JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Sexana, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. Mr. D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, is present on behalf of the official respondents. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04/11/2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 325(AP)/2008, dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellant. 3. The brief factual matrix of the case, necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows:- I. The appellant-writ petitioner holds the degree of B. Tech in Civil Engineering. On 04/02/1994, the appellant was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the PWD, pursuant whereto he had joined the said post on 10/03/1994. Around that time, the respondent no. 3 was also appointed as a Junior Engineer (JE) in the department of Irrigation and Flood Control (I & FC), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in which post he had joined on 10/06/1994. The respondent no.4 joined in the PWD Department as a Junior Engineer(JE) on 09/10/1992 whereas the respondent no. 5 had joined the Public Works Department as a Junior Engineer on 19/09/1981. II. In the year 1996, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had created a new department, namely, the Urban Development and Housing (UD & H) Department. Since there was shortage of manpower to man the newly created department, a number of officers were taken on deputation from different department. Accordingly the appellant had applied for deputation to the department of UD & H opting for the post of Assistant Urban Programme Officer (AUPO) as well as Urban Programme Officer (UPO). The post of AUPO is equivalent to the post of Junior Engineer (JE) in the PWD. III. Although the appellant had given option for both the posts as aforementioned, yet, his request for deputation appointment was accepted by the borrowing department against the post of AUPO. Consequently, the order dated 10/12/1997 was issued appointing the appellant as an AUPO in the UD & H department on deputation basis, initially for a period of 2 (two) years from the date of taking over charge. In terms of the order dated 10/1/1997, the petitioner had joined as AUPO on 29/12/1997. IV. Around the same time, the respondent nos. Consequently, the order dated 10/12/1997 was issued appointing the appellant as an AUPO in the UD & H department on deputation basis, initially for a period of 2 (two) years from the date of taking over charge. In terms of the order dated 10/1/1997, the petitioner had joined as AUPO on 29/12/1997. IV. Around the same time, the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 had also opted for deputation appointment in the UD & H Department against the post of UPO. Their applications having been accepted, the respondent no. 3 was appointed as UPO on 10/12/1997 itself, in which post he joined on 30/12/1997. Similar orders for appointment on deputation basis were issued in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5 as well for the post of UPO and they had joined in the deputation posts on 16/06/1998 and 22/07/1998 respectively. V. On 05/02/2001, the Secretary to the Urban Development Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued an order dated 05/02/2001, permanently absorbing the appellant as an AUPO in the UD & H Department with effect from the date on which he had joined the department on deputation. In the order dated 05/02/2001, it was interalia mentioned that the inter se seniority of officers absorbed shall be effective from their date of joining on deputation as AUPO and that the service experience would be reckoned from the date of joining their parent department. VI. There was no service rule at the advent of the new department of UD & H, and therefore, the department had framed a draft Service Rules in the year 1996, which could, however, not be finalised immediately. As per the draft rules of 1996, the post of AUPO was one of the feeder cadre for filling up the next higher post of UPO. The draft recruitment rules of 1996 provide that 50% post of the UPO was to be filled up by direct recruitment whereas the remaining 50% by way of promotion from AUPO/Deputation/Transfer basis. The draft rules further provide that AUPOs who have completed 5 (five) years of service, for degree holder in Civil Engineering, or 10(ten) years of service for Diploma holders in Civil Engineering, would be eligible for promotion to the post of UPO. VII. The appellant was thereafter allowed to function as an UPO with effect from 22/10/2001. The draft rules further provide that AUPOs who have completed 5 (five) years of service, for degree holder in Civil Engineering, or 10(ten) years of service for Diploma holders in Civil Engineering, would be eligible for promotion to the post of UPO. VII. The appellant was thereafter allowed to function as an UPO with effect from 22/10/2001. Subsequently, a DPC was held on 07/02/2005 which had recommended the promotion of the appellant to the post of UPO on regular basis. Accordingly, by issuing a notification dated 24/02/2005, the appellant was promoted to the post of UPO on regular basis giving effect to such promotion from 22/10/2001. VIII. In the meantime, a departmental screening committee was constituted for the purpose of recommending the case of the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 and other similarly situated candidates for permanent absorption as UPO, which had made recommendation in favour of the said respondents in its meeting dated 22/03/2001. Taking note of the recommendation made by the screening committee, the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 were permanently absorbed in the department of UD & H by issuing notification dated 28/02/2001. IX. Thereafter, a committee was constituted for finalising the inter se seniority of the UPOs in the department of Urban Development and the said committee in its meeting held on 111/07/2008 finalised the inter se seniority of the UPOs in the department, which list was published on 16/07/2008. As per the seniority list, the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 were placed at Sl. No. 3, 4 and 5 whereas the appellant was placed at Sl. No. 6 in the final seniority list. X. Aggrieved by his seniority position below the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, the appellant as petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) 325(AP)/2008 seeking a direction that his promotion to the post of UPO be given effect from 10/03/1999. The said prayer was made on the basis of a claim that taking into consideration his past service experience in the parent department and in view of the requirement of the draft rules stipulating five years of experience for degree holders in Civil Engineering, the appellant would acquire eligibility for promotion to the post of UPO on 10/03/1999 i.e. on completion of five years service including the period spent in the parent Department. XI. XI. By the judgment and order dated 16/07/2009, the learned Single Judge had initially allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant but the private respondents were not made parties to the said writ petition. As such, being aggrieved, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 preferred WA 13(AP)/2009 assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 16/07/2009, which was allowed by the Division Bench by judgment and order dated 05/08/2010, wherein the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was set aside with a direction for impleading the necessary parties and deciding the matter afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the concerned parties. XII. The writ petition having been remanded for fresh hearing by the learned Single Judge, the appellant had sought amendment of the petition and thereafter challenged the recommendation of the Screening Committee dated 23/02/2001 as well as the absorption of the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 to the post of UPO. That apart, the appellant had also challenged the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 07/02/2005 seeking a direction for conducting a review DPC to consider his case for promotion with effect from 10/03/1999 besides assailing the final seniority list dated 16/07/2008. XIII. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, inter-alia, holding that as per the Rules, the petitioner would be eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of UPO only after completion of five years as AUPO and, therefore, his claim was not maintainable. XIV. As regards the challenge made to the order of absorption of the respondent nos. 3,4 and 5 as well as the final seniority list, the said challenge was negated on the ground that the writ petition having been instituted several years after the orders were passed and there being no valid explanation for delay, the relief was held to be barred by laches and negligence. XV. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner is before us by preferring the instant writ appeal. 4. By referring to the conditions contained in the order of permanent absorption of the appellant dated 05/02/2001, Mr. XV. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner is before us by preferring the instant writ appeal. 4. By referring to the conditions contained in the order of permanent absorption of the appellant dated 05/02/2001, Mr. Ratan has strenuously argued that the past service experience of the appellant having been expressedly recognised, credit of the same ought to have been given to the appellant while computing the period of 5 (five) years as per the Draft Rules. Mr. Ratan submits that the appellant having joined the department of UD & H on deputation, the past experience cannot be wiped out for the purpose of considering his seniority in the cadre of AUPO. Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sub-Inspector Rooplal and another Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and others reported in (2000) 1 SCC 644 , Mr. Ratan submits that in case of persons coming from different sources into a new service, their pre-existing length of service for determining the seniority cannot be brushed aside by the authorities. 5. Placing reliance on another decision of this Court rendered in the case of Mayong Karge Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh reported in 2004 (Supp) GLT 623, Mr. Ratan has submitted that since there were vacancies available in the post of UPO on the date on which the appellant had acquired the eligibility for promotion i.e. on 10/03/1999, the respondents ought to have promoted him on that date or at-least should have given retrospective effect to such promotion from 10/03/1999, which had not been done in the present case. 6. By inviting the attention of this Court to the provisions of the Draft Service Rules, Mr. Ratan has further contended that a reading of the Rules would go to show that absorption on deputation bases to the post of UPO could be made against promotional quota, that too, only in case when eligible departmental candidates were not available. In the present case, although the appellant was the senior most AUPO and was eligible for promotion to the post of UPO under the Rules, yet, such promotional vacancies have been filled up by appointing the private respondents on deputation basis by flouting the scheme of the Draft Rules. Mr. Ratan submits that the ambiguity in the Draft Rules is responsible for denial of the promotional benefit to the appellant. Mr. Ratan submits that the ambiguity in the Draft Rules is responsible for denial of the promotional benefit to the appellant. The learned counsel further submits that since the cause of action for the appellant for filing the writ petition and assailing the appointment of the respondents arose only after the publication of the final seniority list on 16/07/2008. Hence, the learned Single Judge had committed manifest illegality in non-suiting the appellant on the ground of delay and laches. 7. Mr. Tiwari, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that the claim of the appellant regarding fulfilling the eligibility norms as on 10/03/1999 is wholly untenable, inasmuch as, a candidate ought to have completed 5 (five) years as an AUPO for becoming eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of UPO. Mr. Tiwari submits that the appellant having joined the department of UD & H as an AUPO only on 10/12/1997, he was clearly not eligible for being promoted to the post of UPO on 10/03/1999. As a matter of fact, submits the learned senior counsel, the appellant did not fulfil the eligibility condition for promotion to the post of UPO even on 22/10/2001 i.e. the date with effect from which he has been promoted as UPO and the learned Single Judge has rightly recorded the findings against the appellant on the said count. 8. By relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R. Prabha Devi Vs. Government of India reported in AIR 1988 SC 902 , Mr. Tiwari submits that mere seniority in a particular cadre would not be a ground to claim promotion to a higher post unless the candidate fulfils the requirement of the Rules and comes within the zone of consideration. 9. By inviting the notice of this Court to the provisions of the Rules framed under the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Tiwari has strenuously argued that there is no ambiguity in the Draft Rules, inasmuch as, a perusal of the Rules of 2006 could make it abundantly clear that the departmental candidate would be required to complete 5 (five) years of regular service as AUPO for degree holders in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of UPO. As such, submits Mr. As such, submits Mr. Tiwari, the learned Single Judge has rightly interpreted the Rules and came to a conclusion that the claim of the petitioner of having acquired the eligibility for promotion to the rank of UPO on 10/03/1999 was wholly unfounded. 10. By referring to the conditions contained in the order dated 05/02/2011, Mr. Tiwari submits that the clause pertaining to the inter se seniority is wholly inconsistent with the subsequent clause pertaining to past experience and, therefore, the claim for promotion has to be considered strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. 11. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival contentions and have also gone through the materials available on record. 12. As has been noted hereinabove, the writ petition was originally filed by the appellant with the sole prayer for giving effect to his promotion to the post of UPO with effect from 10/03/1999 instead of 22/10/2001. The said claim of the appellant had been rejected by the learned Single Judge holding that the tenure of 5 (five) years has to be completed in the post of AUPO and the past experience cannot be counted for the said purpose. 13. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the appellant on the aforesaid issue, a reference is deemed necessary to the relevant provision of the Draft Rules of 1996. Col. 11 of the Draft Rules lays down the method of recruitment, which reads as follows :- “1. 50 percent by promotion from AUPO who have completed 5 (five) years of service for degree holder in Civil Engineering or 10(ten) years for Diploma in Civil Engineering. 2. 50 percent by direct recruitment to be conducted by the APPSC on the basis of written examination followed by Viva-voce. 80 percent of the posts meant for direct recruitment shall be reserved for APST candidates.” 14. Clause 12 indicates the method in which the promotional posts can be filled up by promotion/deputation/transfer, which is quoted herein below :- “In case of non-eligible from amongst AUPO, the post will be filled up by deputation from amongst the AE/JEs who have completed 5 (five) years for degree holders in Civil Engineer and 10(ten) years for Diploma holder from works departments.” 15. As has been mentioned above, the Department could not finalise the Draft Rules and it was only on 26/07/2006 that the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India was notified. As per the Rules of 2006, the post of UPO has been made a selection post. The method of recruitment has remained the same as in the case of the Draft Rules. However, the procedure to be followed in case of promotion/deputation/transfer, as appearing in Col. 12 is as follows :- “By promotion from amongst the Assistant Urban Programme Officer of the Department who have completed 8(eight) years of regular service for diploma holder and 5 (five) years of regular service for degree holders in the grade. Provided that irrespective seniority in the cadre of Assistant Urban Programme Officer, promotion to the post of Urban Programme Officer shall be considered in order of seniority of completion of respective qualifying services, failing which by transfer on deputation/absorption from Central/State Government/Statutory Bodies/Public Sector undertakings fulfilling the following conditions. a. Holding analogous posts of Urban Programme Officer/Assistant Urban Programme Officer. b. Having 8 (eight) years of regular service for diploma holders and 5 (five) years of regular service for degree holders in the grade. c. The period of deputation shall ordinarily not exceed 3 (three) years.” 16. From the plain language employed in the Service Rules, it becomes apparent that the experience clause regarding complete years of service, both for the Diploma holder and Degree holder candidate would relate to their tenure in service in the post of AUPO and the past experience in the parent department would not have any bearing in computing the same. 17. The claim of the petitioner seeking credit of his past experience in the parent department is based on condition no.1 contained in the order dated 05/02/2001, which is extracted herein below for ready reference:- “1. The inter-Se-Seniority of all officers absorbed shall be effective from the date of joining on deputation as AUPO as they have already been holding equivalent grade on regular basis in their parent department. However, their service experience may be reckoned from the date of joining in their parent department.” 18. A bare reading of the said clause would go to show that a candidate would not be entitled to any credit of past service experience for computing the inter-se seniority in the rank of AUPO. However, their service experience may be reckoned from the date of joining in their parent department.” 18. A bare reading of the said clause would go to show that a candidate would not be entitled to any credit of past service experience for computing the inter-se seniority in the rank of AUPO. If that be so, we fail to understand the true import and intent behind the remaining part of the said clause which gives credit to the service experience from the date of joining in the parent department. Be that as it may, promotion being a creature of statute, the right of a candidate to be considered for promotion to a higher post has to be assessed in strict compliance with the requirement of the Rules. In the present case, the appellant being a graduate degree holder in Civil Engineering, as per the mandate of the Rule, he would be required to complete 5 (five) years of service in the rank of AUPO and no credit can be given to the appellant for his past service in the parent department for the purpose of the Rules. As on 10/03/1999, the petitioner did not complete 5(five) years of service as an AUPO. As such, his claim for giving effect to the promotion to the post of UPO with effect from 10/03/1999 has been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. 19. Coming to the plea of the appellant that his promotion ought to have been given effect from 10/03/1999 since regular vacancy was available on that date, such a plea, as has been noted above, is not maintainable since he did not fulfil the eligibility condition as on 10/03/1999. In the case of R. Prabha Devi (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a particular candidate would not be entitled to promotion to a higher post merely because of the seniority position in the cadre unless he fulfils the eligibility conditions prescribed by the relevant rules. 20. In the case of Mayong Karge (Supra), the respondents had refused to give effect to the officiating promotion of the petitioner therein while regularising his promotion notwithstanding the fact that regular vacancy was available on the date on which the promotion was made on adhoc basis. 20. In the case of Mayong Karge (Supra), the respondents had refused to give effect to the officiating promotion of the petitioner therein while regularising his promotion notwithstanding the fact that regular vacancy was available on the date on which the promotion was made on adhoc basis. It was in that context that the learned Single Judge had held that effect of promotion ought to be given from the date on which the petitioner was promoted on adhoc basis. In the present case, such effect of adhoc promotion has already been given to the appellant with effect from 22/10/2001. In that view of the matter, reliance placed on the decision in the case of Mayong Karge (Supra) is found to be completely misplaced. 21. In the case of Sub Inspector Rooplal and another (Supra), the issue before the Supreme Court was as to whether by any Rule, Regulation or Executive Instruction, the effect on service rendered by a deputationist in an equivalent cadre in the parent department can be taken away while counting his seniority in the deputation post. While answering the said question in the negative, the Supreme Court has held that such an action would be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the condition of absorption as contained in the order dated 05/02/2001 itself has made it clear that the inter se seniority of the deputationist will be reckoned from the date of their joining as AUPO and the said condition has not been challenged by the appellant. That apart, the appellant had initially joined service in the rank of AUPO knowing fully well that the said post is of the same grade and rank as Junior Engineer. Around the same time, the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 had joined the department on deputation basis in a higher post of UPO. Therefore, the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 were all along holding a higher post as compared to the appellant and hence, the question of inter se seniority between the AUPO and the UPO did not not arise. Although subsequently promotion to the post of UPO was given to the appellant with effect from 22/10/2001 but the respondent nos. Therefore, the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 were all along holding a higher post as compared to the appellant and hence, the question of inter se seniority between the AUPO and the UPO did not not arise. Although subsequently promotion to the post of UPO was given to the appellant with effect from 22/10/2001 but the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 were permanently absorbed in the post of UPO with effect from their respective dates of joining on deputation basis i.e. 30/12/1997, 16/06/1998 and 22/07/1998, on which dates the appellant was not even born in the cadre of UPO. Under the circumstances, the department has rightly held that the appellant would be junior to the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the rank of UPO. 22. As noted above, the appellant had accepted his deputation posting in the equivalent rank of AUPO with his eyes open, having full knowledge and understanding that the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 have joined the department at a higher rank. Despite being aware of the same, the appellant had never raised any objection nor approached this Court at the relevant point of time with a prayer for absorbing him to the post of UPO. It was only when he was assigned the seniority position below the private respondents that the litigation was started by him. However, in the meantime, the seniority position of the officers in the rank of AUPO had crystallised creating rights in respect of such departmental candidates. There is no valid explanation as to why the petitioner did not assail the absorption of the private respondents in the post of UPO at the relevant point of time. Since the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 had been borne in the cadre of UPO before the date of promotion of the appellant as UPO, the appellant cannot claim seniority over the private respondents in the cadre of UPO. For the aforementioned reasons, we also do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the permanent absorption of the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 as UPO at this distant point of time. 23. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, the learned Single Judge had held that the writ petitioner was guilty of laches and negligence. 3, 4 and 5 as UPO at this distant point of time. 23. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, the learned Single Judge had held that the writ petitioner was guilty of laches and negligence. We, therefore, find ourselves wholly in agreement with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge on this point as well. 24. For the reasons stated above, we held that there is no merit in the writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.