Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 872 (GAU)

Lalthankima v. State Of Mizoram

2019-08-02

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2019
JUDGMENT : S. Serto, J. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 129/2017, 133/2015 and W.P.(C) No. 45/2018 and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 118/2014. I have also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents in all the writ petitions and Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the private respondents in W.P.(C) No. 133/2015. 2. The challenge in W.P.(C) No. 129/2017 is against the Notification No. A.11017/2/2010-TRP, dated 20.08.2013, issued by the Government of Mizoram, Transport Department, wherein 13 posts of Assistant Station Superintendent and 3 posts of Assistant District Transport Officer were amalgamated and re-designated as Assistant District Transport Officer. The notification is as follows; "NOTIFICATION Dated Aizawl, the 20th August, 2013 In continuation of this Department's Notification of even No. dt. 4.2.2013, the Governor of Mizoram is pleased to order upgradation of pay scale, amalgamation and redesignation of the existing paralleled posts of the District Officers, etc, as follows as a measure of restructuring of Transport Department, Govt. of Mizoram with immediate effect. Upgradation of pay and Redesignation of post Sl. No. Present Post Re-designated post No. of post Present pay Upgraded pay Remarks 1. Station Superintendent 1. Asst. Director when posted at Dte. 2. DTO when posted at Dist Office 6 Nos. RS. 9300- 34800+GP 4600/- Rs. 15600- 39100+GP 5400 2. Supervisor Enforcement Inspector 1 No. Rs. 5200- 20200+GP 2800/- Rs. 9300- 34800+GP 4200/- The pay scale is upgraded to PB-2 by surrendering 1 (one) post of supervisor 3. (a) Asst. Station Superintendent (b) A.D.T.O ADTO 13 Nos. 3 Nos. Rs. 9300- 34800+GP 4400/- Rs. 9300- 34800+GP 4400/- This issues with the approval of DP and AR(ARW) vide I.D. No. ARW/TRP/2012-2013/C-374 dt. 28.3.2013 and concurrence of Finance Deptt. vide I.D No. FIN(E)21/2013 dt. 24.7.2013." The petitioners herein also challenged the provisional seniority list, notified vide order No. A.23011/20/09-DTE(TRP), dated 19.09.2014, issued by the Govt. of Mizoram, Director of Transport, wherein the private respondents were included in the seniority list in consequence of the amalgamation of the two services/post. 3. In WP(C) No. 133/2015, the challenge is against the Notification No. A.11017/2/2010-TRP/PT/6, dated 10.12.2013, wherein 6(six) numbers of Line Checkers' post were amalgamated with the cadre of Enforcement Sub-Inspector and re-designated as Enforcement Sub-Inspectors. of Mizoram, Director of Transport, wherein the private respondents were included in the seniority list in consequence of the amalgamation of the two services/post. 3. In WP(C) No. 133/2015, the challenge is against the Notification No. A.11017/2/2010-TRP/PT/6, dated 10.12.2013, wherein 6(six) numbers of Line Checkers' post were amalgamated with the cadre of Enforcement Sub-Inspector and re-designated as Enforcement Sub-Inspectors. The Notification reads as follows; "NOTIFICATION Dated Aizawl, the 10th December, 2013 In continuation of this Department's Notification of even No. dt. 04.02.2013, the Governor of Mizoram is pleased to order amalgamation and redesignation of the existing paralleled post of the District Offices, etc. as a measure of restructuring of Transport Department as below with immediate effect. Upgradation of pay and Redesignation of post Sl. No. Present Post Re-designated post No. of post Present pay Upgraded pay Remarks 1. Station Superintendent 1. Asst. Director when posted at Dte. 2. DTO when posted at Dist Office 6 Nos. RS. 9300- 34800+GP 4600/- Rs. 15600- 39100+GP 5400 2. Supervisor Enforcement Inspector 1 No. Rs. 5200- 20200+GP 2800/- Rs. 9300- 34800+GP 4200/- The pay scale is upgraded to PB-2 by surrendering 1 (one) post of supervisor 3. (a) Asst. Station Superintendent (b) A.D.T.O ADTO 13 Nos. 3 Nos. Rs. 9300- 34800+GP 4400/- Rs. 9300- 34800+GP 4400/- In this writ petition, the petitioners has also challenged the Office Order No. A.23011/20/09-DTE(TRP), dated 12.05.2015, issued by the Govt. of Mizoram, Directorate of Transport, wherein the private respondents have been merged into one seniority list in consequence of the amalgamation notification. The Office order is as follows; "No. A.23011/20/09 - DTE (TRP) Dated Aizawl, the 12th May, 2015 OFFICE ORDER In pursuance of amalgamation of Enforcement Sub-Inspector and Line Checker to the post of Enforcement Sub-Inspector as a measure of restructuring of Transport Department vide Government Notification No. A.11017/2/2010-TRP/Pt/6 Dt. 10.12.2013, the provisional inter se-seniority of Enforcement Sub-Inspector is hereby fixed as indicated at Annexure - 'A'. Any person feeling aggrieved may file representation to the undersigned within 30 days from the date of issue of this Order." 4. In WP(C) No. 118/2014, the challenge is against the Notification No. A.11017/2/2010-TRP/PT/6, dated 10.12.2013, wherein the post of Booking Clerks and LDC were amalgamated and merged with the cadre of Enforcement Sub-Inspector. The petitioners also challenge the letter No. A.11015/10/2013-DTE(TRP), wherein the Director of Transport Department, Govt. In WP(C) No. 118/2014, the challenge is against the Notification No. A.11017/2/2010-TRP/PT/6, dated 10.12.2013, wherein the post of Booking Clerks and LDC were amalgamated and merged with the cadre of Enforcement Sub-Inspector. The petitioners also challenge the letter No. A.11015/10/2013-DTE(TRP), wherein the Director of Transport Department, Govt. of Mizoram directed the Joint Director (OP), Transport Department, the Joint Director (MV), Transport Department and all the District Transport Officers to make entry into the respective service books of the 20 Booking Clerks, whose services have been amalgamated with the cadre of ESI, the fact that they have been amalgamated to the post mentioned above. The Notification reads as follows; "NOTIFICATION Dated Aizawl, the 10th, December, 2013 In continuation of this Department's Notification of even No. dt. 4.2.2013, the Governor of Mizoram is pleased to order amalgamation and redesignation of the existing paralleled post under the District Offices, etc. as a measure of restructuring of Transport Department as below with immediate effect. Sl. No. Present Post Re-designated to the post of - No. of Post Scale of Pay 1. Booking Clerk a) L.D.C 2 Nos. PB-1 Rs. 5200-20200+ GP 2400/- (b) E.S.I 18 Nos. The redesignation from Booking Clerk to LDC and ESI is made as per the options made by the existing incumbents. This issues with the approval of DP and AR(ARW) vide I.D No. ARW/2012-2013/C-374 dt. 28.3.2013 and concurrence of Finance Department vide I.D No. FIN(E)21/2013 dt. 24.7.2013." 5. In W.P.(C) No. 45/2018, the challenge is against the Notification No. A.32012/1/2015/TRP/PT, dated 15.02.2018, issued by the Govt. of Mizoram, Transport Department, wherein the private respondent No. 7, an ADTO was promoted to the post of DTO and posted as Assistant Director of Transport Department (Booking) under the Joint Director (OP) during the pendency of the writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 129/2017, wherein the final seniority list, notified vide Notification Memo No. A. 23011/20/09-DTE (TRP) dated 19.09.2014 was under challenged, and the same is being disposed by this common judgment. The Notification reads as follows; "No. A.32012/1/2015-TRP/Pt GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT Dated Aizawl, the 15th February, 2018 NOTIFICATION On the recommendation of the MPSC vide letter No. 145/A/2015-MPSC dt. 18.1.2018 and in the interest of public service, the Governor of Mizoram is pleased to promote Pu Kawlchhuana, ADTO to the post of District Transport Officer under Transport Department in the Pay Band 3 of Rs. 15600-39100+GP Rs. 18.1.2018 and in the interest of public service, the Governor of Mizoram is pleased to promote Pu Kawlchhuana, ADTO to the post of District Transport Officer under Transport Department in the Pay Band 3 of Rs. 15600-39100+GP Rs. 5400 plus all other allowances as admissible from time to time with effect from the date of taking over charge of the post. On his promotion, the officer will be posted at Asst. Director of Transport (Booking) under Joint Director (OP)." 6. The common grievance raised in these writ petitions is that 6(six) Notifications, which were purportedly issued in pursuance of the Resolution of the Council of Ministers held on 18 and 19, August, 2008 are malafide and illegal because the Resolution on which they were based actually did not approve their issuance. Since, the Resolution on which the Notifications under challenged are based is one and the same, these writ petitions have been heard together and they are being disposed by this common judgment. 7. The case of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the Resolution regarding the amalgamation or restructuring of the services under Transport Department which was at Item No. 8 of the Minutes of the Council of the Ministers approved only in principle the proposal for amalgamation or restructuring so if the respondents were to pursue their proposal they should have put up their proposal for final approval of the Council of Ministers after ascertaining the number of post that needs to be weed out and the number of post that would actually need to be retained in each wing of the Department for effective running of the Department, that too after consultation with the DP and AR and the Finance Department. However, the respondents after consulting the DP and AR and Finance Department, but by-passing the Council of Ministers had issued the Notifications under challenged. Therefore, the notifications were issued in clear violation of Rule 7 of the Govt. of Mizoram (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1987, framed under Article 166 (2) and (3) of the Constitution of India, read with the procedure of the Cabinet meetings provided in Part-II, 2nd Schedule, Paragraph No. 3 (c). The provisions of the said Rules and Article are reproduced herein below one after the other; (i) Rule 7 of the Govt. of Mizoram (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1987, framed under Article 166 (2) and (3) of the Constitution of India, read with the procedure of the Cabinet meetings provided in Part-II, 2nd Schedule, Paragraph No. 3 (c). The provisions of the said Rules and Article are reproduced herein below one after the other; (i) Rule 7 of the Govt. of Mizoram (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1987; "Subject to the orders of the Chief Minister under Rule 14, all cases referred to in the Second Schedule to these Rules shall be brought before the Cabinet in accordance with the provision of the Rules contained in Procedure of the Cabinet. (a) Article 166 (2) and (3) of the Constitution of India; "(2).Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order on instruction which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor (3). The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion. (ii) 2nd Schedule Paragraph No. 3 (c); "3. Proposals for the making or amending rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of - (c) Persons appointed to the Public service and posts in connection with the State (Proviso to Article 309)". 8. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel referred to the English translation of Item No. 8 of the Resolution/Minutes of the Council of Ministers held on 18th and 19th of August, 2008, which is given at Annexure-1A of the writ petition and not disputed by the other parties. The same is reproduced herein below for easy reference; "Item No. 8 Re-structuring of Transport Department At present the Transport Department has 750 permanent posts divided into MST Wing, MV Wing, and STA. The same is reproduced herein below for easy reference; "Item No. 8 Re-structuring of Transport Department At present the Transport Department has 750 permanent posts divided into MST Wing, MV Wing, and STA. There are a number of posts that needs to be upgraded or re-designated; in addition to this certain posts at the Directorate and District Office requires to be amalgamated in order for them to be inter-transferable, over and above this there is a requirement for the creation of several posts, so after careful discussion and contemplation the proposal is accepted in principle. When the Transport Department really takes steps for 'restructuring' the following should be kept in mind at the time of making proposal:- (a) IT Cell: If this is planned to be formed as a separate Cell, it is proposed that an IT Section be rather formed as it is going to require numerous amount of man power. (b) Proposal 9(1) : Transport Department Officers and MCS Officers are posted as Jt. Director and DTO as per requirement. Whenever MCS Officers are appointed to hold the posts of Jt. Director or DTO they will continue to enjoy their "Own Grade Pay". (c) Proposal 9(2) : As per the opinion of Finance Department regarding same duty-same pay, it is not punishable for MCS officer and Departmental officer to enjoy the same pay when they are holding the post of DTO. Hence the MCS officer or the Departmental officer shall enjoy his own grade pay in the said post. Hence the opinion of the Finance Department is not accepted. (d) Proposal 9(3) : As per the opinion of Finance Department under Proposal 9(3), it is not necessary to elevate the post of Deputy Commissioner (STA) to the level of Joint Director albeit the fact that it agrees to the elevation of its equivalent post in MV Wing different angle, it is concurred that the Dy. Commissioner (STA) and its equivalent post in MV Wing i.e. the Dy. Commissioner (MV) be upgraded to the level of Jt. Director with same pay scale. Thus the instruction of Finance Department is not accepted. (e) Creation of Post of Deputy Director (Account): As per the instruction of Finance Department it is essential for Transport Department to create the post of Deputy Director (Account). Let an initiative be taken in consultation with Finance Department with regard to the said instruction. Director with same pay scale. Thus the instruction of Finance Department is not accepted. (e) Creation of Post of Deputy Director (Account): As per the instruction of Finance Department it is essential for Transport Department to create the post of Deputy Director (Account). Let an initiative be taken in consultation with Finance Department with regard to the said instruction. (f) Let the Department analyze the scheme of privatization as early as possible. (g) Let the Transport Department in consultation with the DP and AR and Finance Department make suggestions at the proposal stage to contemplate whether or not there is requirement for the creation of the post of Supervisor/Storekeeper/Driver/Conductor/Handyman/Fitter and the necessity of man-power in each wing at the time of restructuring of the Transport Department. Apart from this, let the current posts which are already in existence but does not seem to be significant anymore be looked into and be adjusted." 9. The learned counsel, then, referred to the 1st paragraph and paragraph-(g) of the 2nd paragraph of the above Resolution and submitted that these two portions of the Resolution makes it clear that the Council of Ministers merely approved in principle the proposal for amalgamation of the post and services in the Department of Transport but for actual implementation of the Policy the Transport Department has to come up with a detailed proposal after consulting the DP and AR and Finance Department. Mr. A.R. Malhotra further, submitted that the Department indeed consulted the DP and AR and Finance Dept. is revealed by the document at Annexure-8 and 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in W.P.(C) No. 129/2017 but the two documents showing the approval of the DP and AR and Finance Department have not been laid before the Council of Ministers for final approval. Therefore, the proposal has not been approved by Council of Minister. The two documents are also reproduced here below for easy reference; "I.D. No: ARW/TRP/2012-2013/C-374 Dated 28.3.2013 DP and AR(ARW) approves the proposal of Transport Department for restructuring the existing paralleled posts of the District Offices, upgradation of pay scale, amalgamation and redesignation of the following posts:- Sl. No Name of post with pay scale No of Post Post to which upgraded/designated with scale of pay 1 2 3 4 1 Station Superintendent Rs. 9300-34800+4600 GP 6 Nos. 1) Asst. No Name of post with pay scale No of Post Post to which upgraded/designated with scale of pay 1 2 3 4 1 Station Superintendent Rs. 9300-34800+4600 GP 6 Nos. 1) Asst. Director when posted at Directorate 2) DTO when posted at District Office Rs. 15600-39100+5400 GP 2 Supervisor Rs. 5200-20200+2800 GP 1 No. Enforcement Inspector Rs. 9300-34800+4200 GP Remarks: The pay scale is upgraded to Pay Band-2 by surrendering one post of Supervisor. 3 a) Asst. Station Superintendent b) ADTO Rs. 9300-34800+4400 GP 13 Nos. 3 Nos ADTO Rs. 9300-34800+440 GP 4 a) Enforcement Inspector b) Line Inspector Rs. 9300-34800+4200 GP 8 Nos 5 Nos Enforcement Inspector Rs. 9300-34800+4200 GP 5 Booking Clerk Rs. 5200-20200+2400 GP 2 Nos 18 Nos a) LDC b) ESI (Enforcement Sub-Inspector) Rs. 5200-20200+2400 GP 6 Line Checker Rs. 5200-20200+2400 GP 6 Nos ESI (Enforcement Sub-Inspector) Rs. 5200-20200+2400 GP The Department is advised to obtain the concurrence of Finance Department." "I.D. No. FIN (E) 21/2013 Dt. 24.7.2013 Finance Department concurs to the proposal of Transport Department for restructuring the existing paralleled posts of the District Officer, upgradation of pay scale, amalgamation and re-designation of posts as follows:- Sl. No. Name of Post with pay scale No. of post Post to which upgraded/designated with scale of pay 1 Station Superintendent Rs. 9300-34800+GP 4600/- 6 Nos. 1. Assistant Director when posted at Dte. 2. DTO when posted at District Office Rs. 15600-39100+GP 5400/- 2 Supervisor Rs. 5200-20200+GP 2800/- 1 No. Enforcement Inspector Rs. 9300-348000+GP 4200/- Remarks: The pay scale is upgraded to Pay band-2 by surrending 1 (one) post of Supervisor 3 a) Asst. Station Supdt b) ADTO Rs. 9300-34800+GP 4200 13 Nos 3 Nos. ADTO Rs. 9300-34800+GP 4400/- 4 a) Enforcement Inspector b) Line Inspector Rs. 9300-34800+GP 4200/- 8 Nos. 5 Nos. Enforcement Inspector Rs. 9300-34800+GP 4200/- 5 Booking Clerk Rs. 5200-20200+ GP 2400/- 2 Nos. 18 Nos. a) LDC b) ESI Rs. 5200-20200+GP 2400/- 6 Line Checker Rs. 5200-20200+ GP 2400 6 Nos. ESI Rs. 5200-20200+GP 2400/- It is further observed that the posts surrendered, abolished and declared as withering posts vide order nos.- a) No. A.11013/1/89-TRP dated 15.9.2012 b) No. A. 11017/2/2010-TRP dated 4.2.2013 are not revived and proper checks must be observed at the time of proposing filling up of posts in the Department". 10. Mr. 5200-20200+ GP 2400 6 Nos. ESI Rs. 5200-20200+GP 2400/- It is further observed that the posts surrendered, abolished and declared as withering posts vide order nos.- a) No. A.11013/1/89-TRP dated 15.9.2012 b) No. A. 11017/2/2010-TRP dated 4.2.2013 are not revived and proper checks must be observed at the time of proposing filling up of posts in the Department". 10. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, thereafter, submitted that the State respondents did not obtain approval of the Council of Ministers as required in the Govt. of Mizoram (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1987. Therefore, the notifications under challenged were issued without meeting the requirement of the said Rules and as such, they are illegal and nonest in the eye of law. Mr. A.R. Malhotra also submitted that the Rules framed under the provisions of Article 166 Clause-3, like the Govt. of Mizoram (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1987 are mandatory and have to be strictly followed or adhered to. Any decision made by the Government without following these Rules will be a nullity in the eye of law. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to paragraph Nos. 89 to 92 of the judgment passed in MRF Ltd -versus- Manohar Parrikar, (2010) 11 SCC 374 . The relevant paragraphs of the judgment cited by the learned counsel are given herein below; "89. At this stage, we find it necessary to refer to some of the Constitutional provisions to deal with the issue raised by the appellants. Under Article 154 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is vested with the Executive Power of the State and he shall exercise them either directly or through Officers subordinate to him in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The Governor is advised by the Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at its head in exercise of his functions except those specifically stated in discharge of his functions as the head of the State. The Council of Minister is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the State. The Rules of business framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution are for convenient transaction of the business of the Government and for allocation of the business among the Ministers. Article 166(2) of the Constitution requires the decision of the State Government to be authenticated as per the Rules framed thereunder. The Rules of business framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution are for convenient transaction of the business of the Government and for allocation of the business among the Ministers. Article 166(2) of the Constitution requires the decision of the State Government to be authenticated as per the Rules framed thereunder. Any decision taken by the State Government therefore, reflects the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers and their participation in such decision making process. The Chief Minister as the Head of the Council of Ministers is answerable not only to the Legislature but also to the Governor of the State. The Governor of the State as the Head of the State acts with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister. The Rules framed under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution are in aid to fulfill the Constitutional Mandate embodied in Chapter II of Part VI of the Constitution. Therefore, the decision of the State Government must meet the requirement of these Rules also. 90. Before the High Court as also before us it was contended by the appellants herein, that, the Rules framed under Article 166(3) are only directory in character and failure to comply with them does not vitiate the decision taken by the State Government. The High Court after considering the various judgments cited before it has repelled the said contention to hold that the said Rules are mandatory and non-compliance thereof would be disastrous. The reasoning adopted by the High Court to arrive at such a conclusion is sound and in accordance with the constitutional mandate. The decisions of the State Government have to be in conformity with the mandate of Article 154 an 166 of the Constitution as also the Rules framed thereunder as otherwise such decision would not have the form of a Government decision and will be a nullity. 91. The Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution are for convenient transaction of the business of the Government and the said business has to be transacted in a just and fit manner in keeping with the said Business Rules and as per the requirement of Article 154 of the Constitution. 91. The Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution are for convenient transaction of the business of the Government and the said business has to be transacted in a just and fit manner in keeping with the said Business Rules and as per the requirement of Article 154 of the Constitution. Therefore, if the Council of Ministers or Chief Minister has not been a party to a decision taken by an Individual Minister, that decision cannot be the decision of the State Government and it would be non-est and void ab initio. This conclusion draws support from the Judgment of this Court in the case of Haridwar Singh Vs. Bagun Sambrui and ors, (1973) 3 SCC 889 . This Court in the said case was dealing with the Business Rules of the State Of Bihar framed under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India and the observations of this Court on the issue apply to the case on hand in all force. This Court observed: "14. Where a prescription relates to performance of a public duty and invalidate acts done in neglect of them would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty, such prescription is generally understood as mere instruction for the guidance of those upon whom the duty is imposed. 15. Where however, a power of authority is conferred with a direction that certain regulation or formality shall be complied with, it seems neither unjust nor incorrect to exact a rigorous observance of it as essential to the acquisition of the right or authority. 16. Further, Rule 10(2) makes it clear that where prior consultation with the Finance Department is required for a proposal, and the department on consultation does not agree to the proposal, the department originating the proposal can take no further action on the proposal. The Cabinet alone would be competent to take a decision. When we see that the disagreement of the Finance Department with a proposal on consultation, deprives the Department originating the proposal of the power to take further action on it, the only conclusion possible is that prior consultation is an essential prerequisite to the exercise of power". 92. The Cabinet alone would be competent to take a decision. When we see that the disagreement of the Finance Department with a proposal on consultation, deprives the Department originating the proposal of the power to take further action on it, the only conclusion possible is that prior consultation is an essential prerequisite to the exercise of power". 92. As observed by us earlier, these observations apply equally to the case on hand and in light of this view, we have no difficulty in holding that the Business Rules framed under the Provisions of Article 166 (3) of the Constitution are mandatory and must be strictly adhered. Any decision by the Government in breach of these Rules will be a nullity in the eye of law." 11. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 118/2014 concur with the submission of Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners in the above stated two writ petitions. 12. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents in all the writ petitions submitted that before the Resolution as recorded in the Minutes referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners was passed, the approval of the DP and AR and the Finance Department were obtained and the Council of Ministers thereafter had approved the proposal for amalgamation of the post in the two wings of the Transport Department including that of the petitioners posts. Therefore, there is no violation of the Govt. of Mizoram (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1987. Thereafter, the learned Govt. Advocate referred to Paragraph No. 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in W.P.(C) No. 129/2017 and submitted that the Resolution of the Council of Ministers can be divided into three categories. According to the learned Govt. Advocate, in the first category are those in which the Council of Ministers agreed to the proposal as proposed and in the second category are those in which the Council of Ministers gave their approval but with slight modifications or direction to obtain approval of DP and AR and the Finance Department before issuing notifications. In the third category are those Resolution passed regarding subject matters which were not included in the proposals but the Council of Ministers on their own took up the matter for the smooth running of Transport Department in the future. In the third category are those Resolution passed regarding subject matters which were not included in the proposals but the Council of Ministers on their own took up the matter for the smooth running of Transport Department in the future. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the matter in question belongs to the second category. For better appreciation and easy reference, paragraph No. 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition is reproduced below; "13. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph No. 15 of the writ petition, I say that it can be seen from the minute that the decisions of the Council of Ministers (COM) on the Restructuring of Transport can be divided into three categories as follows: 1. Those which are agreed by the Council of Ministers as per proposal. This includes amalgamation of ASS and ADTO. 2. Those which agreed, but slight modifications suggested by the Council of Ministers. Those are: (i) It was proposed to form IT Section in the proposal. As decided by the Meeting of Council of Ministers, IT Cell was formed. (ii) It was proposed to let the Departmental officers to enjoy same pay with that of MCS officers when they hold the post of District Transport Officer which was not agreed by the Council of Ministers. As decided by the Council of Ministers, there are still pay difference among the Departmental officers and MCS Officers when they hold the posts of DTO till now. (iii) Upgradation of the pay of Joint Director (MV) was agreed and complied as decided by the Council of Ministers. (iv) Upgradation and redesignation of Deputy Commissioner of Transport into the posts of Joint Director (STA) was agreed by the Council of Ministers and complied as decided by the Council of Ministers. (v) Creation of the post of Deputy Director (Accounts) was accepted by the Council of Ministers and complied as decided by the Council of Ministers. 3. Those which were not included in the proposal, but decided by the Council of Ministers for the smooth running of Transport Department in future: (i) Privatisation of the Department. (ii) Calculation of requirement of man power in all the wings of Transport Department. 3. Those which were not included in the proposal, but decided by the Council of Ministers for the smooth running of Transport Department in future: (i) Privatisation of the Department. (ii) Calculation of requirement of man power in all the wings of Transport Department. This includes making of suggestions by the Transport Department in consultation with DP and AR and Finance Department at the proposal stage to contemplate whether or not there is requirement for the creation of the post of Supervisor/Driver/Conductor/Store Keeper/Handyman/Fitter. Apart from this, let the current posts which are already in existence, but does not seems to be significant anymore be looked into and be adjusted. As mentioned above, the amalgamation of ASS and ADTO which was included in the proposal of Restructuring was approved by the Council of Ministers. As such, the question of amalgamation of ASS and ADTO without approval of the Council of Ministers is baseless and unfounded. Even the DP and AR and Finance Minister also accorded the approval based on the decision of the Council of Ministers." 13. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl further submitted that ever since the amalgamation/restructuring was effected the officials of the Department, whose services were amalgamated had joined their respective post in the cadre and some of them have even been promoted and retired. Therefore, if the same has to be interfered with at this stage, it may create a chaotic situation in the services. As an answer to the submission of Mr. A.R. Malhotra that because of the fact that there was a requirement for taking the approval of the DP and AR and Finance Department, after the Resolution was passed by the Council of Ministers, the respondents had obtained the approval of the DP and AR and Finance Department. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl further, submitted that this was in compliance of the Resolution of the Council of Ministers, which approved the proposal with slight modifications. Lastly, Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl submitted that the decision of the Council of Ministers for amalgamation of the service of the different wings of the Transport Department is a policy decision taken due to administrative exigencies. Therefore, interference of this Court is not called for. The learned Govt. Lastly, Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl submitted that the decision of the Council of Ministers for amalgamation of the service of the different wings of the Transport Department is a policy decision taken due to administrative exigencies. Therefore, interference of this Court is not called for. The learned Govt. Advocate in support of her submission referred to paragraph-4 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. and Others -versus- Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Others, (1991) 2 SCC 295 . The contents of the paragraph are reproduced below; "4. The writ petitioner holds only Diploma in Electrical Engineering. S/Shri Bidura Charan Mohapatra and Parijat Ray hold double diploma of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. It is settled law that the Government or the Corporation, due to administrative exigencies, is entitled to and has power to reorganise the existing cadres of amalgamate some or carve out separate cadres. The pre- existing three separate cadres, namely, Electrical, Mechanical and the composite cadre, namely, Electrical-Mechanical were sought to be amalgamated into two cadres by absorbing the personnel working in the composite cadre, namely, Electrical- Mechanical in either Electrical cadre or Mechanical cadre. Options have been called for in that regard from all the persons working in the Electrical-Mechanical cadre and the appellants exercised their options for absorption in Electrical cadre. The employees working in the Electrical and Mechanical cadres were also aware of the same. It was, therefore, open to the respondent to raise any objection to the policy at that stage. But he failed to so. The decision to amalgamate the existing cadres by reorganising into two cadres was a policy decision taken on administrative exigencies. The policy decision is not open to judicial review unless it is mala fide, arbitrary or bereft of any descernable principle. On account of the amalgamation and adjusting the composite Electrical-Mechanical cadre in either of the Electrical or Mechanical cadre as per the options given, the order of seniority of the employees working in Electrical or Mechanical cadres is likely to be reviewed. When the persons in the composite Electrical-Mechanical cadre opted to the Electrical cadre, they are entitled to be considered for their fitment to the cadre as per the seniority from the date of their initial appointment vis-a-vis their scale of pay. This was the procedure adopted by the Corporation in fixing the inter se seniority. When the persons in the composite Electrical-Mechanical cadre opted to the Electrical cadre, they are entitled to be considered for their fitment to the cadre as per the seniority from the date of their initial appointment vis-a-vis their scale of pay. This was the procedure adopted by the Corporation in fixing the inter se seniority. The procedure adopted is just, fair and reasonable and beneficial to all the employees without effecting their scales of pay or loosing the seniority from the date of initial appointment. Undoubtedly, in this process the respondent/writ petitioner lost some place in seniority which is consequential to amalgamation. He has not been deprived of his right to be considered for promotion, only his chances of promotion have been receded. It was not the case of the respondent that the action was actuated by mala fide or colourable exercise of power. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with the relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the Corporation is in violation of the right of the respondent/ writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent/writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified." 14. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos. 6 to 13 while agreeing with the submission of the learned Govt. Advocate also submitted that the petitioners in all the writ petitions had accepted the amalgamation and joined their respective services therefore, they cannot now turn around and challenge the policy decision of the Government because they found themselves below the private respondents in the provisional seniority list published vide order dated 12.05.2015. The learned counsel further submitted that in the representations submitted by the petitioners against the provisional seniority list they have never mentioned about their grievance against the amalgamation policy but only against their placement in the seniority list. Therefore, it is too late in the day for them to challenge the policy decision of the Government. In support of her submission, the learned counsel cited para No. 32 of the judgment in Kumod Kumar and Another -versus- State of Jharkhand and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 646 . Therefore, it is too late in the day for them to challenge the policy decision of the Government. In support of her submission, the learned counsel cited para No. 32 of the judgment in Kumod Kumar and Another -versus- State of Jharkhand and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 646 . The contents of the paragraph cited are reproduced below; "32. It is not possible for us to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the appellants had not "opted" for their transfer from the cadre of Steno Sub-Inspectors/Steno Assistant Sub-Inspectors to the cadre of Sub-Inspectors/Assistant Sub-Inspectors in the general line of the police force. We have already recorded our conclusion hereinabove to the effect that the appellants having participated in the process of selection before the Central Selection Board, they must be deemed to have exercised an express option for moving from the Stenographers' cadre to the general line of the Police Department. Thus viewed, we are satisfied that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants rendered in respect of police personnel of the same department cannot be relied upon for the purpose canvassed by the learned counsel. We, therefore, hereby decline the third contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants." 15. Further, the learned counsel also submitted that the seniority of the employees including that of the writ petitioners and the private respondents in W.P.(C) No. 133/2018 were fixed on the basis of their initial appointments in Government service. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the same and as such, there is no reason to quash and set aside the same. 16. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the writ petitions in reply to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents submitted further that the amalgamation policy decision was taken by the Government and the consequential Notifications were also issued by them but no opportunity was given to the writ petitioners to raise any objection or to take option to join or not to join the cadre to which their services were merged with. The learned counsel further submitted that, in fact, after the notification effecting amalgamation was issued and the provisional seniority list was issued the petitioners submitted a representation dated 06.05.2014 as given in W.P.(C) No. 129/2017. 17. The learned counsel further submitted that, in fact, after the notification effecting amalgamation was issued and the provisional seniority list was issued the petitioners submitted a representation dated 06.05.2014 as given in W.P.(C) No. 129/2017. 17. Taking into view the provision of Government of Mizoram (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1987 and 2nd Schedule of the Cabinet decision making procedure and general practices followed in the decision making process of the Governments what one can understand is that it is Council of Ministers who take policy decisions and it is administrative executives who implement the policies by working out the details or nitty- gritty. In this case, there is no denying the fact that the policy decision for amalgamation of the services of the different wings of Transport Department have been taken by the Council of Ministers and recorded in their resolution. The only contentious issue is whether the Department of Transport was required to once again place the matter for final approval after working out the details. As stated above, the case of the petitioners is that the proposal has been approved only in principle, therefore, the Department of Transport is still required to place the matter before the Council of Ministers after working out the details regarding the number of post/services to be weeded out or to be retained in consultation with DP and AR and Finance Department. In contra, the stand of the Government has been that after the proposal was approved by the Council of Ministers the requirement that before necessary notification is issued approval of the DP and AR and Finance Department should be obtained was complied with. Therefore, the question of violation of the provisions of Government of Mizoram (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1987 and the procedures of decision making in Cabinet, does not arise at all. The language of the resolution, of course is not without ambiguity. However, one thing is clear and that is the proposal for amalgamation and re-designation of post and services in the Department of Transport has been approved. The only thing left was to work out the details for actuating or implementing the policy decision and such responsibility or power as stated in the beginning are normally left to the administrative executives. However, one thing is clear and that is the proposal for amalgamation and re-designation of post and services in the Department of Transport has been approved. The only thing left was to work out the details for actuating or implementing the policy decision and such responsibility or power as stated in the beginning are normally left to the administrative executives. The overall reading of the resolution seems to convey the same but the interpretation submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioners in all the writ petitions does not seem to be correct. Because, that would be against the general principle of decision making process in the Governments. In this case, after the policy decision had been taken by the Council of Ministers there was nothing more left except working out of the nitty-gritty or details as stated above, which are normally the domain of administrative executives. Therefore, I am more inclined to accept the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the proposal for amalgamation and re-designation of post and services have been approved by the Council of Ministers with a further direction or a rider that at the time of implementing the policy the details should be worked out in consultation with the DP and AR and Finance Department. This interpretation appears to be a more plausible one because it is in tune with the general principle of decision making process in Governments. The fact that after the policy decision was taken by the Council of Minister, the DP and AR and Finance Department had given their approval for implementation of the proposal of Transport Department has been shown by the Government respondents by filing the copies of the approvals. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners in the writ petitions that the Rules of Business have been violated, in my opinion, has no basis. As such, their contentions cannot be upheld. 18. After the policy decision was taken and it was implemented, certain consequential orders and notifications were issued, and by these also, the writ petitioners in all the writ petitions are aggrieved and they have also challenged such notifications or orders in their writ petitions. As such, their contentions cannot be upheld. 18. After the policy decision was taken and it was implemented, certain consequential orders and notifications were issued, and by these also, the writ petitioners in all the writ petitions are aggrieved and they have also challenged such notifications or orders in their writ petitions. They are being discussed here below; In the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 129/2017, vide Office Order No. 23011/20/09-DTE (TRP), dated 19.09.2014, final inter-se-seniority list of Assistant Station Superintendants/Assistant District Transport Officers under Transport Department was notified in consequence to the amalgamation and re-designation and some of them had been placed below the private respondents. Therefore, they are aggrieved by this joint seniority list. Perusal of the order shows that their seniority were determined by their date of initial entry into service. In the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 133/2018 also in pursuance of amalgamation of the post of Line Checker with Enforcement Sub-Inspector vide notification dated 28.07.2008, issued in pursuant to the policy decision taken by the Council of Ministers, a provisional inter-se seniority list of Enforcement Sub-Inspector and Line Checker was issued by the Order No. A.23011/20/09/DTE- (TRP), dated 12.05.2015, wherein the petitioners were placed under the private respondents. Being aggrieved, they have also challenged the same. In the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 118/2014, after the policy decision was taken by the Council of Ministers the notification amalgamating their post, (Booking Clerk) with the cadre of Enforcement Sub-Inspector was issued. They are aggrieved by this amalgamation, because, according to them since the pay of Booking Clerk was always higher than that of the Enforcement Sub-Inspector, the amalgamation amounts to bringing down the grade of their service. In the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 45/2018, the challenge is against the Notification No. A.32012/1/2015-TRP/Pt, dated 15.02.2018, issued by the Government of Mizoram, Transport Department, wherein the private respondent No.7 was promoted to the post of District Transport Officer and posted as Assistant Director of Transport Department in consequence to the Resolution of the Council of Ministers allowing amalgamation of the post of Assistant Station Superintendant with the cadre of Assistant District Transport Officer. The grievance of the petitioners in this case is that while the said amalgamation is under challenged in W.P.(C) No. 129/2017, the respondent No.7 had been promoted to higher post. 19. The grievance of the petitioners in this case is that while the said amalgamation is under challenged in W.P.(C) No. 129/2017, the respondent No.7 had been promoted to higher post. 19. Looking at the grievances of the writ petitioners in all the four writ petitions which are stated above, it is apparent that the orders/notifications under challenge are all consequential orders and notifications issued in pursuance of the policy decision taken by the Council of Ministers and the notifications of amalgamations and re-designations of post and services issued thereafter, by the Department. Since, it has been held that the notifications of amalgamations and re-designations of post and services are valid as they were issued in pursuance of the policy decision taken by the Council of Ministers the legality and validity of the consequential orders and notifications cannot be questioned anymore on the same ground. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the contentions of the writ petitioners in regard to the consequential orders and notifications. 20. The case of the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 118/2014, the grounds of their challenge against the amalgamation and re-designation of their post is that their post i.e. Booking Clerk all along had higher pay than the pay of Enforcement Sub-Inspector, therefore, the amalgamation and re-designation of their post with the Enforcement Sub-Inspector was illegal. The petitioners in order to show a difference in the pay scales of Booking Clerk and Enforcement Sub-Inspector had filed a document showing the comparison of the two scales of pay i.e. Booking Clerk/Enforcement Checker and Enforcement Sub-Inspector which is Annexure-11 to their writ petition. On perusal of the document, it appears that till 1996, the pay of Booking Clerk was higher than the pay of Enforcement Checker/Enforcement Sub-Inspector but from the year 1999 w.e.f. 09.07.1999 the pay scale of the two services were made at par or same. In 2010 also when the pay revision were made scale of pay of the two services were made at par or same. Therefore, the ground taken by the petitioners does not have any basis. 21. The main reason for filing the writ petitions appears to be that with the amalgamations and re-designations of post and services, the petitioners were facing disadvantage in the common seniority list prepared and because of that they were likely to loss their chance of promotion. The fear of the petitioners may be true. 21. The main reason for filing the writ petitions appears to be that with the amalgamations and re-designations of post and services, the petitioners were facing disadvantage in the common seniority list prepared and because of that they were likely to loss their chance of promotion. The fear of the petitioners may be true. However, it must be remembered that seniority and promotion are incidents of service. No one can claim them as a matter of right. They are dependent upon so many factors. The Government had taken a policy decision with an aim and object in view i.e. to trim the employees strength in the Department of Transport to save public money while maintaining efficiency. Such policy decision of the Government cannot be challenged for the sake of maintenance of the seniority of employees to give them better opportunity of higher promotion. Whenever there is a conflict between the individual interest and the larger interest of the public the latter has to prevail. In view of the above discussions and conclusions drawn or arrived at, this Court is of the view that the writ petitions have no merit. Accordingly, they are dismissed.