IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Rule 5(B) (3) and Rule 5(B) (5) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937, which governed the classification and recruitment of posts within the Cantonment Board.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner No. 1 who is working as a Mazdoor and the petitioner No. 2 who is working as Mali, in the Office of the respondents No. 2 and 3, are before this Court with a prayer, amongst others, for setting aside and quashing the impugned Employment Notice dated 01.10.2018, as far as it relates to the filling up of one post of Fitter (Water Supply) and also for being considered for promotion to the vacancies in the said post.

2. The basis of the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Fitter (Water Supply) is founded on their contention that the same is a promotional post and as such, the Employment Notice dated 01.10.2018, calling for direct recruitment to the said post is without jurisdiction and against the stated policy of the respondents.

3. The petitioners it appears from the records had approached this Court on an earlier occasion, against the same impugned Employment Notice vide WP(C) No. 93 of 2019, and on an affidavit being filed by the respondents, placing reliance on Rule 5(B) (3) and Rule 5(B) (5) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937, had then filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 383 of 2019, for quashing the aforesaid Rules. These two writ petitions were then subsequently withdrawn by the petitioners with liberty to file afresh. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of the decisions of the Cantonment Board, Shillong.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

5. Mr. M. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued the case of the petitioners on the premise, that the post that has been advertised is not a direct recruitment post, by referring to the affidavit filed by the respondents filed in WP(C) No. 93 of 2019, where he submits, the respondents have admitted that on earlier occasions, the said post of Fitter was filled up by way of promotion. It is further submitted that except for the Cantonment Board in Shillong, the other Cantonment Boards have promotional avenues for lower grade employees such as Mali, Mazdoor, etc., and also that the post of Fitter is not a direct recruitment post. He submits that the decision of the Cantonment Board to change the promotional post of Fitter into a direct recruitment post is arbitrary and illegal, especially in the absence of any valid notification under the relevant Rules of the Cantonment Board.

6. The learned counsel then submits that the petitioners have also been deprived of any promotion in their careers, which goes against the grain of entitlements of an employee in his service career. In support of this contention, learned counsel has cited the following decisions:

i) A. Satyanarayana and Others vs. S. Purushotam and Others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 416.

ii) Food Corporation of India and Ors. vs. Parashotam Das Bansal & Ors. reported in (2008) 5 SCC 100.

iii) Dr. Ms O.Z. Hussain vs. UOI reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 688.

iv) CSIR & Another vs. K.G.S. Bhatt & Another reported in (1989) SCC 635.

v) K.K. Roy vs. State of Tripura reported in (2004) 9 SCC 65.

7. Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Dkhar, learned counsel for the respondents in reply, has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3, and submits that the post of Fitter (Water Supply) has been declared as a direct recruitment post under the provision of Rule 5(B) (5) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937. He submits that, the claim of the writ petitioners that the said post is a promotional post, is without any basis whatsoever, and a mere perusal of the Memorandum of Settlement, entered into between the Cantonment Boards and the workmen on 13.05.1969, will make it clear that it nowhere says, provides or means that the post of Fitter is to be filled by indirect recruitment, nor does it say it has to be filled up by promotion. He asserts that the submissions of the writ petitioners to the contrary on this aspect is misleading, as in fact, the