JUDGMENT : 1. Both the above cases have been heard on day-to-day basis pursuant to two orders dated 11th December, 2017 and 10th May, 2018 passed by the Supreme Court. The order dated 11th December, 2017 is in two parts. By the first order, SLP (Civil) No. 6490 of 2017 was disposed of and by second order of the same date, it was directed that Civil Appeal No. 3686 of 2007, Shujat Mohammad Khan v. Vishnu Dutt Tripathi and Ors. may be listed along with other connected matters as per the date already fixed. The second order dated 10th May, 2018 was passed in LA. No. 68586 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007, Sri. Atibal Singh and Ors. v. Pramod Shankar Upadhaya and Ors. Both the orders are reproduced below:-- "11.12.2017 SLP (Civil) No. 6490 of 2017 "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should hear the Service Bench No. 24634/2016 and Contempt Petition No. 2510/2017, both pending before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Bench at Lucknow, together, so that there is no confusion. Accordingly, we request the High Court to take both the matters together and dispose of the same within three months, if possible. The High Court may pass appropriate orders as it thinks fit. With the aforesaid observations and request, the special leave petition is disposed of." Civil Appeal No. 3686 of 2007 "List this appeal alongwith other connected matters, as per the date already given." 10.05.2018 LA. No. 68586 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007. "We have considered the prayers made in the present application which are as follows : "(a) clarify the interim order dated 27.11.2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007 that petitioner/applicant is not restrain for further promotion and; (b) stay the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad Bench at Lucknow in Writ Petition Service Bench No. 24634 of 2016 and; (c) directed respondent to conduct the DPC as per the eligibility list dated 26.08.2017 and; (d) pass such other further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case. The order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Service Bench No. 24634 of 2016 was challenged before this Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6490 of 1017 wherein this Court has passed the following order on 11.12.2017:-- "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should hear the Service Bench No. 24634/2016 and Contempt Petition No. 2510/2017, both pending before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Bench at Lucknow, together, so that there is no confusion. Accordingly, we request the High Court to take both the matters together and dispose of the same within three months, if possible. The High Court may pass appropriate orders as it thinks fit. With the aforesaid observations and request, the special leave petition is disposed of." It appears that the High Court is still in seisin of the matter despite the time frame fixed by this Court. We, therefore, request the High Court to hear and decide Service Bench No. 24634/2016 along with Contempt Petition No. 2510/2017 within a period of four weeks from today. We also deem it appropriate to clarify that at no point of time this Court has put any restraint on the promotion of the applicant(s)/appellant(s) and the interim order of this Court dated 27.11.2006 is only one of stay of reversion. The High Court will, therefore, hear and decide the matter(s) keeping in view the above clarification." 2. In the order dated 11th December, 2017, it was provided that both the cases have to be heard together and decided by the High Court within three months. The matters could not be heard and decided for the reasons recorded in the order-sheet and thereafter the Supreme Court passed an order dated 10th May, 2018 requiring the High Court to decide the matter within four weeks from that date. Pursuant thereto, the hearing of these petitions continued from 15th May, 2018 and have been heard on day-to-day basis. The arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties had concluded on 13th July, 2018 and the matter was fixed for dictation of judgment on Monday next i.e. 16th July, 2018 to be taken up at 2:15 p.m. On 16th July, 2018 we were apprised that on 12th July, 2018 an LA. was moved before the Supreme Court registered as LA. was moved before the Supreme Court registered as LA. No. 94033 of 2018 and was also mentioned in Court No. 1. The Supreme Court passed an order on the said date requiring the matter to be listed on 16th July, 2018 before the appropriate Bench as per roster. Since the matter was fixed before the Supreme Court on 16th July, 2018 on the prayer made in the LA. No. 94033 of 2018 including the prayer to call for the records of Writ Petition No. 24634(SB) of 2016 to the Supreme Court as such we adjourned the matter for today. It was stated at the Bar that some orders have been passed on the aforesaid LA. but since the order was not uploaded, we thought it appropriate to have the matter for today so that there is no inconsistency or impropriety in the matter. 3. Today, Sri. Upendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing a copy of the LA. No. 94033 of 2018 and the orders dated 12th July, 2018 and 16th July, 2018 passed by the Supreme Court. Both the Orders are reproduced below:- "12.7.2018 "On mentioning, the matter is taken on Board. List the matter on 16th July, 2018, before the appropriate Bench as per the roster." 16.7.2018 "Let the Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007 be listed on the top of the board on the date earlier fixed, namely, 8th August, 2018. In the meantime, order dated 11th July, 2018 passed by the State of U.P. shall remain suspended. We make it clear that we have put no restraint on the High Court in deciding the matter pending before it. LA. No. 94033 of 2018 is disposed of in the above terms." 4. A perusal of order dated 16th July, 2018 indicates that the Supreme Court did not put any restraint on the High Court for deciding the matter pending before it as such, we have proceeded to start the dictation of the judgment in the aforesaid two cases. 5. The Engineers of the Public Works Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh are at war. 5. The Engineers of the Public Works Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh are at war. There are three warring groups - (i) Assistant Engineers appointed directly to the said post, (ii) the Junior Engineers holding Diploma and claiming promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers and (iii) the Junior Engineers holding a Degree also claiming promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers. The litigation among the three groups is continuing for the last more than two decades, however the first judgment relevant for us in deciding the present matters would be the judgment of the High Court in the case of Aruvendra Kumar Garg and others v. State of U.P. and others (2002 (2) ESC-148). 6. In the said case, challenge was to the notifications dated 04.08.1987 and 25.09.1997 issued by the State Government. Notification dated 04.08.1987 has brought about certain amendments in U.P. Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) (Class U) Rules, 1936 and the other notification dated 25.09.1997 also brought about certain amendment in Rule-5 of the said 1936 Rules. The effect of these amendments brought about by the aforesaid notifications related to inter se quota for promotion of Degree Holder and Diploma Holder Junior Engineers for the post of Assistant Engineers. Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed both the notifications. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court and ultimately these Special Leave Petitions in which earlier leave had been granted, were withdrawn and the appellant was permitted to withdraw the Civil Appeal Nos. 4195 of 2002, Aruvendra Kumar Garg and others v. State of U.P. with civil Appeal No. 4194 of 2002 vide order dated 1.8.2006, which is reproduced below:-- Civil Appeal No. 4194 and 4195. "Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel and Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel argued the matter from 10.50 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. In view of the contents mentioned in the memo filed by the appellants today before this Court, the appellants are allowed to withdraw these two appeals on instruction. The appeals are dismissed as withdrawn." Civil Appeal No. 3228 of 2005. "List tomorrow as part-heard." Since reference has come to Civil Appeal No. 3228 of 2005 in a couple of orders of the Supreme Court, we deem it appropriate to mention in brief about the lis involved in the said appeal. The appeals are dismissed as withdrawn." Civil Appeal No. 3228 of 2005. "List tomorrow as part-heard." Since reference has come to Civil Appeal No. 3228 of 2005 in a couple of orders of the Supreme Court, we deem it appropriate to mention in brief about the lis involved in the said appeal. At some stage the Department issued an order waiving the written test, required under the rules for promotion and provided that promotion be made on the basis of interview. This decision was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court. As apparently this order of the Department was in violation of the service rules, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition against which the Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court and was later converted to Civil Appeal No. 3228 of 2005. The said Civil Appeal has since been decided in the year 2007 and the judgment reported in (2007) 13 SCC 300 . : (2007 AIR SCW 2173) 7. In the meantime, 73 Junior Engineer Degree Holders were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers between 1998 and 2005 by four separate promotion orders. The dates of four orders are 30.6.1998, 2.5.2005, 6.12.2004 and 25.5.2005. A bunch of Writ Petitions was filed before this Court challenging the various steps of process of promotion on the post of Assistant Engineers including the validity and correctness of prescription of quota for promotion, determination of vacancies, preparation of eligibility list and also the validity and applicability of new Rules of recruitment, namely the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department Group-B Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004. The leading case was registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2750 of 2004 (Reported in 2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All), Anjani Kumar Mishra and others v. State of U.P. and others. These petitions were filed by Junior Engineer Diploma Holders and their main attack was to the promotion of Junior Engineer Degree Holder to the post of Assistant Engineers ignoring their claim and quota. All these petitions were clubbed together and vide judgment and order dated 3rd November, 2006 reported in 2007 (1) U.P.L. B.E.C. 260 (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All) these petitions were allowed by a Division Bench in which after quashing the four promotion orders, 11 directions were issued as contained in paragraph-171 of the report. 8. All these petitions were clubbed together and vide judgment and order dated 3rd November, 2006 reported in 2007 (1) U.P.L. B.E.C. 260 (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All) these petitions were allowed by a Division Bench in which after quashing the four promotion orders, 11 directions were issued as contained in paragraph-171 of the report. 8. Para - 171 for ready reference is reproduced below as we would be referring to some of the directions issued therein at a later stage while dealing with the arguments of the respective parties:-- "171. In view of foregoing discussions and observations our conclusions are summarized as under: (1) The provisions of Rule 5(ii) and Rule 16 of new 2004 Rules are held to be valid. (2) Although, the provisions of new 2004 Rules are prospective in operation and shall apply w.e.f. 3.1.2004 but the vacancies occurred on or after 1.7.2004 only shall be filled up under new 2004 Rules and vacancies occurred prior to 30.6.2004 in the quota of promotion shall be filled up under old 1936 Rules. However, the existing vacancies prior to 30.6.2004 in the quota of direct recruitment shall be filled up as backlog vacancies under new 2004 Rules as the process of selection for direct recruitment were not initiated prior to commencement of new 2004 Rules, but without any further allocation of vacancies in the quota for promotion for period in question. (3) There exists no statutory rule for prescription of quota for direct recruitment and promotion after decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in RD. Agrawal's case and this court in Aruvendra Kumar Garg's case ( AIR 1987 SC 1676 ) under old 1936 Rules. However, in order to fill up vacuum and supplement the remaining existing provisions of old 1936 Rules, the GO. dated 20.2.2003 has been issued to fill up the remaining existing vacancies available at relevant time by prescribing 41.66% quota for promotion which shall be applicable to fill up the existing vacancies alone not covered by new 2004 Rules as indicated in judgment. (4) The respondent-State authorities are directed to redetermine the vacancies for years 1997-1998 to 2003-2004 according to GO. (4) The respondent-State authorities are directed to redetermine the vacancies for years 1997-1998 to 2003-2004 according to GO. dated 20.2.2003 and take further steps within a month from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed by this court before Secretary, P.W.D., Government of U.P. (5) While undertaking re-exercise for determination of remaining vacancies for year 1997-98, the promotions made at Sl. No. 32 to 40 by GO. No. 4023/23-4-98 N.G/97 T.C. Lucknow dated 30th June 1998, shall be ignored. Similarly 53 promotions made vide GO. No. 2220/23-4-2002-24 N.G/2002 Lucknow dated 2.5.2002 in respect of vacancies of years 1998-99 to 2000-2001, 10 promotions made vide GO. No. 8651/23-4-2002-24 N.G/02 dated 6.12.2004 pertaining to vacancies of year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and one promotion made vide GO. No. 8021/23-4-05-24 N.G/02 dated 25.5.2005 shall also be ignored. (6) As a result of striking down the promotions made on the post in question from Sl. No. 32-40 contained in GO. dated 30.6.1998, GO. dated 2.5.2005, GO. dated 6.12.2004 and GO. dated 25.5.2005 the degree holder junior engineers who were promoted by the aforesaid Government orders shall not be reverted at once to their original posts until the vacancies against which they were promoted shall be filled up according to Rule-12 of old 1936 Rules by incumbents of feeder posts irrespective of their having diploma or degree in engineering. (7) Against total remaining vacancies falling in the quota of promotion for year 1997 and for year 1998-2004 as indicated herein above, separate yearwise eligibility and select list shall be prepared in respect of vacancies of each recruitment year. (8) While preparing year wise eligibility list, the persons whose promotion have been quashed, shall also be considered and placed in the eligibility lists if fall within zone of consideration according to their seniority position in the seniority list irrespective of their having degree in engineering or equivalent qualification and while considering their case the period of services rendered by them on higher post shall be taken into account while computing their seniority on feeder cadre and their Annual Confidential Reports and other service records shall also be taken into account on notional basis on feeder cadre. (9) However it is made further clear that rejection of relief to the petitioners in separate quota for promotion for degree holders on alleged ground of discrimination would not disentitle them to be considered for promotion provided they are otherwise found eligible for consideration for promotion according to then-seniority position under Rule 12 of old 1936 Rules, in that event of the matter they will also be considered alongwith other eligible candidates irrespective of their degree in engineering or equivalent qualification. (10) The respondents-State authorities are directed to undertake aforementioned exercise and complete it within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of order passed by this court before Secretary of concern department of the Government. (11) After aforesaid exercise is over, if the claim of promotions of degree holder junior engineers whose promotions have been quashed, are found not acceptable either because of their lower seniority position or found otherwise not suitable according to the rules of promotion, they shall be reverted to their original posts forthwith on completion of aforesaid exercise." 9. The judgment in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All) supra) was carried to the Supreme Court by the Junior Engineer Degree Holders who had been promoted as Assistant Engineers led by one Atibal Singh and others registered as Special Leave to Appeal C.C. No. 8786 of 2006, later on converted into appeal and registered as Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007, Sri. Atibal Singh and others v. Pramod Shankar and others. In other group of Junior Engineer Degree Holders filed a Special Leave Petition assailing the correctness of the judgment in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra), in which also leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court and it would be registered as Civil Appeal No. 3686 of 2007, Shujat Mohd. Khan v. Vishnu Dutt Tripathi. It would be worthwhile mentioning here that out of the 73 Junior Engineer (Degree Holders) who had been promoted between 1998 to 2005 and whose promotion orders had been quashed in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra), only 62 Junior Engineer Degree Holders approached the Supreme Court by way of different petitions. The remaining eleven Junior Engineer Degree Holders till date have not challenged the judgment of Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra). The remaining eleven Junior Engineer Degree Holders till date have not challenged the judgment of Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra). The Supreme Court while entertaining the SLP passed an interim order dated 14.11.2006 directing the matter to be listed on 27th November, 2006 and in the meantime, till the date fixed status quo as on that date to be maintained. The order dated 14th November, 2006 is reproduced below:-- "List on 27th November, 2006. Status quo as on today shall be maintained till then." 10. On 27.11.2006, the Supreme Court passed further order in the case of Atibal Singh (supra) to the effect that the matter would be listed after disposal of Civil Appeal No. 3228 of 2005, Diploma Engineers Sangh v. State of U.P. and further, in the meantime the petitioners would not be reverted. The Order dated 27.11.2006 reads as under:-- "List the matter after disposal of Civil Appeal No. 3228 of 2005. In the meantime, the petitioners shall not be reverted." 11. Not only on the strength of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court but also under the directions contained in the judgment of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All) (supra), the promoted Junior Engineer Degree Holders continued as Assistant Engineers and are still continuing. The Special Leave to Appeal of Atibal Singh was admitted and leave granted and converted into the Civil Appeal registered as Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007. The Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007 of Atibal Singh is still pending before the Supreme Court and as is apparent from the orders of the Supreme Court to LA. No. 94033 of 2018, the said matter is fixed for 8th August, 2018 to be listed on the top of the board. 12. In the meantime, in 2013 one Shamimul Islam, Satbir Singh and Jai Kumar Sharma who were Junior Engineer Degree Holders and had been promoted as Assistant Engineers, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court which was registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 526 of 2013, Shamimul Islam and others v. State of U.P. and others. 13. In the said petition, they made a prayer that appropriate directions may be issued to the State of U.P. to consider their case for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer and if found suitable, they may be provided promotion. 13. In the said petition, they made a prayer that appropriate directions may be issued to the State of U.P. to consider their case for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer and if found suitable, they may be provided promotion. Certain other ancillary reliefs were also claimed and the same are reproduced below:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer and in case the petitioners are found suitable, they may be provided promotion on the post of Executive Engineer. (b) Issue a writ, order direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 to re-determine the quota and eligibility of petitioners and other similarly situated persons on the basis of their substantive. (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 to re-consider the eligibility and seniority while according the benefits to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and: (d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 not to make any promotion on the basis of Notification dated 04.08.1987 to 1997 which has been set aside by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court. (e) Pass such other or further order/s as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case." 14. Supreme Court vide order dated 29th July, 2013 ordered that the matter may be listed after final disposal of Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007. The said order is reproduced below:- "Heard. Post after the final disposal of C.A. No. 3695 of 2007 (Sri Atibal Singh and others v. Pramod Shankar and others) and connected matters". 15. Later on Shamimul Islam filed an LA. No. 3 of 2015 in the pending Writ Petition (Civil) No. 526 of 2013 before the Supreme Court. In the said LA. it was prayed that the promotion list issued by the Department dated 2nd January, 2015 be stayed during pendency of the case. The prayer made in LA. No. 03 of 2015 is reproduced below:- "(a) stay the promotion list No. 09/23-08-2015-13 (PWED) Off. In the said LA. it was prayed that the promotion list issued by the Department dated 2nd January, 2015 be stayed during pendency of the case. The prayer made in LA. No. 03 of 2015 is reproduced below:- "(a) stay the promotion list No. 09/23-08-2015-13 (PWED) Off. 2015, Lucknow dated 02.01.2015 (Annexure-P-2) issued the Respondent No. 1 during the pendency of the present case: (b) pass such other or further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case." 16. On the said I.A., Supreme Court passed an order dated 13th January, 2015 to the effect that any promotion during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court shall remain stayed subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The order dated 13.1.2015 is reproduced below:- "Application *I.A. No. 3 of 2015) for stay is taken on Board. We direct that any promotion, during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, shall remain subject to the outcome of this writ petition. LA. No. 3 of 2015 is disposed of accordingly." 17. In the meantime, it appears that the department proceeded to prepare the seniority list of Assistant Engineers as also the eligibility list apparently for consideration for promotion of Assistant Engineers to the post of Executive Engineers. The seniority list was published on 9th September, 2016 and the eligibility list was published on 23rd September, 2016. 18. In the said lists, the respondent Nos. 4 to 24 were Assistant Engineers who had been promoted under the promotion order dated 2nd May, 2002 and were Junior Engineer Degree Holder were included. 19. Manoj Kumar and Chandra Shekhar who were directly appointed as Assistant Engineers, challenged the aforesaid two lists by way of Writ Petition No. 24634 of 2016, Manoj Kumar and another v. State of U.P. and another (the present petition) filed on 6th October, 2016. The said case was taken up on 07.10.2016, and on 17.10.2016 on which date the matter was adjourned to 3.11.2016 and time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents to obtain instructions. The said case was taken up on 07.10.2016, and on 17.10.2016 on which date the matter was adjourned to 3.11.2016 and time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents to obtain instructions. The orders dated 07.10.2016 and 17.10.2016 are reproduced below:-- 07.10.2016 "As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, put up on 17.10.2016 as a fresh case." 17.10.2016 "It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that though the private respondents cannot be reverted by virtue of the protection given by the Supreme Court, but their further promotion cannot be made by giving them accelerated promotion, which has already been quashed by the Supreme Court. List on 03.11.2016 as fresh, on the request of learned Standing Counsel in order to enable him to seek instructions in the matter." 20. On 3rd November, 2006, this Court passed an interim order providing that opposite party Nos. 4 to 24 to the petition would not be promoted subject to further orders of this Court. The interim order dated 03.11.2016 is reproduced below:-- "Power filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 4 by Sri. Ramesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate is taken on record. In spite of the fact that time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter, he has failed to take any instruction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite parties are being promoted despite the fact that their reversion has been stayed but the seniority has not been restored under the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the aforesaid fact, we hereby provide that Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 24 will not be promoted subject to further orders of this court. List in the month of December, 2016. Name of Sri. Ramesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate shall be shown in the cause list as counsel for Opposite Party No. 4 when the case is next listed." 21. The interim order dated 03.11.2016 was made subject matter in a Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1900 of 2016, Roshan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., before the Supreme Court by one Roshan Singh, Assistant Engineer, who had been promoted from the cadre of Junior Engineer Degree Holder in which an interim order came to be passed on 21.11.2016 staying further proceedings in the present writ petition i.e. Service Bench No. 24634 of 2016. The order of the Supreme Court dated 21.11.2016 is reproduced below:- "Issue notice returnable within six weeks. In the meantime, there shall be stay of further proceedings in writ petition Service Bench No. 24634 of 2016 titled as Manoj Kumar & Anr. v. State of U.P. thru Secy. Public Works Deptt. L.Ko & Anr. pending before the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad at Lucknow, as earlier we have directed that the High Court shall not entertain the lis in connection with the judgment passed in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. [ (2012) 7 SCC 1 ] : AIR 2012 SC 2728 )." 22. Further, the interim order dated 03.11.2016 passed by this Court was also subject matter of challenge in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 35889 of 2016 and one more S.L.P. (Civil) No. 6490 of 2017. 23. A Stay vacation application was filed for vacating the interim order dated 21.11.2016 in the transfer petition, which was taken up by the Supreme Court and it was pointed out that neither the transfer petition nor the Special Leave to Appeal No. 35889 of 2016 had any nexus with the judgment in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar and others ((2012 7 SCC, 1) : AIR 2012 SC 2728 ). The Supreme Court passed an order dated 10th March, 2017 requiring the matters to be listed on 26th April, 2017. The said order is reproduced below:-- "It is submitted by Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that the order passed by the High Court does not require any interference as it is in no way connected with the decision rendered by this Court in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited v. Rajesh Kumar and Others (2012) 7 SCC 1 : ( AIR 2012 SC 2728 ). Learned senior counsel appearing for the State submits that it is not covered. The dispute is raised by the petitioner. To appreciate the aforesaid submission, let the matter be listed on 26th April, 2017. The parties are permitted to file additional affidavit in the meantime." 24. Again on 26th April, 2017 the matter was adjourned to 2nd May, 2017. Learned senior counsel appearing for the State submits that it is not covered. The dispute is raised by the petitioner. To appreciate the aforesaid submission, let the matter be listed on 26th April, 2017. The parties are permitted to file additional affidavit in the meantime." 24. Again on 26th April, 2017 the matter was adjourned to 2nd May, 2017. The order of 26th April, 2017 is also reproduced below:-- "In course of hearing, we have been apprised by the learned counsel for the parties that neither the petitioner nor the respondents have been reverted in pursuance of the judgment in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar ( (2012) 7 SCC 1 ) : ( AIR 2012 SC 2728 ). In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition before the High Court would be adjudicated on its own merits. Let the matter be listed on 2.5.2017." 25. Finally the matter was taken up on 20th November, 2017 when counsel for the appellant in SLP (Civil) No. 35889 of 2016 made a statement that the said S.L.P. was rendered infructuous and the same was accordingly dismissed. The transfer petition No. 1900 of 2016 was also dismissed in terms of the signed order and insofar as SLP (Civil) No. 6490 of 2017 is concerned, the Supreme Court directed that the said matter be listed along with Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007. The order dated 20th November, 2017 is reproduced below:-- "SLP (C) No. 35889/2016. Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the special leave petition has been rendered infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed. T.P. (C) No. 1900/2016 The transfer petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order. SLP (C) No. 6490/2017 Let this matter be listed along with Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007, sometime in the second week of January, 2018." 26. Thus, after 20th November, 2017, the restraint put on hearing of the petition, was lifted as the transfer petition was dismissed. 27. In the meantime, it appears that opposite party Nos. 10 to 21 (11 in number) of the present writ petition were promoted by order dated 18th July, 2017 to the post of Executive Engineer and further remaining 10 respondents were included in the eligibility list for further consideration for promotion. 27. In the meantime, it appears that opposite party Nos. 10 to 21 (11 in number) of the present writ petition were promoted by order dated 18th July, 2017 to the post of Executive Engineer and further remaining 10 respondents were included in the eligibility list for further consideration for promotion. At this stage, Krishna Kumar Singh and another initiated proceedings for contempt registered as Contempt No. 2510 of 2017 before this Court alleging gross violation of the interim order dated 03.11.2016 passed in the present writ petition. The Court took cognizance and required the learned Standing Counsel to be present in Court after obtaining instructions in the matter and fixed for 29.11.2017. The order of 17.11.2017 is reproduced below:- "Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. Heard. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that opposite party Nos. 10 of the 21 arrayed in the writ petition have been promoted vide order dated 18.07.2017 and remaining ten have been included in the eligibility list for the present recruitment in the teeth of the interim order dated 03.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 24604 (S/B) of 2016 and also the fact that in the SLP filed against the said order no interim order has been passed staying the interim order dated 3.11.2016 by which opposite party Nos. 4 to 24 were restrained from being promoted. All that was ordered was that they would not be reverted, obviously from the post of A.E. which they were holding. Let a copy of the contempt petition be provided to Sri. Suresh Singh, learned Standing Counsel who shall seek instructions in the matter in the light of averments made in the writ petition and assist the Court on the next date. List this case on 29.11.2017, as fresh." 28. On 29.11.2017 certain instructions were placed before the Court. The Court required that responsible Officers from the Government to appear along with the relevant records relating to convening of the Departmental Promotion Committee and fixed 30th November, 2016. The order dated 29.11.2017 is reproduced below:-- "Heard. This Court vide order dated 17.11.2017 had asked the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions. He has received instructions that the orders of the Supreme Court shall be placed before the D.P.C. which has been conveyed on 29.11.2017. The order dated 29.11.2017 is reproduced below:-- "Heard. This Court vide order dated 17.11.2017 had asked the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions. He has received instructions that the orders of the Supreme Court shall be placed before the D.P.C. which has been conveyed on 29.11.2017. It is said that earlier these orders were not in the knowledge of the opposite parties. List/put up tomorrow i.e. 30.11.2017 as fresh. Let a responsible Officer from the Government appear before this Court tomorrow along with relevant records regarding convening the D.P.C. and also the records pertaining to the alleged promotion of 10 of the respondents before the Writ Court." 29. On 30th November, 2017, the Court passed a detailed order and was prima facie of the view that the interim order dated 03.11.2016 had been violated. It was only then the Contempt Court issued notice to the opposite party No. 1/Principal Secretary, P.W.D. to submit his explanation but also gave an opportunity to the Principal Secretary to rectify the violation of the interim order. The order dated 30th November, 2017 a speaking order, is reproduced below:-- "Heard. The Court finds that an interim order was passed by this Court on 3.11.2016 in Writ Petition No. 24634 (SB) of 2016 categorically providing that the opposite party Nos. 4 to 24 will not be promoted subject to further orders of this Court. This interim order was put to challenge by the respondents in the writ petition before the Supreme Court. Thereafter a transfer petition was filed by the respondents. In the said petition bearing No. 1900 of 2016, Roshan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., wherein notices were issued and in the meantime stay of further proceedings in the aforesaid writ petition before the High Court was ordered by the Supreme Court. On a bare reading of the said order it is evident that the interim order was granted as the impression conveyed was that the matter was covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar reported in (2012) 7 SCC 1 : ( AIR 2012 SC 2728 ). On a bare reading of the said order it is evident that the interim order was granted as the impression conveyed was that the matter was covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar reported in (2012) 7 SCC 1 : ( AIR 2012 SC 2728 ). Thereafter the interim order dated 3.11.2016 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 24634 (SB) of 2016 was challenged by the respondents therein by means of Special Leave Petition bearing No. 35889 of 2016 which was tagged with the transfer petition and an order was passed on 10.3.2017 that the matter be listed on 26 April, 2017 considering the assertion that in fact the case was not covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. On 26.4.2017 the Supreme Court noticed the statement of counsel for all the parties that the matter was not covered by the aforesaid judgment of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and specifically noted the submission of the respondents that the writ petition before the High Court would be adjudicated on its merits, but posted the matter on 2.5.2017. Thereafter ultimately both the special leave petition and the transfer petition have been dismissed on 20.11.2017. From a reading of the aforesaid orders it is evident that on 21.11.2016 the stay granted by the Supreme Court in the transfer-petition was only regarding 'further proceedings' in the writ Petition No. 24634 (SB) of 2016 which obviously did not entail a stay on the interim order dated 3.11.2016. In the subsequent Special Leave Petition wherein the said interim order was challenged, no stay was granted. In this view of the matter the Under Secretary who is present today was asked as to how the 21 respondents were promoted on 18.7.2017. He invited the attention of the Court to the legal opinion given by the then Legal Remembrancer. With respect the Court has perused the same. It speaks of a stay of the interim order dated 3.11.2016 passed by this Court by the Supreme Court whereas the orders of the Supreme Court do not say so. In any case, the State Government was also expected to take a considered view of the matter even after such legal opinion. With respect the Court has perused the same. It speaks of a stay of the interim order dated 3.11.2016 passed by this Court by the Supreme Court whereas the orders of the Supreme Court do not say so. In any case, the State Government was also expected to take a considered view of the matter even after such legal opinion. Furthermore, not only that 10 persons were promoted, but the Departmental Promotion Committee was again convened on 22.11.2017. It was then deferred for 29.11.2017 and thereafter it was further deferred. In this view of the matter it is not in doubt that the interim order of this Court has been violated. Issue notice to opposite party No. 1. He shall furnish an explanation as to the violation noticed hereinabove. One opportunity is given to the opposite party No. 1 to rectify the violation of the interim order, if he so chooses, otherwise the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 shall be held against them. List on 20.12.2017 as fresh. This order shall be placed before the Principal Secretary, P.W.D. within 3 days of its receipt. The Standing Counsel shall ensure this." 30. The order dated 30th November, 2017 was challenged by Shujat Mohd. Khan, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3686 of 2007 by way of an LA. No. 132812 of 2017. Another pending SLP (Civil) No. 6490 of 2017 challenging the judgment in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All) (supra) was also connected. The said LA. was taken up by the Supreme Court on 11th December, 2017 and it was provided by the Supreme Court that the High Court may hear the Service Bench No. 24634 of 2016 and Contempt Petition No. 2510 of 2017 together and also requested the High Court to dispose of the two matters within three months, if possible. The order dated 11.12.2017 has already been reproduced above in the initial part of the order. 31. In the contempt petition before this Court intervention applications were moved by a group of Junior Engineer Degree Holders who had been promoted as Assistant Engineers. The Court considered the submissions made by the respective parties. It was also brought to the notice of the Contempt Court about the order passed by the Supreme Court in Shamimul Islam (supra). 31. In the contempt petition before this Court intervention applications were moved by a group of Junior Engineer Degree Holders who had been promoted as Assistant Engineers. The Court considered the submissions made by the respective parties. It was also brought to the notice of the Contempt Court about the order passed by the Supreme Court in Shamimul Islam (supra). Upon applications filed by these intervenors, the matter was taken up on 12th December, 2017. The Court after hearing directed that the matter may come up on 17th December, 2017. 32. In the meantime, it appears that again a mention was made before the Contempt Court on 15th December, 2017. The Court again passed an order on 15th December, 2017 after recording various submissions made that both the matters be listed together on 20.12.2017 before the appropriate Bench as per the Apex Court Order. 33. A regular Division Bench of this Court hearing service matters heard the matter on different dates in the month of February, 2018. However, on 6th March, 2018, the matter was released by the said Bench with a request to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute another Bench. It is thereafter that the matter has been assigned to us. 34. In the meantime, an LA. was moved before the Supreme Court on 7th May, 2018 registered as I.A. No. 68586 of 2018 in which the following prayer was made:-- "(a) clarify the interim order dated 27.11.2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007 that petitioner/applicant is not restrain for further promotion and; (b) stay the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad Bench at Lucknow in Writ Petition Service Bench No. 24634 of 2016 and; (c) directed respondent to conduct the DPC as per the eligibility list dated 26.08.2017 and; (d) pass such other further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case." 35. The said LA. The said LA. was taken up by the Supreme Court on 10th May, 2018 and after going through the reliefs claimed in the said application, the Supreme Court noticed that the earlier directions for disposal of this petition, within three months, had expired and the matter was still pending, passed an order requiring the High Court to decide the present two cases, i.e. the Writ Petition as also the Contempt Petition, within a period of four weeks. The order dated 10th May, 2018 has already been reproduced in the initial part of this order. 36. In the above background, we have heard Sri. Upendra Nath Mishra, along with Sri. Neel Kumar Mishra and Sri. Utsav Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri. Gyanendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, Sri. S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. Ashish Verma, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 4, 14 and 18, Sri. H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. Meenakshi Singh Parihar, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 5 and 8, Sri. Sandeep Dixit, Advocate assisted by Sri. Pankaj Kumar Dixit, learned counsel representing respondent No. 11, Sri. Shashank Dhaon, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 6 and 23, Sri. Ashok Shukla, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3 and Sri. Varinder Kumar Sharma and Sri. Varun Thakur, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 23 and 60 in Writ Petition No. 24634 of 2016. These counsels appearing for respective parties in Contempt Petition No. 2510 of 2017 have also been heard. 37. The Writ Petition No. 24634 (S/B) of 2016 In re; Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. And Anr., has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the Seniority List dated 9th September, 2016 as well as the Eligibility List dated 23rd September, 2016 of Assistant Engineers (i.e. Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition) insofar as and only to the extent it include the names of persons, whose names have been shown and included from Serial No. 344 to 397 (i.e., Seniority No. 2284 to 2337) of the Seniority List dated 9th September, 2016, as their promotion order dated 3rd May, 2002 has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 to consider such persons to the still higher post of Executive Engineer, whose names have been shown and included from Serial Nos. 344 to 397 ((i.e., Seniority No. 2284 to 2337) of the Seniority List dated 9th September, 2016 as well as in the Eligibility List dated 23rd September, 2016 from Serial Nos. 104 to 124. (iii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to prepare eligibility list afresh to fill up the available 111 posts of Executive Engineer including the names under the provisions of law for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer. (iv) To issue any writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. (v) To allow this writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents". 38. The case set forth by the petitioners is that they belong to the reserve category and are engineering graduates (B. Tech./B.E.). The U.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commission"), on the request of the Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as "PWD") of the State Government issued an advertisement No. 1 of 1994 dated 23.10.1994 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil/Electrical) in PWD on ad hoc basis from the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes candidates who possess the requisite eligibility criteria. Being eligible, the petitioners applied in pursuance to the said advertisement and were selected along with other eligible candidates against the existing substantive vacancies. An appointment order dated 08.02.1995 was also issued to the selected candidates including the petitioners appointing them against the existing substantive vacancies for a period of one year. Copy of one such appointment order dated 08.02.1995 is Annexure-3 to the petition. Vide orders dated 07.02.1996, 06.02.1997 and 23.09.1998, the tenure of such ad hoc appointments of the petitioners and other similarly placed Assistant Engineers were extended from time-to-time and the petitioners continued uninterruptedly on such vacant posts. Copy of one such appointment order dated 08.02.1995 is Annexure-3 to the petition. Vide orders dated 07.02.1996, 06.02.1997 and 23.09.1998, the tenure of such ad hoc appointments of the petitioners and other similarly placed Assistant Engineers were extended from time-to-time and the petitioners continued uninterruptedly on such vacant posts. These ad hoc Assistant Engineers vide order dated 09.12.2002 which included the petitioners and other ad hoc appointees were regularized by the respondent No. 1 on the post of Assistant Engineer under the Provisions of the U.P. Regularization of ad Hoc Appointment (On Post Within The Purview of The Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1979") as amended vide notification dated 20.12.2001. The copy of order dated 09.12.2002 is Annexure-4 to the petition. The further litigation of the petitioners need not detain us. 39. On 24.10.2005, the State Government issued the seniority list of Assistant Engineer (Civil) from serial No. 1941 to 2551 under the provisions of the U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1991") and in the said list, the petitioners were placed at serial No. 2450 and 2540 respectively. It is also contended that the other Assistant Engineers who were appointed on ad hoc basis vide order dated 08.02.1995 and subsequently regularized vide order dated 09.12.2002 were placed at serial No. 2490 to 2550 in the said seniority list. Thus, so far as the present controversy is concerned, the substantive appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Engineer was and is being reckoned from 09.12.2002. 40. It is contended that the terms and conditions of the service of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in PWD is governed under the U.P. Service of Engineers (Building and Road Branch) Class-II Rules, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1936"). Through notification dated 28.07.1967 and 25.11.1971, certain amendment were made in Rules 3(c), 5, 6 and 23 of the Rules, 1936 but in the judgment of RD. Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1676 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the aforesaid amendments in the Rules, 1936. 41. Subsequent thereto, notification dated 04.08.1987 and 25.09.1997 were issued for making amendments in the Rules, 1936 and consequently different percentage of posts were indicated for promotion for the diploma holder and degree holder junior engineers on the post of Assistant Engineer under the promotional quota. 41. Subsequent thereto, notification dated 04.08.1987 and 25.09.1997 were issued for making amendments in the Rules, 1936 and consequently different percentage of posts were indicated for promotion for the diploma holder and degree holder junior engineers on the post of Assistant Engineer under the promotional quota. Again on a challenge raised to the said notification, this Court in the case of Aruvendra Kumar Garg v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra) vide judgment dated 22.03.2002 declared the said provisions as ultra vires to the Constitution and again the amendments made in the Rules 1936 were quashed. 42. It is also contended that the State Government has promulgated the Service Rules namely the U.P. Public Works Department Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004 which are applicable w.e.f. 01.07.2004 for governing the conditions of service of Group B Civil Engineers in the department. 43. Vide Government order dated 30.06.1998, nine junior engineers were promoted by the State Government to the post of Assistant Engineer against the promotional quota pertaining to the year 1997-1998. This was followed by another Government order dated 02.05.2002 whereby 53 Junior Engineers were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer against the promotional quota pertaining to the year 1998-1999 to 2000-2001. In the seniority list of Assistant Engineers which was issued vide order dated 24.10.2005, the aforesaid 53 Junior Engineers who were promoted vide Government orders dated 02.05.2002 were placed from serial No. 2436 to 2488. Incidentally, the 62 Assistant Engineers were placed above the petitioners and also above those who had been appointed on ad hoc basis vide order dated 08.02.1995 and regularized vide order dated 09.12.2002 as indicated above. 44. Being aggrieved with the order of promotion of the aforesaid 53 Assistant Engineers, determination of vacancies etc as well as aggrieved against the new service rules namely the U.P. Public Works Department Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 2004"), several degree holder Junior Engineers of the PWD filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2750 of 2004 Inre; Anjani Kumar Mishra and Anr v. State of U.P. and Ors. as well as several other petitions before the Allahabad High Court. 45. This Court at Allahabad, after considering the earlier judgments in the case of Aruvendra Kumar Garg (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All) (supra) and P.D. Agarwal ( AIR 1987 SC 1676 ) (supra) passed a detailed judgment and order dated 03.11.2006. as well as several other petitions before the Allahabad High Court. 45. This Court at Allahabad, after considering the earlier judgments in the case of Aruvendra Kumar Garg (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All) (supra) and P.D. Agarwal ( AIR 1987 SC 1676 ) (supra) passed a detailed judgment and order dated 03.11.2006. By the said judgment, this Court quashed the promotion orders of the aforesaid 62 Junior Engineers that had been issued vide Government order dated 30.06.1998 and 02.05.2002 as well as two other Government orders dated 06.12.2004 and 25.05.2005 by which ten junior engineers who have been promoted as Assistant Engineer as well as one other Assistant Engineer who had been promoted as Assistant Engineer for a total of 73 Assistant Engineer. Detailed directions were also issued in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra) in paragraph 171 which has already been reproduced above. 46. The persons whose promotion order had been quashed i.e., the Assistant Engineer who had been promoted in pursuance to the aforesaid Government orders namely Atibal Singh and Ors., preferred Special Leave to Appeal In re: Atibal Singh and Ors. v. Pramod Shankar and Ors., (supra) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order dated 14.11.2006, which for the sake of convenience has already been reproduced above. 47. Subsequently, another interim application was moved by Atibal Singh and Ors., (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed for listing of the said case after disposal of Civil Appeal No. 3228 of 2005 and also directed that in the meantime the petitioners shall not be reverted. Copies of aforesaid orders dated 14.11.2006 and 27.11.2006 are cumulatively filled as annexure-5 to the writ petition. Both the above orders have already been extracted and reproduced earlier. 48. It appears that in compliance to the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the said Assistant Engineers whose promotion orders had already been quashed and set aside by this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All) (supra) were not reverted. 49. Vide Government order dated 14.06. 2016, the State Government issued a tentative seniority list of Assistant Engineers of the PWD and invited objections under the provisions of the 1991 Rules. 50. 49. Vide Government order dated 14.06. 2016, the State Government issued a tentative seniority list of Assistant Engineers of the PWD and invited objections under the provisions of the 1991 Rules. 50. It is contended that the petitioners raised objection against the said seniority list on the ground that once this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All) (supra) had quashed the promotion orders of the aforesaid 73 Assistant Engineers, consequently, the petitioners were liable to be placed above them. It was also contended that the aforesaid persons were not within the cadre of Assistant Engineer as their promotion orders had been quashed though in pursuance to the order issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, their reversion was protected. 51. However, no heed appears to have been paid to the objection raised by the petitioners and consequently the said seniority list was maintained and final seniority list was issued on 09.09.2016, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the writ petition. 52. That the publication of the final seniority list was followed by the eligibility list dated 23.09.2016 for the purpose of making promotions of Assistant Engineers to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil). Copy of the said eligibility list dated 23.09.2016 is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 53. It is specific contention of the petitioners that the Assistant Engineers mentioned between serial No. 344 to 397 (i.e., seniority No. 2284 to 2237) in the seniority list dated 09.09.2016 as well as eligibility list dated 23.09.2016 could not have been included therein as their promotion order dated 02.05.2002 has been quashed and set aside by this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) (All) (supra) and Hon'ble Supreme Court has not stayed the operation of the judgment in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra) rather has only directed vide order dated 27.11.2006 that they shall not be reverted. 54. 54. Thus placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in me case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All)) (supra) as well as two orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP preferred by the private respondents against Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra) by Atibal Singh and Ors., (supra) whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the aforesaid orders dated 14.11.2006 and 27.11.2006, it is contended that once the promotion orders of such Assistant Engineers were quashed and set aside by this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra) consequently, they cannot be said to be substantively appointed Assistant Engineers so as to find place in the seniority list dated 09.09.2016 as well as in the eligibility list of Assistant Engineers for further promotion to the post of Executive Engineers (Civil). In order to fortify the said contention of the irregularity of those persons being included in the seniority list as well as the eligibility list of Assistant Engineers, reliance has been placed on the Rules 1991 as well as the U.P. Group-A Engineering Service (PWD) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1990"). 55. Sri. Upendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra) had quashed and set-aside the promotions of the private respondents made on the post of Assistant Engineer and it was only on the basis of the two orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby initially an order of status quo was granted and thereafter their reversion was stayed, consequently once the promotion order has been set-aside and only the reversion order was stayed, as such private respondents cannot be said to be "substantively appointed" on the said post of Assistant Engineer. Therefore, he argues, that when the seniority list dated 9.9.2016 was issued containing the names of the private respondents, the same was wrongly issued showing them as Assistant Engineers as their promotion orders had been quashed and set-aside by this Court and by the same analogy when again the eligibility list dated 23.9.2016 of Assistant Engineers was issued, it should and could not have contained the names of the private respondents showing them as Assistant Engineers eligible for further promotion as Executive Engineer. 56. Elaborating this further, Sri. 56. Elaborating this further, Sri. Mishra has taken us through the relevant rules in this regard more particularly Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department Group-B Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the 2004 Rules) and Rules 4(h) and 9 of the 1991 Rules. For the sake of convenience the relevant rules are reproduced below:-- "1991 Rules 4(h). substantive appointment means an appointment, not being an ad hoc appointment, on a post in the cadre of the service, made after selection in accordance with the service rules relating to that service. 9(1) Preparation of seniority - (1) As soon as may be after appointments are made to a service, the appointing authority shall prepare a tentative seniority list of the persons appointed substantially to the service in accordance with the provisions of these rules. (2) The tentative seniority list shall be calculated amongst the persons concerned inviting objections by a notice of a reasonable period, which shall not be less than 7 days from the date of circulation of the tentative seniority list. (3) No objection against the vires or validity of these rules shall be entertainable. (4) The appointing authority shall, after disposing of me objections by a reasoned order, issue a final seniority list." 2004, Rules "21. The seniority of persons substantively appointed in the service shall be determined in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 as amended from time-to-time." 57. Sri. Upendra Mishra contends that Rule 21 of the 2004 Rules, which governs the seniority of persons substantively appointed in the service namely the U.P. Public Works Department stipulates that the seniority has to be determined in accordance with the 1991 Rules as amended from time-to-time. He contends that Rule 4(h) of the 1991 Rules defines a "substantive appointment" by way of promotion as an appointment made after selection in accordance with the service rules relating to that service. However, the same is not applicable to the private respondents inasmuch as their "substantive appointment" as Assistant Engineer has already been quashed and set-aside by this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All)) (supra). However, the same is not applicable to the private respondents inasmuch as their "substantive appointment" as Assistant Engineer has already been quashed and set-aside by this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All)) (supra). Further placing reliance on Rule 9 of the 1991 Rules, under which the seniority list dated 9.9.2016 has been prepared, he contends that Rule 9(1) categorically provides that the appointing authority shall prepare a tentative seniority list of the persons appointed substantively to the service in accordance with the provisions of these rules and that once the substantive appointment/promotion as Assistant Engineer of the private respondents has been quashed and set-aside, consequently they cannot be treated to be substantively appointed and as such their names have wrongly been placed in the impugned seniority list. 58. So far as the challenge to the eligibility list dated 23.9.2016 of Assistant Engineers is concerned in which the names of the private respondents have also been included for their promotion as Executive Engineer (Civil), it is contended by Sri. Upendra Mishra that 1990 Rules more particularly Rule 5(1) of the 1990 Rules gives the source of recruitment for filling in the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) with which the present controversy is concerned. He argues that Rule 5(1) of the 1990 Rules provide that those substantively appointed Assistant Engineers who have completed 7 years of service on the first day of the year of recruitment shall be eligible for being promoted. He contends that the eligibility list, in order to give effect to Rule 5 of the 1990 Rules, is to be drawn up in accordance with the U.P. Promotion by Selection (On the Post Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Rules) more particularly Rule 5 which provides for preparation of the eligibility list where the criteria is seniority subject to rejection of unfit. For the sake of convenience, Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules is being reproduced below:-- "5. For the sake of convenience, Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules is being reproduced below:-- "5. Preparation of Eligibility List where the criterion is seniority, subject to rejection of unfit - (1) where the criterion of promotion is seniority subject to the rejection of unfit the appointing authority shall prepare three list to be called the eligibility lists of the senior-most eligible candidates from each of the category namely, general, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, separately, in the light of vacancies available for each of the said category containing names, so far as may be, in the following proportion: For 1 to 5 vacancies : 2 times the number of vacancies subject to a minimum of 5 For over 5 vacancies : 1 times the number of vacancies subject to a minimum of 10 (2) The provisions contained in proviso to Rule 4 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply if preparing an eligibility list under this rule." 59. As per Sri. Upendra Mishra, Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules provides that where the criteria for promotion is seniority subject to rejection of unfit, the appointing authority shall prepare three lists to be called the eligibility list of the senior most eligible candidates from each of the category and thus contends that once the eligibility list is to be drawn up of all the senior-most eligible candidates meaning thereby the senior-most Assistant Engineers for their promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) and consequently when the promotion orders of the private respondents as Assistant Engineers have already been quashed and set-aside by this Court then by no stretch of imagination could their names have found place in the impugned eligibility list. Thus while placing reliance on all the aforesaid rules i.e. the 1991 Rules, 2004 Rules, 1986 Rules and the 1990 Rules, it is argued that both the impugned seniority list as well as impugned eligibility list containing the names of the private respondents and others i.e. those Assistant Engineers whose promotion orders have been quashed and set-aside by this Court and the said judgment having not been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes the said private respondents and other Assistant Engineers as ineligible for finding a place either in the impugned seniority list or the eligibility list. 60. In order to fortify his arguments in this regard, Sri. 60. In order to fortify his arguments in this regard, Sri. Mishra has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kerala and another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 : (AIR 2000 SC 2586) and Madan Kumar Singh v. D.M. Sultanpur reported in (2009) 9 SCC 79 : (2009 AIR SCW 6703) to contend that in spite of a petition for special leave to appeal having been filed by Atibal Singh and others (supra) yet the judgment against which the leave to appeal has been sought for, continues to remain final, effective and binding between the parties, unless it is declared as a nullity in the eyes of law or unless the Hon'ble Supreme Court passes a specific order staying or suspending the operation of the judgment. 61. So far as the seniority list having been drawn up in violation of the 1991 Rules read with the 2004 Rules is concerned, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kulwant Kumar Sood v. State of H.P. and others reported in (2005) 10 SCC 670 : (2003 AIR SCW 3116) to contend that seniority list prepared in violation of the service rules is not tenable in the eyes of law. As regards the eligibility list, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Prabha Devi v. Government of India, reported in (1988) 2 SCC 233 : ( AIR 1988 SC 902 ); Palure Bhaskar Rao and others v. Ramaseshaiah and others, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 783 : ( AIR 2017 SC 1805 ); Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri v. V.M. Joseph, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 305 : ( AIR 1998 SC 2318 ) and State of Gujarat v. Arvind Kumar Tiwari, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545 : ( AIR 2012 SC 3281 ) to contend that the eligibility of a person for promotion has to be determined as per the provisions of the services rules and merely because the private respondents have been included wrongly in the impugned seniority list would not make them eligible for being considered for promotion as Executive Engineer. 62. On the other hand Sri. S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. 62. On the other hand Sri. S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. Ashish Verma appearing for respondent No. 13, has argued that even though the promotion of the private respondents and others as Assistant Engineer has been quashed by this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All)) (supra), yet taking into consideration the order dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by which the reversion of the private respondents were stayed read with the clarification dated 10th May, 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending matter of Atibal Singh and others (supra) (Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that at no point of time the Hon'ble Supreme Court has put any restrain on the promotion of the applicants/appellants and the interim order was only one of the stay of reversion, consequently the impugned eligibility list and the impugned seniority list have been correctly drawn by the State Government and there is no infirmity in the same. Elaborating the said arguments, Sri. Mishra argues that the order of the Apex Court dated 27.11.2006 by which the reversion of the private respondents herein (appellants before the Supreme Court) was stayed would thus mean that the private respondents have continued to work on the post of Assistant Engineers and obviously continuance as Assistant Engineer would mean continuance with all service benefits and therefore there is nothing wrong in the name of the private respondents being included in the seniority list and the eligibility list. 63. Sri. S.C. Mishra has also argued that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineer in the year 1995 and were subsequently regularized on 9.12.2002 under a non existing rule namely Rule 5-A(ii) of the 1936 Rules which was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 8.6.1987 in the case of P.D. Agrawal ( AIR 1987 SC 1676 ) (supra). The petitioners had preferred Writ-A No. 52966 of 2010 In Re: Shankarshan Lal v. State of U.P. and others for inclusion of the period of their ad hoc appointment from 8.2.1995 but the said writ petition was dismissed on 10.2.2014. The petitioners had preferred Writ-A No. 52966 of 2010 In Re: Shankarshan Lal v. State of U.P. and others for inclusion of the period of their ad hoc appointment from 8.2.1995 but the said writ petition was dismissed on 10.2.2014. The said judgment was carried by the petitioners of that writ petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. No. 21299 of 2014 which was also dismissed and consequently the petitioners can only claim to be working on regular basis from the date of their regularization i.e. 9.12.2002 which order is also void ab initio on the ground of Rule 5-A(ii) of the 1936 Rules having been set aside in the case of P.D. Agrawal (supra). Thus, it is contended that the petitioners have been appointed after the birth of the private respondents in the service and as such have got no legs to challenge the seniority list dated 9.9.2016 and the eligibility list dated 23.9.2016. A challenge has also been raised to the judgment of this Court in the case Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All)) (supra) as being inconsistent with the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases yet on being pointed out that this Bench being a coordinate Bench cannot go into the correctness of the said judgment, Sri. S.C. Mishra did not argue any further on that point. 64. It is further contended by Sri. S.C. Mishra that the petitioners never filed any objections to the tentative seniority list dated 14.6.2016 and as such they cannot challenge the impugned final seniority list dated 9.9.2016. In this regard it has been contended that the objections, if any, filed by the petitioners against the said tentative seniority list has not been annexed by them with the writ petition rather the objections annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, purported to be of petitioner No. 2 is of some other person namely Dinesh Kumar Singh and consequently it is urged that the petitioners have misrepresented facts before this Court and they having not objected to the tentative seniority list cannot challenge the final seniority list. It is also contended that once the eligibility list is based on the seniority list which itself was based on tentative seniority list to which the petitioners never objected, the eligibility list being in consequence to the tentative seniority list cannot be allowed to be challenged by the petitioners. 65. Sri. S.C. Mishra has further argued that certain Assistant Engineers (promotees) filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 526 of 2013 In Re: Shamimul Islam v. State of U.P. and others before the Hon'ble Supreme Court praying for their promotion to the next higher post of Executive Engineer after redetermination of the quota. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.7.2013 initially directed for posting the matter after final disposal of Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007 In Re: Atibal Singh and others v. Pramod Shankar Upadhyaya and others and thereafter passed order dated 13.1.2015 that any promotion made during pendency of the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall remain subject to outcome of the writ petition. Thus taking the aforesaid objections Sri. S.C. Mishra has argued that the writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed. 66. Sri. H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Meenakshi Singh Parihar, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 5 and 8, has more or less taken the same arguments as have been argued by Sri. S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate and has also contended that once the judgment of this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All) (supra) is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the reversion of the private respondents has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, consequently it would be deemed that the private respondents are continuing to work as Assistant Engineer with all attendant benefits and this is also amply clear from perusal of the clarification given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10th May, 2018. Thus it is argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the final seniority list and the eligibility list bearing the names of the private respondents and that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 67. Sri. Ashish Verma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 14 and 18 along with Sri. Shashank Dhaon, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 67. Sri. Ashish Verma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 14 and 18 along with Sri. Shashank Dhaon, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 and 23 and primarily they have adopted the same arguments as have been advanced by Sri. S.C. Mishra and Sri. H.G.S. Parihar, Senior Advocates. 68. Sri. Sandeep Dixit, Advocate has also put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 11. Sri. Dixit has taken us to the entire history of the services rules of the Public Works Department starting from the 1936 Rules, the amendments introduced from time-to-time from 1936, 1943 and the quotas which were sought to be introduced for the purpose of promotion etc. Sri. Dixit has also referred to the various judgments of this Court and has argued that both the final seniority list as well as the eligibility list have correctly been drawn and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 69. Sri. Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri. Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents has argued that certain promotions of Junior Engineers (Diploma Holders) to the post of Assistant Engineer were made between the period from 1998 to 2005. The said promotions were challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All) (supra) which was decided on 3.11.2006 by which the promotion orders were quashed. Being aggrieved against the said judgment, the Assistant Engineers whose promotions were quashed, preferred SLP (Civil) C.C. No. 8786 of 2006 (converted to Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which two orders were passed on 14.11.2006 and 27.11.2006 of which the order dated 27.11.2006 provided that the appellants (Atibal Singh and others) shall not be reverted. Sri. Atibal Singh and others who have been promoted through various orders on the post of Assistant Engineer were thus allowed to continue as Assistant Engineer in compliance to the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has also been argued that the seniority list of the Assistant Engineers including the petitioners was prepared in the year 2005 and promotions had been made from the said seniority list even in the year 2013-14 to which the petitioners never objected. It has also been argued that the seniority list of the Assistant Engineers including the petitioners was prepared in the year 2005 and promotions had been made from the said seniority list even in the year 2013-14 to which the petitioners never objected. The said seniority list of the year 2005 was in existence till the year 2016 when the 2016 seniority list was prepared in which, as the private respondents who had been substantively appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer and despite quashing of the promotion orders were directed not to be reverted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court consequently were treated as Assistant Engineer along with those 11 persons whose promotion orders had also been quashed and set-aside by this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All)) (supra) but had not approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said judgment of Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra) as it would have amounted to discrimination. 70. We now proceed to deal with arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. 71. Despite the voluminous pleadings, lengthy arguments on several issues raised by the petitioners and equally lengthy arguments on various objections raised by the respondents, we are of the considered view that before us the short controversy involved in the case is that when promotion orders of certain employees have been quashed and set aside by a Court of law and upon an appeal (in this case a civil appeal before the Hon'ble Court) having been filed before the superior Court and the said superior Court not having stayed the judgment impugned but only having stayed the reversion of said employee to a lower post, can the said employee be said to be holding the said post on a substantive basis? 72. The undisputed facts of the case are that promotion orders of the private respondents and others which were made through various orders namely through Government order dated 30.06.1998, 02.05.2002, 06.12.2004 and 25.05.2005 were quashed and set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All)) (supra). For the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraph Nos. 162, 163 and 168 of Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra) in this regard are reproduced as under:-- "162. In this connection, we have heard Sri. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel and Sri. For the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraph Nos. 162, 163 and 168 of Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra) in this regard are reproduced as under:-- "162. In this connection, we have heard Sri. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel and Sri. Yogesh Agrawal, Advocate appearing on behalf of promoted private respondents and learned Standing Counsel for State Government in justification of aforesaid promotions made by the respondents except to justify Rule 5(iii) of old 1936 Rules, as brought about by Government notification dated 4.8.1987 and 25.9.1997, Sri. Shashi Nandan could not point out anything to justify the aforesaid selection for promotion. Assuming for the sake of arguments, even if the aforesaid rules are held to be intra vires of Part III of the Constitution, even then only 8.33% quota was earmarked for promotion in favour of degree holder incumbents but all the vacancies falling in the whole quota of promotion could not be filled up from degree holder junior engineers alone in total disregard of criterion of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Such action would be not only violative of the provisions of alleged quota rules but would also be violative of Rule-12 of old 1936 Rules containing such seniority rules as existing at relevant point of time. Thus the promotion of 53 degree holder junior engineers on the post of Assistant Engineers, in our opinion, have been made by State-respondents in respect of total vacancies of promotion for the years 1998-1999 to 2000-2001 without considering the claim of diploma holder junior engineers in utter disregard of seniority rule contained in Rule 12 of old 1936 Rules cannot be sustained and same are liable to be struck down, accordingly GO. dated 2.5.2002 is hereby quashed." 163. Similarly vide Government Order dated 6.12.2004 contained in Annexure-22A impugned in the writ petition No. 53133 of 2004, Pramod Shanker Upadhaya and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. and also in some of the writ petitions of these batch of writ petitions, 10 degree holder junior engineers have been promoted on the post of Assistant Engineers in consultation of Commission in pursuance of directions appears to have been given by this court in Contempt Petition No. 607/2003, Virendra Pratap Singh v. D.S. Bagga and Ors. These promotions have been made against the yearwise vacancies of years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 separately. These promotions have been made against the yearwise vacancies of years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 separately. Although there is nothing to indicate from the impugned order that these promotions have been made from amongst only degree holder junior Engineers, but it is admitted in averments made in para 9 of the aforesaid supplementary counter affidavit itself that the promotees are degree holder junior Engineers. Similarly vide GO. No. 8021/23.4.05-24 N.G./02 dated 25.5.2005 as indicated in Annexure S.C.A.-8 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 15th October 2006, one more vacancy in the quota of promotion existing in the aforesaid years has been filled up. The actual GO. of promotion is not on record, but from the averments made in para 9 of S.C.A. it is clear that this promotee is also degree holder incumbent of the feeder post and has been promoted in the same manner as earlier. It is not in dispute that while holding selections for aforesaid promotion the claim of diploma holder incumbents of feeder posts have not been considered for similar reasons as given in paras 7 and 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit that no diploma holder has passed qualifying examination, which we have already rejected herein before in preceding paragraphs of this judgment, on the ground that unless such qualifying examination was held for the purpose it cannot be said that no one senior to the promoted persons could pass the qualifying examination, therefore, they were found ineligible and claim of juniors could be considered according to Rule 12 of old 1936 Rules. Therefore, promotions of these 11 degree holder junior engineers on the post of Assistant Engineers without considering the claim of promotion of diploma holder junior Engineers, according to their seniority position against the remaining vacancies of promotion for years 1998-99 to 1999-2000, in our considered opinion are contrary to the Rule 12 of old 1936 Rules, thus for the same reasons, cannot be sustained and liable to be struck down. Accordingly the Government Orders dated 6.12.2004 and 25.5.2005 are hereby quashed. 168. Before parting with the issue, we would like to make it clear that although the promotions made in the quota of degree holder junior engineers on the post of Assistant Engineers vide GO. Accordingly the Government Orders dated 6.12.2004 and 25.5.2005 are hereby quashed. 168. Before parting with the issue, we would like to make it clear that although the promotions made in the quota of degree holder junior engineers on the post of Assistant Engineers vide GO. No. 4023/23-4-48-130/N.G/97 T.E. Lucknow dated 30.6.1998 against the vacancies of year 1997-98 have neither been challenged before this court by any persons nor they were made party in any of the writ petition but since we have held that such separate quota of promotion has been declared ultra-vires of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore is void ab initio under Article 13(2) of the Constitution as such it is to be treated nullity from its inception and under still born law, which has to be treated never in existence for the purpose of rights and obligations of parties arise therefrom, thus cannot be sustained. Accordingly the promotions made vide aforesaid GO. dated 30.6.1998 placed at SI. No. 32 to 40 have been quashed." 73. It is undisputed that the judgment of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All)) (supra) was challenged by 62 Assistant Engineers out of 73 Assistant Engineers whose promotion orders had been quashed by filing SLP (Civil) C.C. No. 8786 of 2006 (converted into Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2007) in re; Atibal Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. Incidentally, the said judgment of Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra) was never challenged by the State Government. Initially, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.11.2006 directed the State authority to maintain status quo and subsequently vide order dated 27.11.2006 the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the petitioners/appellants shall not be reverted. However, at no stretch of time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra). 74. What would be the effect of a judgment not being stayed where a special leave to appeal has been filed, has been considered in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed (AIR 2000 SC 2586) (supra) which deals with such eventuality in paragraph-14 which on reproduction reads as under:- "14. The exercise of jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Article 136 of the Constitution consists of two steps: (i) granting special leave to appeal; and (ii) hearing the appeal. The exercise of jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Article 136 of the Constitution consists of two steps: (i) granting special leave to appeal; and (ii) hearing the appeal. This distinction is clearly demonstrated by the provisions of Order XVI of the Supreme Court Rules framed in exercise of the power conferred by Article 145 of the Constitution. Under Rule 4, the petition seeking special leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution shall be in form No. 28. No separate application for interim relief need be filed, which can be incorporated in the petition itself. If notice is ordered on the special leave petition, the petitioner should take steps to serve the notice on the respondent. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from and an affidavit in support of the judgment of facts contained in the petition. Under Rule 10 the petition for grant of special leave shall be put up for hearing ex-parte unless there be a caveat. The court if it thinks fit, may direct issue of notice to the respondent and adjourn the hearing of the petition. Under Rule 13, the respondent to whom a notice in special leave petition is issued or who had filed a caveat, shall be entitled to oppose the grant of leave or interim orders without filing any written objections. He shall also be at liberty to file his objections only by setting out the grounds in opposition to the questions of law or ground set out in the S.L.P.. On hearing the Court may refuse the leave and dismiss the petition for seeking special leave to appeal either ex parte or after issuing notice to the opposite party. Under Rule 11, on the grant of special leave, the petition for special leave shall, subject to the payment of additional court fee, if any, be treated as the petition of appeal and it shall be registered and numbered as such. The appeal shall then be set down for hearing in accordance with the procedure laid down thereafter. Thus, a petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal and the appeal itself, though both dealt with by Article 136 of the Constitution, are two clearly distinct stages. In our opinion, the legal position which emerges is as under: 1. The appeal shall then be set down for hearing in accordance with the procedure laid down thereafter. Thus, a petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal and the appeal itself, though both dealt with by Article 136 of the Constitution, are two clearly distinct stages. In our opinion, the legal position which emerges is as under: 1. While hearing the petition for special leave to appeal, the Court is called upon to see whether the petitioner should be granted such leave or not. While hearing such petition, the Court is not exercising its appellate jurisdiction; it is merely exercising its discretionary jurisdiction to grant or not to grant leave to appeal, the petitioner is still outside the gate of entry though aspiring to enter the appellate arena of Supreme Court. Whether he enters or not would depend on the fate of his petition for special leave. 2. If the petition seeking grant of leave to appeal is dismissed, it is an expression of opinion by the Court that a case for invoking appellate jurisdiction of the Court was not made out; 3. If leave to appeal is granted the appellate jurisdiction of the Court stands invoked; the gate for entry in appellate arena is opened. The petitioner is in and the respondent may also be called upon to face him, though in an appropriate case, in spite of having granted leave to appeal, the court may dismiss the appeal without noticing the respondent. 4. In spite of a petition for special leave to appeal having been filed, the judgment, decree or order against which leave to appeal has been sought for, continues to be final, effective and binding as between the parties. Once leave to appeal has been granted, the finality of the judgment, decree or order appealed against is put in jeopardy though it continues to be binding and effective between the parties unless it is a nullity or unless the Court may pass a specific order staying or suspending the operation or execution of the judgment, decree or order under challenge." 75. Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Kumar Singh (2009 AIR SCW 6703) (supra) has held as under:- "14. Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Kumar Singh (2009 AIR SCW 6703) (supra) has held as under:- "14. It is trite to say that mere filing of a Petition, Appeal or Suit, would by itself not operate as stay until specific prayer in this regard is made and orders thereon are passed. There is nothing on record to show that any stay was granted in favour of any party, restraining the respondents not to deliver the papers of the truck to the appellant. It would go to show that respondents were unlawfully holding back the papers with them, for which, otherwise they were not entitled to do so." 76. Thus the natural corollary to the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed (AIR 2000 SC 2586) (supra) and Madan Kumar Singh (2009 AIR SCW 6703) (supra) is that unless the judgment impugned is itself stayed, it continues to be binding and effective between the parties. 76.1. Being armed and fortified with the aforesaid principle of law having been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court we now proceed to deal with the impugned seniority list dated 09.09.2016 issued by the State Government containing the names of 21 private respondents and others who were promoted between the year 1998 to 2005 and whose promotion were quashed and set aside by this Court in the case of Anajani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All) (supra). 77. The rules of preparation of seniority governing the field are the Rules, 2004 which provides in Rule 21 that the seniority of persons substantively appointed in service shall be determined in accordance with the Rules, 1991 as amended from time-to-time. 78. Rule 4(h) of the Rules, 1991 defines substantive appointment as an appointment, not being an ad hoc appointment on a post in the cadre of the service made after selection in accordance with the service rules relating to the service. 78. Rule 4(h) of the Rules, 1991 defines substantive appointment as an appointment, not being an ad hoc appointment on a post in the cadre of the service made after selection in accordance with the service rules relating to the service. Thus, for the purpose of being substantively appointed in the service, as per Rule 21 of the Rules 2004, Rule 4(h) of the Rules 1991 which defines "substantive appointment" would not be applicable with respect to the private respondents so far as it pertains to their substantive appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer inasmuch as their appointment/promotion as Assistant Engineer has already been quashed and set aside by this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All)) (supra). Once the substantive appointment/promotion itself goes and has been quashed, then there was no occasion or reason for them to be included in the final seniority list dated 09.09.2016 as issued by the State Government which is the final seniority list of Assistant Engineer (Civil) as they cannot be said to be substantively appointed. Consequently, the inclusion of private respondents and those whose promotion as Assistant Engineer has already been quashed and set aside by this Court and the said judgment not having been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal filed by them makes them not "Substantively Appointed" on the post of Assistant Engineer whereby depriving them of having their names included in the impugned seniority list dated 09.09.2016. Consequently we hold that the inclusion of the private respondents and others in the impugned seniority list dated 09.09.2016 is patently bad in the eyes of law being in gross violation of the 1991 Rules and 2001 Rules and as such, the same merits to be quashed so far as it pertains to the inclusion of the private respondents and others whose name are shown and included from Sl. No. 344 to 397 (seniority No. 2284 to 2337). 79. Now, we proceed to deal with the eligibility list dated 23.09.2016. As already indicated above, the same has been challenged on the grounds that it contains the names of private respondent Nos. 4 to 24. No. 344 to 397 (seniority No. 2284 to 2337). 79. Now, we proceed to deal with the eligibility list dated 23.09.2016. As already indicated above, the same has been challenged on the grounds that it contains the names of private respondent Nos. 4 to 24. A perusal of the eligibility list dated 23.09.2016, a copy of which is annexure-2 to the writ petition indicates that it is a list which has been drawn up for the purpose of making promotion of Assistant Engineers (Civil) to Executive Engineer (Civil). It contains the names of 21 private respondents from serial No. 1004 to 1024. A further perusal of the impugned eligibility list dated 23.09.2016 indicates that the list has been issued in pursuance to an order issued by the State Government dated 15.09.2016 containing the names of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) for their promotion as Executive Engineer for the vacancies for the years 2014-15 to 2016-17. The promotions in the PWD are governed by the Rules 1990. Rule 5(1) of the Rules, 1990 provides that the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) (Electrical) and (Mechanical) shall be filled in by promotion from the substantively appointed Assistant Engineers who have put in 7 years of service on the first date of the recruitment year. Rule 5 of the Rules 1986 provides for preparation of eligibility list where criteria is seniority subject to rejection of unfit by preparation of three eligibility lists of the senior-most eligible candidates of each category namely from general, scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. Again, the arguments on behalf of the petitioner is perfectly justified that once the promotion of the private respondents to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) has already been quashed and set aside by this Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All)) (supra) and the said judgment was never stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal preferred by the aggrieved persons i.e. Atibal Singh and others consequently, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed (AIR 2000 SC 2586) (supra) and Madan Kumar Singh (2009 AIR SCW 6703) (supra), the said Assistant Engineers cannot be said to be substantively appointed and consequently, they could not have been included in the impugned eligibility list. Accordingly, the private respondent Nos. Accordingly, the private respondent Nos. 4 to 24 cannot be allowed to be considered for the post of Executive Engineer being not substantively appointed Assistant Engineer, and hence their inclusion in the eligibility list dated 23.9.2016 vitiates the list. 80. So far as the arguments raised on behalf of the private respondents are concerned, the same deserve to be rejected taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed (AIR 2000 SC 2586) (supra) and Madan Kumar Singh (2009 AIR SCW 6703) (supra) that once the judgment in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All)) (supra) has never been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rather only the reversion of the said Assistant Engineer (Civil) whose promotion orders were quashed and set aside, have been given the protection of not being reverted, would not mean that the judgment itself has been stayed and consequently, the judgment in the case Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra) continues to be binding and effective between the parties and hence by no stretch of imagination can the private respondent Nos. 4 to 24 be said to be substantively appointed Assistant Engineers so as to be eligible for their promotion as Executive Engineer. 81. It is also important to mention here that despite a number of interim applications being filed before the Supreme Court by Atibal Singh and others, the Supreme Court did not stay the operation of the judgment passed in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (All)) (supra) and it was only the reversion which has been stayed. Thus, the contention on the part of the respondents that anything more should be read in the orders passed by the Supreme Court by which their reversion was stayed i.e. they should be treated as substantively appointed/promoted on the post of Assistant Engineers and consequential benefits be derived from that thus shall have to be negated for even from the perusal of the order dated 10th May, 2018 passed by the Supreme Court, it was clarified that the interim order of the Supreme Court dated 27.11.2006 is only one of stay of reversion. 82. 82. The further arguments advanced on behalf of the private respondents that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the order dated 10.05.2018 that at no point of time it had put any restraint on the promotion of the applicant/appellants and, as such, the private respondents could not be debarred from being promoted as Executive Engineer, suffice to mention that the Rules 1990 read with the Rules 1986 makes it clear that only those employees would be eligible for further promotion who are substantively appointed on the lower post of Assistant Engineer and in the instant case once the substantive appointment as Assistant Engineer has itself been quashed and set aside by this Court and the judgment has not been stayed accordingly the private respondents cannot be said to be "Substantively Appointed" as Assistant Engineer so as to be eligible for their further promotion as Executive Engineer. This would also be amply clear from the clarification dated 10.05.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the interim order is only one way of reversion meaning thereby that no other right accrues or has accrued to the said appellants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but for the protection of not being reverted from the post of Assistant Engineer. 83. So far as the arguments of various aspects not having been considered in the judgment of Anjani Kumar Mishra (2007 (2) ALJ (NOC) 201 (supra) pertaining to certain enunciation of law in the case of P.D. Agarwal ( AIR 1987 SC 1676 ) (supra) and Aruvendra Kumar Garg (supra), suffice to state that we are not dealing with the correctness of the judgment in the case of Anjani Kumar Mishra (supra) inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court is already seized of the said matter and we while sitting in the co-ordinate Bench cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of another judgment of a co-ordinate Bench. 84. As regards, the argument on the part of private respondents that the petitioners had never objected to the tentative seniority list issued by the State Government prior to it being finalised, and that the petitioners have tend to mislead this Court, Sri. 84. As regards, the argument on the part of private respondents that the petitioners had never objected to the tentative seniority list issued by the State Government prior to it being finalised, and that the petitioners have tend to mislead this Court, Sri. Upendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners has taken us through the rejoinder affidavit dated 07.05.2018 whereby the objection dated 22.07.2016 filed by the petitioner to the tentative seniority list circulated vide letter dated 06.02.2016 has been annexed as Annexure-SRA 8. Consequently, the said ground also fails. Even otherwise, the State-respondents were duty bound to adhere to the rules and the law governing the subject while drawing up both the seniority list as well as the eligibility list to ensure that no ineligible person finds place in the said seniority list and the eligibility list. 85. So far as the argument of Sri. Kuldeep Pari Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State Government is concerned, even their arguments are primarily what have been argued on behalf of the private respondents and have already been dealt with by us above. 86. However, so far as the arguments on the part of State Government made by Sri. Tripathi is concerned, that the petitioner had never objected to the seniority list of the year 2005 and it is only in the year 2016 that they raised a challenge to the said seniority list, the same merits to be rejected inasmuch as the petitioners could raise a challenge to the eligibility and the seniority list whenever it came to affect them more particularly where there was no delay on the part of the petitioners in challenging both the seniority list dated 09.09.2016 and raising a challenge to the inclusion of the private respondents in the eligibility list dated 23.09.2016 in a writ petition filed in October, 2016. Thus, even the said argument is rejected. 87. Having considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as recorded above as well as the detailed discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned seniority list dated 09.09.2016 of Assistant Engineers in so far as it includes the names of the persons from serial Nos. 344 to 397 (seniority No. 2284 to 2337) is quashed. The impugned seniority list dated 09.09.2016 of Assistant Engineers in so far as it includes the names of the persons from serial Nos. 344 to 397 (seniority No. 2284 to 2337) is quashed. The eligibility list dated 23.09.2016 of Assistant Engineer so far as it contains the names from serial Nos. 104 to 124 is quashed and set aside. Necessary consequences shall automatically follow. 88. Insofar as the contempt matter is concerned, Sri. Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General had filed an affidavit before us on 12th July, 2018, duly sworn by the Additional Chief Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of U.P., stating that in compliance to the order dated 03.11.2016 passed in the present writ petition and the order dated 30th November, 2017 passed by the Contempt Court, ten (10) Assistant Engineers, who had been promoted by the order dated 18th July, 2017, have been reverted back to their post of Assistant Engineer, vide notification dated 11.07.2018, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-SCA-1 to the counter-affidavit. Further, unconditional apology was also tendered by the said Officer. 89. In view of the aforesaid development, Sri. Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as the opposite party has purged the contempt by issuing the notification dated 11.07.2018 and has also tendered unconditional apology, he may be excused. 90. In view of the discussion made above and considering the complex nature of the litigation and also the various interim orders passed from time-to-time, the unconditional apology tendered by the Officer concerned is accepted. Notice issued to the respondents stands discharged. Contempt petition be consigned.