ORDER Mr. N. Kotiswar Singh, A.C.J. (CAV) - These two petitions, WP(C) No. 156 of 2018 and WP(C) No. 164 of 2018 are taken up for the purpose of consideration of the prayer for passing an interim order for suspending impugned letter dated 07.02.2018 written by the Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) to the Secretary (Water Resources) challenged in these petitions and also to maintain the status quo of the recommendation of the MPSC. 2. The other writ petition, WP(C) No. 166 of 2018 is also taken up and heard as regards the prayer for passing an interim order, in which the petitioners have sought for suspending the proceeding of the DPC held on 03.02.2018 for appointment by way of promotion from Assistant Engineers to Executive Engineers in the Water Resources Department, Govt. of Manipur and consequent promotion order dated 03.02. 2018 and transfer order dated 05.02.2018. 3. At the outset, it may be clarified that, under normal circumstances, these petitions ought to have been heard by a Single Bench of this Court. However, considering the fact that the orders challenged in these petitions are directly traceable to an interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 by a Division Bench of this Court, it was felt appropriate that these petitions be also taken up with the aforesaid Writ Petition, WP(C) No. 917 of 2017. When these two petitions were moved, it was ordered that these be taken up along with W.P(C) No. 917 of 2017. It was also ordered in W.P(C) No. 156 of 2018 and W.P(C) No. 164 of 2018 that till the prayer of passing interim order for stay/suspension of the impugned order dated 7.2.2017, the impugned order dated 7-2-2018 will remain suspended. The said WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 will be taken up in due course. 4. As will be evident, the genesis of the issue raised in these petitions can be traced to the interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017. 5. WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 was filed by 2(two) direct recruit Assistant Engineers, challenging the Recruitment Rules, known as the Manipur Civil Engineering Services (PWD Rules 2016). On 24.01.2018, this Court passed the following order: "When this matter was taken up today, it has been submitted by Mr. 5. WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 was filed by 2(two) direct recruit Assistant Engineers, challenging the Recruitment Rules, known as the Manipur Civil Engineering Services (PWD Rules 2016). On 24.01.2018, this Court passed the following order: "When this matter was taken up today, it has been submitted by Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel that he is going to file an application for impleadment as some of the necessary parties have not been impleaded. Let him do so. This Court had passed an order on 19-01-2018 for consideration of the interim prayer today. However, because of the submission made by Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel, this Court felt that such appropriate interim may be passed after hearing all the parties. Accordingly, list the matter again on 31st January, 2018 for consideration of the application for impleadment. Till 31st January, 2018, no DPC shall be held." Thus, it was directed that no DPC shall be held till 31st January of 2018. When the matter was listed on 31-01-2018, on joint prayer, the matter was posted to 5.2.2018 and it was further directed that the earlier interim order will continue till then by passing the following order: "On joint prayer, list this matter on 5th February, 2018. Earlier interim order will continue till then." Later, by subsequent orders, the said interim order was extended and it still continues. 6. It may be, at this stage, apposite to refer to another writ petition, WP(C) No. 80 of 2018, filed by 2(two) direct recruit Assistant Engineers, challenging the final seniority list dated 25.11.2017 on the grounds, inter alia, that the said seniority list was prepared in violation of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and other v. NR Parmar and ors. (2012) 13 SCC 340 and other related office memoranda. Accordingly, this Court passed an interim order on 31.01.2018 in the said writ petition, WP(C) No. 80 of 2018, to the effect that no DPC be held pursuant to the notification dated 25.11.2017, publishing the inter seniority list between the direct recruits and the promotees without the leave of the Court. The aforesaid order passed on 31-1-2018 reads as follows: "Heard Shri M. Rarry, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable in four weeks. Shri. Y. Ashang, the learned Addl. Govt. The aforesaid order passed on 31-1-2018 reads as follows: "Heard Shri M. Rarry, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable in four weeks. Shri. Y. Ashang, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri. L. Raju, the learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent No. 3. As regards the respondent No. 4, steps be taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for service of notice upon it by dasti. So far as the respondent Nos. 5 to 16 are concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the details of them are not known to the petitioner, he may be permitted to serve them by substituted service by way of publication in two local dailies, one in English and another in Vernacular. List the matter on 02-02-2018 along with W.P.(C) No. 35 of 2018. By way of an interim measure, it is directed that no DPC be held pursuant to the notification dated 25-11-2017 publishing the inter-se-seniority list between the direct recruits and the promotes without the leave of this Court." However, the aforesaid writ petition was closed on 02.02.2018 as the respondent authorities produced another seniority list, thus, rendering the WP (C) No. 80 of 2018 infructuous. Accordingly, the said interim order passed in WP(C) No. 80 of 2018 on 31.01.2018 also ceased to exist and was vacated. The said order dated 2.2.2018 reads as follows:- "Heard Shri M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 80 of 2018, Shri E. Premjit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 35 of 2018 and WP(C) No. 46 of 2018 and Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 in WP(C) No. 80 of 2018 and WP(C) No. 35 of 2018. In all these writ petitions, the main prayer is to cancel and set aside the final seniority list of Assistant Engineer of the Irrigation Flood Control Department (now renamed as Water Resources Department, Manipur) dated 25/11/2017. The other prayers are that the respondents be directed to publish the fresh final seniority list in terms of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Ors. The other prayers are that the respondents be directed to publish the fresh final seniority list in terms of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Ors. v. N.R. Parmar Ors, (2012) 13 SCC 340 and to set aside and quash the order dated 12/1/2018 issued by the Under Secretary (WR), Government of Manipur based on the said final seniority list dated 25/11/2017. During the course of hearing, Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Manipur has produced a copy of the Government order dated 1/2/2018 wherein it has been stated that after having considered the points raised by the petitioners, another final seniority list has been published to which Shri M. Rarry, learned counsel and Shri E. Premjit, learned counsel appearing for Page 2 of 2 the petitioners submit that the order dated 12/1/2018 passed by the Under Secretary (WR), Government of Manipur has not taken care of all aspects of the matters. Be that as it may, since the final seniority list dated 25/11/2017 has been withdrawn, these writ petitions have become infructuous and therefore, no order is required to be passed in the matters as regards the said final seniority list. Accordingly, the said writ petitions are disposed of as infructuous and the interim orders granted in the matters stand vacated. Since the seniority list dated 25/11/2017 has already been withdrawn, the Government order dated 12/1/2018 issued by the Under Secretary (WR), Government of Manipur on the basis thereof shall stand set aside and quashed. However, it is open to the petitioners to question and challenge the validity and correctness of the said order dated 12/1/2018, if so advised, in accordance with law." 7. The fact, however, remains that the interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) NO. 917 of 2017 on 24.01.2018 continued to operate, in which event, no DPC could have been held even after disposal of W.P(C) No. 80 of 2018. In fact, till date the aforesaid interim order passed in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 continues to operate. 8. The fact, however, remains that the interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) NO. 917 of 2017 on 24.01.2018 continued to operate, in which event, no DPC could have been held even after disposal of W.P(C) No. 80 of 2018. In fact, till date the aforesaid interim order passed in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 continues to operate. 8. However, contrary to the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 917 of 2018 on 24.01.2018, a DPC was held on 3.2.2018 for promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineer in association with the Manipur Public Service Commission(MPSC) on 03.02.2018 and on the basis of the recommendation of the said DPC, the Department of Water Resources, Government of Manipur issued the promotion order on the same day on 03.02.2018 appointing 20 Assistant Engineers to the posts of Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department. Thereafter order was issued on 05.02.2018 transferring and posting the aforesaid Executive Engineers so promoted. 9. When the aforesaid WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 was listed on 05.02.2018 in terms of the earlier order passed on 31.01.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioners therein submitted that in spite of the order passed by this Court, the authority had proceeded to hold the DPC on 03.02.2018 and on the same day promotion order was issued. Considering the above submission made, this Court felt that there was a prima facie case made out for invoking sue motto contempt jurisdiction of this Court as the said DPC was held in total defiance of this Court's order. However, before proceeding further for invoking the contempt jurisdiction, it was felt appropriate to hear the persons concerned in person. Accordingly, the members of the DPC as well as the concerned officer who had issued the promotion order were directed to be present before this Court on 12.02.2018 to explain before this Court as to how the DPC was held and promotion order issued. The order passed by this Court on 5-2-2018 in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 reads as follows: "This Court had passed an order on 24-01-2018 directing that no DPC shall be held till 31st January, 2018. That interim order was directed to be continued till 5th February, 2018 vide order passed by this Court on 31st January, 2018. This interim order will continue till the next date. It has been submitted by Mr. That interim order was directed to be continued till 5th February, 2018 vide order passed by this Court on 31st January, 2018. This interim order will continue till the next date. It has been submitted by Mr. Rarry, learned counsel for the petitioners that in spite of the said order passed by this Court, the authorities had proceeded to hold the DPC meeting on 3rd February, 2018 at 1:30 p.m by issuing a notice on 1-2-2018 and on the same day of the holding of the DPC, the promotion order was also issued on 3-2-2018, promoting 20 (twenty) persons to the post of Executive Engineers in the Water Resources Department, Government of Manipur. He has placed before this Court, copies of the notice dated 1st February, 2018 convening the DPC and promotion order dated 3rd February, 2018. In view of the above submission, this Court felt that there is a prima facie case for invoking suo moto contempt jurisdiction of this Court as the DPC was held and the promotion order issued in total defiance of this Court's order. We are also deeply concerned that the order of this Court is being flouted so blatantly. However, before proceeding further for invoking our contempt jurisdiction, we deem it appropriate to hear the persons concerned in person. Accordingly, we direct these persons namely; W.L Hangshing, Member, MPSC, Mr. A. Subash Singh, Jt. Secy, DP, Mr. Th. Gopen Meitei, Secy, Water Resources Department and Mr. Ksh. Pritam Singh, Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Manipur, who according to the learned counsel for the petitioners had taken part in the DPC meeting held on 03-02-2018 as well as Shri Anthony M. Haokip, Under Secretary (WR) Government of Manipur who issued the promotion order on 03-02-2018, to be present in person before this Court on 12th February, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. along with all the relevant records and explain before his Court as to how the DPC was held on 03-02-2018 and the promotion order issued on 03-02-2018 in violation of the interim order passed by this Court as mentioned above. Registry of this Court is to take steps immediately for issuing notice for personal appearance of the above said persons before this Court on 12-02-2018 at 10:30 a.m. List the matter again on 12th February, 2018." 10. Registry of this Court is to take steps immediately for issuing notice for personal appearance of the above said persons before this Court on 12-02-2018 at 10:30 a.m. List the matter again on 12th February, 2018." 10. It seems, after passing of the order dated 05.02.2018 in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017, the Manipur Public Service Commission wrote to the Secretary of Water Resources Department on 07.02.2018 informing that the DPC was held on information furnished by the Secretary, Water Resources Department that the order for not holding the DPC has been vacated, which view, may have been taken because of existence of two orders of the Court dated 31.01.2018 in two different writ petitions. It was also stated that however, the Commission members and officials of the DPC did not verify from the records and accordingly, made a bonafide mistake in holding the DPC. Accordingly, the Full Commission of the Public Service Commission in its meeting held on 07.02.2018 decided to withdraw the concurrence to the DPC proceeding held on 3.02.2018 and informed the State authorities that the DPC for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Water Resources Department will be held only if the High Court allows it. 11. It may be stated that the aforesaid officials also appeared before this Court as directed on 12.02.2018 and informed the Court of the developments and also the decision of the Full Commission of the Manipur Public Service Commission to withdraw the concurrence of the DPC. The member of the MPSC also filed an affidavit to that effect. In the said affidavit filed by the member of the MPSC, the following averments were made in para 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 which are reproduced herein below: "3. That before explaining the circumstances leading to the conduct of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 03.02.2018, the deponent begs to tender an unconditional apology for conducting the DPC in deference to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court passed on 31.01.2018. Now the Deponent craves leave of the Hon'ble Court to explain the circumstances leading to the conduct of the DPC on 03.02.2018 in the following paragraphs. 4. That the said dated 03.02.2018 was conducted based on the information furnished by the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Manipur, that the stay Order on holding the DPC was vacated by the Hon'ble High Court. 4. That the said dated 03.02.2018 was conducted based on the information furnished by the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Manipur, that the stay Order on holding the DPC was vacated by the Hon'ble High Court. Apparently the above view of the vacation of the stay order might have been because of the existence of the two writ petitions, being WP (C). No. 917 of 2017 and WP (C) no. 80 of 2018, both relating to the water Resources Department. Both the writ petitions were listed on 31.01.2018 and interim stay orders directing that no DPC be held were granted in both the writ petitions. However, WP(C) no. 80 of 2018 along with two other writ petitions were listed on 02.02.2018 and the following common judgement and order was passed observing inter alia that: "Accordingly, the said writ petitions are disposed of as infructuous and the interim orders granted in the matters stand vacated. [Emphasis added] A copy each of the interim order dated 31.01.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017, the interim order dated 31.01.2018 passed in WP(C) NO. 80 of 2018 and the common judgement and order dated 02.02.2018 are annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-A/1, ANNEXURE-A/2 and ANNEXURE-A/03.02.2018 respectively." 5. That the deponent begs to submit that in view of the disposal of the three writ petitions on 02-02-2018, the Commission officials and other DPC members made the bona fide mistake of assuming that there was no stay order restraining the Commission from holding the said DPC. Hence, the DPC conducted the said meeting dated 03.02.2018 in the genuine belief that the interim order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 had been vacated. 6. That immediately on realizing the mistake the MPSC held a Full Commission meeting at 2:00 pm on 07.02.2018 and decided to withdraw the concurrence given to the DPC for appointment by promotion to the posts of Executive Engineers in the Water Resources Department, Government of Manipur will be held after the Hon'ble High Court allows it. The decision was communicated to the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Manipur, vide Letter No. 8-A/8/2018-MPSC (P) dated 07.02.2018 issued by the Secretary, MPSC the same day. 7. The decision was communicated to the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Manipur, vide Letter No. 8-A/8/2018-MPSC (P) dated 07.02.2018 issued by the Secretary, MPSC the same day. 7. That in view of the above facts and circumstances, the Deponent prays the Hon'ble High Court to absolve the members of the DPC including himself from any error of commission or omission made inadvertently by way of conducting the DPC meeting on 03.02.2018 contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in the interest of justice." 12. It may be observed that though the MPSC had explained the position by filing the affidavit in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017, the State of Manipur or the Department of Water Resources has not filed any affidavit making its position in clear terms about the validity of the promotion order dated 3.02.2018 which anyway, can be dealt with in the appropriate proceeding pending before this Court. Be that as it may, as evident from the stand of the MPSC, the following positions emerge:- i) There is a subsisting interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 not to hold any DPC since 24-1-2018, which interim order was continued and continues till date. ii) The MPSC, through the responsible member, officers have stated before this Court as well as filed an affidavit to the effect that holding of the DPC for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was contrary to the interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) 917 of 2017, though they have taken the plea that it was a bonafide mistake. iii) Realising the bonafide mistake, the MPSC held a Full Commission meeting on 07.02.2018 and decided to withdraw the concurrence given to the DPC and also informed the State Govt. It was further informed that DPC will be held only if the High Court allows the same. 13. These are the background facts, in brief, which were obtaining before and at the time of writing of the letter dated 7.2.2018 by the MPSC to the State Government which are relevant for considering the prayer for passing interim orders in these petitions. 14. As mentioned above, the two writ petitions, WP(C) 166 of 2018 and 164 of 2018 have been filed challenging the letter dated 07.02.2018 of the MPSC, withdrawing concurrence to the DPC. 14. As mentioned above, the two writ petitions, WP(C) 166 of 2018 and 164 of 2018 have been filed challenging the letter dated 07.02.2018 of the MPSC, withdrawing concurrence to the DPC. The common ground raised in these two petitions are that the aforesaid letter dated 07.02.2018 withdrawing concurrence of the MPSC is in violation of the principle of natural justice. It is the case of the petitioners that by making recommendation by the DPC/MPSC, it has created a vested right to the promotees which could not have been withheld without giving a fair hearing to the promotees. It has also been stated that no judicial order has been passed declaring the said DPC held on 3.2.2018 to be illegal. Other grounds have also have been taken in challenging the letter dated 07.02.2018 withdrawing the concurrence by the MPSC. 15. It has been contended by the petitioners that the petitioners were some of the senior most Assistant Engineers who had a vested right to be considered for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineer and some of the promotes are on the verge of retirement and in fact one of the promotes had already retired on 28.02.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation after being promoted to Executive Engineer. It has been also contended that no right of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 917 had been violated and in fact, the petitioners therein had obtained the interim order by not impleading the necessary parties including the petitioners and did not approach the Court with clean hands and hence, it is not maintainable. Accordingly, it has been fervently urged by the petitioners in WP(C) No. 156 of 2018 and W.P(C) No. 164 of 2018 that an interim order be passed for suspending the impugned letter dated 07.02.2018 written by the Secretary, MPSC to the Secretary Water Resources Department, Govt. of Manipur and also for directing maintenance of status quo of the recommendation of the DPC held on 03.02.2018. Petitioners also have submitted that this is a crucial period of the ending of the financial year, 2018 and as such, if the services of the petitioners as promotee Executive Engineers are not protected, it will lead to serious administrative dislocations and inconveniences. Petitioners also have submitted that this is a crucial period of the ending of the financial year, 2018 and as such, if the services of the petitioners as promotee Executive Engineers are not protected, it will lead to serious administrative dislocations and inconveniences. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 164 of 2018 in addition have raised other issue stating that the petitioners had been victims of various litigation's in the past, preventing their consideration for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineer and have remained stagnated for a long period of time. In fact, the petitioners have been denied opportunity of being considered for promotion due to inaction of the State respondents. In any event, it has been submitted by the petitioners that even if a DPC is directed to be held again, the result would be same and as such, it would be a futile exercise. In that view of the matter, it has been submitted that the result of the DPC held on 3-2-2018 may be allowed to be acted upon, by staying the impugned letter dated 7-2-2018 of the MPSC withdrawing concurrence of the MPSC to the recommendation of the DPC. Various other grounds have been also raised in contending that the petitioners in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 have no right to challenge the recruitment rules and thus have no right to obtain any interim order from this Court, etc. 16. R.S. Reishang, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State Respondents has taken the plea that since the DPC has been held and promotion has been made, it will create serious administrative inconveniences, if at this stage, the promotion of the petitioners are disturbed on account of the letter written by the MPSC on 07.02.2018. It has been accordingly submitted that the present petitioners may be allowed to serve as Executive Engineers. 17. Heard Mr. Rarry, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C) No. 166 of 2018 in which the proceedings of the DPC held on 03.02.2018 for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineers in the Water Resources Department have been challenged. He submits that in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017, this Court passed an interim order on 24.01.2018 not to hold the DPC, which was extended by a subsequent orders. He submits that in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017, this Court passed an interim order on 24.01.2018 not to hold the DPC, which was extended by a subsequent orders. It has been submitted that in spite of the existence of the aforesaid interim order, the DPC was held on 03.02.2018 and on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC held on 03.02.2018, the appointment order was issued on the same day and subsequently, the posting order was issued on 05.02.2018. It is the case of Mr. Rarry relying on the decision of the All Bengal Excise Licencees Association v. Raghabendra Singh ors., (2007) 11 SCC 374 that, since the aforesaid DPC was held during the subsistence of the interim order passed by this Court not to hold the DPC in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017, and since the DPC was held in clear violation of the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent authority or the promotees cannot be allowed to take unfair advantage and escape the consequence thereof. It is his contention that the submission of the petitioners and the State respondents in W.P(C) No. 156 of 2018 and W.P(C) No. 164 of 2018 that suspending the order dated 03.02.2018 giving promotion to 20 posts of Executive Engineers would create administrative inconveniences, cannot be accepted as the authority or the promotees cannot retain the advantage obtained in breach of the order of this Court. 18. We have heard the counsel for the parties and given our anxious consideration on the issues raised in the context of passing interim orders. 19. As mentioned above, the root cause of the problem being agitated before this Court for resolution, can be traced back to the interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) 917 of 2017 on 24.01.2018. We have heard the counsel for the parties and given our anxious consideration on the issues raised in the context of passing interim orders. 19. As mentioned above, the root cause of the problem being agitated before this Court for resolution, can be traced back to the interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) 917 of 2017 on 24.01.2018. The aforesaid interim order passed was purely by way of temporary measure pending consideration of passing appropriate interim order after hearing all the parties in the said Writ Petition, WP(C) No. 917 of 2017, as clearly reflected in the order dated 24.01.2018, wherein, this Court had observed that though it was fixed on 24.01.2018 for consideration of the interim prayer sought by the petitioners, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants seeking to implead themselves as parties in the said writ petition, the matter was deferred to 31.01.2018 for consideration of the interim prayer sought by the petitioners in the said writ petition WP(C) No. 917 of 2017. This Court had felt that it would be appropriate that the prayer for passing interim order be considered after hearing all the parties, and accordingly adjourned the matter to 31.01.2018. However, the Court also passed an ad-interim order on 24.01.2018 that till then no DPC shall be held, which interim order was continued on 31.01.2018 and extended thereafter and continues till now. 20. In fact till date, all the parties in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 are yet to be heard on merit to consider the prayer of the petitioners for passing appropriate interim, but merely an ad interim order was passed on 24.01.2018 directing not to hold the DPC till such consideration after hearing all the parties. The aforesaid ad interim order however, subsists till date. 21. This Court after hearing all the parties in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 on merit may or may not pass any interim order. However, till such consideration on merit for passing appropriate interim order by hearing all the parties, as an interim measure, this Court had passed the aforesaid ad interim order not to hold any DPC. 21. This Court after hearing all the parties in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 on merit may or may not pass any interim order. However, till such consideration on merit for passing appropriate interim order by hearing all the parties, as an interim measure, this Court had passed the aforesaid ad interim order not to hold any DPC. It does not however, mean that, the said ad interim order, being a purely temporary measure, passed without hearing all the parties, is devoid of its judicial character, and as such, till the said ad-interim order subsists, it has to be followed by all the concerned parties. The aforesaid ad interim order may or may not be extended by this Court after hearing all the parties, but till any such order varying or vacating the interim order is passed by this Court, such ad interim order has to be complied with by all the concerned. 22. Even if the State Government has not stated anything on the validity of the proceedings of the DPC and the subsequent promotion order issued on 03.02.2018 and the posting order dated 05.02.2018 by way of affidavit, after the MPSC wrote to the State Government on 07.02.2018 recalling their concurrence on the recommendation of the DPC, the fact remains that the DPC was held on 03.02.2018 when there was a subsisting interim order of this Court not to hold the DPC. As mentioned above, the MPSC had clearly stated before this Court that the DPC was held on 03.02.2018 on the mistaken premise that there was no interim order existed after the order was passed on 02.02.2018 in W.P(C) No. 80 of 2018 and accordingly after realising the mistake decided to withdraw the concurrence given to the DPC proceeding held on 03.02.2018 and informed the State Government that the DPC will be held only after the High Court allows it. But, the response of the State Government to the said letter of the MPSC is not discernible. In any event, as to whether the holding of the DPC held on 03.02.2018 was because of the bonafide mistake or not, is not the issue in these proceedings to be considered but will be taken up in the suo moto/contempt proceedings initiated by this Court in this regard. 23. In any event, as to whether the holding of the DPC held on 03.02.2018 was because of the bonafide mistake or not, is not the issue in these proceedings to be considered but will be taken up in the suo moto/contempt proceedings initiated by this Court in this regard. 23. It is now well settled that a judicial order unless modified or stayed by an appropriate higher judicial forum, cannot be ignored and has to be complied by the concerned authority. It was held in the State of W.B. v. Hemant Kumar Bhattacharjee, 1963 Supp. (2) SCR 542 that even a wrong decision by a Court having jurisdiction is as much binding between the parties as a right one and may be superceded only by appeal to higher tribunal or tribunals. Thus, in the present case also, even if the respondents consider that the interim order passed by this Court on 31.1.2018 was a wrong interim order, it was to be followed. The MPSC have stated that they made a mistake in not taking cognisance of the said interim order passed in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 and held the DPC in violation of the said interim order. Therefore, the question which arises for consideration is, what would be the fate of any decision/action taken in violation of a judicial order. The answer is obvious. Any action taken in violation of any judicial order cannot be said to be valid and such action will be clothed with illegitimacy and no one can take advantage of any action or order based on such illegitimate or invalid order. It was accordingly, held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of All Bengal Excise Licensees Assn. (supra) that it is settled law that a party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof by pleading misunderstanding and thereafter retain the said advantage gained in breach of the order of the Court. Such violations should be put an end to with an iron hand, as observed in Para No. 34 thereof, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- "34. In view of the clear finding of the Court, the respondent had acted in clear violation of the order made by the High Court. Such violations should be put an end to with an iron hand, as observed in Para No. 34 thereof, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- "34. In view of the clear finding of the Court, the respondent had acted in clear violation of the order made by the High Court. It is settled law that a party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof by pleading misunderstanding and thereafter retain the said advantage gained in breach of the order of the Court. Such violations should be put an end to with an iron hand." Therefore, it is clear that the DPC held on 03.02.2018 being in violation of the interim order passed by this Court on 31.1.2018 cannot be said to be valid and as such, any consequential action taken on the basis of the said invalid or illegitimate action itself would be also invalid and illegitimate. It may be stated that the MPSC, having realised the mistake, had decided to recall the recommendation as mentioned in their letter dated 7.2.2018, though the State Government has opted to remain silent. In view of the fact the DPC was held in violation of the interim order, the same cannot be acted in the light of the law as discussed above. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that since the DPC was held during the subsistence of the interim order passed in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 on 31.01.2018 not to hold any DPC, the proceeding of the DPC held on 03.02.2018 is illegitimate and invalid and cannot be given effect to and accordingly, the consequential actions taken based on the illegal proceeding of the DPC held on 03.02.2018 also cannot be sustained. In view of the above, no prima facie case has been made out to interfere with the letter dated 7.2.2018 issued by the MPSC withdrawing their concurrence as in the opinion of this Court, it was the most logical step taken by the MPSC upon realising that MPSC had committed a mistake in assuming that no interim order restraining the authority from holding the DPC existed when the DPC was held on 03.02.2018. 24. In this regard, we may also observe what the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, (2007) 8 SCC 449 as follows: "24. 24. In this regard, we may also observe what the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, (2007) 8 SCC 449 as follows: "24. An order passed by a competent court-interim or final-has to be obeyed without any reservation. If such order is disobeyed or not complied with, the court may refuse the party violating such order to hear him on merits. We are not unmindful of the situation that refusal to hear a party to the proceeding on merits is a "drastic step" and such a serious penalty should not be imposed on him except in grave and extraordinary situations, but sometimes such an action is needed in the larger interest of justice when a party obtaining interim relief intentionally and deliberately flouts such order by not abiding by the terms and conditions on which a relief is granted by the court in his favour." 25. Accordingly, the following orders are passed in WP (C) No. 156 of 2018, WP (C) No. 164 of 2018 and WP(C) No. 166 of 2018. WP(C) No. 156 of 2018 and WP(C) No. 164 of 2018 For the reasons discussed above, this Court does not find any prima facie case in favour of the petitioners in W.P(C) No. 156 of 2018 and W.P(C) No. 164 of 2018 to pass any interim order suspending the operation of the letter dated 7.2.2018 issued by the MPSC to the State Govt. withdrawing the concurrence on the proceedings of the DPC held on 03.02.2018. In this regard, this Court would like to observe that the contentions of the petitioners that the aforesaid impugned letter dated 7.2.2018 of the MPSC, if allowed to be given effect, would adversely affect the accrued rights of the promotees as they have been already given promotion by virtue of the recommendation of the DPC held on 03.02.2018, and the said letter of the MPSC which was issued without hearing the promotees would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained in as much as no valid right can flow from an illegitimate order or action. The claim for having an accrued right to be promoted to the Executive Engineer directly flows from an action which this Court has held to be prima facie illegal and in fact, if the aforesaid subsequent illegal acts of the promotion order dated 03.02.2018 and posting order dated 05.02.2018 are allowed to continue, it may amount to perpetuation of the original illegal act of holding the DPC on 03.02.2018 in violation of the interim order of this Court not to hold DPC. The original illegitimate act of holding DPC on 03.02.2018 would indirectly be legitimised if the subsequent consequential illegal actions are allowed to operate. As regards the plea of violation of natural justice, the said principle will not be applicable in as much as no one can be allowed to retain any benefit arising out of a wrong order issued in violation of a judicial order as observed in All Bengal Excise Licensees Assn. (supra) and Prestige Lights Ltd. (supra). No valid order can be generated by an invalid order/action. An invalid order can generate only an invalid order. An order invalid since inception cannot attract principles of natural justice. As regards the other contention that the rights of the petitioners in WP (C) No. 156 of 2018 and WP (C) No. 164 of 2018 for promotion have been unduly delayed and the rights of the petitioners in W.P(C) No. 166 of 2018 and WP(C) No. 917 of 2018 were not adversely affected, it can be considered at the time of final hearing of these petitions. 26. WP (C) No. 166 of 2018 This Court, for the similar reasons as stated above, is of the opinion that the petitioners in W.P(C) No. 166 of 2018 have been able to make out a prima facie case for passing an interim order suspending the proceedings of the DPC held on 03.02.2018 and promotion order dated 03.02.2018 and the posting order dated 05.02.2018. Accordingly, the proceedings of the DPC held on 03.02.2018 and the promotion order dated 03.02.2018 and posting order 05.02.2018 challenged in W.P(C) No. 166 of 2018 are suspended until further orders. Similarly, for the same reasons based on the decision in All Bengal Excise Licensees Assn. Accordingly, the proceedings of the DPC held on 03.02.2018 and the promotion order dated 03.02.2018 and posting order 05.02.2018 challenged in W.P(C) No. 166 of 2018 are suspended until further orders. Similarly, for the same reasons based on the decision in All Bengal Excise Licensees Assn. (supra) and Prestige Lights Ltd. (supra), the contentions of the promotees as well as the State Government that suspension of the promotion order dated 03.02.2018 and transferring order dated 05.02.2018 will lead to administrative disruption is also rejected. No one shall be allowed to reap the benefit of an illegitimate order. The respondent authorities may, if they wish, resort to the arrangement as prevailing prior to holding of the DPC for management of the Department and certainly not, on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC held on 03.02.2018. The situation at hand has been created by the official respondents themselves in not diligently following the orders of this Court. They cannot be allowed to advantage of their own mistake. 27. List these matters along with WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 as directed earlier. Place copies of this order in the respective files/writ petitions. 28. Compliance orders be issued forthwith and be placed before this Court, on the next date before proceeding with this batch of petitions.