CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. R.Chitra2.The Central Administrative Tribunalrep. By its Registrar

relevant Service Rules for promotion to the post of StatisticalOfficer should be implemented on Post-Based Roster or vacancy based.2.The Union of India represented by the Union Territory ofPondicherry is the Writ Petitioner and the first respondent is theapplicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal. For the sakeof convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankinggiven in the Original Application in O.A.No.593 of 2004.3.The applicant, R.Chitra approached the Tribunal and filedO.A.No.593 of 2004, praying for a direction to set aside the orderpassed by the first respondent dated 27.2.2004 and for aconsequential direction to promote her to the post of statisticalOfficer with effect from 27.2.2004, the date when she became eligiblefor the post with all attendant benefits. 3. The case of the applicant is that she holds a Masters Degreein Mathematics with Statistics as one of her optional subjects. Shejoined the services as Statistical Inspector on 23.8.1988 and wasplaced in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 1.1.1996and thereafter she was given higher pay scale under the AssuredCareer Progression (ACP) Scheme and placed in the scale of Rs.5500-9000. The grievance of the applicant was that, though she was givenhigher pay scale, she was not given promotion to the post ofStatistical Officer which would enable her to get further promotions.It is submitted that the next avenue of promotion available to theapplicant is that of a Research Assistant, which post has been re-designated on 24.3.1994 as Statistical Officer.3.2. At this juncture it is useful to refer to the RecruitmentRule notified on 8.1.1982 for the post of Research/StatisticalOfficer which stipulates the method of recruitment for the said post.Rule 10 stipulates that the method of recruitment shall exclusivelybe by promotion only. Rule 11 states that "promotion from the gradeof Statistical Inspector/Statistical Assistant/Price Inspector withsix years of regular service in the grade for graduates/postgraduates and eight years of regular service for non-graduates".Promotion shall be in the ratio of 3:5 in between non graduates andgraduates/post graduates. 3.3.By relying upon the Recruitment Rule 1982, as mentionedabove, the applicant would submit that, the qualification forpromotion from the grade which she had been working i.e. StatisticalInspector to that of Statistical Officer is that a graduate or postgraduate should have six years of regular service in the grade andnon-graduates should have 8 years of regular service in the grade forpromotion to the post of Statistical Officer and that the same shallbe in the ratio of 3:5 between non-graduates and graduates/postgraduates, and that she was entitled to be promoted in the year 1994 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ itself when she had completed six years of regular service in thepost of Statistical Inspector and despite several representations,she was not considered and the first respondent had promoted nongraduates on the basis of Post-Based Roster. The applicant wouldfurther submit that the adoption of promotion on the basis of Post-Based Roster is totally opposed to the Recruitment Rules.3.4. In the Original Application, the applicant has also giveninstances as to how the Recruitment Rule stood violated and that evenon 27.2.2004, the first respondent had promoted seven non-graduatesand three graduates and such promotion is in excess of the quotameant for promotion. The said non-graduates who have been accordedpromotion have also been impleaded as party respondents in theOriginal Application as well as in this Writ Petition.3.5. Thus, the main ground of attack by the applicant is thatthe first respondent ought not to have resorted to making promotionon the basis of Post-Based Roster instead of following theRecruitment Rule strictly which makes it clear that the method offilling up of vacancies shall be as per the prescribed quota for thevacancies and not for the posts. 4.The claim of the applicant was resisted by the firstrespondent by filing a reply statement, inter-alia contending thatthe ACP Scheme was introduced by the Government as per therecommendation of the V Central Pay Commission to deal with theproblems of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employeesdue to lack of adequate promotional avenue and under the scheme twofinancial upgradation to categories which have no promotional avenueswithin 12 years of regular service from the date of first appointmentand the second upgradation after 12 more years of service on the samegrounds is envisaged and this has no relevance to the seniorityposition in a hierarchy cadre. 4.2 It is further contended that the applicant cannot be givenundue advantage to adopt the procedure in the Recruitment Rule forthe post of Statistical officer and that the interpretation given bythe applicant is not tenable. The candidates who were senior to theapplicant were promoted as per the Departmental PromotionalCommittee’s recommendations for considering the factual informationon the service rendered by them in the lower post namely StatisticalInspector. 4.3 On the legal issue raised by the applicant as to whetherthe promotion should be on the basis of the Post-Based Roster or onthe basis of the vacancies, the first respondent would submit thatthe ratio prescribed in the Recruitment Rules 1982, as 3:5 betweennon-graduates and graduates/post graduates Statistical Inspectors hasbeen applied to the total sanctioned strength by adopting the Post- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Based Roster. It is submitted that all the 24 posts were filled upwith nine non graduates and 15 graduates / post graduates andwhenever vacancy arise, the above quota is followed in the respectivecategory for considering the promotion.4.4 It has been further stated that the members of the stafffrom the feeder grade post viz. Statistical Inspectors wereconsidered according to their seniority position in the finalseniority list. The first respondent would further submit that it isnot obligatory and possible to offer promotion immediately aftercompletion of the minimum period of service to the Government servantas the sanctioned strength of the post in each grade has to bemaintained and on occurrence of vacancy only the post shall be filledup in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. The first respondentfurther submits that the applicant is not entitled to claim promotionas a matter of right and as per the Recruitment Rule, seniority cumfitness has to be considered by the DPC and as per the Post-Based(vacancy) Roster and since the applicant is already getting the scaleof pay of the Statistical Officer, namely Rs.5500-9000 on upgradationof higher scale in ACP Scheme she cannot have any genuine grievanceto be considered.4.5 On the specific instances pointed out by the applicantregarding the promotions which were granted earlier, the firstrespondent would state that three non-graduates including oneP.Devaraj have been promoted by fulfilling the quota meant forgraduate/ post graduates which ended with three promotions i.e. uptoN.Balakrishnan at Sl.No.3 by order dated 17.5.2002, and the approvalof the DPC has been obtained and there is no deviation or violationfrom the procedure.4.6 The first respondent would further submit that the Post-Based Roster is adopted in accordance with the law laid down by theHon’ble Supreme Court in R.K.SABHARWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, reportedin (1995) 2 SCC 745, and that the sanctioned strength of the post isthe basic requirement for filling up of the vacancy and no post canbe filled up in any category in excess of the sanctioned strength. 4.7 It is the further contention of the first respondent thatthe Post-Based Roster has to be followed as per the Government ofIndia’s instruction for filling up of vacancy when two or morecategories in the feeder grades are existing. Reservation for SC/STetc., is a separate process and the Roster is a different one whichis followed as per the statutory instructions of the Government. Thefirst respondent would further submit that under the relevant Rules,the applicant will be considered for promotion at the appropriatetime i.e. on occurrence of vacancy and when her claim under graduatequota falls. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The Tribunal considering the matter and after placingreliance upon the two Judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by anorder dated 09.12.2005, has held that the order of promotion whichwas impugned before the Tribunal is clearly contrary to the ServiceRules and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court andtherefore, set aside the said order of promotion. The Tribunalfurther directed the official respondents to strictly comply with theratio of 3:5 between non-graduates and graduates/post graduates andconsider the applicant for promotion as per Rules within a period oftwo months from the date of receipt of the order. The said orderdated 9.12.2005 is impugned in this Writ Petition. 6.We have heard Mr. Syed Mustaffa, learned Additional GovernmentPleader for the petitioner/respondent and Ms.R.Vaigai, learnedcounsel for the first respondent/applicant.7.The learned Additional Government Pleader while reiteratingthe submissions made before the Tribunal would submit that theTribunal ought to have considered the minutes of the DepartmentalPromotion Committee, which are clear and indicate that the quotarota rule was strictly followed and the persons in the seniority rankfrom 43 to 61 were duly considered. It is his further submissionthat in the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee, it hasbeen pointed out that there was clear indication that posts werefilled up on adhoc basis by seniority and there was no zone ofconsideration and the manner of selection - fitness alone had to beadopted and in view of the 11 vacancies having to be filled up equalnumber of candidates were considered for assessment for the fitnessand order of seniority specified.8. The learned Additional Government Pleader would furthersubmit that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with thepromotion given as the Department had rightly acted by filling up thevacancies on the basis of the ratio and the whole process was onadhoc basis and therefore when regular promotion is made, it can beon the basis of applying ratio. The learned Additional GovernmentPleader heavily relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin R.K.SABHARWAL’S case, cited supra, and submits that the findingsrendered by the Tribunal is contrary to the Service Rules and the lawlaid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.9. The learned Additional Government Pleader would furthersubmit that the regular promotions would be done in accordance withthe amended Recruitment Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.68/F2/2005 dated21.11.2005. In support of his submission, the learned GovernmentPleader took us through the minutes of the meeting of theDepartmental Promotion Committee and the relevant portions of theamended Recruitment Rules and prayed for setting aside the orderpassed by the Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.Ms.R.Vaigai, learned counsel appearing for the firstrespondent/applicant, on the other hand would contend that the orderpassed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law, just and fair anddoes not call for any interference. The learned counsel wouldfurther submit that the reliance placed on the Judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court in R.K.SABHARWAL’s case is not tenable as thesaid Judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances ofthis case. The learned counsel submit that the Recruitment Ruleswhich would be relevant for the purpose of deciding the presentmatter is the Recruitment Rule which was in vogue when the selectionwas made which was notified by Notification dated 8.1.1982 and thatthe Recruitment Rule contemplates that the method of recruitmentshall be by promotion and shall be only based upon the vacancies atthe relevant point of time. The learned counsel would submit thatthe Department erroneously applied the Post-Based Roster and therebythe applicant has been unjustly denied her right to be considered forpromotion in accordance with the Recruitment Rule. 11.The learned counsel invited our attention to the Order dated27.2.2004, which is a promotion order issued to nine incumbents whohave been promoted to the post of Statistical Officer. TheDepartment had contended that they proposed to fill up 11 posts andaccordingly, ratio of 3:5 had been applied, but the order dated27.2.2004 shows that only nine incumbents have been promoted. Out ofthe nine, seven are non-graduates and two are graduates. By relyingon this order dated 27.2.2004, the learned counsel for the applicantwould submit that the entire process is untenable and contrary to theprovisions of the Recruitment Rules. 12.The learned counsel placed reliance upon the Judgement of theHon’ble Supreme Court in STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs.DR.R.N.BATNAGAR reported in (1999) 2 SCC 330 and submits that theroster for promotion between graduates and non graduates is to becontinued whenever vacancies arise and there is no question offilling up of a vacancy arising out of retirement, by directrecruitment - by direct recruitment or on retirement vacancy by apromotee – by a promotee. The learned counsel placed reliance on thesaid judgment and submit that it has been made clear that the ratioin R.K.SABHARWAL’s case cannot be applied to the facts andcircumstances of the present case.13. The learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court in ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs.UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 1999 (3) SCC 384, which hasfollowed the Judgment in DR.R.N.BATNAGAR’s case referred above, andsubmits that the Judgment referred in R.K.SABHARWAL’s case is notapplicable as it deals with promotion of SC/ST Officers for whichspecial provisions has been made under Article 335 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Constitution. With the above submissions, the learned counsel prayedfor dismissal of the Writ Petition.14. We have considered the submissions made on either side andperused the materials available on record.15.The question which arises for consideration is as to whetherthe Department was justified in following the Post-Based Roster forthe purpose of promotion to the post of Statistical Insplector. Theargument of the Department is that they followed the ratio laid downby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K.SABHARWAL’s case and thattherefore the promotion cannot be faulted. It is the further case ofthe Department that the present promotions are adhoc promotions andthat the earlier promotions were also adhoc and as and when regularpromotions are made, the provisions of the Recruitment Rules asnotified on 21.11.2005 would be followed and that the case of theapplicant would be considered at the appropriate time. Further, itis the contention of the Department that the benefit granted underthe ACP Scheme has no relevance to the seniority position inhierarchy cadre and the applicant cannot be given undue advantagewithout adopting the procedure in the Recruitment Rule. TheDepartment’s contention being that on the date when the D.P.C. meti.e. on 25.2.2004. there were 11 vacancies namely 8 regular vacanciesdue to retirement and promotion of incumbents, one short term vacancyand two anticipated regular vacancies which were proposed to befilled up.16. It is recorded in the minutes of the DPC held on 25.2.2004,that the cadre of Statistical Officer had a strength of 24 posts and5 non graduates and 15 graduates were working at the relevant pointof time. The due share between the non-graduates and graduates is9:15 and as such the first four vacancies have to be filled up bynon-graduates and the remaining seven vacancies have to be filled bythree non-graduates and four graduates and therefore, it is the caseof the Department that they have strictly followed the quotaprescribed and there is no error. 17. Though the arguments advanced on behalf of the Departmentappears to be attractive, we are not inclined to accept the same forthe following reasons:As referred to above, the Recruitment Rule relevant for thepresent case is that which was notified on 8.1.1992. The Ruleclearly shows that the method of recruitment to the vacancies wasonly by way of promotion and that the promotion shall be in the ratioof 3:5 between non graduates and graduates/post graduates.Therefore, the word which has been used in the recruitment Rule is“vacancy”. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the departmentwas justified in adopting the Post-Based Roster. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18.The law on the subject has been crystallised in two Judgmentsof the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred above, namely in the casesof DR.R.N.BATNAGAR and ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE. Thecase before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DR.R.N.BATNAGAR’s was thatthe respondent therein was working as Assistant Professor in theDepartment of Ophthalmology in the Government Medical College,Patiala, and that he was promoted with effect from 20.6.1984. Thequestion which arose for consideration was as to how vacancy in thepost of Supervisor of Ophthalmology was to be filled up on retirementof another incumbent with effect from 31.10.1996. Under the relevantRecruitment Rule in the said case, the method of appointment was 75%by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. The appellant in the saidcase, by relying upon the quota rule governing the recruitment hadsubmitted that every three vacancies of Professors in the said cadrehave to be filled in by Departmental promotees while the fourthvacancy would be filled in by direct recruitment and thereaftersucceeding vacancies to be filled in by promotees and direct recruitsin successive cycles of 3:1. In the said case, 16 vacancies wereadvertised and filled in by direct recruitment which was takenbefore the High Court by way of a Writ Petition. The respondenttherein by placing reliance on the Judgment in R.K.SABARWAL’s casecontended that there were totally five posts in the cadre ofProfessor and 75% thereof namely 3.75 posts had to be reserved forpromotees and 1.25% posts were reserved for direct recruits and basedon the said representation at the relevant point of time, when thevacancy arose, there was already one direct recruit, holding the postof Professor and the vacancy in question had to go to theDepartmental promotee as he was senior most Assistant Professor.Therefore, the respondent before the Supreme Court who was the writpetitioner would contend that his claim for promotion to the postshould have been processed and post should not have been advertisedby direct recruitment.19. The Appellant State contended that the ratio of theConstitution Bench judgment in R.K.SABARWAL’s case pertains to ascheme of reservation of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe personsunder Article 16(4) of the Constitution and it had nothing to dowith the scheme of the Rule relating to recruitment from two sourcesunder Rule 16(1) of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Courtbased on the above facts held as follows:“45…….It has, therefore, to be appreciated that when postsin a cadre are to be filled in from two sources, whetherthe candidate comes from the source of departmentalpromotees or by way of direct recruitment, once both ofthem enter a common cadre, their birthmarks disappear and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ they get completely integrated in the common cadre. Thiswould be in consonance with the thrust of Article 16(1) ofthe Constitution of India. No question of exception tothe said general thrust of the constitutional provisionwould survive as Article 16(4) would be out of the picturein such a case. Consequently, the decision rendered bythe Constitution Bench in R.K.Sabharwal case in connectionwith Article 16(4) and the operation of roster forachieving the reservation of the posts for SCs, STs, andBCs as per the scheme of reservation cannot be pressedinto service for the present scheme of Rule 9(1) is not asper Article 16(4) but is governed by the general sweep ofArticle 16(1). The attempt of learned counsel for therespondent to treat a quota rule as a reservation rulewould result in requiring the State authorities tocontinue the birthmarks of direct recruits and promoteeseven after they enter the common cadre through twoseparate entry points regulating their induction to thecadre. Therefore, the roster for 3 promotees and onedirect recruit is to be continued every time a vacancyarises and there is no question of filling up a vacancyarising out of a retirement of a direct recruitment or onthe retirement vacancy of a promotee by a promotee.Consequently, the question of rotating the vacancies asposts or for treating the posts mentioned in the rules ofrecruitment as necessarily referable to total posts in thecadre at a given point of time in the light ofR.K.SABHARWAL judgment, therefore, cannot survive for thecase of a quota rule between direct recruits andpromotees, the same is to be judged on the touchstone ofArticle 16(1) and the statutory rules governing therecruitment to the posts of Professor constituting thePunjab Medical Education Service (Class I) and not on thebasis of Article 16(4). The Division Bench in theimpugned jundgment with respect wrongly applied the ratioof R.K.Sabharwal case governing 16(4) to the facts of thepresent case which are governed by Article 16(1).” (emphasis supplied)20. Thus, the Hon'Ble Supreme Court in the above Judgment whiledealing with the Quota-Rota Rule providing for filling up ofvacancies in the cadre of promotees and direct recruits in the ratioof 3:1 held that the Rule concerned with appointment from two sourcesnamely that of promotees and direct recruits and it did not concernwith reservation and hence Article 16(1) of the Constitution isapplicable but not Article 16(4). The Supreme Court held that oncedirect recruits and promotees are absorbed into one cadre, they formone class and they cannot be discriminated for the purpose of furtherpromotion. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21. Next if we see the other Judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE which was followed inthe Judgment in DR.R.N.BATNAGAR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court wasdealing with the matter relating to filling up of posts in entrygrade of Indian Customs and Central Excise namely Group ‘A’ serviceagainst 50% promotion quota and that there was three feedercategories to the said post and the vacancy in the post were to befilled up in the ratio of 6:1:2. The contention advanced before theHon’ble Supreme Court was that when a vacancy of Group ‘A’ post wasto arise due to retirement of a promotee Officer, it must be filledup by another promotee Officer of the Central Excise only and not bya promotee Officer of other category. The Hon’ble Supreme Courtrejected the said contention and held that once Officers where fromthree categories are promoted to Group ‘A’, they seized to havetheir birth marks of their previous categories and there would thenbe no question of filling up of a vacancy in Group ‘A’ grade byretirement of a promotee from the Department by another Officer fromthe same group. This is so because , one promotee Group A identityof feeder channel from such of the promotee seized to exist. In thesaid Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering theapplicability of the Judgment in R.K.SABHARWAL’s case held as follows:“13.Reliance by the petitioners is placed uponR.K.SABHARWAL case. That case deals with the principle thatthe posts vacated by an office recruited from the SC/STcategory must be filled in only b the same reservedcategory. This is because of the special provision inArticle 335 of the Constitution of India relating toadequate representation of the SCs/STs in the services.The birthmarks there remain even on promotion inasmuch as aparticular number of posts in the promotional category arereserved to be filled in only from among SCs/STs. On theother hand, so far as a normal quota rule between twofeeder channels for recruitment or promotion by a quotabetween different feeder groups (as in the case before us),the relevant precedents are Paramjit Sing Sandhu v. RamRakha Mal and State of Punjab v. Dr. R.N.Bhatnagar. InParamjit Sing case which related to recruitment from amongpromotees and direct recruits, D.A.Desai, J. pointed outthat if a quota rule between direct recruits and promoteeswere treated as a rule of reservation, then because offrequent retirements of the promotees who were generallycloser to retirement, most vacancies in the promotionalposts would repeatedly go to the aged promotees leavinglittle scope for direct recruitment. At p. 196, thelearned Judge clarified as follows: (SCC para 6) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “What this Court meant while saying that when aquota rule is prescribed for recruitment to a cadre,it meant that quota should be correlated to thevacancies which are to be filled in. Who retired andfrom what source he was recruited may not be veryrelevant because retirement from service may notfollow the quota rule.”The learned Judge further pointed out: (SCC p.196, para 6)“Promotees who come to the service at anadvanced age may retire early and direct recruits whoenter the service at a comparatively young age maycontinue for a long time. If, therefore, in a givenyear larger number of promotees retire and every timethe vacancy is filled in by referring to the sourcefrom which the retiring person was recruited, itwould substantially disturb the quota rule itself.Therefore, while making recruitment quota rule isrequired to be strictly adhere to."22.In the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court hadrejected the contention of the writ petitioners that vacancy arisingdue to retirement of a promotee officer belonging to a particularfeeder category must be filled by that category only. It also held,the Judgment in R.K.SABHARWAL case is not applicable in such matters.It is to be noted that in the above case before the Supreme Court,the UPSC sought to justify the deviations from the ratio on theground that the promotions were adhoc. In paragraph No.18 of theJudgment, the Hon'ble Suprme Court held that even assuming that forthe purpose of adhoc promotion, it would be fair to follow the ratioof 6:2:1. Further, in the instant case, it is not the case of therespondent Department that they have not followed the ratio. Percontra, it is their case that the ratio has to be applied on 'Post-Based Roster' and not based on 'vacancy'. Hence, there is nojustification on the part of the Department to state that since thepromotions are adhoc, they would be entitled to adopt a Post-BasedRoster.23. Thus in view of the above legal position, it is to be heldthat the promotion has to be done in the ratio prescribed namely 3:5based on the vacancy position and the department erroneously followedthe Post-Based Roster. 24.The next contention of the Department is that the promotionsare adhoc and therefore the regular promotions would be done onlyunder the new Recruitment Rules which have been notified on21.11.2005. The new Recruitment Rule, notified in 2005, would nothave relevance for deciding the present dispute and the relevant Rule https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would be the Rule which has been notified on 8.1.1982. The 1982Rule, clearly states that the method of recruitment to the vacanciesin the post shall be only by promotion and such promotion shall be inthe ratio of 3:5 between non graduates and graduates/post graduates.Therefore, the Department ought to have followed the vacancy basedroster in accordance with the ratio instead of Post-Based Roster. Itis not the case that the Department has not followed the ratio, butthe Department would contend that this ratio is post based andtherefore there is no error in the approach. The law having beensettled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the above referred Judgment,the respondents while effecting promotions, during 2004 cannot take acontrary stand which would cause undue hardship to the persons likethe applicant.25. In the instant case, the applicant who is a graduate/postgraduate was entitled for being considered for promotion as early ason 1994 and has been languishing without consideration and at thispoint of time, the Department cannot be heard to say that the presentpromotion is adhoc and that the promotions given in 2004 were adhocand that the promotions given earlier in 2002 were also adhoc and theapplicant has to wait till the Department conducts fresh promotionunder the new recruitment rule. This approach of the Department iswholly unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of theConstitution of India. 26. The learned counsel for the Department placed reliance uponthe Judgement of the Supreme Court in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATIONAND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in 2002 (4)SCC 247. Inpargraph No.29 of the said Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtobserved that as the rules and the Central Government’s 40 pointroster rules which has been prescribed deals with quotas forscheduled case and scheduled tribes and when roster system isfollowed, there is no question of any dispute arising and the 40point roster has been considered and approved by the R.K.SABHARWAL’scase. We find that the decision in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION’scase does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the presentmatter and does not advance the case of the Department. 27. The Tribunal has considered the entire facts andcircumstances of the case and correctly applied the law laid down bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court and allowed the Original Application. Inview of the above, we find no reason for interfering with the orderpassed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the above Writ Petition isdismissed. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for theapplicant that though two months time was prescribed by the Tribunalto comply with the directions, inspite of no interim order beinggranted by this Court during the pendency of the Writ Petition, thedirection has not been obeyed and that the petitioner is greatlyprejudiced. Therefore, the Department is directed to comply with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ direction issued by the Tribunal, within a period of six weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarrpaToThe Registrar,Central Administrative Tribunal,High Court Campus, Madras.1 cc To The Sr. Government Pleader-Cum-Sr.Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry, SR.327531 cc To M/s.R.Vaigai, Advocate, SR.32559W.P..No.7045 of 2006BVN(CO)PMK12.8.2009.