ORDER With consent, heard finally. 1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under\ Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-- “(i) To call for whole record of the respondents in connection with the promotions of the respondent No.8 & petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (ii) To quash the Annexure P-1, 2, 3 & 4 order dated 4.6.2008, 11.4.2008 & 18.3.2010 and cancel the promotion order of respondent No.8 illegally passed by the Respondent No.1 to 7. and promotion of the petitioner of the petitioner may be approved as per law on the post of Head Clerk/Head Accountant. (iii) To direct respondents No.1 to7 for issuing promotion order of the petitioner on the post of Head Accountant as per seniority list. (iv) Any other Writ/relief for which the petitioner be may kindly be granted this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Precisely stated, facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed on 12.2.1986 on the post of Cashier (Assistant Grade-III) in office of Municipality, Raisen (respondent No.6 herein). Respondent No.8 (private respondent) was appointed on 12.9.1995 on the post of (Assistant Grade-III). In April 2000, service of petitioner was attached with the office of District Urban Development Authority (Project), Raisen (respondent No.4 & 7 herein) with the consent of Municipality, Raisen. In the seniority list of Assistant Grade-III, which was prepared by respondent No.6, name of the petitioner stands on top of the list at serial No.1 and the name of respondent No.8 stands at serial No.2 as per seniority. 3. On 29.10.2007, President-in-Council passed a resolution for filling up the vacant post of Head Clerk/Head Accountant through promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-III. District Selection Committee was constituted with three members at the helm. Deputy Director, Urban Administration, Bhopal Division (respondent No.3 herein) was the Chairman of the Committee. On 11.04.2008, Selection Committee selected respondent No.8 for promotion on the post of Head Clerk/Head Accountant in place of petitioner as per rule 12 of the M. P. Municipal Employees Recruitment and Service Conduct Rules, 1968 [hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1968” for brevity] and as per rule 3 of the M. P. Municipal Services (Scale of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1967 [hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1967” for brevity]. 4. 4. Being crestfallen by the said decision, petitioner filed an objection on 13.6.2008 before the Chief Municipality Officer, Raisen about alleged injustice perpetrated over him because respondent No.8 was promoted whereas he was 10 years junior to him. 5. It appears that petitioner filed a representation/appeal to Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development (respondent No.2 herein) on 24.6.2008, but since no affirmative steps were taken, therefore, he preferred a writ petition vide W.P. No.10512/2008 in which certain directions were given to the respondents vide order dated 25.9.2008 for consideration of his representation. 6. On 5.11.2009, Commissioner considered the matter and remanded back the case for reconsideration of the promotion of petitioner before the District Promotion Committee. On 18.3.2010, Promotion Committee passed the order as per direction of the Court as well as Commissioner and affirmed the previous promotion order of respondent No.8. Therefore, this petition has been preferred. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that between the year 2000 to 2008 when the petitioner was on deputation at District Urban Administration and Development Department and therefore, reporting/accepting and approving authority of petitioner were of District Urban Administration Department and not from Mincipality. Petitioner received A+ in last five years ACRs which were considered for promotion. Therefore, it is not the case where petitioner was less meritorious than respondent No.8. 8. Sheet anchor of the case of petitioner is that as per rule 4 of M.P. Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as “Promotion Rules of 2002” for brevity] promotion from class-III to higher pay scale of class-III or class-III to class-II, all shall be made on the basis of seniority, subject to fitness and criteria adopted by the DPC for promotion from Assistant Grade-III to Head Clerk/Head Accountant was Merit-cum-Seniority, which was an erroneous approach. He referred the proceedings/DPC minutes dated 11.4.2008 to substantiate his arguments that criteria adopted was merit-cum-seniority, which is not at all applicable as per rule 4 of Promotion Rules of 2002. He further referred the rule 2 (f) (Establishment) and 2 (h) (Public Service & Posts) to submit that Municipality falls under local authority and therefore, is covered by the Promotion Rules of 2002. He further refers rule 3 (Scope and Application) of Promotion Rules of 2002 to submit that Rules of 2002 shall have the over-riding effect over all other Service Rules. He further refers rule 3 (Scope and Application) of Promotion Rules of 2002 to submit that Rules of 2002 shall have the over-riding effect over all other Service Rules. Rule 6 of Promotion Rules of 2002 provides for promotion on the basis of seniority, subject to fitness. He further refers rule 15 of Promotion Rules of 2002 (Amendment in the Recruitment Rules) to bring home the analogy that all Rules regulating the recruitment to the State Public Services and the Posts shall be deemed to have amended to the extent as provided in the Promotion Rules of 2002, meaning thereby that the Promotion Rules of 2002 was having over-riding effect over all other Service Rules including the M. P. Municipal Services (Scale of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1967. 9. It is further submitted that although Rule 12 of Promotion Rules of 1968 talks about Recruitment by Promotion on consideration of merits, in which seniority being taken into account where merits are equal. This suggest that criteria is based upon merit-cum-seniority but same is not in synergy with Promotion Rules of 2002 and therefore, deserves to be discarded and the procedure as prescribed in Promotion Rules of 2002 would prevail. Here in the present case adherence to merit-cum-seniority is an arbitrary and illegal exercise. Therefore, said procedure deserves to be set-aside and petitioner deserves to be promoted on the post of Head Clerk/Head Accountant. 10. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and referred the facts that after the order dated 25.9.2008 passed in W.P. No.10512/2008(s) Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development had gone through the whole case again and given an opinion about the seniority of petitioner and remanded the matter back to the DPC to decide afresh. DPC was re-convened and found the seniority of petitioner over and above respondent No.8, but again decided in favour of respondent No.8 on the ground that he is more meritorious because of his past 5 ACRs carried Outstanding grading whereas, he scored 20 marks (A+) whereas petitioner’s last 5 ACRs carried Very Good remarks (A). Therefore, respondent No.8 is more meritorious than petitioner. 11. He also referred the fact that although petitioner placed his ACRs as written by his borrowing department when he was on deputation, but since those ACRs were not directly received from the Project Officer of District Urban and Development Administration, therefore, those ACRs were not considered. Therefore, respondent No.8 is more meritorious than petitioner. 11. He also referred the fact that although petitioner placed his ACRs as written by his borrowing department when he was on deputation, but since those ACRs were not directly received from the Project Officer of District Urban and Development Administration, therefore, those ACRs were not considered. Although, no doubt was raised over the authenticity of such ACRs but because the mode of communication was not appropriate as per the DPC, therefore, petitioner’s ACR and grading given by borrowing department were not considered. 12. Learned counsel for respondents No.5 & 6 also opposed the prayer and submitted that Rules of 1968 are Special Statute in respect of employees of Municipality and therefore, these Rules are passed in exercise of power under section 355 R/w section 95 of the M.P. Municipalities Act 1961, therefore, it shall prevail over the Promotion Rules of 2002 being Special Statute. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.8 also opposed the prayer and supported the impugned action. According to him, he is working on promoted post for last 14 years and therefore, equity has been raised in his favour. He prayed for dismissal of this petition. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto. 15. This is the case where petitioner is seeking promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-III to Head Clerk/Head Accountant. Promotion, in the service journey of an employee, is an important milestone which drives the employee to work hard and diligently to reach to such milestone. Therefore, as a model employer, it is the duty of State (Municipality herein) to ensure the provisions of seamless promotional avenues to its employees. 16. It is true that rule 12 of Rules of 1968 provides recruitment by promotion on the touch stone of Merit-cum-Seniority but after promulgation of Promotion Rules, 2002 under the proviso to Article 309 Constitution of India read with Article 16 and 335 of Constitution of India, the State Government has framed the Rules of 2002, giving overriding effects over all other Service Rules. First of all rule 12 of Rules of 1968 is reproduced for ready reference as under :-- “12. Recruitment by Promotion. (1) Recruitment by promotion shall be made on consideration of merits, seniority being taken into account where merits are equal. First of all rule 12 of Rules of 1968 is reproduced for ready reference as under :-- “12. Recruitment by Promotion. (1) Recruitment by promotion shall be made on consideration of merits, seniority being taken into account where merits are equal. (2) In selecting candidates for promotion regard shall be had to - (i) tact and energy; (ii) intelligence and ability; (iii) integrity; and (iv) previous record of service. (3) In the case of posts carrying a maximum monthly salary not exceeding Rs.95/- the Chief Municipal Officer and in other cases the District Selection Committee shall consider the cases of all the eligible candidates and may in his or its discretion interview any of the candidates. (4) The Chief Municipal Officer or the District Selection Committee, as the case may be, will select candidates and will arrange their names in the order of preference. Where the Chief Municipal Officer is the competent authority for making appointments, the orders will be issued by him. In other cases the District Selection Committee shall recommend the names of the candidates found suitable for promotion to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee will then make a final selection.” 17. Similarly, departmental set up as per rule 6 of Rules of 1967 has been mentioned in Schedule-III appointed with Rules of 1967 and said schedule has been placed by the petitioner as Annexure-P/9 in which at serial No.5, in respect of Chief Head Clerk and Head Accountant, minimum requirement mentioned is 3 years experience as Clerk along with higher secondary qualification of high school examination or equivalent. Here, petitioner very well completed three years and was working since 1986 and thus completed almost 22 years whereas respondent No.8 completed only 13 years because he was working since 1995. Promotion Rules of 2002 came into existence on 11.6.2002 and sections 3 and 15 if read in tandem then it makes the picture clear that these rules were having overriding effects on other service rules prevailing in the State. Rules 3 and 15 of Rules of 2002 are reiterated for ready reference :-- “3. Scope and application. Promotion Rules of 2002 came into existence on 11.6.2002 and sections 3 and 15 if read in tandem then it makes the picture clear that these rules were having overriding effects on other service rules prevailing in the State. Rules 3 and 15 of Rules of 2002 are reiterated for ready reference :-- “3. Scope and application. -- Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 and notwithstanding anything contained in any Service Rules, these rules shall apply to the establishment as defined in these rules, but shall not apply to the employments specified in clauses (1), (3) and (5) of section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (No. 21 of 1994). 15. Amendment in the Recruitment Rules.- All rules regulating the recruitment to the State Public Services and the posts shall be deemed to have amended to the extent as provided in these rules.” 18. Perusal of Rule 15 of Promotion Rules of 2002 infact reveals that all Rules regulating the recruitment to the State Public Services and the posts shall be deemed to have amended to the extent as provided in these Rules, meaning thereby that no further amendment or alteration was required to be made in Service Rules like Rules of 1967 or Rules of 1968. Both these Rules shall deem to be amended to the extent as provided in Promotion Rules of 2002. 19. When a statute specifically gives overriding effect over other statutes to the extent which subsequent statute prevails would render the provisions of earlier rules ineffective, redundant or repugnant to the subsequent Act or Rules. Therefore, Promotion Rules of 2002 would prevail over all other Service Rules. 20. This Court may profitably refer to the judgment of apex Court in the case of Sarwan Singh and Anr. v. Kasturi Lal, AIR 1977 SC 265 . Para 20 and 21 of the said judgment, read as under :-- “20. Speaking generally, the object and purpose of a legislation assume greater relevance if the language of the law is obscure and ambiguous. v. Kasturi Lal, AIR 1977 SC 265 . Para 20 and 21 of the said judgment, read as under :-- “20. Speaking generally, the object and purpose of a legislation assume greater relevance if the language of the law is obscure and ambiguous. But, it must be stated that we have referred to the object of the provisions newly introduced into the Delhi Rent Act in 1975 nor for seeking light from it for resolving in ambiguity, for there is none, but for a different purpose altogether. When two or more laws operate in the same field and each contains a nonobstante clause stating that its provisions will override those of any other law, stimulating and incisive problems of interpretation arise. Since statutory interpretation has no conventional protocol, cases of such conflict have to be decided in reference to the object and purpose of the laws under consideration. A piquant situation, like the one before us, arose in Shri Ram Narain v. The Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd., AIR 1949 SC 614, the competing statutes being the Banking Companies Act, 1949 as amended by Act 52 of 1953,and the Displaced persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. Section 45A of the Banking Companies Act, which was introduced by the amending Act of 1953, and section 3 of the Displaced Persons Act 1951 contained such a nonobstante clause, providing that certain provisions would have effect "notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force ......" This Court resolved the conflict by considering the object and purpose of the two laws and giving precedence to the Banking Companies Act by observing: "It is, therefore, desirable to determine the overriding effect of one or the other of the relevant provisions in these two Acts, in a given case, on much broader considerations of the purpose and policy underlying the two Acts and the clear intendment conveyed by the language of the relevant provisions therein. "(p. 615). As indicated by us the special and specific purpose which motivated the enactment of section 14-A and Chapter IIIA of the Delhi Rent Act would be wholly frustrated if the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act requiring permission of the competent authority were to prevail over them. "(p. 615). As indicated by us the special and specific purpose which motivated the enactment of section 14-A and Chapter IIIA of the Delhi Rent Act would be wholly frustrated if the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act requiring permission of the competent authority were to prevail over them. Therefore, the newly introduced provisions of the Delhi Rent Act must hold the field and be given full effect despite anything to the contrary contained in the Slum Clearance Act. 21. For resolving such inter se conflicts, one other test may also be applied through the persuasive force of such a test is but one of the factors which combine to give a fair meaning to the language of the law. That test is that the later enactment must prevail over the earlier one. section 14A and Chapter IIIA having been enacted with effect from December 1, 1975 are later enactments in reference to section 19 of the Slum Clearance Act which, in its present form, was placed on the statute book with effect from February 28, 1965 and in reference to s. 39 of the same Act, which came into force in 1956 when the Act itself was passed. The legislature gave overriding effect to section 14A and Chapter IIIA with the knowledge that sections 19 and 39 of the Slum Clearance Act contained non- obstante clauses of equal efficacy. Therefore the later enactment must prevail over the former. The same test was mentioned with approval by this Court in Shri Ram Narain's case (Supra) at page 615.” 21. Apex Court in the case of Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors. v. Ranjeet Kumar Saha and Another, (2019) 7 SCC 505 given guidance as under:-- “18. The Courts, as a rule, lean against implying repeal unless the two provisions are so plainly repugnant to each other than they cannot stand together and it is not possible on any reasonable hypothesis to give effect to both at the same time. If the objects of the two statutory provisions are different and the language of each statue is restricted to its own objects or subject, then they are generally intended to run in parallel lines without meeting and there would be no real conflict though apparently it may appear to be so on the surface. If the objects of the two statutory provisions are different and the language of each statue is restricted to its own objects or subject, then they are generally intended to run in parallel lines without meeting and there would be no real conflict though apparently it may appear to be so on the surface. Statutes in pari materia although in apparent conflict, should also, so far as reasonably possible, be construed to be in harmony with each other and it is only when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the new provision and the prior statute relating to the same subject-matter, that the former, being the later expression of the legislature, may be held to prevail, the prior law yielding to the extent of the conflict.” 22. Although, here it appears that Promotion Rules of 2002 carry nonobstante clause and overriding effects over other statutes vis-a-vis Rules of 1967/Rules of 1968 but as referred above, Promotion Rules of 2002 is the later expression of the legislature, therefore, has to prevail over the prior law yielding to the extent of the conflict. 23. Rule 4 of Promotion Rules of 2002 provides determination or basis for promotion. Rule 4 is reproduced for ready reference as under:- “4. Determination of basis for promotion -– (1) Promotion from class IV to higher pay scale of class IV, class IV to class III to higher pay scale of class III, class III to class II, class II to higher pay scale of class II and class II to class I posts shall be made on the basis of "seniority subject to fitness". (2) Promotion from class I to higher pay scale of class I posts shall be made on the basis of "merit-cum-seniority": 24. In present context, promotion is sought for the post of Assistant Grade-III to Head Clerk. In other words, it is a promotion from class-III to higher pay scale of class-III or at best to class-II and therefore, it would be governed on the basis of Seniority, subject to Fitness. Rule 6 provides mechanism for promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness, which is relevant in the present case. Rule 6 (7) and Rule 6 (9) of Rules of 2002 are worth reiteration for ready reference :-- Rule 6 -Promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness.-- Rule 6 (1) .….. Rule 6 (2) ……. Rule 6 (3) ……. Rule 6 (7) and Rule 6 (9) of Rules of 2002 are worth reiteration for ready reference :-- Rule 6 -Promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness.-- Rule 6 (1) .….. Rule 6 (2) ……. Rule 6 (3) ……. Rule 6 (4) ……. Rule 6 (5) ……. Rule 6 (6) ……. “Rule 6 (7) For filling up the posts by this method, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the case of each public servants separately on the basis of his own merit, that is to say, that there shall be no need to make a comparative assessment of the merits of public servant. The Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the records of each public servant separately and shall categorise them as 'fit' or 'not fit'. Rule 6 (8) … Rule 6 (9) The names of public servants included in each list shall be arranged in the same order of their seniority as they existed in the cadre/part of the service/pay scale of post from which promotion is to be made.” 25. Perusal of the said provisions makes it further clear that at first, respective merit of candidates ought to have been determined and when it is found all those persons found fit for consideration for promotion, then in the same order of their seniority as they existed in the cadre/part of the service, they have to be promoted. 26. Here it appears that respondents proceeded on illegal assumption of merit-cum-seniority whereas it had already stood amended by the deeming provision as contained in Rule 15 of Promotion Rules, 2002. A fiction has been created by said deeming provision which renders the Service Rules like Rules of 1967 and Rules of 1968 as amended or have to fall in line with the spirit and contents of Rules of 2002. 27. Here respondents erred in not adhering to the criteria of senioritycum-merit and caused illegality and arbitrariness. They had to adhere to that norms and it appears that just to give favour to the respondent No.8, this mechanism has been devised. 28. So far as submissions of the respondents that respondent No.8 had 5 “Excellent grades (A+)” to his credit whereas petitioner had the grade of 5 “Very Good (A)” ACRs to his credit, it has no substantial value in light of the fact that petitioner was found fit for promotion by the DPC. 28. So far as submissions of the respondents that respondent No.8 had 5 “Excellent grades (A+)” to his credit whereas petitioner had the grade of 5 “Very Good (A)” ACRs to his credit, it has no substantial value in light of the fact that petitioner was found fit for promotion by the DPC. Infact, Commissioner, Urban Administration vide respondent No.1 and DPC vide respondent No.2 considered these aspects and never raised any doubt about the fitness of petitioner for promotion. It was only comparative merit which drove the respondents to grant promotion to the respondent No.8, much to the chagrin and dismay of petitioner. 29. Resultantly, petition stands allowed. Impugned orders dated 4.6.2008 (Annexure-P/1), 11.4.2008 (Annexure-P/2) and 11.4.2008 (Annexure-P/3) are hereby set-aside including the promotion order subsequently issued by the revised DPC vide proceedings dated 12.1.2010 (Annexure-R/2), with immediate effect. Petitioner is found entitled to be promoted to the post of Head Clerk/Head Accountant and therefore, respondents are directed to consider and pass an appropriate order for promotion in favour of petitioner. However, from the long period of retention of post albeit illegally by respondent No.8, any supernumerary post can be created, if advised so and if deemed fit by the respondent to accommodate respondent No.8 over the said post. But in case no such thought is in the mind of respondents then respondent No.8 has to step down paving the way for petitioner to be promoted as Head Clerk/Head Accountant. Consequential benefits (although without backwages) shall follow. 30. Petition stands allowed and finally disposed of in above terms.