Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 10 (MAN)

Bidyarani Ayekpam v. State of Manipur

2022-01-19

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. W.P.No.(C) 861 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioners to quash the impugned order dated 31.8.2016 promoting/absorbing the private respondents 3 to 22 to the post of MCS Grade-II retrospectively with effect from 17.2.2010 and to quash the final seniority list of MCS officers dated 21.9.2016 and 27.11.2017 in respect of the private respondents and to direct the first respondent to re-fix the inter-se seniority of the petitioners and the private respondents strictly in terms of the relevant rules and the guidelines issued by the Government of Manipur in this regard. 2. W.P.(C) No.867 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioners to quash the impugned order dated 23.9.2016, whereby promoting the private respondents 3 to 18 to the post of MCS Grade-I. 3. Since the issue involved in these petitions is one and the same and the petitioners and some of the private respondents are similar, both the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order. 4. Briefly stated case of the petitioners in W.P.No.861 of 2019 is as follows: The petitioners were initially appointed as MCS Grade- II on 15.12.2012 and 03.01.2017 respectively and after rendering more than five years of regular service as MCS Grade-II, they were promoted to the post of MCS Grade-I with effect from 22.12.2017 and 14.2.2018 respectively vide orders dated 22.12.2017, 14.2.2018 and 29.5.2019 issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur. 4.1. The private respondents were initially appointed as SDC in the Revenue Department in the year 1997 and 1999 and later on, with the enactment of Jr. MCS Rules, 2007 and in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 16 of the said Rules, they were appointed as Junior Manipur Civil Service with effect from the date of their initial appointment by an order dated 16.11.2007. Subsequently, the private respondents were promoted as Junior MCS (Sr. Grade) vide order dated 23.2.2008 with effect from the date noted against their names. 4.2. The next promotional post of Junior MCS (Sr. Grade) is the post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) and on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, 14 Junior MCS (Sr. Grade) were promoted to the post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade), including some of the private respondents. The said promotion order was challenged by some of Junior MCS (Sr. Grade) is the post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) and on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, 14 Junior MCS (Sr. Grade) were promoted to the post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade), including some of the private respondents. The said promotion order was challenged by some of Junior MCS (Sr. Grade) by filing three writ petitions before the Gauhati High Court and by the order dated 4.4.2012, the Gauhati High Court set aside the promotion order and directed to hold a fresh DPC. 4.3. During the pendency of the aforesaid three writ petitions, the Manipur Government framed another Rule called the Junior MCS (1st Amendment) Rules, 2012 with effect from 6.3.2012 and under the said amended Rules, 31 posts in the Grade of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) have been abolished and the provisions under Rule 27(1)(ii) and Rule 27(3) which deal with the provisions for promotion to Junior MCS (Selection Grade) were deleted. Thus, all 31 posts of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) as well as all the provisions for promotion to the said 31 posts as provided in the earlier Rules stand abolished with effect from 6.3.2012. There is no longer any post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) with effect from 6.3.2012 and also no provision under the Rules for giving promotion to the said abolished posts with effect from 6.3.2012. By the said amended Rules, Rules 5, 16, 28 and Schedule-I of the Manipur Civil Service Rules, 1965 have been amended and the amended Rule 16(2) provides for absorbing the Junior MCS (Selection Grade) into MCS Grade-II. 4.4. In compliance with the order dated 4.4.2012 passed by the Gauhati High Court, a review DPC was held and recommendation was sent to the Government. However, the Government declined to accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee as all the 31 posts of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) have already been abolished and no posts are in existence. A fresh DPC was held and recommended the names of the private respondents for promotion to MCS Grade-II and the Government had issued an order dated 6.12.2013 promoting the private respondents to the post of MCS Grade-II. A fresh DPC was held and recommended the names of the private respondents for promotion to MCS Grade-II and the Government had issued an order dated 6.12.2013 promoting the private respondents to the post of MCS Grade-II. Later on the Government issued another order dated 31.8.2016 appointing the private respondents to the post of MCS Grade-II retrospectively with effect from 17.2.2010 and soon thereafter, seniority list was published on 21.9.2016 and the private respondents were given promotion to the post of MCS Grade-I and the Government had also issued another seniority list on 27.11.2017. 4.5. After the Government Order dated 20.2.2010 appointing on promotion the private respondents to the post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) with effect from 17.2.2010 had been quashed by this Court in its judgment dated 4.4.2012 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.140 of 2010, 243 of 2010 and 123 of 2010, the private respondents have never been given promotion to the post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) in terms of the provisions of Rule 27 of the Junior MCS Rules, 2007. In other words, the private respondents were never appointed as Junior MCS (Selection Grade) at any point of time and they are not at all entitled to be absorbed as MCS Grade- II as provided under the amended Rule 16 of the MCS Rules. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.8.2016 issued by the Commissioner (DP) appointing the private respondents as MCS Grade-II retrospectively with effect from 17.2.2010 deserves to be quashed as being illegal and ultra vires the MCS Rules, 1965, inasmuch as under Rule 16(2) provides for absorbing only Junior MCS (Selection Grade) officers into MCS Grade-II with effect from the date they were promoted to Junior MCS (Selection Grade). 4.6. The petitioners are entitled to get their seniority counted with effect from 2010 on which year the requisition for their appointment was sent to the Manipur Public Service Commission by the Manipur Government and not from 2012 as wrongly shown in the impugned seniority lists dated 21.9.2016 and 27.11.2017. The petitioners are entitled to be placed en-bloc above the names of the private respondents while fixing their inter-se seniority, inasmuch as, the private respondents are entitled to get their seniority counted only with effect from 5.3.2012 on which date they were given promotion to the post of MCS Grade-II. 5. The petitioners are entitled to be placed en-bloc above the names of the private respondents while fixing their inter-se seniority, inasmuch as, the private respondents are entitled to get their seniority counted only with effect from 5.3.2012 on which date they were given promotion to the post of MCS Grade-II. 5. In W.P.(C) No.867 of 2019, the petitioners averred almost similar facts as have been stated in W.P.No.861 of 2019. According to the petitioners, the private respondents 3 to 18 in W.P.No.867 of 2019 are not at all entitled to be promoted to MCS Grade-I and, accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.9.2016 promoting the private respondents to the post of MCS Grade-I is liable to be quashed. 6. Pending W.P.No.861 of 2019, on 18.10.2019, this Court passed an interim order directing the official respondents not to give promotion to the respondents 3 to 22 therein without the leave of this Court till the next returnable date. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 27.11.2019, this Court ordered to continue the interim order dated 18.10.2019 until further orders. This Court had also passed similar interim order in W.P.No.867 of 2019 on 21.10.2019 directing the respondents not to give any further promotion to the respondents 3 to 18 therein without the leave of this Court till the next returnable date. On 27.11.2019, the interim order dated 21.10.2019 was extended until further orders. 7. The private respondents have filed M.C.(WP) Nos.328 and 329 of 2019 seeking to vacate the interim orders passed in the writ petitions stating that the petitioners had challenged the order dated 31.8.2016 absorbing the private respondents with effect from 17.2.2010 and the final seniority list of MCS Grade-II published vide order dated 21.9.2016 and 23.9.2016 by filing M.C.(WP) No.253 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016. However, the petitioners had not pressed the prayer made in the said miscellaneous petition at the time of final hearing of the writ petition and as such, this Court was pleased to record that since the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 31.8.2016, they cannot have any grievance against the impugned provisions of the MCS (1st Amendment) Rules. After the dismissal of W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016, the petitioners have not preferred any writ appeal or review the said judgment. After the dismissal of W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016, the petitioners have not preferred any writ appeal or review the said judgment. Thus, it can be said that the petitioners have abandoned their rights relating to challenge the order dated 31.8.2016 and the seniority lists published vide order dated 21.9.2016 and 23.9.2016 promoting the private respondents and others to the posts of MCS Grade-I. 8. In the vacate interim order petitions, the private respondents stated that the petitioners managed to obtain an interim order on 18.10.2019 restraining the official respondents from giving further promotion to the private respondents without the leave of the Court. The private respondents state that in the present writ petitions, not even a single whisper has been made by the petitioners about the filing of M.C.(WP) No.253 of 2016 in W.P.No.677 of 2016 and therefore, on this count alone, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. According to the private respondents, the issue regarding the entitlement of counting seniority by the private respondents and others with effect from 17.2.2010 has been considered and granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No.897 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No.612 of 2014. Therefore, unless the order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions is reviewed or superseded by another order, the issue having been settled cannot be re-opened at a belated stage. Further more, the issue about the counting of seniority of the private respondents with effect from 17.2.2010 is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata as the same has also been the subject matter in M.C.(WP) No.253 of 2016 which the petitioners have failed to press before this Court at the time of final hearing of W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016. In such situation, it would not be proper to restrain the official respondents from giving further promotion to the private respondents and as such, the interim orders dated 18.10.2019 and 27.11.2019 which have been passed in the writ petition without hearing the private respondents are liable to be vacated. 10. Similarly, M.C.No.329 of 2019 has been filed by the private respondents seeking to vacate the interim orders dated 21.10.2019 and 27.11.2019 granted in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2019. The plea seeking to vacate interim order in M.C.(WP) No.329 of 2019 is almost similar as stated in M.C.(WP) No.328 of 2019 except the order dated 21.10.2019. Therefore, the facts stated in M.C.(WP) No.329 of 2019 have not been repeated. 11. The plea seeking to vacate interim order in M.C.(WP) No.329 of 2019 is almost similar as stated in M.C.(WP) No.328 of 2019 except the order dated 21.10.2019. Therefore, the facts stated in M.C.(WP) No.329 of 2019 have not been repeated. 11. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the order dated 20.02.2010 promoting 14 Junior MCS (Sr. Grade), including the private respondents to the post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) had been quashed by this Court vide order dated 4.4.2012 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.140, 243 and 123 of 2010, the said 14 Junior MCS (Sr. Grade) officers, including the private respondents, are not entitled to be absorbed into MCS Grade-II by counting their seniority with effect from 17.2.2010. He would submit that there is no valid Government Order promoting the said 14 Junior MCS (Sr. Grade) officers, including the private respondents to the higher post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) and accordingly, these 14 Junior MCS officers are not at all entitled to be absorbed as MCS Grade-II. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that no valid order had been passed by the Government in terms of the relevant Service Rules appointing the private respondents as Junior MCS (Selection Grade) till date and, therefore, they are not entitled to be absorbed as MCS Grade-II by counting their seniority with effect from 17.2.20210 as provided under the proviso to Rule 16(2) read with Rule 28(i)(d) of the MCS (1st Amendment) Rules, 2012. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned order dated 31.8.2016 absorbing the private respondents in W.P.No.861 of 2019 to the post of MCS Grade-II with effect from 17.2.2010 had been issued by flouting all the relevant provisions of the Junior MCS Rules, thereby rendering the said impugned order as invalid and ab initio void in the eye of law. In fact, Rule 5 of MCS Rules, clearly states that any appointment by promotion or by review DPC should be done through the Manipur Public Service Commission and that in compliance of the High Court order, the State Government should have requested for a DPC through Manipur Public Service Commission to review their date of promotion from 17.2.2010 to 05.03.2012. However, the Department of Personnel has issued an order giving them retrospective appointment with effect from 17.2.2010 without convening any DPC. 14. However, the Department of Personnel has issued an order giving them retrospective appointment with effect from 17.2.2010 without convening any DPC. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that Manipur Civil Service is one of the highest organized service in the State and any promotion/appointment should have been done through the competent DPC which is through the Manipur Public Service Commission. However, in the case on hand, the absorption/promotion or so called appointment was given through a mere speaking order issued by an Administrative Secretary of the Department by not following the existing Rules. 15. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that orders passed in W.P.(C) No.897 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No.612 of 2014 are distinguishable as the petitioner in W.P.No.897 of 2013 was not only recommended by the first DPC, but again by the review DPC held on 4.8.2012 and also by the last DPC held on 14.12.2013, therefore, he would be entitled to be appointed to MCS (Selection Grade) with effect from 17.2.2010 and for absorption as MCS Grade-II by virtue of amendment to Rule 16 of MCS Rules, 1965. As far as W.P.(C) No.612 of 2014 is concerned, the said writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 28.4.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.897 of 2013 and directed the Government to pass appropriate orders as regards the benefits to be given to the petitioners therein. In compliance of the above two Court orders and without holding any DPC as mandated by the MCS Rules, the Department of Personnel issued the impugned order dated 31.8.2016 giving promotion to 20 Junior MCS officers to the post of MCS Grade-II with effect from 17.2.2010 which is illegal and void ab initio and they are not at all entitled to count their seniority from 17.2.2010. 16. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the private respondents in W.P.No.867 of 2019 were never appointed as Junior MCS (Selection Grade) at any point of time and they are not entitled to be absorbed as MCS Grade-II as provided under the amended Rule 16 of the MCS Rules and therefore, the impugned order dated 23.9.2016 promoting the private respondents to the post of MCS Grade-I is not sustainable in the eye of law and hence, the same is liable to be quashed. 17. Mr. 17. Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent State submitted that appointment/absorption of the private respondents to the post of MCS Grade-II with effect from 17.2.2010 was issued in compliance of the order dated 28.4.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.897 of 2013 and the order dated 17.8.2016 passed in Review Petition No.9 of 2016 and also the order dated 28.5.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.612 of 2014. Since no one questioned the aforesaid orders by way of appeal, the said orders have attained finality and as such the same is binding on all the parties. He would submit that promotion to the post of MCS Grade-I is as per the existing Rule 30(2) of MCS Rules, 1965, which provides promotion to the post of MCS Grade-I on completion of 5 years of regular service in the Grade and therefore, there is no infirmity in passing the impugned orders and therefore writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 18. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that the petitioners and others had earlier challenged the MCS (1st Amendment) Rules, 2012 on the basis whereof, the private respondents and others were given retrospective seniority in the Grade of MCS Grade-II by filing W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016, wherein the petitioners have also challenged the impugned order dated 31.8.2016 absorbing the private respondents with effect from 17.2.2010 and the final seniority list of MCS Grade- II published on 21.9.2016 and 23.9.2016 respectively whereby the private respondents were given promotion to the Grade of MCS Grade-I by filing M.C.(WP) No.253 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016. 19. Learned senior counsel further submitted that on 7.7.2017, this Court closed M.C.(WP No.253 of 2016 by observing that since the writ petition has been fixed for final disposal, it would be appropriate to consider the prayer at the time of final hearing and that subsequently, on 4.1.2018, this Court dismissed W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016 by holding that since the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 6.12.2013 promoting the private respondents and others as MCS Grade-II with effect from 5.3.2012 and order dated 31.8.2016 giving retrospective seniority with effect from 17.2.2010, the petitioners cannot be prejudiced by the impugned provision of the MCS (1st Amendment). 20. 20. Learned senior counsel for the private respondents argued that in fact the petitioners had challenged the order dated 31.8.2016 and the final seniority list of MCS Grade-II by filing M.C.(WP) No.253 of 2016 in W.P.(C) 677 of 2016, however, the petitioners have not pressed the prayer made in the miscellaneous application at the time of final hearing of the writ petition and, therefore, this Court recorded that since the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 31.8.2016, they cannot have any grievance against the impugned provisions of MCS (1st Amendment) Rules. He would submit that as against the order passed in W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016, the petitioners have not preferred any appeal or review of the order dismissing the said writ petition and therefore, it can be said that the petitioners have abandoned their rights relating to challenging the order dated 31.8.2016 and the seniority lists promoting the private respondents and others to the post of MCS Grade-I. 21. Learned senior counsel for the private respondents further argued that the issue regarding the entitlement of counting seniority by the private respondents and others with effect from 17.2.2010 has been considered and granted by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.897 of 2013 and 612 of 2014 and therefore, unless the order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions is reviewed or superseded by another order, the issue having been settled cannot be re-opened at such a belated stage. 22. It is also the submission of learned senior counsel for the private respondents that the issue about counting of seniority of the private respondents as MCS Grade-I is barred by the principle of res judicata as the same has also been the subject matter in M.C.(WP) No.253 of 2016 which the petitioners have failed to press before this Court at the time of final hearing of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016. In such view of the matter, the petitioners are barred from challenging the order dated 23.9.2016 as well as the seniority lists of MCS dated 21.9.2016 and 27.11.2017 respectively in view of the doctrine of waiver and acquiescence. 23. In such view of the matter, the petitioners are barred from challenging the order dated 23.9.2016 as well as the seniority lists of MCS dated 21.9.2016 and 27.11.2017 respectively in view of the doctrine of waiver and acquiescence. 23. Learned senior counsel for the private respondents urged that in fact the seniority position of the private respondents and the petitioners in the Grade of MCS Grade-II has attained finality by acting on the same while giving promotion in the Grade of MCS Grade-I to the private respondents as well as to the petitioners and as such, it would not be permissible to unsettle the settled seniority position after such belated period. 24. This Court considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 25. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are entitled to get their seniority reckoned with effect from 2010 in which year the requisition for their appointment was sent to the Manipur Public Service Commission by the Government and not from 2012 as wrongly shown in the impugned seniority lists and thus, the petitioners are entitled to en-bloc above the names of the private respondents in W.P.(C) No.861 of 2019 while fixing their inter-se seniority list, inasmuch the private respondents are entitled to get their seniority counted with effect from 5.3.2012 on which date they were given promotion to the post of MCS Grade-II. 26. It is also the grievance of the petitioners that after the Government Order dated 20.2.2010 appointing on promotion the private respondents in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2019 to the post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) with effect from 17.2.2010 had been quashed by this Court in its order dated 4.4.2012 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.140, 243 and 123 of 2010 and the private respondents have never been given promotion to the post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) in terms of the provisions of Rule 27 of the Junior MCS Rules, 2007 as amended in 2009. In other words, the private respondents in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2019 were never appointed as Junior MCS (Selection Grade) at any point of time and they are not entitled to be absorbed as MCS Grade-II as provided under the amended Rule 16. In other words, the private respondents in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2019 were never appointed as Junior MCS (Selection Grade) at any point of time and they are not entitled to be absorbed as MCS Grade-II as provided under the amended Rule 16. In such view of the matter, the private respondents in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2019 were not at all entitled to be promoted as MCS Grade-I and accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.9.2016 promoting the private respondents to the post of MCS Grade-I is liable to be quashed. 27. The petitioners, inter alia, challenged the impugned order dated 31.8.2016 promoting/absorbing the private respondents to the post of MCS Grade-II retrospectively with effect from 17.2.2010 as well as the final seniority lists of MCS officers dated 21.9.2016 and 27.11.2017 and contended that after quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.2.2010 promoting 14 Junior MCS (Sr. Grade) to Junior MCS (Selection Grade), the State Government had not issued any order appointing the private respondents as Junior MCS (Selection Grade) and as such, they are not entitled to be absorbed as MCS Grade-II provided under the amended Rule 16 of the MCS Rules. It is also the contention of the petitioners that after the absorption of all Junior MCS officers pursuant to notification dated 5.3.2012, no post of Junior MCS remains against which the private respondents could be promoted and therefore, counting seniority of the private respondents retrospectively from 17.2.2010 is illegal. 28. Similarly, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 23.9.2016 promoting the private respondents to the post of MCS Grade-I by urging the same set of facts as stated in W.P.(C) No.861 of 2019 and submitted that counting seniority of the private respondents retrospectively from 17.2.2010 and giving promotion to MCS Grade-I vide impugned order dated 23.9.2016 is illegal and liable to be quashed. 29. As could be seen from the records that the private respondents in W.P.(C) No.861 of 2019 had joined the service of State Government initially as SDC following their appointment made on the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission and confirmed to the said post on 1.3.2001 have been discharging their duty without any blemish have become cadre post of Junior MCS Rules, 2006 which has been framed by competent authority in exercise of power conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India and enforced with effect from 10.10.2007. 30. 30. Under MCS Rules, 2007, particularly Rules 16, 141 SDCs were given appointment with effect from the date noted against their names vide order dated 16.11.2007 and the private respondents were deemed to have appointed on regular basis to the post of Junior MCS with effect from 27.3.1999 and as such, determination of the qualifying service for further promotion to Junior MCS (Senior Grade) would be reckoned from the date of the deemed appointment on regular basis to the post under Rule 27 of the said Junior MCS Rules. 31. After finalization of the seniority list of officers in the Grade of Junior MCS on 2.1.2008 and on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Junior MCS officers were placed in the Grade of Junior MCS (Sr. Grade) and thereafter, by the order dated 20.2.2010, after considering the eligible candidates, 14 officers of Junior MCS (Sr. Grade) were given promotion to the post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) with effect from 17.2.2010, including the private respondents. Some of the officers, who were not recommended, have challenged the order dated 20.2.2020 by filing writ petitions and this Court disposed of the writ petitions by a common order dated 4.4.2012 quashing the order dated 20.2.2010 with a direction to hold a fresh DPC within a period of two months. 32. Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 4.4.2012, a review DPC was held on 4.8.2012 by which 14 persons, including the private respondents, namely Kh Lalmani Singh, Balkrishna Singh, Bhogendro Meitei, Chingakham Sachi, Waikhom Ibohal Singh and Kajagai Gangmei were recommended for promotion to the post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade). In the meanwhile, MCS Rules, 1965 was amended vide notification dated 5.3.2012 and accordingly, 30 Junior MCS were absorbed to the post of MCS Grade-II by counting their seniority from the day they were promoted to Junior MCS (Sr. Grade) i.e. with effect from 17.2.2010 in respect of the those 14 Junior MCS (Selection Grade) promoted vide order dated 20.2.2010 vide order dated 17.3.2012. 33. It appears that subsequently, the State Government issued an order dated 6.12.2013 promoting 20 Junior MCS (Selection Grade) officers, including the private respondents to the post of MCS Grade-II with effect from 5.3.2012. Grade) i.e. with effect from 17.2.2010 in respect of the those 14 Junior MCS (Selection Grade) promoted vide order dated 20.2.2010 vide order dated 17.3.2012. 33. It appears that subsequently, the State Government issued an order dated 6.12.2013 promoting 20 Junior MCS (Selection Grade) officers, including the private respondents to the post of MCS Grade-II with effect from 5.3.2012. Being aggrieved by the order dated 5.3.2012, the 18th respondent - Shivadas Sharma has field W.P.(C) No.897 of 2013 and the other private respondents herein have filed W.P.(C) No.612 of 2014 claiming for counting seniority with effect from 17.2.2010 by extending the benefit of the proviso to Rule 16(2) read with Rule 28(d) of MCS Rules, 1965 (as amended) by modifying the promotion order dated 6.12.2013. 34. By the order dated 28.4.2015, this Court allowed W.P.(C) No.897 of 2013 by holding that the petitioner therein would be entitled to be promoted to the post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) with effect from 17.2.2010. By the order dated 28.5.2015, W.P.(C) No.612 of 2014 came to be disposed of in terms of the order dated 28.4.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.897 of 2013 with a direction to issue appropriate orders as regards to the benefits to be given to the petitioners therein with effect from 17.2.2010 by virtue of the amendment of Rule 16(2) read with Rule 28(2) of the MCS Rules, 1965. 35. As is evident from the records that pursuant to the orders passed in the aforesaid two writ petitions and in compliance, the State Government issued the impugned order dated 31.8.2016 appointing/absorbing the private respondents to the post of MCS Grade-II retrospectively with effect from 17.2.2010 and after inviting objections, the seniority list of MCS officers was finalized on 21.9.2016. 36. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 31.8.2016, it is seen that the Commissioner (DP), in supersession of the earlier order dated 6.12.2013 and in compliance with the Court order, has ordered appointment/absorption of the private respondents to the post of Grade-II with retrospective effect from 17.2.2010. 37. 36. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 31.8.2016, it is seen that the Commissioner (DP), in supersession of the earlier order dated 6.12.2013 and in compliance with the Court order, has ordered appointment/absorption of the private respondents to the post of Grade-II with retrospective effect from 17.2.2010. 37. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the petitioners herein have filed W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016 on 27.9.2016 for quashing the proviso to Rule 16(2) and proviso (d) to Rule 28(i) of the Manipur Civil Service Rules, 1965 and pending W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016, the petitioners took out an application in M.C.(WP) No.253 of 2016 seeking to suspend the operation of the appointment/absorption order dated 31.8.2016 and the promotion order dated 23.9.2016. When the said application was taken up for hearing on 7.7.2017, this Court closed the said application observing that since the main writ petition is fixed for hearing, it would be appropriate to consider the said prayer at the time of final hearing. 38. After hearing both parties and upon perusing the documents, a Division Bench of this Court, by the order dated 4.1.2018 dismissed W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016. On a perusal of the order dated 4.1.2018, this Court finds that the Division Bench of this Court has not only dealt with the matter as regards the provisions challenged in the said writ petition, but also the other aspects of the matter by considering the earlier round of litigations instituted by the parties. Paragraphs 28 to 33 are relevant and accordingly, the same are quoted hereunder: '28. It is to be noted that one of the aforesaid promotees, namely, A. Shivdas Sharma (who is impleaded as Respondent no. 16 in this petition) filed a writ petition being, WP(C) No. 897 of 2013, before this Court claiming that he is entitled to be appointed to the MCS Grade-II w.e.f. 17.02.2010 by virtue of the aforesaid impugned provisos to MCS Rules, 1965. It was the case of this Respondent no. 16 in the said writ petition that he initially joined service as SDC in the year 1999 and thereafter, he was appointed as Jr. MCS (Junior Grade) in the year 2007. Later, he along with others were appointed to the higher grade of Junior MCS (Senior Grade) vide order dated 23.02.2008. Thereafter, he was appointed to the higher post of Jr. MCS (Junior Grade) in the year 2007. Later, he along with others were appointed to the higher grade of Junior MCS (Senior Grade) vide order dated 23.02.2008. Thereafter, he was appointed to the higher post of Jr. MCS (Selection Grade) vide order dated 20th February, 2010 w.e.f. 17.02.2010 and in ordinary course, Respondent No. 16 and others who were appointed to the posts of Jr. MCS (Selection Grade) would have been absorbed to the post of MCS Grade-II by virtue of the impugned proviso to Rule 16(2) of MCS Rules, 1965 and would have enjoyed the seniority to the said post of MCS Grade-II from the date he was promoted to the post of Jr.MCS (Selection Grade) by virtue of the proviso to Rule 20(i). However, it did not happen because of the fact that the said promotion order dated 20.02.2010 was challenged by some others as mentioned above which led to the delay in the absorption to MCS Grade-II. This Court in WP(C) No. 897 of 2013 considered the relevant rules as well as the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court which set aside the promotion order dated 20.02.2010 and which directed for holding Review DPC, as well as the order dated 18th November, 2013 issued by the State Government which did not accept the recommendation of the Review DPC held on 04.08.2012.This Court, thereafter, vide order dated 28.04.2015 in WP(C) No. 897 of 2013 considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the litigations, amendment of the rules, directed that the said petitioner (Respondent no. 16) would be entitled to the benefit for being absorbed to the MCS Grade- II w.e.f. 17.02.2010 by virtue of the operation of the said amendment to Rule 16 of the MCS Rules, 1965. To the extent indicated, the order dated 18.11.2013 as well as the subsequent promotion order dated 16.12.2013 were interfered by the Court. Perusal of the aforesaid order dated 28.04.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 897 of 2013 would indicate that the Court took the said view that since vacancies were available in the posts of Jr. MCS (Selection Grade) to which the petitioner (Respondent no. 16) and others were promoted in 2010, they would have been entitled to absorption to the post of MCS Grade-II on the basis of the provisos to Rule 16 and Rule 28(1). MCS (Selection Grade) to which the petitioner (Respondent no. 16) and others were promoted in 2010, they would have been entitled to absorption to the post of MCS Grade-II on the basis of the provisos to Rule 16 and Rule 28(1). This Court in WP(C) No. 897 of 2013 seems to have taken the view that the right of eligible officers in the feeder grade to be considered for promotion to the higher posts, if vacancies exist cannot be allowed to be negated for no fault of the eligible candidates. It is to be noted that two DPCs were held on 17.02.2010 and 04.08.2012 Against 14 vacancies which were already existing. These vacancies could not have been allowed to be rendered irrelevant or redundant as far as eligible suitable candidates were concerned, who on being promoted to the Jr. MCS (Selection Grade) would have the vested right to be absorbed to the MCS Grade-II. 29. Therefore, as 14 posts of MCS Grade-II were already available, there would not be any difficulty for considering promotion/absorption of 14 Jr. MCS officers to the post of MCS Grade-II. However, from the last order of promotion dated 06.12.2013, it is seen that 20 Jr. MCS officers were promoted to the posts of MCS Grade-II who all have been given the benefit of seniority w.e.f. 17.02.2010. From the list of 20 officers who were promoted to the post of MCS Grade-II vide order dated 06.12.2013, it is seen that 18 officers had been appointed either under the order dated 20th February, 2010 or recommended by the Review DPC held on 04.08.2012 and as such, they were found suitable for promotion to the posts of MCS Grade-II. On the other hand, there are two persons, Respondents no. 17 and 19 who were neither recommended by either of the DPC held on 17.02.2010 or the Review DPC held on 04.08.2012 for promotion to the post of MCS Grade-II. The appointment order dated 06.02.2013 was issued on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC held on 06.02.2013. As mentioned above, there cannot be any issue about absorption of 14 officers to the higher posts of MCS Grade-II vide DPC dated 17.02.2010 as there were clear vacancies available in the year 2010 itself, before the petitioners entered service. As such, there cannot be any grievance for giving seniority to those 14 MCS Grade-II officers w.e.f. 17.02.2010. As mentioned above, there cannot be any issue about absorption of 14 officers to the higher posts of MCS Grade-II vide DPC dated 17.02.2010 as there were clear vacancies available in the year 2010 itself, before the petitioners entered service. As such, there cannot be any grievance for giving seniority to those 14 MCS Grade-II officers w.e.f. 17.02.2010. However, there may be certain issues about the remaining 6 MCS Grade-II officers (20-14) about them being given retrospective seniority from 17.02.2010. In this regard, it is to be mentioned that High Court in the orders dated 28.04.2015 in WP(C) No. 897 of 2013 and dated 28.05.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 612 of 2014, had directed for giving the benefit of promotion to the post of MCS Grade-II w.e.f. 17.02.2010 by virtue of amendment of Rule 62(d) of the Manipur Civil Service Rules, 1965. Hence, this Court may not interfere with such benefits. It can be said that appointment of those 18 officers of MCS Grade-II w.e.f. 17.02.2010 had been reinforced by judicial decision. That leaves, after taking into account of 18 officers, the remaining 2 MCS officers, namely, Respondents no. 17 and 19. They were neither recommended by the DPC held on 17.02.2010 nor by the Review DPC held on 04.08.2012 but recommended by the last DPC held on 04.12.2013. However, from the records it is seen, as evident from the appointment order dated 23.02.2008, that these 2 Respondents, No. 17 and 19, were held to be deemed to have been appointed to the posts of Jr. MCS (Sr. Grade) w.e.f. 27.03.2005. The only issue to be considered now is, whether there were sufficient vacancies to the posts of MCS Grade- II for these 2 (two) Respondents also before the petitioners were appointed as MCS Grade-II on 15th December, 2012. If there were vacancies available for promotion to the posts of MCS Grade-II at the time of appointment of the petitioners on 15th December, 2012, the said 2 (two) Respondents can be also granted the benefits of the retrospective seniority w.e.f. 17.02.2010. 30. It is to be remembered that as far as the direct recruits are concerned, their rights would start accruing only from the moment they are borne in the cadre. In the present case, from 15th December, 2012 onwards and not prior to that. 30. It is to be remembered that as far as the direct recruits are concerned, their rights would start accruing only from the moment they are borne in the cadre. In the present case, from 15th December, 2012 onwards and not prior to that. On the other hand, as far as the promotees are concerned since they were already in service though in a feeder grade, their service conditions in the higher posts would depend on a number of contingencies, viz., availability of vacancies, suitability, holding of higher posts on officiating, adhoc, incharge basis etc. as the case may be. For example, if a person in the lower grade is allowed to hold the higher post on officiating or in-charge basis or adhoc basis for a long time and if he is found to be eligible and suitable to the higher post by the competent DPC, grant of benefit of regularization is not unknown in service jurisprudence. Therefore, in the present case, if the Respondents no. 17 and 19 had been also holding the higher posts of MCS Grade-II either on officiating or adhoc or incharge basis and there were vacancies to the said posts of MCS Grade-II, the benefit of giving them seniority w.e.f. 17.02.2010 by treating them to be MCS Grade-II w.e.f. 17.02.2010 cannot be said to be per se illegal. 31. It may be stated that the appointments of the Respondents no. 17 and 19 as MCS Grade-II vide order dated 6th December, 2013 w.e.f. 05.03.2012 and subsequent order dated 31st August, 2016 by giving them retrospective by absorbing them to the grade of MCS Grade-II w.e.f. 17.02.2010 have not been challenged in the writ petition. Since, these orders have not been challenged, it cannot be said that the rights of the petitioners have been prejudiced, by operation of the impugned provisos. If the aforesaid administrative orders giving the benefit of appointment/absorption to the post of MCS Grade-II w.e.f. 17.02.2010 have not been challenged by the petitioners, it cannot be said that they are prejudiced by the aforesaid impugned provisos challenged in the present petition. 32. It may be also mentioned that the aforesaid impugned provisos are to deal with certain specific situations arising out of abolition of 31 posts of Jr. MCS (Selection Grade) which are no more in existence. As per Junior MCS Rules, 2007, there were only 31 posts of Jr. 32. It may be also mentioned that the aforesaid impugned provisos are to deal with certain specific situations arising out of abolition of 31 posts of Jr. MCS (Selection Grade) which are no more in existence. As per Junior MCS Rules, 2007, there were only 31 posts of Jr. MCS (Selection Grade) and after the abolition of these 31 posts to Jr.MCS (Selection Grade) vide Notification dated 05.03.2012, the impugned provisos have practically become redundant as the question of invoking these provisos would not arise unless the posts of Jr. MCS (Selection Grade) exist. As the posts of Jr.MCS (Selection Grade) do not exist any more, the question of invoking the said impugned provisos also does not arise. 33. Accordingly, for reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that no case is made out for interfering with the impugned provisos. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.' As against the order dated 4.1.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016, the petitioners have not filed any appeal and thus, the order dated 4.1.2018 attained finality. 39. As stated supra, the issue qua entitlement of counting seniority by the private respondents and other similarly situated persons with effect from 17.2.2010 has been considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.897 of 2013, wherein the petitioner Shivadas Sharma claimed that he is entitled to be appointed to the post of MCS Grade-II with effect from 17.2.2010. Since Shivadas Sharma has been given the benefit only with effect from 5.3.2012 by the order dated 6.12.2013, he has filed the said writ petition. This Court considered the matter elaborately and allowed the writ petition interfering with the orders dated 18.11.2013 and 6.12.2013 to the extent as indicated in paragraph 18 of the said order. Paragraph 18 of the said order is extracted hereinbelow: '18. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that the impugned orders dated 18.11.2013 and 6.12.2013 will have no bearing as regards the right of the petitioner to be appointed to the post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) w.e.f. 17.2.2010 is concerned as he was not only recommended by the first DPC for appointment to Junior MCS (Selection Grade) but again by the review DPC held on 4.8.2012 and also by the last review DPC held on 4.12.2013 as such would be entitled to be appointed as Junior MCS (Selection Grade) w.e.f. 17.2.2010 when the first DPC held its meeting. Further, the petitioner shall be deemed to be absorbed as MCS Grade-II w.e.f. 17.2.2010 by virtue of the amendment to Rule 16 of the Manipur Civil Services Rules, 1965 as mentioned above. Accordingly, to that extent indicated above, the aforesaid impugned orders dated 18.11.2013 as well as 6.12.2013 are interfered as regards the right of the petitioner to be appointed/absorbed as MCS Grade- II w.e.f. 17.2.2010 is concerned and to that extent these order are held inapplicable to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to be promoted to the post of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) in terms of the recommendation of the review DPC held on 4.8.2012 and be given the benefit of being absorbed to MCS Grade-II w.e.f. 17.2.2010 by virtue of operation of the said amendment to Rule 16.' 40. Some of the private respondents have filed W.P.(C) No.612 of 2014 praying to promote them to MCS Grade-II with effect from 17.2.2010 by extending the benefits of proviso to Rule 16(2) read with Rule (d) of the MCS Rules, 1965. By the order dated 28.5.2015, W.P.(C) No.612 of 2014 was disposed of in the following lines: 'While the writ petition is pending for consideration by this court, a similar writ petition being W.P.(C) No.897 of 2013 has been disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment and order dated 28.04.2015. It is agreed amongst the learned counsels appearing for the parties that the present writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the said judgment and order. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the said judgment and order dated 28.04.2015 passed by this court in W.P.(C) No.897 of 2013. The respondent No.1 is directed to pass an appropriate order as regards the benefits to be given to the petitioner w.e.f. 17.02.2010 by virtue of amendment of Rule 16(2) read with Rule 28(d) of the MCS Rules, 1965 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.' 41. As rightly argued by learned senior counsel for the private respondents, unless the order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions are reviewed or superseded by a subsequent order and the issue having been settled earlier cannot be re-opened at this belated stage. As rightly argued by learned senior counsel for the private respondents, unless the order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions are reviewed or superseded by a subsequent order and the issue having been settled earlier cannot be re-opened at this belated stage. That apart, the issue of counting of seniority of the private respondents with effect from 17.2.2010 is barred by the principle of res judicata as the same has also been the subject matter in M.C.(WP No.253 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016 and finally, W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016 came to be dismissed and as against the order passed in W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016, no appeal has been preferred. In such view of the matter, it would not be appropriate to restrain the official respondents from giving further promotion to the private respondents. Therefore, the interim orders granted by this Court in the instant writ petitions are liable to be vacated. 42. Learned senior counsel for the private respondents argued that once the inter-se seniority of the employees had been crystallized in accordance with the relevant Rules and acted upon by giving promotion to the next higher post of MCS Grade-I, the same could not be re-opened or revised to the detriment of the private respondents when it was an admitted fact that the petitioners have abandoned their rights to challenge the same in M.C.(WP(C)) No.253 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016 and therefore, the petitioners are barred from challenging the impugned orders in view of the doctrine of waiver of acquiescence. This Court finds some force in the said submission made by learned senior counsel for the private respondents. Moreover, the said submission is also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another, (2006) 11 SCC 464 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: '6. The question of delay and laches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The question of delay and laches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years. A chart has been supplied to us in which it has been pointed out that about 9 writ petitions were filed by the employees of the Nigam before their retirement wherein their retirement was somewhere between 30-6-2005 and 31-7-2005. Two writ petitions were filed wherein no relief of interim order was passed. They were granted interim order. Thereafter a spate of writ petitions followed in which employees who retired in the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, woke up to file writ petitions in 2005 and 2006 much after their retirement. Whether such persons should be granted the same relief or not? .... 12. The statement of law has also been summarised in Halsbury's Laws of England, para 911, p. 395 as follows: 'In determining whether there has been such delay as to amount to laches, the chief points to be considered are: (i) acquiescence on the claimant's part; and (ii) any change of position that has occurred on the defendant's part. Acquiescence in this sense does not mean standing by while the violation of a right is in progress, but assent after the violation has been completed and the claimant has become aware of it. It is unjust to give the claimant a remedy where, by his conduct, he has done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it; or where by his conduct and neglect, though not waiving the remedy, he has put the other party in a position in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted. In such cases lapse of time and delay are most material. Upon these considerations rests the doctrine of laches.' 43. In such cases lapse of time and delay are most material. Upon these considerations rests the doctrine of laches.' 43. As is evident from the materials produced by both sides, the seniority position of the petitioners and the private respondents in the Grade of MCS Grade-II has attained finality by acting on the same while giving promotion in the Grade of MCS Grade-I to the private respondents as well as to the petitioners and thus, it would not be permissible to unsettle the settled seniority position after a belated period. 44. In H.S.Vankani and others v. State of Gujarat and others, (2010) 4 SCC 301 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '38. Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one's service career. Future promotion of a government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority, etc. Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in one's chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It instils confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. If the settled seniority at the instance of one's junior in service is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. Such a situation may drive the parties to approach the administration for resolution of that acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume a lot of time and energy. The decision either way may drive the parties to litigative wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals both private and government, driving the parties to acute penury. It is well known that the salary they earn, may not match the litigation expenses and professional fees and may at times drive the parties to other sources of moneymaking, including corruption. Public money is also being spent by the Government to defend their otherwise untenable stand. Further, it also consumes a lot of judicial time from the lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness among the parties at the cost of sound administration affecting public interest. 39. Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be unsettled but the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous reasons, which, at times calls for departmental action. 39. Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be unsettled but the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous reasons, which, at times calls for departmental action. Legal principles have been reiterated by this Court in Union of India v. S.K. Goel [ (2007) 14 SCC 641 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 873], T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana [ (1989) 4 SCC 71 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 636 : (1989) 11 ATC 844] and Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana [ (2003) 5 SCC 604 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 737] . In view of the settled law the decisions cited by the appellants in G.P. Doval case [ (1984) 4 SCC 329 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 767], Prabhakar case [ (1976) 2 SCC 890 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 367], G. Deendayalan [ (1997) 2 SCC 638 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 749 ] and R.S. Ajara [ (1997) 3 SCC 641 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 851] are not applicable to the facts of the case. ...... 48. The above legal principles clearly indicate that the courts have to avoid a construction of an enactment that leads to an unworkable, inconsistent or impracticable results, since such a situation is unlikely to have been envisaged by the rulemaking authority. The rule-making authority also expects rule framed by it to be made workable and never visualises absurd results. The decision taken by the Government in deputing the non-graduates (1979- 1981 batch) to a two-year training course and graduates (1980-1981 batch) to a one year training is in due compliance with Rule 10 of the 1969 Rules and Rule 18 of the 1974 Rules and the seniority of both the batches has been rightly settled vide Orders dated 12-10-1982 and 5-3-1987 and the Government has committed an error in unsettling the seniority under its proceedings dated 29-9- 1993.' 45. Thus, it is clear that the seniority once settled should not be unsettled at the instance of juniors in service. Therefore, the decision in H.S.Vankani (supra) is squarely applicable to the case on hand. 46. Thus, it is clear that the seniority once settled should not be unsettled at the instance of juniors in service. Therefore, the decision in H.S.Vankani (supra) is squarely applicable to the case on hand. 46. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in the earlier round of litigations, this Court never directed the State Government to straightaway appoint/absorb the private respondents to the post of MCS Grade-II with effect from 17.2.2010, but only a direction was given to pass an appropriate order as regards the benefits to be given to the petitioners with effect from 17.2.2010 by virtue of the amendment of Rule 16(2) read with Rule 28(d). According to learned counsel, in compliance of the said directive of this Court, the State Government should have consulted the Manipur Public Service Commission for holding a DPC for appointment of the private respondents as mandated by Rule 5 of the MCS Rules. 47. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that it was not mentioned under what provision of law the private respondents were appointed/absorbed to the post of MCS Grade-II with effect from 17.02.2010. The said arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be countenanced as while issuing the impugned orders, the Commissioner (DP) has considered all the aspects and then only issued the impugned orders. Therefore, this Court cannot find fault in the impugned orders. On the other hand, as stated supra, the petitioners are trying to unsettle the settled seniority position with a belated period by filing the instant writ petitions. The said approach adopted by the petitioners cannot be entertained. 48. Indeed, the petitioners had slept over for a considerable period and woke up one fine morning and knocked the doors of the Court of law for redressal of their grievances. Normally, rights are to be established at the earliest possible time or at least within a reasonable period of time, particularly, in service matters, the employees are very much aware of their Service Rules and conditions. Ignorance of law can never be pleaded by the employees of the State or Union. In the instant case, as apparent from the records, the petitioners have made a challenge after a delay of about more than three years on the eve of promotion to the next Grade of MCS (JAG) and therefore, the same is not maintainable. Ignorance of law can never be pleaded by the employees of the State or Union. In the instant case, as apparent from the records, the petitioners have made a challenge after a delay of about more than three years on the eve of promotion to the next Grade of MCS (JAG) and therefore, the same is not maintainable. Thus, the present writ petitions are hit by delay and laches. 49. In Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Duga Kumar, (2008) 14 SCC 295 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '13. It was also submitted that admittedly sale deed was executed in February 1989 by the respondent. The Company paid the amount of consideration and offered 1008 MT coal under the policy then in force over and above the amount of consideration of property. The writ petitioner accepted the offer, release order was issued and the goods had been delivered to him which the writ petitioner accepted without any protest or objection. It was after about 10 years that a writ petition was filed which was entertained and orders were passed by the High Court. According to the appellant, there was gross delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner in approaching the court and on that ground also, no order could have been passed granting relief in favour of the writ petitioner. Moreover, there was no right-duty relationship between the writ petitioner and the Company. The right of the writ petitioner was limited to consideration in lieu of land sold to the Company. The said amount had already been paid to the writ petitioner. It was only on the basis of the policy that coal was offered to the writ petitioner. Even if it is assumed that the writ petitioner had right to get coal as per the policy adopted by the Company, the quantity to which the respondent was entitled was given to him. Thereafter there was no cause for making grievance against the Company. It is only on the basis of the 1996 Policy that additional quantity was demanded by the writ petitioner by filing writ petition in 1999 to which there was no entitlement on the part of the writ petitioner. Even on that ground, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed. ..... 24. It is only on the basis of the 1996 Policy that additional quantity was demanded by the writ petitioner by filing writ petition in 1999 to which there was no entitlement on the part of the writ petitioner. Even on that ground, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed. ..... 24. As to delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant Company. It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary. One of the grounds to refuse relief by a writ court is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, where the petitioner invokes extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.' 50. It is reiterated that while dismissing W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016 on 4.1.2018, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that giving retrospective seniority from 17.2.2010 was in view of the orders passed in W.P.(C) Nos.897 of 2013 and 612 of 2014 and therefore, there cannot be any grievance against the granting of retrospective seniority to the private respondents and others by the petitioners. Nothing has been produced by the petitioners that as against the order passed in W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016, they have preferred appeal and the order dated 4.1.2018 was set aside. Unless the order dated 4.1.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016 is set aside by a competent Court, the petitioners cannot have any grievance against giving of retrospective seniority with effect from 17.2.2010 to the private respondents and other similarly placed persons. 51. Unless the order dated 4.1.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.677 of 2016 is set aside by a competent Court, the petitioners cannot have any grievance against giving of retrospective seniority with effect from 17.2.2010 to the private respondents and other similarly placed persons. 51. Since the issue of entitlement of counting seniority by the private respondents and others with effect from 17.2.2010 has been considered and granted pursuant to the orders passed in W.P.(C) No.897 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No.612 of 2014 and the seniority position of the petitioners and the private respondents in the Grade of MCS Grade-II has attained finality by acting on the same while giving promotion in the Grade of MCS Grade-I to the private respondents as well as to the petitioners, it is not appropriate to reopen the said issue now. That apart, the impugned orders are passed by the official respondent based on the Court orders, which have attained finality. Furthermore, the petitioners have approached this Court with delay and laches and they have also approached this Court with unclean hands. 52. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that no case is made out by the petitioners for interfering with the impugned orders and there is no merit in the writ petitions. 53. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim orders dated 18.10.2019 and 27.11.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.861 of 2019 and the interim orders dated 21.10.2019 and 27.11.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2019 stand vacated. No costs. 54. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.