the meanwhile on 08.3.2000 the Government of India issued another direction vide Annexure-E/2 calling upon all the Major Ports to keep in abeyance the cadre restructuring of Diploma and Degree Engineers until further orders. In view of the aforesaid communication, PPT took steps to fill up the post of Executive Engineers on Ad hoc basis by following the Recruitment Rules which existed prior to 05.9.1992 and by adopting the criteria that the Degree Engineer with five years experience and Diploma Engineer with twelve years experience would be eligible for promotion to the grade of Execu¬tive Engineer. In the year 2002 the Government of India directed that a common seniority list is to be maintained for Degree Holders and Diploma Holders. At that juncture W.P.(C) No. 13108 of 2006 was filed challenging the circular dated 22.9.2006 issued by the PPT for filing up the posts of Executive Engineer. This Court initially stayed operation of the order dated 22.9.2006 (Annexure-5 series) until further orders. At that juncture W.P.(C) No. 13108 of 2006 was filed challenging the circular dated 22.9.2006 issued by the PPT for filing up the posts of Executive Engineer. This Court initially stayed operation of the order dated 22.9.2006 (Annexure-5 series) until further orders. During pendency of the said Writ Petition PPT amended the Recruitment Rules and prepared a common seniority list subject to the final decision to be taken by this Court. Thereafter, a peti¬tion was filed before this Court seeking modification of the interim order. After hearing parties, the order dated 04.10.2006 was modified on 25.7.2007 as follows:- “Heard Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 2 and 3. This application has been filed by the Paradip Port Trust for vacation of the interim order of stay dated 04.10.2006. After hearing Mr. Pattnaik and Mr. Padhi, we are inclined to modify the interim order of stay dated 04.10.2006 to the extent that the Paradip Port Trust is allowed to proceed in terms of Annexure-3 in this regard. All decisions taken shall be abide by the result of the Writ application.” After the aforesaid modification, PPT on the basis of common seniority list, on 11.8.2007 promoted three Asst. Engineers (Electrical) and two Asst. Engineers (Civil) as Executive Engineers purely on ad hoc basis, subject to pendency of the Writ Petition. 8. A Contempt Petition being CONTC No. 952 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 13108 of 2006 alleging violation of the interim order of this Court and the said peti¬tion is also heard along with the Writ Petitions. While matter stood thus, W.P.(C) No. 11122 of 2007 was filed by some of the direct recruited Degree Holder Asst.Engineers (Civil) except Petition No.1-Smruti Ranjan Beura who is a direct recruited Degree Holder Asst. Engineer (Electrical) inter alia alleging that the PPT authorities have implemented the amendment to the Recruitment Rules under Annexure-12 without any justifica¬tion, though the same was not approved by the Government of India and the action of the opposite parties is not only illegal, arbitrary but also contrary to sub-section (1) of Section 124 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. It is further alleged that the said action is also contrary to letter dated 20.2.2006 Annexure-13 issued by Government of India. It is further alleged that the said action is also contrary to letter dated 20.2.2006 Annexure-13 issued by Government of India. In short the petitioners chal¬lenged the promotion order dated 11.8.2007 Annexure-15 by which opposite party nos. 4, 5 and 6 were promoted. 9. After receiving notice in both the Writ Petitions, voluminous counter affidavits have been filed by the opposite parties repudiating the averments made in different paragraphs of the Writ Petitions. In their counter affidavit the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have justified the action taken by the PPT and took a positive stand that since the amendment to the Recruitment Rules was made by way of implementation of Government of India’s order, the authorities have not committed any irregularity or illegality. It is also averred that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the Writ Application as most of them resigned from services and none of them are direct recruits of mechanical branch of PPT and belong to electrical and civil branches. The controversy in the present cases according to opposite parties is confined only to promotion to the rank of Executive Engineers (Mechanical) and as such the Writ Application at the instance of the petitioners is not maintainable. In support of such submis¬sion several documents have been annexed to the counter affida¬vits. 10. A petition for intervention was also filed by some of the Engineers of PPT. Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for them submitted that the interveners have vital interest in the lis and that the petitioners have suppressed several vital facts, which are necessary for effectual adjudica¬tion of the inter se disputes. The intervention petition has been allowed and they were permitted to put forth their submissions. 11. Similarly voluminous counter affidavits are also filed in W.P.(C) No. 13108 of 2006 repudiating the averments made in different paragraphs of the Writ Petition. The PPT has justified its action by relying upon several letters issued by the Government of India, copies of which are annexed to the counter affidavits as well as the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The PPT has justified its action by relying upon several letters issued by the Government of India, copies of which are annexed to the counter affidavits as well as the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. According to PPT the post of Executive Engineers are lying vacant since long causing administrative inconvenience and as such after this Court modified the inter ex parte order dated 04.10.2006, by order dated 25.7.2007 necessary steps were taken to fill up the posts by promoting eligible candidates subject to result of the Writ Petition. The action taken it is averred is just, proper and being in the interest of the PPT, needs no interference. 12. Heard Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. R. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in both the cases as well as Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for PPT and Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the interveners. Perused the pleadings as well as documents annexed thereto meticulously. Mr. Rath relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Manoharan and Others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 641 submitted that the direction of the Central Government being binding on the authorities/Board of Port Trust, the latter has no authority to unilaterally amend regulations relating to appoint¬ment/promotion of the employees of the Trust, without obtaining prior permission. Mr. Rath further submitted that though the Government of India has taken a decision, necessary amendments of the regulations have not been carried out. Consequently the action taken by the PPT in merging the cadres of Diploma Holder-Engineers and Degree Holder-Engineers to one and according promo¬tion from out of the said cadre is unjustified and illegal. He further stated that the Recruitment Rules of PPT so far as it relates to Asst. Engineers provides that out of the total vacancy 50% shall be filed up by way of promotion and rest 50% shall be filled up by way of direct recruitment. This ratio was not main¬tained by PPT. Consequently the promotions accorded by the au¬thorities beyond the sanctioned strength are unjust and illegal. He further submitted that the PPT authorities misconstrued them¬selves by arriving at a conclusion that upgradation amounts to promotion though the said concept is contrary to law. Mr. Rath submitted that preparation of common seniority list at the level of Asst. Consequently the promotions accorded by the au¬thorities beyond the sanctioned strength are unjust and illegal. He further submitted that the PPT authorities misconstrued them¬selves by arriving at a conclusion that upgradation amounts to promotion though the said concept is contrary to law. Mr. Rath submitted that preparation of common seniority list at the level of Asst. Engineers is contrary to the instructions issued by the Government of India in its letter dated 28.6.1994 (Annexure-6) and as such promotion of opposite party nos. 4 to 6 to the post of Executive Engineer was illegal, unjust, arbitrary and it is a fit case where the said promotions should be annulled. 13. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 11122 of 2007 has relied upon several decisions in support of his contention that upgradation is not promotion within the Recruitment Rules inasmuch as the upgraded Engineers were discharging the duties of Junior Engineers, thus they are ineligible to be promoted the post of Executive Engineer bypassing the post of Asst. Engineer. According to Mr. Pattnaik specific Rules are contemplated with regard to granting promotion to the post of Executive Engineers. The said Recruitment Rules stipulates that from the grade of Asst. Engineer an employee holding degree in Engineering shall be promoted to the next higher grade i.e. Executive Engineer, if he possessed five years of experience as Asst. Engineer. Similarly an Asst. Engineer who is a Diploma Holder can be promoted to the grade of Executive Engineer, if he possesses twelve years of experience as Asst. Engineer. The promotion should be based on the ratio of 5:1. It is stated that Diploma Holder and Degree Holder Engineers are two distinctly separate class of employees for which different years of experience has been stipulated for promotion. The intention of the Recruitment Rules being very clear, the authorities acted illegally and with material irregularity in merging the two cadres together and then granting promotion thereby giving a goby to the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. The Circular issued by the PPT also, it is submitted, is contrary to the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. On the basis of such circu¬lars and the resolution adopted by the PPT the mandatory provi¬sions of the Recruitment Rules as well as the provisions of the Act cannot be bypassed. In short according to Mr. The Circular issued by the PPT also, it is submitted, is contrary to the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. On the basis of such circu¬lars and the resolution adopted by the PPT the mandatory provi¬sions of the Recruitment Rules as well as the provisions of the Act cannot be bypassed. In short according to Mr. Pattnaik the entire action in granting promotion to some of the opposite parties is contrary to the Rules, unjust, illegal and it is a fit case where the same should be quashed. 14. Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for PPT on the other hand took pains to refer to different orders passed by the Government of India, circulars and resolution issued by the PPT and submitted that Recruitment, Promotion etc. of PPT employees is regulated by Paradip Port Employees (Recruit¬ment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1967. Clause 4 of the said Regulation deals with preparation of gradation list and specifies that a gradation list indicating respective seniority of the employees shall be maintained for each grade. The list shall indicate separately the permanent and temporary employees. Clause 7 of the Regulations deals with filling up vacancies. The said clause provides the manner of filling up vacancies by direct recruitment and departmental promotion as well as the age limit and educational qualifications and experience for direct recruits in respect of the various grades of posts. The Recruit¬ment Rules for the employees of the PPT, it is submitted is formulated as per the Regulation which is approved by the Govern¬ment of India. Section 111 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 deals with Power of Central Government to issue directions to Board and states that every Board shall in the discharge of its functions under this Act be bound by such directions on question of policy as the Central Government may give in writing from time to time. Section 123-A of the Act deals with Power of Authority to make regulations. Mr. Padhi also drew attention of this Court to several other provisions of law and submitted that PPT is bound by the direc¬tion of the Central Government on the policy matters. 15. In the case at hand two streams of Engineers are avail¬able in the establishment of PPT i.e. Diploma and Degree Holder Engineer. The Asst. Mr. Padhi also drew attention of this Court to several other provisions of law and submitted that PPT is bound by the direc¬tion of the Central Government on the policy matters. 15. In the case at hand two streams of Engineers are avail¬able in the establishment of PPT i.e. Diploma and Degree Holder Engineer. The Asst. engineers, as would be evident from the Recruitment Rules are recruited also from two sources i.e. by direct recruitment and by promotion from the rank of Junior Engineer (Diploma Holder) who had put in six years of service. It is further stipulated that 50% of the post of Asst. Engineer shall be filled up by direct recruitment of Graduate Engineers and balance 50% shall be filled up by promotion from Junior Engineers (Diploma Holders) having six years experience. Thus it appears that both the streams i.e. Graduate Engineers and Diploma Engineers merged in the rank of Asst. Engineers. Even though both the streams merged in the rank of Asst. Engineers while consider¬ing promotion to the higher grade, initially it was provided that five years experience is necessary for a Degree Holder to be promoted to the grade of Execute Engineer whereas twelve years of experience is necessary for a Diploma Holder to be promoted to that rank. This Rule, however, was amended in the year 1992 and the ratio of 5:1 was provided for according promotion. Perusal of the documents further reveals that the decision of the Board of Trustees of the year 1997 stipulating that two streams i.e. Diploma Holders and Graduate Engineers would merge in the rank of Asst. Engineers having not been assailed by any of the parties would be deemed to have been accepted. Thus there was no bar for preparing a common gradation list of Asst. Engineers. This aspect has also been clarified subsequently by the Government of India by its letter dated 22.9.2006 (Annexure-J/2) which reveals that a list of common seniority was to be maintained for Degree and Diploma Holder Engineers at the level of Asst. Engineers. But then according to learned counsel for the petitioners maintenance of a common seniority list of Asst. Engineers (Degree holders) recruited by direct recruitment and Asst. Engineers (Diploma Holders) promoted to the rank of Asst. Engineers would be con¬trary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Engineers. But then according to learned counsel for the petitioners maintenance of a common seniority list of Asst. Engineers (Degree holders) recruited by direct recruitment and Asst. Engineers (Diploma Holders) promoted to the rank of Asst. Engineers would be con¬trary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Triloki Nath Khosa and others re¬ported in AIR 1974 SC 1 while dealing with a question as to whether persons drawn from different sources can be integrated into one class for the purposes of promotion, on the basis of their educational qualifications, answered in positive. It held since the constitutional code of equality and equal opportunity is a charter for equals, equality of opportunity in matters of promotion means an equal promotion opportunity for persons who fall, substantially, within the same class. A classification of employees can therefore be made for first identifying and then distinguishing members of one class from those of another. The classification of Asst. Engineers into Degree Holders and Diploma Holders could not be held to rest on any unreal or unreasonable basis. The classification was made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering services. If this be the object, the classification is clearly correlated to it for higher educational qualifications are at least presumptive evi¬dence of a higher mental equipment. In the said decision the Supreme Curt further held that such classification is not violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Con¬stitution of India. The direction of the Government of India of 2002 Annexure-3 of W.P.(C) No. 13108 of 2006 was subsequently clarified and a direction was issued. According to the said direction of the Government, by order dated 22.9.2009 (Annexure-J/2) the PPT authorities amended the Recruitment Rules. Section 28(a) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 provides that the Board may make regulations not inconsistent with Act for recruitment, promotion, suspension etc. of its employees. Pursuant to the statutory powers conferred under Section 28 of the Act, the Paradip Port Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1967 has been enacted and Clause 7 of the said Regulation provides the manner of filling up vacancies by direct recruitment or departmental promotion in respect of various grades to be made by the Board. of its employees. Pursuant to the statutory powers conferred under Section 28 of the Act, the Paradip Port Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1967 has been enacted and Clause 7 of the said Regulation provides the manner of filling up vacancies by direct recruitment or departmental promotion in respect of various grades to be made by the Board. Clause 4 of the Regulation stipulates that a gradation list shall be maintained for each grade. The Recruitment Rules for filling up the posts of Executive Engineers, as would be evident from the materials produced, had to be formulated by the Board under the powers conferred upon it under Clause 7 of the Regula¬tion, 1967. It is needless to say that perusal of the entire Regulation vis-a-vis the Act reveals that the PPT has the power and authori¬ty to amend its Rules. Pursuant to the Recruitment Rules as amended as per the direction of the Government of India, the PPT has formulated a common cadre of Asst. Engineers for electrical, mechanical and civil. The said action is criticized by the peti¬tioners only on the ground that preparation of a common cadre list of Asst. Engineers by including the Junior Engineer (Diploma Holders) who were upgraded to the rank of Asst. Engineers and were asked to perform the duty of Junior Engineers was not justi¬fied. According to the petitioners, the Junior Engineers who were upgraded to the rank of Asst. Engineers being beyond the sanc¬tioned strength and as they have not been promoted by following the Recruitment Rules their names should not find place in the common gradation list. 16. In the year 1997 the PPT authorities directed that the persons who were upgraded from 04.9.1993 shall be notionally treated to have been promoted and they would get the benefit of pay scales of Asst. Engineers w.e.f. 1997. As per the Regulation as well as the Rules, the PPT has a right to upgrade any post. Once a post is upgraded the person holding the post for all acts and purposes would be deemed to be holding the upgraded post. Thus after upgradation of Junior Engineers (Diploma Holders) to the post of Asst. Engineers it cannot be said that they were holding the post of Junior Engineers, even after upgradation. Once a post is upgraded the person holding the post for all acts and purposes would be deemed to be holding the upgraded post. Thus after upgradation of Junior Engineers (Diploma Holders) to the post of Asst. Engineers it cannot be said that they were holding the post of Junior Engineers, even after upgradation. However, at the time of consideration of promotion to the higher grade i.e. the post of Executive Engineer, the PPT has followed the eligibility criteria stipulated for the Graduate Engineers and Diploma Holders sacrosanctly. There is no allegation that the said provision has been violated or infringed by PPT. It further appears from the documents annexed to the Writ Petition and counter affidavits as well as the submission made from Bar that out of the three branches i.e. electrical, mechani¬cal and civil at present none of the upgraded Junior Engineers i.e. Diploma Holders were available to be promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer (Civil). All the persons available in the rank of Asst. Engineers in the common seniority list were promoted from the post of Junior Engineers to Asst. Engineers on regular basis. In other words none of the Junior Engineers who have been upgraded to the post of Asst. Engineers is eligible for promo¬tion. It further appears that only one upgraded Junior Engineer i.e. Pitambar Majhi has been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on 08.5.2006. But then the said promotion was against a reserved Scheduled Caste vacancy and the same has not been challenged in any of the Writ Application. 17. The aforesaid scenario of facts factually reveals that there is no cause of action for any of the petitioners to chal¬lenge the promotion or any of the promotion of the Asst. Engi¬neers (direct recruit) to the rank of Executive Engineers. That apart as has been stated earlier out of ten petitioners, peti¬tioner nos. 3,4,8 and 9 of W.P.(C) No. 11122 of 2007 have already resigned from service. Further none of the petitioners of W.P.(C) Nos. 13108 of 2006 and 11122 of 2007 are direct recruits of mechanical branch of PPT. Thus the common gradation list and promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) does not affect any of the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid simple reason, contentious contentions raised and arguments advanced for days together appears to be more of academic in nature. 18. Thus the common gradation list and promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) does not affect any of the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid simple reason, contentious contentions raised and arguments advanced for days together appears to be more of academic in nature. 18. In course of hearing several judgments were cited on behalf of the petitioners with regard to law involving upgradation of posts vis-a-vis promotion. But then in view of the decision o the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Triloki Nath Khosa and others reported in AIR 1974 SC 1 and as there is no quarrel with regard to the legal proposition, this Court after going through the decision meticulously feels no necessity to repeal the same and increase the volume of this judgment, more so the controversy in issue is very much limited and has already been answered in the preceding paragraphs. Looking the entire scenario from another angle this Court finds that so far as electrical branch is concerned, the grada¬tion list of Asst. Engineers of said branch prepared on 01.11.2009 reveals that Sl. Nos. 1 to 6 were upgraded way back in the year 1994 and some of them have retired in the meanwhile. The said Junior Engineers (Diploma Holders) were promoted to rank of Asst. Engineers in the year 1998 and were placed above the direct recruit Asst. Engineers who joined in service on 03.9.1998. Thus for all acts and purposes they are senior to the petitioners and the petitioners would no be entitled to get the benefit of promo¬tion sidetracking them. So far as W.P.(C) No. 13108 of 2006 is concerned the petitioner of the said case is a direct recruit Asst. Engineer of electrical branch who is otherwise eligible to be promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer as he has put in five years of service. This Court, therefore, directs that his case should be considered by PPT for promotion forthwith, if the post of Execu¬tive Engineer is lying vacant. So far as W.P.(C) No. 11122 of 2007 is concerned as stated earlier four petitioners being petitioner Nos. 3,4,8 and 9 have already resigned from service. Petitioner No.1 belonging to electrical branch has put in more than five years of service, so he is also eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. So far as W.P.(C) No. 11122 of 2007 is concerned as stated earlier four petitioners being petitioner Nos. 3,4,8 and 9 have already resigned from service. Petitioner No.1 belonging to electrical branch has put in more than five years of service, so he is also eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. His case should also be considered for promotion by PPT forthwith, if the post of Executive Engineer is lying vacant. Petitioner nos. 2,5,6,7 and 10 have not put in five years of service as Asst. Engineers as yet. Thus they are not eligible to be promoted to the cadre of Executive Engineer either under the pre-existing Rule or under the amended Rule as the mandatory qualifying service for promotion is five years. None of the petitioners of civil branch are also eligible to be promoted to the rank of Executive Engineers. The foregoing decisions thus reveal that most of the petitioners have no right to claim for promotion. This Court further holds that PPT authorities have not committed any ille¬gality and irregularity and the decision taken to promote eligi¬ble candidates who have satisfied the mandatory requirements to the post of Executive Engineers was just and proper. it is well settled that if the post of Executive Engineers are kept vacant for considerable time it puts a dent in smooth administration of the establishment. In view of the fact that the promotions to the post of Executive Engineers were given in consonance with the Regulation, 1967 as well as the Rules and guidelines issued time and again by the Government of India, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same in these Writ Petitions. However, the PPT authorities are directed to consider the cases of those of the petitioners who have put in minimum required service and are otherwise eligible to get promotion at an early date. With the aforesaid observation both the Writ Petitions as well as the Contempt Petition are disposed of. B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. I agree. Ordered accordingly.