JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri M. Rarry, learned counsel and Shri S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Shri I. Lalitkumar, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Shri H. Debendra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State Respondents. 2. The subject matter in issue relates to the non-incorporation of the instructions, contained in O.M. dated 02-07-1986 as regards separate quota for promotion, in the Recruitment Rules, 1979 and the merger of feeder posts as notified in the Recruitment Rules, 2012 for the post of Superintendent (Sericulture) and their consequences. In the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 311 of 2011, the main prayer is that separate quota in respect of feeder posts for promotion to the post of Superintendent (Sericulture) be provided in the said Recruitment Rules, 1979 whereas in the W.P. (C) No. 633 of 2012, the validity and correctness of the Recruitment Rules, 2012 are being challenged. Since both the writ petitions have arisen out of identical facts, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. W.P. (C) No. 311 of 2011 3.1 There are three petitioners in the present writ petition and according to them, the petitioner No. 1, who was initially appointed as Sericulture Demonstrator on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 19-01-1976, was appointed on temporary basis to the post of Farm Overseer vide order dated 04-09-1978 issued by the Director of Sericulture. Similarly, the petitioner No. 2, who was initially appointed as Cocoon Marketing Officer in the Department of Sericulture on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 16-02-1985, was appointed on regular basis vide order dated 17-11-1989 issued by the Director of Sericulture. The petitioner No. 3 was appointed as Sericulture Expert in the Department of Sericulture on regular basis vide order dated 15-05-1997 issued by the Director of Sericulture. 3.2 The next promotional post from the feeder posts of Instructor/Cocoon Marketing Officer/Sericulture Expert is the post of Superintendent (Sericulture) which is a Class - II post. As per the Recruitment Rules for the post of Superintendent (Sericulture), the said post is to be filled up - 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment and the petitioners are indubitably eligible for promotion to the said post of Superintendent (Sericulture) in the following manner: "1. Seri Expert/Cocoon Marketing Officer with 2 (two) years regular service in the grade; 2. Seri Expert/Cocoon Marketing Officer with 2 (two) years regular service in the grade; 2. Inspector (Seri) with 3 (three) years regular service in the grade; 3. Instructor (Seri) with 4 (four) years regular service in the grade; 4. Farm Manager (Seri) with 4 (four) years regular service in the grade." 3.3 The Office Memorandum dated 07-02-1986 issued by the Government of India for determining seniority in respect of the persons employed in Central Service was adopted by the Government of Manipur vide Memorandum dated 13-11-1987 with immediate effect and sub-para (ii) of Para 5 of the annexure to the said O.M. reads as under: "(ii) Where promotions to a grade are made from more than one grade the eligible person shall be arranged in separate lists in the order of their relative seniority in their respective grades. Thereafter, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall select the persons for promotion from each list upto the prescribed quota and arrange the candidates selected from different list in a consolidated order of merit which will determine the seniority of persons on promotion to the higher grade. Further the NOTE appended to the said sub-para (ii) of Para No. 5 reads as under:- NOTE: If separate quotas for promotion have not already been prescribed in relevant Recruitment Rules, the Ministries/Departments may do so now, in consultation with the Commission wherever necessary." 3.4 However, according to the petitioners, no separate quota in respect of feeder posts has been provided in the Recruitment Rules, 1979 and accordingly, the petitioners No. 2 and 3 submitted a representation dated 20-04-2010 to the Director of Sericulture requesting him to consider their cases for promotion to the post of Superintendent (Sericulture). The petitioners No. 2 and 3, being learnt that the authorities were taking up steps for filling up the vacant posts of Superintendent (Sericulture) without following the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 07-02-1986, approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 288 of 2010 which was disposed of with a direction that their representation be considered within 2 (two) months. The said representation dated 20-04-2010 was considered and disposed of by the State Government vide order dated 24-12-2010 issued by the Under Secretary (Sericulture), Government of Manipur which, according to the petitioners, has not addressed to their grievances and being aggrieved by it, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. The said representation dated 20-04-2010 was considered and disposed of by the State Government vide order dated 24-12-2010 issued by the Under Secretary (Sericulture), Government of Manipur which, according to the petitioners, has not addressed to their grievances and being aggrieved by it, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. W.P. (C) No. 633 of 2012 3.5 The petitioners in the present petition are the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in the said writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 311 of 2011 and the facts of the present petition as regards the appointment of the petitioners as Cocoon Marketing Officer and the Sericulture Expert are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. 3.6 According to the petitioners, while the said writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 311 of 2011 was pending, the Government of Manipur, in pursuance of a Cabinet decision taken on 02-06-2011, constituted a Central Committee vide order dated 03-06-2011 to examine the pay anomaly. Thereafter, the Under Secretary (DP) vide its U.O. dated 18-08-2011 requested all the Departments to submit proposals in prescribed MPSC Forms with relevant documents for framing/amendment of Recruitment Rules. In response to the said letter, the Director of Sericulture sent a proposal for amending the Recruitment Rules in respect of Inspector (Sericulture/Tasar), Farm Manager, Sericulture Expert, Cocoon Marketing Officer, Instructor (Sericulture) by clubbing them together on the ground that the said posts have the same pay structure and the same requisite qualifications. Thereafter, the Government of Manipur issued a notification dated 28-04-2012 notifying the Recruitment Rules, 2012 for the post of Inspector (Sericulture). Being aggrieved by the said Notification, the present writ petition is being filed by the petitioners challenging the validity and correctness of the said Recruitment Rules, 2012. 3.7 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that the Recruitment Rules, 1979 ought to have been amended/modified incorporating therein the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 07-02-1986 and the selective implementation of the said O.M. by the Government of Manipur is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that if the vacant posts of Superintendent (Sericulture) are to be filled up without following the said instructions contained in the O.M. dated 07-02-1986, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is further submitted that if the vacant posts of Superintendent (Sericulture) are to be filled up without following the said instructions contained in the O.M. dated 07-02-1986, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury. The validity and the correctness of the Recruitment Rules, 2012 have also been challenged on the inter-alia grounds that all the feeder posts have been merged into one cadre namely Inspector (Sericulture) and that the purpose of doing so is to deprive the petitioners of the avenue of promotion to the next higher post/grade. In support of their contentions, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2485-2490 of 2010, Dhole Govind Sahebrao & others v. Union of India & others on 26-03-2015. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Superintendent (Sericulture) have been merged into one cadre on the basis of a policy decision taken by the Government of Manipur keeping in mind the same pay scale drawn by them and the same duty and function performed by them and therefore, there is no need for providing a separate sub-quota, in respect of feeder posts for purpose of promotion, in the Recruitment Rules. It is further submitted that the Recruitment Rules do not violate the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that it is the exclusive jurisdiction and authority of the State Government to frame, amend and alter the Recruitment Rules and the petitioners have no right to challenge it. To substantiate his contention, the learned Government Advocate has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.L. Bansal & ors. v. Union of India & ors. reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 318; State of A.P. & ors. v. MCDOWELL & CO and ors. reported in (1996) 3 SCC 709 ; P.U. Joshi & ors. v. Accountant General, Allahabad & ors. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632 and High Court of Delhi & anr. v. A.K. Mahajan & ors. reported in (2009) 12 SCC 62 . 3.8 It is not in dispute that the posts of Sericulture Expert/Cocoon Marketing Officer, Inspector (Seri), Instructor (Seri) and Farm Manager (Seri) are feeder posts for promotion to the post of Superintendent (Sericulture). reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632 and High Court of Delhi & anr. v. A.K. Mahajan & ors. reported in (2009) 12 SCC 62 . 3.8 It is not in dispute that the posts of Sericulture Expert/Cocoon Marketing Officer, Inspector (Seri), Instructor (Seri) and Farm Manager (Seri) are feeder posts for promotion to the post of Superintendent (Sericulture). It is also not in dispute that the posts of Sericulture Expert/Cocoon Marketing Officer, held by the petitioners, were carrying a higher pay scale as compared to other feeder posts, because of which Sericulture Expert/Cocoon Marketing Officer became eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent (Sericulture) with 2 (two) years of regular service in the grade while other feeder posts namely Inspector (Seri), Instructor (Seri) and Farm Manager (Seri) became eligible with 3/4 years of regular service in the grade. But it may be relevant to note that in the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, this variation in the pay scales amongst the feeder posts has already been done away by providing with the same pay scale i.e., 4500-7000/- which the petitioners had been drawing for more than 12 years without any objection. It appears that the petitioners had no grievance to it at all nor had they challenged the said Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999. 3.9 It so happened that sometime in the year 2011, the Government of Manipur felt that various issues as regards pay anomaly in respect of various posts including amendment of provisions in the Recruitment Rules, feasibility of uniform pay scale, etc. were required to be examined and accordingly, it constituted a Central Committee vide order dated 03-06-2011 issued by the Additional Secretary (Finance/PIC), Government of Manipur to examine the same as per terms of reference mentioned therein with the direction that the Committee should submit its report within four months. Although a copy of the report is not placed on record, it is evident from the materials on record, particularly the U.O. dated 18-08-2011 of the Under Secretary (DP) that the report was considered in the meeting held from 11th to 12th August, 2011 at Chief Minister's Secretariat wherein various decisions were taken suggesting proposals for framing/amendment of Recruitment Rules in respect of different posts in almost all the Departments of the State of Manipur. The Director of Sericulture vide its letter dated 10-11-2011 submitted the proposal and after having considered it, the Department of Sericulture, Manipur Inspector Recruitment Rules, 2012 came to be framed and notified on 28-04-2012. 3.10 There is some force in the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the framing of Recruitment Rules or amendment thereof is within the domain and jurisdiction of the State Government and the reason as to why the policy decision was taken by the State Government merging all feeder posts into one cadre, was to regularise the pay anomalies and the basis of merger was that all the feeder posts were carrying the same pay scale and the same duty and function being discharged by them. The contention of the learned Government Advocate is substantiated by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.U Joshi Case (supra), para 10 of which is as under: "10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service." 3.11 Thus, the power and competency of the State Government to make Recruitment Rules cannot be said to be in doubt and dispute. As has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the validity of the Recruitment Rules can be questioned on the ground of violation of fundamental rights. However, in the present case, the petitioners are unable to show as to how their fundamental rights have been infringed by the State Government while framing the impugned Recruitment Rules. The petitioners have questioned the validity and the correctness of the Recruitment Rules, 2012 on the ground that the impugned Recruitment Rules have deprived the petitioners of their avenue of promotion to the next higher post/grade of Superintendent (Sericulture). In other words, the contention of the petitioners is that in case the vacancies for the post Superintendent (Sericulture) are to be filled up without providing sub-quota for the feeder posts in the Recruitment Rules, the petitioners might lose their chance of being promoted to the post of Superintendent (Sericulture). To substantiate their contention, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhole Govind Sahebrao case (supra). This contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners is misconceived and not sustainable in law and even the said decision relied by them does not help their cases at all and it has rather helped the case of the respondents. This contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners is misconceived and not sustainable in law and even the said decision relied by them does not help their cases at all and it has rather helped the case of the respondents. In the said Dhole Govind Sahebrao case in which the controversy that arose, was on account of a reconstitution of cadres resulting in a co-incidental career advancement for those who had accepted to break away from the original ministerial cadre, the merger of the cadres and the determination of the inter se seniority on merger were found to be justifiably and it was observed that the provisions of the rules could not be faulted on the touchstone of Article 14 and 16of the Constitution. In its judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in the case of S.P. Shivprasad v. Union of India reported in (1998) 4 SCC 598 wherein it has been observed that a decision to merge such cadres is essentially a matter of policy and since three cadres carried the same pay scale at the relevant time, merging of the three cadres cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the members of any of the cadres. Reiterating its ruling that no employee has a right to promotion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 24 of its judgment, further held that "as a proposition of law it is imperative for us to record that chances of promotion do not constitute conditions of service and as such, mere alteration of chances of promotion, would not per se call for judicial interference. The above general proposition would not be applicable, in case the chances of promotion are altered arbitrarily or on the basis of considerations which are shown to be perverse or malafide." The learned counsels for the petitioners have, however, chosen to heavily rely upon the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that posts in the higher scale of pay were given superiority, on the subject of inter se seniority, with reference to posts in the lower scale of pay. But the said observation will not apply to the facts of the present case because in the present case, all the feeder posts were carrying the same pay scale at the time when they were merged into one cadre. But the said observation will not apply to the facts of the present case because in the present case, all the feeder posts were carrying the same pay scale at the time when they were merged into one cadre. All equals have been treated equally and there is no question of violation of petitioner's fundamental rights while framing the said Recruitment Rules, 2012 by the State Government, by way of a policy decision, to provide a uniform pay scale by having a common cadre with the same requisite qualification. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and the materials on record, this court is of the view that the present petitions are devoid of merit and as such, are liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise, the present petitions appear to have become infructuous in view of the averments made by the petitioners in their additional affidavit filed on 26-03-2015 wherein it is stated that the final Seniority List published vide Memo. dated 20-02-2015 be taken on record and appropriate order be passed in the interest of justice. In fact, the apprehension of the petitioners that they might lose the chance of being promoted to the post of Superintendent (Sericulture) without providing sub-quota for the feeder posts had disappeared, the moment they came to know that their names had figured at Serial No. 1 and 2 in the said final Seniority List and that in the event of any DPC meeting being held any time from now, they could be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent (Sericulture). That is the reason why they have filed the said additional affidavit with the prayer that appropriate order be passed by taking the said final Seniority List on record. 3.12 In view of the above observations and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.