JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. T.Y Bhutia for all the petitioners in the 3 (three) writ petitions, Mr. R.H Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondents and Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Biswakarma for the private respondent No. 6 in WP(C) No. 12(AP)/2015, private respondent No. 3 in WP(C) No. 85(AP)/2013 & WP(C) No. 210(AP)/2013. The private respondent in all the 3 writ petitions is one and the same person and will be referred to as respondent No. 6 for convenience. Since the grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the placement of the private respondent above them in the inter-se-seniority list of Assistant Engineer (A.E), Public Health Engineering (PHE) & Water Supply Department (PHE & WS Department), all the 3 writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal. 2. In WP(C) No. 85(AP)/2013, there are 2 writ petitioners i.e., Er. Dulom Tago and Er. Mirik Bagra. In WP(C) No. 210(AP)/2013, there are 10 writ petitioners namely Er. Binga Gara, Er. Nyong Paloh, Er. Vipin Kr. Malik, Er. Gepiam Mize, Er. John Lego, Er. Kago Habung, Er. Dani Lampung, Er. Bamang Tasung, Er. Gebuk Burang and Er. Dari Vinod. In WP(C) No. 12(AP)/2015, there are 12 petitioners and they comprise of all the petitioners of the other 2 writ petitions. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts set out in WP(C) No. 12(AP)/2015 is being referred to as hereunder. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they are serving as Assistant Engineer (AE) under PHE & WS Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and are posted in different places. The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were appointed as Junior Engineer (JE) in the erstwhile Rural Works Department (before trifurcation) through the recruitment process held on 10th& 11th of March, 1994. After trifurcation of Rural Works Department, they joined PHE & WS Department. According to the gradation list dated 24.09.1998, the private respondent No. 6 was placed at serial No. 97 while the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were placed at serial Nos. 100 & 101 respectively. However, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 being a degree holder Junior Engineer (JE) and the private respondent No. 6 being a Diploma holder J.E, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were placed at serial Nos. 100 & 101 respectively. However, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 being a degree holder Junior Engineer (JE) and the private respondent No. 6 being a Diploma holder J.E, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 attained the qualifying service for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer (AE) after their completion of 5 years of service. As for the private respondent No. 6, he being a Diploma holder, the qualifying years of service will be completed only after 8 years in terms of the Assistant Engineer (Civil)/Assistant Surveyor of Works Recruitment Rules, 1997 (Rules of 1997) and also as per the recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer Rules, 2005 (Rules of 2005). In the proviso to column No. 12 of the Schedule to the Rules of 2005, it is provided that irrespective of the seniority in the cadre of JE, the promotion of AE shall be considered in order of seniority on completion of respective qualifying years of service. 4. Accordingly, upon completion of 5 years of regular service, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were given adhoc promotion to the post of AE on 01.07.1999. As for the respondent No. 6, he did not have the qualifying years of service since he was a Diploma holder JE. Thereafter, vide Order dated 22.05.2001, the adhoc promotion of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 was regularized w.e.f. 02.07.1999 on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). 5. On the recommendation of the DPC, the petitioner No. 3 was appointed as AE vide Order dated 22.05.2001. In the provisional inter-se-seniority list of AE issued vide Memorandum dated 23.10.2002, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were placed at serial Nos. 43 & 44 respectively while the petitioner No. 3 was placed at serial No. 50. However, as for the respondent No. 6, his name was not to be found in the provisional seniority list. The petitioner Nos. 4 to 9 in the said seniority list were placed at serial Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48 & 51 respectively. The petitioner Nos. 4 to 12 were directly recruited through the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) to the post of AE on 24.08.2001. 6. Subsequently, a final seniority list was prepared and published on 04.08.2006 and the petitioner Nos. 1 to 12 were placed above the private respondent at serial Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48 & 51 respectively. The petitioner Nos. 4 to 12 were directly recruited through the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) to the post of AE on 24.08.2001. 6. Subsequently, a final seniority list was prepared and published on 04.08.2006 and the petitioner Nos. 1 to 12 were placed above the private respondent at serial Nos. 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52 & 54 respectively. As for the private respondent No. 6, he was placed at serial No. 59. 7. Thereafter, in the tentative seniority list of AE under PHE & WS Department as on 31.01.2012, which was issued vide Order dated 19.09.2012 (Annexure-10), the seniority position of the private respondent No. 6 was shown as serial No. 14 with a remark that a Review DPC was held on 06.11.2012 and his regularization was made vide Order dated 08.11.2012. The decision taken in the Review DPC Meeting held on 06.11.2012 was that the respondent No. 6 in view of the reasons assigned therein be given notionally promotion w.e.f. 05.03.2001 i.e., the date on which his juniors, i.e., petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were promoted from JE to AE. The promotion would be on supernumerary basis and without additional financial benefit w.e.f 05.03.2001 to 06.11.2012 (the date of his promotion as AE on regular basis) and he will enjoy his seniority as AE w.e.f 05.03.2001. 8. According to the petitioners, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 being degree holders, attained the qualifying years of service within 5 years of their entry into service while the petitioner No. 3 joined the service as JE on 18.08.1991 and upon completion of the required length of service of 8 years, he was promoted and regularized on 22.05.2011. As for the petitioner Nos. 4 to 12, they being direct recruitees, they are senior to the private respondent No. 6 in the grade. The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 challenged the seniority of the private respondent No. 6 by filing WP(C) No. 85(AP)/2013 while the petitioner Nos. 4 to 12 made a challenge in WP(C) No. 210(AP)/2013 against the seniority position of the private respondent No. 6. However, due to inadvertence, they did not challenge the legality and validity of the Review DPC order as it was never circulated. 4 to 12 made a challenge in WP(C) No. 210(AP)/2013 against the seniority position of the private respondent No. 6. However, due to inadvertence, they did not challenge the legality and validity of the Review DPC order as it was never circulated. Upon obtaining a copy of the Review DPC minutes, they found out that the respondent authorities without proper ground and in a most arbitrary and illegal manner had conducted the Review DPC to accommodate the private respondent against the establishment principles of service jurisprudence and in violation of the Rules of 1997 and the Rules of 2005. 9. Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel submits that the ground for conducting a Review DPC amongst others is to rectify certain unintentional mistakes such as, where eligible persons had been left out from being considered or where ineligible persons were considered by mistake or where the seniority of a person is revised with retrospective effect resulting in a variance of the seniority list placed before the DPC or where same procedural irregularity was committed by the DPC or where adverse remarks in the Confidential Reports (CRs) were toned down or expunged after the DPC had considered the case of the Officer. However, in case of the private respondent No. 6, the only grounds cited was that he obtained degree in the year 2000 and therefore, the Review DPC minutes, according to the learned Senior counsel, should be set aside. 10. Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior counsel further submits that the private respondent No. 6 was appointed as JE in the month of July, 1994 and he claimed to have acquired B. Tech Degree in the year 2000. If he is to be granted the benefit of degree qualification for counting his qualifying years of service to be promoted to the post of AE, the same has to be counted only from the year 2000 and not from the year of his recruitment as JE. With his diploma qualification, he was qualified to be promoted as AE only in the year 2002 and with his Bachelor’s Degree in the year 2005. 11. The learned Senior counsel also submits that the DPC held on 05.03.2001 was only to regularize the adhoc promotion of 21 AEs already serving in the PHE & WS Department and that no fresh case of promotion was taken up during the DPC deliberation on 05.03.2001. 11. The learned Senior counsel also submits that the DPC held on 05.03.2001 was only to regularize the adhoc promotion of 21 AEs already serving in the PHE & WS Department and that no fresh case of promotion was taken up during the DPC deliberation on 05.03.2001. Accordingly, they were regularized with retrospective effect from the date of their adhoc promotion i.e., 02.07.1999 and the same was notified vide Order dated 13.03.2001. As for the private respondent No. 6, he was not eligible for promotion at the relevant point of time and he was also informed accordingly by the Departmental authorities vide Communication dated 26.07.2001 (Annexure-13). However, contrary to the communication given to private respondent No. 6, the Review DPC dated 06.11.2012 recommended his promotion to the post of AE w.e.f 05.03.2001 and the consequential order was issued vide Order dated 08.11.2012 (Annexure-14). The learned Senior counsel submits that since the Review DPC was illegally and arbitrarily constituted to give undue benefit to the private respondent No. 6 as regards his seniority position, the same should be interfered with by this Court. The learned Senior counsel in support of his submission has relied upon the following authorities:- (1) N. Suresh Nathan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 564 . (2) Chandravathi P. & Ors. vs. C.K Saji & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 734 and (3) Judgment & Order dated 28.05.2009 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 432/2008 (Sh. Bengia Francis vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr.). 12. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel appearing for private respondent No. 6 submits that the writ petitions are to be rejected and dismissed at the very threshold on account of the petitioners having suppressed the relevant and material facts. He submits that in the tentative seniority list of EE & AE published vide Memorandum dated 19.09.2012 (Annexure-10), it was clearly mentioned in the remarks column and against the seniority position of the private respondent No. 6 that his placement, as such was in terms of the Review DPC which was held on 06.11.2012 and that his service was regularized vide Order dated 08.11.2012. Despite such disclosure in the tentative seniority list, the petitioners surprisingly maintain that they were unaware of the Review DPC, which is not believable. 13. Despite such disclosure in the tentative seniority list, the petitioners surprisingly maintain that they were unaware of the Review DPC, which is not believable. 13. The learned Senior counsel further submits that the petitioners even in their latest writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 12(AP)/2015 have still suppressed relevant and material facts such as the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 being selected through the same selection process as the respondent No. 6 and in spite of their higher degree qualification, they were placed far below in the merit list. The recruitment rules for JE prescribed diploma qualification as the eligibility criteria and the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 participated in the selection and accepted their appointment, thereby waving any rights flowing from such higher qualification. Also the fact that the respondent No. 6 acquired his degree qualification much earlier to the date on which the DPC held its meeting i.e., 05.03.2001. Further, it was not a matter of course that the respondent No. 6 was placed higher in the seniority list but in fact, his case was considered by the Law Department and thereafter, by the Administrative Reforms Department and the genuineness of his claim was accepted. It was only thereafter that a Review DPC was constituted vide Notification dated 02.11.2012 and the Review DPC was held on 06.11.2012 and pursuant thereto, the Order dated 08.11.2012 came to be issued. 14. The learned Senior counsel therefore submits that each of the relevant and material facts stated have a vital bearing on the adjudication of the issue involved and since such facts have been suppressed by the petitioners, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 15. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel further submits that Rule 1 of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules provides that separate application is to be filed when interests are not identical. The cause of action in respect of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 on one hand and that of the petitioner Nos. 4 to 12, on the other hand are different or distinct. Likewise, the cause of action in respect of the petitioner No. 3 is different as well. Therefore, the common writ petition filed by all of them cannot be maintained. As such, the relevant provisions of the High Court Rules having been flouted, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground as well. Likewise, the cause of action in respect of the petitioner No. 3 is different as well. Therefore, the common writ petition filed by all of them cannot be maintained. As such, the relevant provisions of the High Court Rules having been flouted, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground as well. 16. The learned Senior counsel further submits that the prayer No. (c), (d) & (e) in WP(C) No. 12/2015 are same and identical to the prayer made in the other two writ petitions and by virtue of the provision of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the writ petitions cannot be maintained. 17. The learned Senior counsel further submits that the regularization of the petitioners to the post of AE vide Order dated 13.03.2001 (Annexure-5) is only dehors the Rules of 1997. In this connection, the learned Senior counsel refers to column No. 11 of the Schedule to the Rules of 1997 and submits that regularization is not one of the option or method for recruitment to the post of AE. As such, the petitioners do not have any legal right to continue in the post of AE. 18. On merit, the learned Senior counsel submits that the respondent No. 6 did not receive any consideration in the DPC meeting held on 05.03.2001 particularly, when he was entitled to be considered. The authorities concerned considered the entire matter by taking the opinion of the Law Department as well as the Administrative Reforms Department who accepted the bona fide claim of the respondent No. 6. It was only thereafter that a Review DPC was constituted and the respondent No. 6 was recommended to be promoted w.e.f. 05.03.2001. Consequently, an order to that effect was issued on 08.11.2012. He submits that assuming for the sake of argument but without admitting that the Review DPC was wrongly constituted and therefore, the recommendation made by it is wrong and set aside. But however, in doing so, it will only amount to reviving an illegality committed at an earlier point of time and the revival of such illegality is otherwise not permissible in law as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Govt. But however, in doing so, it will only amount to reviving an illegality committed at an earlier point of time and the revival of such illegality is otherwise not permissible in law as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 1966(2) SCR 172 : AIR 1966 SC 828 , R.N Hazarika vs. State of Assam, (1991) 2 GL:R 384, M.C Mehta vs. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237 & Raj Kumar Soni & Anr. vs. State of U.P, (2007) 10 SCC 635 . 19. The learned Senior counsel, on suppression of material facts relies upon the case of K.D Sharma vs. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481. He further submits that when two views are possible and one view has already been adopted by the authority concerned, the High Court would not interfere merely because it is of the view that another view is possible and is better than the view already taken. In support of his submission, the learned Senior counsel relies upon the case of H.B Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority vs. M/S Goppi Nath & Sons, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312. The learned counsel further submits that the case of N. Suresh Nathan & Anr. (supra) relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has been distinguished by the Apex Court in its subsequent decisions. In this connection, he relies upon the case of M.B Joshi & Ors. vs. Satish Kumar Pandey & Ors 1993 Supp (2) SCC 419 and Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 128 . 20. Mr. R.H Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State respondents submits that he adopts the argument advanced by Mr. I Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No. 6. He also submits that there is no acknowledgment receipt of the representation submitted by the petitioners annexed in the writ petitions and therefore, it cannot be said as to whether the petitioners actually submitted the same or not. Mr. R.H Nabam further submits that Rules of 1997 does not provide that the length of service for 5 years is required after obtaining a degree in Engineering. Therefore, the case of the respondent No. 6 should have been considered by the DPC which met on 05.03.2001. 21. Mr. R.H Nabam further submits that Rules of 1997 does not provide that the length of service for 5 years is required after obtaining a degree in Engineering. Therefore, the case of the respondent No. 6 should have been considered by the DPC which met on 05.03.2001. 21. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. The issue to be decided is as to whether the writ petitions are maintainable in its present form and secondly, whether the Review DPC held on 06.11.2012 rightly recommended the promotion of the respondent No. 6 w.e.f. 05.03.2001 on the ground that those who were junior to him in the post of JE as per the gradation lists maintained had been considered and promoted to the post of AE in the DPC that was held on 05.03.2001 while the respondent No. 6 was excluded despite he having acquired the degree in Engineering by that time. 22. For the sake of convenience, the second issue is being taken up first for consideration. There is no dispute to the fact that the next promotional post from the post of JE is to the post of AE. For the purpose of the present writ petition, the Rules of 1997 is relevant. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the schedule to the Rules of 1997 i.e. Column No. 11 and 12 may be reproduced herein below:- 11 12 (a) 50% by promotion failing which by transfer on deputation. (b) 50% by direct recruitment on the basis of written examination and Viva-voce conducted by the APPSC (c) 80% of the posts meant for direct recruitment shall be reserved for A.P.S.T. By promotion from amongst the TAs & JEs of PHED having 3 (three) years regular service as TA & 8(Eight) years regular service as JE respectively subject to passing of Departmental professional Examination in Accounts. By Degree holder (BE) APST JEs are eligible for promotion to the post of TA on completion of 2(two) years regular service and 5(five) years regular service for promotion to the post of AE/ASW. By Degree holder (BE) APST JEs are eligible for promotion to the post of TA on completion of 2(two) years regular service and 5(five) years regular service for promotion to the post of AE/ASW. By transfer on deputation from officers of Central/State Govts holding analogous posts from TAs & JEs having 3(three) years regular service in the scale of Rs.5500- 175-9000/= p.m. & 8 (eight) years regular service in the scale of pay Rs.4500-125-7000/= p.m. respectively possessing educational qualification and experience as prescribed under column 8 of the Draft R/R’s. The terms of deputation shall not exceed more than 3 (three) years. 23. From the above abstract, it may be seen that the method of recruitment to the post of AE is 50% by promotion failing which, by transfer on deputation and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment on the basis of written examination and viva voce conducted by the APPSC. In case of recruitment by promotion, the incumbents from amongst TAs and JEs of PHED having 3 years of regular service as TA and 8 years regular service as JE respectively are eligible to be consider for promotion subject to passing of Departmental Professional Examination in Accounts. In case of JEs having degree qualification, they are eligible for promotion to the post of TA on completion of 2 years regular service and for promotion to the post of AE, on completion of 5 years of regular service. From the facts projected in the writ petition, all the petitioners except for petitioner No. 3 are degree holders. Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were appointed as JE on 27.06.1994 and 28.06.1994 respectively. As for petitioner No. 3, who is a diploma holder, he was appointed as JE on 18.08.1991 and thereafter, he was appointed as AE on 22.05.2001. In case of the petitioner Nos. 4 to 12, they were directly appointed to the post of AE on 07.09.2001, 28.08.2001, 24.05.2000, 28.08.2001, 28.08.2001, 02.05.2000, 28.08.2001, 30.08.2001 & 29.08.2001 respectively. The respondent No. 6 as diploma holder was appointed as JE on 10.06.1994 and undisputedly, he was placed above the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 in the gradation lists. Respondent No. 6 acquired B. Tech Degree in the year 1999 and a certificate to that effect was issued to him on 20.08.2000. The respondent No. 6 as diploma holder was appointed as JE on 10.06.1994 and undisputedly, he was placed above the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 in the gradation lists. Respondent No. 6 acquired B. Tech Degree in the year 1999 and a certificate to that effect was issued to him on 20.08.2000. Having not been considered for promotion to the post of AE despite having acquired B. Tech Degree, the respondent No. 6 submitted various representations before the respondent authorities. Consequently, vide the impugned DPC minutes dated 06.11.2012, he was recommended to be promoted w.e.f 05.03.2001 and be placed above the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 in the seniority list. The meeting minutes of the Review DPC which is the basis of giving him such retrospective promotion is abstracted hereunder for ready perusal:- “Minutes of Group A Review DPC meeting held in the Office Chamber of the Chief Secretary at 11:30 A.M on 06.11.2012. 1. The Review Departmental Promotion Committee notified vide No. Sectt/PHE(Estt)-161/2012 dated 2nd November, 2012, and was held in the Office Chamber of the Chief Secretary at 11:00 AM on 06.11.2012. The following were present: (i) Shri Tabom Bam, Chief Secretary - Chairman (ii) Shri Tomi Ete, Secretary (PHE&WS) - Member (iii) Shri C.P Mansai, Secy(Law & Judicial)-Member 2. The Review DPC noted that in the combined gradation list of Junior Engineers in the PHE Department published vide No. PHED-I/8/96 dated 14.05.1999 Shri Bharat Sonam, Junior Engineer now Assistant Engineer was placed in Sl. No. 106 and hence senior to those placed below. 3. it was also noted that Shri Bharat Sonam, then JE, and now AE (Civil), had submitted a representation vide his No. Nil dated 12.02.2001, addressed to the Commissioner & Secretary PHE & WS Deptt., intimating that he had acquired the degree of B. Tech, (Civil) from North Eastern Regional Institute of Science & Technology( NERIST), Nirjuli, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, and had submitted the certificate to the Chief Engineer, PHED. He had further appealed for his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in line with the Ad hoc promotions given to some of his junior colleagues holding bachelor degree. 4. He had further appealed for his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in line with the Ad hoc promotions given to some of his junior colleagues holding bachelor degree. 4. The records reveal that the Chief Engineer, PHED, vide an Addendum No. PHED-I/95/95/GO15-18 dated 20/10/2000, had ordered that the additional qualification acquired by the incumbent be shown under column No. 5 against his name at Sl.No. 106 in the final seniority list of the Junior Engineers (Civil) circulated vide No. PHE-I/8/96 dated 14/05/1999. It had further been ordered that the said qualification would be incorporated in the service records of Shri Bharat Sonam, JE. 5. The DPC noted that during the period that Shri Barat Sonam, JE was undergoing higher studies in NERIST from 01/01/1998 to 26th June, 2000, two officers holding graduate degree but junior to him, namely Shri Dulom Tago, JE, at Sl. No. 109, and ShriMirikBagra, JE, at Sl. No. 110, had been promoted on ad-hoc basis after completion of 5 years of qualifying service as required under the Recruitment Rules for AEs then in operation. 6. Subsequently, a Group ‘B’ DPC meeting of PHE & WS Department was held on 05.03.2001 for regularization of ad hoc promotions of 21 Junior Engineers to Assistant Engineers. As the records reveal, initially during the run up to the DPC, held subsequently on 05/03/2001, the claim of Shri Bharat Sonam, JE had engaged the attention of the Department. It was the intention of the Department to give due consideration to the degree acquired by Shri Bharat Sonam, JE, at the time of DPC meeting. Finally, however, the DPC seemed to have limited its consideration to regularization of the ad hoc promotions of AEs already serving in the Department. No fresh case of promotion had been taken up in the consideration of the said DPC. This fact was conveyed to Shri Bharat Sonam, JE, vide U.O No. PHE/Sectt.04/96 dated 26.07.2001. 7. Subsequent to the DPC meeting of 05/03/2001, Shri Bharat Sonam, JE, vide his representation No. Nil dated 01/06/2001, reiterated his claim for promotion to Assistant Engineer on the basis of his newly acquired degree of B.Tech (Civil) and the eligibility conditions as per Recruit Rules of AE (Civil) in force then. He stated that at the time for sitting of DPC held on 05/03/2001, his position in the seniority list of JEs was at Sl. He stated that at the time for sitting of DPC held on 05/03/2001, his position in the seniority list of JEs was at Sl. No. 106 but the DPC had considered promotions of officers at Sl. No. 109 and 110 by superseding him in spite his seniority. He also claimed that during the period of his study leave, the said two officers junior to him had been promoted as AEs purely on functional/ad hoc basis considering their BE (Civil) degrees. The ad hoc promotions of the two officers junior to him were, however, regularized retrospectively by the DPC in its meeting held on 05/03/2001, whereas he too was eligible for promotion to the post of AE on the fateful day of the said DPC. 8. Further, based on documentary evidence secured from the PHE & WS Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, under RTI Act, Shri Bharat Sonam, now AE, again had submitted a representation vide No. Nil dated 20.10.2011, reiterating the claim that he was eligible for promotion to AE at the time of the DPC meeting held on 05.02.2001, which inter alia considered promotion of his two juniors Shri Dulom Tago, JE and Shri Mirik Bagra, JE, who had been his juniors in the combined seniority list of JEs, as stated above. 9. The matter of the claim of Shri Bharat Sonam the then JE, for promotion to the post of AE w.e.f 05.03.2001, the date of DPC which had regularized the ad-hoc promotion of 21 JEs including their degree holders junior to him, standing thus, the case was referred to the Law Department for its view and advice. The Law Department has upheld the genuineness of the appeal of Shri Bharat Sonam, then JE, now AE, and opined that on the ground that DPC limited its consideration only to regularization of the ad-hoc promotions of Assistant Engineer serving in the Department, it could not be a reason to allow the juniors to supersede the qualified senior candidate. 10. Further, in the light of above background, the claim of Shri Bharat Sonam, now AE, was also referred to the Administrative Reforms Department for its view and advice. The Administrative has its Department has also agreed with the views of Law Department as Shri Bharat Sonam, was already degree holder on the date of DPC and his case ought to have placed before the DPC held on 05.03.2001 for consideration. The Administrative has its Department has also agreed with the views of Law Department as Shri Bharat Sonam, was already degree holder on the date of DPC and his case ought to have placed before the DPC held on 05.03.2001 for consideration. The Administrative Reforms Department further agreed to a proposed for convening a Review DPC to reconsider the proceeding of DPC held on 05.03.2001, for reconation of seniority position in respect of Shri Bharat Sonam, Je (now AE). 11. After considering above background and circumstances the Review DPC held on 06.11.2012 was of the view that on the day of the group ‘B’ DPC meeting held on 05.03.2001, Shri Bharat Sonam, JE placed at Sl. No. 106 of the combined gradation list of JEs, was senior to the two officers namely Shri Dulom Tago, JE, at Sl. 109, and Shri Mirik Bagra, JE, at Sl. No. 110. Further, having meanwhile acquired the degree of B. Tech. (Civil) which had been recorded under column No. 5 against his name at Sl. 106 of the seniority list of JEs, through an Addendum vide No. PHED-I/95/6015-18 dtd. 20/10/2000, Shri Bharat Sonam, JE, was eligible for promotion to AE after completing the qualifying length of 5 years of service in the grade as applicable to degree holders as per RR of AE vide No. SPWD-427/88-89 dtd.Itanagar 19.05.1999, then in operation. 12. The Review DPC also observed that because of the fact that the DPC meeting held on 05/03/2001 limited its consideration only to regularization of the ad hoc promotion of AEs already serving in the Department of PHE and had not taken up fresh cases of promotion, the seniority and claim of Shri Bharat Sonam, the then JE, failed to receive consideration of the DPC, on the fateful date of its meeting on 05-03- 2001. But for above omission, Shri Bharat Sonam, JE should have been included in the zone of consideration and considered for promotion to AE. 13. But for above omission, Shri Bharat Sonam, JE should have been included in the zone of consideration and considered for promotion to AE. 13. In the background of above facts and observations and as per the provisions of rule outlined under para 18.1 of Swamy’s Complete Manual on Establishment and Admiration, the Review Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 06.11.2012 has decided to recommend as follows: (i) That Shri Bharat Sonam, AE may be given notional promotion w.e.f. 05.03.2001, the date on which his juniors Shri Dulom Tago, now AE and Shri Mirik Bagra, now AE had been promoted from JE to AE. (ii) That the notional promotion of Shri Bharat Sonam, AE, as recommended above may be treated against on supra numeric basis without any additional financial burden w.e.f. 05.03.2001 to 06.11.2012, the date of his promotion as AE on regular basis. (iii) That Shri Bharat Sonam, now AE shall enjoy his seniority as AE w.e.f. 05.03.2001 as above. Sd/- (C.P. Mansai) Secretary (Law & Judicial) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh MEMBER Sd/- (TomiEte) Secretary (PHE & WS) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, MEMBER Sd/- (TabomBagra) Chief Secretary Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh CHAIRMAN” 24. From the above abstract, it may be seen that according to the Review DPC, the respondent No. 6 having acquired the qualification of B. Tech Degree prior to the DPC held on 05.03.2001, which considered the case of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 amongst others, he ought to have been considered as well. For having not considered his case, those who were junior to him in the post of JE have been placed above him in the post of AE. Therefore, this required rectification and accordingly, he was recommended to be given notional promotion w.e.f. 05.03.2001 without financial benefit and be placed above the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 in the seniority list. As already stated in the preceding paragraphs, as per the Rules of 1997, JEs having regular service of 8 years in the grade are eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of AE and JEs having degree are eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of AE on completion of 5 years of regular service. 25. As already stated in the preceding paragraphs, as per the Rules of 1997, JEs having regular service of 8 years in the grade are eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of AE and JEs having degree are eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of AE on completion of 5 years of regular service. 25. From a careful perusal of the case projected by the parties, in the considered view of this Court, the rights of the parties only flow from the Rules framed by the State in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India i.e., the Rules of 1997 or for that matter, the Rules of 2005. It may importantly be noticed from the Rules of 1997, more particularly column 12 of the Schedule to the said Rules which has been abstracted at paragraph No. 21 of this Judgment that Degree holder (BE) APST JEs are eligible for promotion to the post of TA on completion of regular of 2 years regular service and 5 years regular service for promotion to the post of AE/ASW. On a plain reading of the said provision the same cannot be understood to mandate completion of 5 years of regular service as J.E after acquiring the Degree of B.E as the criteria for such consideration. It may be further noticed that this fact is also supported by the inclusion of a proviso under column 12 in the Rules of 2005, which amended the Rules of 1997. The proviso states that promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer can be made from amongst Degree holders who have rendered 5 years of regular service in the grade provided that irrespective of seniority in the cadre of J.E, promotion to the post of A.E shall be considered in order of seniority of completion of respective qualifying services. This was not the case under the Rules of 1997. When the petitioners were being considered by the Court for promotion to the post of A.E, the Rules applicable was the Rules of 1997. 26. The case of Sh. Bengia Francis (supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners being a case considered by the Court after the Rule of 2005 came into force, the same, therefore, is also found to be not applicable to the present case. 26. The case of Sh. Bengia Francis (supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners being a case considered by the Court after the Rule of 2005 came into force, the same, therefore, is also found to be not applicable to the present case. The Rules of 1997 does not prescribe counting of 5 years of service in the grade after obtaining Degree in Engineering while in service and also does not prescribe for an option to be exercised by the employee concerned upon acquiring a Degree in Engineering while in service, and therefore, the case of N. Suresh Nathan & Anr. (supra) and the case of Chandravathi P. & Ors (supra) relied upon by the petitioners cannot come to their assistance in view of the specific provisions in the Rules of 1997. In other words, the authorities relied upon by the petitioners are only distinguishable and therefore found to be not applicable to the present case. 27. In the case of MB Joshi & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court in the given facts of that case held that the entire length of service as sub-Engineer, irrespective of the date of attaining the Degree qualification has to be taken into account in absence of any specific rule to the contrary. Such is also the situation in the present case as already indicated herein above. The notings and opinion of the Law Department and that of the Department of Administrative Reforms on the subject as produced by Mr. RH Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General is also perused. The same is relatable to the decision finally taken by the Review DPC in its meeting held on 06.11.2012. 28. In view of the above finding, I do not find it necessary to examine and dwell on the first issue i.e., the maintainability of the writ petition. Thus, upon due consideration of the matter in its entirety, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for the interference of this Court. In the result, the writ petitions are found to be without any merit and are dismissed. Interim order/orders passed earlier if any, shall stand merged with this order.