THE HONOURABLE MR v. N.Suresh2. R.Santhanam3. K.Ravi4. K.Suresh Kumar5. G.Sundaraj6. Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 26.06.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANW.P.Nos.19641 and 20186 of 2001 andW.P.M.P.No.28928 of 2001 &45993 of 2002B.Justin Immanuel .. Petitioner in WP 19641/20011. P.Ravindran2. K.Ramu3. M.Soundararajan4. C.Vincent John5. S.P.Subramanian6. R.Dhakshinamoorthy .. Petitioners in WP 20186/2001Versus1. N.Suresh2. R.Santhanam3. K.Ravi4. K.Suresh Kumar5. G.Sundaraj6. Union of India, rep. By Doordharshan Kendra, Chennai 5.7. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai, rep. By Registrar .. Respondents in both WPs Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of Indiato issue a Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to orderdated 05.09.2001 made in O.A.No.1184 of 2000 passed by the 7th respondentTribunal and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner in WP 19641/2001 : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar For petitioner in WP 20186/2001 : Mr.Selvan Babu For R1 to R5 : Mr.Balan HaridassFor R6 : Mr.V.T.Gopalan Addl.Solicitor General for Mr.T.S.Sivgnanam,SCGSCC O M M O N O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.)In these two writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved againstthe order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 05.09.2001 passedin O.A.No.1184 of 2000 preferred by the contesting respondents 1 to 5.The challenge in the said Original Application was to an order dated09.11.2000 of the sixth respondent and for a direction to the sixthrespondent to count the seniority of the contesting respondents in thepost of Lighting Assistant with effect from their first date ofappointment and consider the first respondent for regularisation witheffect from the date on which his immediate junior namely the secondrespondent was regularised, i.e. on 19.11.1994 and respondents 2 to 5 forregularisation with effect from the date on which their immediate juniorsnamely the petitioners herein were regularised, i.e. 03.09.1997 with allconsequential benefits. 2. The facts relating to the respective date of joining of thepetitioners and respondents 1 to 5 have been set out in detail in theimpugned order of the Tribunal and therefore, we are not stating thosedetails in this order. The common facts are that the petitioners andrespondents 1 to 5 joined Doordarshan Kendra, Chennai between 1977 and1986 on different dates as Casual Artists (Lighting Assistants). Theywere claiming for regularisation of their services in the post of LightingAssistants. The claim of the Casual Artists was considered by the sixthrespondent and by an Office Memorandum dated 09.06.1992, a Scheme ofRegularisation was announced stipulating certain conditions under whichsuch regularisation would take place. A subsequent Office Memorandum wasalso issued on 10.06.1992 by the sixth respondent, by which otherguidelines were issued for implementing the Scheme of regularisation.Thereafter, when doubts were raised by the various Doordarshan Kendras,the same was clarified by the sixth respondent in its subsequent OfficeMemorandum dated 01.09.1992. Thereafter, all the eligible Casual Artistsin the Doordarshan Kendra, Chennai were listed out based on theirrespective dates of eligibility. The names of 16 individuals were set outin the said list dated 20.10.1992. The names of the petitioners in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.20186 of 2001 appeared in S.Nos.3 to 7 and 9 in the said list,while the name of the petitioner in W.P.No.19641 of 2001 appeared inS.No.2 of the said list. Virtually, the said list dated 20.10.1992 wasconstrued as the seniority list of all the Casual Lighting Assistantswhose services came to be regularised pursuant to the RegularisationScheme dated 09.06.1992 and the guidelines dated 10.06.1992. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.19641 of 2001 was regularised with effectfrom 19.11.1994 while the petitioners in 20186 of 2001 were allregularised with effect from 12.09.1997. Be that as it may, one ThiruKishanlal Kamboj, S/o Shri Shankar Lal approached the Principal Bench ofthe Central Administrative Tribunal contending that his service as CasualLabourer Artist announced on an earlier date than his juniors, whoseservices came to be regularised overlooking his seniority and the saidapplication preferred by him in O.A.No.2484 of 1993 was considered by thePrincipal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The PrincipalBench considered the stand of the said applicant, namely, as per theScheme of Regularisation the seniority has to be reckoned with referenceto the date of first engagement as Casual Labourer de hors the lower agelimit fixed with reference to which there was no stipulation as far asCasual Labourers are concerned and on that basis held that the saidapplicant was senior to the contesting respondent 3 in that OriginalApplication and therefore, the said applicant was entitled for hisseniority to be fixed over and above the third respondent in that OriginalApplication. After the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal,Principal Bench dated 14.07.1999, the Prasar Bharati issued an OfficeMemorandum dated 14.10.1999 in and by which the order of the Tribunal wasimplemented. The said Office Memorandum dated 14.10.1999 also directedthe Doordarshan Kendras to the effect that if they had fixed the seniorityof Casual Artists contrary to the order of the Central AdministrativeTribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, they should immediately rectifytheir mistake. However, in the case of respondents 1 to 5, the sixthrespondent herein by its order dated 09.10.2000 rejected their claim forrefixing their seniority based on the Prasar Bharati's communication dated14.10.1999. It was in the above stated circumstances, the respondents 1to 5 approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1184 of 2000. By the orderimpugned in these writ petitions, the Tribunal taking note of the order ofthe Principal Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2484 of 1993 and theconsequent direction of the Director (Administration) of Prasar Bharatidated 14.10.1999, set aside the order dated 09.10.2000, wherein the sixthrespondent rejected the representation of respondents 1 to 5 made to thesixth respondent and directed the sixth respondent to recast the seniorityof respondents 1 to 5 viz-a-viz petitioners by reckoning the date ofinitial engagement as the criteria for determining the seniority. TheTribunal also held that based on such recast seniority, respondents 1 to 5would be entitled to all monetary and service benefits such as payfixation on par with their juniors and promotion to higher grades based onthe said recast seniority. The Tribunal also fixed the time limit ofeight weeks for carrying out the said exercise. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. One other factor to be noted is that the petitioner inW.P.No.19641 of 2001 who was regularised as Lighting Assistant on19.11.1994 was subsequently promoted as Cameraman. Even the contestingrespondents 1 to 5 as well as the other petitioners have also stated tohave been subsequently promoted as Cameraman in the year 1999. It is inthe above said background, the petitioners have come forward with thesetwo writ petitions. 5. Mr.Selvan Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners inW.P.No.20186 of 2001 contended that the Original Application ought to havebeen dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of delay and that in anyevent, the Tribunal ought not to have followed the Principal Bench rulingin O.A.No.2484 of 1993 dated 14.07.1999, but should have held that theseniority can be reckoned only from the dates which were set out in theseniority list dated 20.10.1992. 6. As far as the ground of delay is concerned, the learned counselcontended that amongst Casual Lighting Assistants, the petitioner inW.P.No.19641 of 2001 was appointed at the earliest point of time, namely19.11.1994 and therefore, when respondents 1 to 5 were aggrieved asagainst the said petitioner, the Original Application preferred in theyear 2000 was hopelessly barred by limitation. The learned counsel wouldcontend that as a matter of fact when the seniority list was drawn asearly as on 20.10.1992, it should be held that the cause of actioncommenced on that date itself when the contesting respondents were madeknown that their regularisation were to take effect from the date laterthan the dates from which the petitioners were all regularised.Therefore, their failure to approach the Tribunal within the stipulatedtime limit from the date i.e. either from 20.10.1992 or 19.11.1994 shouldfall solely on the ground of delay.7.As far as the merits of the claims of respondents 1 to 5 areconcerned, the learned counsel by relying upon the Service Rules which wasin force as of the year 1979 contended that for the post of the LightingAssistants the minimum age limit was 21 years and that the essentialqualification prescribed was Matriculation or its equivalent with twoyears experience of lighting in stage, films or television. The learnedcounsel therefore contended that even though respondents 1 to 5 had joinedas Lighting Assistants prior to the petitioners even as per the Scheme ofRegularisation, they could have been validly regularised as LightingAssistants only on fulfilment of the stipulations contained in the Ruleand therefore, their initial date of engagement as Casuals when they didnot satisfy the age and other qualification cannot be taken as the basisfor reckoning their seniority. 8. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel reliedupon JT 1997 (5) SC 387 [Jagdish Lal and others vs. State of Haryana andothers], 2003(2)LLN 432 [Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Hayana and others], https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (1996) 1 SCC 521 [Chief of Naval Staff and another vs. G.GopalakrishnaPillai and others], JT 1998(3)SC 757 [Dr.Anuradha Bodi and others vs.Muniipal Corporation of Delhi and others], JT 1998 (3) SC 457[K.Trimurthulu and others vs. M.V.N.Murthy and others], JT 1997(5)SC 712[Union of India and others vs. M.Dharani and others], AIR 1988 SC 902[R.Prabha Devi and others vs. Govt. of India and others], 2002(6)Supreme429 [Ramesh P.Bhatnagar and another vs. State of U.P.] and an unreportedjudment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal(Civil) 2791-2793 of 2002[K.Madalaimuthu and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others]. 9. Mr.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inW.P.No.19641 of 2001 while adopting the submission of Mr.Selvan Babu,contended that the Original Application ought to have been rejected on theground of delay and laches. Learned counsel relied upon the decisionsreported in 1998(2)SCC 523, 1998(6)SCC 720, 1996(10)SCC 444 and 1997(1)SCC621. 10. As against the above submissions, Mr.Balan Haridass, learnedcounsel for respondents 1 to 5 contended that even as per the Scheme ofRegularisation, there is a specific stipulation as to how the seniorityhas to be reckoned, that when the seniority is directed to be determinedby the Tribunal is in accordance with the said Scheme, the same cannot befound fault with. The learned counsel contended that for the purpose ofreckoning the seniority, there is no specific provision in the Rules andtherefore, the provision contained in the Scheme would govern the mannerin which the seniority has to be reckoned and therefore, the Tribunal'sorder cannot be found fault with. The learned counsel also contended thatafter the Principal Bench order, by way of an Office Memorandum dated14.10.1999, the sixth respondent itself accepted the Tribunal's order andimplemented the same by directing all the Doordarashan Kendras to rectifythe mistakes in the matter of seniority, the sixth respondent themselvesought to have realligned the seniority as per the order of the PrincipalBench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was therefore contendedthat the impugned order of the Tribunal in directing the sixth respondentto rectify the mistake and correct the seniority was well justified andthe same does not call for any interference. 11. As far as the contention based on delay and laches are concerned,learned counsel contended that there was no question of delay involved inthese cases, inasmuch as immediately after the orders of regularisationpassed by the sixth respondent in respect of respondents 1 to 5, theysubmitted their representations for rectifying the seniority based on theOffice Memorandum dated 14.10.1999, which was rejected by the sixthrespondent only on 09.10.2000 and that immediately thereafter, theOriginal Applications came to be filed. The learned counsel thereforecontended that there was no delay or laches in the filing of the OriginalApplications. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the sixthrespondent in his submissions stated that there is no Rule prescribing anyminimum age limit for engagement as Casual Labourer and therefore, whenrespondents 1 to 5 at the time of their casual engagement had crossed 18years, there was no illegality in their casual engagement. According tothe learned Additional Solicitor General, the minimum age limit prescribedfor Lighting Assistants had no application for engagement of CasualLighting Assistants and therefore, the said Rule prescribing minimum of 21years for appointment of Lighting Assistant by way of direct recruitmentcannot be the basis for determining the seniority. The learned AdditionalSolicitor General therefore submitted that the Director (Administration)of Prasar Bharati issued the Office Memorandum dated 14.10.1999 directingall the Doordarshan Kendras to rectify the mistake in the matter ofreckoning the seniority of such of those Lighting Assistants who wereinitially engaged as casuals and who were all subsequently regularised inthe post of Lighting Assistants based on the Regularisation Scheme dated09.06.1992/10.06.1992. He further pointed out that the clarificationletter dated 11.11.1999 cannot run counter to the Scheme provisionscontained in the Office Memorandum dated 09.06.1992/10.06.1992. Thelearned Additional Solicitor General therefore contended that the order ofthe Tribunal does not call for interference.13. From the contentions of the respective parties and based on thematerial papers placed before the Court, we find that in the Scheme forregularisation dated 09.06.1992, it is specified that all the CasualArtists would be empanelled Kendra wise depending upon the length ofservice of Casual Artists and that they will be considered forregularisation in the order of their seniority against the availablevacancies in that particular Kendra. It is also specifically stated thatthe seniority will be determined from the date of their initial engagementfrom the respective entry. Paragraph No.5 of the Scheme dated 09.06.1992states that the Casual Artists who are to be regularised should possessthe requisite educational qualification and/or experience as stipulated inthe Recruitment Rules or other administrative instructions (in the absenceof Recruitment Rules) that were existing for the post when the casualworker was initially engaged. Paragraph No.7 of the Scheme dated09.06.1992 stipulates that the regularisation of Casual Artists would befrom prospective date and the Casual Artists on the eligibility panel whofail to qualify for regularisation in accordance with the recruitmentrules and instructions issued thereunder for the post, shall be removedfrom the panel. After issuance of the above Scheme, on the very next dayi.e. 10.06.1992, the Government of India issued another Office Memorandumstating the guidelines for implementation of the Scheme. Paragraph No.(iii) of the said Office Memorandum specifically mentioned that for thepurpose of determining the seniority, the date of initial engagement oncasual basis will be the sole criterion. However, from some of the Kendrascertain doubts were raised. One such doubt raised by one of the Kendraswas that some of the Casual Artists were underaged at the time of initial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ engagement, but on the date of the promulgation of the Scheme theysatisfied the age required for recruitment to the post of LightingAssistants. By way of clarification, the Government of India in itsOffice Memorandum dated 01.09.1992 stated that such persons were obviouslyineligible at the time of initial engagement as Causal Artists and thattheir claim for seniority should therefore be reckoned only from the dateon which they came within the prescribed age limit as per the relevantRules. Similar such clarification was issued as regards those CasualArtists who did not satisfy the requisite educational and otherqualifications prescribed for the post of Lighting Assistants. It is inthe above said background that the sixth respondent herein prepared theseniority list in respect of all eligible Casual Artists (LightingAssistants) to be regularised as per the Scheme. The said seniority listwas drawn on 20.10.1992. The respondents 1 to 5 though joined on03.07.1984, 25.11.1984, 11.12.1984, 11.12.1984 and 26.04.1985respectively, they were stated to have completed 21 years only on10.05.1987, 20.05.1987, 30.05.1986, 04.04.1987 and 03.06.1987 and thethird respondent satisfied the minimum educational qualification only inOctober 1998. Because of the above dates on which they were stated tohave satisfied the age qualification though their entry as Casual Artistswas prior to the date of entry of the petitioners in both these writpetitions, their names were put in the bottom of the list dated 20.09.1992i.e. below the names of the petitioners. Keeping the above statement offacts in mind, as regards the petitioners viz-a-viz respondents 1 to 5,when we consider the contentions of the petitioners, at the outset, asregards the ground of delay and laches, we are in full agreement with theconclusion of the Tribunal in holding that the application was not hit byany delay. In paragraph No.8 of the order impugned in this writ petition,as regards the issue of delay, the Tribunal has held that respondents 1 to5 were regularised only with effect from 15.11.1999 and that they couldhave agitated for the claim of seniority only from that date. 14. Apart from the fact that their services came to be regularised inthe post of Lighting Assistants only from 15.11.1999 one other factor tobe noted is that after their regularisation in the post of LightingAssistants they made their representations before the sixth respondentherein for reallignment of their seniority as against the petitioners by aspecific representation dated 01.06.2000. The said representation wasrejected by the sixth respondent only on 09.10.2000. Immediatelythereafter, the present Original Application came to be filed byrespondents 1 to 5 in the year 2000 itself. In such circumstances, we areunable to accept the contention of the writ petitioners that respondents 1to 5 ought to have agitated for their seniority on the date when thepetitioner in W.P.No.19641 of 2001 was regularised in the post of LightingAssistant on 19.11.1994 or by challenging the seniority list dated20.10.1992. While making such a submission, the petitioners failed tonote that the very right to seek for seniority would come into effect onlywhen respondents 1 to 5 came to be appointed in the post of LightingAssistants on a regular basis. Though the Scheme for Regularisation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ commenced as early as on 09.06.1992, the Scheme itself specified that theCasual Artists would be considered for regularisation only against theavailable vacancies in the particular Kendra. Though based on suchregularisation in the available vacancies, the seniority would bedetermined from the date of their initial engagement by the Kendra. Insuch circumstances, until a specific order of regularisation was issued torespondents 1 to 5 they had no opportunity to question or raise anygrievance as regards the fixation of their seniority as against the writpetitioners. Therefore, the seniority list drawn on 20.10.1992 or theregularisation order issued to the petitioner in W.P.No.19641 of 2001cannot be held to be the date when the cause of action had arisen. 15. As regards the determination of the seniority of respondents 1 to5 viz-a-viz the petitioners, since the regularisation of respondents 1 to5 was issued only on 15.11.1999 and the seniority of respondents 1 to 5came to be crystallised subsequent to the order of regularisation, theywere well justified in raising their grievances for reallignment of theirseniority in their representation dated 01.06.2000. In suchcircumstances, they were fully justified in questioning the rejection oftheir representation as ordered by the sixth respondent in its order dated09.10.2000. If that be so, it cannot be held that the application ofrespondents 1 to 5 was belated or there was any inaction on the part ofrespondents 1 to 5 in challenging their seniority vis-a-vis the writpetitioners. Therefore, we reject the said contention of the petitionerson the ground of delay and laches. 16. As far as the decision relied upon by the learned counselfor the petitioners reported in JT 1997(5)SC 387 (cited supra), in thelight of the facts involved in this case where we have noted that the veryregularisation of respondents 1 to 5 came to be made only on 15.11.1999,we are unable to apply the ratio of the said decision to the facts of thiscase. Once we steer clear of the said ground of attack and deal with themerits of the claim of seniority, we wish to refer to some of thedecisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in order toascertain the position relating to determination of seniority. 17. In the decision reported in 2003(2)LLN 432 (cited supra), theHon'ble Supreme Court has stated the position succinctly as under inparagraph No.44:"It is also well settled that in the absence of rulesgoverning seniority an executive order may be issued to fill upthe gap. Only in the absence of a rule or executiveinstructions, the Court may have to evolve a fair and justprinciple which could be applied in the facts and circumstancesof the case."18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that ad hoc appointment eventhough uninterruptedly followed by regularisation in the same post would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not count for seniority. In the decision reported inJT 1998(3)SC 757 (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to theprinciple set down by the Constitution Bench decision reported in 1990(2)SCC 715 [Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association vs.State of Maharashra and others] as well the subsequent decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1993 (3) SCC 371 [State of West Bengaland others vs. Aghore Nath Dev and others] and had explained theproposition laid down in the Constitution Bench decision and ultimatelyheld as under in paragraph No.12:"If the facts of these two cases are analysed in the lightof the aforesaid decisions, there can be no doubt whatever thatthe petitioners fall within the corollary in Conclusion (A).The orders of appointment issued to the petitioners are veryspecific in their terms. Though the Recruitment Rules cameinto force on 6.8.82, the appointments were not made inaccordance therewith. They were ad hoc and made as a stop gaparrangement. The orders themselves indicated that for thepurpose of regular appointment the petitioners were bound topass the U.P.S.C. examination in normal course in the directcompetition. Hence the petitioners will not fall under themain part of Conclusion (A) or Conclusion (B) as contended bythe learned counsel for the petitioners."19. In the decision reported in JT 1998(3)SC 457 [cited supra], theHon'ble Supreme Court has stated the legal position as under in paragraphNo.6:"6. We have gone through both the Circulars and aresatisfied that the Tribunal while laying down that theseniority of the appellants could be reckoned from the date oftheir regular appointment did not commit any error and hasacted strictly in accordance with the Circular letters issuedby the Ministry of Defence. Since it was the consistent policyof the Ministry of Defence that benefit of seniority would beallowed to casual employees only with effect from the date onwhich they are appointed on regular basis and that the periodof casual service would not be counted towards seniority, theTribunal was fully justified in recording the findings that therespondents would be senior to the appellants and that theNaval Dockyard was in error in treating the appellants assenior."20. In the decision reported in JT 1997 (5) SC 712 [cited supra], theHon'ble Supreme Court by making a specific reference to the provisionswhich were contained in the regularisation scheme in sub clauses f and gof Clause 3 stated that in view of the clear terms of the regularisationpolicy, the Tribunal was not justified in granting the seniority torespondents in that case from the date of their initial appointment asCasual Workers. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21. In the unreported judgment rendered in Appeal (Civil) 2791-2793of 2002 [cited supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the consistentview and the well established legal position is that initial appointmentto a post without recourse to the Rules of recruitment, cannot be said tobe in service till the appointment is regularised and therefore, it isonly from the date on which the persons services are regularised that suchappointee can claim seniority over those who were appointed subsequently.22. In the decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 902 [cited supra], theHon'ble Supreme Court held that seniority in a particular cadre does notentitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfilsthe eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules and that aperson must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualificationsprescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion. It wasalso held that seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligibleand seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility. 23. A conspectus consideration of all the above Rulings make it clearthat only in the absence of specific rule relating to seniority, theCourts can evolve a fair and just principle to be applied in the facts andcircumstances of the case before it. In the Constitution Bench decision,the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that where the initial appointmentis only ad hoc and were not according to the Rules, but were made as astop gap arrangement, the officiation in such posts cannot be taken intoaccount for considering the seniority. However, in the very samejudgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the initial appointmentis not made by following the procedure laid down under the Rules but theappointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation ofthe service in accordance with the Rules, the period of officiatingservice can be counted. In fact, the said principle set down by theConstitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court was applied in thesubsequent decision reported in JT 1998 (3)SC 757 [cited supra].24. When the above principles set down by the Constitution Benchdecision of the Supreme Court is applied to the facts of this case andwhen we peruse the regularisation scheme announced by the Government ofIndia, we find that for the purpose of regularisation the Casual Artistsshould possess the requisite educational qualification/ experience asstipulated in the recruitment rules which was in force as on the date oftheir initial engagement as Casuals. It is also made clear in the Schemethat regularisation of Casual Artists would be from prospective date andthe Casual Artists on the eligibility panel who fail to qualify forregularisation in accordance with the recruitment rules should be removedfrom the panel. It is true that the subsequent clarification issued bythe Government of India in their Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1992 statedthat those persons who were ineligible at the time of initial engagementas Casual Artists cannot claim seniority based on their date of initialengagement and that their seniority can be reckoned only from the date on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which they fall within the prescribed age limit as per the relevant rulesand from the date on which they acquire the prescribed qualification asper the Rules. Unfortunately, the said clarification letter failed totake note of the guidelines which were issued as part of theregularisation Scheme on 10.06.1992. The said guidelines issued on10.06.1992 made it clear that for the purpose of determining the senioritythe date of initial engagement on casual basis will be the sole criterion.The said guidelines for implementation of the Scheme for regularisation ofCasual Artists dated 10.06.1992 will have to be read as part of theRegularisation Scheme. If that be so, applying the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2003 (2)LLN 432 [cited supra], it willhave to be held that the said guideline would govern the Rule relating toreckoning of the seniority of the Casual Artists whose services areregularised. 25. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the contestingrespondents 1 to 5, when there is no specific Rule or any specificprovision in the statutory rule for determination of seniority, theprovision contained in the Scheme of Regularisation would govern the fieldand that the said provision makes it clear that the date of initialengagement on Casual basis would be the sole criterion. The decision ofthe Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal which is inaccordance with the Scheme provisions was perfectly in order. Therefore,the implementation of the order of the Principal Bench dated 14.07.1999 inO.A.No.2484 of 1993 by the Government of India in its order dated14.10.1999 by way of an Office Memorandum was fully justified. It isrelevant to state that the order of Doordarshan dated 14.10.1992implementing the order of the Principal Bench was never challenged by anyone much less the petitioners. In such circumstances, the provisioncontained in the Scheme to the effect that for the purpose of determiningthe seniority the date of initial engagement on Casual basis would be thesole criterion had the sanction of the judicial forum, namely thePrincipal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal which was alsoaccepted by the Doordarshan Kendra in its order dated 14.10.1999.Therefore, the cumulative effect of all the above namely that the Schemeof regularisation specifically provided the manner in which the seniorityof the Casual Artists in the event of their regularisation which positionhaving been approved by the judicial forum and the acceptance of the sameby the employer, namely the Doordarshan Kendra, in the absence of anyother provision in the statutory rule, we are of the considered opinionthe Scheme provision would alone govern the procedure to be followed forreckoning the seniority of Casual Artists on the regularisation of theirservices in the post of Lighting Assistants as part of the implementationof the Scheme of regularisation. 26. Therefore, we are convinced that the order of the Tribunalimpugned in these writ petitions in having directed the sixth respondentherein to strictly adhere to the Scheme of Regularisation as stipulated inthe original scheme dated 09.06.1992 as well as the guidelines for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ implementing the said Scheme as issued on 10.06.1992 was perfectlyjustified and the same does not call for interference. Therefore, whensuch prescribed provisions have been taken note of by the Tribunal whilepassing the order impugned in these writ petitions,we do not find anyviolation in issuing such directions to the sixth respondent herein forthe purpose of reckoning the seniority of respondents 1 to 5 viz-a-viz thepetitioners. Therefore, we do not find any merits in these writ petitionsin order to interfere with the said order of the Tribunal. Moreover, thelearned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 in the course of his submissionsstated that the implementation of the impugned order of the Tribunal isnot going to in any way affect the subsequent promotions gained by thepetitioners in W.P.No.19641 of 2001 or for that matter the otherpetitioners in W.P.No.20186 of 2001 and inasmuch as the petitioners aswell as respondents 1 to 5 got their subsequent promotions to the post ofcameraman. In such circumstances, we are convinced that the order of theTribunal impugned in these writ petitions in directing the sixthrespondent to reallign the seniority to respondents 1 to 5 vis-a-vis thepetitioners strictly based on the date of their original engagement asCasual Lighting Assistants is perfectly in order and we do not find anyscope to interfere with the same. These writ petitions fail andtherefore, the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargmsTo1. Doordharshan Kendra, Union of India, Chennai 5.2. Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai,1 cc To Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam, Advocate, SR.37599.1 cc To Mr.V.Vijayshankar, Advocate, SR.38123.1 cc To M/s.Balan Haridoss, Advocate, SR.38335.1 cc To Mr.T.D.Selvan Babu, Advocate, SR.37564. W.P.Nos.19641 and 20186 of 2001 MBS(CO)RVL 12.07.2007