Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 388 (GAU)

Kenyunile T. Lorin v. State of Nagaland

2022-04-08

NELSON SAILO

body2022
JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. 1. This Order will dispose of the 2 (two) writ petitions. Both the writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner and since the outcome of WP (C) No. 152/2020 will govern WP (C) No. 49/2021, WP (C) No. 152/2020 is taken up for consideration first. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the District Industries Centre Scheme (Scheme) was launched by the Central Government in the year 1987 with instructions to all the States in the Country to implement the said scheme. In terms of the Letter dated 16.11.1984 of the Director, Office of the Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries, Ministry of Industry, the staffing pattern for each District Industries Centre (DIC) was provided as 1 (one) General Manager, 4 (four) Functional Managers and 3 (three) Project Managers. In terms of the Scheme, DIC's were established in the State and the posts of General Managers and Functional Managers were created for the DICs. However, only one post of Project Manager (Chemical Engineering) Class-I Gazetted was created vide Letter dated 07.10.1985 and against it, one person was appointed on deputation vide Notification dated 05.11.1985 (Annexure-4). The said person was subsequently absorbed vide Notification dated 08.03.1988 (Annexure-5) and consequently, promoted to the post of Director vide Notification dated 30.04.2015 (Annexure-6). It is the case of the petitioner that this person was treated as a cadre member of the Department and was included in the seniority lists that was issued from time to time. 3. The petitioner who is a graduate in Chemical Engineering, on the basis of a selection process was appointed as Project Manager Class-I (Gazetted) under the Industries and Commerce Department vide Notification dated 24.09.2002 in the scale of pay of Rs. 8500-14200/- per month with all other allowances as admissible under the Rules. She was appointed to the post which was under the direct recruitment quota through the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC). The appointment was on ad-hoc basis for 3 (three) months and subject to extension till it was filled up through the NPSC. Subsequently, the ad-hoc services of the petitioner was regularized vide Notification dated 22.07.2008 (Annexure-8) w.e.f. 09.07.2008. 4. She was appointed to the post which was under the direct recruitment quota through the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC). The appointment was on ad-hoc basis for 3 (three) months and subject to extension till it was filled up through the NPSC. Subsequently, the ad-hoc services of the petitioner was regularized vide Notification dated 22.07.2008 (Annexure-8) w.e.f. 09.07.2008. 4. As the service in the Department of Industries and Commerce is governed by the Nagaland Industries Service Rules, 1986 (Service Rules of 1986), members of the Nagaland Industrial Extension Officers and Inspectors Association (Association), being aggrieved by the regularization of the services of the petitioner, filed WP (C) No. 126(K)/2008 before this Court. The claim of the Association in respect of the petitioner was that the post in which she was appointed was a promotional post meant for Extension Officers/Inspectors in terms of the Service Rules of 1986. According to the petitioner, this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2010 found that the post against which the petitioner was appointed was not a promotional post and the appointment of the petitioner did not intrude into the promotional cadre in any way. The petitioner further contends that the issue in the said writ petition filed by the Association was solely as to whether the appointment of the petitioner and others as Assistant Directors was within the purview of the promotional quota meant for Extension Officers/Inspectors as contemplated by the Service Rules of 1986. 5. In the year 2011, vide Letter dated 26.07.2011 (Annexure-10) the final seniority list of Gazetted Officers from the post of Assistant Directors to the post of Director was published. The name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 35. Thereafter, by an Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2013, the tentative seniority list of Gazetted Officers in the Department as on 01.07.2013 was published and the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 12. Against this list, the Association submitted a Representation dated NIL and the issue raised was discussed in a Meeting held on 14.01.2015. In the said meeting, the Department took the stand that the inclusion of the petitioner in the seniority list was proper and that no further action was required. Thereafter, tentative seniority list were issued in the year 2015 and in the year 2018 and the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. In the said meeting, the Department took the stand that the inclusion of the petitioner in the seniority list was proper and that no further action was required. Thereafter, tentative seniority list were issued in the year 2015 and in the year 2018 and the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. According to the petitioner, she is in the cadre service of the Department and the same is clear from the Letter dated 28.01.2015 (Annexure-14) by which, a medical report was prepared for the purpose of confirmation in service and the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 21. 6. Vide Letter dated 22.05.2015, another tentative seniority list in the grade of Assistant Director etc., was circulated and in the said list, the petitioner's name appeared at Serial No. 5. A representation dated 29.05.2015 was submitted questioning the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the seniority list and the signatories were those who were promoted/appointed in the grade of Assistant Director/Functional Manager. As the petitioner was sought to be excluded from being considered for promotion, she submitted a representation to the respondent No. 3 on 23.07.2019. According to the petitioner, her status as a cadre member of the Department continued to be acknowledged, inasmuch as, vide letter dated 25.09.2019, an incumbency list of Gazetted Officers in the Department was prepared and her name appeared at Serial No. 23. However, as she was still sought to be excluded from being considered for promotion, she therefore submitted another representation on 11.11.2019 (Annexure-19) before the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, sometime in the month of February, 2020, she was furnished with a Letter dated 14.02.2020 where the note of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DP&AR) dated 11.02.2020 was enclosed by which she was informed that her representation was rejected and her inclusion in the seniority list would amount to circumventing the Court's Order in WP (C) No. 126(K)/2008. 7. By a Memorandum dated 14.02.2020, undisputed seniority list in the grade of Assistant Director/Functional Manager was published and the petitioner's name was excluded from the said list. In order to consider promotion to the grade of Director and Assistant Director/Functional Manager and Ministerial posts, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 16.07.2020. 7. By a Memorandum dated 14.02.2020, undisputed seniority list in the grade of Assistant Director/Functional Manager was published and the petitioner's name was excluded from the said list. In order to consider promotion to the grade of Director and Assistant Director/Functional Manager and Ministerial posts, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 16.07.2020. By Letter dated 16.07.2020, the minutes of the DPC was forwarded to the Department where the DPC had observed that the Service Rules of 1986 have become obsolete and redundant and therefore advised the Department to update the Rules before the next sitting of the DPC. According to the petitioner, she was appointed against the post solely meant for direct recruitment and outside the promotion quota. This fact was considered by this Court in WP (C) No. 126(K)/2008 which was disposed of vide Order dated 08.10.2020. In the Service Rules of 1986, there are 5 categories of posts in the grade of Assistant Director. The members of the petitioner Association in WP (C) No. 126(K)/2008 were in line for consideration for promotion to the categories reserved for promotion, namely Assistant Director (Administration), Assistant Director (Economics Plants) and Assistant Director (Sericulture). The post of the petitioner did not fall in these categories. However, the judgment and order of this Court according to the petitioner has been misinterpreted or misunderstood by the State respondents, which has resulted in excluding her seniority from the list issued vide Memorandum dated 14.02.2020. In WP (C) No. 126(K)/2008, the present petitioner was arrayed as respondent No. 4 and in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents, the manner in which the present petitioner was appointed and the category to which she belonged in the grade of Assistant Director was stated in the paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9(i) of the affidavit-in-opposition. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the note of the DP&AR dated 11.02.2020 is wholly misconceived and the Letters dated 14.02.2020 having relied upon the same, they are also not sustainable. 8. The State respondents vide Notification dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure-26) promoted 7 (seven) Officers including the respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the grade of Dy. Director/General Manager on officiating basis while according to the petitioner, only the name of respondent No. 5 was mentioned in the final seniority list issued on 26.07.2011 and placed below the petitioner. 8. The State respondents vide Notification dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure-26) promoted 7 (seven) Officers including the respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the grade of Dy. Director/General Manager on officiating basis while according to the petitioner, only the name of respondent No. 5 was mentioned in the final seniority list issued on 26.07.2011 and placed below the petitioner. Therefore, all the Officers promoted vide Notification dated 24.09.2020 were junior to her. The petitioner, thus, being aggrieved with the action/inaction with the State respondents is before this Court. 9. Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State respondents in the earlier writ petition filed by the Association i.e. WP (C) No. 126(K)/2008 had clearly admitted the fact that the petitioner was appointed and belonged in the grade of Assistant Director and that she did not occupy the promotional post of Extension Officers/Inspectors and therefore, cannot now take a different stand. He submits that the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents in the said writ petition speaks for itself and therefore, the State respondents should be directed to include the petitioner in the inter-se-seniority list of Officers at the appropriate place in the Department of Industries and Commerce and that she should be considered for promotion in terms of the Service Rules of 1986 to the next promotional post of Dy. Director of Industries and Commerce. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities: (i) Basant Singh vs. Janki Singh and Others, AIR 1967 SC 341 (ii) C. Rangaswamaiah and Others vs. Karnataka Lokayukta and Others, (1998) 6 SCC 66 (iii) Balbir Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (2000) 10 SCC 166 (iv) Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar and Another, (2005) 1 SCC 787 (v) S.B. Bhattacharjee vs. S.D. Majumdar and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 513 (vi) Mumbai International Airport (P) Pvt. vs. Golden Chariot Airport, (2010) 10 SCC 422 (vii) Loyalakpa Wahengbam Ananta vs. State of Manipur and Others, (2010) 3 GLT 150 (viii) Anil Joshi and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (2015) 12 SCC 669 (ix) Vishal N. Kalsaria vs. Bank of India and Others, (2016) 3 SCC 762 10. Appearing for the State respondents, Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General submits that the Service Rules do not mention the post of Project Manager. Appearing for the State respondents, Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General submits that the Service Rules do not mention the post of Project Manager. There is no evidence or pleadings to show that the post of Project Manager can be equated with the post of Assistant Director or that the 2 (two) posts are one and the same. He submits that in the earlier writ petition, the issue was whether the post of Project Manager is a promotional post and not whether the post of Project Manager falls within the purview of the Service Rules. In this connection, he draws the attention of this Court to the pleadings made in the writ petition at paragraph No. 2 (g) and paragraph No. 7. Further, he also draws the attention of this Court to paragraph No. 14 and paragraph No. 17 of the judgment and order dated 08.10.2010 passed in WP (C) No. 126(K)/2008 to make his point. The learned Senior Addl. Advocate General by further referring to the statements made in paragraph No. 5 of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner against the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 submits that the petitioner has clearly admitted that the post held by her is nowhere mentioned in the Service Rules of 1986 and such being the position, she cannot claim the position, she cannot claim to be included in the inter-se-seniority list of the Officers in the Grade of Assistant Directors under the Department of Industries and Commerce. 11. The learned Senior Addl. Advocate General also submits that the conditions of service are governed by Service Rules and if the post of the petitioner is not included in the Service Rules, she cannot have any right to be considered for promotion. He also submits that in service jurisprudence, the term ‘cadre’ has a definite legal connotations and the same is not synonymous with service. The petitioner may be appointed as a member of the service under the Department of Industries and Commerce, the same does not mean that she is holding a cadre post in terms of the Service Rules of 1986. The petitioner may be appointed as a member of the service under the Department of Industries and Commerce, the same does not mean that she is holding a cadre post in terms of the Service Rules of 1986. By citing the example of an Officer who was initially appointed to the newly graduate post of Project Manager and who went on to retire as the Director of the Department of Industries and Commerce, the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the same and claim parity. He submits that if a permission is given erroneously by wrong interpretation of Rules, the employer cannot be prevented from correcting the mistake by applying the Rules correctly. He thus submits that the writ petition has no merit and the same should be dismissed. In support of his submissions, Mr. T.B. Jamir relies upon the following authorities: (i) Roshan Lal Tandon vs. Union of India and Another, AIR 1967 SC 1889 (ii) Dr. Chakradhar Paswan vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1988) 2 SCC 214 (iii) Dr. Atindra Kumar Adhikari vs. State of Assam and Others, 2016 (4) GLT 549 (iv) Bharat Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1988) 4 SCC 534 (v) H.R. Ramachandriah vs. State of Karnataka, (1997) 3 SCC 639 (vi) Harendra Ch. Lahkar vs. State of Assam, 2021 (5) GLT 227 (vii) State of Haryana vs. Ram Kumar, (1997) 3 SCC 321 (viii) ICAR vs. T.K. Suryanarayan, (1997) 6 SCC 766 (ix) Shankar K. Mandal vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 519 (x) Dr. Ashok Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1998) 2 SCC 502 (xi) Union of India vs. Kartick Chandra, (2010) 2 SCC 422 (xii) N. Suresh Nathan and Another vs. Kartick Chandra, 1992 (Supp.) 1 SCC 584 12. Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for private respondents submits that he adopts the argument of the learned Senior Addl. Advocate General. He submits that unless one is borne in the cadre, seniority cannot be claimed amongst those persons who are in the cadre. By referring to the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2010 passed in WP (C) No. 126(K)/2008, more particularly at paragraph Nos. 14 and 15, he submits that the State respondents have clearly taken the stand that the posts of Project Manager and Assistant Engineer are outside the purview of Service Rule of 1986 in their counter affidavit. By referring to the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2010 passed in WP (C) No. 126(K)/2008, more particularly at paragraph Nos. 14 and 15, he submits that the State respondents have clearly taken the stand that the posts of Project Manager and Assistant Engineer are outside the purview of Service Rule of 1986 in their counter affidavit. It was also the case of the petitioner Association that if the induction of the respondent No. 4 (the instant writ petitioner) and the respondent No. 5 as Project Manager and Assistant Engineer do not stand in the way of the promotional prospect of the members of the petitioner Association, the Association cannot have any grievance. However, if their induction in any way intruded upon the cadre of Assistant Director (Administration)/Functional Manager, then their induction must be held to be illegal. The learned counsel submits that it was under such circumstance that the appointment of the present petitioner was not interfered with and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to be a part of the cadre of service and be included in the seniority list so as to seek further promotion. 13. The learned counsel by further referring to the affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondents in WP (C) No. 126(K)/2008, more particularly at paragraph No. 7 submits that the post of Project Manager was created only after the publication of the Service Rules of 1986 and the same is outside the purview of the promotion post of Assistant Director (Administration)/Functional Manager. Likewise, the same also was the stand of the writ petitioner as respondent No. 4 in WP (C) No. 126(K)/2008 in the affidavit-in-opposition jointly filed by her and the respondent No. 5 at paragraph No. 9 of the said affidavit. He therefore submits that the status of the writ petitioner having been clearly settled in the earlier round of litigation and as admitted by herself, the present writ petition has no merit and the same should be dismissed. 14. The learned counsel also submits that there is only one post of Assistant Director (Engineering) and one post of Assistant Director (Technical) and against the 2 (two) posts, one Shri Y. Lipongse Thongtsar and one Shri T. Tongtiliba Longkumer respectively have already appointed on 28.02.2002 and 24.10.1993 respectively. As such, the petitioner cannot but be considered to be appointed outside the cadre. As such, the petitioner cannot but be considered to be appointed outside the cadre. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities: (i) Commissioner of Endowments and Others vs. Vittal Rao and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 120 (ii) Shyam Telelink Limited vs. Union of India, (2010) 10 SCC 165 (iii) Ashok Kumar Shrivastava vs. Rem Lal and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 148 15. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 16. From the projection made by the petitioner, what can be seen is that he is aggrieved with the non-inclusion of his name in the inter-se-seniority list of the Officers of the Industries and Commerce Department particularly, amongst the grade of Assistant Director, so that she can be considered for promotion to the next higher grade of the service. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was appointed purely on ad-hoc basis to the post of Project Manager Class-I (Gazetted) for 3 months, subject to extension till the post was filled up through NPSC, vide Notification dated 24.09.2002. The appointment order also provided that the post was under direct recruitment quota and that the incumbent will have no right to claim regularization in the post. The ad-hoc service of the petitioner was however regularized vide Notification dated 22.07.2008 w.e.f. 08.07.2008 in terms of the notification of the DP&AR dated 23.08.2007 pursuant to the approval of the Cabinet vide O.M. No. CAB-2/2008 dated 14.07.2008. Aggrieved with the regularization of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, the Nagaland Industries Extension Officers and Inspectors Association filed WP (C) No. 126(K)/2008 before this Court contending inter-alia that the present petitioner and the other Officers similarly situated have intruded upon the promotional prospects of the members of the Service Association and was in violation of the Service Rules of 1986. The present petitioner was arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the said writ petition. The contention of the State respondents was that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 and the other private respondents were outside the purview of the promotion post of the post of Assistant Director (Administration)/ Functional Manager/Project Manager, DIC). The appointments made were as per the Service Rules which are recruited through the NPSC. The contention of the State respondents was that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 and the other private respondents were outside the purview of the promotion post of the post of Assistant Director (Administration)/ Functional Manager/Project Manager, DIC). The appointments made were as per the Service Rules which are recruited through the NPSC. The respondent No. 4 was appointed vide Notification dated 24.09.2002 as Project Manager Class-I Gazetted, as she is a qualified Engineer in Polymer Engineering required by the Department and she was regularized w.e.f. 09.07.2008 vide Notification dated 22.07.2008 pursuant to the approval of the Cabinet. 17. This Court upon considering the rival contentions of the parties vide Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2010 concluded that the induction of respondent No. 4 and the other private respondents cannot be held to be an intrusion into the cadre of Assistant Director, (Administration)/Functional Manager which are otherwise required to be filled up 100% by promotion from amongst the confirmed members of the petitioner Association. The said conclusion was reached by the Court in view of the stand of the official respondents that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 and the others no way intruded upon the cadre of Assistant Director (Administration)/Functional Manager) and that their induction will in no way effect the promotional prospects of the members of the petitioner Association. 18. From the above conclusion reached by this Court in WP (C) No. 126(K)/2008, it may be seen that the members of the petitioner Association were treated as a separate cadre although the respondent No. 4 (the present writ petitioner) was appointed on ad-hoc basis and thereafter, regularized in terms of the Cabinet's decision. This Court accepted and held that the regularization of the petitioner did not in any way effect the promotional prospects of those in the cadre of Assistant Director (Administration)/Functional Manager, which is to be filled up 100% by way of promotion from the amongst the Officers who are in the feeder grade i.e. Inspectors/Extension Officers/Economic Investigators, under the Directorate of Industries and Commerce Departments. The said decision has attained a finality as admittedly, no appeal is filed against the same. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against his non-inclusion in the seniority list of the Officers in the Department of Industries and Commerce in the grade of Assistant Director (Administration)/Functional Manager. 19. The said decision has attained a finality as admittedly, no appeal is filed against the same. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against his non-inclusion in the seniority list of the Officers in the Department of Industries and Commerce in the grade of Assistant Director (Administration)/Functional Manager. 19. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Shrivastava vs. Rem Lal and Others (supra) in the given facts of that case acknowledged the well established principle of law that till such time, an employee is borne in a cadre he or she cannot have any claim to seniority over others, who are already in the cadre. Applying the said principle of the present case, as the petitioner cannot be treated as a member of the cadre of Assistant Directors in the Department, she cannot claim to be included in the seniority list of the said cadre. 20. In the case of Shyam Telelink Limited vs. Union of India (supra), the Apex Court by referring to the earlier judicial pronouncement of the same Court reiterated the established principle that law does not permit one to approbate and reprobate. In the present case as well, since the State respondents as well as the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation i.e. WP (C) No. 126(K)/2008 have maintained in their pleadings that the post of Project Manager was created only after the publication of the Service Rules of 1986 and was therefore, outside the purview of the promotion post of Assistant Director (Administration)/Functional Manager and which in fact, was accepted by this Court and therefore, the petitioner now cannot claim parity with those in the cadre of Assistant Director (Administration)/Functional Manager in the Department of Industries and Commerce. 21. In the case of Commissioner of Endowments and Others vs. Vittal Rao and Others (supra), the Apex Court by referring to the earlier judgment of the same Court in the State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another, (1982) 2 SCC 463 reiterated that the statement of fact recorded in the judgment of a Court is conclusive and cannot be opened to be contradicted in appeal. The same principle is found to be applicable in the present case as this Court in the earlier round of litigation accepted the stand of the official and the private respondents that the appointment of the private respondents in that case did not affect the promotional prospects of the members of the petitioner Association and therefore, the said submission cannot be allowed to be questioned at this stage. 22. While coming to the above observations and findings, one cannot however lose sight of the fact that the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 09.07.2008 pursuant to the Cabinet's decision and therefore, she cannot be left in the lurch without being provided any promotional avenue to a higher post. In other words, although, she may not be in the cadre for promotion to the next higher post as per the Service Rules of 1986, it would only be incumbent on the part of the respondent authorities to provide her some avenue for promotion. The State Government itself in the Department of Industries and Commerce is also aware of this fact as can be seen from the communication of the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Industries and Commerce Department dated 14.02.2020 (Annexure-22) to the Director of Industries and Commerce Department. The same is abstracted hereunder: “To The Director Industries and Commerce Department Nagaland, Kohima Subject: Regarding representations submitted by Er. Kenyunile T. Lorin, Project Manager and Shri Zakielatuo Yiese, Food Technologist against the undisputed Seniority list of Assistant Director/Functional Manager (Gazetted) under Industries and Commerce Department. Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to state here that the department has consulted the P&AR department on the issue of seniority and representations submitted thereof. In this regard, the observation of the P&AR department (copy enclosed) will be the basis for the administrative department to take further course of action. Further, the department is directed to move proposal for amendment of the department's Service Rule of 1986 for rational accommodation of posts that were created/absorbed/re-designated after the publication of the Service Rules of 1986. This should be taken up on priority. Yours faithfully (IMSUTOLA) Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland.” 23. Further, the department is directed to move proposal for amendment of the department's Service Rule of 1986 for rational accommodation of posts that were created/absorbed/re-designated after the publication of the Service Rules of 1986. This should be taken up on priority. Yours faithfully (IMSUTOLA) Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland.” 23. From the above abstract, it may be seen that in response to the representation submitted by the petitioner, the Directorate of the Department concerned was asked to move the proposal for amendment of the Service Rules of 1986 to accommodate the posts, which were created after the publication of the Service Rules of 1986, which admittedly, includes the posts in which the petitioner was appointed and absorbed. Although the petitioner has sought for a direction to be included in the inter-se-seniority list of Officers in the grade of Assistant Director (Administration)/Functional Manager under the Department of Industries and Commerce, but in view of what has already been stated herein above, the same is not feasible. It is a well established principle of law that in exercising an extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can mould the relief so as to mitigate the grievance presented by a party before it. On the said principle, the State respondents in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case are therefore directed to provide appropriate avenue to the petitioner for being promoted to a higher post if necessary by amending the Service Rules of 1986 appropriately. Requisite steps in this direction is therefore directed to be initiated and completed by the respondents at the earliest and preferably, within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 24. Having come to the above conclusion, it would not be necessary to dwell upon the second writ petition i.e. WP (C) No. 49/2021 since the specific relief prayed for in the earlier writ petition has been answered against the petitioner. Likewise, the other authorities relied upon by the learned counsels for the rival parties in view of the conclusion arrived at as herein above, is found to be not necessary. 25. With the above observations and directions, both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.