1. The petitioner was member of service of Architect Wing of the Army. He is a Diploma holder but was not registered as Architect in terms of Architects Act, 1972 (for Short Act of 1972). A dispute was raised in a petition before the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court, as to whether a person who is not registered under Architect Act of 1972 can be christened as Architect. 2. The Division Bench of the Guwahati, High Court handed down judgment on 3rd July, 1999. The petitioner was not registered as Architect under the Architect Act, 1972 and there were other like officers in the same cadre. Communica­tion/order dated 28th December, 2006 was issued, which is reproduced as under:- "Chief Engineers HQ Southern Command, Pune HQ Eastern Command, Kolkata HQ Western Command, Chandimandir HQ Central Command, Lucknow DALJINDER SINGH v. U.O.I. & ORS. HC-479 HQ Northern Command, C/0 56 APO HQ SOUTH WESTERN COMMAND, C/O 56 APO STATUS OF PC (SL) OFFICERS OF ARCHITECT IN MES: TRANSFER OF PC (SL) OFFICERS NOT HOLDING DEGREE IN ARCHITECTURE FROM ARCHITECT TO BESTEO CADE IN MES 1. Refer this office letter No. A/00028/PC(SL)/Gp-2/ElA(Plg) dt 08 Aug 2006. 2. In light of the provisions of Architect Act 1972 and Hon'ble High Court, Guwahati Judgment dated 12th May, 1999 in Writ Appeal No. 114/96, a case had been taken up with AG's Branch/MP-2 for transfer of the PC (SL) Officers presently in Architect Cadre in the MES who are not holding qualification as specific in the Architect Act, 1972 and also not registered with the Council of Architects to the BSTEO Cadre. 3. The Adjutant General has accorded sanction for transfer of all the following 10 (ten) offrs of PC (SL) Architect Cadre in the MES who are not holding qualification as specified in the Architect Act, 1972 and also not registered with the Council of Architects to the BSTEO Cadre:- a) SL-03723 Lt Col SS Pillai b) SL-04124 Maj Gopalan N c) SL-04213 Maj OP Rana d) SL-04383 Maj Damodaran e) SL-04641 Maj Muralidharan f) SL-04642 Maj Muralidhar g) SL-04196 Maj Gopal Rao h) SL-04580 Maj DJ Singh i) SL-04438 Maj Dore Raju j) SL-04753 Capt Raju Abrham MS Branch/MS-12 has been requested to take action for transfer above offrs to BSTEO Cadre in the MES. You are requested to disseminate the above to all concerned. (Dinesh Gaur) Lt. Col GSO 1 Engrs (Pers)" 3. You are requested to disseminate the above to all concerned. (Dinesh Gaur) Lt. Col GSO 1 Engrs (Pers)" 3. In pursuance of said policy decision taken by the respondents, the petitioner's cadre was changed and he was posted as Senior Barrack Store Officers (SBSO) and was accordingly posted as BSTEO. The petitioner is substantively holding the rank of Major in the Army. 4. A communication/order dated 24th March, 2009 was issued, which is reproduced hereunder:- "Chief Engineer HQ Northern Comd Pin-908545 C/o 56 APO DEFERMENT FOR REPORTING DATE AND AMDT OF APPOINTMENT : PC (SL) OFFR 1. Ref DO letter No. 04641/MM/DO/11/Pers dated 18th February, 2009 from SL-0464K Maj M. Murali added to the E-in-C (copy encl) 2. Consequent to the representation from Civilian Architects in the MES on use of title of "Architect" and the legal judgment issued by Gauhati High Court on the subject, non Architecture 11 PC (SL) Engr Offrs were tfr to BSTEO cadre after the approval of the AG. However, consequent to feed­back reed from CD Comds, CE Zones and the environment, it was felt that the tfr of PC (SL) offrs of the Architecture Cadre was counter productive since they make a significant contribution in preparing architectural draw­ing for various prestigious projs in the MES. 3. In view of the above, a case for re-designation of PC (SL) Architecture Cadre offrs as SO-I E&D SO-2 E&D and SO-3 E&D has been taken up with AG's Branch. However, in the interim period PC (SL) offrs of Architecture Cadre are being posted as SO-I/SO-II and SO-1II in MES fmns. 4. The case for determent of the offrs postings may be proj to MS Branch. 5. The Offr may be info accordingly. He may also be instr not to interact with higher fmns directly. (Ami] Srivastavn) LT Col Offg Dir E1A For E-in-C" 5. The petitioner has challenged the said communication inasmuch as it had effect of change of his cadre again. In this petition, following reliefs are sought:- i) Direct the respondents to implement the communication NO. A/00028/PC(SL)/Gp-2/EIA(Plg) dated 28.12.2006 in its letter and spirit which has been issued in compliance to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati and in terms of provisions of Architect Act, 1972. ii) Quash the communication NO. A/00028/PC(SL)Gp-2/EIA dated 24-3-2009 which runs contrary to the Army Instruction 85/74 and violates the service conditions of the petitioner. A/00028/PC(SL)/Gp-2/EIA(Plg) dated 28.12.2006 in its letter and spirit which has been issued in compliance to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati and in terms of provisions of Architect Act, 1972. ii) Quash the communication NO. A/00028/PC(SL)Gp-2/EIA dated 24-3-2009 which runs contrary to the Army Instruction 85/74 and violates the service conditions of the petitioner. This apart Letter dated 24.3.2009 also runs contrary to communication dated 28.12.2006 in terms of which sanc­tion was accorded by the competent authority for change of Cadre of petitioner from Architect to BSETEO Cadre. iii) Any other order, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and appro­priate in the facts and circumstances of the case may also very kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. 6. On notice issued in this case, the respondents filed objections. It is pleaded that it is prerogative of the employer to utilize the services of the employee as per post and as per qualification and employee cannot seek posting of his choice. It is also pleaded that the petitioner being in the Architectural field, the respondents are at liberty to utilize his talent in the best possible manner. It is also pleaded that terms and conditions of the petitioner are governed by Army Instruction 85/74. It is also pleaded that Regular Commissioned Officers and PC (SL) officers from other sub cadres are also being posted as SO-1, 2 and 3 in MES formation. During the pendency of the petition, the respondents filed an application praying therein to bring on record the communication/order dated 12th October, 2009. The said communication/order is reproduced as under:- " ADJUTANT GENERAL'S BRANCH/ADDL DTE GEN MANPOWER MP-2 RE-DESIGNATION OF PC(SL) OFFRS : ARCHITECT CADRE 1. Ref your Note 03 dated 31 August 2009 on PC-A/00028/PC(SL)/Gp-2/E1A. 2. A proposal for restructuring of PC(SL) Cadre as a whole is under consideration based on the report of the Committee constituted to study all issues related to the PC(SL) Cadre. 3. In the interim, sanction of the competent authority is hereby accorded in terms of Para 15 of A185/74 for posting of PC(SL) offrs of the Architect Sub Cadre to Adm Offrs in MES est also. 4. This has the approval of the AG Sanction for tenanting BSTEO appts has already been given earlier vide Note 4 on PC-A/00028/PC(SL)/G-2/E1A (Rg) dated 18 December, 2006. (N Bharti) DirMP-2" 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. This has the approval of the AG Sanction for tenanting BSTEO appts has already been given earlier vide Note 4 on PC-A/00028/PC(SL)/G-2/E1A (Rg) dated 18 December, 2006. (N Bharti) DirMP-2" 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner can be posted anywhere in the cadre of service but against the post which is commensurate to his rank/status and in accordance with the communication/order dated 28th December, 2006. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that the communication/order dated 24th March, 2009 which is impugned in this writ petition, has the effect of undoing the change of cadre, which has taken effect in pursuance of communication/order dated 28th December, 2006. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is hold­ing the rank of Major and in the near future he will be considered for being promoted to the higher rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Learned counsel further sub­mitted that writ petition deserves to be allowed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the commu­nication/order dated 12th October, 2009, this writ petition is in essence rendered in fructuous inasmuch as the communication/order dated 24th March, 2009, which is impugned in the writ petition is rendered invalid in the context of the communi­cation/order dated 12th October, 2009. Learned counsel also submitted that the change of cadre is an interim arrangement which is subject to final order to be passed by the Competent Authority. Learned counsel submitted that by filing the writ petition, the petitioner wants that he should be posted only against the post of BSTEO officer. 11. Communication/order dated 28th December, 2006 is in force and the policy decision taken by the respondents has neither be withdrawn nor changed as on date. The respondents are duty bound to comply with the mandate of the said communication/order. 12. The petitioner is entitled for being posted anywhere but such posting is to be commensurate to his rank and against the post which is in the cadre of BSTEO. 13. The respondents-Competent Authority can add or delete posts from the cadre of the service. If any, other post(s) is added to the cadre of the service, petitioner can be posted against said post also but the post has to be commensurate to his rank which he is holding at present. 14. 13. The respondents-Competent Authority can add or delete posts from the cadre of the service. If any, other post(s) is added to the cadre of the service, petitioner can be posted against said post also but the post has to be commensurate to his rank which he is holding at present. 14. This is principle of law recognized by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 15. The respondents in terms of communication/order dated 12th October, 2009 as admitted by learned counsel for the respondents, have superseded commu­nication/order dated 24th March, 2009 impugned in the writ petition. The commu­nication/order dated 24th March, 2009 is thus rendered inconsequential, and rendered ineffective. 16. The cadre of the employee cannot be changed in breach of statutory rules of the Government order/instructions issued without putting him on notice. 17. For the above stated reasons, this petition is disposed of in the following manner; The respondents are directed to post the petitioner anywhere in his cadre of service in accordance with the mandate of communication/order dated 28th December, 2006 bearing No. A/00028/PC(SL)/Gp-2/EIA(Plg). How­ever, if any, post is added to the cadre of the service, the petitioner can be posted on the said post, if same is commensurate to the rank of the petitioner. Disposed of.