IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33756 of 2008(R) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- DR.V. SATHIAVATHY, SR. LECTURER, CALICUT ADARSHA SANSKRIT VIDYAPEETHA, BALUSSERY, CALICUT. BY ADV.MR.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE CALICUT ADARSHA SANSKRIT VIDYAPEETHA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, BALUSSERY, CALICUT. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3. RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN, DEEMED UNIVERSTIY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 56-57, INSTITUTION AREA, JANAKAPURI, NEW DELHI - 110 058. ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED. 4. DR. E.PRAKASH, S/O. T.P. KRISHNAN NAMBEESAN, RESIDING AT 'APRAMAYA' HOUSE, NANMADA P.O., BALUSERY. *ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.7.9.09 IN IA. 11063/09 R1 BY ADV. MR.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN R1 BY ADV. MR.K.ANAND R2 BY ADVS.MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR R2 BY MR.CYRIAC KURIAN, CGSC R3 BY MR.CHERIAN VARGHESE ADDL. R4 BY MR.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 7448 OF 2009 THE COURT ON 24/11/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.33756/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23.12.92 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT AFTER REGULARIZATION. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 13.2.98. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF PAY REVISION GO(P) NO.171/99/H.EDN. DTD. 21.12.99. P4:- COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER FROM 3RD RESPONDENT FOR PAY REVISION FOR VIDYAPEETHA DTD. 31.3.02. P5:- COPY OF THE COMBINED JUDGMENT DTD. 5.3.90 IN OP. 2413/88 & OP 2694/88. P6:- COPY OF THE APPELLATE JUDGMENT DTD. 27.6.91 IN WA. 553/90. P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA. 2542/99 AND CONNECTED CASES DTD. 26.8.08. P8:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 17.7.08 IN WA. 2542/99 & CONNECTED CASE. P9:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF PRINCIPAL DTD. 1.3.01. P10:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 28.4.06. P11:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 3 DT. 5.1.08. P12:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 1.3.07. P13:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND & 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 20.6.05. P14:- COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES FOR COLELGIATE EDUCATION AS PER G.O.(P) 41/94/H.EDN. DTD. 21.3.94. P15:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BY THE VIDYAPEETHA AND PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 5.5.08. P16:- COPY OF THE REVISED SCHEME ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH LETTER DTD. 6.7.03. P17:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA II/F3/5811/01 DTD. 12.7.04 FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P18:- COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER OF THE VIDYAPEETHA DTD. 11.9.07. W.P.(C) NO.33756/2008 P19:- COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER OF THE VIDYAPEETHA DTD. 5.7.07. P20:- COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER OF THE VIDYAPEETHA DTD. 29.6.07. P21:- COPY OF THE REQUEST UNDER THE RIGHT OT INFORMATION ACT DTD. 23.1.09. P22:- COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN DTD. 24.2.09. P23:- COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT SUBMITTED TO INFORMATION OFFICER, GOVT. SANSKRIT COLLEGE DTD. 30.1.09. P23(a):- COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE GOVT. SANSKRIT COLLEGE, PATTAMBI DTD. 24.2.09. P23(b):- COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE GOVT. SANSKRIT COLLEGE, PATTAMBI DTD. 21.2.09. P24:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 8.5.09. P25:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 2.2.01. P26:- COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN TO EXT.P23 REQUEST UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DTD. 5.3.09. P27:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 3.3.08. P28:- COPY OF THE OLD SCHEME ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20.4.09 ISUED BY RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN. R3(a):- COPY OF THE SCHEME FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO INSTITUTIONS RECOGNIZED AS ADARSHA SANSKRIT MAHAVIDYALAYAS/ SODHA SANSTHANS. R3(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22.6.1995 ISSUED FROM THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT. R3(c):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17.10.07 . R3(d):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 20.9.93. R5(b):- COPY OF THE DRAFT BYELAW. W.P.(C) NO.33756/2008 R5(c):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE SANSTHAN DTD. 12.1.05. R5(d):- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 5.11.07. R5(e):- COPY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. R5(f):- COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DTD. 20.4.09 ISSUED BY RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN. R3(g):- COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT INVITING APPLICATION FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF PRINCIPAL , ISSUED BY SH. DEWAN KRISHNA KISHORE S.D. ADARSH SANSKRIT COLLEGE (LAHORE) R3(h):- COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT INVITING APPLICATION FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF PRINCIPAL, ISSUED BY THE MADRAS SANSKRIT COLLEGE. R3(i):- COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT INVITING APPLICATION FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF PRINCIPAL, ISSUED BY THE HIMACHAL ADARSH SANSKRIT MAHA VIDYALAYA. R3(j):- COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT INVITING APPLICATION FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF PRINCIPAL , ISSUED BY RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos. 33756 of 2008-R & 7448 of 2009-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT These two writ petitions are mainly concerned with the claim of the petitioners for grant of placement in Selection Grade under the UGC scheme along with consequential benefits as well as the challenge against the notification for filling up the post of Principal by way of direct recruitment. Since common issues are involved in both the writ petitions, they are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33756/2008 is the following: She is presently working as Lecturer (Senior Scale) in the Calicut Adarsha Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, a grant-in-aid institution under the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India. Her career started when she was appointed as a part time lecturer in Hindi on 3.12.1981. She had the qualifications of M.A. Degree in Hindi with First Class and M.Phil Degree with First Class. She also acquired Ph.D. with effect from 25.6.2004. Her service was made full time from 8.9.1986 and the appointment to the post of Lecturer was regularised reckoning the part time service from 3.12.1981. wpc 33756/08 & 7448/2009 2 3. Seeking for regularisation, the petitioner had to approach this court in O.P. No.2694/1988 wherein, the judgment was in her favour and it was the subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench in W.A. NO.553/1990. The direction for regularisation was confirmed in the said writ appeal. But ultimately, her service was regularised by the respondents only after making the petitioner to agree to forgo her claim for salary arrears prior to 31.3.1992. By Ext.P1, her service was regularised. Ext.P2 is the proceedings whereby the grant of Senior Scale from 8.9.1993 as per the UGC guidelines, was approved by the third respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that while approving the same, her full time service alone has been reckoned. 4. The petitioner is claiming various benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme of UGC, viz. Lecturer (Senior Scale) from an earlier date than now granted, one advancement increment on account of M.Phil degree and another two advance increments on account of Ph.D. degree and placement in Selection Grade. Instead of that, she was granted only one advance increment in the Senior Scale. 5. The second aspect is regarding the claim for promotion as Principal in the vacancy which arose on 26.8.2008. Her case is that going wpc 33756/08 & 7448/2009 3 by Special Rules for Collegiate Education, which is applicable here, the petitioner being the seniormost having Post Graduate degree and Doctorate, she is entitled for promotion as Principal. Ext.P3 is the Govt. Order relating to the adoption of UGC Scheme. 6. The petitioner has produced Exts.P5 and P6 judgments in O.P.No.2413/1/1988 and W.A. No. 553/1990, wherein the respondents were directed to frame necessary service rules as expeditiously as possible and within a time frame. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents did not frame the rules as directed in the judgment in the original petition which resulted in undue hardship to various members of staff. Ext.P7 is the judgment of this Court in W.A. No.2542/1999 which arose from the judgment in O.P. No.14374/1999 wherein the issue considered is regarding the grant of various service benefits including retirement age. It is the case of the petitioner that the directions therein have also not been implemented. In Ext.P7 judgment, the statement filed by the Union of India has been recorded. It was finally held by the Division Bench that all the petitioners can claim retiral benefits according to the above statement, but, they have to retire at the age of 55. Exts.P10 to P13 are the representations submitted by the petitioner claiming various benefits. Ext.P14 is the Special Rules for wpc 33756/08 & 7448/2009 4 Collegiate Education issued by the Govt. of Kerala. Ext.P15 is the notification inviting applications for the post of Principal by direct recruitment. Therein, the qualification is shown as Ist or High IInd Class (55% or above marks or its equivalent grade of Bin 7 point scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F) in Acharya or M.A. (Sanskrit) or an equivalent Oriental Degree from a recognised examination body. It is the case of the petitioner that the original scheme with the required qualification was revised by a different qualification as contained in Ext.P16 and therefore Ext.P15 notification cannot survive. 7. It is the further contention that at no point of time, any rules have been adopted showing the required qualification shown in Ext.P15 for appointment to the post of Principal. 8. In W.P.(C) No.7448/2009, the petitioner is a Senior Lecturer in Vedantha who joined service on 13.3.1983 as a post graduate teacher in Sanskrit. He was having qualification of M.A. (Acharya) in Advaitha Vedantha and B.Ed. in Shiksha Sasthri. He was later promoted as a Lecturer in Vedantha. He was placed in the category of Senior Lecturer on 2.3.1997 on completion of 8 years service as Lecturer as per the UGC Scheme as made applicable to respondents 2 and 3. In the meantime, he wpc 33756/08 & 7448/2009 5 obtained M.Ed. in the year 1989. The 4th respondent is the Principal in charge who is junior to him in service. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P6 notification for appointment to the post of Principal is issued in tune with the qualification of the 4th respondent and hence is malafide. It is also the case of the petitioner that denial of selection grade to the petitioner is illegal. Reliance is placed on Ext.P5 rules, viz. Special Rules for appointment in various teaching posts in Sanskrit Colleges under the Collegiate Education Department of State of Kerala and it is the case of the petitioner that going by the method of appointment therein, appointment to the post of Principal in Sanskrit Colleges is by appointment, i.e. promotion from Readers/Selection Grade Lecturers. The petitioner being the seniormost Senior Grade Lecturer he is eligible for promotion in the absence of Selection Grade Lecturers. 9. The respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. In W.P.(C) No.33756/2008 also, the present Principal in charge has been impleaded as additional 4th respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in spite of various judgments rendered by this Court, so far the conditions of service have not been finalised by framing service rules by the first respondent. It is therefore submitted that the particular qualifications wpc 33756/08 & 7448/2009 6 prescribed in Ext.P15 are not supported by any of the existing stipulations in Ext.P16 scheme or under the Special Rules for the teaching posts in Collegiate Education Department and the U.G.C. notification. It is thus pointed out that the respondents, especially the 4th respondent being the Principal in charge, are interested in appointing him as the Principal and the qualifications that are provided in Ext.P15 notification is to suit his own qualification. It is therefore submitted that the exclusion of others cannot be said to be legal and valid. 10. First I will advert to the stand taken in the counter affidavits filed by respondents 1 and 3, viz. Calicut Adarsha Sanskrit Vidyapeetha and Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan which is the deemed University. I will refer to the pleadings of the respondents in W.P.(C) No.33756/2008, for convenience. Going by the statement filed on behalf of the third respondent dated 15.1.2009, the teaching as well as non teaching staff in the institutions shall be employees of the managing committee of the institution and not that of the Government of India. For adoption of various conditions of service of those employees in the particular institution, the Government vide No.F30-19/88/SKT 1 dated 20.5.1993, have issued certain guidelines. It is up to the managing committee to frame and adopt wpc 33756/08 & 7448/2009 7 the service rules in conformity with the guidelines therein. Ext.R3(a) is the guidelines thus issued. 11. In the light of the said stand taken by the third respondent in the statement, it is profitable to refer to the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the first respondent. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the Chairman of the first respondent, it is stated in para 3 that a draft bye-law was framed after discussion in the managing committee held on 29.1.2003 which has been produced as Ext.R1(b). The same was not approved by the third respondent stating that it is prepared in contravention of the provisions of the guidelines appended to the scheme. Ext.R1(c) is the said communication. Again, on 10.7.2006 the managing committee discussed the draft bye-law and they decided to forward to the Sansthan for ratification. Ext.R1(d) is the communication thereafter issued by the Sansthan whereby the approval of the service bye-laws was declined again. They have suggested an amendment as per Ext.R1(e), to Clause 13(i) in Ext.R1(b). Finally it is averred in para 7 in the following terms: “Till comprehensive service bye-laws are framed, following the mandate contained in Ext.P8 interim order and Ext.P7 judgment, the employees of the CASV are governed by the service rules and regulations applicable to wpc 33756/08 & 7448/2009 8 the corresponding staff of the degree/post graduate degree colleges in the State.” 12. On behalf of the third respondent, they have filed a counter affidavit which is dated 17.2.2009. After explaining the facts stated in the statement filed by them, it is averred in para 6 that after a long lapse of time the Managing Committee prepared Service Bye-laws and sent it to the said respondent on 28.7.2007. The Sansthan found several deviations from the Scheme and Guidelines. Pointing out some of the examples of deviations, communication was sent on 17.10.2007 directing to frame fresh service bye- laws keeping in view of the Scheme and Guidelines as per Ext.R3(c). Thereafter, fresh service bye-laws was not prepared and sent by the Managing Committee for approval so far. Therefore, at present the Scheme and the Guidelines are the governing rules for the teaching and non teaching staff of the Vidyapeetha. It is also stated that Ext.P14 rules cannot be followed by Vidyapeetha. Further, in para 7 it is stated that the Career Advancement benefit scheme has already been implemented for the teaching staff in the Vidyapeetha and therefore the petitioner has been granted Senior Scale in the post of Lecturer, in the light of Ext.R3(d) letter. 13. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33756/2008 has filed a reply wpc 33756/08 & 7448/2009 9 affidavit. Again, a further statement has been filed on behalf of the third respondent on 14.9.2009. The stand taken therein is that the guidelines are binding on all the Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyapeedas throughout the country. Each management is duty bound to prepare special rules in conformity with the scheme and guidelines. The first respondent has not prepared such rules for approval. It is specifically stated, after referring to the guidelines, that “regarding the qualification it is specified that the qualification prescribed by UGC for similar posts shall be strictly followed.” The UGC notification has been produced as Ext.R3(e). Ext.R3(f) is the office order dated 20.4.2009 issued by the third respondent, wherein item 1 is regarding qualifications for the post of Principal. Among the essential qualifications, items (i) and (ii) are the following: “i. Consistently good academic record with a Ist or High IInd class (55% or above marks or its equivalent grade of 'B' in 7 point scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E. and F) in Acharya or M.A. (Skt.) or an equivalent Oriental Degree from a recognized examining body. ii. Research Degree in Sanskrit of a recognised University or Examining body.” It is the case of the third respondent that this is being followed by various Sanskrit Vidyalayas. Therefore, the stand taken therein is that candidates wpc 33756/08 & 7448/2009 10 with post graduate degree/Ph.D. in Sanskrit alone can be considered for appointment as Principal. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 9.10.2009 disputing the correctness of the averments in the statement filed by the third respondent. 14. The first question to be decided is whether the qualification that is prescribed as per Ext.P15 notification, which is now supported by Ext.R3 (f), can be accepted as sufficient one for appointment to the post of Principal. Ext.P1 is the guidelines issued by the third respondent way back in 1993. Going by Ext.P16, clause 11 provides that “UGC pay scale and qualifications will be applicable to the teaching staff including Librarian.” The staff pattern is provided in clause 10. In clause 12, it is provided that “the Managing Committees of institutions already receiving financial assistance under the scheme as well as those which may be taken on the grant-in-aid list in future are expected to frame and adopt service rules in conformity with the guidelines mentioned above.” The other important clause is clause 3 of the guidelines which is appended to Ext.P16. It is under the heading “Qualifications”. It is specified therein that “in the case of teaching staff the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for similar posts in colleges/Universities shall be strictly followed.” This is important. wpc 33756/08 & 7448/2009 11 Clause 9(i) provides that the pay and allowances of the staff shall be the same as the staff of corresponding status in the Graduate/Post-graduate Degree Colleges in the respective State where the relevant Mahavidyalaya is situated. Clause 19 is under the heading “Application of rules” which provides that “for all service matters for which there is no provision or insufficient provision in these guidelines, management committee may adopt supplementary provision with the prior approval of the Govt. of India.” 15. The consistent stand taken, therefore, is that the qualification prescribed by the UGC will apply. Ext.R3(e) produced along with the statement filed by the third respondent gives an idea as to the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for filling up of the post of Principal. The relevant clause therein are clauses 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 which reads thus: ”4.2.1 PRINCIPAL (Professor's Grade) 1. A Master's Degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F. 2. Ph. D. or equivalent qualification. 3. Total experience of 15 years of teaching/ Research in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of higher education. 4.2.2. PRINCIPAL (Reader's Grade) wpc 33756/08 & 7448/2009 12 1. A Master's Degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F. 2. Ph. D. or equivalent qualification. 3. Total experience of 10 years of teaching/ Research in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of higher education.” The qualification that is prescribed in Ext.P15 varies with the above, in that, in Ext.P15 notification it is provided that the essential qualifications are items 1 and 2 which will be the following: “i. Consistently good academic record with a Ist or High IInd class (55% or above marks or its equivalent grade of 'B' in 7 point scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E. and F) in Acharya or M.A. (Skt.) or an equivalent Oriental Degree from a recognized examining body. ii. Research Degree in Sanskrit of a recognised University or Examining body.” The same is against the UGC qualifications. 16. To justify the same, the third respondent is relying upon Ext.R3 (f) which is dated 20.4.2009. It is only in Ext.R3(f) the particular qualifications, viz. that the candidates should be having Ist or High IInd Class in Acharya or M.A. (Sanskrit) or an equivalent Oriental Degree from a recognised examining body as well as a research degree in Sanskrit of a recognised University or Examining Body is specified. The wpc 33756/08 & 7448/2009 13 notification Ext.P15 is published in the Mathrubhoomi Daily dated 5.5.2008, nearly one year before Ext.R3(f) was issued. Therefore, it is clear that as on the date of the notification, Ext.R3(f) was never in force. Hence, even if the contentions of the respondents regarding the qualification could be accepted, it should abide by the qualifications prescribed in Ext.R3(e) only. Going by Ext.R3(e), as already noticed, the qualifications are different from that is notified in Ext.P15 or Ext.R3(f). In that view of the matter, the stand taken by respondents 1 and 3 cannot be accepted. Ext.R3 (f) is only an Office order, which will not override Ext.P16 and Ext.R3(e). This cannot have the effect of modification of the guidelines or UGC notification as per Ext.R3(e). In that view of the matter, Ext.P15 cannot be sustained. 17. Herein, going by the stand taken by respondents 1 and 3, one thing is clear that the service rules have not been framed so far. In the additional affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is explained that even though Ext.R1(b) service bye-laws was forwarded, that was returned by Ext.R1(c) and the further communication in this regard by the Sansthan is Ext.R1(d). Ext.R1(e) is the true copy of the proposed amendment. There is an assertion made by the first respondent in para 4 of the counter affidavit wpc 33756/08 & 7448/2009 14 that the “amendments highlighted by the Sansthan which are taken note of by the management committee and the management committee is preparing a service bye-law in tune with the guidelines given by the Sansthan.” It is therefore clear that the finalisation of the service rules is still under process. The first respondent has stated in para 7 of the additional affidavit that the employees of the first respondent are governed by the service rules and regulations applicable to the corresponding staff of the degree/post graduate degree colleges in the State till comprehensive service bye-laws are framed. In view of the said stand taken by the first respondent also, Ext.P15 cannot be sustained. Therefore, any selection pursuant to the same, cannot survive. 18. Then, the further question is whether the qualification provided as per Ext.P14 is the one relevant for filling up the post of Principal. Ext.P14 is the special rules applicable for Collegiate Education Service in the State which is titled as “The Special Rules for the Kerala Collegiate Education Service, 1994.” Sanskrit Colleges comes under Class IV wherein the method of filling up of the post of Principal is provided as “by appointment from the category of Reader and Lecturer (Selection Grade).” The petitioner is heavily relying upon Ext.P14 to contend that she being the seniormost, is to be promoted as per Ext.P14 and the petitioner in W.P. wpc 33756/08 & 7448/2009 15 (C) No.7448/2009 is having similar contentions. The above argument is based on the directions issued in Ext.P7 judgment. Therefore, reference will have to be made to the findings rendered therein by the Division Bench. 19. In Ext.P7 judgment, the main question considered was regarding the age of retirement as well as retiral benefits that is payable to the petitioners in the writ petition. Therein, this court had passed an interim order, Ext.P8.