JDUGMENT S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.:- All the three petitions involve common questions of fact and law, and seek similar reliefs as such are decided together. 2. The facts as are necessary to adjudicate the present lis can be culled out as under :- 3. The petitioners have been appointed as a Sub-Overseers with the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1591 of 1994 is appointed as a Sub-Overseer on 27/02/1974, petitioner in Writ Petition No.1594 of 1994 is appointed as Sub-Overseer on 16/06/1983, whereas petitioner in Writ Petition No.1999 of 1994 is appointed on 07/12/1982 as a Sub-Overseer. Whereas, the respondent No.3 Shri. J.D. Gadekar is appointed as a Sub-Overseer with the respondent Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad on 06/01/1986, and respondent No.4 is appointed as a Sub-Overseer on 01/01/1986. The petitioners are senior to the respondent Nos.3 & 4 in the cadre of sub-overseer. 4. The Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad had prepared seniority list and published the same on 01/07/1993, as per the said seniority list the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1591 of 1994 Mohd. Hafeezuddin is at serial No.1, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1999 of 1994 Subhash Kathar is at serial No.9 and petitioner in Writ Petition No.1594 of 1994 is at serial No.15, whereas respondent No.3 Shri. Gadekar is at serial No.28 and respondent No.4 S. B. Joshi at serial No.38. 5. The respondent Municipal Corporation issued promotion orders in favour of respondent Nos.3 & 4 as Overseers/Jr. Engineers on 19/04/1994 i.e. when the vacancy arose for the post of Overseer. The petitioner being aggrieved by the fact that the; respondent Nos.3 & 4 who were at serial Nos.28 & 38 i.e. much below the petitioners in the seniority list are promoted as overseers, contending that in fact they were eligible for the same, have filed the present petition. 6. Shri. V. D. Sapkal, the learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that Municipal Corporation does not have its own Rules governing the promotion, as such, by resolution dated 24/03/1994 the Municipal Corporation has adopted the Government Resolution governing the employees of Government of Maharashtra in Public Works Department for filling in the posts of Overseers i.e. Junior Engineers. The said fact is also admitted by the Municipal Corporation in their affidavit-in-reply. The said fact is also admitted by the Municipal Corporation in their affidavit-in-reply. It is also contended by the Municipal Corporation in their affidavit in reply that on 12/04/1994 the Administrator of the Municipal Corporation had called meeting of the selection committee as per Section 54 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act for considering promotion of the eligible employees to the post of Overseers/Junior Engineers and had also decided that the two posts in the open category should be filled in as per the Government Resolution of 1975. The said Government Resolution of 1975 is sequel to the Government Resolution of 1964. 7. Shri. V. D. Sapkal learned counsel representing the petitioners further submitted that seniority is the only criteria for promoting Sub-Overseers to the post of Overseers/Junior Engineers. The eligible candidate has to pass the professional examination as required, and all the petitioners have passed the same. But the respondents have erroneously denied the promotion to them. According to Shri. V. D. Sapkal, on the date when the vacancy had arose, the petitioners were entitled to be promoted as they were senior to respondent Nos.3 & 4. It is submitted that the respondent Corporation by promoting the respondent Nos.3 & 4 instead of petitioners have committed illegality, that their said action is arbitrary, and that they have favored respondent Nos.3 & 4. 8. The counsel for the respondents submitted that though the petitioners are senior and have been appointed much prior in point of time, but as the petitioners have not passed the professional examination within three attempts, they are not eligible for the promotion. According to the learned counsel for the respondent passing the examination in three attempts is Sine qua non for promotion. It is further contended that the respondent Nos.3 & 4 have passed the professional examination within the stipulated three attempts and as such they have been rightly promoted. The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation also stressed that the .Government Resolution of 1975 has been scrupulously followed while promoting the respondent Nos.3 & 4. 9. With the assistance of the counsel for the parties. We have gone through the record and the relevant Government Resolutions adopted by Municipal Corporation for effectuating promotions to the post of Overseers/Junior Engineers. 10. 9. With the assistance of the counsel for the parties. We have gone through the record and the relevant Government Resolutions adopted by Municipal Corporation for effectuating promotions to the post of Overseers/Junior Engineers. 10. The Government Resolution of 1964 laid down that The technical assistant, Work Inspectors shall get entry into the cadre of Overseers only through intermediate cadres of sub-overseers, Surveyors and that too after passing through the professional examination for Overseers. It has been further laid down that total service of 5 years as sub-overseers/ Surveyors will have to be completed prior to appearing for professional examination, and that further they should pass the professional examination in three chances/attempts to be eligible for promotion. Vide circular dated 27/08/1974, it was reiterated that condition of Sub-Overseers/Surveyors completing five years service to be eligible to appear for examinations should be scrupulously followed. However, the said condition of passing the professional examination in three chances was relaxed vide Government Resolution dated 16/05/1975. For considering the rival contentions it would be necessary to refer to the said Government Resolution dated 16th May, 1975, which is reproduced here under. "Resolution :- Under Government Resolution, Irrigation and Power Department No.PER -1021/13808-E(2) dated the 16th Sept., 1964, the sub-overseers/Surveyors who are eligible for appearing for the professional Examination qualifying for entry into the Overseers cadre were given only three chances to appear for the professional Examination for Overseers. The question of giving more chances to such persons was under consideration of Government for some time past. Government is now pleased to direct that the Sub-overseers/surveyors should be allowed to take any number of chances to appear for the professional examinations of overseers and their promotion and seniority should be maintained in the following manner. I) The respective zonal S.Es. Should prepare the zonal seniority list of the sub-overseers/surveyors. II) The Sub-overseers/surveyors should be allowed to retain their seniority up to 3 chances only for passing the examination. If they do not pass the examination within three chances, they will lose their seniority to the other sub-overseers/surveyors who have already passed the professional examination of overseers. III) If a junior sub overseer/surveyor passes the Exam, earlier than his senior sub-overseers/surveyor, his promotion should not be with-held but he should be promoted and his promotion should be treated as fortuitous till his senior sub-overseer/ surveyor exhausts the first three chances. The reso. III) If a junior sub overseer/surveyor passes the Exam, earlier than his senior sub-overseers/surveyor, his promotion should not be with-held but he should be promoted and his promotion should be treated as fortuitous till his senior sub-overseer/ surveyor exhausts the first three chances. The reso. issues with concurrence of the G.A.D. And that Department U.o.r. Dated 23rd March, 1975. By order and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra." 11. It is not disputed that all the petitioners and the respondent No.4 have passed the professional examination in the year 1990. Whereas respondent No.3 had passed the professional examination in the year 1989, but without completing five years of service. 12. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners are much senior to respondent Nos.3 & 4 in the feeder cadre of sub-overseers. The petitioners have also passed the professional examination. It is also undisputed that in the seniority list which was published on 01/07/1993 all the petitioners are shown as seniors to the respondent Nos.3 & 4. The only defence of the respondents Municipal Corporation and respondent Nos.3 & 4 is that petitioners have failed to pass required professional examination in three attempts and as such, were not eligible to be considered for promotion, and as the respondent Nos.3 & 4 had passed the professional examination within the stipulated three chances they were only required to be considered for promotion. 13. It appears that the entire arguments on behalf of the respondent is based upon clause 2 of the Government Resolution of 1975. However, particular clause of the resolution cannot be read in isolation. For considering as to what are the requisite qualifications for promoting sub-overseer in the category of Junior Engineer/Overseer, it will be necessary to read the Government Resolution of 1964, Government Resolution of 1975 and Circular dated 27/08/1974 together. A conjoint reading thereof would lead to the conclusion that following two qualifications are necessary for promoting a sub-overseer in the cadre of Junior Engineer/Overseer. 1] That Sub-overseers/surveyors should have completed total service of five years inclusive of service as Technical Assistant/Work Inspector to be eligible for appearing for the professional examination, which is necessary qualification for promoting the sub-overseer to the cadre of Junior Engineer/ Overseer. 2] He should have passed the professional examination. 1] That Sub-overseers/surveyors should have completed total service of five years inclusive of service as Technical Assistant/Work Inspector to be eligible for appearing for the professional examination, which is necessary qualification for promoting the sub-overseer to the cadre of Junior Engineer/ Overseer. 2] He should have passed the professional examination. It can be further seen that though vide Government Resolution of 1964 a condition has been imposed that professional examination has to be cleared in three attempts within five years from the date of the first professional examination, this condition has been done away by the Government Resolution of 1975. In that view of the matter the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that, petitioners were not eligible to be promoted, since the petitioners had not cleared professional examination in three attempts does not hold any water. As a matter of fact, correctly interpreting the Government Resolution of 1975, the respondent Corporation had prepared the seniority list in the year 1993. It is pertinent to note that the said seniority list has not been challenged by anybody including the respondent-employees, who were promoted. It appears that it is for the first time when promotions were effected in the year 1994, an error has been committed by the Municipal Corporation in interpreting Government Resolution of 1975. In so far as clause II of Government Resolution of 1975 is concerned, we find that the same would be applicable to the facts of the present case. The said clause provides that the sub-overseer/surveyor should be allowed to retain the seniority up to three chances. It further provides that if they do not pass the professional examination within three chances, they will lose seniority to the other Sub-overseer who have already passed the professional examination. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that all the petitioners, so also respondent Gadekar have passed the professional examination in the year 1990. Respondent Joshi has passed the said examination in 1989. However, it is pertinent to note that both these respondents had completed only three years and four years service, when they appeared for examination. As such, in view of aforesaid Government Resolution of 1964 read with Government Circular of 1974, they were not eligible to appear for the examination. Both of them would become eligible only in the year 1991. However, it is pertinent to note that both these respondents had completed only three years and four years service, when they appeared for examination. As such, in view of aforesaid Government Resolution of 1964 read with Government Circular of 1974, they were not eligible to appear for the examination. Both of them would become eligible only in the year 1991. In any way, when the vacancies were filled in, the petitioners and the aforesaid respondents had cleared the said examination. Clause II would operate only, if the junior sub overseers have passed the examination prior to their seniors and only in that event the seniors would lose their seniority. Interpreting the clause properly, the seniority list of 1993 has been correctly prepared. In that view of the matter, we find that clause II also cannot be read in a manner so as to deprive the seniority to the petitioners, which has been correctly granted in the year 1993. As a matter of fact the respondents who have been promoted were not eligible to appear for the professional examination, in the year in which they have passed. However, since they had cleared the examination long back and on the basis of clearing the said examination have been placed in the seniority list, we are not inclined to disturb their position in the seniority list. 14. In the result, we allow the petitions. We hold that the promotions effectuated of respondent Nos.3 & 4 in the year 1994 by the respondent Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad to the post of Overseers/Junior Engineers as against the claim of the petitioners are illegal and erroneous. The respondent Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad is directed to follow the seniority list published by it on 01/07/1993 for the promotion to the post of Overseers/Junior Engineers, wherein the petitioner Hafezuddin is shown at serial No.1, the petitioner Subhash Kathar is shown at serial No.9 and the petitioner Prabhakar Pathak is shown at serial No.15 and give them deemed date of promotion with all consequential benefits to them in accordance with seniority regularizing the same with the dates on which vacancies arise in the cadre of Junior Engineer/Overseers. 15. During the course of hearing, we have noticed disturbing and startling facts. 15. During the course of hearing, we have noticed disturbing and startling facts. It is brought to our notice, that after the Writ Petition No.1591 of 1994 was filed, this Court had passed an interim order on 16/07/1994 to the effect that the respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad shall not make any promotion to the said posts without leave of this Court in future. The said order passed by this Court was in-force till 28/11/2003. During this period without leave of the Court the Respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad under the orders of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad have promoted various persons as Junior Engineers. The said orders of promotion were issued by the respective Commissioners on 03/01/1998, 29/06/1998, 01/02/1999, 31/01/1999 and 03/ 01/2002. It is pertinent to note that, though this Court vide order dated 28/11/2003 had modified the interim order, it had directed the claims of the eligible persons including the petitioners be considered. However, for the reasons best known to the Corporation, the claims of the present petitioners who are eligible were not even considered. All these orders are during the period when prohibitory orders were in-force. Prima facie it appears that the persons who were Commissioners on the relevant dates did not have sanctity to the orders passed by this Court nor had any regard to the Majesty of law. We had asked Shri. Pagare the learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad to furnish the list of Commissioners during whose tenure the said orders have been issued and thereafter, Shri. Pagare learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Corporation furnished the names of Commissioners. We find on the relevant date one Shri. D. N. Vaidya was the Commissioner from 09/07/1996 to 20/06/1999 and Dr. Shaileshkumar Sharma was the Commissioner from 07/07/2001 to 17/06/2002. It was during their tenure and under their signatures the promotion orders were issued. It seems that these persons had scant respect to the orders passed by this Court and did not have any regard to the majesty of law. As such, we hereby issue show cause notice to. Shri. D. N. Vaidya, Sadar Bazar, Satara, Dist.-Satara and Dr. Shaileshkumar Sharma, presently Settlement Commissioner & Directorate of Land Records, Pune, as to why action should not be taken against them for disobedience of the orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.1591/1994, dated 16/06/1994. 16. As such, we hereby issue show cause notice to. Shri. D. N. Vaidya, Sadar Bazar, Satara, Dist.-Satara and Dr. Shaileshkumar Sharma, presently Settlement Commissioner & Directorate of Land Records, Pune, as to why action should not be taken against them for disobedience of the orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.1591/1994, dated 16/06/1994. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we saddle the costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand) on the respondent No.1 to be payable to each of the petitioners. 17. Registry to issue notice to these persons returnable on 12/07/201.0. Ordered accordingly.