JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Mr. DK Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner who is a graduate Engineer belonging to the Scheduled Caste community was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis on 19.11.1992. He continued as the ad hoc promotee continuously for 14 years. Thereafter, by the office order dated 14.07.2006 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) (TES Grade-IV) was regularized “with prospective effect”. Along with the petitioner, some other similarly situated ad hoc Assistant Engineers were regularized by the same order dated 14.07.2006. The petitioner has averred that by the judgment and order dated 10.08.2015 delivered in case No. W.A. 67 of 2014 (The State of Tripura and others vs. Tribal Engineers’ Society, Tripura and others), a Division Bench of this court has observed as follows: “2. The undisputed facts are that vide order dated 9th November, 1992 a large number of Junior Engineers, both degree holders and diploma holders, working in the Public Works Department, were promoted on officiating basis as Assistant Engineers on ad-hoc basis for a period not exceeding 6(six) months. No regular promotions were made and the ad-hoc promotions continued. Finally, an order was passed on 14th July, 2006, whereby as many as 238 persons were promoted as Assistant Engineers on regular basis. However these promotions were made effective from the date of the order i.e. 14th July, 2006. Though 238 persons had been promoted by this order, only 29 persons of the said promotees formed a society, known as the Tribal Engineers’ Society, Tripura and this society along with these 29 (twenty nine) individuals filed the writ petition praying that their promotion should be effected from 9th November, 1992 when they were initially promoted. The learned Single Judge held that though the ad-hoc service does not confer any right in the eyes of law, the original petitioners were entitled to this benefit since one other person namely, Kajal Banik (Engineer) was given benefit of ad-hoc service. 3. In our opinion, this dispute is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1607 . 3. In our opinion, this dispute is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1607 . In that case, the Apex Court dealt with the issue as to whether ad-hoc service rendered by an employee is to be counted while considering his service for all intents and purposes and if so, under what circumstances. 4. We may refer to sub paras-A & B of Para-44 of the judgment which read as follows: “(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.” 5. The case of the State is that the writ petitioners were appointed dehors the rules. According to the State, the promotions were made in an ad-hoc fashion without following the rules. Even this situation is covered by sub para-B of Para-44 of the said decision of the Apex Court. According to the learned Advocate General, the case of the State is squarely covered by sub para-A of the said decision especially the corollary thereto since the promotion of the writ petitioners on ad-hoc basis was made dehors the rules. Sub para-A of Para-44 clearly indicates that ad-hoc service is normally not to be counted for any purpose, especially when it is made against the rules. The corollary relied upon by the learned Advocate General only clarifies this issue by saying that where the initial appointment is only ad-hoc and the said appointment is not in accordance with the rules and further that the said appointment is a stop gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering his seniority. 6. The corollary relied upon by the learned Advocate General only clarifies this issue by saying that where the initial appointment is only ad-hoc and the said appointment is not in accordance with the rules and further that the said appointment is a stop gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering his seniority. 6. In our view, the present case does not follow under sub para-A for the following reasons: (i) The ad-hoc appointment though not made according to the rules continued uninterruptedly for 14 years till the services of the writ petitioners, the respondents herein, were regularized in the year 2006. (ii) This was not a stop gap arrangement because there can be no stop gap arrangement which continues for 14 long years. (iii) The explanation given by the State that it could not make regular appointment due to the pendency of the writ petition is a fallacious argument since the writ petition was filed in the year 2004 and there is not a word by the State as to what prevented it from making regular appointment from 1992 till 2004. Nothing has been placed on the file of this case to show that there was any stay order granted by any Court, whereby the State was prevented from making any regular appointment. 7. We are clearly of the view that this case is covered by sub para-B of Para-44 of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court which clearly lays down that even if the initial appointment is not made in accordance with the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. Therefore, the period of service rendered by the writ petitioners from 1992 till the regularization in 2006 will be counted for all intentional purposes. In view of the above discussion, this appeal stands dismissed. Before parting with the records, we may observe that we are limiting this benefit only to the persons, who have approached this Court and the persons who have not approached this Court will not be entitled to claim this benefit without obtaining orders from this Court.” 3. In view of the above discussion, this appeal stands dismissed. Before parting with the records, we may observe that we are limiting this benefit only to the persons, who have approached this Court and the persons who have not approached this Court will not be entitled to claim this benefit without obtaining orders from this Court.” 3. It appears from the said decision of this Court that since the petitioners continued in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of their service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted as a part of their service. The some other Junior Engineers (Civil) (TES Grade V) under Public Works Department were appointed on promotion on ad hoc basis alike the petitioner filed a batch of writ petitions in this court. By the judgment and order dated 07.04.2016 delivered in case No. WP(C) 665 of 2015 (Sri Apan Bhowmik and others vs. The State of Tripura and others), this court had occasion to observe as under: “9. Having regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that the reliefs sought in these writ petitions emerge from a very short compass. The petitioners’ relief is confined to treat their appointment as Assistant Engineer with effect from their respective date of appointments on ad hoc basis instead of 14.07.2006. So far this relief is concerned, this is squarely covered by the decision of this court in State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Tribal Engineers’ Society, Tripura & Ors. (judgment dated 10.08.2015 delivered in W.A. No. 67 of 2014), where Division Bench of this court has clearly held that since the appointees continued in the post uninterruptedly till regularization of their service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. By filing the counter-affidavits, the respondents did not point out that at any point of time the ad hoc appointments were interrupted or were not continued. As a result, the same principle shall equally apply in the case of the petitioners herein. The petitioners’ promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer shall be counted from their respective dates of appointment as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis, not from 14.07.2006. 10. As a result, the same principle shall equally apply in the case of the petitioners herein. The petitioners’ promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer shall be counted from their respective dates of appointment as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis, not from 14.07.2006. 10. In view of this, the writ petitions being WP(C) 665 of 2015, WP(C) 666 of 2015, WP(C) 606 of 2016, WP(C) 708 of 2015, WP(C) 709 of 2015 and WP(C) 710 of 2015, are allowed to the extent as indicated above. Before parting with the records, this court is persuaded to observe that if in the process it is found that the senior officers in the grade of Junior Engineer have been superseded for not engaging or appointing them in the post of Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis, they would be at liberty to approach this court to seek the appropriate relief as this court had no occasion to hear them while deciding these writ petitions. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being WP(C) 385 of 2006 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 19.02.2014 for non-prosecution and when the petitioner approached this court for restoration of the writ petition belatedly, the petition for restoration being I.A. 3346 of 2015 was also dismissed by the order dated 09.03.2016. Since no issue was decided there cannot be any hurdle for the petitioner to approach for the said cause and accordingly the petitioner filed another writ petition being WP(C) 360 of 2015 which was however withdrawn by the order dated 10.12.2015 with liberty reserved to file afresh. In view of that liberty the present petition has been submitted. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact from this court as the paras 4,5 and 6 of the writ petition do not adequately disclose the fact in respect of the previous writ petitions. Thus, the petitioner’s case may not be considered by this court. However, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has fairly submitted that otherwise the petitioner’s case is similar to the case of Sri Apan Bhowmik as referred, which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 07.04.2016. 6. Thus, the petitioner’s case may not be considered by this court. However, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has fairly submitted that otherwise the petitioner’s case is similar to the case of Sri Apan Bhowmik as referred, which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 07.04.2016. 6. Having regard to all these aspects, this court is of the view that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the main plank that has to be considered by this court is to serve the substantive ends of justice. The technicalities all the time may not restrain the stream of justice. It has been now well settled that when there was no decision in the writ petition, mere dismissal for non prosecution cannot stand in the way to grant the appropriate leave, if considered appropriate, if the petitioner had approached the court by filing a fresh writ petition. However, in the writ petition, the petitioner shall fairly disclose all the material facts so that the court can examine those material for purpose of leave. 7. Having considered the paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the writ petition, this court is satisfied that the petitioner had no intention to suppress the material facts from this court. Since there is a consensus that the judgment dated 07.04.2016 delivered in a batch of writ petitions being WP(C) 665 of 2015, WP(C) 666 of 2015, WP(C) 606 of 2016, WP(C) 708 of 2015, WP(C) 709 of 2015 and WP(C) 710 of 2015, covers this writ petition, the present writ petition is allowed on due leave with the following directions: Since by filing the counter affidavit, the respondents have not raised any question to the effect that at any point of time ad hoc appointment of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Engineer (Grade IV of the TES) was interrupted or not continued, the same principle based on which the judgment dated 10.08.2015 delivered in WA 67 of 2014 (The State of Tripura vs. Tribal Engineers’ Society, Tripura and others) was passed shall follow in this case also. The petitioner’s promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) (TES Grade IV) on regular basis shall be counted from the date when he was appointed on ad hoc basis as the Assistant Engineer, not from 14.07.2006 as directed by the said order dated 14.07.2006. To that extent, the order dated 14.07.2006 is interfered with. The petitioner’s promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) (TES Grade IV) on regular basis shall be counted from the date when he was appointed on ad hoc basis as the Assistant Engineer, not from 14.07.2006 as directed by the said order dated 14.07.2006. To that extent, the order dated 14.07.2006 is interfered with. 8. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.