JUDGMENT A.K. Goswami, J. 1. Civil Rule No. 120(K) of 1993 was filed on 11.12.1993 by the Direct Recruit SDOs/Assistant Engineers Union, for short, Union, under Works and Housing Department as the petitioner No. 1 alongwith the President, Vice-President, General Secretary and the Joint Secretary of the Union as the petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Civil Rule No. 120(K) of 1993 was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 20.02.1995, ex-parte, against the private respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 had filed a Review Petition against the said judgment and order dated 20.02.1995, registered as Civil Review Petition No. 5(K) of 1998, contending that the judgment and order dated 20.02.1995 was passed without serving any notice upon him. By an order dated 29.11.1999, this Court had dismissed the Review Petition holding that the respondent No. 3 was served with the notice. Against the said order dated 29.11.1999, the respondent No. 3 had preferred an appeal which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 459 of 1999 before the Principal Seat and the same was subsequently numbered as Writ Appeal No. 1(K) of 2003 at the Kohima Bench. Writ Appeal No. 1(K) of 2003 was disposed of by an order dated 31.03.2006 holding that the appeal was misconceived. The respondent No. 3 preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and by an order dated 22.01.2007, the Supreme Court had remanded the matter to the writ appellate Court by setting aside the judgment and order dated 31.03.2006 passed in Writ Appeal No. 1(K) of 2003, also granting an opportunity to the respondent No. 3 to prefer an appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge within one month from the date of communication of the order. It was also ordered that in the event of an appeal being filed, the same shall be heard on merits with a further direction that both the appeals will be heard together. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court, the respondent No. 3 had preferred an appeal against the order dated 20.02.1995 in Civil Rule No. 120(K) of 1993 and the same was registered as W.A. No. 8(K) of 2007. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court, the respondent No. 3 had preferred an appeal against the order dated 20.02.1995 in Civil Rule No. 120(K) of 1993 and the same was registered as W.A. No. 8(K) of 2007. The Writ Appeal No. 1(K) of 2003 and W.A. No. 8(K) of 2007 were heard on 25.02.2010 and in Writ Appeal No. 1(K) of 2003, this Court had set aside the order dated 29.11.1999, passed in Review Petition No. 5(K) of 1999 and also had set aside the judgment and order dated 20.02.1995 passed in Civil Rule No. 120(K) of 1993 on the ground that no notice was served on the respondent No. 3. Consequently, Writ Appeal No. 8(K) of 2007 was also disposed of with a similar direction. 2. The respondent No. 3, thereafter, filed an affidavit-in-opposition in W.P. (C) No. 120(K) of 1993. Subsequent to the filing of the affidavit-in-opposition, an application being C.M.C. No. 35(K) of 2010 was filed praying for impleading the applicants as petitioners Nos. 6 to 26. The said application was dismissed on withdrawal by an order dated 09.08.2010. Subsequently another application being C.M.C. No. 83(K) of 2010 was filed for amendment of the writ application, amongst others, to implead prospective petitioners as petitioner Nos. 6 to 26. 3. Petitioner Nos. 6 to 26 were also impleaded as the petitioners in the writ application, the application for amendment having been allowed by this Court. The respondent No. 3 had challenged the order allowing amendment in Writ Appeal No. 12(K) 11. The Division Bench, by an order dated 02.08.2011, while dismissing the writ appeal, had allowed the appellant/respondent No. 3 to file an amended counter affidavit. 4. The petitioner Nos. 6 to 26 were directly recruited as per provision of Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1984, (Class-I and Class-II), for short, the Rules, through the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) as Assistant Engineers/SDOs under the Department of Works and Housing. 5. It is pleaded that the respondent No. 3 was initially appointed as Draftsman Grade-1 on temporary basis in the office of Civil Administrative Works Department (CAWD) in the office of the Commissioner with effect from his date of joining by an order dated 20.06.1986 issued by the Commissioner. Nagaland. 5. It is pleaded that the respondent No. 3 was initially appointed as Draftsman Grade-1 on temporary basis in the office of Civil Administrative Works Department (CAWD) in the office of the Commissioner with effect from his date of joining by an order dated 20.06.1986 issued by the Commissioner. Nagaland. The Nagaland Government has created temporary posts for the Engineering Cell under the Commissioner, Nagaland by an order dated 23.07.1981 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department conveying sanction of the Governor of Nagaland to the creation of one post of Assistant Engineer (Class-II Gazetted), one post of Computer Grade-I (Class-III Non-Gazetted), one post of Draftsman Grade-I, one post each of LDA-cum- Cashier, Typist, Tracer and F/Printer and the said seven posts were extended up to 28.02.1982 and were not extended thereafter. Though Assistant Engineer, Computer Grade-I and Draftsman Grade-I were to be appointed by following the recruitment process through NPSC, the respondent No. 3 was not appointed to the post of Draftsman Grade-I through NPSC and he was also not regularised subsequently. The respondent No. 3 was allowed to officiate in the post of Assistant Engineer by an order dated 06.03.1987 issued by the Home Commissioner to the Government of Nagaland and the officiating promotion was subject to regularisation by the Departmental Promotion Committee. 6. It has further been stated that the CAWD was a separate cadre from the cadre of PWD prior to 1986. Subsequently, on the recommendation of an Expert Committee, the Governor of Nagaland was pleased to order amalgamation of all Engineering Wings attached to various Departments of Nagaland, except the Department of Nagaland State Transport, Department of Geology and Mining and the Department of Agriculture into one Department, namely, Works and Housing Department with effect from 01.04.1989. Consequent upon the amalgamation, the Engineering Wings in the various Departments was formed a combined cadre with respective cadre posts in the Engineering Service of the Works and Housing Department with effect from the date of amalgamation and the incumbents holding the posts which have been encadred was 'decreed' to have been duly appointed to various posts in different cadres in the Engineering Service. In terms of the said order, the placement of Officers and Staff, fixation of their inter-se seniority etc. would be as recommended by the Expert Committee, to be notified by the Works and Housing Department separately. 7. In terms of the said order, the placement of Officers and Staff, fixation of their inter-se seniority etc. would be as recommended by the Expert Committee, to be notified by the Works and Housing Department separately. 7. A Notification dated 18.01.1989 was issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland for division or bifurcation in the Works and Housing Department into two wings, with effect from 01.04.1989, under the Chief Engineer (Roads and Bridges) and Chief Engineer (Housing), amongst others, also providing the modalities to be adopted for (i) Encadrement of Engineering Wings of various Departments with Engineering Department and (ii) fixation of inter-se seniority of Officers and Staff of various Engineering Wings on amalgamation with Engineering Department. On 27.1.1993, a tentative seniority list of SDOs under the Nagaland Public Works Department, as on 05.09.1992, was published inviting objections within a period of 30 days and in the said tentative seniority list, the name of the respondent No. 3 was not included. The service of the respondent No. 3 was also not regularised in the post of Draftsman Grade-I. However, on 04.05.1993, by an order issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, the respondent No. 3, showing him as Assistant Engineer, CAWD, allowed him to officiate as Executive Engineer (PWD) temporarily against the vacant post of Executive Engineer, Housing, Industries Department vice one Shri P.K. Roy, under suspension. By another letter dated 04.05.1993 issued by the respondent No. 2, seven SDOs - three Diploma Holders and four Degree Holders, were allowed to officiate temporarily in the vacant posts of Executive Engineer, under PWD. 8. Aggrieved by the order of officiating promotion of the respondent No. 3, dated 04.05.1993, individual representations were submitted by some of the officers on 17.05.1993 and an Office Memorandum was issued by the respondent No. 2 in the month of June, 1993 on the subject of Reviewing Promotion/Recruitment of Engineers with regard to officiating promotions issued in May, 1993. One Kikheto Sema, SDO, PWD had challenged the said order dated 04.05.1993 in respect of the respondent No. 3, in Civil Rule No. 42(K) of 1993. He having been promoted during the pendency of the proceeding, the writ petition was withdrawn and consequently, the same was dismissed. One Kikheto Sema, SDO, PWD had challenged the said order dated 04.05.1993 in respect of the respondent No. 3, in Civil Rule No. 42(K) of 1993. He having been promoted during the pendency of the proceeding, the writ petition was withdrawn and consequently, the same was dismissed. The present writ petition was, thereafter, filed by the union along with 4 other office bearers seeking the following reliefs: It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Certiorari should not issue quashing the impugned orders: (a) Order dated 20th June, 1986 appointing the respondent No. 3 as Draftsman Grade-I in the CAWD (Annexure-1) (b) Notification dated 6th March 1987 promoting the respondent No. 3 to the post of Assistant Engineer (Annexure-3). (c) Order dated 4th May, 1993 promoting the respondent No. 3 to the post of E.E. (Housing) Industries Department (Annexure-7). 9. The State respondents had filed an affidavit before the writ petition was amended and had also filed an affidavit-in- opposition after the writ petition was amended. In the affidavit filed prior to the amendment of the writ petition, it has been stated that the respondent No. 3, who is a qualified degree holder, having completed six years of service as Assistant Engineer, had been allowed to officiate as Executive Engineer in the interest of public service and in terms of Notification dated 06.12.1988, the respondent No. 3 is decreed to have been appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Engineering Service for all practical purposes. The temporary post created by Notification dated 23.07.1981 was deemed to have been continued and that appointment of the respondent No. 3 to the post of Draftsman Grade-I was a regular appointment made within the delegated powers of the Administrative Department. 10. It has been pleaded that as the respondent No. 3 was originally from CAWD, his name was not incorporated in the tentative seniority list. In view of the Notification dated 06.12.1988, the respondent No. 3, who was holding the post of Assistant Engineer under CAWD Engineering Wing, is decreed to be appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Works and Housing Department. The allegation of malafide attributed by the writ petitioners was also denied. 11. In view of the Notification dated 06.12.1988, the respondent No. 3, who was holding the post of Assistant Engineer under CAWD Engineering Wing, is decreed to be appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Works and Housing Department. The allegation of malafide attributed by the writ petitioners was also denied. 11. In the affidavit-in-opposition that was filed after the writ petition was amended, the State respondents had questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches and also the locus standi of the petitioners to challenge the orders dated 20.06.1986 and 06.03.1987 as the petitioners were in no way connected with the orders which were issued by the Home Commissioner. Non-maintainability of the writ petition was also raised for not arraying the Home Commissioner as a party respondent. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that the officers of the CAWD were not covered by any specific Service Rules and the respondent No. 3 was the only qualified degree holder in CAWD and, therefore, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. Emphasis was also given that in view of the Notification dated 06.12.1998, incumbent holding the post which have now been encadred would be deemed to have been duly appointed to various posts in different cadres in Engineering Service. Notification dated 06.12.1988 is stated to be a policy decision and as such the Notification dated 18.01.1989 must be read subject to Notification dated 06.12.1988. Not reflecting the name of the respondent No. 3 in the tentative seniority list was considered to be mistake and it was reiterated that the respondent No. 3 was a regular member of the cadre of the Works and Housing Department. It was asserted that the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Draftsman Grade-I on regular basis by a competent authority and he was promoted to substantive vacant post of Assistant Engineer as he possessed the requisite qualification of Degree in Civil Engineering and he became a member of the Engineering Service governed by the Rules with effect from 01.04.1989. It was pleaded and asserted that the appointment of the respondent No. 3 to the post of Draftsman Grade-I and his subsequent promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer/SDO in the CAWD stood regularised in terms of the amalgamation order and no other order regularising the appointment/promotion of respondent No. 3 was required. It was pleaded and asserted that the appointment of the respondent No. 3 to the post of Draftsman Grade-I and his subsequent promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer/SDO in the CAWD stood regularised in terms of the amalgamation order and no other order regularising the appointment/promotion of respondent No. 3 was required. As the respondent No. 3 was not covered by the Rules prior to 01.04.1989, there was no question of applying the Rules for the purpose of his appointment as Draftsman Grade-I and Assistant Engineer while in CAWD. It was also indicated that disciplinary proceeding was continuing against Shri P.K. Roy and he had been posted in a post in the common Engineering cadre. 12. The respondent No. 3 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition to the amended writ petition. Prior to amendment also, the respondent had filed a counter affidavit. In such affidavit, the respondent No. 3 had questioned the locus standi of the petitioners as the writ petition was filed by an unrecognised and unregistered body, and not for vindication of any individual or personal rights. In the affidavit filed after amendment, paragraphs inserted, namely, paragraphs 2A and 19A were additionally dealt with. The contents of both the affidavits are otherwise same. The respondent No. 3 pleaded that there is gross and inordinate delay in challenging the order dated 20.06.1986 and 06.03.1987 and in any view of the matter, such orders can be challenged only by someone who was working in CAWD under the Home Department and not by the petitioners who are employees in Works and Housing Department. 13. The respondent No. 3 has stated that the petitioner Nos. 6 to 13 are senior to him and they have got no cause of action for approaching this Court. Home Commissioner, Nagaland having not been made a party respondent, no relief is admissible to the writ petitioners in respect of the Notification dated 20.06.1986 and 06.03.1987. The writ petitioners were also accused of being guilty of misrepresentation and suppression of materials facts inasmuch they had not disclosed that review application filed in Review Petition No. 2(K) of 1992 in Civil Rule No. 82(K) of 1993 had been allowed. It is stated that the Rules did not apply to him till 31.03.1989 and the temporary posts created by order dated 23.07.1981 were continued and later on, encadred in the Works and Housing Department. It is stated that the Rules did not apply to him till 31.03.1989 and the temporary posts created by order dated 23.07.1981 were continued and later on, encadred in the Works and Housing Department. The contention of the writ petitioners that the post of Draftsman Grade-I and Assistant Engineer were required to be filled up through NPSC was denied and it was reiterated that the said posts carried pay scale of less than Rs. 1445/- P.M. and the norms required for filling up of the post through NPSC only in respect of posts which carry pay scale of Rs. 1445/- P.M. and above. It has also been stated that in view of the Notification dated 06.12.1988, appointment/promotion or the respondent No. 3 stood regularised in terms of the said order, requiring no other regularisation order and viewed in that context, the dates of qualified entry/regular appointment of the respondent 3 as Draftsman Grade-I is 20.06.1986 and as Assistant Engineer in the CAWD is 06.03.1987. 14. The omission to reflect the name of respondent No. 3 in the tentative seniority list, which is an apparent mistake, cannot deprive the respondent No. 3 from being a regular member of the Works and Housing Department. While asserting that the Notification dated 19.01.1989 is subject to Notification dated 06.12.1988, it is stated that officiating promotion given to him is valid and the same does not warrant any interference from this Court. 15. Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Draftsman without following any selection process. The post was created by an order dated 23.07.1981 which was valid up to 28.02.1982 and thereafter, no further extension of creation of post was given. The petitioner Nos. 6 to 10 were recruited through the NPSC as Assistant Engineer /SDO on regular basis on 15.12.1994. The petitioner Nos. 11 to 13 were also similarly recruited on 12.03.1986, the petitioner Nos. 14 to 23 were recruited through NPSC as Assistant Engineer/SDO on 25.04.1987 and the petitioner Nos. 24 to 26, on 08.03.1989. He also points out that the petitioner No. 4 is also arrayed in his personal capacity as petitioner No. 24 and petitioner No. 5, likewise, was also arrayed as petitioner No. 14. 14 to 23 were recruited through NPSC as Assistant Engineer/SDO on 25.04.1987 and the petitioner Nos. 24 to 26, on 08.03.1989. He also points out that the petitioner No. 4 is also arrayed in his personal capacity as petitioner No. 24 and petitioner No. 5, likewise, was also arrayed as petitioner No. 14. The learned counsel submits that within a period of nine months, by an order dated 06.03.1987, the respondent No. 3 was allowed to officiate in the post of Assistant Engineer most illegally. Drawing a reference to the Notification dated 06.03.1987, the learned counsel submits that the officiating promotion was subject to regularisation by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The learned counsel contends that Notifications dated 06.12.1988 and 18.01.1989 must be read together and a conjoint reading of the aforesaid two Notifications would unmistakably require regularisation of the service of the respondent No. 3, who was a temporary employee and seniority of such person like the respondent No. 3 can be counted only from the date of regularisation in service. He submits that to become a member of a cadre, a temporary employee has to be regularised. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent No. 3 was also not regularised as Draftsman and therefore, the promotion on officiating basis was wholly not permissible and, therefore, the orders dated 20.06.1986 and 06.03.1987 require interference of this Court. While admittedly the tentative list dated 27.01.1993, as on 05.09.1992, had not included the name of respondent No. 3, most illegally and arbitrarily, the respondent No. 3 was given officiating promotion to the post of Executive Engineer against a suspension vacancy. The learned counsel submits that the service of the respondent No. 3 was not regularised either in the post of Draftsman or in the post of Assistant Engineer and, therefore, he was not a member of the cadre and, therefore, in the tentative seniority list dated 27.01.1993, his name was rightly not reflected. The learned counsel submits that if the officiating promotion of respondent No. 3 to the grade of Assistant Engineer dated 16.03.1987 is allowed to stand and his seniority is counted from that date, the petitioner Nos. 14 to 26, who are regularly recruited through NPSC, would be junior to the respondent No. 3. The learned counsel submits that if the officiating promotion of respondent No. 3 to the grade of Assistant Engineer dated 16.03.1987 is allowed to stand and his seniority is counted from that date, the petitioner Nos. 14 to 26, who are regularly recruited through NPSC, would be junior to the respondent No. 3. Another facet of his argument is that the respondent No. 3 cannot be considered to be regularly appointed as Assistant Engineer as on 16.03.1987 as he was not duly appointed to the said post of Assistant Engineer in terms of the Rules. The learned counsel submits that in terms of Rule 8(b)(i) of the Rules, assuming that the respondent No. 3 was validly appointed on 20.06.1986 as Draftsman, seven years minimum service as Overseer Grade-I, which is equivalent to the post of Draftsman, is required and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 could have, at the most, been promoted as Assistant Engineer with effect from 20.06.1993. Schedule VI of the Rules also visualises that for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer from the post of Assistant Engineer, a minimum of seven years of service is required for a degree holder engineer. Drawing attention to Rule 17 (2), the learned counsel contends that for filling up of any vacancy in the service by promotion, apart from other requirements, a final up to date and undisputed seniority list of the cadre from which promotion is to be given has to be in place. Admittedly, when the order dated 04.05.1993 was issued giving officiating promotion, the name of the respondent No. 3 did not figure in the tentative seniority list. There was no final seniority list and even in the tentative seniority list, the name of the respondent No. 3 being not there, the order dated 04.05.1993 is not sustainable in law, he contends. 16. Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submits that the challenge to the Notifications dated 20.06.1986 and 16.03.1987, which have been impugned in the present writ application, suffers from the vice of delay and laches. There is no explanation whatsoever for such delay and to fortify his arguments, he has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Pallav Datta Roy & Anr. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors., reported in 2009 (2) GLT 315 and in the case of A.J. Fernandis Vs. There is no explanation whatsoever for such delay and to fortify his arguments, he has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Pallav Datta Roy & Anr. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors., reported in 2009 (2) GLT 315 and in the case of A.J. Fernandis Vs. Divisional Manager, South Central Railway & Ors., reported in (2001) 1 SCC 240 . In the writ application, as was originally filed, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were much senior to the respondent No. 3 and only petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 may have had some right. The petitioner No. 1 is neither a registered nor a recognized Union and, therefore, a writ petition at the instance of such a Union is not maintainable. The petitioner Nos. 6 to 13 are admittedly senior to the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the petitioner Nos. 6 to 13 did not have any cause of action to file this application. The impleadment of the petitioner Nos. 6 to 26 was allowed on 22.03.2011 and even in the said application, there was no personal grievance expressed by the petitioners. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned senior counsel places reliance in the case of Sand Carrier's Owners' Union Vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta, reported in AIR 1990 Cal 176 , in the case of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Officers Association Vs. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development and Local Administration Department & Ors, reported in AIR 1989 Mad 224 (FB) and in the case of Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association & Anr. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors, reported 2010 (2) GLT 673 (DB). The learned senior counsel also seriously argued that even though in the writ petition, a prayer is made to quash the orders dated 20.6.1986 and 16.03.1987, the writ petitioners have not arrayed the Commissioner, Nagaland as party respondent and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel placed reliance in the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar & Anr., reported in AIR 1963 SC 786 . 17. The learned senior counsel submits that prior to 01.04.1989, the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 were in two different departments and therefore, petitioners cannot question the legitimacy of the appointment orders of the respondent No. 3. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar & Anr., reported in AIR 1963 SC 786 . 17. The learned senior counsel submits that prior to 01.04.1989, the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 were in two different departments and therefore, petitioners cannot question the legitimacy of the appointment orders of the respondent No. 3. The learned senior counsel submits that as far as the respondent No. 3 is concerned, the Rules, which came to effect from 30.9.85, was applicable only from 01.04.1989 as Rule 2 makes it clear that the Rules were applicable only to persons in the Public Works Department, PHE and the Department of Power. The learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners have proceeded on the wrong assumption that the Rules was applicable to the respondent No. 3 at the time when the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Draftsman as also when he was given officiating promotion as Assistant Engineer. 18. It has also been submitted that the respondent No. 3 has continued to hold the post of Assistant Engineer in CAWD till the amalgamation order was issued and there is no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the posts were created only up to 28.02.1982. The learned senior counsel submits that the Commissioner, Home having not been made a party respondent, this Court ought not to go into the question as to whether posts were continued beyond 28.02.1982. He submits that if posts were not in existence, the respondent No. 3 would not have been paid salary all throughout. It is also his contention that although the order dated 06.03.1987 had recited that the officiating promotion was subject to regularisation by DPC, in view of order dated 06.12.1988, there was no requirement or necessity to hold DPC. The learned senior counsel submits that in view of the notification dated 16.12.1988, respondent No. 3 must be deemed to have been duly promoted as Assistant Engineer on 6.3.1987 and therefore, the date of regular appointment of respondent No. 3 is 06.03.1987 and the notification dated 18.01.1999 has to be read subject to the order of amalgamation dated 16.12.1988. The learned senior counsel has placed reliance in the case of H.L. Trehan Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported AIR 1989 SC 568 to explain what "duly" means in the context of the notification dated 16.12.1988. 19. Ms. The learned senior counsel has placed reliance in the case of H.L. Trehan Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported AIR 1989 SC 568 to explain what "duly" means in the context of the notification dated 16.12.1988. 19. Ms. Y. Longkumer, learned State counsel reiterated the stand reflected in the affidavit filed by the State respondents and adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 20. It is correct that when the writ application was initially filed, the unregistered Union and some of its office bearers were the petitioners. While it is correct that an unregistered Union cannot maintain a writ petition, after the writ petition had been amended, with impleading of petitioner nos. 6 to 26, the question no longer remains open that the writ petition is not maintainable, the same having been filed by the unregistered union along with 4 of its members. 21. This Court in order dated 02.08.2011 passed in W.A. No. 12(K)/11 had also opined that 2 of the newly impleaded petitioners, who had joined as petitioners in the writ petition filed in the year 1993, although in their official capacity as office bearers of the union, had also represented themselves in the original writ petition and even if the impleadment application is to be dismissed, the writ petition could still have been continued by 2 of the original petitioners. 22. It is the admitted position that prior to 01.04.1989, the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 were in different departments. In the tentative seniority list dated 27.01.1993 also, the name of the respondent No. 3 was not included. Therefore, the petitioners were not affected even if there was any illegality in the appointment of the respondent No. 3. The union and the 4 other office bearers approached this Court immediately after issuance of the notification dated 04.05.1993 by which officiating promotion was given to respondent No. 3. It is only with the issuance of the said notification that some of the petitioners were affected in their career prospects. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioners are guilty of delay or laches disentitling them to the equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The factual matrix of the cases cited by Mr. Sarmah on the point of delay are entirely different and are clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case. 23. The factual matrix of the cases cited by Mr. Sarmah on the point of delay are entirely different and are clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case. 23. The plea of the respondent No. 3 that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge his officiating promotion of 1987 on the ground that the writ petitioners at that point of time were in different departments, cannot be accepted for the reason that both the petitioners and respondent No. 3 had become members of a common cadre after 1.4.1989. It is another matter whether the challenge made meets the approval of the Court on merits. The counsel for respondent No. 3 is correct in submitting that in any view of the matter the petitioner Nos. 6 to 13 are in no way going to be affected by the orders dated 20.06.1986 and 06.03.1987 issued in favour of the respondent No. 3 and in strict sense of the term, these petitioners, may not have cause of action to maintain this application. However, there is no gainsaying the fact that the petitioners Nos. 14 to 26, may be affected and they certainly have a cause of action to maintain this application. 24. The State respondents had filed affidavit contesting the contentions of the writ petitioners. However, the Commissioner who issued order dated 20.06.1986 and the order dated 13.06.1987 are not made party respondent(s). It is not the case of the petitioners that the said authorities are no more in existence. The writ petitioners have assailed the aforesaid 2 orders also on the ground that the post of Draftsman Grade-I and the post of Assistant Engineer were not in existence as the posts were created only up to 28.02.1982 and therefore, the very appointment of the respondent No. 3 in the aforesaid posts were illegal and void ab-initio. The respondent No. 3 has been continuing in service till date and in such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in absence of the Commissioner(s) as party respondent(s), denying them the right to meet the allegations, this Court should not make a roving enquiry and that it is appropriate to give a quietus to the issue of existence or otherwise of the posts of Draftsman Grade-I and Assistant Engineer when the respondent No. 3 was appointed to such posts. This Court is persuaded to take such a view as in the light of principles laid down in Udit Narayan (supra), the Commissioner(s) are considered to be necessary parties for the purpose of adjudication of the aforesaid issue. 25. A perusal of the order dated 6.12.1988 makes it abundantly clear that all the posts of the Engineering Wings in the various departments shall form a combined cadre, with respective cadre posts in the Engineering Service of the Works & Housing Department, with effect from the date of amalgamation an that the incumbents holding the posts which have been now encadred shall be decreed to have been duly appointed to various posts in different cadres in the Engineering Services. Noticeably, the notification dated 06.12.1998 does not make any classification with regard to holding of post on regular basis or on officiating basis. The notification decrees that incumbents holding the posts shall have been duly appointed to various posts in different cadres in the Engineering Service. Engineering Service means the Engineering Service of the Works and Housing. Department and therefore, it would appear to this Court that the respondent No. 3 who was holding the post of Assistant Engineer, in terms of the notification dated 6.12.1988, shall have to be construed or deemed to have been duly appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Engineering Service of the Works and Housing Department w.e.f. 01.04.1989, on which date, amalgamation to all Engineering Wings attached to various Government departments except the ones as notified therein came into force. Any defect or irregularity in the order dated 20.06.1986 and 13.06.1987 stands regularised by the order dated 06.12.1988. In absence of any challenge to the notification dated 6.12.1988, it will not be open to the writ petitioners to contend that the order dated 20.06.1986 and the order dated 13.06.1987 requires intervention and interference from this Court. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prayer of the writ petitioners for setting aside the order dated 20.06.86 appointing the respondent No. 3 as Draftsman Grade-I in CAWD and the notification dated 6.3.1987 promoting the respondent No. 3 to the post of Assistant Engineer is found to be without any merit and as such, the writ petition fails so far as the aforesaid two prayers are concerned. 27. By the notification dated 18.01.1989, issued by the Works and Housing Department at Sl. 27. By the notification dated 18.01.1989, issued by the Works and Housing Department at Sl. No. 3 modality to be adopted for (i) Encadrement of Engineering Wings of various departments with Engineering Department and (ii) Fixation of inter-se seniority of Officers and Staff of various Engineering Wings on amalgamation with Engineering Department was laid down in the form of certain guidelines. Clause (iv) and Clause (v) of the guidelines are relevant for the purpose of this case and as such the same are reproduced herein below: (iv) In respect of persons recruited by the Department having Engineering Wings on absorption In PWD/Common cadre, the date of qualified entry i.e. the date of regular appointment in the service at a particular level will be taken into account to determine the inter-se seniority as per general principles of seniority as are applicable in the State. (v) In case of persons recruited either by the Development Department on contract or ad hoc basis their services may either be regularized or terminated depending on the merits of each case. Their seniority shall be only from the date of regularization in service. 28. Obviously, Clause (iv) of the aforesaid guidelines is applicable in respect of the respondent No. 3. Significantly, Clause (iv) does not speak about date of regular appointment in the Engineering Service as a criteria to be taken into account to determine inter-se seniority. It speaks of date of qualified entry i.e. the date of regular appointment in the service at a particular level to determine inter-se seniority. The argument of the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3 as well as of the State counsel that there is an apparent conflict between the notification dated 16.12.1988 and the notification dated 18.01.1999 and therefore, the notification dated 18.01.1999, having derived its legitimacy from the notification dated 16.12.1998, has to be read subject to the order of amalgamation dated 16.12.1988, is not found to be tenable. This Court does not find any conflict between the aforesaid 2 notifications. If one was regularly appointed by Department having an Engineering Wing, in terms of the notification dated 18.01.1989, he would have carried his seniority from the date of his regular appointment in the Department having Engineering Wing in the combined cadre of the posts in the Engineering Service of the Works and Housing Department. If one was regularly appointed by Department having an Engineering Wing, in terms of the notification dated 18.01.1989, he would have carried his seniority from the date of his regular appointment in the Department having Engineering Wing in the combined cadre of the posts in the Engineering Service of the Works and Housing Department. A regularly appointed employee would suffer no prejudice in the matter of seniority because of notification dated 18.01.1989. It has to be borne in mind that the respondent No. 3 did not face any selection process when he was appointed as Draftsman Grade-I. His officiating promotion on 06.03.1987 as Assistant Engineer was subject to regularization by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 3 was regularly appointed as Assistant Engineer on 06.03.1987. However, fact of the matter is that he was holding the post of Assistant Engineer when the notification dated 06.12.1988 was issued. The notification dated 06.12.1988 does not validate appointment in the Department having Engineering Wing but ordains that incumbents holding posts in the Engineering Wings in the various Departments shall be considered to be duly appointed to the various posts in the Engineering Service. Therefore, date of regular appointment of the respondent No. 3 as Assistant Engineer has to be taken as 01.04.1989, on which date the amalgamation took effect and not on 06.03.1987 as the learned counsel for the respondents had urged. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the respondent No. 3 having been duly appointed in terms of the notification dated 6.12.1998 with effect from 1.4.1989, the question of further regularising his service as Assistant Engineer does not arise. 29. There is no dispute at the bar that the respondent No. 3 was governed by the Rules with effect from 01.04.1989. Rules provide for a minimum of 7 years service for a degree holder engineer to be promoted from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer. The respondent No. 3 did not have the requisite length of service of 7 years from 01.04.1989 when he was promoted on officiating basis as Executive Engineer on 04.05.1993. What is more, even from his first appointment on 20.06.1986 as Draftsman, he had not completed total of 7 years of service. The respondent No. 3 did not have the requisite length of service of 7 years from 01.04.1989 when he was promoted on officiating basis as Executive Engineer on 04.05.1993. What is more, even from his first appointment on 20.06.1986 as Draftsman, he had not completed total of 7 years of service. Clearly, the order dated 04.05.1993 had been issued in gross violation of the Rules as even for granting officiating promotion, requirement of length of service in the feeder post and other essential qualifications cannot be given a go by. It was, however, urged by the learned senior counsel for respondent No. 3 that the writ petition does not survive with regard to the prayer for setting aside of the order dated 04.05.1993 as during the pendency of the proceedings, certain developments, including promotion of the respondent No. 3 on regular basis on 19.06.2006, had taken place. 30. It is basic to processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a legal proceeding is instituted. The Court's procedural delays cannot deprive a litigant of legal justice or rights crystallised in the initial cause of action. It cannot be said that adjudication of the aforesaid issue is of only academic interest as this Court is also considering another writ petition analogously along with this petition, which has raised certain questions which are intrinsically linked up with this writ petition. 31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order dated 04.05.1993 granting officiating promotion to the respondent No. 3 is set aside and quashed. 32. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed as indicated above. 33. In WP (C) No. 60(K)10, 21 writ petitioners have challenged the orders dated 06.03.1987, 16.02.1998, 16.03.2010 and 18.03.2010 with a further prayer to direct the State respondents to regularize the petitioners in the grade of Executive Engineer with effect from their completion of 7 years of service in the grade of Assistant Engineer as provided under the Rules. 34. The order dated 06.03.1987 has already been challenged in Civil Rule No. 120(K) 93. By the order dated 16.02.1998, the service of the Respondent No. 4, who is the Respondent No. 3 in Civil Rule No. 120(K) 93 was regularized as Assistant Engineer (C), PWD, w.e.f. 06.03.1987, fixing his seniority at serial No. 13 of 1987 batch and treating him to be from the promotional quota. 35. By the order dated 16.02.1998, the service of the Respondent No. 4, who is the Respondent No. 3 in Civil Rule No. 120(K) 93 was regularized as Assistant Engineer (C), PWD, w.e.f. 06.03.1987, fixing his seniority at serial No. 13 of 1987 batch and treating him to be from the promotional quota. 35. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), in its meeting, held on 16.03.2010, recommended promotion of the Respondent No. 4 in the grade of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 06.07.1994, holding that the respondent No. 4 was given regular appointment as Assistant Engineer/SDO on 6.3.1987 and also determined his seniority below one Talitemsu, who was senior to him as per date of joining. Based on the aforesaid recommendation of the DPC dated 16.03.2010, order dated 18.03.2010 was issued by the Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Nagaland, modifying date of regularization of the Respondent No. 4 as 06.07.1994 from 04.05.1993 (should have been 13.05.1993), as notified earlier. 36. It will be relevant to notice certain factual aspects which were not part of pleadings of Civil Rule No. 120(K)93. 37. In terms of the recommendation of the DPC held on 13.06.2005, recommending regularization of the petitioner No. 1 as Executive Engineer w.e.f. 14.05.1993, the petitioner No. 1 was regularized by an order dated 21.06.2005 as Executive Engineer w.e.f. 14.05.1993. The DPC was again convened on. 13.03.2006 and the DPC recommended regularization of the Respondent No. 4 in the grade of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 13.05.1993. On the basis of the said recommendation, order dated 19.06.2006 was issued. A representation dated 31.7.2006 was submitted by the petitioners against the order dated 19.6.2006. 38. By an order dated 07.11.2006, on the recommendation of DPC, the promotion of the petitioner to Nos. 1 and 2 as Superintending Engineer, was regularized w.e.f. 13.09.2006. However, as there was no response with regard to the representation dated 31.07.2006, the petitioners had filed WP (C) No. 165(K)07 and the said writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 10.10.2007 directing the Commissioner & Secretary, Works and Housing Department, to consider and dispose of the representation within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The petitioners had to file Writ Petition No. 93(K) 08 as the representation was not disposed of and in the said writ petition, order dated 19.06.2006 was also challenged. The petitioners had to file Writ Petition No. 93(K) 08 as the representation was not disposed of and in the said writ petition, order dated 19.06.2006 was also challenged. The said writ petition, however, was dismissed as not pressed on 27.04.2010. 39. By an order dated 09.03.2010 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, the order dated 12.10.1998 regularizing the service of the Respondent No. 4 as Assistant Engineer (Civil), PWD, w.e.f. 01.04.1989 was cancelled, restoring his seniority position in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, PWD, in terms of the order dated 16.02.1998. It was, accordingly, reflected in the said order that the Respondent No. 4 will get back his seniority and the benefit of regularization of his service in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in Nagaland Engineering Service w.e.f. 06.03.1987. This order dated 09.03.2010 was issued, as the order recited, in reference to Judgment and order dated 22.02.2010 passed in Writ Appeal No. 1(K) 03. The Respondent No. 4 had annexed the said order issued in the form of Corrigendum dated 09.03.2010 as Annexure-R (1) in the affidavit-in-opposition. However, the affidavit of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, does not speak about such an order dated 09.03.2010. However, it has been stated that in view of the setting aside of the Judgment dated 20.02.1995 passed in Civil Rule No. 120(K) 93, the order dated 12.10.1998 ceased to exist and therefore, it had become necessary to restore status quo, and therefore, the corrigendum dated 12.03.2010 was issued restoring back the seniority of Respondent No. 4 as well as the benefit of regularization of service in the grade of Assistant Engineer/ Sub-Divisional Officer w.e.f. 06.03.1987 and the same was published in the Nagaland Gazette on 15.04.2010. 40. This Court by an order dated 22.04.2010 had directed that the Respondent No. 4 shall not be promoted to the next higher post till returnable date and thereafter, the said order was continued from time to time. Subsequently, Civil Misc. Case No. 76(K) 11 and Civil Misc. Case No. 77(K) 11 were filed for vacating the interim order. 41. By an order dated 29.06.2011, passed in the Misc. Applications, this Court had held that by virtue of application of Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, the interim order stood vacated. 42. The petitioners had filed a Misc. Application, which was registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 77(K) 11 were filed for vacating the interim order. 41. By an order dated 29.06.2011, passed in the Misc. Applications, this Court had held that by virtue of application of Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, the interim order stood vacated. 42. The petitioners had filed a Misc. Application, which was registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 84(K) 11 praying for stay of the Minutes of the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 16.03.2010, the order dated 18.03.2010 regularizing the Respondent No. 4 as Executive Engineer w.e.f. 06.07.1994 with a further prayer for a direction to the respondents not to promote the Respondent No. 4 during the pendency of the writ petition and even if any such promotion had been granted, not to give effect to such promotion. 43. The Civil Misc. Case No. 84(K) 11 was listed on 06.07.2011, on which date; on the prayer of the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 to file an objection to the said application, the case was directed to be listed on 14.07.2011. 44. In the meantime, by an order dated 13.07.2011, the Respondent No. 4 was given officiating promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer indicating therein that promotion will not confer the Respondent No. 4 any right to claim seniority over the seniors in the cadre and that the promotion is temporary subject to regularization by the DPC. 45. The aforesaid developments were brought on record by the writ petitioners by filing an additional affidavit on 26.07.2011. In the said additional affidavit, it was also indicated that when the writ petition was filed on 20.04.2010, the writ petitioners were not aware of the order dated 12.03.2010 which was published in the Nagaland Gazette on 15.04.2010. The writ petitioners have brought on record a letter dated 11.07.2011 issued by the Additional Director (HoD), Printing and Stationery that the Gazette was published on 14.05.2010. 46. This Court, in C.M.C. No. 84(K)11, while disposing of the said case had passed an order that the promotion of the Respondent No. 4 would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition and the said promotion would not prejudice the case of the petitioners. 47. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. 46. This Court, in C.M.C. No. 84(K)11, while disposing of the said case had passed an order that the promotion of the Respondent No. 4 would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition and the said promotion would not prejudice the case of the petitioners. 47. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. A. Zhimomi submits that the findings of the Review DPC held on 16.03.2010 was on the basis that the Respondent No. 4 was given regular appointment as Assistant Engineer/Sub-Divisional Officer on 6.3.1987. Though the said DPC had changed the date of regularization of the Respondent No. 4 as Executive Engineer from 13.05.1993 as decided in the meeting of DPC held on 13.03.2006 to 06.07.1994, the same fallacy remains as the Respondent No. 4 had not completed 7 years of service as Assistant Engineer on regular basis. It has been submitted by him that the order dated 12.10.1998 regularizing Respondent No. 4 as Assistant Engineer/Sub-Divisional Officer w.e.f. 01.04.1989 continued to hold the field till 12.03.2010, when seniority of the Respondent No. 4 was restored in terms of the Notification dated 16.02.1998. 48. The learned counsel submits that though in the writ petition, there was no specific prayer made for setting aside the order dated 12.03.2010, in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioners, the writ petitioners had prayed for quashing and setting aside of the same. He further submits that by Notification dated 12.03.2010, order dated 16.02.1998 has been revived and in the writ petition, there is specific challenge with regard to the order dated 16.02.1998, and therefore, in order to render substantive justice, regularization of the service of the Respondent No. 4 as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 06.07.1994 as notified by the order dated 18.03.2010 is liable to be set aside and quashed. It is also his submission that in terms of the order dated 14.07.2011 passed in C.M.C. No. 84(K)11, in the event of the writ petition being allowed, this Court should pass appropriate orders quashing the officiating promotion granted to the Respondent No. 4 on 13.07.2011. 49. Mr. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that order dated 16.02.1998 came to be challenged in the writ petition as it was apparent from the minutes of the Review DPC held on 16.03.2010 that the said order was the basis to hold that the Respondent No. 4 was regularly appointed as Assistant Engineer on 06.03.1987. 49. Mr. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that order dated 16.02.1998 came to be challenged in the writ petition as it was apparent from the minutes of the Review DPC held on 16.03.2010 that the said order was the basis to hold that the Respondent No. 4 was regularly appointed as Assistant Engineer on 06.03.1987. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relies on the following decisions: (i) 2008 (1) GLT 769 : Nitoli & Ors Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors. (ii) 2009 (3) GLT 692; Neidihou Angami & Ors Vs State of Nagaland & Ors. (iii) (2009) 5 SCC 65 : State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors. (iv) (2007) 8 SCC 264 : M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. Bhopal Vs. Nanuram Yadav & Ors. 50. Mr. Apok Pongener, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 had advanced the same argument as advanced in WP (C) No. 120(K)93 with regard to the order dated 06.03.1987. However, as this Court in WP (C) No. 120(K)93 has already negated the challenge made to the Notification dated 06.03.1987, it is not considered necessary to reiterate the submissions. Mr. Apok Pongener, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 submits that in view of the Corrigendum dated 12.3.2010, the order dated 16.02.1998 has been rendered infructuous and Corrigendum dated 12.03.2010 having not been challenged, no relief can be granted with regard to the prayer for setting aside the Minutes of DPC dated 16.03.2010 and consequently, the order dated 18.3.2010 regularizing the Respondent No. 4 as Executive Engineer w.e.f. 6.7.1994 inasmuch as there is no challenge to the regularization of the Respondent No. 4 in the cadre of Assistant Engineer. 51. The learned counsel submits that officiating promotion must be counted for seniority even if initial appointment was made without following the prescribed procedure and if the same is approved later, such approval shall be related back to the date of officiating appointment and the entire service will have to be computed for reckoning seniority. In this connection, the learned counsel relies on Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of L. Chandrakishore Singh Vs. State of Manipur & Ors, reported in (1989) 8 SCC 287. 52. In this connection, the learned counsel relies on Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of L. Chandrakishore Singh Vs. State of Manipur & Ors, reported in (1989) 8 SCC 287. 52. With regard to his submission that relief is to be confined to those specifically prayed for' in the writ petition and that any order which is not challenged in the writ petition cannot be set aside and quashed, he relies upon (1984) 1 SCC 307 ; Krishna Priya Ganguly & Ors. Vs. University of Lucknow & Ors. and (2001) 9 SCC 344 : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sunita Mehra & Ors. 53. He has also submitted that unless the decision of the DPC is vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity, the writ Court cannot interfere with the recommendation made by the DPC and in this connection, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Pongrem Aranghan Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors, reported in 2010 (1) GLT 311. The learned counsel emphatically submits that the petitioners having not been able to show any irregularity in the proceedings of DPC, the recommendation of DPC is not liable to be interfered with. 54. With regard to the prayer made by the writ petitioners to regularize them in the grade of Executive Engineer with effect from their completion of 7 years, it has been submitted by Mr. Apok Pongener that it is entirely up to the Government as to when the regularization is to be granted. It has also been submitted by him that while the writ petitioners are praying for relief of regularization of service on completion of 7 years of service, they are, at the same time, assailing the recommendation of DPC as well as the decision of the Government when the Respondent No. 4 was regularized on completion of 7 years of service. 55. In this case also, Ms. Y. Longkumer, learned State counsel has endorsed the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent No. 4. 56. 55. In this case also, Ms. Y. Longkumer, learned State counsel has endorsed the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent No. 4. 56. It will be relevant to note that in paragraph 15 of the affidavit of the respondent No. 3, it has been asserted that appointment of the respondent No. 4 to the post of Draftsman Grade-I and his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer/SDO in the CAWD stood regularized in terms of the amalgamation order and no order regularizing the appointment/promotion of the respondent No. 4 is necessary. In paragraph 19 of the affidavit of the respondent No. 4, it has been asserted that the promotion of the respondent No. 4 in the grade of Assistant Engineer had been duly regularized by the notification dated 16.12.1998. While considering Civil Rule No. 120(K)/1993, this Court had already recorded a finding that in view of the notification 16.12.1988, the question of further regularizing the service of the-respondent No. 4 as Assistant Engineer did not arise. 57. The service of the respondent No. 4 as Assistant Engineer having stood regularized in terms of the notification dated 16.12.1988, there would have been no occasion for again passing an order of regularization of the respondent No. 4 as Assistant Engineer. Though the notification dated 12.03.2010 has not been challenged as such in the writ petition, prayer has been made in the affidavit-in-reply for setting aside the same. As have been noticed earlier, by notification dated 12.03.2012, order dated 16.02.1998 has been revived, for which there is a specific challenge in the writ petition. The notification dated 12.03.2010 is also part of the record. In Krishna Priya Ganguly (supra), the writ petitioner had merely prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the State or college to consider his case for admission and the High Court had issued a writ of Mandamus directing the college to admit him to the M.S. course and it is in this context the Supreme Court had stated that the High Court had granted relief to the writ petitioner which he had not even prayed for. In Hindustan Petroleum (supra), the question that had fallen for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether when there had been no challenge to the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer, the High Court was justified in setting aside the said order in appeal. In Hindustan Petroleum (supra), the question that had fallen for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether when there had been no challenge to the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer, the High Court was justified in setting aside the said order in appeal. Taking note of the fact that no grounds as regard its invalidity having been stated and the same being not made part of the records of the case, the Apex Court had set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court In the instant case, in the affidavit-in-reply, foundation had been laid with regard to the invalidity of the notification dated 12.03.2010. The writ petitioners were also not aware at the time of filing of the writ petition about the existence of the said notification dated 12.03.2010, which in terms accorded benefit of regularization of service of the respondent No. 4 in the grade of Assistant Engineer/SDO with effect from 06.03.1987, which was also the purport of the order dated 16.02.1998. The essence of the notification dated 12.03.2010 is that the respondent No. 4 was regularized in service in the grade of Assistant Engineer / SDO with effect from 06.03.1987 along with restoration of his seniority from that date, which clearly stands impugned in the writ proceeding. The cases cited by the counsel for the respondent No. 4 is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 16.02.1998 and the notification dated 12.03.1998, which operate in the same field, are set aside and quashed. 58. In Upendra Narayan Singh (supra), the Apex Court has laid down that Article 16 mandates that every appointment to public post should be made by open advertisement so as to enable all eligible persons to compete for selection on merit. Similar view is taken in Nanuram Yadav (supra), when the Supreme Court stated that appointments made without following the procedure under the rules/ Government circulars and without advertisement or inviting applications from open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This Court in Nitoli (supra) stated that irregular appointees cannot claim seniority over regular appointees though appointed earlier. This Court also stated in Neidihou Angami (supra) that irregular appointees cannot be given seniority from a date anterior to the date of regularization/absorption. 59. This Court in Nitoli (supra) stated that irregular appointees cannot claim seniority over regular appointees though appointed earlier. This Court also stated in Neidihou Angami (supra) that irregular appointees cannot be given seniority from a date anterior to the date of regularization/absorption. 59. In Chandra Kishore Singh (supra), in paragraph 15 on which the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 placed reliance, the Supreme Court states as follows: It is now well settled that even in the case of probation or officiating appointments which are followed by a confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment or on probation cannot be ignored for reckoning the length of continuous officiating service for determining the place in the seniority list. Where the first appointment is made by not following the prescribed procedure and such appointee is approved later on, the approval would mean his confirmation by the authority and shall relate back to the date on which his appointment was made and the entire service will have to be computed in reckoning the seniority according to the length of continuous officiation. In this regard we fortify our view by the judgment of this Court in G.P. Doval v. Chief Secy., Govt. of U.P. 60. From the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court, it is clear that when the first appointment is not made by following prescribed procedure and such an appointment is approved later on, the approval would mean his confirmation by authority and the same shall relate back to the date on which his appointment was made and the entire service will have to be computed in reckoning the seniority according to the length of continuous officiation. In the instant case, approval of the officiating promotion of the respondent No. 4 as Assistant Engineer/SDO was granted by the notification dated 16.12.1998 with effect from 01.04.1989 and therefore, in the facts of the case, 06.03.1987 cannot be reckoned as the starting point for computation of seniority of the respondent No. 4. The DPC held on 16.03.2010 recommended promotion to the respondent No. 4 in the grade of Executive Engineer with effect from 6.7.1994 on the basis that the respondent No. 4 was given regular appointment as Assistant Engineer/ SDO on 06.03.1987. The DPC held on 16.03.2010 recommended promotion to the respondent No. 4 in the grade of Executive Engineer with effect from 6.7.1994 on the basis that the respondent No. 4 was given regular appointment as Assistant Engineer/ SDO on 06.03.1987. As it has been held by this Court that the service of respondent No. 4 as Assistant Engineer/SDO has been regularized with effect from 01.04.1989, in terms of the notification dated 16.12.1988, the recommendation of the DPC dated 16.03.2010 and the consequential order dated 18.03.2010 are liable to be set aside and quashed and as such the recommendation of the DPC dated 16.03.2010 and the order dated 18.03.2010 are set aside and quashed. Decision in Pongrem Aranghan (supra) does not help the case of the respondent No. 4 inasmuch as the very basis on which the DPC proceeded to make the recommendations has been found to be not sustainable in law. 61. Consequent upon setting aside of the recommendation of the DPC held on 16.03.2010, whereby seniority position of the respondent No. 4 was also assigned, appropriate steps now be taken by authorities to fix the seniority position of the respondent No. 4 in terms of the observations made by this Court. The State respondents are also directed to convene a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee to recommend promotion of the respondent No. 4 as Executive Engineer in the light of and consistent with the observations of this Court. 62. As a fall out of the discussions aforesaid, officiating promotion granted to respondent No. 4 to the post of Superintendent Engineer on 13.07.2011 is also quashed. 63. So far as the prayer of the writ petitioners to regularize their service as Executive Engineer on completion of 7 years of service in the Grade of Assistant Engineer, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioners did not raise any grievances from 05.12.1996 to 13.03.2000 when they were regularized as Executive Engineers and as such, the prayer made at this belated stage is rejected. 64. WP (C) 60(K)/2010 stands partly allowed a indicated herein above. No costs.