Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 202 (HP)

Arjun Singh v. State of H. P.

2020-03-04

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. For convenience and maintaining clarity, facts of CWPOA No. 12/2019 have been taken up for consideration. 2. After approval of the government, the respondents-Board filled up 14 posts of Assistant Account Officers (AAOs) comprising of the petitioners, on contract basis, during July 2009 and May 2010 in view of select panel received in two spells from the government vide letters dated 23.5.2009 and 30.3.2010. 3. Some of the petitioners thereafter approached this Court by filing CWP No. 1553/2013 seeking therein following substantive relief: "That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Board to regularize the services of the petitioners as Assistant Account Officer with all consequential benefits from the date of their appointment or at least from the date of their completing two years of service on contract basis as Assistant Account Officer including seniority on the same analogy on which the respondent Board has regularized the services of Assistant Engineers appointed on contract basis like the petitioners." 4. The petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 27.6.2013 and aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No. 32707/2013, which came to be allowed on 13.1.2015 and the operative portion of the judgment reads as under:- "13. We have considered the rival contention, perused the record and the Regulations framed by the Government. 14. From the facts as noticed above, we find that the Electricity Board was in need of regular Assistant Accounts Officer Class-1 and there being 14 posts vacant, they made requisition to fill up all the 14 posts on regular basis. Respondents have failed to disclose the circumstances in which the advertisement was published by the Public Service Commission, the scale of pay was shown @ 50% of the regular pay and the nature of appointment on contract basis. 15. In fact in the said advertisement for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer Class-1, the posts reserved for different categories were shown i.e. Gen.-09, SC-01, ST-01, OBC-01, Ex-Servicemen Gen.-01, Disabled person (Low version)-01 (Total-14 Posts). Thus, we find even the rule of reservation was also followed. 16. 15. In fact in the said advertisement for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer Class-1, the posts reserved for different categories were shown i.e. Gen.-09, SC-01, ST-01, OBC-01, Ex-Servicemen Gen.-01, Disabled person (Low version)-01 (Total-14 Posts). Thus, we find even the rule of reservation was also followed. 16. The action on the part of the respondents/State authorities including the public service Commission prescribing 50% of the Regular pay of Rs. 7750-DP on contract basis initially for one year, extendable on year to year basis is against the requisition and the decision taken by Electricity Board. Such action on the part of the authorities not only amounts to unfair employment practice but also arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. It is clear that the terms of conditions of payment at the rate of 50% of regular pay and nature of appointment on contract basis was inserted in the advertisement by the State authorities and the H.P. Public Service Commission at later stage just to deprive the candidates from their regular pay and their right to continue in the service. The High Court failed to noticed the aforesaid fact and erred in holding that the regularization of service is not permissible. In fact it was not a case of regularization of service of the appellants but is a case wherein direction ought to have been issued on the respondents to provide the appellants with orders of regular appointment from the date of their initial appointment and to treat the initial period of two years as probation and to provide them with other consequential benefits. 18. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 27th June 2013 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No. 1553 of 2013-F and direct the respondents to provide letter for regular appointment to the appellants w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment treating the initial two years as on probation with further direction to provide the appellants with consequential benefits including regular scale of pay increment arrears of pay seniority etc. to which they are entitled under the law. The format orders in compliance with this Court's orders to be issued within two months and consequential benefits should be paid within three months. 19. The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observation and directions, no costs." 5. to which they are entitled under the law. The format orders in compliance with this Court's orders to be issued within two months and consequential benefits should be paid within three months. 19. The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observation and directions, no costs." 5. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.1.2015 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents-Board filed Review Petition No. 1082/2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however the same came to be dismissed on 30.4.2015. The respondents-Board thereafter filed Curative Petition No. 406/2015, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 3.2.2016. Likewise, review petition and substantive petitions filed by the private respondents were also dismissed/withdrawn before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. The respondents-Board thereafter in compliance to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued order dated 9.5.2016, whereby directly recruited AAOs i.e. the petitioners, were regularized/offered regular appointments from the dates of their initial appointments, however they were held ineligible for further promotion to the post(s) of Accounts Officers because as per amended R&P Regulations dated 2.1.2010, the petitioners were required to pass SAS Part-II examination and having failed to do so, they were not entitled for being promoted as Accounts Officer. 7. Now, the moot question is whether the petitioners were required to pass the SAS Part-II examination or not. 8. However, before we deal with relative merits of the case, the Court is required to bear in mind the basic principles governing the judicial review of administrative action, which otherwise stands settled i.e. the Courts would only examine the decision-making process of the administrative authorities, but not the decision itself. (Refer: Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) vs. Bairstow, 1956 AC 14 : (1955) 3 WLR 410 (HL), Council of Civil Service Unions vs. Minister for the Civil Service 1985 AC 374 , TATA Cellular vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Semens Public Communication Networks (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India) 9. (Refer: Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) vs. Bairstow, 1956 AC 14 : (1955) 3 WLR 410 (HL), Council of Civil Service Unions vs. Minister for the Civil Service 1985 AC 374 , TATA Cellular vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Semens Public Communication Networks (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India) 9. Another important principle to be kept in mind is that the government employees have only right to safeguard the rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued, but they cannot challenge the authority of State to make such amendments or alteration in rules with regard to constitution, classification or abolition of posts, cadres or categories of service, amalgamation, bifurcation of departments, reconstitution, restructuring of the pattern etc., which pertain to executive policy and within exclusive discretion of the State; subject to of course to the limitations and restrictions envisaged in law (Refer: P.U. Joshi and Ors. vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad, (2003) 2 SCC 632) 10. Adverting to the merits of the case, it needs to be observed that as per amendment carried out in the Regulations that were notified on 2.1.2010, passing of SAS Part-II examination is pre-requisite condition for being promoted to the post of Accounts Officer (AO). However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even though requirement of passing such examination is contemplated in the amended Regulations, but at no stage, was there any proposal to amend the Regulations qua the category of direct recruits i.e. the petitioners and further there were no deliberations or discussions on this aspect. According to the petitioners, this amendment has been surreptitiously incorporated just to defeat the claim of the petitioners. 11. In order to appreciate this controversy, one will have to first look into the regulations sent along with requisition for filling up the posts of AAOs by way of direct recruitment and the same available at Annexure A-1 with the petition. 12. As per regulation No. 7 of the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, the minimum educational and other qualification required for direct recruits are as under: "Post Graduate degree in Commerce/MBA (Fin.)/MFC with minimum 55% marks of having degree of Charted Accountant/ICWA from recognized University/Institute." 13. 12. As per regulation No. 7 of the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, the minimum educational and other qualification required for direct recruits are as under: "Post Graduate degree in Commerce/MBA (Fin.)/MFC with minimum 55% marks of having degree of Charted Accountant/ICWA from recognized University/Institute." 13. The method of recruitment is provided in Regulations No. 10 and 11 and the same read as under: 10 Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion, deputation, transfer and the percentage of posts to be filled in by various methods i) By direct recruitment or on contract basis =30% ii) By Promotion =70% Failing both by secondment from Government Department/PSU's. 11 In case of recruitment by promotion, deputation, transfer, grades from which promotion/deputation/transf er is to be made. By promotion from amongst the Superintendent (Divisional Accounts) who have passed PartII of HPSEB SAS Examination of the Board and having minimum three years service on the post of Supdt. (D/A). 14. It would be evident from the Regulation No. 7 that the minimum education for the post of AAO was Post Graduate degree in Commerce/MBA (Fin.)/MFC with minimum 55% marks of having degree of Charted Accountant/I CWA from recognized University/Institute. 30% of these posts were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment or on contract basis and remaining 50% by way of promotion, failing which both by secondment from Government Department/PSU's. 15. As regards promotion, the same, as per Regulations No. 10 and 11, was to be made from amongst the Superintendents (Divisional Accounts), who had passed Part-II of HPSEB SAS Examination of the respondent-Board and having minimum three years service on the post of Supdt. (D/A). 16. Lastly, as per Regulation No. 17, the departmental examination was prescribed only for the working Superintendents (Divisional Accounts), who were required to pass part-II of HPSEB, SAS Examination and then only could they be promoted as AAO. Meaning thereby that the direct recruits AAOs, i.e. the petitioners were not required to pass the departmental examination or SAS Part-II examination. 17. The records reveal that the entire cadre strength of AAOs in the respondent-Board was 46, out of which 32 posts were to be filled up by promotion and remaining 14 posts through direct recruitment. Meaning thereby that the direct recruits AAOs, i.e. the petitioners were not required to pass the departmental examination or SAS Part-II examination. 17. The records reveal that the entire cadre strength of AAOs in the respondent-Board was 46, out of which 32 posts were to be filled up by promotion and remaining 14 posts through direct recruitment. However, since the officers in the feeder cadre for the promotional post could not qualify SAS Part-II examination and the working of the respondent-Board was suffering, therefore, requisition was sent to the Government for filling-up 14 posts of AAOs by direct recruitment as is evident from the letter dated 14.3.2007 (Annexure A-2) addressed by the respondent-Board to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 18. Now, as regards amendment of the Regulations, the process qua the same was initiated vide agenda item No. 9.10 dated 16.10.2009. In the memorandum for consideration, it has specifically been noted in agenda item No. 1.3 that even though promotional avenues at different level in hierarchy of Accounts cadre were available to the employees, but such employees could not be promoted to higher posts because of non-fulfillment of required service criteria prescribed in R & P Regulations, whereas on the other hand, most of the key posts were lying vacant for want of required candidates. Thereafter, in agenda item No. 1.4 break up of the vacancies has been given, which reads as under:- Sr. No. Name of Post Sanctioned Strength Existing Strength Vacancy 1. Chief Accounts Officer/Chief Auditor 3 2 1 2. Dy. Chief Accounts Officer 1 - 1 3. Dy. Chief Auditor Post present nonexistent 4. Sr. Accounts Officer 3 3 - 5. Accounts Officer 16 15 1 6. Assistant Accounts Officer 38 2 Reg. 11 Contract - 7. Superintendent (D/A) 95 95 - 19. In agenda item No. 1.5, it has been stated that great vacuum was being created particularly at higher level due to frequent retirements and the position of retirement of existing incumbents on the posts of AAOs to Chief Accounts Officer up to 2013 was as under:- No. of Officers likely to retire By 2010 By 2011 By 2012 By 2013 After 2013 AA.O to CAO 5 10 11 2 3+11 Contract AAO 20. It is thereafter mentioned in agenda item No. 1.6 that at the relevant time almost 31 Officers of the rank of AAO/A.O./Sr. It is thereafter mentioned in agenda item No. 1.6 that at the relevant time almost 31 Officers of the rank of AAO/A.O./Sr. AO/CAO/CA and 11 AAOs on contract basis were working in the respondent-Board and outside the Board. Out of these 31 Officers, 28 Officers were likely to retire within next 4 years i.e. upto 2013 and only 3 Officers i.e. one A.O. and 2 AAOs were likely to work after 2013. Thereafter, after quoting the Regulations, it has been observed in agenda item No. 1.8 that it was on account of existing service criteria that the problems were being faced to fill up the posts at every level. 21. It shall be apposite here to refer to in entirety agenda items No. 1.8 and 1.9, which read as under:- 1.8 With the above service criteria lot of problems are being faced to fill up the posts at every level. The instructions issued by the Board to the effect that the Officer/official who is not fulfilling required service criteria for promotion and have left with only one year service to render will be promoted to next post on ad hoc basis are not applicable in Accounts cadre. In case, we stick to this policy in respect of Accounts Cadre, most of the posts will remain vacant for years together and the work at different level will be held up. As such, the proposals as per paragraph-2 are submitted for the consideration of authorities so as to overcome the problems of promotions and filling up of post of Accounts cadre. In case the proposal regarding amendment in R&P Regulations with regard to service criteria is not considered then at least the different posts in Accounts cadre may be filled up on ad hoc basis so as to ensure smooth functioning of Accounts Wing. 1.9 It is submitted further in this regard that new incumbents are coming in cadre of Superintendent (D/A) who are interested/anxious to clear/pass Part-II of SAS Examination. In case, the proposal in question is acceded to, such pass outs of Part-II will be immediately available for promotion as AAO. At present over all 9 candidates have passed Part-II of SAS Examination, but they could not be promoted as yet due to non-fulfillment of required service criteria of 3 years as Superintendent (D/A). In case, the proposal in question is acceded to, such pass outs of Part-II will be immediately available for promotion as AAO. At present over all 9 candidates have passed Part-II of SAS Examination, but they could not be promoted as yet due to non-fulfillment of required service criteria of 3 years as Superintendent (D/A). Thus, the amendment in Regulations is considered necessary in the interest of Board's work so that important Junctional posts may not remain vacant. 22. In agenda item No. 2, the issue in question and proposals have been spelt out and the same read as under: "The issue in question is to fill up the vacuum created due to large No. retirements of Officers of Accounts cadre and to make amendment in R&P Regulations of different categories of Accounts Wing Cadre so as to change the clause regarding service criteria suitably with a view to facilitate filling up of posts at different level. Thus, the following proposal are submitted for the consideration/decision of the Managing Committee of the Board. Proposal-I:- The proposal for change in required service criteria for each post and 30% direct recruitment at A.O. level as well is submitted as under:- Sr. No. Category of posts Eligibility criteria with regard to length of service and educational qualification Existing provision Proposed provision 1. Assistant Accounts Officer (775013300) By Promotion form amongst the Supdt. Divisional Accounts having minimum three years service as Superintendent Divisional Accounts) and have passed Part II of SAS examination of the Board. By promotion from amongst the Supdt. Divisional having minimum two years, service as Superintendent (Divisional Accounts)and have passed PartII of SAS examination of the Board. 2. Accounts Officers(855014500 with initial start of 9400/) Should have minimum service of three years as Asstt. Accounts Officer. 1) 70% from amongst the AAO who have rendered minimum combined service of four years serving as Supdt. (D/A) & Asstt. Accounts Officer out of which three years must be as AAO. 2) 30% by method of direct recruitment having degree of ICWA/CA from recognized Institute having at least minimum three years experience in the capacity of Asstt. Manager/Dy. Manager in Govt. concerns/reputed Firms. 23. (D/A) & Asstt. Accounts Officer out of which three years must be as AAO. 2) 30% by method of direct recruitment having degree of ICWA/CA from recognized Institute having at least minimum three years experience in the capacity of Asstt. Manager/Dy. Manager in Govt. concerns/reputed Firms. 23. It is also relevant to refer to the proposals No. II and III, which read as under:- Proposal No. II: With a view to meet with immediate urgent, it is proposed to fill up the various posts in Accounts cadre on ad hoc basis in relaxation to the existing instructions on ad hoc promotion so that the working of Accounts Wing may not hamper due to unmanning of different posts. Proposal No. III: The post of Dy. Auditor may be revived so that the top most posts of CAO/CA may not remain vacant for months/years together. 24. It is clearly evident from the aforesaid proposals that there was no proposal for amending the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations regarding recruitment of AAOs through direct recruitment or the provisions regarding promotion to be made to the post of AO from 70% AAOS, and only requirement was that the AAOs must have rendered minimum combined service of four years as Superintendent (D/A) and Assistant Accounts Officer, out of which three years must be as AAO. 25. The item regarding amendment in the R & P Regulations of Accounts cadre viz-a-viz considering ad hoc promotions though was taken up in the meeting of the respondent-board on 6.11.2009, but the same was deferred and thereafter again taken up in the 11th meeting of the respondent-Board on 27.11.2009 under agenda item No. 9.10 and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:- Sr. No. Category of Posts Eligibility criteria with regard to length of service and educational qualification Existing provision Proposed Provision Decision of the Managing Committee 1 Assistant Accounts Officer (775013300) 1) 70% from amongst the Superintendent (D/A) who pass PartII of SAS Examination and possess 3 years service as Supdt. (D/A) is eligible for promotion as Assistant Accounts Officer. 1) 70% from amongst the Superintendent (D/A) who pass PartII of SAS Examination and possess 3 years service as Supdt. (D/A) is eligible for promotion as Assistant Accounts Officer. 1) 60% from amongst the Superintendent (D/A) who pass PartII of SAS Examination and possess 3 years service as Supdt. (D/A) is eligible for promotion as Assistant Accounts Officer. 1) 70% from amongst the Superintendent (D/A) who pass PartII of SAS Examination and possess 3 years service as Supdt. (D/A) is eligible for promotion as Assistant Accounts Officer. 1) 60% from amongst the Superintendent (D/A) who pass PartII of SAS Examination and possess 3 years service as Supdt. (D/A) is eligible for promotion as Assistant Accounts Officer. 2) 30% appointments are made by direct recruitment. 2) 30% by direct recruitment. 2) 20% appointment s by direct recruitment. Qualification: M.Com/MBA (Finance) 3) 20% by promotion from D.A. with five years service as D.A. who appeared in SAS Part II exam at least three times during service but could not qualify the exam. 2. Accounts Officers (855014500 with initial start of 9400/) Should have minimum service of three years as Asstt. Accounts Officer. 1) 70% from amongst the AAO who have rendered minimum combined service of four years serving as Supdt. (D/A) & Asstt. Accounts Officer out of which three years must be as AAO. 1) 80% from amongst AAO who have rendered minimum two years service as AAO & must have passed SAS Part-II. 2) 30% by method of direct recruitment having degree of ICWA/CA from recognized Institute having at least minimum three years experience in the capacity of Asstt. Manager/Dy. Manager in Govt. concerns/reputed Firms. 2) 20% by method of direct recruitment having degree of ICWA or CA from recognized Institute. 26. For completion of record, it may be mentioned that the item regarding amendment in the R & P Regulations of Accounts cadre was further taken up by the respondent-Board in its meeting held on 23.12.2009 and under agenda item No. 9.10, another category of promotees to the extent of 20% was introduced to the post of AAO from D.A. with five years service as D.A., who appeared in SAS Part-II exam three times or more and secured 33% aggregate marks at least in two chances; provided that this provision was to be made applicable after two years of notification of these amendments so that opportunities for writing at least three examinations for SAS Part-II was available to the feeder category incumbents. It was further provided that the condition of appearing examination would not be applicable for the incumbents, who had attained the age of 55 years and above for promotions during this intervening period of two years. 27. It was further provided that the condition of appearing examination would not be applicable for the incumbents, who had attained the age of 55 years and above for promotions during this intervening period of two years. 27. It would be evidently clear from the aforesaid agenda items that even though there was no proposal to amend the Regulations insofar as the directly recruited AAOs are concerned as also passing of SAS Part-II examination and making it essential qualification for the post of AO as is evident from decision No. 1, but such decision has been surreptitiously incorporated in the respondent-board proceedings. 28. During the course of hearing, we directed the standing counsel for the respondent-Board, Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, to produce on record the details of proposals, deliberations and discussions and the decision taken on agenda items, who after instructions from his client submitted that apart from what has been quoted above, there is no other record available with the respondent-Board. 29. Thus, what can conveniently be not only inferred, but deduced from the agenda items that were placed before the respondent-Board for consideration is that no conscious decision whatsoever was taken with regard to the amendment of the Regulations pertaining to the directly recruited AAOs qua passing of SAS Part-II examination for being promoted to the post of A.O. 30. Moreover, at no stage, was there any proposal mooted to amend the Regulations with regard to the category of the petitioners and thereafter, there were no discussion or deliberations from which, it can be gathered that a conscious decision was in fact taken to amend R&P Regulations pertaining to the category of the petitioners. 31. No doubt, there is presumption of validity to the official acts, but in absence of any cogent material to show that the conscious decision has been taken by the official respondents to amend the Regulations, the decision taken qua the same particularly with regard to the category of the petitioners is rendered vulnerable and is, thus, liable to be set aside. 32. 32. Faced with this situation, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents including the respondent-Board that the requirement of passing of the departmental examination i.e. SAS Part-I and Part-II examinations had always been the essential qualification to man the post of A.O. from the very beginning being a basic qualification, which remains untampered and untouched, thus, nobody can have the grievance with regard to the same. 33. To buttress this submission, strong reliance is made on the communication, dated 1.1.2010, annexed with the reply of the private respondents as Annexure R3/1. However, this contention is equally without merit as evidently, the requirement of passing of SAS Part-II examination for the category to which the petitioners belong was not there in the regulations at the time when the petitioners were appointed and was notified for the first time only on 2.1.2010, therefore, we really fail to understand as to on what basis the petitioners had been directed to appear in SAS Part-II examination vide letter dated 1.1.2010 when it was not even the requirement in the regulations. 34. As observed above, there were no proposals, deliberations or discussions with respect to amending the regulations regarding requirement of passing SAS Part-II examination to the category of the petitioners and in absence of any material, more particularly, the reasons for amending these regulations, the same is liable to be set aside for it is well settled that the reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless. 35. The decision taken by the respondents-Board had to satisfy the test of reasonableness and relevance of criteria, which is conspicuously absent in the instant case. 36. As a last effort, the respondents would contend that the petitions are barred by delay and laches, and are liable to be dismissed as such. 37. We again do not find any merit in the said contention. According to the respondents, the petitioners had been appointed only on contract basis, which constrained the petitioners to approach this Court by way of CWP No. 1553/2013, which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 27.6.2013, however SLP against the same filed by the petitioners came to be allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 13.1.2015. According to the respondents, the petitioners had been appointed only on contract basis, which constrained the petitioners to approach this Court by way of CWP No. 1553/2013, which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 27.6.2013, however SLP against the same filed by the petitioners came to be allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 13.1.2015. The respondent-Board thereafter filed review petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 30.4.2015 and even the curative petition filed thereafter by the respondent-Board before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed only on 3.2.2016. 38. It is also conceded that it was only vide order dated 9.5.2016 that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was implemented and the petitioners were regularized/offered regular appointment from the date of their initial appointments, meaning thereby, the petitioners were appointed in substantive capacity and became members of the service only on 3.2.2016. 39. A person can challenge the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and Regulations only when he has been appointed in substantive capacity. Therefore, the O.As filed by the petitioners thereby laying challenge to the Regulations on 13.4.2017 and 22.5.2017 cannot be held to be time barred or barred by laches. 40. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find merit in these petitions (CWPOA Nos. 11/2019 and 12/2019) and the same are allowed. Accordingly, the words "must have passed SAS Part-II" prescribed against 80% promotion quota for promotion to the post of Accounts Officers vide order dated 2.1.2010 is ordered to be read down and made applicable to the category of Superintendents (D/A) promoted as AAOs against 20% promotion quota prescribed for promotion from those Superintendents (D/A) who could not pass SAS Part-II examination. Consequently, promotions of Assistant Accounts Officers, junior to the petitioners, vide orders dated 7.9.2010, 20.7.2012, 28.11.2013, 3.3.2014, 25.11.2014, 9.5.2016 and 7.11.2016 are ordered to be set aside and the respondent-Board is directed to consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of Accounts Officers from due dates from which persons junior to them in the cadre of Assistant Accounts Officers were promoted pursuant to DPC held on 28.8.2010 with all consequential benefits. CMP No. 7984/2019 in CWP No. 2524/2017 41. In view of disposal of CWPOA Nos. 11/2019 and 12/2019, CMP No. 7984/2019 also stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.