JUDGMENT AND ORDER Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. Nelson Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Vanhmingliani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, Addl. Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. B. Lalramenga for respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 2. The petitioner's counsel submits that in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Mizoram was pleased to make the Mizoram LAD (Group 'A' & 'B' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1992, which provides for recruitment to the post of Section Assistant amongst others. 3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed as Section Assistant in the Town and Country Planning Wing of the Local Administration Department, Govt. of Mizoram on 10.10.1995. The petitioner's service as Section Assistant was confirmed on 12.06.1998. Sometime in the year 2006, the Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation (UD&PA) Department was created. With the creation of UD&PA Department, a number of posts in the Local Administration Department were transferred into the UD&PA Department. The petitioner's post being one of the transferred post, the petitioner continued to work as Section Assistant in the Town and Country Planning Wing of the UD&PA Department. Thereafter, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Mizoram was pleased to make rules for regulating the method of recruitment to the post of Draftsman-II etc,. vide the Mizoram Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation Department (T&C Wing) (Group-C Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2013, herein after referred to as the 2013 Rules. The 2013 Rules came into force on 21.07.2014 and the Schedule of the 2013 Rules shows that there were 2 sanctioned posts of Draftsman-II. The post of Draftsman-II was to be filled up 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. Column 12 of the Schedule of the 2013 Rules also shows that promotion to the post of Draftsman-II was to be from Draftsman-III/Tracer/Section Assistant with not less than 5 (five) years regular service in the grade. 4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner having been serving in the grade of Section Assistant in the Town and Country Planning Wing continuously from 10.10.1995, the petitioner made a request to the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Draftsman-II vide letter dated 05.05.2015. 4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner having been serving in the grade of Section Assistant in the Town and Country Planning Wing continuously from 10.10.1995, the petitioner made a request to the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Draftsman-II vide letter dated 05.05.2015. The State respondents instead of considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Draftsman-II appointed the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 to the said post by converting their engagement as Draftsman-II on Muster Roll basis into contract basis w.e.f. 10.06.2009, vide office order dated 11.05.2015. The office order dated 11.05.2015 is reproduced below: "On the recommendation of the Mizoram Public Service Commission vide No. A. 11015/1/2015-MPSC dated 8.5.2015 and in the interest of public service, Pu Lalrinpuia Ralte, Draftman-II and Pi F. Lalawmpuii, Draftman-II engaged on Muster Roll basis under Town & Country Planning Wing are hereby converted to Contract Basis in PB-2 + GP Rs. 4200/- plus all other allowances as admissible from time to time with effect from 10.6.2009 i.e. the date of their respective engagement on Muster Roll basis without financial benefits." Thereafter, the Joint Director of Town Planning, UD&PA Department submitted a letter to the Director, UD&PA to examine the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Draftsman-II. The Director, UD&PA thereafter, wrote a letter dated 12.06.2015 to the Joint Director, Town Planning Wing, UD&PA Department, which is to the following effect: "With reference to your letter indicated above, and as represented by Sh. Ziaithanmawia, S.A. for his promotion, I would like to inform you that presently there is no vacant post. Two persons who were engaged against the two vacant posts of Draftsman-II under the Town Planning on Muster Roll basis has been converted to contract basis on their request. They were given contract appointment with the approval of the Government (Copy enclosed vide No. A. 12032/4/2014-UD & PA dated 1.5.2015). That before the Recruitment Rules were amended, Section Assistant was never in the feeder post for promotion to the post of Draftsman-II. That only after amendment of the Recruitment Rules, the same became a feeder post. Furthermore, while filling up of the post of Draftsman-II on contract basis was processed, Gazzete copy of the Recruitment Rules was not yet received. Be that as it may, Sh. That only after amendment of the Recruitment Rules, the same became a feeder post. Furthermore, while filling up of the post of Draftsman-II on contract basis was processed, Gazzete copy of the Recruitment Rules was not yet received. Be that as it may, Sh. Zaithanmawia S.A. has made his rightful claim but since there is no longer any vacancy, his case for promotion will be processed as and when vacancy arises." 5. The petitioner's counsel submits that the reason for not considering the petitioner as given by the respondents is due to the fact that the post of Section Assistant was never in the feeder grade for Draftsman-II, prior to the promulgation of the 2013 Rules and also due to the fact that the respondents were not aware of the Mizoram Gazette copy of the 2013 Rules, as is evident from the Director's letter dated 12.06.2015. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's service in the grade of Section Assistant cannot be wished away by the respondents as the petitioner has been working in the post of Section Assistant in the LAD Department from 1995 to 2006 and in the UD&PA Department from 2006 to till date. In support of his submission, the petitioner's counsel has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Laxuman reported in (2005) 8 SCC 714, A.P. State Electricity Board And Others v. R. Parthasarathi and Others reported in (1988) 9 SCC 425 and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and another v. V.M. Joseph reported in (1998) 5 SCC 305 . 6. With regard to the question of the respondents not considering the petitioner as per the 2013 Rules for promotion to the post of Draftsman-II, the petitioner's counsel submits that the State respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own ignorance by stating that gazette copy of the Recruitment Rules was not received by them. The petitioner's counsel thus prays that a direction should be issued to the respondents' authorities to consider promoting the petitioner to the post of Draftsman-II w.e.f the date of appointment of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 i.e. 11/05/2015. The petitioner's counsel also prays for setting aside the appointment of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 as Draftsman-II on contract basis vide office order dated 11.05.2015 and the communication dated 12.06.2015. 7. Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Addl. 6 & 7 i.e. 11/05/2015. The petitioner's counsel also prays for setting aside the appointment of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 as Draftsman-II on contract basis vide office order dated 11.05.2015 and the communication dated 12.06.2015. 7. Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the petitioner has no right to be promoted to the post of Draftsman-II as he has not made any challenge to the change of M.R status of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 to contract basis. The Addl. Advocate General also submits that the petitioner was appointed as Section Assistant on temporary basis on 10.10.1995 and confirmed only on 12.06.1998. Though the petitioner had put in roughly 20 years of regular service as Section Assistant, the post of Section Assistant became the feeder post of Draftsman-II only w.e.f 21.07.2014, when the 2013 Rules became enforceable. The learned Addl. Advocate General thus submits that the petitioner having been in service for approximately 2 years as on date as Section Assistant as per the 2013 Rules, the petitioner cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Draftsman-II, as the qualifying service required in the grade of Section Assistant is 5 years as per the 2013 Rules. The Addl. Advocate General submits that the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 have been serving as Draftsman-II on M.R basis continuously w.e.f 10.06.2009 and in the absence of eligible officers for the promotion to Draftsman-II, the service of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 were converted from M.R basis to contract basis by relaxing the 2013 Rules. The learned Addl. Advocate General submits that there being no challenge to the relaxation of the 2013 Rules made by the State Government, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present case. 8. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 submits that the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 have been working as Draftsman-II on M.R basis continuously w.e.f 10.06.2009 and that the Column 8 & 11 of the Schedule to the 2013 Rules have been relaxed by the competent authority vide notification dated 03.03.2015. He thus submits that in view of the relaxation made by the competent authority, the engagement of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 as Draftsman-II on M.R basis has been converted to contract basis. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. He thus submits that in view of the relaxation made by the competent authority, the engagement of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 as Draftsman-II on M.R basis has been converted to contract basis. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 also submits that there being no challenge to the relaxation made to Column 8 & 11 of the Schedule to the 2013 Rules, the present petition should be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been working in the post of Section Assistant in the Town and Country Planning Wing of LAD since 10.10.1995 till 2006, wherein, the Town and Country Planning Wing of LAD was transferred to the UD&PA Department. The petitioner thereafter worked as Section Assistant in the Town and Country Planning Wing of the UD&PA Department and is in the same post as on today. Thus, the petitioner has been working for more than 5 years as Section Assistant in the UD&PA Department. The question is whether the period of service undergone by the petitioner as Section Assistant prior to the 2013 Rules coming into force can be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for promotion. 11. The petitioner was appointed as Section Assistant as per the Mizoram LAD (Group A&B Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1992 and he was confirmed on 12.06.1998. The petitioner's post was made a feeder post in the 2013 Rules for promotion to the post of Draftsman-II. The petitioner having been appointed to the post of Section Assistant as per Rules, the period of service undergone by the petitioner as Section Assistant prior to the coming into force of the 2013 Rules has to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of promotion. Though the 2013 Rules came into force on 21.07.2014, the service rendered by the petitioner prior to the 2013 Rules has to be counted for the purpose of qualifying service, though the question of whether seniority would be counted for that period may be considered afresh, if there are other Section Assistants who have been appointed as per the 2013 Rules. However, in the present case, no one has been appointed as per the 2013 Rules and the petitioner is the senior-most Section Assistant as per the 1992 Rules. However, in the present case, no one has been appointed as per the 2013 Rules and the petitioner is the senior-most Section Assistant as per the 1992 Rules. Accordingly, this Court holds that the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to the coming into force of the 2013 Rules has to be counted for the purpose of qualifying service in the grade of Section Assistant for the purpose of promotion to the post of Draftsman-II as per the 2013 Rules. 12. The action of the State Government in issuing the notification dated 03.03.2015, wherein, column 8 & 11 of the Schedule to the 2013 Rules has been relaxed so as to enable conversion of the mode of recruitment of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 to the post of Draftsman-II from M.R basis to contract basis is reproduced below: "In the interest of public service and in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8 of the Mizoram Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation Department (T&C Wing) (Group 'C' posts) Recruitment Rules, 2013, the Governor of Mizoram is pleased to relax Column 8 & 11 of Schedule of the said Recruitment Rules for the post of Draftsman-II in favour of Lalrinpuia Ralte, Muster Rill Draftsman-II and F. Lalawmpuii, Muster Roll Draftsman-II for conversion of their mode of recruitment from Muster Roll basis to Contract basis." 13. The relaxation made as per notification dated 03.03.2015 and the subsequent office order dated 11.05.2015 converting engagement of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 from M.R basis to contract basis clearly indicates that there is a requirement of Draftsman-II. The fact that the petitioner is qualified to be considered for promotion to the post of Draftsman-II has been negated by the State respondents on only two grounds. Firstly, the respondents were not aware of the 2013 Rules and secondly, the petitioner was not eligible for promotion as he did not have the qualifying years of service. This Court has already held that the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to the 2013 Rules have to be considered as qualifying service for the purpose of promotion. With regard to the second point of consideration, this Court finds that the 2013 Rules were notified on 21.7.2014 and the relaxation of the Rules was done vide notification dated 3.3.2015. With regard to the second point of consideration, this Court finds that the 2013 Rules were notified on 21.7.2014 and the relaxation of the Rules was done vide notification dated 3.3.2015. The fact that the State respondents have taken the excuse that they were not aware of the 2013 Rules while considering the filling up of the post on contract basis, as the Gazette copy of the 2013 Rules was not yet received by them, as has been reflected in the Director's letter 12.6.2015, is totally unjustified. Further, the State Government should not act like an ordinary litigant and take a specious plea that they were not aware of the 2013 Rules. If the plea of the Director to the effect that : 'while filling up of the post of Draftsman-II on contract basis was processed, Gazette copy of the Recruitment Rules was not yet received', is to be believed, then it does not stand to reason as to how the State respondents had relaxed Columns 8 and 11 of the Schedule to the 2013 Rules. In any event, the State respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own ignorance. The question of whether the continuation of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in the post of Draftsman-II on contract basis is proper has to be considered and it is also to be seen whether the relaxation of the 2013 Rules could have been done in the manner it has been done. 14. The relaxation done to Columns 8 and 11 of the Schedule to the 2013 Rules has been done in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8 of the 2013 Rules which reproduced below: "8. Power to relax-Where the Governor is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, he may, by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing and in consultation with the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons." 15. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were initially engaged as Draftsman-II on Muster Roll basis. They have no right to be recruited into the post of Draftsman-II, either on MR basis or on contract basis as per the 2013 Rules. The relaxation notification dated 3.3.2015, by which the State respondents have recruited the respondent Nos. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were initially engaged as Draftsman-II on Muster Roll basis. They have no right to be recruited into the post of Draftsman-II, either on MR basis or on contract basis as per the 2013 Rules. The relaxation notification dated 3.3.2015, by which the State respondents have recruited the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as Draftsman-II by converting their service from MR basis to contract basis is not envisaged by the 2013 Rules or even as per the relaxation notification. 16. It is settled law that people who are appointed without following the regular procedure as per the Rules do not acquire any right to the appointed post, when the same is tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and Equality of Opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 having been appointed as Draftsman-II only on MR basis, which was later converted to contractual basis and not as per any Rules in force. Their period of service, being adhoc in nature, they cannot be said to acquire any right to the post as per the 2013 Rules. 17. In the present case, the relaxation made by the respondents' authorities vide notification dated 03.03.2015 is not only arbitrary but also not done in good faith. The relaxation by way of converting the engagement of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 from M.R basis to contract basis has no nexus to the object to be achieved in pursuance to the 2013 Rules. The use of the word "mode of recruitment" in the notification dated 03.03.2015 shows the complete non application of mind by the respondents' authorities while making the relaxation. Even assuming that the relaxation made by the respondents' authorities as per the notification dated 03.03.2015 is valid, then also the relaxation made does not confer upon the State respondents the right to convert the engagement of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 from M.R basis to contract basis as per the 2013 Rules. No doubt, the respondents have the power to employ the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on the contract basis, but the same could have been done even without relaxation of the 2013 Rules. However, the manner in which the respondents are attempting to recruit the respondent Nos. No doubt, the respondents have the power to employ the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on the contract basis, but the same could have been done even without relaxation of the 2013 Rules. However, the manner in which the respondents are attempting to recruit the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to the post of Draftsman-II by way of relaxing the provisions of the 2013 Rules is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court holds that the essential qualification necessary for direct recruitment could not have been relaxed in the manner it has been done and without going through the DPC as required by column 13 of the Schedule to the 2013 Rules or without issuing any advertisement. It should also be kept in mind that though columns 8 and 11 of the Schedule of the 2013 Rules had been relaxed by the notification dated 3.3.2015, no DPC was convened so as to engage/recruit the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as Draftsman on contract basis. Thus, the conversion of the service of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 from MR basis to contractual basis is dehors the 2013 Rules. It may be noted here that the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Another v. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 has held at paragraphs 35 and 36 as follows: "35. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from employment exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But, later on, it came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from employment exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in radio and television as merely calling the names from the employment exchange does not meet the requirement of the said article of the Constitution. (Vide Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn., State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, Excise Supdt. (Vide Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn., State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, Excise Supdt. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, Arun Tewari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh, Binod Kumar Gupta v. Ram Ashray Mahoto, National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh, Telecom District Manager v. Keshab Deb, State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and State of M.P. v. Mohd. Abrahim). 36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the employment exchange or putting a note on the notice-board, etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the said constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to complete on merit." 18. In the case of J&K Public Service Commission and Others v. Dr. Narinder Mohan and Others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 630 , the Apex Court has held at paragraphs 7 and 8 as follows: "7. Existence of statutory rules is not a condition precedent to appoint an eligible and fit person to a post. The executive power is coextensive with legislative power of the State and under Article 162, the State can create civil posts and fill them up according to executive instructions consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is settled law that once statutory rules have been made, the appointment shall be only in accordance with the rules. The executive power could be exercised only to fill in the gaps but the instructions cannot and should not supplant the law, but only supplement the law. The Governor exercising the power under proviso to Section 125 (Article 309 of the Constitution of India) made the rules which do not expressly give the power to the State Government to make ad hoc appointments. The Governor exercising the power under proviso to Section 125 (Article 309 of the Constitution of India) made the rules which do not expressly give the power to the State Government to make ad hoc appointments. No such rule has been brought to our notice. No express power was conferred and in fact cannot be conferred to relax the rules of recruitment..............The Rules prescribe direct recruitment/promotion by selection as the mode of recruitment which would be done only by PSC or promotion committee duly constituted and by no other body. Therefore, ad hoc employee should be replaced as expeditiously as possible by direct recruits. A little leeway to make ad hoc appointment due to emergent exigencies, does not clothe the executive Government with power to relax the recruitment or to regularise such appointment nor to claim such appointments to be regular or in accordance with rules. Back door ad hoc appointments at the behest of power source or otherwise and recruitment according to rules are mutually antagonistic and strange bed partners. They cannot co-exist in the same sheath. The former is in negation of fair play. The later are the product of order and regularity. Every eligible person need not necessarily be fit to be appointed to a post or office under the State, selection according to rules by a properly constituted commission and fitment for appointment assures fairness in selection and inhibits arbitrariness in appointments." "8. Therefore, it was held that rule of relaxation cannot be exercised in matters of recruitment. It would be only to remove undue hardship that the power to relax the conditions of service should be exercised and rules relating to recruitment of the service should not be relaxed. In Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India (C.A No. 823 of 1989 etc. dated November 20, 1992), it was reiterated that appointment to a post in accordance with the Rules is a precondition and the conditions of the rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed. Rule 3 of the Residuary Rules, though empowers the Government to relax the rules, it cannot be availed nor have power to relax conditions of recruitment." Accordingly, this Court holds that the relaxation of the 2013 Rules, by way of the notification dated 03.03.2015 is bad in law and the State respondents could not have converted the mode of recruitment of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 as Draftsman-II from M.R basis to contract basis on the basis of the notification dated 03.03.2015 by relaxing columns 8 and 11 of the Schedule to the 2013 Rules. 19. It is settled law that persons who have been appointed on M.R basis and contract basis are appointed only in an Ad-hoc capacity and can continue in the posts till regular selection is made to fill up the said post on regular basis. The contract employees do not have any right to be regularised to a sanctioned vacant post unless there is a scheme or rule made as per law. However, in the present case, no such scheme or rule has been shown before this Court to enable the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 to continue as Draftsman-II on contract basis for all times to come. 20. The Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi(3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has held at paragraphs 26, 33 and 34 as follows: "26. With respect, why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts? This Court, in our view, is bound to insist on the State making regular and proper recruitment's and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment. The direction to make permanent-the distinction between regularisation and making permanent, was not emphasised here-can only encourage the State, the model employer, to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to complete. With respect, the direction made in para 50 (of SCC) of Piara Singh is to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 (of SCC) therein. With great respect, it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognised in the earlier part of the decision. Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad hoc, temporary or casual employees engaged without following the regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent. 33. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this Court on this aspect. Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad hoc, temporary or casual employees engaged without following the regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent. 33. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this Court on this aspect. By and large what emerges is that regular recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a contingency can an ad hoc appointment be made in a permanent vacancy, but the same should soon be followed by a regular recruitment and that appointments to non-available posts should not be taken note of for regularisation. The cases directing regularisation have mainly proceeded on the basis that having permitted the employee to work for some period, he should be absorbed, without really laying down any law to that effect, after discussing the constitutional scheme for public employment. 34. In A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies a three-Judge Bench made a survey of the authorities and held that when appointments were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules framed thereunder and by ignoring essential qualifications, the appointments would be illegal and cannot be regularised by the State. The State could not invoke its power under Article 162 of the Constitution to regularise such appointments. This Court also held that regularisation is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or any body or authority governed by a statutory Act or the rules framed thereunder. Regularisation furthermore cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are ad hoc in nature. It was also held that the fact that some persons had been working for a long time would not mean that they had acquired a right for regularisation." 21. It seems that the State respondents need persons to hold the post of Draftsman-II and has accordingly allowed the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 to hold the post of Draftsman-II on contract basis. As the State Government has found it necessary to have persons to hold the post of Draftsman-II, the State is under an obligation to fill up the vacant post of Draftsman-II as per the Rules in force, which in the present case is the 2013 Rules. 6 & 7 to hold the post of Draftsman-II on contract basis. As the State Government has found it necessary to have persons to hold the post of Draftsman-II, the State is under an obligation to fill up the vacant post of Draftsman-II as per the Rules in force, which in the present case is the 2013 Rules. The petitioner having the required essential qualifications necessary and the qualifying service for promotion to the post of Draftsman-II, the respondents could not have taken away the vested rights of the petitioner to be considered for promotion to the post of Draftsman-II in the manner it has been done. 22. The reasons for not considering the petitioner for promotion as per the 2013 Rules having been found to be arbitrary and having been negated by this Court, it is found necessary that the State respondents should hold a regular DPC as per the 2013 Rules to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Draftsman-II as per the 2013 Rules. The State respondents should also keep in mind that the Apex Court has held in a cantena of decisions that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right. 23. In view of the reasons stated above, the State respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Draftsman-II along with other eligible candidates as per the 2013 Rules within the promotional quota within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 24. With regard to the question to whether the engagement of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 as Draftsmen –II on contract basis is to be set aside, it has been stated at the bar that the engagement period of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 has ended on 29.02.2016. 25. Accordingly, no further order in respect of the services of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as Draftsman-II on contractual basis is called for. However, the State respondents may continue with the services of either of the respondent No. 6 or 7 on contract basis, if so advised, till regular selection by way of direct recruitment is made for the remaining post of Draftsman-II, which should be done at the earliest, by issuing advertisement. However, the State respondents may continue with the services of either of the respondent No. 6 or 7 on contract basis, if so advised, till regular selection by way of direct recruitment is made for the remaining post of Draftsman-II, which should be done at the earliest, by issuing advertisement. Consequently, the notification dated 03.03.2015 issued by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, DP&AR and the office order dated 11.05.2015 issued by the Secretary, UD&PA and all consequential orders/letters are hereby set aside. Petition is allowed. No cost.