JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, C.J. 1. The Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 9-9-10 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 158(K)09. 2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that Respondent No. 4 has retired and therefore, learned Counsel for the Appellant does not press the writ appeal as against Respondent No. 4. We also find that Respondent No. 4 is only a proforma party. 3. We are concerned with promotions to the post of Superintendent of Taxes in the Taxes Department of the Government of Nagaland. 4. There is No. dispute that at the time of initial appointment of the Appellants and Respondent No. 1 to the post of Inspector of Taxes, the Appellants were senior to Respondent No. 1 having been appointed in June 1987 as against Respondent No. 1 who was appointed in November, 1989. 5. It appears that there is a departmental examination conducted by the Respondents under the Nagaland Taxation Service Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). Respondent No. 1 passed the departmental examination in 1994 but the Appellants passed the same examination about one year later i.e. some time in 1995. 6. As a result of having passed the departmental examination, Respondent No. 1 was promoted to the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes on 7-3-95, while the Appellants were promoted to the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes in October, 1995. Consequently, Respondent No. 1 was senior to the Appellants in the promotional post of Senior Inspector of Taxes. Thereafter, promotions were required to be made to the next higher post of Superintendent of Taxes. 7. By virtue of his seniority, Respondent No. 1 was promoted on an officiating basis as Superintendent of Taxes by an order dated 20-3-02, while the Appellants were promoted to the post of Superintendent of Taxes on 10-6-03 and 18-10-03 respectively. 8. A chart indicating the service profile of the Appellants and Respondent No. 1 is given below for easy understanding of the various dates mentioned above: Sl No. Name Date of Appointment as Inspector of Taxes Date of Passing Departmental Examination Date of Promotion to Senior Inspector of Taxes Date of Promotion to Supdt. of Taxes 1. Kilangnaro (Appellant No.1) 18-6-87 Sept. 1995 1.10.95 10-6-03 2. Imtilemla (Appellant No.2) 20-6-87 Sept. 1995 1.10.95 18.10.03 3. Heikigumding (Respondent No.4) 20-8-88 Sept. 1995 1.10.95 25.7.04 4. WochamoOdyuo (Respondent No.1) 6-11-89 Oct. of Taxes 1. Kilangnaro (Appellant No.1) 18-6-87 Sept. 1995 1.10.95 10-6-03 2. Imtilemla (Appellant No.2) 20-6-87 Sept. 1995 1.10.95 18.10.03 3. Heikigumding (Respondent No.4) 20-8-88 Sept. 1995 1.10.95 25.7.04 4. WochamoOdyuo (Respondent No.1) 6-11-89 Oct. 1994 7.3.95 20.3.02 9. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes was introduced by the Revision of Pay Rules, 1993 but it does not find a mention in the Nagaland Taxation Service Rules, 1976. This is notwithstanding promotions made to that post through proceedings held by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, we are required to proceed on the basis that the Nagaland Taxation Service Rules, 1976 stood modified to the above extent by necessary implication. Even if it were not so, it is now too late for anybody (particularly the Appellants) to challenge promotions to the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes, considering the fact that they too have enjoyed financial benefits accruing to them on promotion to this post from 1-10-1995 onwards. 10. As mentioned above, Respondent No. 1 was promoted to the next higher post of Superintendent of Taxes prior to the Appellants and in that sense, Respondent No. 1 superseded them at the time of promotion. 11. The Appellants, therefore, made representations to the official Respondents, more particularly on 28-6-06 and 7-7-06 and subsequent dates, protesting against the promotion of Respondent No. 1 to the post of Superintendent of Taxes prior to the Appellants. 12. The official Respondents took notice of the representations made from time to time and issued a memorandum/show cause notice to Respondent No. 1 on 17-1-07 to explain why corrective action, as may be deemed fit, be not taken. The implication of the show cause notice is that the seniority of the Appellants and Respondent No. 1 needed to be revised in the post of Superintendent of Taxes. 13. Respondent No. 1 replied to the show cause notice dated 17-1-07 and was also given a personal hearing. 14. Thereafter, the official Respondents passed an order in the form of a memorandum dated 21-4-09 re-fixing the seniority of the Appellants and Respondent No. 1 on the basis of their appointment in the post of Inspector of Taxes. 13. Respondent No. 1 replied to the show cause notice dated 17-1-07 and was also given a personal hearing. 14. Thereafter, the official Respondents passed an order in the form of a memorandum dated 21-4-09 re-fixing the seniority of the Appellants and Respondent No. 1 on the basis of their appointment in the post of Inspector of Taxes. In the memorandum dated 21-4-09 the official Respondents noted that the service rules do not contain the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes and that the Revision of Pay Rules, 1993 were only for the purpose of conferring financial benefits to those who have completed 5 (five) years of service, subject to passing of a departmental examination. On this basis, the official Respondent effectively de-recognised the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes which was held by the Appellants and Respondent No. 1 and Ors. for several years. 15. Feeling aggrieved by the re-fixing of seniority on the basis of the date of appointment as Inspector of Taxes, Respondent No. 1 preferred a writ petition which came to be allowed by the judgment under appeal. 16. The learned Single Judge considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and on an analysis of the Rules as well as the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee from time to time, noted that upgradation to the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes was considered to be a promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. In view of the passage of time, it was inappropriate for the Finance Department of the Government of Nagaland to ignore the upgradation/promotion to the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes and thereafter, to the post of Superintendent of Taxes. It was also incorrect to fix the seniority of the Appellants and Respondent No. 1 only on the basis of their date of initial appointment to the post of Inspector of Taxes. 17. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, set aside the memorandum dated 21-4-09 and directed that a Departmental Promotion Committee be constituted for making recommendations for regularizing the officiating promotions made to the post of Superintendent of Taxes. The learned Single Judge also directed that the seniority would have to be determined on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The learned Single Judge also directed that the seniority would have to be determined on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It was further directed that it will have to be borne in mind that a person promoted/regularized prior in point of time will always rank senior to persons promoted/regularized later in point of time. 18. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellants have preferred this writ appeal challenging the order dated 9-9-10 passed by the learned Single Judge. 19. At the outset, we must note that learned Counsel for the Appellants confined his submission by stating at the Bar that his objection was to the last sentence in paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment and Order which reads as follows: 22. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned memorandum dated 21-4-09 is not sustainable in law and accordingly, the same is interfered with by setting aside and quashing the same. Consequently, the matter shall now go back to the authorities for placing the matter of regularization of officiating upgradation/promotion of the Petitioner and the private Respondents before the DPC which course of action was also agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties during the course of hearing. Their seniority will have to be determined in the promotional grades on the basis of the recommendation which would be made by the DPC. It will have to be born in mind that a person promoted/regularized prior in point of time will always rank senior to the persons promoted/regularized later in point of time. 20. It will, therefore, be seen that No. grievance has been made by the Appellants to the quashing of the memorandum dated 21-4-09. In other words, the Appellants have accepted the fact that promotions to the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes cannot be ignored. Indeed, this is the correct position since the Appellants have themselves been promoted to the post and benefits thereof. It is not, therefore, permissible for them to now deny the existence of the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes. 21. We may also note in this context that even the DPC has recognized the existence of the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes and the Finance Department of the Government of Nagaland did not reject the recommendations of the DPC based on the existence of the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes. 21. We may also note in this context that even the DPC has recognized the existence of the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes and the Finance Department of the Government of Nagaland did not reject the recommendations of the DPC based on the existence of the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes. On the contrary, the Government of Nagaland has issued promotion orders and implemented them as if the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes exist. 22. We, therefore, have No. option but to accept that the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes exists even though it does not find a specific mention in the Nagaland Taxation Service Rules, 1976. 23. The factual position being as indicated above, there is No. doubt that Respondent No. 1 was senior to the Appellants in the post of Senior Inspector of Taxes and therefore, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Taxes prior to the Appellants and therefore, in the last 2 (two) posts i.e. Senior Inspector of Taxes and Superintendent of Taxes, Respondent No. 1 was senior to the Appellants. 24. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in directing the DPC to bear in mind that a person promoted/regularized prior in point of time will always rank senior to persons promoted/regularized later in point of time. 25. We have been told by learned Counsel that in terms of the direction given by the learned Single Judge, the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 30-11-10 and made its recommendations on the basis of the judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge. 26. Since we find that No. error was committed in law by the learned Single Judge in making observations that he did, the result of the Departmental Promotion Committee will now be released and acted upon by the official Respondents. 27. There is No. merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.