1. Petitioners 1 and 2, pursuant to their selection by J&K Services Selection Board, were vide Order No. 172 of 2007 dated 8th September 2007, appointed as Scientist "A" (State Cadre) in the grade of 6500-10500 in J&K State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter "Board"). Petitioner No. 3 was earlier, vide Order No. 61 of 1999 dated 19th April 1999, appointed as Research Assistant (Divisional Cadre) in the pay scale of 1400-2600 (pre-revised). 2. Shri Bashir Ahmad Wani - respondent No. 4 in the petition, was initially on 12.06.1997 engaged on daily wage basis, as Incharge "Air Control Monitoring" in the Board. He was thereafter vide Order dated 31.10.1997 appointed as Field Inspector on ad hoc basis. He responded to Advertisement Notice dated 2nd June 1999, whereby applications, amongst other posts, were invited from the eligible candidates for the post of Scientist "B". However, he did not find place in the Selection List and consequently was not appointed against the advertised post i.e. Scientist "B". He questioned selection and appointments made pursuant to advertisement notice dated 02.06.1999, in writ petition registered as SWP No. 129/2003, However, the writ was withdrawn as petitioner opted to voice is grievances in a representation, he proposed to address to the Board. 3. The representation submitted by respondent No. 4 did not find favour with the Board, constraining respondent No. 4 to re-agitate the matter in a fresh writ petition, being SWP No. 234/2005. He sought a direction to Board to appoint him as Scientist "B" in fulfilment of the promise claimed to have been made by respondents 1 to 3 at the time first writ petition (SWP No. 129/2003) was disposed of. 4. While SWP No. 234/2005 was awaiting disposal, respondent No. l vide Government Order No. 55-FST of 2003 dated 29.01.2009 made Rules of Central Pollution Control Board, applicable to the promotions in the respondent Board. 5. Be that as it may, the Court in SWP no.234/2005 on 14th July 2011, referring to earlier order dated 6th June 2007, whereby the Board was directed to examine the case set up by respondent No. 4 in the representations, in light of its decision taken in 26th Board Meeting, to get the matter re-examined at Administrative level as also resubmission of matter to the Board, directed respondents to reconstitute the Board and place petitioner's case before the Board for final decision. The Board, in compliance of Writ Court order dated 14th July 2011, considered the matter (Item No. 8 of the Agenda), approved appointment of respondent No. 4 as Scientist "B" subject to completion of necessary formalities as per norms. 6. Before the aforesaid decision of the Board would get formalized into a Government order, petitioners came up with writ petition on hand seeking quashment of decision of the Board qua appointment of respondent No. 4 and also a direction to Board to refrain from processing appointment of respondent No. 4 as Scientist "B". 7. Put briefly, petitioners case is that in terms of CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations made applicable vide Government Order No. 55-FST of 2009 dated 29.01.2009, the post of Scientist B are to be filled up 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment; that the sanctioned strength of Scientist B cadre comprises of 06 posts and 05 of the 06 posts were filled up by direct recruitment in the year 1999. It is pleaded that the only post of Scientist B available on date as also the next 02 posts, to become available in future are to be filled up by promotion to maintain 50:50 ratio in the cadre. It is pleaded that as the petitioners hold a post equivalent to that of Senior Scientific Assistant, they in terms of CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations, have a right to be considered for the advertised post. It is pleaded that the respondents cannot appoint respondent no. 4 against the available post of Scientist B for the simple reason, that the post in terms of CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations, is not a direct recruitment post and is meant for the promotion quota. The petitioners insist that the decision of the Board to appoint respondent no. 4 against the Scientist B post lying vacant in the Board, cannot be acted upon because of non-availability of the post for direct recruitment quota in the Scientist B cadre. The proposed appointment, according to the petitioners, would make direct recruitment quota over flow, a course not permissible under law. 4 against the Scientist B post lying vacant in the Board, cannot be acted upon because of non-availability of the post for direct recruitment quota in the Scientist B cadre. The proposed appointment, according to the petitioners, would make direct recruitment quota over flow, a course not permissible under law. The petitioners point out that in view of settled legal position, the quota rule in no circumstances is not to be violated except in case of ad hoc and stop gap arrangements necessary in the interest of administration. 8. The respondent 1 to 3 oppose the writ petition on the grounds that the post available is part of the direct recruitment posts advertised in the year 1999 and not a promotional post as projected by the petitioners. It is denied that the post falls to the share of promotion quota and cannot be utilised to appoint respondent no. 4, more so, when the appointment is proposed to be made in compliance of writ Court order in SWP no. 234/2005. The respondent admit that in the Draft Recruitment Rules same ratio i.e. 50:50 amongst direct recruits and promotees as is provided under CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations and that the quota, therefore, is to be adhered to. However, the respondents plead that as respondent no. 4's grievance refers to a date when neither Draft Rules were prepared nor CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations made applicable, the Draft Rules cannot stand in the way of respondent no. 4 to be appointed against the post that has become available due to resignation of one of the selectees in the selection process initiated in 1999. The respondent no. 4 opposes the writ petition almost on the same grounds taken up/urged by the respondents 1 to 3 in their reply. 9. I have gone through the pleadings as also the record available on the file. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is admitted case of the parties that the competent authority has yet to frame Recruitment Rules to regulate strength, composition, promotion and other matters of J&K Pollution Control Board Subordinate/Gazetted Service. An effort to make Recruitment Rules is being made and Draft Rules stand prepared and submitted for approval to the Competent Authority. 10. It is admitted case of the parties that the competent authority has yet to frame Recruitment Rules to regulate strength, composition, promotion and other matters of J&K Pollution Control Board Subordinate/Gazetted Service. An effort to make Recruitment Rules is being made and Draft Rules stand prepared and submitted for approval to the Competent Authority. The State Government pending approval of Draft Rules has vide Government Order No. 55-FST of 2009 dated 29.01.2009 made CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations, applicable in the matters of promotion in Scientific Wing/Engineering Wing of the Board. The relevant part of the Government Order reads as under:- Scientific Wing/Engineering Wing--The eligibility against the higher posts in these wings shall be determined in accordance with the eligibility criteria laid down in the Rules of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)/on the pattern of other SPCBs for such posts. 11. In view of Government Order No. 55-FST of 2009 dated 29.01.2009 our attention is to go to CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations. The regulations as applicable to the post of Scientist-B reads as under:- 1 2 3 4 5 6 Scientist B 28* (1995) subject to variation dependent on work load Group A Rs. 2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000 Selection Upto 35 years 7 8 9 10 11 12 i) Masters Degree in Science in first class from a recognized University/ Institution and ii) At least 3 years experience in the pollution control or related subject in an organization/ institution of repute. The particular discipline in which Master's Degree is required shall be decided by the Chairman on each occasion a vacancy is filled. Educational Qualification Two Years 50% by promotion falling which by Transfer on deputation and falling both by direct recruitment, 50% by direct recruitment Promotion: Senior Scientific Assistants with 5 years regular service in the grade. The particular discipline in which Master's Degree is required shall be decided by the Chairman on each occasion a vacancy is filled. Educational Qualification Two Years 50% by promotion falling which by Transfer on deputation and falling both by direct recruitment, 50% by direct recruitment Promotion: Senior Scientific Assistants with 5 years regular service in the grade. Transfer on deputation: Officers of the Central Government/ State Governments/ Union Territory Administration or Central/State Autonomous or Statutory bodies, (a) (i) holding analogous posts on regular basis; or Selection Committee: (in case of direct recruitment) --Chairman Members, Joint Secretary (dealing with stablishment of Board) or his nominee in the MOEFF-Member, Member Secretary, Central Board -Member In terms of Regulations, 50% of the post of Scientist B posts are to be filled up by promotion from Senior Scientific Assistant with five year regular service in the Grade and 50% Scientist B posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment by the candidates satisfying the eligibility criteria laid down under the Regulations. 12. There is no disagreement between the parties that only 06 posts are borne on the cadre of Scientist B. The posts in terms of CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations and the Draft Rules are to be shared by the promotees and direct recruits in the ratio of 3:3. Petitioners hold the post of Scientist-A equivalent to Senior Scientific Assistant and therefore, have a right to aspire for three Scientist-B posts meant for promotion quota. The other three posts are to go to the direct recruitment quota. However all the 06 Scientist B posts were advertised vide Advertisement Notification dated 02.06.1999. The Advertisement Notification set into motion selection process for filling up the posts by direct recruitment. It may be recalled that in the year 1999, none of the Scientist B posts was earmarked/set apart for promotion quota. Petitioners 1 and 2 were not even borne on the service of State Pollution Control Board in the year 1999. Petitioner no. 3, though an employee in the Board on the date of Advertisement Notification, did not hold the post of Scientist A. He held the post of Research Assistant (Divisional Cadre) in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 (Prerevised). Petitioners 1 and 2 were not even borne on the service of State Pollution Control Board in the year 1999. Petitioner no. 3, though an employee in the Board on the date of Advertisement Notification, did not hold the post of Scientist A. He held the post of Research Assistant (Divisional Cadre) in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 (Prerevised). There was no challenge to the Advertisement Notification dated 02.06.1999 from any of the officers of the Board holding a post immediately below the post of Scientist B, on the ground that all the 06 Scientist B posts should not go to direct recruitment quota and that all the posts or the few of the posts ought to be filled up by promotion from the lower cadre. 13. Be that at it may, it is beyond dispute that all the 06 Scientist B posts advertised in 1999 were filled up by direct recruitment. 05 of the 06 direct recruits are in place as on date. One of those directly appointed as Scientist B has put in his papers leaving one Scientist B post vacant. The petitioners are not to get immediate benefit from CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations of the Draft Rules, unless and until the posts falling under promotion quota become available, because of promotion of the incumbents or their retirement on superannuation. 14. The question going to the root of the controversy is whether one post available on date, due to resignation one of the direct recruits is to be filled up by promotion from Scientists A, presently in place or the post can be utilized to appoint respondent no. 4, who is litigating over the matter for last about 10 years. 15. The case set up by the petitioners may look attractive on first blush but loses its sheen once given a closer look and tested at the anvil of background facts. It needs to be made clear in the first place that respondent. Board does not propose to fill up the available vacancy of Scientist B by direct recruitment. The Board has not after the post became available issued an Advertisement Notification inviting applications for the post. It needs to be made clear in the first place that respondent. Board does not propose to fill up the available vacancy of Scientist B by direct recruitment. The Board has not after the post became available issued an Advertisement Notification inviting applications for the post. Had the Board issued an Advertisement Notification and thrown open the post to the candidates satisfying eligibility criteria prescribed under CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations, the petitioners possibly could have been heard complaining that the available post as also two more posts to become available in future are to be filled up by promotion, from Scientist A and not by direct recruitment. In said eventuality, Court would have rushed to protect their rights emphasizing that right to be considered for promotion is an integral part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 Constitution of India. However, the position is entirely different in the present case. 16. Respondent no. 4 responded to Advertisement Notification dated 02.06.1999 issued by the Board inviting applications from the eligible candidates amongst others for 06 posts of Scientist B. He participated in the selection process but did not find, place in the selection list. Aggrieved with his non selection, he called in question the selection of the candidates included in the selection list, in a writ petition registered as SWP no. 129/2003. His case was that selection for the advertised post of Scientist B was made in violation of Rules and that he was unjustifiably excluded from the selection list. He insisted that he deserved to be selected for one of the advertised posts. The respondents instead of opposing the writ petition extends an assurance that his grievance would be redressed, in the event, he instead of prosecuting the writ petition voices his grievance in a representation addressed to the respondents. Respondent no. 4 impressed by the assurance extended, withdrew his representation and opted to submit a representation to the Board. 17. The Board did not take any action on the representation constraining respondent no. 4 to file re-agitate the manner in second writ petition being SWP no. 234/2005. He again asked for direction to the Board to appoint him as Scientist B, having regard to his case set up in SWP no. 129/2003 as also the assurance extended to him at the time of disposal of the said writ petition. 4 to file re-agitate the manner in second writ petition being SWP no. 234/2005. He again asked for direction to the Board to appoint him as Scientist B, having regard to his case set up in SWP no. 129/2003 as also the assurance extended to him at the time of disposal of the said writ petition. The Court noticing the developments in the matter directed the respondents to reconstitute the Board and place respondent no. 4's case before the Board for final decision. The Board, as indicated above; considered the matter and having regard to the grounds urged by the respondent no. 4 in successive writ petitions questioning his non selection and selection of the candidates who found place in the selection list, found merit in his case and decided to appoint him against the available post of Scientist B in the Board. 18. The decision taken by the Board, therefore, is vindication of respondent no. 4's stand detailed in SWP no. 129/2003. It is an acknowledgement on part of the Board that respondent no. 4 was unjustifiably ignored while making selection to the posts of Scientist B advertised vide Advertisement Notification dated 02.06.1999. The Board's decision is only a delayed response to infringement of a right or injury that occurred in the year 1999. The cause to seek redressal of the grievance arose to respondent no. 4 on finalisation of recruitment process initiated in the year 1999. The Board's decision to appoint respondent no. 4, in the circumstances, is to undo injustice done in 1999 when the petitioners 1 and 2 were not in service of the Board and petitioner no. 3 held a lower post in the Board and there was no provision to fill up the post of Scientist B by direct recruitment. The decision taken by the Board to appoint respondent no. 4 as Scientist B against the vacancy that has become available due to the resignation of one of the incumbents cannot be said to violate the quota rule, draft rules or CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations. The decision taken by the Board to appoint respondent no. 4 as Scientist B against the vacancy that has become available due to the resignation of one of the incumbents cannot be said to violate the quota rule, draft rules or CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations. It is not a decision to fill up the available post by direct recruitments but to set right a wrong done more than a decade back when CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations had no role to play and there was no provision for filling up the post of Scientist B by promotion. The Scientist-B post that fell vacant because of resignation of one of the direct recruits of 1999, is to be deemed to have been available from finalization of selection process initiated in 1999 itself. When selection was unjustifiably denied to respondent no. 4, but occupied due to selection questioned by the respondent no. 4, and fallen vacant on said resignation. It is, therefore, not a post 29.01.2009 vacancy to be filled up in accordance with CPCB (Method of Recruitment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations made applicable on 29.01.2009. 19. Viewed as above, the decision taken by the Board to appoint respondent no. 4 as Scientist B against the vacancy that has fell vacant due to resignation of one of the direct recruits of 1999, does not infringe any fundamental or legal right of the petitioners, so as to entitle them to maintain writ petition and invoke writ jurisdiction of the Court. 20. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is without merit. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim direction, if any, is vacated. 21. Dismissed.