JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing part of Clause 3 and 4 of the Resolution of State Government issued vide circular dated 12.09.2008 by which the respondents while merging the Cadre of the petitioners in the Cadre of Jharkhand Administrative Service in a completely illegal and malicious provisions have robbed the promotional and other incidental benefits of the service; and further direction has been made to direct the concerned respondents to make final merger of the cadre of the petitioners with the Jharkhand Administrative Service completely and accordingly bring them at par with other members of the cadres and to end the stagnancy of their service career. 2. The brief facts, as depicted in the writ application, is that the petitioners were initially selected as Sub-Election Officer in basic grade post through combined competitive examination conducted by Bihar Public Service Commission with many other officers of various cadres. It has been averred that since after their initial appointment the petitioner are continuously working on their initial posts whereas officers appointed in other cadre have been given regular promotion. It has further been averred that the petitioners have been denied promotional benefits by the concerned State Govt. solely because there was no cadre rule, against which, the petitioners knocked the doors of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 4608 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.01.2008 with a direction to the respondents to prepare the Cadre Rule and thereafter promote the petitioners within two months from the date of passing of the order. Even then when no Cadre Rule was prepared within stipulated period, the petitioner moved this Court by filing Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 267 of 2008. Even then when no Cadre Rule was prepared within stipulated period, the petitioner moved this Court by filing Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 267 of 2008. However, during pendency of the contempt petition, the respondents came out with a Resolution dated 12.09.2008, by which the cadre of the petitioners were abolished and merged with Jharkhand Administrative Services but in the Resolution in particular part of clauses 3 and 4, unconstitutional and illegal provisions were made providing that the post upon which the petitioners are holding will not be immediately merged and upon retirement of the petitioners they will be merged and thus the petitioners were made part of isolated Cadre of their own having no avenues of growth in their career and they will be made to serve under the officers in the new merged cadre of Jharkhand Administrative Service. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners represented before the respondents-authority but it turned deaf ears. 3. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel being assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shabad Bin Haque, A.C to learned G.P. I for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after bifurcation of State of Bihar 40 posts of Election Officers were allocated to the State of Jharkhand. It has further been submitted that vide Resolution dated 12.09.2008 posts of Sub-Election Officers (Gazetted) has been merged with Jharkhand Administrative Service and after merger the cadre strength of Jharkhand Administrative Service would increase from 695 to 735. Thereafter, the State of Jharkhand issued gazette notification on 28.02.2009 whereby at page no. 18 at serial no. 92, it has specifically been mentioned that posts of Sub-Election Officers has been merged with Jharkhand Administrative Service and Election Service Cadre has not been shown in the notification. Furthermore, the Cabinet (Election) Department, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter dated 15.03.2011 and letter dated 08.07.2011 also informed that pursuant to Resolution dated 12.09.2008 the election cadre has been merged with the Jharkhand Administrative Service. In letter dated 10.12.2013 issued by Special Secretary, it has specifically been mentioned that Post of Sub-Election Officer is a post of basic grade of Jharkhand Administrative Service . Hence, it is established fact, from the letter/resolution of the respondents-State itself, that cadre of Sub-Election Officer has been merged with Jharkhand Administrative Service. 5. In letter dated 10.12.2013 issued by Special Secretary, it has specifically been mentioned that Post of Sub-Election Officer is a post of basic grade of Jharkhand Administrative Service . Hence, it is established fact, from the letter/resolution of the respondents-State itself, that cadre of Sub-Election Officer has been merged with Jharkhand Administrative Service. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted with vehemence that once the cadre/service merged with another cadre/service, the employee concerned has right to get positioned appropriately in the merged service and respondents cannot take a stand that even after merger of all sanctioned posts, the petitioners will retain a distinct identity in the equated cadre without any promotion as enjoyed by their compeers in the Jharkhand Administrative Services Cadre. In this regard, it has further been submitted that once a service is merged with another service the merged service gets its birth in the integrated service and looses its original identity and there cannot be a situation where even after merger or absorption, such services which were merged or absorbed still retain their original status. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Panchraj Tiwari Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board & Ors as reported in , (2014) 5 SCC 101 . 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that principle of integration of service means the creation of homogeneous service by the amalgamation or merger of service personnel belonging to separate services. It has further been averred that integration is a policy matter so far as State is concerned. In evolving a proper coalescence of the service, there are various steps: (i). Decided the principles on the basis of which integration of services has to be effected; (ii). Examine the facts relating to each category and class of posts with reference to the principle of equivalence; (iii) Fix the equitable basis for the preparation common seniority list of personnel holding posts, which are merged into one category. 7. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of State of Sikkim & Ors Vs. Adup Tshering Bhutia & Ors as reported in , (2014) 12 SCC 507 . 8. 7. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of State of Sikkim & Ors Vs. Adup Tshering Bhutia & Ors as reported in , (2014) 12 SCC 507 . 8. But even after merger of cadre neither any combined gradation/seniority list was prepared nor further promotion has been given to the petitioners whereas much juniors to the petitioners in Jharkhand Administrative Cadre are enjoying the fruit of promotion. For the discussions made herein above and laws laid down by Hon ble Apex Court, the part of clauses 3 and 4 of the impugned resolution dated 12.09.2008 is liable to be quashed so as to petitioners may get equal status after merger of cadre/service. So far grant of ACP/MACP is concerned by virtue of which one may get monetary benefit but not the social status and further ACP/MACP are not a regular promotion in higher post. So far Department of Cabinet (Election) is concerned, after merger of cadre, is not in a position to give any promotion to the petitioners and after merger they have not been given any promotion; thereby left the petitioners in lurch. 9. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that out of total strength, services of fourteen Sub Election Officers (Awar Nirvachan Padadhikari) were finally allocated from Bihar to the State of Jharkhand in the year 2004. Thereafter, 28 posts of Awar Nirvachan Padadhikari was sanctioned in the basic grade of Jharkhand Administrative Service and 12 posts were sanctioned as Up-Nirvachan Padadhikari (Deputy Election Officer) equivalent to Junior Selection Grade of Jharkhand Administrative Service. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that vide resolution dated 12.09.2008 issued by the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms 40 posts sanctioned in the State of Jharkhand as Nirvachan Padadhikari were merged in the Jharkhand Administrative Cadre and it was decided to provide benefit of promotion etc. to the already working 14 Sub-Election Officers in their basic cadre and as per rule of undivided State of Bihar/as per next below rule, which was made to be merged gradually in Jharkhand State Administrative Service after retirement of aforesaid 14 Sub Election Officers. to the already working 14 Sub-Election Officers in their basic cadre and as per rule of undivided State of Bihar/as per next below rule, which was made to be merged gradually in Jharkhand State Administrative Service after retirement of aforesaid 14 Sub Election Officers. It has further been submitted that as per the provisions made in the aforesaid resolution the post holders of the Election Officer Cadre are not to be absorbed rather only the posts have to be merged with the Jharkhand Administrative Service Cadre. Hence the question of their inclusion in the seniority list of JAS Cadre Officers does not arise. However, the officers of the Election Cadre are still working under the establishment of the Cabinet (Election) Department, therefore, all the needful action pertaining to the service conditions of the working officers of the Election Cadre are to be taken by the Cabinet (Election) Department itself. 10. It has further been submitted that in order to safeguard the interest of serving Sub/Dy Election Officer, it was decided to extend the promotional avenues in comparison to Junior Officers of the cadre in United Bihar by adopting next below rule. In this way, officers serving in the State of Jharkhand will be given salary/facilities equivalent to the Officers junior to any officers in the original cadre of Undivided Bihar. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is established principle of law that the issue of merger of cadres is essentially a matter of policy and comes within the exclusive domain and province of the Government. In the case at hand, as per existing Rules, all admissible benefits of promotion/ACP/MACP have been extended to the petitioners and nothing remains to be given. Furthermore, some of the petitioners, who are otherwise eligible, have been granted promotion as Deputy Election Officer, hence it cannot be said that there was stagnancy in service progression of the petitioners. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of record, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioner is with respect to Clause 3 and 4 of the Resolution of State Government issued vide circular dated 12.09.2008; hence they have prayed for quashing the relevant portion of the said resolution. For better appreciation, the said clause is reproduced herein below: 12. For better appreciation, the said clause is reproduced herein below: 12. From plain reading of above clauses, it is manifestly clear that after bifurcation of State forty posts of the Election cadre was decided to be merged with Administrative Cadre and it was decided that in future as and when officers in the Election Cadre retires, such posts shall be available for State Administrative Cadre. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to note here that the issue of merger of cadres is a subject matter of policy and comes within the exclusive domain of Government. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered by the decision rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of S.P. Shivprasad Pipal V. Union of India as reported in , (1998) 4 SCC 598 at paragraph 15 and 19, which are quoted herein below: 15.A decision to merge such cadres is essentially a matter of policy. Since the three cadres carried the same pay scale at the relevant time, merging of the three cadres cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the members of any of the cadres. The total number of posts were also increased proportionately when the merger took place so that the percentage of posts available on promotion was not in any manner adversely affected by the merger of the cadres. 19.However, it is possible that by reason of such a merger, the chance of promotion of some of the employees may be adversely affected, or some others may benefit in consequence. But this cannot be a ground for setting aside the merger which is essentially a policy decision. This Court in Union of India V. S.L. Dutta examined this contention. In S.L. Dutta case a change in the promotional policy was challenged on the ground that as a result, service conditions of the respondent were adversely affected since his chances of promotion were reduced. Relying upon the decision in the State of Maharastra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni this Court held that a mere chance of promotion was not a condition of service and the fact that there was a reduction in the chance of promotion would not amount to a change in the conditions of service. 13. Relying upon the decision in the State of Maharastra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni this Court held that a mere chance of promotion was not a condition of service and the fact that there was a reduction in the chance of promotion would not amount to a change in the conditions of service. 13. From perusal of above clauses, it further appears that while taking such resolution, the State has taken care that officers who came in the State of Jharkhand after bifurcation of State may get all promotional benefits etc. at par with the officers in State of Bihar. From the pleadings available on record, it appears that the petitioners have been given the benefit of ACP/MACP and also have been given the promotion after merger of cadre. Hence, there is no discrimination at all. In the supplementary counter affidavit dated 31.07.2018, it has been stated that ... however if there is any change in law and more benefits are made available for the petitioners the same shall be extended to the petitioners. 14. So far as the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Panchraj Tiwari (Supra), wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that ....chance of promotion are not conditions of service, but the conditions of service attracting infraction of Articles of 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the case at hand, there is no violation of 14 of 16 of the Constitution of India, as discussed above, the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to the petitioners. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ application being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 16. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8204 of 2013 stands disposed of.