IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29-10-2008 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K. MISRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN W.P. No. 719 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 1. V. Ramachandran 2. Punitha Sugumar 3. B. Meenakshi Bala 4. T. Ananda Kumar 5. V. Natarajan .. Petitioners Versus 1. V. Srivasta 2. R. Jawahar 3. R. Sundar 4. V. Ramprasad 5. M. Madhu Sudhan 6. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India No.10, Bahadur Sha Zafar Marg New Delhi – 110 002 7. The Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit) Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Lekha Pariksha Bhavan 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet Chennai – 600 018 8. The Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement) 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet Chennai – 600 018 9. Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench rep. By its Registrar High Court Compound Chennai – 600 104 .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the files of the 9th respondent Tribunal in O.A. No. 69 of 2007 and quash the order dated 20.11.2007 made therein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners : Mr. K.M. Ramesh For Respondents : Mr. Vijay Narayan, Sr. Counsel for Mr. Karthik Mukundan for RR1 to 5 Mr. V. Vijay Shankar for RR6 to 8 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.K. MISRA, J) Heard K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 and Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 8. 2. Even though the matter was listed for considering the question of interim stay, since the pleadings are completed, by consent of counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. This writ petition is directed against the common order dated 20.11.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 69 and 262 of 2007. 4. The applicants in such Original Applications (O.A. No. 69 of 2007) who are respondents 1 to 5 herein, were working in the Accounts and Entitlements Wing of Indian Audit and Accounts Department, in short IAAD, whereas the present writ petitioners, who are the private respondents in the Original Applications, were employed in the civil audit wing of the audit Department. Since the department felt there was some amount of stagnation in the Accounts and Entitlement wing and there was requirement of officers in the cadre of section officer in Audit Wing, a policy was evolved by issuing a circular dated 12.08.2003 whereunder it was indicated that the employees belonging to Accounts and Entitlement wing would become eligible for promotion to the post of Section Officer in the audit wing provided they pass Section Officer Grade (SOGE) (Audit) Examination. Pursuant to the said circular, the applicants appeared for the examination and passed it during the year 2004 or 2005 as the case may be. However, inspite of having passed out the examination, the question of their promotion was not being considered in spite of repeated representations. Thereafter, they filed Original Application before the Tribunal seeking for a direction to the department to consider their case for promotion as Section Officer in the Audit Wing as per the scheme. However, before such Original application was filed, the department had issued a Circular dated 05.01.2007 wherein it was indicated that the promotion as Section Officer available to Accounts and Entitlement wing would be made only if vacancies were in excess of 5% of the cadre strength. 5. In the Original application, the stand of the department was that the persons who had qualified in the examination shall be considered for promotion in respect of the vacancies in excess of the 5% cadre strength and so calculated, it was indicated that three posts are available to be filled up from among the applicants in O.A. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No. 69 of 2007. The present petitioners who got themselves impleaded in the Original application have challenged the said order of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has given a direction while partly allowing the Original Application to absorb the three candidates who have responded to the circular dated 03.04.2006 on the basis of seniority cum fitness within a stipulated period. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while challenging such direction of the Tribunal had contended that the applicants before the Tribunal were deputationists and therefore, it cannot be said that they had any right of being observed in the audit wing. These aspects had also been projected before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, while accepting the position that the present deputationists did not have any right of being absorbed permanently, held that on the basis of the circular issued by the department, the deputationist had already appeared in the examination and therefore, it would be unjust to deprive them of the opportunity of being promoted as Section Officer in the audit wing. The Tribunal also observed that the stand of the department was also in consonance with the above finding of the Tribunal. 7. It is no doubt true that the deputationist do not have any right of being absorbed permanently in the post to which they have been deputed nor they have right to be considered for promotion in any promotional avenue. However, admittedly, in the present case, a circular had been issued in 2003, which had been subsequently reiterated with such modification by subsequent circular dated 05.01.2007. Such circular had never been challenged by the present writ petitioners. In such view of the matter, we do not think there is any scope to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that during the pendency of the Original Application, VI Pay Commission report was submitted and the Government have accepted the report, however, with certain modification, whereunder the pay scale payable to the Section Officer has become similar to the pay scale available to the next promotional post namely Assistant Account Officer and in view of such changed scenario, the Original Application filed by the applicants has become infructuous. It is not necessary for us to consider as to what would be the impact of the report of the VI Pay Commission and the consequential acceptance by the Central Government, as it is a matter to be considered by the concerned Department. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rsh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India No.10, Bahadur Sha Zafar Marg New Delhi – 110 002 2. The Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit) Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Lekha Pariksha Bhavan 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet Chennai – 600 018 3. The Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement) 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet Chennai – 600 018 4. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench High Court Compound Chennai – 600 104 1 CC To Mr.V. Vijay Shankar, Advocate, SR NO.60467 1 CC To Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Advocate, SR NO.60006 1 CC To Mr. Karthik Mukundan, Advocate, SR NO.59962 WP No. 719 of 2008 vs(co) pmk/19.11.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/