JUDGMENT A.C.J. This writ appeal arises out of judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.9.2009 in W.P.(c) no. 1002 of 2005. Respondent No.3 was the writ petitioner. 2. The writ petition had been filed challenging the order of Government of Manipur dated 6th July, 2004 according approval to the redesignation of the post of Sports Promotion Officer of Education (S) Department held by the appellant as Joint Director (Sports/Physical) in public interest. 3. The respondent No.3 (Writ petitioner) at the time of filing the writ application was serving as Physical Education Promotion Officer on regular basis in Education Department (S), Government of Manipur. The appellant was initially appointed as Substitute Teacher and his service was utilised in the Non-Formal Education Unit of Directorate of Education. Later on, he was appointed as Assistant Graduate Teacher under the Meritorious Sports Persons’ Scheme by order of the Director of Education dated 1.06.1990. Undisputedly, the appellant is a graduate and is not diploma or degree holder or has done post graduate course in the discipline of Sports/Physical Education. Further, the case of the writ petitioner was that in the name of streamlining various physical education programmes, the department of Education (S), Government of Manipur redesignated the only post of Assistant Inspector of Schools (Physical) as Sports Promotion Officer on 27.5.1996. Again in partial modification of the said order, the pay scale of the Sports Promotion Officer was raised from Rs.6500-10500/- to Rs.7500-12000/- per month w.e.f. 19.3.1999. The appellant was holding the said post of Assistant Inspector of Schools, after re-designation even though he was initially appointed as Assistant Graduate Teacher, a non-gazetted post and was promoted to a gazette post which could only be filled up through DPC associated with Manipur Public Service Commission by way of promotion or direct recruitment. Government of Manipur indirectly allowed him promotion by redesignating the post held by him. In the impugned order the post of Asstt. Inspector of Schools held by the appellant was again redesingnated as Joint Director (Sports/Physical). 4. In the writ application, a counter affidavit was filed by the State authorities and in the counter affidavit, it was contended that there was only one direct recruitment post of Deputy Director of Education (Physical Education) in the Education Department which was later on redesignated as Joint Director (Physical). The said post was further redesignated as Joint Director (Planning) on 13.2.1998. The said post was further redesignated as Joint Director (Planning) on 13.2.1998. By virtue of such redesignation, the post of Deputy Director of Education (Physical Education), the post of Joint Director (Physical) did not exit any more. It was further contended in the counter affidavit that pay scale prescribed for the post of Joint Director of Education is Rs.10,000-15,200/- per month whereas while re-designating the post of Sports Promotion Officer (Asst. Inspector of Schools) as Joint Director (Sports/Physical) held by the appellant, pay scale was kept at Rs.7500-12500/- per month. There being no post such as Joint Director (Sports/Physical) with pay scale of Rs. 7500-12500/- per month, recruitment rules did not apply in the present case. The sole post of Deputy Director (Physical Education) which underwent subsequent redesignation and became Joint Director (Planning) carries pay scale of Rs.10,000- 15200/- and is occupied by some other officer. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot have any grievance with regard to re-designation of the post held by the appellant as Joint Director (Sports/Physical). More or less, similar counter affidavit was also filed by the appellant in the writ application. 5. Learned Single Judge arriving at the following findings allowed the writ petition. (a) The appellant who had been initially appointed to non-gazetted post was subsequently absorbed against a gazetted post by way of re-designation of the post whereas, gazetted posts were required to be filled up by way of promotion/direct recruitment. (b) As per the recruitment rules, the post of Deputy Director is a direct recruitment post and the appellant admittedly did not have requisite qualification for holding the said post. By order dated 15th April, 1995, the post of Deputy Director was re-designated as Joint Director. The said post of Joint Director (Sports/Physical) was further re-designated as Joint Director (Planning). Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to hold the post of Deputy Director/Joint Director (Sports/Physical)/Joint Director (Planning)/Joint Director (Physical). There being only one post of Joint Director, the post held by the appellant could not be redesignated as Joint Director (Physical) only on the ground that the appellant agreed to continue in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000/- per month. (c) The appellant admittedly did not possess specialisation in the discipline of Sports and Physical Education nor did he has diploma/degree in Sports or physical education. Therefore, he could not have been appointed as Joint Director (Physical) by way of redesignation. 6. (c) The appellant admittedly did not possess specialisation in the discipline of Sports and Physical Education nor did he has diploma/degree in Sports or physical education. Therefore, he could not have been appointed as Joint Director (Physical) by way of redesignation. 6. Shri H.S. Paonam, learned sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Gunabanta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge basically on three grounds which are as follows:- (a) The writ petitioner was not affected by re-designation of the post held by the appellant and therefore, had no locus standi to file the writ application. The post of Physical Promotion Officer held by the appellant was re-designated as Joint Director (Sports/Physical) whereas the scale of pay remained at Rs. 7500-12000/-. Ordinarily, the post of Joint Director (Sports/Physical) which was subsequently redesignated as Joint Director carried pay scale of Rs. 10000-15200/-. Since there was no such post of Joint Director (Sports/Physical) after re-designation of the said post as Joint Director (Planning), recruitment rules have no application and State Government was free to appoint any one against the said post without adhering to recruitment procedure. (b) Re-designation of the said post held by the appellant as Joint Director (Sports/Physical) in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000/- has not affected the promotion prospects of the writ petitioner and it is only name of the post which has been changed. 7. Shri Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner who is Respondent No.3 in the present appeal referring to the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal submitted that from the very beginning, the appellant could not be absorbed against the gazetted post by way of re-designating the post held by him without any recruitment test or in the absence of any recommendation of DPC. The writ petitioner who was working as Sports Promotion Officer was eligible for promotion to the post of Joint Director and ignoring the claim of the writ petitioner, the post held by the appellant was re-designated as Joint Director and therefore, the writ petitioner had all the justification for filing the writ application. It was further submitted by Mr. The writ petitioner who was working as Sports Promotion Officer was eligible for promotion to the post of Joint Director and ignoring the claim of the writ petitioner, the post held by the appellant was re-designated as Joint Director and therefore, the writ petitioner had all the justification for filing the writ application. It was further submitted by Mr. Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that from the very beginning of the career of the appellant, the posts held by him have been re-designated from time to time and he held such post which required either recommendation of the DPC or recruitment test by the Manipur Public Service Commission. Avoiding the recruitment procedure, the Government of Manipur has bestowed the appellant with absorption and promotion by way of re-designating the posts held by him. Therefore, learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the impugned order of re-designation of the post held by the appellant as Joint Director (Sports/Physical). 8. From the Annexure A/10 to the writ petition, it appears that the appellant had initially been appointed as a Substitute in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/- p.m. and such service as substitute was extended on 1st September, 1988 till return of Principal, Navodaya Vidyalaya who had been sent on deputation. While working as such, by order of 1st June, 1990 in Annexure A/11, he was temporarily appointed as Assistant Graduate Teacher in the pay scale of Rs.1650-2570/- per month as a meritorious sports man. The post of Assistant Graduate Teacher is a gazetted post but the appellant was appointed without any recruitment test. While working as Assistant Graduate Teacher, under Annexure A/12 by order dated 13th December, 1991, the post held by him was redesignated as Assistant Inspector of Schools (Physical Education) carrying the same scale of pay. Again while working as Assistant Inspector of Schools (Physical Education), under Annexure A/13 by an order dated 27th May, 1996, the said post of Assistant Inspector of Schools (Physical Education) was re-designated as Sports Promotion Officer in public interest with pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- per month. While continuing as Sports Promotion Officer, another order under Annexure A/8 was passed on 6th July, 2004 re-designating the post held by the appellant as Joint Director (Sports/Physical) in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000/- per month. 1640-2900/- per month. While continuing as Sports Promotion Officer, another order under Annexure A/8 was passed on 6th July, 2004 re-designating the post held by the appellant as Joint Director (Sports/Physical) in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000/- per month. It is further evident from the above enclosures that after the appellant was appointed as substitute, he has been holding different posts higher than the post of substitute by way of re-designation of the post. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had any qualification to hold any post in the department relating to sports/physical education. However, in absence of such qualification, department was kind enough to appoint him in different posts starting from the post of substitute to the post of Joint Director (Sports/Physical) by way of re-designation. 9. So far as the submission of Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is concerned, we find that there was only one post of Deputy Director of Education (Physical Education) which was a direct recruitment post. The educational qualification required for holding the said post is 2nd Class Master’s Degree or equivalent/Honours Degree from any recognised University, degree/diploma in physical education from a recognised University and five years’ experience of teaching and educational administration including three years in a responsible post. Admittedly the appellant did not have the above requisite qualification. The said post of Deputy Director (Physical Education) was re-designated as Joint Director (Sports/Physical) by order dated 15th April, 1995 carrying the same scale of pay. The post of Deputy Director (Sports/Physical) was again re-designated as Joint Director (Planning) carrying the same scale of pay of Rs. 10000 to 15200/- p.m. The said post of Joint Director (Planning) is now occupied by an officer. Undisputedly, writ petitioner is holding the post of Sports Promotion officer and could be considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director. By re-designating the post held by the appellant as Joint Director (Sports/Physical), though a post is not created, confusion has been created by the Government of Manipur in the concerned department. Undisputedly, writ petitioner is holding the post of Sports Promotion officer and could be considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director. By re-designating the post held by the appellant as Joint Director (Sports/Physical), though a post is not created, confusion has been created by the Government of Manipur in the concerned department. It is true that even as Joint Director (Sports/Physical), the appellant has been given pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 p.m. which is not meant for the post of Joint Director and at the same time, there was no reasonableness on the part of the Government in re-designating the post held by the appellant as Joint Director. As per the recruitment rules, the post of Joint director is a direct recruitment post and the appellant also does not have the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Joint director. Under these circumstances, re-designating the post held by the appellant as Joint Director only creates confusion and heartburning though it does not affect the writ petitioner with regards to the prospect of his promotion to the post of Joint Director. We are of the view that the post of Joint Director (Sports/Physical) does not exist in the cadre of Joint Directors and therefore, recruitment rules do not apply and State Government was free to appoint anyone in the said post. Admittedly, the post of Deputy Director (Physical Education) was re-designated as Joint Director (Sports/Physical) which was subsequently re-designated as Joint Director (Planning). By virtue of re-designation of the said post as Joint Director (Planning), the post of Joint Director (Sports/Physical) ceased to exist. If the post ceased to exist, there was no reason on the part of the concerned department of Education to re-designate the post held by the appellant as Joint Director(Sports/Physical). This re-designation was purposefully done to create on fusion and encourage heartburning. Apart from the above, admittedly, the appellant did not have the requisite qualification for holding the post of Joint Director as stated earlier Department of Education has been very kind to the appellant by giving him different posts by way of re-designation which could otherwise be filled up either by way of promotion or by way of direct recruitment. 10. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this writ appeal. 10. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this writ appeal. Writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.