Hon’ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the New Okhala Industrial Development Authority.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.2.2015, by means of which, recommendation has been sent for absorbing respondent No. 4 in New Okhala Industrial Development Authority (for short ‘’NOIDA’) as well as the orders dated 13.2.2014 and 19.2.2014, by means of which, respondent No. 4 has been sent on deputation for a period of three years in NOIDA on the post of Project Engineer (Electrical) and the orders dated 5.5.2015 and 7.5.2015, by means of which, absorption of respondent No. 4 has been made.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioners are presently posted in NOIDA as Assistant Project Engineer (Electrical). On 19.10.1993, an amendment was made in the promotion Rules of NOIDA’s employees, which provided that the promotion on Class-I post would be made on the basis of merit and the post of Project Engineer would be filled up, 65% by promotion and 34% by direct recruitment/deputation.

4. The aforesaid Rules were later on amended in 125th meeting of the Board, which was held on 15.4.2005 and the amendment was incorporated therein that the Board is empowered to fill up the post of Project Engineer 100% by promotion. The source of recruitment w.e.f. 15.4.2005 to fill up the post of Project Engineer is only by promotion.

5. The petitioner No. 1 filed Claim Petition No. 1464 of 2008, claiming promotion on the post of Project Engineer from the year 2003, which was decided on 19.3.2011 holding therein that the petitioner No. 1 is entitled for promotion. The aforesaid promotion is to be granted w.e.f. 1.8.2003 when the petitioner No. 1 acquired eligibility. In the like manner, remaining two petitioners also claimed promotion to the post of Project Engineer as and when they became eligible.

6. The respondent No. 4 came to be posted in NOIDA on deputation on the basis of request made by his mother, who was the then District President of Samajwadi Party (Mahila Staff), Unnao. The aforesaid letter was processed and the NOIDA was asked to send recommendation within three days.

7. The Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA wrote a letter on 29.4.2013, informing the State Government that the post of Project Engineer is to be filled up on the basis of 100% promotion and out of four posts, three posts have already been filled up and one post is lying vacant. The post to be held by respondent No. 4 is equivalent to the post of Assistant Project Engineer in U.P. Power Corporation.

8. The State Government again wrote a letter on 2.5.2013 to NOIDA pointing out therein that the recommendation has not been made as desired by the Government. Again on 10.5.2013 in reply to the letter dated 2.5.2013, the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA wrote a letter to the State Government, reiterating the same facts, which were written on 29.4.2013. The State Government again wrote a letter on 14.5.2013, seeking a report on two points, which were replied by the NOIDA on 14.5.2013, specifically mentioning therein that on two posts of Assistant Project Engineer, three persons are working on the basis of direct recruitment and none is working on deputation and it was also mentioned that against two posts of Assistant Project Engineer, process of promotion is going on, which is to be completed shortly.

9. The State Government on 13.2.2014 wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA that a decision has been taken to appoint respondent No. 4 on the post of Project Engineer (Electrical) on deputation for a period of three years and in compliance thereof, the NOIDA issued an appointment letter appointing respondent No. 4 on the post of Project Engineer (Electrical) on deputation for a period of three years. The respondent No. 4 joined on the post in question on 17.2.2014 and was ha