{"id":257809,"date":"2003-06-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-06-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003"},"modified":"2014-06-18T16:48:55","modified_gmt":"2014-06-18T11:18:55","slug":"c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003","title":{"rendered":"C. Chakkaravarthy vs Union Of India Rep By The on 23 June, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
C. Chakkaravarthy vs Union Of India Rep By The on 23 June, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 23\/06\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K. MISHRA\nAND\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\n\nWRIT PETITION NO. 11236 OF 2000\n\n1. C. Chakkaravarthy\n2. G. Elanchiezhian\n3. S. Parrie\n4. R. Suresh\n5. G. Rajulu                            .... Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Union of India rep by the\n   Government of Pondicherry\n   rep by Secretary to Government\n   Local Administration and Public\n   Works Department\n   (Public Works Wing),\n   Pondicherry-1\n\n2. R. Saisubramanian\n3. M. Ravisankar\n4. B. Palaniappan\n5. N. Suresh Nathan\n6. G. Vijayan\n7. J. Jayakumar\n8. R. Sowrirajan\n9. The Central Administrative Tribunal\n   Additional Bench, Madras rep by\n   its Registrar\n\n10.P. Paramasivam\n11.S. Adaikala Lawrance\n12.M.R.Velu\n13.V. Chinnakunju\n14.S. Ramachandran\n15.E. Ramadoss\n16.S. Sekaran\n17.S. Suresh\n18.G. Nagarajan\n19.Mr. Vaidyanathan\n20.J. Kalidasan\n21.N. Kanniappan\n22.J. Lucian Pedre Kumar\n23.R. Ravichandran\n24.S. Manikavasagam\n25.S. Sridhar\n26.R. Manikavasagam\n\n   (R.23 to R.26 were impleaded as per\n    Order dated 16.9.2002 in W.P.M.P.No.\n    51797 of 2002)                                      .... Respondents\n\n        Writ Petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of  the  Constitution  of  India\npraying  this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the\nrecords of the 9th respondent in its Order  in  O.A.No.359\/97  dated  27.8.99,\n\n\nquash  the  same  and  consequently  direct  the 1st respondent to promote the\npetitioners as Assistant Engineers in  the  Public  Works  Department  of  the\nGovernment of Pondicherry with effect from 8.3.1997 with all benefits.\n\n!For petitioners                :       Mr.Vijaya Narayan\n\n^For 1st respondent             :       Mr.T.  Murugesan\n                                        Govt.  Pleader\n\nFor respondents 2 to 8 :        Mr.  Mohan Parasaran\n                                Senior Counsel for\n                                M\/s G.R.  Swaminathan\n\nFor respondents 10 to 22        :       Ms.R.  Vaigai\n\nFor respondents 23 to 26        :       Mr.R.  Hariharan\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
        (The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.K.  MISRA,J.,)<\/p>\n
        Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.  The facts giving
\nrise to present writ petitions are narrated in some detail.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   The  petitioners  joined  under  the  first respondent as Section
\nOfficers, subsequently re-designated as Junior Engineers.  Initially they were
\ndiploma holders.  The contesting respondents 2 to 8  also  joined  as  Section
\nOfficers at  a subsequent point of time.  They were degree holders at the time
\nof their appointment.  As per  the  Rules,  20%  of  the  posts  of  Assistant
\nEngineers  are  to  be  filled  up  by  Direct  Recruitment and the balance by
\npromotion from the Junior Engineers and a Junior Engineer can be  promoted  to
\nthe post  of  Assistant  Engineer.  50% of such promotional posts are reserved
\nfor Junior Engineers having degree as their qualification and 50% are reserved
\nfor diploma holders.  So far as degree holders are concerned, as per Rule  11,
\nthree  years  in  service  is  required to make a Junior Engineer eligible for
\npromotion as Assistant  Engineer,  whereas  so  far  as  diploma  holders  are
\nconcerned, it is indicated that they must have six years service in such cadre
\nof junior  engineer.    The  petitioner  after having joined service as junior
\nengineers subsequently acquired degree.  Selection took place in the year 1987
\nand 1989.  At that stage, the petitioners had not  completed  three  years  of
\nservice  after  acquiring  the degree even though they were already in service
\nfor more than three years as diploma holders.  As the petitioners’ cases  were
\nnot  considered,  O.A.No.552\/1989  was filed before the Central Administrative
\nTribunal.  It was the contention of the petitioners at th at stage that  since
\nthey  were  already  in  service  for more than three years and since they had
\nacquired degree, they were eligible to be  considered  for  promotion  and  by
\nignoring their case illegality had been committed.  The Central Administrative
\nTribunal  by  its  judgment  dated  9.1.1990  upheld  the  contention  of such
\napplicants and held that since the applicants had three years of experience in
\nservice, as soon as  they  acquired  the  degree  qualification,  they  became
\neligible   for   promotion   and  their  case  should  have  been  considered.
\nAccordingly, a direction was given to hold Review D.P.C  for  the  purpose  of
\nconsidering such  cases.   Such decision of the Tribunal was challenged by the
\nJunior Engineers before the Supreme Court.   The  Supreme  Court  by  Judgment
\ndated 22.11.1991 in  the  decision reported in A.I.R.  1992 SC 564 (N.  SURESH
\nNATHAN AND ANOTHER VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS) reversed the decision of  the
\nTribunal.   Since much reliance has been placed by the contesting respondents,
\non such decision it is  necessary  to  quote  the  relevant  portions  of  the
\ndecision of the Supreme Court in extenso:\n<\/p>\n
“……….   for  appointment  by  promotion  of  Section Officers now called
\nJunior Engineers, the qualification prescribed is as under<\/p>\n
” 1.  Section Officers possessing a recognised Degree in Civil Engineering  or
\nequivalent  with  three  years’  service  in  the grade failing which Sections
\nOfficers holding Diploma in Civil Engineering with six years’ service  in  the
\ngrade – 50 per cent.\n<\/p>\n
2.Section  Officers  possessing a recognised Diploma in Civil Engineering with
\nsix years’ service in the grade – 50 per cent.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The dispute in the  present  case  is  whether  a  Diploma  holder  Junior
\nEngineer   who  obtains  a  Degree  while  in  service  becomes  eligible  for
\nappointment as Assistant Engineer by promotion on completion of  three  years’
\nservice  prior to obtaining the Degree or the three years’ service as a Degree
\nholder for this purpose is to be reckoned from the date he obtains the Degree.
\nThe Diploma holders contend that they are  entitled  to  include  the  earlier
\nperiod  and  would be eligible for promotion in this category on obtaining the
\nDegree if the total period of service is three years inclusive of the  earlier
\nperiod.  The Degree holders contest this position and contend to the contrary.
\nAccording to  the  Degree-holders,  these are two distinct categories.  In the
\nfirst category are Degree holders with three years’ service in  the  grade  as
\ndegree  holders,  the  period  of  three years being subsequent to the date of
\nobtaining the degree as in the case of  the  Junior  Engineers  who  join  the
\nservice  with  a  Degree and the other category is of Diploma holders with six
\nyears’ experience.\n<\/p>\n
………\n<\/p>\n
4.  In our opinion, this appeal has  to  be  allowed.    There  is  sufficient
\nmaterial  including  the  admission  of  respondents  Diploma holders that the
\npractice followed in the Department for a long time was that in  the  case  of
\nDiploma  holder  Junior  Engineers who obtained the Degree during service, the
\nperiod of three years’ service in the grade for eligibility for  promotion  as
\nDegree holders commenced from the date of obtaining the Degree and the earlier
\nperiod of  service  as Diploma holders was not counted for this purpose.  This
\nearlier practice was clearly admitted by the respondents  Diploma  holders  in
\npara  5  of  their  application  made to the Tribunal at page 115 of the paper
\nbook.  This also appears to be the view of the Union Public Service Commission
\ncontained in their letter dated December 6,1968 extracted at pages  99-100  of
\nthe paper book in the counter affidavit of respondents
\n1 to  3.    The  real question, therefore, is whether the construction made of
\nthis provision in the rules on which the past practice extending over  a  long
\nperiod is based is untenable to require upsetting it.  If the past practice is
\nbased on one of the possible constructions which can be made of the rules then
\nupsetting the  same  now  would not be appropriate.  It is in this perspective
\nthat the question raised has to be determined.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Engineers  in  the  P.W.D.
\n(Annexure-C)  are  at  pages  57  to 59 of the paper book Rule 7 lays down the
\nqualifications for direct recruitment from the  two  sources,  namely,  Degree
\nholders and  Diploma  holders  with  three years’ professional experience.  In
\nother words, a Degree is equated to Diploma  with  three  years’  professional
\nexperience.   Rule  11 provides for recruitment by promotion from the grade of
\nSection Officers now called Junior Engineers.  There also categories  provided
\ntherein- one is of degree holder Junior Engineers with three years’ service in
\nthe  grade and the other is of Diploma holder Junior Engineers with six years’
\nservice in the grade, the provision being for 50% from each  category.    This
\nmatches  with  R,7  wherein a Degree is equated with Diploma with three years’
\nprofessional experience.  In the first category meant for Degree  holders,  it
\nis also provided that if degree holders with three years; service in the grade
\nare  not  available in sufficient number, then Diploma holders with six years’
\nservice in the grade may be considered in the category of Degree holders  also
\nfor the  50%  vacancies  meant  for  them.  The entire scheme, therefore, does
\nindicate that the period of three years’ service in  the  grade  required  for
\nDegree  holders  according  to R.11 as the qualification for promotion in that
\ncategory must mean three years’ service in the grade as a  Degree  holder  and
\ntherefore,  that  period  of  three  years  can commence only from the date of
\nobtaining the Degree and not earlier.  The service in the grade as  a  Diploma
\nholder prior to obtaining the Degree cannot be counted as service in the grade
\nwith a Degree for the purpose of three years’ service as a Degree holder.  The
\nonly question before us is of the construction of the provision and not of the
\nvalidity  thereof and, therefore, we are only required to construe the meaning
\nof the provision.  In our opinion, the contention  of  the  appellants  Degree
\nholders that the rules must be construed to mean that the three years’ service
\nin  the  grade  of a Degree holder for the purpose of R.11 is three years from
\nthe date of obtaining the Degree is quite tenable and commends to us being  in
\nconformity with  the past practice followed consistently.  It has also been so
\nunderstood by all concerned  till  the  raising  of  the  present  controversy
\nrecently by  the  respondents.   The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in
\ntaking  the  contrary  view  and  unsettling  the  settled  practice  in   the
\nDepartment.”\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied by us)<\/p>\n
        3.   Thereafter,  review application had been filed before the Supreme
\nCourt, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court, by order dated  13.1.1993  in
\nReview Petition NO.50\/93.  The entire order is also extracted here under:\n<\/p>\n
ORDER
\nWe  have  considered  the  review  petition  along with Annexures I and II and
\nexamined the other relevant documents and we do not  find  any  merit  in  the
\nprayer for review which is accordingly rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  As per the said decision of the Supreme Court, there is no dispute
\nthat  the  persons whose promotion at that time had been impugned before C.A.T
\nin O.A.No 552\/1989 have been restored in the promoted post.  Such persons  are
\nnot  before  this  Court  in  the present case and their promotions are not in
\nquestion.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  After the aforesaid episode was over, in the subsequent D.P.C  for
\nconsidering  the  question  of  promotion  to  other  vacancies,  the  present
\nrespondents 2 to 8 were promoted and the petitioners were not  considered  for
\npromotion.   According to the contesting respondents, this was done in view of
\nthe specific decision of the Supreme Court that  service  rendered  as  Junior
\nEngineer   before  acquiring  the  degree  was  not  to  be  considered  while
\nconsidering the question of promotion to the post of Assistant  Engineer  from
\namong the degree holder Junior Engineers.\n<\/p>\n
        6.    The   petitioners   filed   O.A.No.359\/97   before  the  Central
\nAdministrative Tribunal.  Such petition was dismissed by the Tribunal,  giving
\nrise to the filing of the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  Mr.  Vijay Narayan, the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner  has  contended  that  as  per the decision of the Supreme Court, a
\ndiploma holder if he subsequently acquires a degree would become eligible  for
\npromotion  only  after three years of experience after acquiring the degree in
\nengineering.  Once such persons become eligible, the question of promotion has
\nto be considered on the basis of merit cum seniority and the past services  of
\nthe persons rendered prior to their acquiring the degree cannot be ignored for
\nthe purpose of computing the seniority.  Such contention has been supported by
\nMs.  R.  Vaigai appearing for respondents 10 to 22.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   On the other hand it is the contention of the learned counsel for
\nthe Union Territory of Pondicherry as well as Mr.Mohan Parasaran, the  counsel
\nfor the respondents 2 to 8 that the length of service of diploma holders prior
\nto  the  acquiring  of  the  degree  of  engineering cannot be counted for the
\npurpose of considering the question of promotion, according to the decision of
\nthe Supreme Court, which is binding on all concerned.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  We have already extracted the relevant portion of the decision  of
\nthe Supreme  Court.  At the time, when O.A.No.52\/89 was filed, admittedly, the
\npresent petitioners had not completed three years of service  after  acquiring
\nthe degree  in  engineering.    The  observation  of  the Supreme Court in the
\nemphasised portion makes it amply clear that the Supreme Court had  considered
\nonly  the  question of eligibility of diploma holder who subsequently acquired
\nthe degree for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer.
\nAccording to the Supreme Court in Suresh Nathan’s  case,  such  persons  would
\nbecome eligible only after completing three years of service after acquiring a
\ndegree of  engineering.   The question as to whether the past service rendered
\nas diploma holder would be counted for the purpose of seniority for  promotion
\nwas not  considered  by the Supreme Court and had not risen at that stage.  In<\/p>\n
other words, the Supreme  Court  was  concerned  only  with  the  question  of
\neligibility, but was not concerned as to whether the past services rendered by
\nthe diploma holders would be counted for the purpose of seniority.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   It  is  not  disputed  that a person, whether a degree holder or
\ndiploma holder, after joining service as junior engineer, is borne in a common
\ncadre and the seniority  is  considered  from  the  date  of  joining  service
\nirrespective of  the  educational  qualification.    Therefore,  the  services
\nrendered by the diploma holder in junior  engineer  cadre  cannot  be  ignored
\nwhile  considering  his  case  for  promotion, after he acquires the degree of
\ngraduation in engi neering.  However, in view of Rule 11 as interpreted by the
\nSupreme Court, such a person can become eligible only  after  rendering  three
\nyears of service after acquiring the degree in engineering.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   Even  before  the  ink  had  dried  in Suresh Nathen’s case, the
\nSupreme Court in M.B.  Joshi vs Satish Kumar Pandey<\/a> (1993  Supp  (2)  SCC  419
\ndistinguished  the  earlier case and observed that the experience prior to the
\nacquisition of the higher qualification cannot be ignored.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  The matter was again considered in (1994) Supp 1 SCC 95 (Union of
\nIndia vs B.  Jayaram and Others<\/a>) and the decision in Suresh Nathan’ s case was
\ndistinguished.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court  in  Suresh  Nathan’s
\ncase was  again considered in 1997 (4) SCC 753 (D.  Stephen Joseph vs Union of
\nIndia and Others<\/a>).  Distinguishing Suresh Nathan’s case and relying upon  M.B.
\nJoshi’s case, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
\n“It  appears  to  us  that  the  State  Government  is labouring under a wrong
\nimpression as to the applicability of the past practice as indicated in Suresh
\nNathan case.  This Court in the said decision, has only  indicated  that  past
\npractice  should  not be upset provided such practice conforms to the rule for
\npromotion and  consistently  for  some  time  past  the  rule  has  been  made
\napplicable in  a  particular manner.  In our view, the decision in Nathan case
\nonly indicates that past practice must be referable to  the  applicability  of
\nthe rule by interpreting it in a particular manner consistently for some time.
\nAny  past  practice dehors the rule cannot be taken into consideration as past
\npractice consistently followed for long by interpreting the rule.  It  may  be
\nindicated  here  that a similar question also came up for consideration before
\nthis Court in M.B.  Joshi vs Satish Kumar Pandey<\/a>.    The  decision  in  Suresh
\nNathan  case  was distinguished in the facts of that case and it was indicated
\nthat when the language of the rule is quite  specific  that  if  a  particular
\nlength  of  service in the feeder post together with educational qualification
\nenables a candidate to be considered for promotion, it will not be  proper  to
\ncount the experience only from the date of acquisition of superior educational
\nqualification  because  such  interpretation  will violate the very purpose to
\ngive incentive to the employee to acquire higher education”.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  The question of promotion in a  similar  situation  was  directly
\nconsidered by the Supreme Court in the case of R.B.  Desai and Another vs S.K.
\nKhanolker  and  Others<\/a> in 1999 7 SCC 54 After considering the rules applicable
\nto that particular case, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
\n“If on the date of consideration, the appellants did not have the  eligibility
\nthen  certainly  it  is the first respondent who ought to have been considered
\nfor the said promotion and if he was so promoted earlier than  the  appellants
\nhe would  have  acquired a higher ranking in the seniority list of ACFS.  That
\nnot being the case, we are unable to agree with the view  taken  by  the  High
\nCourt,  as stated above, because on the date on which the avenue for promotion
\nto the cadre of  ACFs  opened  both  the  appellants  as  well  as  the  first
\nrespondent  had  the  necessary  eligibility  and  their  names figured in the
\neligibility list.  That being so, as stated above, it is the appellants  whose
\ncase  ought  to  have been considered first and it was so done and they having
\nbeen found otherwise suitable, they were rightly  promoted  earlier  than  the
\nfirst respondent.   Consequently, they are entitled to a higher ranking in the
\ncadre of ACFs vis-a-vis the first respondent.  The view taken by us also finds
\nsupport from the judgment of this Court in Union of India  vs  B.    Jayaraman<\/a>
\nwherein considering a similar argument this Court held:
\n”  The  note  in  column  11 is only for purposes of giving eligibility to the
\nerstwhile Assistants working as Superintendents Grade II for purposes of being
\nconsidered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade I and not for the
\npurpose of seniority at all”\n<\/p>\n
with which view we respectfully agree”\n<\/p>\n
        15.  In the case of A.K.  Raghumani Singh and Others vs Gopal  Chandra
\nNath and Others<\/a> reported in (2000(4) SCC 30) the question was again considered
\nand after  referring  to  other  decisions  viz.,  M.B.  Joshi vs Satish Kumar
\nPandey<\/a>, (1993 Supp (2) SCC 419) and D.   Stephen  Joseph  vs  Union  of  India<\/a>
\n((1997)4  SCC  753)  the  Supreme  Court  reiterated  the view that the entire
\nservice of a person concerned  even  before  acquiring  the  degree  would  be
\ncounted for the purpose of seniority and for the purpose of promotion.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   A  perusal  of  the  aforesaid decisions makes it clear that the
\nquestion of eligibility for promotion is one thing and  question  of  counting
\nentire  service  after  a person becomes eligible is considered on a different
\nfooting.  As noticed earlier in A.I.R 1992 SC 564  ,  the  Supreme  Court  was
\nconcerned  only  with  the  question  of eligibility of a diploma holder to be
\nconsidered for promotion after acquiring degree and it was observed that after
\nacquiring the degree he has to work for three years  before  he  would  become
\neligible.\n<\/p>\n
        17.   The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents  2  to 8
\nvehemently contended that the question of resjudicata is  squarely  applicable
\nto  the present case and since the very same question has already been decided
\nbetween the parties in the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, no  contrary
\ncontention can  be  countenanced.  Even though such a contention may appear to
\nbe attractive on the face of it, on deeper scrutiny, such contention does  not
\nappear to  be  tenable.  The question of resjudicata would be applicable where
\nthe question was directly in issue.  In the earlier case the only question was
\nrelating to eligibility and the Supreme Court had observed  that  the  Diploma
\nholder after acquiring the degree would become eligible only after three years
\nof service  .    At  the cost of the repetition, it may be pointed out that at
\nthat stage the only question which arose for determination was relating to the
\neligibility for such diploma holders after they acquired degree.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  It is seen that in the present case a fresh selection process was
\nstarted in the year 1996 and the respondents 2 to 8 have been selected on  the
\nfooting that  they  had  longer  service  after  their  graduation.   The past
\nservices of the petitioners as in the cadre of  junior  engineers  as  diploma
\nholders before  they  become degree holders has not been considered.  This has
\nbeen done on a wrong interpretation of the decision of the  Supreme  Court  in
\nthe case  of  N.    Suresh  Nathan  and  Another  vs Union of India and others<\/a>
\nreported in A.I.R 1992 SC 564.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents also
\ncontended that subsequent to the aforesaid decision a Review  Application  had
\nbeen  filed , wherein the question of seniority in the entire service had been
\nraised and therefore, it must be taken that the question has been finalised by
\nthe Supreme Court.  It is true that the Supreme Court in the  Order  rejecting
\nthe  Review  Application  has referred to Annexure, which had been filed along
\nwith the Review Application, but the sole question was of eligibility and with
\nreference to the correspondence made by UPSC, but the question as  to  whether
\nthe  entire  service  is  to  be  counted or not was not pleaded either in the
\noriginal S.L.P or in the Review Application.    As  a  matter  of  fact,  such
\nquestion could  not  have  been  arisen  .    It has to be remembered that the
\nSupreme Court considered the question of promotion decided in  D.P.C  held  in
\nthe years  1987  and  1989.  At that stage, the petitioners had not served for
\nthree years after acquiring the degree in Engineering.  Since the question had
\nnot directly arisen, nor could have been pleaded at that stage, we are of  the
\nview  that  the question of resjudicata either actual or constructive does not
\narise.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  The learned counsel for the contesting respondents also raised  a
\ncontention  that in view of Article 141<\/a> of the Constitution of India, the Law,
\nas declared by Supreme Court, is binding on all Courts.  In the present  case,
\nthe  ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1992 SC 564 has already
\nbeen clarified by the Supreme  Court  subsequently  by  several  decisions  as
\nalready noticed.    The view which we have now expressed is in consonance with
\nthe ratio of subsequent decisions and in no way contrary to  the  decision  in
\nthe case  of  N.    SURESH  NATHAN  AND  ANOTHER  VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
\nreported in A.I.R 1 992 SC 564.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  The learned Senior Counsel Mr.  Mohan Parasaran appearing for the
\nrespondents 2 to 8 relied upon the decision reported in 2001(2) SCC 362(INDIAN
\nAIRLINES LTD VS S.  GOPALAKRISHNAN) The afore said decision also  was  on  the
\nquestion  of  the  eligibility or qualification and the question as to whether
\nthe entire service would be counted after the person is  found  eligible,  was
\nnot before the Supreme Court and was not considered by the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
        22.   In view of the above, we are inclined to allow the writ petition
\nand direct that a review D.P.C should be held  to  consider  the  question  of
\npromotion  of  the  present  petitioners  vis-a-vis the respondents 2 to 8 and
\nother eligible persons who had become eligible by the date of the  sitting  of
\nD.P.C held  in 1996.  It is made clear that the persons who got the benefit of
\nthe Supreme Court decision in A.I.R 1992 SC 564 are not before this Court  and
\ntheir promotion is not at all affected by the present order.\n<\/p>\n
        23.   The  learned  counsel for the petitioners submitted that in 1991
\nthe Rules had been changed and in the cadre of Junior Engineers.   Two  grades
\nhave  been  introduced  viz.,  Junior  Engineer  Grade-II  and Junior Engineer
\nGrade-I.  It is further  submitted  that  the  present  petitioners  had  been
\npromoted  to  Grade-I  earlier  to  the  contesting  respondents  2  to  8 and
\ntherefore, before promoting respondents 2 to 8, the  petitioners  should  have
\nbeen promoted.  In the meantime, such Rule has been abolished.  In view of the
\nfact  that  we  have  given a direction for reconsideration of the question of
\npromotion, this question raised by the petitioners need not be decided and  we
\nhave not expressed any opinion on this aspect.\n<\/p>\n
        24.   The  writ  petition  is  accordingly  allowed,  subject  to  the
\ndirections given.  No costs.  Fresh exercise as per  our  direction  shall  be
\ncarried  out  within a period of four months from the date of communication of
\nthis order.\n<\/p>\n
                                (P.K.  MISRA,J.,) (F.M.I.K.J.,)
\n23-06-2003
\nsr<\/p>\n
Index:yes
\nWeb site:  yes<\/p>\n
                                                P.K.  MISRA,J.,
\n                                                        AND
\n                                                F.M.  IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.,
\n                                                                         sr<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Union of India rep by the
\nGovernment of Pondicherry
\nrep by Secretary to Government
\nLocal Administration and Public
\nWorks Department
\n(Public Works Wing),
\nPondicherry-1<\/p>\n
2.  The Central Administrative Tribunal
\nAdditional Bench, Madras rep by
\nits Registrar<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court C. Chakkaravarthy vs Union Of India Rep By The on 23 June, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23\/06\/2003 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K. MISHRA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA WRIT PETITION NO. 11236 OF 2000 1. C. Chakkaravarthy 2. G. Elanchiezhian 3. S. Parrie 4. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-257809","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC. Chakkaravarthy vs Union Of India Rep By The on 23 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C. Chakkaravarthy vs Union Of India Rep By The on 23 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-18T11:18:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C. Chakkaravarthy vs Union Of India Rep By The on 23 June, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-18T11:18:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3831,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003\",\"name\":\"C. Chakkaravarthy vs Union Of India Rep By The on 23 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-18T11:18:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C. Chakkaravarthy vs Union Of India Rep By The on 23 June, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C. Chakkaravarthy vs Union Of India Rep By The on 23 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C. Chakkaravarthy vs Union Of India Rep By The on 23 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-18T11:18:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C. Chakkaravarthy vs Union Of India Rep By The on 23 June, 2003","datePublished":"2003-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-18T11:18:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003"},"wordCount":3831,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003","name":"C. Chakkaravarthy vs Union Of India Rep By The on 23 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-18T11:18:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-chakkaravarthy-vs-union-of-india-rep-by-the-on-23-june-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C. Chakkaravarthy vs Union Of India Rep By The on 23 June, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257809","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=257809"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257809\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257809"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257809"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257809"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}