Maibam B. K. Singh, J.- This writ petition has been filed praying mainly for quashing the impugned order dated 4.11.2003 and the impugned order dated 17.4.2009, copies of which are Annexure-A/10 and Annexure-A/11 of the writ petition respectively. By issuing the impugned order dated 4.11.2003, the State Government sought to rescind the Recruitment Rules of 2003 for the post of Deputy Director in the Tribal Development and Backward Classes Department, Manipur, with immediate effect and to revive the earlier Recruitment Rules of 1985 in respect of the same post with immediate effect and until further orders. The second impugned order dated 17.4.2009 was issued by the State Government in suppression of the first impugned order dated 4.11.2003, purportedly in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, to rescind the Recruitment Rules of 2003 for the post of Deputy Director in the said department of Tribal Development and Backward Classes, Manipur, with immediate effect to revive the earlier Recruitment Rules of 1985 in respect of the same post with immediate effect and until further orders. Since the first impugned order dated 4.11.2003 has already been superseded by the second impugned order dated 17.4.2009, we do not consider it necessary to consider the validity or otherwise in law in respect of the first impugned order and as such, the validity or otherwise of only the second impugned order dated 17.4.2009 shall be considered. 2. We have heard Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Ch. Dhananjoy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner No. 2, Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents, Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 and Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5. 3. One of the points raised by the learned counsel of the petitioners challenging the legality of the impugned order dated 17.4.2009 is that since it has been issued rescinding the Recruitment Rules of 2003 of the post of Deputy Director in the said department and reviving the Recruitment Rules of 1985 in respect of the same post without any consultation with the Manipur Public Service Commission, it cannot be given any legal effect and it is liable to be quashed. 4. 4. There is no dispute in between the petitioners and the State respondents regarding the fact that before issuance of the impugned order dated 17.4.2009, the Manipur Public Service Commission was not consulted. Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel of the respondent No. 4 (Manipur Public Service Commission), has also submitted that Manipur Public Service Commission was not consulted before issuance of the impugned order dated 17.4.2009 and that the Commission should have been consulted by the State Government before making in effect any amendment of the Recruitment Rules of the post of Deputy Director as per provisions of Article 320 (3) (a) and Article 320 (3) (b) of the Constitution of India. The submission of Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents is to the effect that there is no legal requirement to consult the Manipur Public Service Commission before issuing the impugned order dated 17.4.2009, which has the effect of amending the Recruitment Rules of 2003 of the post of Deputy Director in the said Department by substituting Recruitment Rules of 1985 in place of the said Recruitment Rules of 2003. In this connection, the learned Govt. Advocate refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U. P. Vs. Manabodhan Lal Shrivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912 and submits that the provisions of Article 320 (3) (c) of the Constitution of India are not mandatory and that the said provisions do not confer any right on a public servant in the absence of consultation or any irregularity in consultation with the Commission to enable him to claim for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. By issuing the impugned order dated 17.4.2009, for the purpose of rescinding the Recruitment Rules of 2003 for the post of Deputy Director in the said department and reviving the Recruitment Rules of 1985 in place of the said Recruitment Rules of 2003, the State Government was in effect making amendment of the Recruitment Rules of 2003 of the said post in the said department. In our considered opinion, for framing as well as for amending the Recruitment Rules of all posts except in respect of posts specifically excluded in the regulations framed by the State Government in exercise of its power conferred by proviso to Clause (3) of Article 320, consultation with the Manipur Public Service Commission will be compulsory. 6. In our considered opinion, for framing as well as for amending the Recruitment Rules of all posts except in respect of posts specifically excluded in the regulations framed by the State Government in exercise of its power conferred by proviso to Clause (3) of Article 320, consultation with the Manipur Public Service Commission will be compulsory. 6. In Abdul Kalam Vs. State of Manipur & Ors., 2006 (Suppl.) GLT882, a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (Justice Maibam B. K. Singh) was a party, held to the effect that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manabodhan Lal Srivastava (supra), once a regulation is framed by the State Government in exercise of its power conferred by the proviso to Clause (3) of Article 320, the State Government is bound to follow the regulations. There is no dispute that the State Government of Manipur has already framed the Manipur Public Service Commission (Exemptions from consultation) Regulations, 1972, hereinafter referred to as Regulations of 1972, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution. The State Government of Manipur has also issued an Executive Instructions (General Instructions regarding consultation with the Manipur Public Service Commission) to the effect that the Manipur Public Service Commission is required to be consulted by the State Government in respect of method of recruitment to services and posts which are not included in the Schedule of the Regulations, 1972. The relevant portions of the above said instructions are found to have been quoted extensively in the case of Abdul Kalam (supra). We are of the opinion that having regards to ihe decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manabodhan Lal Srivastava (supra), the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Kalam (supra) and also the provisions of Article 320 of the Constitution as well as the Regulations, 1972 and the relevant Executive Instructions, it is compulsory on the part of the State Government of Manipur to consult the Manipur Public Service Commission in making/amending Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Director in the Tribal Development and Backward Classes Department, Manipur. 7. 7. In our opinion, there is no any acceptable reason as to why this Division Bench should not follow the principles of law laid down by the earlier decision of this Court in Abdul Kalam (supra) and many other decisions including Banwari Lal Agarwal Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.: AIR 1961 SC 849 (CB) and British Machinery Supplies & Co. Vs. Union of India & Ors.: (1996) 9 SCC 663 . We do not find any appreciable reason as to why the State Government should not have consulted the Manipur Public Service Commission which is a constitutional and independent body and which is also to be considered as a well equipped and having a high degree of excellence in service matters for tendering impartial advice, at the time of repealing the Recruitment Rules of 2003 and reviving the old Recruitment Rules of 1985 by issuing the impugned order dated 17.4.2009 and thereby in effect in making amendment of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Director in the said department. By not consulting the Manipur Public Service Commission before issuing the impugned order dated 17.4.2009, the State Government acted illegally in violation of the provision of Article 320 (3) of the Constitution read with the Regulations, 1972 and relevant Executive Instructions and as such, the impugned order dated 17.4.2009 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In our opinion, by not consulting the Manipur Public Service Commission before issuing the impugned order dated 17.4.2009, apart from acting illegally, the State Government acted arbitrarily, unfairly and against public interest. 8. In view of the above findings, we are not inclined to consider other points submitted by the learned counsel of both parties. We appreciate the assistance rendered by both sides in this case, particularly the assistance given by Mr. A. Romenkumar Singh, learned counsel of the petitioners, who has submitted at length to show that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law on consideration of many other grounds. However, because of want of time and having found that the impugned order dated 17.4.2009 is not sustainable in law on the ground of its having been issued without consultation with the Manipur Public Service Commission, we have not considered other grounds as well the decisions submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioner. 9. However, because of want of time and having found that the impugned order dated 17.4.2009 is not sustainable in law on the ground of its having been issued without consultation with the Manipur Public Service Commission, we have not considered other grounds as well the decisions submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioner. 9. It is also to be noted that there is a prayer made by the petitioners for issuing a writ of Mandamus directing the State respondents to fill up the vacant post of Deputy Director in the said Department from amongst eligible officers in the feeder post in accordance with law. In this regard, no direction is required from this Court. It is for the concerned authorities to fill up the vacant post as and when the said post is required to be filled up in accordance with the relevant applicable law. There is nothing to show that the vacant post is required to be filled up within a specified period under the relevant provisions of law and that despite specific requirements under the law to fill up the vacant post within a specified time, the concerned authorities have failed to perform their statutory duties, hi this situation, we are not supposed to give any direction to the concerned authorities for filling up the post within a specified time. 10. In the result, this writ petition is allowed to the extent stated above. The impugned order dated 17.4.2009 is hereby quashed. It is made clear that this quashing of the impugned order shall not have the effect of automatic revival of the impugned order dated 04.11.2003. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.