JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. B. Lalramenga, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6. [2.] The facts of the case as projected by the petitioners may briefly be noticed at the outset. The petitioners are Diploma Engineers and the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are Graduate Engineers. They were all appointed under the Public Health Engineering Department (PHE Department). The petitioners were promoted to the Junior Grade of the Mizoram Engineering Service (MES for short) on 29.03.2000 and on 29.01.2001 respectively. Whereas, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, both Graduate Engineers entered the MES in the same Grade on 20.12.1996 and 30.12.1997 respectively. [3.] The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed the Mizoram Engineering Service Rules, 2013 (Rules of 2013), which governs the service conditions of Engineers working under the PHE Department amongst others. The next grade for promotion from the Junior Grade of the MES is to the Senior Grade in Pay Band-3 and in the scale of Rs. 15,600- 39,100/- with Grade Pay Rs. 6,600/- per month. In order to be considered for promotion to the Senior Grade of the MES which is by selection method, one must have completed not less than 5 years of continuous regular service in the Junior Grade and should have passed Departmental Examination in Engineering and Accounts conducted by the Mizoram Public Service Commission (MPSC). Rule 22(5) of the Rules of 2013 further provides that 80% of the post shall be reserved for Graduate Engineers and 20% of the post for Non-Graduate Engineers and further, the reservation system shall be discontinued after all the present incumbents Non-Graduate Engineers in Junior Grade as on the date of the commencement of the Rules get promoted, expired, retired or quitted from service by any means. As per the Schedule prepared in terms of Rule 6 and appended to the Rules of 2013, the total cadre strength under the PHE Department is 109, which includes 29 posts in the Senior Grade and 68 posts in the Junior Grade. As per the Schedule prepared in terms of Rule 6 and appended to the Rules of 2013, the total cadre strength under the PHE Department is 109, which includes 29 posts in the Senior Grade and 68 posts in the Junior Grade. [4.] The State respondents in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (General Service Wing) [DP&AR (GSW) for short] pursuant to the decision of the Council of Ministers in its Meeting held on 23.07.2015 and in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India published a Notification on 04.08.2015 (Annexure 3) allowing Non-Functional upgradation in respect of the Members of the Junior Grade of the MES to the Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600/- per month on the condition that the member of the Junior Grade of the MES should have completed at least 10 years of unblemished continuous service in the Junior Grade. On such up-gradation, the incumbent shall be designated as Senior SDO/Senior A.E. The Notification further provided that any member of the Junior Grade of the MES who has already availed second stage in the MACP, 2010 shall be deemed to have been upgraded on Non-Functional basis to the Senior SDO/Senior A.E. [5.] Thereafter, the State respondents in the DP&AR (GSW) vide Notification dated 12.08.2015 in continuation to its earlier Notification dated 04.08.2015 constituted a Screening Committee to consider the case for grant of Non-Functional up-gradation. The petitioners as well as the private respondents were then considered by the constituted Screening Committee on 17.11.2015 and consequently, they were upgraded to the Senior Grade of the MES on Non-Functional basis w.e.f. 04.08.2015 vide Notification dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure 4). Alongwith them, 9 other Officers were also upgraded. [6.] Thereafter, the State respondents amended the Rules of 2013 by publishing the Mizoram Engineering Service (Amendment) Rules, 2017 (Rules of 2017) vide Notification dated 27.11.2017. The Rules of 2017 came into force from the date of its publication in the Mizoram Gazette i.e. 30.11.2017. The Rules of 2017 amongst others, amended Rule 22(5) of the Principle Rules by inserting Rule 22(5)(b). The Rules of 2017 came into force from the date of its publication in the Mizoram Gazette i.e. 30.11.2017. The Rules of 2017 amongst others, amended Rule 22(5) of the Principle Rules by inserting Rule 22(5)(b). The same is reproduced hereunder for ready perusal:- “Rule 22(5)(b) Notwithstanding anything in sub-rule (5)(a) of these rules, a member of the Service in the Junior Grade who have completed not less than 10 years continuous regular service in the Junior Grade and have passed Departmental Examination in Engineering and Accounts conducted by the Commission shall be eligible for non-functional promotion without linkage to vacancies by Selection Method. Provided that the provision for non-functional promotion shall be irrespective of the reservation system between direct recruits and promotees and shall be effective from the date of issue of notification No. A. 12018/53/2013-P&AR(GSW) dated 04.08.2015. Provided further that the posting of Officers to the functional posts in Senior Grade of the service shall be done, as far as possible, on the basis of seniority or as determined by the Government from time to time.” [7.] According to the petitioners, despite the above amendment, the total number of duty post under the PHE cadre remains the same as was provided in the Rules of 2013. That under the Rules of 2013 and the Rules of 2017, out of the 29 posts in the Senior Grade, 80% of the same is reserved for the Graduate Engineers while 20% of the post is reserved for Non-Graduate Engineers and the same works out in the ratio of 23:6. One (1) vacancy in the post of Superintending Engineer and two (2) vacancies in the post of Executive Engineer, occupied by Non-Graduate Engineers occurred or it was due to occur and therefore, the Respondent No.3 (Engineer-in-Chief, PHE Department) submitted a proposal to the Respondent No.2 (Commissioner & Secretary, PHE Department) on 18.12.2018 (Annexure 13) for filling up the same by enclosing relevant documents such as the roster, the Recruitment Rules, post creation order, availability of fund etc. However, when the matter was processed, the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, PHE Department vide her communication dated 11.03.2019 informed the Respondent No.3 that the DP & AR (GSW) advised the Department to follow the 2nd Proviso to Rule 22(5)(b) of the Rules of 2013 as amended for posting officers to the functional post in the Senior Grade of the Service. The observation of the DP&AR(GSW) was quoted in the said communication. [8.] Therefore, acting upon the aforesaid advice, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who were otherwise Graduate Engineers were placed in the Functional Post of Senior Grade (Executive Engineer) under the PHE Department vide Notification dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure 15) by invoking Rule 22(5)(b) of the Rules of 2017. The petitioners being highly aggrieved with the advice of the DP&AR (GSW) as reflected in the communication dated 11.03.2019 and also with the Notification dated 07.03.2019 by which, the private respondents were placed against the functional post in the Senior Grade of the Service are before this Court through the instant writ petition. [9.] Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proposal for filling up the vacancies in the Senior Grade of the Service as submitted by the Respondent No.3 vide communication dated 18.12.2018 should have been processed in terms of Rule 22(5)(a) of the Rules of 2017 since the proposal was for filling up of vacancies. Referring to the said provision, the learned counsel submits that in order to be considered for promotion to the Senior Grade of the MES, one has to complete not less than 5 years of regular service in the Junior Grade and pass Departmental Examination in Accounts & Engineering. He submits that the Rules further provide that 80% of the vacancies is to be reserved for Graduate Engineers while 20% of the vacancies is to be reserved for Non-Graduate Engineers. Since the vacancy that was sought to be filled up was earlier manned by Non-Graduate Engineers, the petitioners should have been considered for promotion to the said posts in terms of Rule 22(5)(a). However, the respondent authorities have wrongly applied the provision of Rule 22(5)(b) which simply speaks about Non-Functional promotion without linkage to the vacancies by selection method. [10.] The learned counsel submits that Non-functional promotion as provided in Rule 22(5)(b) is only a financial up-gradation and not a promotion in the true sense of the term. He submits that despite such benefit having been given to the petitioners as well as the private respondents vide Notification dated 27.11.2015, their substantive post and responsibilities remain the same. [10.] The learned counsel submits that Non-functional promotion as provided in Rule 22(5)(b) is only a financial up-gradation and not a promotion in the true sense of the term. He submits that despite such benefit having been given to the petitioners as well as the private respondents vide Notification dated 27.11.2015, their substantive post and responsibilities remain the same. In order to substantiate his argument, the learned counsel refers to Notification dated 26.04.2017 (Annexure 11) by which one Smt. Lalbiaknikimi, who was also upgraded to the Senior Grade of the Service on Non-Functional basis was subsequently promoted to the Senior Grade of the Service on Functional basis and on the recommendation of the MPSC. Therefore, the official respondents according to Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, have committed an illegality by applying Rule 22(5)(b) and thereby, exceeding the quota meant for Graduate Engineers in the Senior Grade of the Service. [11.] The learned counsel submits that all the provisions in the amended Rules of 2017 have to be read harmoniously and that Rule 22(5)(b) cannot be regarded as a non-obstante clause. He submits that the question of there being non-obstante clause comes only when two Rules cannot be read harmoniously. However, in the present case, Rule 22(5)(a) is with regard to filling up of vacancies and Rule 22(5)(b) is in respect of Non-Functional promotion, there is no confusion with the application of the Rules. In support of his submission, he relies upon the following authorities:- (i) Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 258 . (ii) R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. (1992) 1 SCC 335 . (iii) B. Thirumal Vs. Ananda Sivakumar & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 593. [12.] Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General on the other hand submits that the petitioners as well as the private respondents were upgraded to the Senior Grade of the service on Non-Functional basis alongwith others vide Notification dated 27.11.2015. They were upgraded as such in view of the decision taken by the Council of Ministers in their Meeting held on 23.07.2015 and which was published in the Notification dated 04.08.2015. He submits that with the framing of the amended Rules of 2017, the upgradation of the petitioners and the private respondents vide Notification dated 27.11.2015 was saved as it was only an outcome of the Notification dated 04.08.2015 as well as Notification dated 12.08.2015. He submits that with the framing of the amended Rules of 2017, the upgradation of the petitioners and the private respondents vide Notification dated 27.11.2015 was saved as it was only an outcome of the Notification dated 04.08.2015 as well as Notification dated 12.08.2015. The petitioners as well as the private respondents being no longer in the Junior Grade but in the Senior Grade of the service, a common seniority list in the Senior Grade of the Service was made and notified vide Notification dated 13.11.2018. In the said notification, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 appeared at serial Nos. 13 and 15 respectively while the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 appeared at serial Nos. 16 and 20 respectively. He submits that as per the 2nd proviso to Rule 22(5)(b) of the Rules of 2017, posting of officers to the Functional Post in Senior Grade of the Service is to be done on the basis of seniority and therefore, the Notification dated 07.03.2019, posting the private respondents to the Functional Post was rightly issued. He also submits that Rule 22(5)(b) starts with a non-obstante clause and therefore, it has an overriding effect over Rule 22(5)(a). He submits that under the circumstance, the petitioners cannot be said to have any legitimate grievance and the writ petition should therefore be dismissed. In support of his submission, he relies upon the case of Laxmi Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2015)10 SCC 241 . [13.] Mr. B. Lalramenga, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 adopts the submission and argument advanced by the learned Addl. Advocate General. He submits that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who are Graduate Engineers entered service in the Junior Grade on 20.12.1996 and 30.12.1997 respectively. Whereas, the petitioners who are Diploma Engineers were promoted to Junior Grade only on 29.03.2000 and 29.01.2001 respectively and as such, they are Junior to the private respondents. The learned counsel submits that in view of the stagnation in the Junior Grade of the service, the State Government constituted a Sub-Committee to have a study on the feasibility of granting a Non-Functional promotion. The Sub-Committee thereafter, made its recommendation and which was approved by the Council of Ministers in their meeting held on 23.07.2015. The learned counsel submits that in view of the stagnation in the Junior Grade of the service, the State Government constituted a Sub-Committee to have a study on the feasibility of granting a Non-Functional promotion. The Sub-Committee thereafter, made its recommendation and which was approved by the Council of Ministers in their meeting held on 23.07.2015. Accordingly, a notification to this effect was issued on 04.08.2015 and the petitioners as well as the private respondents alongwith other similarly situated persons upon being screened by the duly constituted Screening Committee were then given Non-Functional promotion to the Senior Grade of the Service vide Notification dated 27.11.2015. [14.] The learned counsel submits that the Rules of 2013 was then amended by the Rules of 2017 and as per the repealing and saving clause, the Non-Functional promotion given to the petitioners as well as the private respondents was saved. The petitioners as well as the private respondents no longer being in the Junior Grade of the Service, a seniority list of Senior Grade Officers was published vide Notification dated 13.11.2018. Since the petitioners as well as the private respondents were upgraded to the Senior Grade of the Service on the same day, seniority was taken from the date of entry in the Junior Grade of the Service and therefore, the private respondents having been appointed earlier, they were placed senior to the petitioners. Later, when vacancy arose in the Functional Post of Senior Grade, the private respondents were considered and posted to the Functional Post in terms of 2nd proviso to Rule 22(5)(b). Therefore, there is no basis for applying Rule 22(5)(a) of the amended Rules of 2017 as contended by the petitioners. In support of his submission, Mr. B. Lalramenga relies upon the following authorities:- (i) Tarsem Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1994) 5 SCC 392 . (ii) State of Rajasthan Vs. Fateh Chand Soni (1996) 1 SCC 562 . (iii) BSNL Vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy & Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 510 [15.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1994) 5 SCC 392 . (ii) State of Rajasthan Vs. Fateh Chand Soni (1996) 1 SCC 562 . (iii) BSNL Vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy & Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 510 [15.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. [16.] At the outset, it may be noticed that after the private respondents were placed in the Functional Post of the Senior Grade of the service vide Notification dated 07.03.2019, the petitioner No. 1 too was placed against the Functional Post of the Senior Grade of the service vide Notification dated 27.03.2019. Since the petitioners have challenged the advice of the DP & AR (GSW) for applying Rule 22(5)(b) of the Rules of 2017 and the resultant placement of the petitioners, this Court on 25.04.2019 while issuing notice to the respondents observed that the petitioner No. 1 shall continue against the post he was placed vide Notification dated 27.03.2019 without prejudice to his right to claim promotion w.e.f the date the private respondents were posted or promoted against the functional post, the writ petition has proceeded accordingly. It may also be noted that the petitioner No. 2 during the pendency of the writ petition on 31.03.2020 retired from service on superannuation pension. However, this Court vide Order dated 16.03.2020 had observed that even if the petitioner No. 2 retired from service during the pendency of the writ petition, the same shall be without any prejudice to his claim made in the writ petition provided that the writ petition succeeds. [17.] Keeping in mind the above observations, let us proceed to examine the rival claims of the parties. [18.] From the projection made by the petitioners and the response of the respondents, the issue to be decided is as to whether the 2 Functional Posts of Senior Grade (Executive Engineers) should have been filled up by considering the case of the petitioners in terms of Rule 22(5)(a) of the Rules of 2017 since the vacancies occurred due to the incumbents who were Diploma Engineers having been promoted to the next higher post and having retired from service on superannuation. Likewise, as to whether the two (2) vacancies were rightly filled up in terms of the proviso to Rule 22(5)(b) of the Rules of 2017. [19]. Likewise, as to whether the two (2) vacancies were rightly filled up in terms of the proviso to Rule 22(5)(b) of the Rules of 2017. [19]. The admitted position is that the two (2) petitioners are Diploma Engineers while the private respondent Nos. 5 & 6 are Graduate Engineers. Both the petitioners as well as the private respondents were given Non-Functional promotion/up-gradation vide Notification dated 27.11.2015. Thereafter, when vacancy arose in the two (2) Functional Posts, which was vacated by Diploma Engineers, the private respondents were posted against the two (2) posts in terms of the proviso to Rule 22(5)(b) of the Rules of 2017 as advised by the DP&AR(GSW) and which was communicated by the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, PHE Department on 11.03.2019 to the respondent No. 3. [20]. Rule 22(5)(a) of the Rules of 2017 provides for functional promotion from Junior Grade to Senior Grade. The same may be abstracted hereunder for ready perusal:- “Rule 22(5)(a) 5) Senior Grade : Pay Band-3 in the scale of Rs. 15,600+39,100/- with Grade pay Rs. 6,600/- p.m. a) To fill up vacancy(ies) in this Grade, a member of the Service in the Junior Grade who have completed not less than 5 years continuous regular service in the Junior Grade and have passed Departmental Examinations in Engineering and Accounts conducted by the Commission shall be eligible for consideration for promotion by Selection Method. Provided that 80% of the posts shall be reserved for direct quota and 20% for promotion quota. Provided further that the reservation system shall be discontinued after all the incumbents in Junior Grade from promotion quota as on the date of Commencement of the Principal Rules i.e. 23.09.2013 either get promotion or died while in service or retired on superannuation pension or resigned from the Service or removed/dismissed from Service.” [21]. From the above abstract, it may be seen that the eligibility criteria for promotion from Junior Grade to Senior Grade of the MES is that the member of the MES should have completed not less than five (5) years of continuous regular service in the Junior Grade and should have passed Departmental Examination in Engineering and Accounts conducted by the MPSC. Further, 80% of the post is reserved for direct quota and the remaining 20% for promotion quota. Further, 80% of the post is reserved for direct quota and the remaining 20% for promotion quota. From the Communication dated 18.12.2018 (Annexure-13) of the Engineer-in-Chief, PHE Department (respondent No. 3), it can be seen that the two (2) vacancies in the Senior Grade post arose due to the promotion and on account of death of the incumbent concerned. Both the posts were occupied and vacated by Diploma Engineers. As may be seen, Rule 22(5)(a) provides that 80% of the post in the Senior Grade is to be reserved for direct quota and 20% for promotion quota. The two (2) vacancies which occurred apparantly were against the promotion quota and therefore, the two (2) vacancies should have been filled up in accordance with Rule 22(5)(a) of the Rules of 2017. No doubt both the writ petitions as well as the private respondents may have been given Non-Functional up-gradation in terms of Rule 22(5)(b) of the Rules of 2017, but the fact remains that the petitioners are Diploma Engineers and in view of the existing quota system and the two (2) vacancies being the quota of Diploma Engineers, the private respondents in my considered view could not have been posted against the Functional Post. In so far as the proviso to Rule 22(5)(b) is concerned, the same will come into play when vacancy occurs against the quota meant for Graduate Engineers. Therefore, in my considered view, the placement of the private respondent Nos. 5 & 6 in the Functional Post of the Senior Grade of the service is in violation of the Rules of 2017. [22]. In the case of Laxmi Devi (supra) relied upon by the learned Addl. Advocate General, the Apex Court quoted the case of Union of India -Vs- G.M. Kokil, reported in 1984 Sppl SCC 196 where it was opined that a non-obstante clause is a legislative device which is usually employed to give over-riding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or some other enactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions. However, in the present case as already stated herein above, Rule 22(5)(a) of the Rules of 2017 comes into play when vacancies are to be filled up by way of promotion. However, in the present case as already stated herein above, Rule 22(5)(a) of the Rules of 2017 comes into play when vacancies are to be filled up by way of promotion. As for Rule 22(5)(b) of the Rules of 2017, the same relates to up-gradation of Junior Grade Engineers to the Senior Grade of the MES upon completion of 10 years of satisfactory service in the Junior Grade. Therefore, the latter provision cannot be considered to be a non-obstante clause since both the provisions can be harmoniously read together. Therefore, the decision under reference is not found to be applicable to the present case. [23]. In the case of Krishan Kumar (supra) the Apex Court held that it was a settled principle of interpretation that where there appears to be inconsistency in two Sections of the same Act, the principle of harmonious construction should be followed in avoiding a head on clash. It should not be lightly assumed that what the Parliament has given with one hand, it took away with the other. The provisions of one section of statute cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to reconcile the same. As already stated herein above, in the present case, a harmonious construction or appreciation of Rule 22(5)(a) and Rule 22(5)(b) of the Rules of 2017 is possible and as such, the decision under reference squarely applies to the present case. [24]. In the case of R.S. Raghunath (supra) the Apex Court held that there should be a clear inconsistency between the two enactments before giving an overriding effect to the non-obstante clause but when the scope of the provisions of an earlier enactment is clear the same cannot be cut down by resort to non-obstante clause. As already noticed herein above, there are no inconsistencies between Rule 22(5)(a) and Rule 22(5)(b) and as such, Rule 22(5)(b) does not have an overriding effect over Rule 22(5)(a) in so far as filling up of vacancies by promotion is concerned. Therefore, there can be harmonious construction of the provisions of the Rules of 2017. [25]. As already noticed herein above, there are no inconsistencies between Rule 22(5)(a) and Rule 22(5)(b) and as such, Rule 22(5)(b) does not have an overriding effect over Rule 22(5)(a) in so far as filling up of vacancies by promotion is concerned. Therefore, there can be harmonious construction of the provisions of the Rules of 2017. [25]. This Court vide order dated 15.10.2020 after hearing the parties at some length was of the view that the official respondents in the Public Works Department and the PHE Department should inform the Court as to whether there are any Non-Graduate Engineers as on the date of the commencement of the Rules of 2013 who have not yet been promoted from Junior Grade to Senior Grade and are still in service in their respective Department. As directed, the State respondents have filed an additional affidavit on 02.11.2020 wherein, it is stated that as on date, there are 7 numbers of Junior Grade MES Officers (Diploma) under the PHE Department who were appointed before 23.09.2013 and who are not yet promoted to the Senior Grade of the MES. Relevant portion of the affidavit i.e., paragraph No.2 may be abstracted hereunder- “2. That as of today there are seven (7) numbers of Junior Grade MES Officers (Diploma) under the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Mizoram who were appointed before 23/09/2013 and have not yet been promoted to Senior Grade MES as below; Sl. No. Name of Officers Date of Promotion to Junior Grade Date of Superannuation 1. David Lalawmpuia 15.10.2004 28.2.2025 Departmental Exam not cleared 2. L.H. Lalmama 20.10.2004 30.4.2023 Passed on 12.3.2020 3. K. Lalhmingmawia 21.10.2004 28.2.2025 Departmental Exam not cleared 4. Zoramliana 12.11.2008 30.6.2023 Departmental Exam not cleared 5. Michael Vanlalhlua 29.8.2013 30.6.2025 Departmental Exam not cleared 6. Lalrosiama 29.8.2013 31.1.2026 Passed on 12.3.2020 7. Augustine Tlangrinkhuma 29.8.2013 31.3.2027 Departmental Exam not cleared [26.] In view of the additional affidavit as aforesaid, it is clear that the quota system between the Graduate and Non-Graduate Engineers exists as on date. As such, the two (2) vacancies in the Functional Post of the Senior Grade of the MES being the quota meant for Diploma Engineers, the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 could not have been placed against the Functional Post of the Senior Grade of the MES under the PHE Department vide the impugned Notification dated 07.03.2019. As such, the two (2) vacancies in the Functional Post of the Senior Grade of the MES being the quota meant for Diploma Engineers, the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 could not have been placed against the Functional Post of the Senior Grade of the MES under the PHE Department vide the impugned Notification dated 07.03.2019. Having come to such a finding, the observation made by the DP&AR(GSW) dated 12.02.2019 as quoted in the Communication dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure-14) and the resultant Notification dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure-15) placing the private respondent Nos. 5 & 6 to the Functional Post of Senior Grade of the service are found to be unsustainable and are therefore, set aside. [27]. In the result, the official respondent Nos. 1 to 4 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order shall consider the case of the petitioners alongwith other eligible Diploma Engineers (if any) as on the date when the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were considered for their placement/promotion in the Functional Post of Senior Grade of the MES under the PHE Department in terms of Rule 22(5)(a) of the Amended Rules of 2017 w.e.f. 07.03.2019 i.e., the date on which the private respondents were placed in the Functional Post of the Senior Grade under PHE Department. On such consideration, if the petitioners are found eligible to be promoted or to be placed in the Functional Post, the same shall be done without delay and consequential benefits as may be entitled to them in law should also follow. It is also made clear that though the petitioner No.2 retired on superannuation pension during the pendency of the writ petition, he will nevertheless be entitled to appropriate adjustments in his pay and pensionary benefits as may be admissible in the event he is found eligible and recommended to be promoted/placed in the Functional Post of the Senior Grade of the MES. [28.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of as allowed. No cost.