R. Sundar Raju v. V.Ramakrishnan,2. The Govt of Pondicherryrep by its Chief Secretary,Bouvert Avenue,Pondicherry.3. Union Public

5. The Registrar,Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras BenchChennaiPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writof certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order madeby the 6th Respondent in O.A. NO. 57/2006 and to quash the order dated4.7.2006W.P.No.27105 of 2006:The Union Public Service Commission,rep. by its Secretary,Dholpur House, Shajahan Road,New Delhi-110 069...Petitioner.Vs.1. V.Ramakrishnan2. Government of Pondicherry, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bouvert Avenue, Pondicherry.3. The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, rep. by its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.4. R.Sundar Raju5. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai.Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for awrit of certiorari calling for the entire records leading to the issue ofthe Order in O.A.No.807 of 2005 dated 4.7.2006 on the file of the 5thRespondent, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai andquash the same.For Petitioner::Ms. R. Vaigai (in W.P. Nos.22224 and 22236 of 06) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner:: Mr. V.T. Gopalan (in W.P. Nos.22275 Addl. Solicitor General and 22276 of 06) Mr. P. Wilson Asst. Solicitor General for Mr.T.Murugesan Senior Govt. PleaderFor PetitionerMr. V.T. Gopalan in W.P.No.27105/06 Addl. Solicitor General for Mr. K. SridharFor Respondent :: Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram (R1 in W.P. No.22224 Senior Counsel for and 22236 of 2006) Mrs. Gladys DanielCOMMON ORDERElipe DHARMA RAO, J.In these writ petitions, the challenge is to the order dated 4-7-2006passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.807 of 2005 aswell as the order dated 4-7-2006 passed in O.A. No.57 of 2006,allowing the applications filed by the first respondent herein.2. A deputationist stakes his claim against a departmental engineer tocling on to the highest post of Chief Engineer in the Public WorksDepartment of Government of Pondicherry. That is the crux of the issue inthese writ petitions. 3. Facts, in brief, leading to the filing of these writ petitions areas follows:When the post of Chief Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD)of Government of Pondicherry fell vacant in the year 2004, the Governmentproceeded to fill up the vacancy by transfer of deputation. For thatpurpose, the Government addressed a letter dated 30-1-2004 to the DirectorGeneral of Central Public Works Department (CPWD) to send a panel ofeligible and willing officers. An office memorandum dated 10-2-2004 wasissued by the CPWD inviting options from the eligible officers working inthe CPWD. One V. Ramakrishnan (hereinafter called the first respondent), whowas working as Superintending Engineer with Central Public WorksDepartment (CPWD), Pondicherry applied to the said post and was selectedand appointed as Chief Engineer on short term deputation basis with effectfrom 1-7-2004.While so, one R. Sundar Raju, hereinafter referred to as thepetitioner, working as Superintending Engineer in the PWD, Pondicherryfiled an original application (O.A. No.581 of 2004 before the CentralAdministrative Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’), challenged the practiceof filling up the post of Chief Engineer by transfer on deputation, butunsuccessful as the said application was disposed of with out granting any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relief to the petitioner. The first respondent was, however, by order dated 14-2-2005,repatriated to his parent department and the petitioner was directed tohold the additional charge of the post of Chief Engineer.The first respondent challenged his repatriation and also theappointment of the petitioner as Chief Engineer in O.A. No.150 of 2005.The said original application was allowed and the repatriation order wasset aside. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court inwrit petitions filed by the Government as well as the petitioner, but thewrit petitions were dismissed. Against which appeals were preferredbefore the Supreme Court.In the mean time, the Government decided to relax the eligibilitycriteria for promotion to the post of the Chief Engineer and accordinglyamended the recruitment rule in so far it related to the recruitment byway of promotion. The draft amended recruitment rules was sent to theUnion Public Service Commission (UPSC) for approval.The appeals, which were pending before the Supreme Court, weredismissed and consequently, the first respondent was reappointed in thepost of Chief Engineer.The first respondent challenged the amendment to Clause 12 of RR, 1996before the Tribunal in O.A. No.807 of 2005. While so, the Ministry of Urban Development, the cadre controllingauthority of the first respondent, by order dated 20-1-2005 recalled theservices of the first respondent from the PWD, Pondicherry and he wasimmediately relieved by the Government by the order of the even date andsimultaneously, the petitioner was promoted and appointed as ChiefEngineer, PWD, on ad hoc basis. These orders were challenged by the firstrespondent before the Tribunal in O.A. No.57 of 2006. The Tribunal by its order dated 4-7-2006 allowed O.A. No.807 of 2005quashed the amendment to the recruitment rules and also set aside theorders passed by the Ministry of Urban Development as well as theGovernment of Pondicherry and directed the authorities concerned torestore first respondent in service as Chief Engineer (Civil) in the PWD,Pondicherry. It is against these orders of the Tribunal, the present writpetitions have been filed. 4. All the above writ petitions, which were heard together, aredisposed of by this common order as they involve the common factual matrixand the issues arising therefrom. Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned AdditionalSolicitor General addressed his arguments on behalf of the Government ofPondicherry as well as UPSC and Ms. R. Vaigai, learned counsel made hersubmissions on behalf of the petitioner. The challenge to the impugnedorders of the Tribunal by the learned Additional Solicitor General and thelearned counsel for the petitioner was almost on common grounds and,therefore, in this order, their arguments are dealt with together. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the firstrespondent submitted her arguments defending the impugned order passed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Tribunal. Learned senior counsel appearing on either side cited anumber of authorities in support of their respective contentions. We willadvert to those authorities at appropriate places while dealing with themerits of the contentions. 5. Before proceeding further, we may hasten to point out that this isthe second round of litigation between the parties. On the earlieroccasion, when the first respondent was relieved from the post of ChiefEngineer by order dated 14-2-2005 and the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as Chief Engineer by order dated 27-4-2005, the matter went upto the Supreme Court and was given a finality, but in view of thesubsequent developments, the first respondent was once again constrainedto approach the court of law. 6. To appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned senior counselfor the parties, it is relevant to note the rules relating to therecruitment to the post of Chief Engineer, PWD. 7. The post of Chief Engineer in the Public Works Department,Pondicherry is classified as General Central Services – Group 'A' Gazetted– Non-Ministerial post. It is a selection post. The recruitment to thesaid post was initially governed by the Government of Pondicherry, PublicWorks Department, Group 'A' post of Chief Engineer Recruitment Rules, 1996(in short RR 1996). As per RR, 1996, the method of recruitment to thesaid post was promotion failing which by transfer on deputation. Theeligibility criteria for promotion was five years of regular service inthe grade of Superintending Engineer in the scale of pay of Rs.3700-5000.In case of recruitment by transfer on deputation, the officers of theCentral/State Government/Union Territories holding analogous posts on aregular basis or with three years' regular service in posts in the scaleof pay of Rs.3700-5000 or equivalent were eligible for consideration. Thusunder RR 1996, the grade of Superintending Engineer with five years ofregular service in the scale of pay of Rs.3700-5000 was the feedercategory to the post of Chief Engineer. 8. The departmental engineers’ association of PWD, Pondicherry made amemorandum to the Government stating that the eligibility criteria of fiveyears of regular service in the post of Superintending Engineer to becomeeligible for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer is a stumbling blockin their way of promotion to the top rank of Chief Engineer as they reachthe grade of Superintending Engineer only at the fag end of their serviceand most of them are left with less than five years of service beforeretirement. Further, since the scales of pay for the Chief Engineer andthe Superintending Engineer, which were Rs.4500-5700 and Rs.3700-5000respectively, were revised as Rs.14300-18300 and Rs.12000-375-16500/14300-400 respectively, the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineers arein one and the same scale of pay viz. Rs.14300-400-18300. Thedepartmental engineers, therefore, requested the Government to considerthe Superintending Engineers who are in the scale of pay of Rs.14300-18300 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with three years of regular service in the grade for promotion to the postof Chief Engineer. 9. The Government, after considering the grievance of thedepartmental engineers and also taking into consideration the fact thathitherto the post was occupied by a deputationist decided to amendsuitably the eligibility criteria relating to the recruitment bypromotion. The Government, therefore, decided to amend Clause 12 of RR,1996 in so far as it related to promotion and the amendment process statedin the year 2000. The Government prescribed the following eligibilitycriteria for promotion to the post of Chief Egnineer: Superintending Engineer (12000-16500) with five years regularservice in the grade, failing which Superintending Engineer withten years of combined regular service in the grade ofSuperintending Engineer and Executive Engineer out of whichatleast one year regular service should be in the grade ofSuperintending Engineer. The draft amended recruitment rules was sent to the Union Public ServiceCommission (UPSC) for approval. It appears that UPSC have raised someclarifications with regard to scales of pay of the Chief Engineer and theSuperintending Engineer and that there were exchange of correspondencebetween the Government and the UPSC on this issue and the matter tookconsiderable length of time.10. While so, the post of Chief Engineer fell vacant in the year2004. As stated earlier, for want of eligible departmental SuperintendingEngineers, the post could not be filled up immediately with a regularincumbent by promotion. Further, the amendment to the recruitment ruleswas pending consideration with UPSC. In such circumstances, on account ofimmediate administrative necessity, the Government proceeded to fill upthe post by transfer on deputation basis for a short-term basis. It wasin this background that the first respondent appointed as Chief Engineerby transfer on short-term deputation/temporary basis with effect from 1-7-2004. We may hasten to note here that in the matter of appointment to thepost of Chief Engineer, the mandatory rule of consulting the UPSC underClause 14 of RR, 1996 was given a go-by by the Government. 11. By proceedings dated 14-2-2005, the first respondent was relievedfrom the post of Chief Engineer, PWD and was repatriated to his parentdepartment, viz. CPWD. On the very same day, the petitioner was given theadditional charge of the post of Chief Engineer. It appears that in themeeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 8-4-2005, itwas decided to promote the petitioner and appoint him as the ChiefEngineer on ad hoc basis and this was communicated to the petitioner on27-4-2005 and thereupon he took charge immediately.12. The order dated 14-2-2005 repatriating the first respondent tohis parent department as well as order dated 27-4-2005, promoting and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointing the petitioner as Chief Engineer on ad hoc basis werechallenged by the first respondent before the Tribunal in O.A. No.150 of2005. The Tribunal, by order dated 14-7-2005, allowed the application anddirected the Government to restore the first respondent to the post ofChief Engineer, PWD.13. The Tribunal’s order dated 14-7-2005 was challenged before thisCourt in the writ petitions filed (W.P. Nos.23053 and 24008 of 2005) filedby the petitioner and the Government respectively. The Division Bench, byorder dated 11-08-2005, dismissed the writ petitions holding that as thefirst respondent was appointment on deputation pending selection of theregular incumbent by the UPSC, till such regular selection is made, he hada right to hold the said post and that so long the draft rules were notapproved by the competent authority viz. UPSC, the petitioner wasineligible to be appointed as Chief Engineer, PWD, Pondicherry.14. Challenging the order passed by the Division Bench, appeals werefiled before the Supreme Court by the petitioner as well as theGovernment. It appears that when the matter was pending before the SupremeCourt, the draft recruitment rules got the approval of the UPSC and theGovernment have also issued a notification dated 28-9-2005 publishing thenew amended recruitment rules. Before the Supreme Court it was submittedby the Government that amendment to recruitment rules got the approval ofthe UPSC and a notification was also issued, UPSC have been addressed toregularise the service of the petitioner as Chief Engineer from the dateof his ad hoc promotion and further the Departmental Promotion Committeeconstituted in terms of the amended recruitment rules would hold itsmeeting shortly to select a regular incumbent, the relief sought for bythe first respondent in his original application had become infructuous.Rejecting the submission so made, the Supreme Court dismissed the appealsby order dated 7-10-2005. The Supreme Court, however, observed that allthe authorities concerned must see to it that the selection process inaccordance with law may be completed as expeditiously as possible.Consequently, in compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court, theGovernment relieved the petitioner and restored the first respondent inthe post of Chief Engineer and the petitioner was posted as SuperintendingEngineer, PWD. 15. The Government addressed a letter dated 26-10-2005 requesting theDirector General of Works, CPWD, New Delhi to immediately recall theservices of the first respondent. In the said letter "administrativereasons" and "public interest" were shown as the reasons for recalling thefirst respondent. In their reply dated 3-11-2005, CPWD informed thatbecause of the fact that the first respondent was allowed to rejoin thepost of Chief Engineer by the Government of Pondicherry in pursuant of theorder passed by the Supreme Court, any further decision regarding therepatriation of the first respondent was to be taken by the Government andthat CPWD on its own could not issue any order to recall the firstrespondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16. The first respondent, in the mean time, has filed an application(O.A. No.807 of 2005) on 28-9-2005 before the Tribunal challenging theamendment to Clause 12 of the recruitment rules. 17. While so, the Ministry of Urban Development, which is the CadreControlling Authority for PWD of Pondicherry, passed an order dated 20-1-2006 recalling the services of the first respondent and posting him asSuperintending Engineer, Appropriate Authority, Pondicherry. "publicinterest' was cited as the reason for repatriation of the firstrespondent. This order was immediately followed by the order dated 20-1-2006 passed by the Government of Pondicherry relieving the firstrespondent from his duties from the Government of Pondicherry and furtherdirecting him to report as Superintending Engineer (Appropriate Authority)Pondicherry. On 20-1-2006 itself, the Government passed another orderdirecting the petitioner to hold full additional charge of the post ofChief Engineer, PWD, Pondicherry.18. The first respondent filed an application (O.A. No.57 of 2006)before the Tribunal to quash the order dated 20-1-2006 passed by theDirector General of Works, CPWD, New Delhi and the consequential orderdated 20-1-2006 issued by the Government of Pondicherry and to restore himas the Chief Engineer (Civil) in PWD, Pondicherry. By way of interimrelief, the first respondent was permitted bythe Tribunal to officiate asthe Chief Engineer.19. The interim relief granted by the Tribunal was challenged by theGovernment of Pondicherry before this Court in W.P. No.2778 of 2006 on theground that by granting the interim relief, the Tribunal has virtuallygranted the main relief sought for by the first respondent in his originalapplication, which was unsustainable in law. The Division Bench disposedof the said writ petition by order dated 29-3-2006 holding that it wasopen to the first respondent to join the post as per the order dated20-1-2006, which was challenged in O.A. No.57 of 2006 before the Tribunal,without prejudice to his contentions in the said application. TheDivision Bench, however, stayed the interim order passed by the Tribunalrestraining the petitioner from discharging the duties of the ChiefEngineer and permitting the first respondent to continue to officiate asthe Chief Engineer. The Division Bench further observed that the originalapplication should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. TheSpecial Leave Petition filed at the instance of the first respondentagainst the above said Division Bench order was dismissed by the SupremeCourt on 1-5-2006 with an observation that the matter shall be taken upfor hearing by the Tribunal immediately.20. In compliance of the observations made by the Supreme Court, theTribunal took up both the applications, viz. O.A. No.57 of 2006 as well asthe connected O.A. No.807 of 2005. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21. In O.A. No.807 of 2005, the dilution of the eligibility criteriawas challenged on the grounds of arbitrariness and unreasonableness andthat the eligibility criteria was relaxed to suit the convenience of theGovernment and to accommodate the petitioner in the post of ChiefEngineer. On the other hand, it was contended by the Government that theGovernment was well within the powers to amend the recruitment rules,which has got the approval of the UPSC and that the first respondent,being a deputationist, has no locus standi to challenge the amendment tothe recruitment rules. 22. The Tribunal held that the eligibility criteria was diluted toone year to suit the convenience of the Government, that the statutorypower was wrongfully exercised to set at naught the earlier order of theTribunal, which was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court andby the Supreme Court, that equation of five years of regular service asSuperintending Engineer with one year of regular service in the grade ofSuperintending Engineer was unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal, and thatservice rules cannot be framed to suit the convenience or wishes of aparticular section or group of employees or an individual. The Tribunal,therefore, held that Clause 12 of the amended recruitment rules in so faras it prescribed Superintending Engineer with ten years of combinedregular service in the grade of Superintending Engineer and ExecutiveEngineer, out of which at least one year regular service should be in thegrade of Superintending Engineer for becoming eligible for promotion tothe post of Chief Engineer was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Arts.14and 16 of the Constitution of India and accordingly quashed the rule tothe said extent. 23. In the other application, viz. O.A. No.57 of 2006 where thesubject-matter of challenge was to the order dated 20-1-2006 repatriatingthe first respondent to his parent department and promoting and appointingthe petitioner as Chief Engineer, the Tribunal held that since theappointment of the first respondent, though on deputation, was made forspecific period, i.e. till a regular appointment was made and therefore,he could not have been repatriated without making a regular appointment tothe post of Chief Engineer and till such time a regular appointment ismade he has a right to continue in the post and the impugned order dated20-1-2006 was not a routine administrative order made in public interest,but an order made in colourable exercise of power and arbitrarily. TheTribunal, therefore, set aside the order dated 20-1-2006 and directed theauthorities concerned to restore the first respondent in service as ChiefEngineer (Civil) in the PWD, Pondicherry.24. We will first deal with the impugned order passed by the Tribunalin O.A. No.807 of 2005 quashing Clause 12 of the amended recruitmentrules. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25. Learned Additional Solicitor General for the PondicherryAdministration submitted that in exercise of the powers conferred underArt.309 of the Constitution, the Government was well within their powersand competency to amend Clause 12 of RR, 1996. Such amendment of therecruitment rules became necessary in the interest of administration ofthe department and in public interest. It was the policy decision of theGovernment to amend the recruitment rules and, therefore, the same couldnot be struck down on flimsy and slender grounds. In the absence of anyconstitutional bar, determination of the mode of recruitment to a serviceor post is a matter of policy of the Government and such policy decisioncannot be struck down merely because the court considers themunreasonable. It was also submitted that the amendment was done inexercise of the rule-making powers under Art.309 of the Constitution ofIndia and the amended recruitment rules, being a subordinate legislationand statutory, cannot be impeached by attributing extraneousconsiderations and motives. To buttress these contentions, learnedAdditional Solicitor General explained in an elaborate way the reasons,which necessitated the Government to amend the recruitment rules. 26. The second submission of the learned Additional Solicitor Generalwas that the first respondent, being a deputationist, has no locus standito challenge the amendment made to recruitment rules. According to learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the very initial appointment of thefirst respondent as Chief Engineer was void as UPSC was not consulted inthe matter and in any event his appointment was purely temporary and for ashort term till such time a regular incumbent is appointed as per theamended recruitment rules. Further, it is open to the parent department ofthe first respondent to recall his services at any time without assigningany reasons and that he has no legal claim to continue in the borrowingdepartment.27. Ms. R. Vaigai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioneradopted the above submissions of the learned Additional Solicitor General,but further added that the Government is having every power to determinethe experience and qualification necessary for any post in their serviceand the same can be amended at any time to suit the conditions prevailingat the relevant time and in the interest of the administration and publicinterest. 28. Per contra, Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counselappearing for the first respondent submitted that the amendment has beenbrought out to oust the first respondent from the post of Chief Engineerand to make eligible the petitioner for being posted as Chief Engineer.According to her, the eligibility criteria were diluted in an arbitraryand unreasonable manner and by such dilution, the Government havedowngraded the top most post of Chief Engineer. Clause 12 of the amendedrecruitment rules is therefore arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust andviolative of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution. Learned senior counselsubmitted that the Tribunal, after considering the entire fact-situation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has passed the well-considered order with which no interference is calledfor in these writ petitions.29. To appreciate the above rival contentions, it is necessary tofind out what was the necessity for the Government to amend therecruitment rules. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General,the necessity arose in view of the request made by the departmentalSuperintending Engineers in the matter of their promotion to the post ofChief Engineer. Learned Additional Solicitor General invited our attentionto the memorandum submitted by the departmental engineers, wherein it isstated as follows:"According to the existing Recruitment Rules, the post of ChiefEngineer has to be filled up by promotion of the SuperintendingEngineer with 5 years regular service in the grade failing whichby transfer on deputation from analogous post from theState/Central Government/Union Territories or with some years ofregular service in lower posts. This condition of 5 years ofqualifying to become eligible for promotion is a stumbling blockin the way of promotion of the departmental engineers to the topmost post of the Chief Engineer as the incumbents reach the postof Superintending Engineer at the fag end of their service andmostly retire before attaining the qualifying 5 years of servicewhich will entitle them for promotion to the top most post."Learned Additional Solicitor also submitted that a departmental engineerin PWD, who has put in sufficient length of service as Assistant Engineerand Executive Engineer, reaches the grade of Superintending Engineer onlyat the fag end of his service career and most of the SuperintendingEngineers would not have left with even three years' service before theirretirement. Further, their promotion as Superintending Engineer was on adhoc basis and not a regular promotion. Therefore, there is hardly anyscope for them to fulfil the eligibility criteria of five years of regularservice in the grade of Superintending Engineer. Consequently, for want ofeligible departmental Superintending Engineers, the Government was,therefore, left with no other option but to resort to the process ofrecruitment by transfer on deputation. The Government on considering therequest made by the departmental engineers had decided to relax theeligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer.30. We have gone through Clause 12 of RR, 1996. While consideringthe eligibility criteria prescribed therein vis-à-vis the submissions madeby the learned Additional Solicitor General, we are convinced that underClause 12 of RR, 1996, the chances of the departmental SuperintendingEngineers being considered for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer wasalmost impossible. Further, hitherto no departmental SuperintendingEngineer has been promoted to the post of Chief Engineer for want ofeligibility criteria. As the post could not be left vacant or manned byin-charge officer for a longer period, the Government was constrained to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ resort to recruitment by transfer on deputation. When the departmentalengineers, who have put in sufficient length of service in PWD, arecontinuously made to work under a deputationist Chief Engineer, there islikelihood of frustration and loss of morale amongst them, leading toadministrative inefficiency. The object of the service rules andregulations being to ensure efficiency and integrity, in the interest ofadministration and in public interest, there would be nothing illegal andunconstitutional if the Government had decided to amend the eligibilitycriteria to alleviate the grievance of the departmental engineers. Afterall, it is the aspiration and dream of every Government servant to reachthe top position before he retires from service and in this scenario ifthe Government took a policy decision to relax eligibility criteria infavour of the departmental engineers, no fault can be found in the actionof the Government. It is also pertinent to note there that thedepartmental engineers’ association has filed a petition to impleadthemselves as party to these writ petitions, wherein they have supportedthe decision of the Government in relaxing the eligibility criteria. 31. It is settled principle that validity of the service rules andregulations framed by the Government or the competent authority inexercise of the powers under Art.309 of the Constitution can be testedbefore the courts of law only on two grounds, viz. lack of jurisdictionand unconstitutionality. It is not the case of the first respondent thatthe Government has no power or competency to amend the recruitment rulesrelating to the post of Chief Engineer. The contention was that theamendment was arbitrary and tainted with mala fides and favouritism tooust the first respondent from the post of Chief Engineer and toaccommodate the petitioner in the said post. According Mrs. NaliniChidambaram, learned senior counsel, the eligibility criterion was dilutedto such an extent with a view to make the petitioner eligible for the postof Chief Engineer. If the eligibility criteria is prescribed as fiveyears regular service in Superintending Engineer, the chances of the firstrespondent being considered for appointment as Chief Engineer on transferby deputation are more prospect. To avoid this, and to accommodate thepetitioner, the Government, to suit their convenience, has diluted theeligibility norm to one-year regular service as Superintending Engineer. 32. We are unable to countenance the contentions of Mrs. NaliniChidambaram. As already stated, when under RR, 1996 there was no chancefor the departmental Superintending Engineers to be promoted as ChiefEngineer, it is always open to the Government, in the interest ofadministration and the departmental engineers, to amend suitably theeligibility criterion to enable the departmental engineers to reach theposition of Chief Engineer. As stated already a departmental engineer inPWD reaches the grade of Superintending Engineer only at the fag end ofhis service career and most of them are left with less than three years ofservice. In such service scenario, when Clause 12 of RR, 1996 prescribesfive years of regular service in the grade of Superintending Engineer asthe eligibility criterion for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is a mirage for the departmental engineers to reach the top most positionof Chief Engineer in PWD. Secondly, as rightly contended by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General, the amendment was outcome of a policydecision of the Government, the same cannot be interfered with unless itis demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court that such decision wasactuated by malice and mala fides. There are several factors that theadministrators would have taken into consideration for arriving at such apolicy decision. In matters such as this, which reflects the matters ofpolicy, judicial wisdom is judicial restraint. It is trite in the servicejurisprudence and administrative law that policy decisions of theGovernment in the matter of framing service rules and regulations willhave little judicial interference. A policy decision, if taken by acompetent authority in accordance with law, cannot per se regarded asmala fide. We have already observed that the Government was whollyjustified in bringing out amendment to Clause 12 of RR, 1996. 33. We have given our careful consideration to the Clause 12 of theamended rules. According to the amended rule, while filling up the postof Chief Engineer by promotion, if no departmental Superintending Engineerwith five years of regular service in the grade is available, theGovernment can consider the case of a Superintending Engineer with tenyears of combined regular service as Superintending Engineer and ExecutiveEngineer, out of which at least one year regular service should be in thegrade of Superintending Engineer. The reason for diluting the eligibilitynorm is so obvious and it is nothing but to appoint an eligibledepartmental engineer as the Chief Engineer and in fact this was the longtime request made to the Government by the departmental engineers. Furthermore, it is for the appointing authority, which is the best judge of thesituation before them, either to prescribe new service condition or toamend or alter the existing service condition to suit the administrativeexigencies and in public interest. We, therefore, do not see any elementof arbitrariness or unreasonable in diluting the eligibility criteria. Onthe other hand, as contended by the learned Additional Solicitor Generaland rightly so in our opinion, that the rules were amended in the interestof administration of the Department and in public interest. When theamendment was brought in to meet the expectations of the departmentalengineers to promote and to appoint one among them as Chief Engineer andthe same was in the interest of administration of the Department and inpublic interest, the dilution of the rule and the resultant amendmentcannot be dubbed as arbitrary and unreasonable merely because theindividual interest of the first respondent is likely to be affected. Weare, therefore, clearly of the opinion that in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Government had not acted arbitrarily or unreasonably, buthad proceeded to relax the eligibility criteria under Clause 12 of RR,1996 to obviate the genuine hardship caused to the departmentalSuperintending Engineers in the matter of their promotion to the post ofChief Engineer.34. In B.S. YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA (AIR 1981 SC 561), the Supreme https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court held that rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of theConstitution being legislative in character cannot be struck down merelybecause the Court thinks that they are unreasonable.35. In J.C. YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA (1990) 2 SCC 189, it was heldas under:“The relaxation of the Rules may be to the extent the StateGovernment may consider necessary for dealing with a particularsituation in a just and equitable manner. The scope of Rule iswide enough to confer power on the State Government to relax therequirement of Rules in respect of an individual or class ofindividuals to the extent it may consider necessary for dealingwith the case in a just and equitable manner. The power ofrelaxation is generally contained in the Rules with a view tomitigate undue hardship or to meet a particular situation. Manya time strict application of service rules create a situationwhere a particular individual or a set of individuals may sufferundue hardship and further there may be a situation whererequisite qualified persons may not be available for appointmentto the service. In such a situation the Government has power torelax Requirement of Rules. The State Government may inexercise of its powers issue a general order relaxing anyparticular rule with a view to avail the services of requisiteofficers. The relaxation even if granted in a general mannerwould ensure to the benefit of individual officers.”36. In Captain B.D. GUPTA v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER 1991 Supp (1)SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that rules made under Art.309 of theConstitution are a piece of legislation and it is well settled that nolegislation can be challenged on the ground of mala fides.37. In V.K. SOOD v. SECRETARY, CIVIL AVIATION AND OTHERS (1993 Supp.[3] SCC 9), the Supreme Court observed as follows:“Thus it would be clear that, in the exercise of the rule makingpower, the President or authorized person is entitled toprescribe method of recruitment, qualifications both educationalas well as technical for appointment or conditions of service toan office or a post under the State. The rules thus having beenmade in exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 ofthe Constitution, being statutory, cannot be impeached on theground that the authorities have prescribed tailor madequalifications to suit the stated individuals whose names havebeen mentioned in the appeal. Suffice to state that it issettled law that no motives can be attributed to the Legislaturein making the law. The rules prescribed qualifications foreligibility and suitability of the appellant would be tested bythe Union Public Service Commission.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

38. In ASHOK KUMAR UPPAL v. STATE OF J&K (1998) 4 SCC 179, the SupremeCourt held as follows:“Power to relax the Recruitment Rules or any other Rule made bythe State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution ofwhich the corresponding provision is contained in Section 124 ofthe Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, is conferred upon theGovernment to meet any emergent situation where injustice mighthave been caused or is likely to be caused to any individualemployee or class of employees or where the working of the Rulemight have become impossible. Under service jurisprudence asalso the Administrative Law, such a power necessarily to beconceded to the employer particularly the State Government orthe Central Government who have to deal with hundreds ofemployees working under them in different departments includingthe Central or the State Secretariat.”39. In ASHUTOSH GUPTA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2002) 4 SCC 34, theSupreme Court in paragraph 5 observed as follows:“ There is always a presumption in favour of theconstitutionality of enactment and this presumption stems fromthe wide power of classification which the legislature must, ofnecessity possess in making laws operating differently asregards different groups of persons in order to give effect topolicies. It must be presumed that the legislature understandsand correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that itslaw are directed to problems made manifest by experience.”40. In P.U. JOSHI AND OTHERS v. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, AHEMEDABAD ANDOTHERS (2003) 2 SCC 632, the Supreme Court held as follows:“Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclatureof posts, cadres, categories, theircreation/abolition,prescription of qualifications and otherconditions of service including avenues of promotion andcriteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to thefield of policy is within the exclusive discretion andjurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to thelimitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution ofIndia and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, todirect the Government to have a particular method of recruitmentor eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itselfby substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, itis well open and within the competency of the State to changethe rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary byaddition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteriaand other conditions of service including avenues of promotion,from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need ornecessitate. … … … There is no right in any employee of theState to claim that rules governing conditions of his servicefor all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rightsof benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ point of time, a government servant has no right to challengethe authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into forcenew rules relating to even an existing service.”41. It was argued that the first respondent, being a deputationist,has no legal right to challenge the amendment made to the recruitmentrules. This argument was rejected by the Tribunal on the reasoning thatwhen transfer by deputation is one mode of recruitment under the rules andwhen the appointment order issued to the first respondent clearly speltout that his appointment would continue till such time a regular candidateis appointed as per the recruitment rules and when according to the firstrespondent the amendment to the recruitment rules was arbitrary andillegal, he has locus to challenge the same. 42. We have already held that the Government have got power either toframe new recruitment rules or to amend or alter the existing recruitmentrules to suit the administrative contingencies and in the interest of theDepartment as well as in public interest. Such policy decision of theGovernment cannot be challenged at the instance of the first respondent,who is a deputationist. It is also pertinent to note the argument of thelearned Additional Solicitor General that the very appointment of thefirst respondent as Chief Engineer, PWD was void since it was in violationof the recruitment rules as there was no consultation by the Governmentwith UPSC in his appointment. Further, when the matter was pending beforethe Supreme Court, Clause 12 of the draft recruitment rules was placedbefore the Supreme Court and the first respondent was also alive to theprovisions of the amended Clause 12 of the recruitment rules, he couldhave raised the pleas of mala fide and arbitrariness before the SupremeCourt itself, but he failed to do so. In fact, the amended Clause 12 ofRR, 2005 has been quoted in the judgment of the Supreme Court. The SupremeCourt ultimately observed that selection process in accordance with lawmay be completed as expeditiously as possible. It is the case of theGovernment that it is in compliance of the implicit direction given by theSupreme Court that the selection process has been expedited and reachedthe final stage of posting the regular candidate, which is under process.The appointment could have been over, but for the original applicationsfiled by the first respondent. 43. In KUNAL NANDA v. UNION OF INDIA (2000) 5 SCC 362, the SupremeCourt held as follows:“A deputationist cannot assert and succeed in his claim forpermanent absorption in the department where he works ondeputation, unless his claim is based upon a statutory rule,regulation or order having the force of law. A deputationistcan always and at any time be repatriated to his parentdepartment, at the instance of either borrowing department orparent department. There is no vested right in such a person tocontinue for long on deputation or get absorbed in borrowingdepartment.” (emphasis supplied) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

44. In UNION OF INDIA v. S.N. PANIKAR(2001) 10 SCC 520, the SupremeCourt while considering the claim of a deputationist for absorption onpermanent basis held that a deputationist cannot claim either a right tothe post in question nor can he claim absorption on permanent basis to thepost in question.45. Since the pleas of mala fides and malice in law have been raisedon behalf of the first respondent, we are constrained to note certainsubmissions made by the learned Additional Solicitor General. It wassubmitted that there were serious complaints of corruption against thefirst respondent in the matter of award of Government contracts andaccumulation of wealth disproportionate to the known sources of hisincome. There is also a vigilance enquiry pending against him. That partthe first respondent was also lacking in efficiency in managing theadministration the department. The allegations of corruption as well asthe efficiency aspect of the first respondent were widely publicised inthe local dailies. When the first respondent was given reposting as ChiefEngineer pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court, the staff of the PWDexpressed their resentment by going on mass casual leave, which resultedin paralysing the administration. Our attention was invited to the paperpublications. 46. We express nothing on the substance of such allegations and thenewspaper reports, but the fact remains that there were reports made inpublic through local dailies touching the integrity and efficiency of thefirst respondent. These allegations were also brought to the notice of theparent department of the first respondent. Under such circumstances, itis for the Government, which the best judge of the situation before them,to take a decision in the matter and no malice or motive could beattributed to the action of the Government in making a request to the CPWDto recall the services of the first respondent. In this situation, whenthe services of the first respondent were recalled by his parentdepartment, the Government, in the administrative interest as well as inpublic interest, immediately relieved the first respondent. Merelybecause the repatriation order and the relieving order were passed on thevery same date, the order was communicated to the first respondent at latehours in the night and that the very day itself the petitioner was put incharge of the post of Chief Engineer it cannot be said that the wholeexercise was tainted with mala fide, malice and favouritism. Anxiety tohave something done quickly is not necessarily mala fide. It is illogicalto dub the swift action of the Government in relieving the firstrespondent and appointing the petitioner in charge of the post of ChiefEngineer as post-haste decision and perverse. The Tribunal, in ouropinion, failed to consider this situation in proper perspective. Further,recruitment rules framed by the competent authority, being in the natureof subordinate legislation under Art.309 of the Constitution of India,cannot be challenged on the grounds of mala fide and malice. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

47. In the above said facts and circumstances, we are of theconsidered view that the arguments of the learned senior counsel appearingfor the first respondent that the amendment to Clause 12 of RR, 1996 wasbrought in by the Government with mala fide and malice to oust the firstrespondent from the post of Chief Engineer and to promote and post thepetitioner as Chief Engineer, that the amendment was arbitrary,unreasonable and violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution and thatthe amendment to the recruitment rules was done in a post-haste mannerhave no merits at all and are liable to be rejected. We, accordingly,reject the contentions. 48. It is obvious from the fact-situation of the case and thematerials placed on record that the Government took the decision as earlyas 2000 to relax the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post ofChief Engineer in the administrative interest of the Department. On acareful reading of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we find thatthe Tribunal has been swayed away by the observations of the SupremeCourt. It is true that the Supreme Court did made certain strongobservations against the Government in the matter of recruitment to thepost of Chief Engineer. Before the Supreme Court the issue was whetherthe promotion and appointment of the petitioner as per the draftrecruitment rules, which did not got the approval of the UPSC, andrepatriation of the first respondent to his parent department. In ouropinion, the Tribunal should not have allowed itself to be influenced byby the observations of the Supreme Court, which were in fact made in adifferent context, while deciding the present original application. We,therefore, hold that the Tribunal was not correct in coming to theconclusion that the amendment was brought in to suit the convenience ofthe Government, that the statutory power was exercised for an unauthorisedpurpose and that the service rules cannot be framed to suit theconvenience or wishes of a particular section or group of employees or anindividual. 49. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order passed by theTribunal holding that Clause 12 of RR, 2005 in so far as it has madeSuperintending Engineer with ten years of combined regular service in thegrade of Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer out of which atleast one year regular service should be in the grade of SuperintendingEngineer for becoming eligible for promotion to the post of ChiefEngineer, PWD, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Arts.14 and 16 ofthe Constitution of India is liable to be set aside and, accordingly, itis set aside. 50. Now, we will take up the challenge to the order passed by theTribunal in O.A. No.57 of 2006. In this original application, the firstrespondent has challenged the order transferring him from the post ofChief Engineer, PWD to the post of Superintending Engineer, AppropriateAuthority, Pondicherry, the order passed by the Government relieving himfrom the post of Chief Engineer and the appointment of the petitioner as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chief Engineer (Additional Charge). 51. Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the firstrespondent that repatriation was on extraneous grounds to defeat therights declared in favour of the first respondent by various court ordersand that the order was passed in vindictive mala fide manner withoutauthority for an oblique purpose. On the other hand, it was contended bythe Government that the first respondent was repatriated to his parentdepartment in the interest of administration of the department and inpublic interest and the repatriation order carried no stigma against thefirst respondent. In so far as the appointment of the petitioner as ChiefEngineer (Additional Charge) was concerned, it was submitted that in termsof RR, 2005 he is fully qualified to be promoted as Chief Engineer.52. The Tribunal framed two issued, viz. whether the first respondenthas got legal right to continue on deputation as Chief Engineer andquestion his repatriation to his parent department and whether therepatriation order was passed on mala fide grounds. The Tribunal, afterreferring to the earlier round of litigation and the orders passed by theHigh Court and the Supreme Court, held that the first respondent, thoughappointed on deputation basis, has a right to continue in the post andthat the services of the first respondent could not have been dispensedwith, without making a regular appointment. After holding so, theTribunal proceeded further to decide the issue whether the repatriation ofthe first respondent was tainted with mala fides and malice. The Tribunalafter referring to the newspaper reports, protests by the departmentalstaff, etc. observed that the Government, who is the competent authorityto decide the issue, ought to have exercised the administrative powersproperly to secure the interest of the first respondent instead of seekinghis repatriation. The Tribunal further observed that the hasty manner inwhich the repatriation and relieving orders were passed and served to thefirst respondent would clearly go to show that the first respondent hasacted in undue haste with wilful and mala fide grounds to forthwith oustthe first respondent so as to accommodate the petitioner. Here also theTribunal seems to have been persuaded by the observation of the SupremeCourt that the appointment of the first respondent holds good till aregular appointment is made. The Tribunal completely brushed aside thenewspaper publications touching the integrity and efficiency of the firstrespondent and the resentment expressed by the departmental staff on thereposting of the first respondent as Chief Engineer. The grounds of'administrative interest' and 'public interest' pleaded by the Governmentdid not find favour with the Tribunal. The Tribunal finally held that therepatriation and relieving orders were not routine administrative ordersmade in public interest to discontinue the deputation of the firstrespondent, but orders passed in colourable exercise of powers. Theorders were set aside and the first respondent was directed to be restoredin the post of Chief Engineer.53. It was contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appearing for the Government and learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner that when once the amended recruitment rules, viz. RR, 2005 gotthe approval of the UPSC and the same has come into force with effect from28-9-2005, the recruitment to the post of Chief Engineer would be governedby the provisions of RR, 2005. It was further submitted that theappointment of the first respondent was only a stop-gap arrangement andfor such time till a regular incumbent is selected and appointed as ChiefEngineer as per the recruitment rules. The services of the firstrespondent was borrowed by the Government from CPWD on deputation basis.The CPWD being the parent department is having lien over the tenure of thefirst respondent as deputationist. The parent department as well as theborrowing department, in the administrative interest, have got every rightto recall/relieve the services of the first respondent from the borrowingdepartment. It was also argued that the determination shown by the firstrespondent in assailing the orders exposes his vested interest inPondicherry. 54. Our attention was invited to the various correspondence exchangedbetween the Government, CPWD and UPSC in the matter of recruitment ofChief Engineer on deputation basis. In the letter dated 30-1-2004addressed by the Secretary to Government to Director General of Works,CPWD, it is stated as follows:"Since no eligible officer with prescribed conditions of serviceis available in the feeder grade of Superintending Engineer inPublic Works Department, Pondicherry for filling up the post ofChief Engineer, the said post cannot be filled up by promotion.Pending recruitment action by UPSC which may take a long time, itis felt necessary to fill up the post by deputation on short termbasis from CPWD."In the Office Order No.127 of 2004 dated 22-6-2004 issued by theDirectorate General of Works, CPWD, New Delhi, it is mentioned as follows:"Director General of Works, Central Public Works Department, ispleased to place the services of Shri V. Ramakrishnan,Superintending Engineer (Civil) at the disposal of Government ofPondicherry on his appointment as Chief Engineer, Public WorksDepartment, Pondicherry, with effect from 1-7-2004, in the payscale of Rs.14300-400-18300 on a short term deputation/temporarybasis on the usual terms and conditions of deputation.It is certified that but for his deputation to theGovernment of Pondicherry, Shri V. Ramakrishnan would havecontinued to officiate in the CPWD as Superintending Engineer(Civil)."G.O. Ms. No.30 dated 19-7-2004 issued by the Government of Pondicherryreads as follows:"The Lieutenant Governor, Pondicherry is pleased to appoint ThiruV. Ramakrishnan, Superintending Engineer (Civil) CPWD, Chennai asChief Engineer, Public Works Department, Pondicherry in the scaleof pay of Rs.14300-400-18300 on the short-termdeputation/temporary basis pending selection of the regularincumbent by the Union Public Service Commission with effect from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the forenoon of 1-7-2004 on the usual terms and conditionsof the deputation as per rules in force."Therefore, it is clear that the appointment of the first respondent asChief Engineer, PWD was a short-time deputation/temporary basis till suchtime a regular incumbent is selected and appointed by the UPSC. 55. It is also pertinent to note that in the earlier round oflitigation, the courts came to the rescue of the first respondent on theground that since the appointment of the first respondent as ChiefEngineer was pending selection of the regular incumbent by the UPSC andsince the draft recruitment rules were not approved by the UPSC, and solong as the draft rules were approved by the UPSC, the petitioner wasineligible to be appointed as the Chief Engineer. Before the SupremeCourt also it was argued on behalf of the first respondent that it was nothis case that he wanted to be permanently absorbed but his right to holdthe said post for the term he was appointed could not have been defeated.The Supreme Court further observed that till the new rules were giveneffect to, no promotion to the post of Chief Engineer could be effected inderogation to the criteria prescribed under the existing rule, i.e. RR,1996 and the draft rules, therefore, could not form the basis for grant ofpromotion, when the rules to the contrary are holding the filed. TheSupreme Court, after referring to Clauses of RR, 1996, held that theappointment of the first respondent to the post of Chief Engineer was onshort term deputation/temporary basis till a regular appointment is madeand gave implicit direction to the authorities concerned to expedite theprocess of filling up the post of Chief Engineer in accordance with law. 56. It is also pertinent here to mention that the letters dated 20-10-2005 and 22-11-2005 written by the first respondent to the ChiefSecretary to the Government makes it clear that the staff of PWD expressedtheir protest in the matter of reposting of the first respondent as ChiefEngineer. In the said letters, the first respondent himself has statedthat the staffs were not cooperating with him. Taking into considerationthe prevailing circumstances, the third respondent passed the orderrecalling the services of the first respondent from PWD, Pondicherry andhe was relieved by the Government of Pondicherry. In view of therepatriation order passed by the parent department, the first respondenthas no right much a legal right either to continue or to claim the post ofthe Chief Engineer on the basis of the deputation. We are of theconsidered view that the Tribunal was not correct in setting aside theorder dated 20-1-2006 passed by the Government and directing therestoration of the first respondent in service as Chief Engineer. We,therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 4-7-2006 passed by theTribunal in O.A. No.57 of 2006.57. The amendment to the Clause 12 of the recruitment rules has gotthe approval of the UPSC and the same has also been notified by theGovernment in the Gazette dated 28-9-2005, but in view of the legal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ tangle, the Government could not proceed further in the matter ofselection appointment of a regular incumbent to the post of Chief Engineeras per RR, 2005. The present position, in terms of the Division Benchorder dated 29-3-2006 in W.P. No.2778 of 2006, is the first respondent,without prejudice to his rights and contentions in his originalapplications, has joined the post as per the order dated 20-1-2006 and thepetitioner is officiating as the Chief Engineer, PWD. We have alreadyupheld the validity of the amendment made to Clause 12 of the recruitmentrules. We, therefore, direct the Government to fill up the post of ChiefEngineer, PWD as per the recruitment rules laid down in RR, 2005 and inaccordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from today.58. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.Jai To:1. The Chief Secretary Government of Pondicherry Goubert Avenue Pondicherry2. The Secretary Ministry of Urban Development Nirman Bhavan New Delhi 110 0113. The Director General of Works Central Public Works Department Nirman Bhavan New Delhi 110 0114. The Secretary to Government (Works) Local Administration and Public Works Department (Public Works Wing) Government of Pondicherry.5. Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shajahan Road, New Delhi 110 069. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. The Secretary,Department of Home Affairs,North Block, New Delhi.7. The Registrar,Central Administrative Tribunal,Madras Bench, High Court Buildings, Chennai 600 104.+ 3 CC to M/s.R.Vaigai, Advocate SR Nos.57488, 57395 and 57396+ 6 CCs to Senior Government Pleader cum Senior Public prosecutor forPondicherry SR No.57295 to 57299 and 57294+ 1 CC To Mr. P.Wilson, Asst. Solictor General of India, Advocate SR NO.57318+ 1 CC To Mr. Gladys Daniel, Advocate SR NO. 57368+ 5 CCs To Mr. K.Sridhar SCGC Advocate SR NO. 57471 W.P. No.22224 of 2006 etc.VC(CO)NM,KK,SG,DV, GP/27.11.