JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. This writ appeal is presented against the judgment and order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 70/2014. In the writ petition, the nine appellants herein were respondent nos. 5 to 13 whereas the respondent nos. 1 to 6 in this writ appeal were the petitioner nos. 1 to 6. The appellants herein have preferred this writ appeal on being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the adverse effect the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge has brought in in respect of their inter se seniority positions in the inter se seniority list of Muster Roll Data Entry Operators vis-a-vis the positions of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 in the said list as well as for the interference made with the order of regularisation dated 19.06.2014 passed in favour of the appellant nos. 1 to 4 by the learned Single Judge. 2. The respondent nos. 1 to 6 as the writ petitioner nos. 1 to 6 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the writ petitioners’, for easy reference], had preferred the writ petition seeking setting aside and quashing of an office memorandum dated 16.07.2013; a letter dated 19.07.2013; a letter dated 02.08.2013; an office memorandum dated 18.09.2013; and an office order no. 27 of 2014-2015 dated 19.06.2014, the details about those would be adverted to in the subsequent part of this order, and for placing them above the private respondent nos. 5 to 13 therein i.e. the appellants nos. 1 to 9 herein [hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellants’, for easy reference] in the inter se seniority list of Data Entry Operators engaged on Muster Roll basis under the establishment of the respondent no. 4 i.e. the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries under the Finance Department, Government of Mizoram. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition with a direction to the State respondents to publish a fresh seniority list of Muster Roll Data Entry Operators by placing the writ petitioners above the appellants. The regularisation order dated 19.06.2014 passed in favour of the appellant nos. 1 to 4 has also been set aside with the further direction to consider the matter of regularisation of Data Entry Operators afresh as per the Regularisation of Muster Roll Employees Scheme, 2000 and the fresh seniority list of Data Entry Operators to be made by the State respondents. 1 to 4 has also been set aside with the further direction to consider the matter of regularisation of Data Entry Operators afresh as per the Regularisation of Muster Roll Employees Scheme, 2000 and the fresh seniority list of Data Entry Operators to be made by the State respondents. 3. The subject matter of dispute between the two groups of employees is, in essence, the fixation of inter se seniority between them and the consequential action for regularisation to be taken on that basis. All of them were originally engaged as Muster Roll Employees in the establishment of the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries under the Finance Department, Government of Mizoram either in the capacity of Computer Operators or in the capacity of Data Entry Operators. 4. The background facts which led to the institution of the writ petition, are stated, in brief, as follows : 4.1. The writ petitioners were engaged with designation as Data Entry Operators on Muster Roll basis in the establishment of the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries under the Finance Department at different points of time between 01.04.2011 and 29.11.2012. On the other hand, the appellants were engaged with designation as Computer Operators on Muster Roll basis also in the establishment of the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries at different points of time between the period from 17.02.2000 to 29.03.2010. 4.2. While the writ petitioners and the appellants were so serving, the State Government had notified two sets of rules - (i) the Mizoram Computer Operator (Group ‘B’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2011 [‘the Computer Operator Rules, 2011’, for short] and (ii) the Mizoram Data Entry Operator (Group ‘C’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2011 [‘the Data Entry Operator Rules, 2011’, for short], in order to regulate the methods of recruitment to the posts of Computer Operators and Data Entry Operators respectively. As a result of notification of the said two sets of rules, the post in the name and style of Computer Operator has become Group ‘B’, Class II category post and the post in the name and style of Data Entry Operator has been classified as a Group ‘C’, Class III category post. Different educational and other qualifications have been prescribed for direct recruitment to the posts of Computer Operator and Data Entry Operator respectively. Different educational and other qualifications have been prescribed for direct recruitment to the posts of Computer Operator and Data Entry Operator respectively. To be appointed as a Computer Operator, a candidate needs, as per the Computer Operator Rules, 2011, to have the essential qualification of HSSLC with Government approved 1 (one) year Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) or HSSLC with DOEACC ‘O’ Level or equivalent qualification from recognized institution with working knowledge of Mizo language at least of Middle School standard. On the other hand, to be appointed as a Data Entry Operator as per the Data Entry Operator Rules, 2011, a candidate must have the essential qualifications of HSSLC with Government approved 6 months Certificate in Computer Application (CCA) or equivalent qualification from recognized institutes with computer typing speed of 30 words per minute and working knowledge of Mizo language at least of Middle School standard. . 4.3. As per the provisions of the Regularisation of Muster Roll Employees Mizoram Scheme, 2000 [‘the Regularisation Scheme 2000’, for short], if a person has been continuously engaged on Muster Roll basis in Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ category post in a Department for a period of 7 years, the Government of Mizoram would consider his regularisation in a corresponding regular post, subject to fulfilment of other criteria prescribed therein. 4.4. After the Computer Operator Rules, 2011 and the Data Entry Operator Rules, 2011 were notified, the post in the name and style of Computer Operator had been classified as a Group ‘B’, Class-II category post and the regularisation of a person working on Muster Roll basis in a Group ‘B’ category post had gone out of the purview of the Regularisation Scheme, 2000. 4.5. In the backdrop of aforesaid statutory framework, the Government in the Department of Personnel and Administration had published an office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 whereby it was notified that all Muster Roll Computer Operators who did not have the prescribed qualifications for the post of Computer Operator shall be stepped down from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II, and would thenceforth be re-designated as Data Entry Operator where they were qualified. In respect of those persons working as Computer Operators who had the prescribed qualifications, it was mentioned that they could remain in the capacity of Skilled Grade-I. The office memorandum further stated that as the Regularisation Scheme, 2000 had provided for regularisation of persons engaged on Muster Roll basis in the post of Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ only, the qualified persons working as Computer Operators under various departments were permitted to exercise option on or before 30.11.2012 as to whether they wanted to retain the based post or to be stepped down from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II to avail the opportunity of regularisation. The office memorandum also mentioned that as a result of such exercise, the inter se seniority of the employees would be re-arranged by placing the Muster Roll Skilled Grade-II Data Entry Operators who already existed in the Department prior to ‘30.11.2012’ above the other employees who would be newly designated following the office memorandum. 4.6. In the meantime, the Finance Department by a notification dated 07.11.2012 accorded sanction for creation and filing up of three posts of Data Entry Operators in the establishment of the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries. By another communication dated 14.11.2012, the Finance Department had directed the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries to take necessary steps for filing up those three posts. Subsequently, vide another notification dated 17.09.2013, one more post of Data Entry Operators was sanctioned and created. 4.7. As a result of bringing in the aforesaid changes, the appellants did not have the scope of regularisation in the post for Computer Operator, a Grade ‘B’, Class-II category post under the Computer Operator Rules, 2011. At the same time, they possessed the educational and other qualifications prescribed for Data Entry Operator set forth in the Data Entry Operator Rules, 2011. 4.8. Following the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012, a common notice dated 16.11.2012 was circulated amongst the persons working in Muster Roll capacity as Computer Operators working in the establishment of Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries to exercise their option on or before 30.11.2012 as to whether they would like to remain as Computer Operators or be re-designated as Data Entry Operators. The nine writ appellants herein who were till then serving with designation of Computer Operators, submitted their options to be re-designated as Data Entry Operators. The nine writ appellants herein who were till then serving with designation of Computer Operators, submitted their options to be re-designated as Data Entry Operators. Pursuant thereto, an office order dated 11.12.2012 was issued by the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries re-designating the nine appellants from Computer Operators as Data Entry Operators. 4.9. After such re-designation, the appellants through appellant no. 1 by a representation submitted to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms [‘the Department of P&AR’, for short] through the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries on 22.05.2013, requested for fixation of their seniority, inter-alia, on the ground that they were working with designation as Computer Operators on Muster Roll basis for longer periods than the Data Entry Operators, which posts were created only in 2011. It was further mentioned that they as Computer Operators were engaged on Muster Roll basis as Skilled Grade-II with the approval of the Department of P&AR. A request was made to place them above the writ petitioners in the seniority list. 4.10. In partial modification of the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012, an office memorandum dated 16.07.2013 [under challenge] was issued by the Department of P&AR whereby the date, ’30.11.2012’ was substituted by ’15.10.2012’. As a result of such substitution, the Muster Roll Skilled Grade-II Data Entry Operators, who were engaged in the Department prior to 15.10.2012, would be placed senior to other employees who were newly re-designated following the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012. The authorities were instructed to re-arrange the inter se seniority list of Muster Roll Computer Operators [who opted to remain as Computer Operator] and Data Entry Operators. 4.11. By a communication dated 19.07.2013 [under challenge], the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Department of P&AR informed the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries that 9 (nine) nos. of Muster Roll Computer Operators i.e. the appellants were engaged in the capacity of Skilled Grade-II and not Skilled Grade-I. It was viewed that the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 would not be applicable for fixation of inter se seniority and that the claims made by these nine Muster Roll Computer Operators i.e. the appellants for fixation of their seniority as per their dates of joining were found justified and reasonable. A clarification was sought by the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries on 25.07.2013 as to whether his communication dated 19.07.2013 had taken the office memorandum dated 16.07.2013 into consideration or not to which the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Department of P&AR replied vide his letter dated 02.08.2013 [under challenge] in the affirmative. 4.12. The Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries after preparing a provisional seniority list of Muster Roll Data Entry Operators, forwarded the same to the Department of P&AR vide his letter dated 06.08.2013. The Department of P&AR issued an office memorandum on 23.08.2013 whereby it published the provisional seniority list of Muster Roll Data Entry Operators and invited objections in that regard from any person aggrieved thereby within 15 days. In the said provisional seniority list of Muster Roll Data Entry Operators the appellants were placed above the writ petitioners. By his communication dated 06.08.2013, the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries informed the Department of P&AR that no complaint was received from the Muster Roll Data Entry Operators in respect of the provisional seniority list. Subsequent thereto, the Department of P&AR issued an office memorandum dated 18.09.2013 [under challenge] whereby it published the final seniority list of Muster Roll Data Entry Operators working under the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries by placing the appellants above the writ petitioners. 4.13. By stating that they were not aware about the publication of the provisional inter se seniority list as well as the final inter se seniority list during the relevant time the writ petitioners preferred a representation before the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries on 05.06.2014 ventilating their grievance as regards their placement below the appellants and sought for re-consideration. The writ petitioners had, thereby, also asked the authorities to put the regularisation process on hold. 4.14. By an order dated 30.06.2014, the Finance Department concurred for filing up four number of vacant posts of Data Entry Operator by regularisation of the existing Muster Roll Employees under the Finance Department (Accounts and Treasuries) as per the provisions of the Regularisation Scheme, 2000. A meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to consider filing up of those four number of posts of Data Entry Operator was held on 17.06.2014 and as per the said Minutes of the Meeting of the DPC, the appellant nos. A meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to consider filing up of those four number of posts of Data Entry Operator was held on 17.06.2014 and as per the said Minutes of the Meeting of the DPC, the appellant nos. 1 to 4 were recommended for regularisation in the posts of Data Entry Operator. The Department of Finance by its communication dated 19.06.2014 made to the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries, had conveyed the approval of the Government to the Minutes of the Meeting of the DPC held on 17.06.2014. 4.15. On 19.06.2014 itself, the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries issued the office order no. 27 of 2014-2015 of even date [under challenge] whereby the Muster Roll Service of the appellant nos. 1 to 4 were regularised on temporary basis to the post of Data Entry Operators. 5. In the backdrop of above factual events, the rival submissions of the parties before the learned Single Judge were as follows : 5.1. The writ petitioners : the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 could not be applied in parts. The appellants having opted to be governed by the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012, could not be allowed to turn around to challenge only a part of the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012. The post of Computer Operator is a Group ‘B’ post as per the Computer Operator Rules, 2011 while the post of Data Entry Operator is a Group ‘C’ post as per the Data Entry Operator Rules, 2011. The two posts – Computer Operator and Data Entry Operator – are different and distinct because of different nature of works involved with the two posts. The appellants who were initially engaged as Computer Operators, could not have been considered for regularisation under the Regularisation Scheme, 2000 by making them en masse seniors to the writ petitioners and by counting their past services as Computer Operator when they had been re-designated as Data Entry Operators on the basis of the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012. The appellants having been brought into the stream of Data Entry Operators only in view of the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 and by their re-designation only from 11.12.2012, their seniority in the post of Data Entry Operators was to be counted only from the date of their re-designation. 5.2. The appellants having been brought into the stream of Data Entry Operators only in view of the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 and by their re-designation only from 11.12.2012, their seniority in the post of Data Entry Operators was to be counted only from the date of their re-designation. 5.2. The State respondents : the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 stipulated that the re-designation from Computer Operator to Data Entry Operator was subject to stepping down from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II as a result of exercise of option for such re-designation. In the case of the appellants, there was only change of nomenclature of their post named and styled as ‘Computer Operators’ with which they were engaged. But, their wages and their nature of works as Computer Operators were same all along as that of the Data Entry Operators. Though the appellants were designated earlier as Computer Operators but they were never given the wages @ Rs. 380/- which was meant for Skilled Grade-I. With the re-designation, there was no change in the rate of wages from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II for the appellants and their duties and responsibilities were similar all along to those of the Data Entry Operators. On receipt of the representations from the appellants with regard to fixation of their seniority, the Department of P&AR considered the same and found it justified and reasonable to give them the benefit of their past services rendered prior to 15.10.2012 for the purpose of seniority. The provisional inter se seniority list was circulated amongst all concerned and as no complaint was received within the stipulated time, the final inter se seniority list of Data Entry Operators engaged on Muster Roll basis was accordingly published. 5.3. The appellants : the writ petition was not maintainable as the writ petitioners failed to make any representation against the inter se seniority list of Data Entry Operators circulated on 23.08.2013. The office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 was in respect of those Computer Operators engaged on Muster Roll basis as Skilled Grade-I and the same did not cover the case of the appellants. The appellants though were engaged as Muster Roll Computer Operators but all along since their original engagements, they were given the wages as Skilled Grade-II and as such, there was no stepping down of the appellants from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II when they were re-designated. The appellants though were engaged as Muster Roll Computer Operators but all along since their original engagements, they were given the wages as Skilled Grade-II and as such, there was no stepping down of the appellants from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II when they were re-designated. When by ignoring the real fact situation they were sought to be placed below the writ petitioners by taking only the dates of their re-designation to the post of Data Entry Operator as the basis for fixation of seniority they were compelled to submit the representation to the authorities concerned. While they were engaged during the period from 2000 to 2010 the writ petitioners were engaged only during the period from 2011 to 2012. When there was only change of nomenclature with the re-designation without any stepping down from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II there could not have been forfeiture of their continuous past service as Skilled Grade-II. The provisional inter se seniority list was duly circulated and, thus, the writ petitioners were precluded from challenging the final inter se seniority list of Data Entry Operators engaged on Muster Roll basis. According to them, the writ petition was filed with inordinate delay and thus, suffered from delay and lahces. 6. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that the official records did not show that the copy of either the provisional seniority list dated 06.08.2013 or the final seniority list dated 18.09.2013 was furnished to the writ petitioners by getting their signatures. Accordingly, it had been inferred that the writ petitioners were not given the copies of the provisional inter se seniority list and the final inter se seniority list and the writ petitioners did not have any knowledge about the same till a few days prior to filing of their representation on 05.06.2014. The plea taken by the appellants as regards delay on the part of the writ petitioners to challenge had, thus, been negated by the learned Single Judge. 6.1. The learned Single Judge had held that the services of the appellants as Data Entry Operators had to be counted from the date of their re-designation as they did not serve as Data Entry Operators prior to their re-designation as Data Entry Operators vide office order dated 11.12.2012 whereas the writ petitioners were engaged as Data Entry Operators from dates prior to the appellants. The learned Single Judge was of the view that even assuming that the wages and nature of works of the appellants were the same as the writ petitioners even before their re-designation as Data Entry Operators, the same could not take away the fact that the appellants were Computer Operators prior to their re-designation. Thus, the State respondents could not have held the appellants senior to the writ petitioners on their re-designation. 6.2. As there was no challenge to the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012, the same had to be complied with. With regard to the office memorandum dated 16.07.2013, it was observed that the writ petitioner no. 1 and 2 would still have to be treated as seniors to all the appellants as the office memorandum dated 16.07.2013 had sought to take away the past services of the writ petitioner nos. 3 to 6. Such taking away of past services of the writ petitioner nos. 3 to 6 by the State respondents on the basis of the office memorandum dated 16.07.2013, according to the learned Single Judge, was arbitrary and discriminatory because of devoid of reason for drawal of such an artificial line. 6.3. By taking assistance from the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumod Kumar and another vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 646 , it was observed that the process of re-designation undertaken by the State respondents could not be considered to be a case made in public interest or in the exigency of service and thus, the re-designation process in the case in hand would not permit counting of past service of the appellants in the re-designated post. It was observed that the State respondents had committed a mistake by placing the appellants in the seniority list above the writ petitioners who had been serving as Data Entry Operators for a longer period of time than the appellants. Observing as above, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition in the manner, already indicated above. 7. Heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 7 to 10. 8. Observing as above, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition in the manner, already indicated above. 7. Heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 7 to 10. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though the nomenclature of the posts held by the appellants and the writ petitioners were different prior to re-designation on 11.12.2012 but they were discharging the same duties and responsibilities, that too, under the same Department. It is his submission that the learned Single Judge had erred in ignoring the vital fact that both the appellants and the writ petitioners even prior to the re-designation, were getting the same wages and working in the same grade i.e. Skilled Grade-II. The appellants were engaged and were working as Skilled Grade-II on Muster Roll basis since their engagements during the period from 2000 to 2010, that is, even prior to the engagement of all the six writ petitioners on Muster Roll basis as Data Entry Operators at Skilled Grade-II. 8.1. The State respondents had undertaken the exercise of integration of the two posts with different nomenclatures but in the same grade and with same duties and responsibilities by following the only rational principle. When by the office memoranda dated 15.10.2012 and 16.07.2013 the counting of past service of the appellants was purportedly sought to be done away with by the State respondents the appellants represented before the State respondents by bringing to their notice the facts of their engagement as Skilled Grade-II from their original dates of engagement. It was further brought to the notice that there was no process of stepping down involved with the re-designation and there was no question of wholesome applicability of the said office memorandum dated 15.10.2012. 8.2. Having taken note of the real fact situation, the State respondents had taken a decision for fixation of the seniority positions of the re-designated Data Entry Operators i.e. the appellants and the earlier engaged Data Entry Operators i.e. the writ petitioners in the rightful manner. 8.2. Having taken note of the real fact situation, the State respondents had taken a decision for fixation of the seniority positions of the re-designated Data Entry Operators i.e. the appellants and the earlier engaged Data Entry Operators i.e. the writ petitioners in the rightful manner. Thus, the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition had failed to consider the fact that the past services of the appellants in Skilled Grade-II who rendered services continuously in the most sincere and dedicated manner, was not wiped out. He has specifically drawn support from the engagement letters of the appellants and the statutory notifications published by the State Government in the Labour, Employment & Industrial Training Department with regard to classification of workers in different schedule employments and the fixation of minimum rates of wages for such different category of workers including Skilled Grade-II wherein the category of ‘Computer Operator’ has been included. 8.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance in the decisions in (i) Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure vs. Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 399 , para 88; (ii) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and other, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 , paras- 9, 10, 11 & 12; (iii) Keneingunuo Clara vs. Lovikali Yepthomi and others, reported in (2016) 5 GLR 83; (iv) Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 545 , para 28; and (v) Chandana Das vs. State of West Bengal and others, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 41. 9. Mrs. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 herein/writ petitioners [referred as writ petitioners herein] has submitted that the appellants were given the chance to exercise the option as to whether they wanted to remain in the post of Computer Operator or to be stepped down from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II to be re-designated as Data Entry Operator and they had exercised the option voluntarily for re-designation as Data Entry Operators. The State respondents had showed leniency to the appellants by allowing them to be stepped down from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II. 9.1. The purport and object of the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 was very clear in that on being so re-designated after exercise of option, the erstwhile Computer Operators like the appellants, would be placed below the writ petitioners. The State respondents had showed leniency to the appellants by allowing them to be stepped down from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II. 9.1. The purport and object of the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 was very clear in that on being so re-designated after exercise of option, the erstwhile Computer Operators like the appellants, would be placed below the writ petitioners. Thus, the appellants were precluded from making any grievance in respect of fixation of their seniority positions and the learned Single Judge was right in restoring the seniority positions of the writ petitioners by allowing the writ petition in the aforesaid manner. It has been urged that the seniority of the appellants had to be counted from the date of re-designation i.e. 11.12.2012. She has further submitted that the letter dated 19.07.2013 cannot be treated as an administrative instruction. 9.2. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 – 6/writ petitioners has, in support of her submissions, relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (i) M/s New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. and others vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 537 , paras 25, 32 & 33; and (ii) Kumod Kumar and another vs. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 646 . 10. The learned State Counsel has endorsed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants with regard to the aspects that there was no stepping down process involved in case of the appellants from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II with their re-designation from Computer Operator as Data Entry Operator. She has further submitted that prior to the coming into force of the Computer Operator Rules, 2011 and the Data Entry Operator Rules, 2011, the Muster Roll Employees engaged as Computer Operators like the appellants and the Data Entry Operators like the writ petitioners were discharging similar duties and responsibilities and were also drawing similar wages as Skilled Grade-II. Thus, the two sets of employees involved in this lis are not to be differentiated only by the nomenclatures of the posts. 11. We have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record brought through the pleadings of the parties. We have also considered the decisions on which the parties have relied on. 12. 11. We have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record brought through the pleadings of the parties. We have also considered the decisions on which the parties have relied on. 12. Before examination of the factual and legal aspects that have been raised for the seniority dispute between the appellants and the writ petitioners, it appears apposite to refer to the statutory framework in place on the premises of which the adjudication is necessary. 13. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, has formulated a scheme called ‘Regularisation of Muster Roll Employees Mizoram Scheme, 2000’ [‘the Regularisation Scheme, 2000’] for giving scope for regularisation of Muster Roll Employees to corresponding regular posts under the Government of Mizoram. The Regularisation Scheme, 2000 was published in the Official Gazette on 10.05.2000 and it is the date from which the scheme has come into effect. The Regularisation Scheme, 2000 is made applicable to all Muster Roll Employees working in Group ‘C’ category and Group ‘D’ category under the departments of the Government of Mizoram who were duly employed by means of engagement orders/cards issued by the competent authority. As per the Regularisation Scheme, 2000, any person who has been continuously engaged in Muster Roll Employee capacity in Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ categories in the departments under the State Government for at least 7 years shall be eligible for regularisation in a corresponding regular post prescribed for direct recruitment in the concerned recruitment rules, subject to availability of vacancy. Such regularisation would be subject to the conditions that the Muster Roll Employees should possess the required educational and other qualifications prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules and subject to satisfactory performance reports for the last 5 years prepared by the controlling officers. The regularisation shall be considered in order of the length of service in the Muster Roll Employee capacity. 14. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, has also made two sets of rules – (i) the Mizoram Computer Operator (Group ‘B’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2011 [‘the Computer Operator Rules, 2011’] and (ii) the Mizoram Data Entry Operator (Group ‘C’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2011 [‘the Data Entry Operator Rules, 2011’]. While the Computer Operator Rules, 2011 regulate the method of recruitment to the post of Computer Operator in various offices under the Government of Mizoram, the Data Entry Operator Rules, 2011 regulate the method of recruitment to the post of Data Entry Operator in various offices under the Government of Mizoram. The said two sets of rules have come into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette i.e. on 02.02.2012. The relevant salient provisions of and differences between the two sets of rules are culled out in the following table. The Mizoram Computer Operator (Group ‘B’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2011 The Mizoram Data Entry Operator (Group ‘C’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2011 Classification General State Service (Group ‘B’ or Class II post) (Non-Gazetted) (Non-Ministerial) General State Service (Group ‘C’ or Class III post) (Non-Gazetted) (Non-Ministerial) Pay Band and Grade Pay/Pay Scale PB-2 Rs. 9300-34800 + Grade Pay Rs. 4400/- PB-1 Rs. 5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs. 2800/- PM Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits Essential: Essential: 1. HSSLC with Govt. Approved one year Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) or HSSLC with DOEACC ‘O’ level or equivalent qualification from recognized institutes. 1. HSSLC with Govt. Approved six months Certificate in Computer Application (CCA) or equivalent qualification from recognized Institutes with computer typing speed of 30 words per minutes. 2. Working knowledge of Mizo language at least Middle School standard. 2. Working knowledge of Mizo language at least Middle School standard Desirable: Knowledge of computer hardware maintenance and operation, Desktop Operating System for Windows, Basic internet/internet technologies, office automation software like Word processing, spreadsheet, PowerPoint presentation and Database. Desirable: Knowledge of computer hardware maintenance and operation, Operating System for Windows, Basic internet/internet technologies, office automation software like Word processing, spreadsheet, PowerPoint presentation and Database. Method of recruitment, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/transfer and percentage of posts to be filled by various methods 50% by Promotion 50% by Direct recruitment 100% by direct recruitment In case of recruitment by promotion/transfer/deputation, Grades from which promotion/deputation/transfer is to be made Promotion from Data Entry Operator having 6 years regular service in the grade Not applicable 15. After the Computer Operator Rules, 2011 and the Data Entry Operator Rules, 2011 were notified, the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 came to be issued by the Department of P&AR. After the Computer Operator Rules, 2011 and the Data Entry Operator Rules, 2011 were notified, the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 came to be issued by the Department of P&AR. It was notified therein that all existing Muster Roll Computer Operators who did not have the prescribed qualification for the post of Computer Operator shall be stepped down from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II and re-designated as Data Entry Operator where they were qualified. In respect of the Computer Operators who possessed the prescribed qualifications as per the Computer Operator Rules, 2011, the Department of P&AR had no objection for retaining their based post and they could remain in the capacity of Skilled Grade-I. However, considering the fact that the Regularisation Scheme, 2000 had provided for regularisation of Muster Roll Employees working in Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ categories in corresponding regular posts only, the qualified Computer Operators were given an opportunity to exercise the option either to retain their based post or for their placement in Skilled Grade-II by stepping down in view of the fact that there would be no regularisation of such qualified Computer Operator if they continued as the post of Computer Operator had been classified as Group ‘B’ post under the Computer Operator Rules, 2011. It was further provided that after exercise of option, the inter se seniority would be re-arranged by placing the Muster Roll Skilled Grade-II Data Entry Operators who were already working in the department prior to 30.11.2012 [changed to 15.10.2012 by the office memorandum dated 16.07.2013] above the other Muster Roll Employees who would be newly designated as Data Entry Operator, after being stepped down, following the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012. It was also mentioned that if there was no existing Muster Roll Skilled Grade-II Data Entry Operator in the department, such problem would not arise as the seniority would be fixed in chronological order of the date, month and year of engagement. 16. As has been noted above, the establishment of Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries under the Finance Department, Government of Mizoram had, at the time of the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012, two sets of Muster Roll Employees – the appellants who were working with the designation, ‘Computer Operator’, and the writ petitioners who were working as Data Entry Operators. As has been noted above, the establishment of Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries under the Finance Department, Government of Mizoram had, at the time of the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012, two sets of Muster Roll Employees – the appellants who were working with the designation, ‘Computer Operator’, and the writ petitioners who were working as Data Entry Operators. The issue has arisen for the purpose of fixation of the inter se seniority of these two sets of Muster Roll Employees. 17. In the Computer Operator Rules, 2011, the educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment to the post of Computer Operator have already been laid down by classifying it as a Group ‘B’, Class-II category post and on the other hand, the Regularisation Scheme, 2000 does not permit regularisation in any Group ‘B’ category post. As per the Regularisation Scheme, 2000, regularisation of persons engaged in Muster Roll capacity in Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ categories in corresponding regular posts prescribed for direct recruitment in the department are only permissible. The office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 had envisaged the situation for those Muster Roll Computer Operators who were working as Skilled Grade-I in the departments but would not have the opportunity of regularisation under the Computer Operator Rules, 2011 and also did not have the requisite qualifications for direct recruitment to the post of Computer Operator. If such Muster Roll Computer Operators continued to work on Muster Roll basis there was no likelihood of their regularisation in corresponding Group ‘B’ category regular posts. It was in such scenario, those Computer Operators who were working on Muster Roll basis with the status of Skilled Grade-I as on 15.10.2012 but possessed the qualification for Data Entry Operators under the Data Entry Operator Rules, 2011, were given the opportunity to exercise their options to be stepped down from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II and in the event they exercise such option, they would be re-designated as Data Entry Operators, Skilled Grade-II. 18. From the engagement letters of the appellants and the writ petitioners engaged as Computer Operators and Data Entry Operators in Muster Roll capacity under the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries, their respective dates of joining as such are as under : Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts and Treasuries Computer Operators Sr. Appellant Date of joining 1. Appellant no. 1 17.02.2000 2. Appellant no. 2 03.08.2001 3. Appellant Date of joining 1. Appellant no. 1 17.02.2000 2. Appellant no. 2 03.08.2001 3. Appellant no. 3 08.08.2005 4. Appellant no. 4 01.06.2006 5. Appellant no. 5 12.03.2008 6. Appellant no. 6 13.03.2008 7. Appellant no. 7 13.03.2008 8. Appellant no. 8 17.03.2008 9. Appellant no. 9 29.03.2010 Data Entry Operators Sr. Writ petitioner Date of joining 1. Writ petitioner no. 1 01.04.2011 2. Writ petitioner no. 2 01.04.2011 3. Writ petitioner no. 3 19.11.2012 4. Writ petitioner no. 4 19.11.2012 5. Writ petitioner no. 5 19.11.2012 6. Writ petitioner no. 6 29.11.2012 19. From the engagement cards of the appellants and the writ petitioners, appended to the writ petition papers/appeal papers, the fact that has emerged is that all of them were engaged in ‘Category of Labour : Skilled-II’ and their rates of daily wages were determined on the basis of Skilled Grade-II category. 20. The appellants in the appeal papers have annexed a number of notifications [ i.e (i) notification dated 07.06.2005; (ii) notification dated 17.07.2007; (iii) notification dated 03.11.2009; (iv) notification dated 03.05.2011; (v) notification dated 26.09.2013; and (vi) notification dated 08.04.2016] issued by the Labour, Employment & Industrial Training Department, Government of Mizoram from time to time in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 r/w Section 13 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 whereby the State Government had fixed/re-fixed the minimum wages for the workers employed in Unskilled category, Semi-Skilled/Unskilled Supervisory category, Skilled Grade-II category and Skilled Grade-I category in different schedule employments in the Government Departments/Semi-Government/Private Undertakings and on contract basis in order to bring out the differences in the minimum rates of wages for the aforesaid categories and as to how such categorisation are being made. As these are notifications issued under statutory provisions, there is no bar to take judicial notice of the same. As per the statutory notifications, the Computer Operator has been placed in Skilled Grade-II category. As per the explanations provided for the purpose of these notifications, Skilled Grade-II (Junior Grade) category work means work which involves skills or competence acquired through experience on the job or through training as apprenticeship in a technical or vocational institute and the performance of which calls for initiative and judgment. A Skilled Grade-I (Senior Grade) means an expert in the works requiring great skills. A Skilled Grade-I (Senior Grade) means an expert in the works requiring great skills. The stand of the State respondents is that the appellants were engaged as Computer Operator on Muster Roll basis in Skilled Grade-II category and they were being paid accordingly. It has been further asserted that the appellants were never paid the wages of Skilled Grade-I category at any point of time. The writ petitioners as Data Entry Operators on Muster Roll basis were also bracketed in Skilled Grade-II category right from their initial dates of engagement. 21. A contention was raised on behalf of the writ petitioners to the effect that the nature of work of the appellants as Muster Roll Computer Operators and the writ petitioners as Muster Roll Data Entry Operators were different stating that the Data Entry Operators were well acquainted with various softwares in computer application whereas the Computer Operators were used to only routine computer works and, thus, never had the experience of Data Entry Operators prior to 11.12.2012. On the other hand, the State respondents had made categorical assertions that even though the appellants were engaged as Computer Operators on Muster Roll basis, their nature of work and their wages were same with that of the Data Entry Operators. As to whether the nature of work of two sets of employees under the same employer who were designated with different nomenclatures, were same or different it was the employer who was best situated to confirm and affirm about the same. In the case in hand, it is the State Government which had engaged the appellants and the writ petitioners on Muster Roll basis, has confirmed and affirmed that the nature of works of the appellants and the writ petitioners prior to the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 were same and they were paid wages in similar terms. The said affirmation made by the State respondents in its affidavit has not been traversed and contested by the writ petitioners by any reply affidavit when the onus lied on them to disprove the same by some cogent materials and as a result, the said affirmation about the similarity of the nature of work has visited the writ petitioners with the doctrine of non-traverse. 22. 22. Reverting back to the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012, we find that the process of stepping down involves downgrading of an employee working as Muster Roll Computer Operator from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II when such employee did not possess the requisite educational and other qualifications to be continued as Computer Operator in view of the coming into force of the Computer Operator Rules, 2011 w.e.f. 02.02.2012. In so far as the appellants are concerned, they were re-designated as Data Entry Operator by the office order dated 11.12.2012 purportedly in deference to the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 but without any stepping down. The office order dated 11.12.2012 was silent about stepping down of the appellants from Skilled Grade-I category to Skilled Grade-II category. In such view of the matter, we are not persuaded to hold that the re-designation of the appellants from Computer Operator to Data Entry Operator was accompanied by their stepping down from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II. 23. Consequently, we agree with the stand of the State respondents that by such re-designation, only change of nomenclature of the post of the appellants from ‘Computer Operator’ to ‘Data Entry Operator’ had taken place though the appellants had exercised their option on being asked by the employer to exercise the option vide the common notice dated 16.11.2012 on or before 30.11.2012. The situation under which such option was exercised by the appellants is also required to be taken into consideration. The option was sought for by the employer i.e. the State Government from the appellants who were then serving in vulnerable positions with designation, ‘Computer Operator’ on Muster Roll basis, by the common notice dated 16.11.2012. The appellants who did not have any bargaining power with the State respondents, was facing the prospect of discontinuation if they did not give their options to be re-designated as Data Entry Operator. But the appellants after being re-designated as Data Entry Operator, had represented before the employer on 22.05.2013 to consider the fact that they had rendered their services in Skilled Grade-II category, though with the designation as ‘Computer Operator’, ranging for periods from 10 to 20 years. But the appellants after being re-designated as Data Entry Operator, had represented before the employer on 22.05.2013 to consider the fact that they had rendered their services in Skilled Grade-II category, though with the designation as ‘Computer Operator’, ranging for periods from 10 to 20 years. The State respondents upon due consideration of the actual fact situation, more particularly, the fact that the appellants had worked for long years in the Muster Roll capacity at Skilled Grade-II category, had acknowledged the fact that the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 did not contemplate their situation and the fixation of seniority of the appellants was justified and reasonable from their respective dates of joining by holding that mere change of nomenclature would not entail forfeiture of their past service and experience. Having acknowledged the said fact situation, the provisional inter se seniority list and the final inter se seniority list of Data Entry Operators were circulated and finalized. 24. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective submissions. 24.1. The decision in Olga Tellis (supra) is in relation to forcible eviction and removal of hutments of pavement and basti slum dwellers of Bombay city. Paragraph 28 has been referred to for the proposition that any concession made by a citizen in a proceeding, whether under a mistake of law or otherwise, that he does not possess or will not enforce any particular fundamental right, cannot create an estoppel against him in that or any subsequent proceeding. The decision in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) has been pressed in to urge the point that existence of a legal right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Courts and the extra-ordinary jurisdiction can be invoked only to enforce a legal right. According to the appellants, the writ petitioners did not fall in the category of ‘person aggrieved’ who can claim to have suffered any legal injury by the placement of the appellants over them or with regard to such fixation of seniority or with regard to the regularisation of the appellant nos. 1 to 4. At the time the process of regularisation of the appellant nos. 1 to 4 was undertaken culminating in the office order dated 19.06.2014, none of the petitioners had 7 years of experience as Muster Roll Data Entry Operators. 1 to 4. At the time the process of regularisation of the appellant nos. 1 to 4 was undertaken culminating in the office order dated 19.06.2014, none of the petitioners had 7 years of experience as Muster Roll Data Entry Operators. The decision in Keneingunuo Clara (supra) has been relied on for the proposition that in the interest of administration it is open to the State Government, as a matter of policy, to bring about merger of post/cadres and ordinarily, such matter does not warrant any interference by the Court unless the same in any way offended the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The decision in Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure (supra) has been relied on to urge that seniority and eligibility are distinct concepts in service jurisprudence and seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can override it in the matter of promotion to the higher post. The issue involved in Chandana Das (supra) was whether Khalsa Girls High School, Kolkata was a minority institution and if yes, whether the institution’s right to select and appoint teachers was in any way affected by the provisions of the Rules of Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 framed under the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. It could not be comprehended as to how the decision in Chandana Das (supra) is of any assistance to the case of the appellants. 24.2. The respondents has relied in the decision of M/s New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. and others (supra) for urging the point that if a person in his own accord, accepts a contract on certain terms and works out the contract, he cannot be allowed to adhere to and abide by some of the terms of the contract which proved advantageous to him and repudiate the other terms of the same contract which might be disadvantageous to him. The said decision was rendered in the context of constitutional validity of certain rules framed by the State of Bihar under the Bihar Kandu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1973, certain clauses in the connected tender notice and of the statutory agreement notified by the Bihar Government in the Official Gazette and the notices of demand issued under the impugned provisions demanding royalty from the petitioners therein who were carrying trade in Kandu Leaves, in respect of undelivered quantity of Kandu Leaves. 24.3. 24.3. The decision in Kumod Kumar and another (supra) is in respect of determination of seniority, the ratio thereof has been relied on by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition. It, thus, calls for a brief exposition. The post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the general line of the police department and the post of Steno Sub-Inspector of Police under the Bihar Police Manual, 1978 belonged to separate and distinct cadres. The appellants were Steno Sub-Inspectors of Police. The induction into the general line of the police department was permissible, subject to the satisfaction of the eligibility criteria and consequent upon selection and recommendation of the Central Selection Board. At a later point of time, the appellants were taken (on reversion) to the general line of the police department as Sub-Inspectors of Police. The appellants claimed seniority in the general line of Sub-Inspectors of Police (on reversion) with effect from the date of their initial appointment into the police department, as Steno Sub-Inspectors of Police. In the above context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the appointment of the appellants (on reversion) was neither in public interest nor in exigency of service. The appellants’ appointment (on reversion) to the general line, was for the benefit of the appellants (who belong to the Stenographers’ cadre), on account of lack of promotional avenues. The appellants who accepted to participate in the process of selection to determine their suitability, cannot be allowed to contend that their appointment (on reversion) to the general line was on account of the employers’ will. Having participated in the process of selection, the appellants had sought and opted for their appointment (on reversion) to the general line of the police force. The appellants’ such entry from the Stenographers’ cadre into the general line of Sub-Inspectors/Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police was found neither in public interest nor in the exigency of service. Such appointment (on reversion) of the appellants into a different cadre for which they opted for did not entitle them to claim seniority from the date of their original appointment as Stenographers’ cadre in the police department. 25. Upon giving our due and anxious consideration to the ratio discernible from Kumod Kumar (supra), we are of the considered view that the same is not applicable to the fact situation obtaining in the case in hand. 25. Upon giving our due and anxious consideration to the ratio discernible from Kumod Kumar (supra), we are of the considered view that the same is not applicable to the fact situation obtaining in the case in hand. It is to be borne in mind that the appellants and the writ petitioners at the time of issuance of the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012 were not members of any service governed either by the Computer Operator Rules, 2011 or by the Data Entry Operator Rules, 2011 or any other Service Rules, framed under Article 309/proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. At that point of time, they were only engaged in Muster Roll capacity. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that the office order dated 11.12.2012 did not speak about forfeiture of the past service of the employees like the appellants who were working in Muster Roll capacity with designation, ‘Computer Operator’, rendered in Skilled Grade-II category. 26. It is settled as a general proposition that eligibility and seniority are different concepts in service jurisprudence. They are different and independent. In Kumod Kumar (supra) also, it is observed that in absence of any express provisions in the rules, consequent upon appointment by way of transfer, a transferred employee who acquires right to hold equivalent post in the public interest or in the exigency of service, is entitled for the determination of his seniority, to count the period of service rendered by him against the erstwhile post. Even in a case where an employee sought unilateral transfer with the express consent that he was agreeable to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the place of his transfer, it does not wipe out the services rendered by such employee in his earlier post merely on the ground that the transfer had occurred at his request. In case of such transfer also, the employee does not lose his past service and experience for the purpose of considering his eligibility for consideration of his case for further promotion into a higher post. Though in the case in hand, no question of transfer is involved, the same principle is applicable. In case of such transfer also, the employee does not lose his past service and experience for the purpose of considering his eligibility for consideration of his case for further promotion into a higher post. Though in the case in hand, no question of transfer is involved, the same principle is applicable. Prior to the advent of the Computer Operator Rules, 2011 and the Data Entry Operator Rules, 2011, followed by the office memorandum dated 15.10.2012, there was no regular posts of either Computer Operator or Data Entry Operator. These posts were not part of any organised service, governed by any service rules. Persons were engaged in Muster Roll capacities with designations such as ‘Computer Operator’ and ‘Data Entry Operator’, even if they belonged to same category like Skilled Grade-II. In such context, mere different designation of ‘Computer Operator’ with which the appellants were engaged cannot be a ground to disentitle them their entitled seniority and eligibility. In such scenario, the long years of service and experience gathered by the appellants by working in an equivalent post cannot be wiped out for the purpose of their seniority and eligibility. 27. From the facts emerged, it is not discernible that the decisions taken by the State respondents with regard to regularisation of experienced employees working for a number of years continuously in the Muster Roll capacity in Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ category in corresponding regular post, for their placement in their relevant category by way of stepping down from Skilled Grade-I to Skilled Grade-II, merger/integration of two posts with different nomenclatures but with similar nature of works, re-designation, etc. are not taken in public interest or in the exigency of service. The State as a model employer has also a duty to take care of all situations of hardship, inconvenience, incongruity, anomaly, etc. faced by an employee or a category or class of employees from whom it had obtained service for long period in a fair, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory manner consistent with principles engrafted in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It is well within the authority of the State Government to take a policy decision for integration or merger of post/service, etc. as have been found to be taken in the present case. 28. It is well within the authority of the State Government to take a policy decision for integration or merger of post/service, etc. as have been found to be taken in the present case. 28. It is also pertinent to note that the Regularisation Scheme, 2000 has specifically prescribed that regularisation of a person who has been continuously engaged in Muster Roll capacity in Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ categories in a department for at least 7 years, shall be considered for regularisation in a corresponding regular post in order of the length of service rendered in the Muster Roll capacity. We have already observed that the appellants had rendered their services on Muster Roll basis in Skilled Grade-II category right from their respective dates of appointment and the designation of ‘Computer Operator’ had become misnomer with the advent of the Computer Operator Rules, 2011 and the Data Entry Operator Rules, 2011. It is the length of service from their respective dates of joining which shall be basis for consideration of their cases for regularisation under the Regularisation Scheme, 2000, notwithstanding the change of nomenclature from ‘Computer Operator’ to ‘Data Entry Operator’ in the meantime. Such change in nomenclature, according to our considered and unhesitant view, was not accompanied with change in their status from Skilled Grade-I category to Skilled Grade-II category as they were all along placed in Skilled Grade-II category since their dates of joining. On the other hand, the writ petitioners even if it is assumed that they are at higher seniority positions that than the appellants, did not even have 7-years of continuous experience to be considered for regularisation under the Regularisation Scheme, 2000 when the impugned order dated 19.06.2014 was passed. The writ petitioners being no eligible, cannot be held to be persons aggrieved to mount a challenge in respect of the regularisation of the appellant nos. 1 to 4. In such view of the matter, no interference with the order of regularisation made in respect of the appellant nos. 1 to 4 to the post of Data Entry Operator by the office order no. 27 of 2014-2015 dated 19.06.2014 was called for as such regularisation was made on the basis of the length of service rendered by them in the relevant Skilled Grade-II category, albeit with the designation ‘Computer Operator’. 29. 1 to 4 to the post of Data Entry Operator by the office order no. 27 of 2014-2015 dated 19.06.2014 was called for as such regularisation was made on the basis of the length of service rendered by them in the relevant Skilled Grade-II category, albeit with the designation ‘Computer Operator’. 29. In the light of the above discussion, we are not persuaded to concur with the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 05.05.2016. We are of the considered view that the re-designation of the appellants from ‘Computer Operator’ to ‘Data Entry Operator’ did not result in forfeiture of their past service and experience rendered as Skilled Grade-II category and such re-designation did not change, in substance, the nature of their work which were similar to the nature of works rendered by the writ petitioners as Data Entry Operators. The writ petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to be placed above the appellants since it is only the length of continuous service in Skilled-II category which shall be the basis for determination of seniority. As the relevant aspects were taken into consideration while finalising the inter se seniority list of the two sets of employees, there is no ground for interference on the rationale canvassed by the writ petitioners and accepted by the learned Single Judge. The impugned actions of the State respondents in treatment of the appellants and the writ petitioners with regard to their inter se seniority and regularisation were consistent with the principles embodied in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 30. Upon due consideration of all the relevant aspects, as have been discussed above, we find merits in this writ appeal and accordingly, it is allowed. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 05.05.2016 of the learned Single Judge is set aside. As a natural corollary, the inter se seniority positions of the appellants made vide the final inter se seniority list of Muster Roll Data Entry Operators dated 18.09.2013 and the office order no. 27 of 2014-2015 stand restored. The interim order dated 15.06.2016 stands merged with this order. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.