ORDER 1. Heard Shri Th. Ibohal, the learned Advocate General assisted by Shri A. Viscount, the leaned counsels appearing for the applicants/respondents and Shri M. Hemchandra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/petitioners. 2. This is an application filed on behalf of the State praying for modification/vacation of the orders dated 03-02-2016, 05-02-2016 and 15-06-2016 passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 9 of 2016 in so far as it relates to “interim order shall continue until further order”. In order to decide the said application, it has become necessary for this court to examine and consider the circumstances which have led to the filing of the petition namely, W.P. (C) No. 9 of 2016. 3. In the year 2005, the State Government took a policy decision for appointment against 18 posts including the post of Zilladar, Revenue Inspector and Draughtsman by way of direct recruitment and accordingly, a requisition was sent to the Director, Employment Exchange for sponsoring the names of the eligible candidates and in response thereto, the petitioners, being eligible and unemployed youth applied for it by submitting relevant documents. A written test was conducted and the result thereof was declared on 23-11- 2007 wherein the petitioners were found to be qualified for appearing in the Interview/ viva-voce. The interview/ viva-voce was scheduled to be held from 14-12-2007 to 16-12- 2007 but the same was postponed indefinitely vide Notification dated 10-12-2007 in view of the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 1369, 1343 and 1388 of 2005 filed by the petitioners therein who are the private respondents in WP (C) No. 91 of 2014. The main prayers in the said writ petitions were inter-alia that the recruitment process initiated by the State Government for appointment against 18 posts on direct recruitment be quashed and set aside and the ad-hoc services of the petitioners therein be regularized. All the said three writ petitions were dismissed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench vide its order dated 18-12-2007 holding inter alia that the said writ petitions had no merit and deserved to be dismissed in terms of the law laid down by a constitution bench of the Hon’ble supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . The writ appeals being W.A. No. 14 and 15 of 2008 preferred by them were also dismissed by the Hon’ble Gauahti High Court. 4. Since the said writ appeals having been dismissed, the present petitioners, by forming an association in the name of “The Association for Written Test Successful Candidates in the Revenue Department, 2007” submitted various representations to the concerned authorities requesting them to conduct the viva-voce / Interview for the post of Revenue Inspector, Zilladar, Draughtsman, etc. However, the concerned authorities had failed to take appropriate steps in that regard which compelled the petitioners’ association to approach the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 696 of 2012 which appears to be still pending for disposal. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms issued an O.M. dated 03-10-2013 as regards the policy of the State Government on adhoc regularization of various Government Officers. Para 11 of the said O.M. provides that it shall not be applicable to those cases where appropriate orders had already been passed by the courts for discontinuance of the services of the concerned direct recruit adhoc employees. Despite such a provision being provided in the said O.M., the adhoc services of the persons who are the private respondents in W.P. (C) No. 91 of 2014 were regularized vide order dated 31-12-2013 issued by the Government of Manipur. Being aggrieved by the said O.M. dated 03-10-2013 and the Government order dated 31-12-2013, the petitioners filed the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 91 of 2014 and while the said writ petition is pending for consideration by this court, the Revenue Department, Government of Manipur, instead of conducting a viva-voce, issued a Notification dated 17-12-2015 through the Employment Exchange for filling up certain vacant posts including that of the Revenue Inspector, Zilladar, etc. The validity and correctness of this Notification dated 17-12-2015 is being questioned in the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 9 of 2016. 5. The validity and correctness of this Notification dated 17-12-2015 is being questioned in the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 9 of 2016. 5. On 15-01-2016 when the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 9 2016 came up for consideration, this court was pleased to issue notice returnable on 27-01-2016 and on 27-01-2016, when the matter was listed again before this court, time was granted to the learned Advocate General for seeking instructions in the matter and as regards the interim prayer, this court observed that the learned Advocate General assured this court that no DPC be held in respect of Zilladar, Revenue Inspector etc. till 01-02-2016. This interim order came to be extended from time to time and ultimately on 15-06-2016, this court directed that the interim order granted earlier shall continue until further orders. Being aggrieved by these orders, the instant application has been filed on behalf of the State respondents for their modification. In fact, this court has not passed any specific order as regards the holding of DPC pursuant to the Notice dated 17-12-2015 and only on the assurance given by the learned Advocate General, on 27-01-2016 this court observed that no DPC be held till 01-02-2016 which came to be extended vide orders dated 01-02-2016, 03-02-2016, 05-02-2016 and 15-06-2016 passed by this court and it may be noted that the order dated 27-01-2016 was extended on the said occasions without any objection being raised by any of the learned Government Advocates. 6. What is the constitutional scheme in matters of public has been carefully examined, explained and settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). The constitutional scheme is nothing but a mandate for appointment of government employees in accordance with the procedure established in law. In other words, if rules have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the government can make appointments only in accordance with the said rules. Article 16 provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters requirements of the constitutional scheme. At the same time, one aspect which cannot be ignored by this court is the allegation of the petitioner that the selection process initiated in the year 2005 has not been cancelled nor has the requisition in respect thereof been withdrawn by the State Government. At the same time, one aspect which cannot be ignored by this court is the allegation of the petitioner that the selection process initiated in the year 2005 has not been cancelled nor has the requisition in respect thereof been withdrawn by the State Government. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, there is no specific denial of the said allegation and the only stand taken by the State Government is that the recruitment process initiated under the OM dated 24-09-2005 shall be deemed to have lapsed and the present process is initiated in respect of the posts created recently. Be that as it may, these contentions are relating to employment or appointment to any post under the State and the adherence thereto in public employment is a basic feature of the Constitution. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in one of the cases, the constitutional scheme envisages that the appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement being made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted Committee through written examination/interview for judging the candidates who applied in response to the said advertisement. In the present case, a notice dated 17-12-2015 was issued inviting applications from amongst the willing and eligible candidates for appointment to various posts mentioned therein and this step is indubitably one of the basic to be considered at the time of hearing the writ petitions and this court is, for the present, concerned with the interim order that can be passed keeping in mind the balance of convenience of the parties. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this is disposed with the following directions; (a) Out of 218 posts advertised for appointment in the Revenue Department, Government of Manipur vide notice dated 17-12-2015, three posts of Zilladar and two posts of Revenue Inspector shall be kept unfilled by the State respondents until further order or till the disposal of the writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 91 of 2014 and W.P. (C) No. 9 of 2016, whichever is earlier; (b) The State respondents may go ahead with the selection process initiated pursuant to the notice dated 17-12-2015 and complete the DPC proceedings in respect of the remaining posts except five posts mentioned in direction (a) above.