IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.2.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.Nos.3823 and 6508 of 2008 W.P.No.3823 of 2008: 1.A.Mubarak 2.K.Venkatesan 3.R.Rameeza Banu 4.V.Saravanakumar 5.N.Rajasekar 6.P.Velumurugan 7.P.Ponnusamy 8.K.Seenivasan 9.M.Narasimhan 10.S.Shanmugasundaram 11.R.Arunagiri 12.M.Ramesh Babu 13.C.Saravanan 14.M.Senthil Kumar 15.S.Santhanakrishnan 16.K.Anbazhagan 17.N.Durairaj 18.R.Rajan 19.T.Elavarasan 20.P.Sivakumar .. Petitioners Vs. 1. State of Tamilnadu rep. by Secretary to Government Finance (LF) Department Fort St.George, Chennai. 2. State of Tamilnadu rep. by Secretary to Government Personnel Administrative Reforms Department Fort St.George, Chennai. 3. The Director Local Fund Audit Department Kuralagam, IV Floor Chennai – 600 108. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Tamilnadu Public Service Commission rep. by Secretary Government Estate, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002. 5. Muhammed Abdul Nasser.G. .. Respondents W.P.No.6508 of 2008 1.B.Srinivasan 2.U.Senthilpandian 3.S.Shanmugam 4.S.Parimaladevi 5.B.Saraswati 6.A.Tajul Ansari 7.B.M.N.Mujibur 8.C.Sultan Alauddin 9.K.Janarthanan 10.M.Suganya 11.M.Parifathima 12.M.Sugirtha 13.P.Kannan 14.K.Sathyabama 15.V.Umamaheswari 16.D.Jeyaraman 17.A.Kumaran 18.G.Lakshmana Boopathy 19.C.Palanivel 20.R.Kalaiselvan 21.K.Baskarapandian 22.T.Manjula 23.K.Seran 24.R.E.Manogaran 25.V.Srinivasan 26.S.Ramesh 27.R.Gopalakrishnan 28.D.Karvannan 29.V.Srinivasan 30.R.G.Karpagam 31.A.Dhanalakshmi 32.V.Mageswari 33.S.P.Kasthuri 34.R.Jayanthi 35.K.Thilagavathi 36.S.Jamuna 37.N.Velayuthan 38.R.T.Kaarthikeyan 39.R.Subbulakshmi 40.R.Ravikumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 41.M.Gnanasekaran 42.V.Anbuchezhian 43.K.Vasantham 44.S.Krishnamohan 45.A.S.Narayanan 46.B.Sivakumar 47.K.Somasundaram 48.M.Kesima 49.P.Selvakumar 50.S.Anandaraj 51.L.Manoharan 52.V.Parivallal 53.S.Umamaheswari 54.A.Ramesh 55.A.Govindaraj 56.C.Sumathi 57.M.Saravanan 58.G.Pandi 59.R.Rasamanickam 60.P.Suresh 61.K.Suresh Kumar 62.J.Senthil Kumar 63.M.Srinivasan 64.S.Prabakaran 65.A.Erulappa Moorthy 66.M.K.Mohan 67.K.Devipriya 68.P.Anbarasu 69.P.Tamilarasi 70.P.R.Shyamala 71.V.Arivukannan 72.L.Rajini 73.S.Dilli 74.K.Baskaran 75.V.Sathish Kumar 76.A.Raghu 77.R.Kothairaman 78.R.Joe Vimal 79.B.Srinivasan 80.V.Nedunchezhian 81.J.Suganya 82.C.Bharathi 83.P.M.Sundaramurthy 84.Mangai 85.S.Vijaya Annapurani 86.Suchitra.N 87.D.Kalaiarasi 88.S.Susheela Rani 89.R.Renuka 90.K.Arivarasan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 91.S.M.Meera Mohideen 92.B.Arun Prakash 93.S.Eswari 94.V.R.Palanivel Rajan 95.T.Shanmugavalli 96.V.Marimuthu 97.R.Somasundaram 98.N.Mahendran 99.A.M.Kalyanasundaram 100.T.Selvi 101.N.Natarajan 102.B.Kalaidasan 103.K.Palaniswamy 104.P.Kumar 105.R.Tamil Selvi 106.T.Selvaraju 107.S.Mahendraverman 108.J.A.Muhammed Yusuf 109.G.Rengalakshmi 110.A.E.Agnel Elangovan .. Petitioners Vs. 1. State of Tamilnadu rep. by Secretary to Government Finance (LF) Department Fort St.George, Chennai. 2. State of Tamilnadu rep. by Secretary to Government Personnel Administrative Reforms Department Fort St.George, Chennai. 3. The Director Local Fund Audit Department Kuralagam, IV Floor Chennai – 600 108. 4. Tamilnadu Public Service Commission rep. by Secretary Government Estate, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002. 5. Muhammed Abdul Nasser.G. 6.K.Revathi 7.C.Manimekalai 8.V.Narayana Moorthy 9.C.Sampooranam 10.P.Parameswari 11.B.Chandrasekaran 12.K.Kumar 13.K.S.Hidhaya Thullah https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14.V.Guru Moorthi 15.P.Malar Vizhi 16.V.Rajan 17.M.Durai Swamy 18.K.Rathina Kumar 19.S.Santhana Gopalan 20.E.Jothi 21.K.Rani 22.S.Saradha 23.M.Kanaka Leela Bai 24.S.Arun Josi 25.E.Sankara Subramanian 26.Jayanthilal 27.M.Ravi 28.E.Nagalakshmi 29.M.Pandiselvi 30.S.Velmurugan 31.G.Sukhanya 32.S.Sankaranayaranan 33.R.Vijayalakshmi 34.Nagarajan .. Respondents (Respondents 6 to 24 impleaded by order dated 4.8.2009 in M.P.No.1 of 2009 and respondents 25 to 34 impleaded by order dated 4.11.2009 in M.P.No.4 of 2009). PRAYER: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein. WP.6508 of 2008 and 3823 of 2008 are filed under Article 226 of constitution of India with common prayer to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of 3rd respondent pertaining to the Seniority List dated 18.12.2007 in Na.Ka.No. P & A II (5/25299/2007-2) in so far as Serial Numbers 109 to 280 is concerned and G.O.Ms.No.261 dated 24.6.2009 and consequential temporarily reqularising the appointments of the candidates in Serial Nos.109 to 280 with retrospective effect and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents to revise and refix the Seniority in accordance with the quota and rota prescribed under Special Rules and draw a proper panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector of Local fund Audit in both cases. For Petitioners : Mr.N.R.Chandran, Sr.Counsel in both WPs. for Mr.K.J.Parthasarathy For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali, 1 to 3 in both WPs. Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For 4th Respondent : Mr.K.Surendranath in both WPs. For 5th Respondent : Mr.R.Shanmugam, Sr.Counsel in both WPs. for Dr.Gopinath For respondents 6 to 16 : Mr.V.Raghavachari in WP.No.6508 of 2008 For respondents 25 to 34 : Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Sr.Counsel in WP.No.6508 of 2008 for Mr.M.Hidayathullah Khan ORDER These writ petitions are filed against the seniority list dated 18.12.2007 published by the third respondent in the writ petitions, the Director of Local Fund Audit Department, alleging that the same has been prepared in violation of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Local Fund Audit Service Rules (for brevity "the Special Rules") and that the third respondent has failed to revise and re-fix the seniority in accordance with the Rules despite the objections. 2. In these cases, the fifth respondent is added as a representative of the promotees, whose names are stated in the seniority list in S.Nos.109 to 280 and whose seniority is assailed. 3.1. The petitioners are the successful candidates in the process of recruitment for Combined Subordinate Services Examination-I conducted by the fourth respondent/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for various posts, including the post of Assistant Inspector of Local Fund Audit. The recruitment was for the vacancies which arose in the year 1996-1999 and the recruitment process was completed and the petitioners have joined as Assistant Inspectors of Local Fund Audit in the year 2001. The services of the petitioners are governed by the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules (for brevity "the General Rules"). 3.2. In the year 1994-1995, though there were vacancies which were notified by the fourth respondent, the same were subsequently withdrawn. The post of Assistant Inspector is filled by direct recruitment and also by transfer of service from among the holder of posts of Junior Assistants or Steno Typists or Typists in the Local Fund Audit Department or State Trading Scheme Department. The ratio of appointment by way of direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer is 4:1 as per the Special Rules. 3.3. It is the complaint of the petitioners that due to the failure of recruitment in the earlier years, the posts of Assistant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Inspectors have been filled up only by transfer of service or temporary officiation from among the holder of posts of Junior Assistants or Steno Typists or Typists in the Local Fund Audit Department and State Trading Scheme Department without following the above said ratio of 4:1. Even though under Rule 39(a)(i) of the General Rules temporary promotions could be made, the seniority has to be fixed only from the date from which such promotees are entitled to fitment in accordance with quota and rota prescribed under the Special Rules. 3.4. It is stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.1129, dated 18.12.1980 only 20% of the vacancies in each year could be reserved for recruitment by transfer or promotion and if the number of candidates qualified for transfer or promotion is more than the vacancies available, they can be considered only in the next year and they ought not to be considered for appointment in the vacancies reserved for direct recruitment. While so, the third respondent has published the impugned seniority list on 18.12.2007, fixing the seniority in the post of Assistant Inspectors in gross violation of quota and rota prescribed under the General and Special Rules. 3.5. It is stated that in the years 1991-1992, 1992-1993 and 1993-1994, when such mistake arose, the third respondent has rectified the mistake and formulated the seniority list in compliance of the Special Rules following the ratio. It is stated that under the impugned list, the candidates recruited by promotion in the year 1991-1994 are shown en masse as S.Nos.1 to 23 and candidates by direct recruitment in the said year 1991-1994 are shown as S.Nos.24 to 108 and after the revision of seniority as per the Rules, the excess promotees are placed after the direct recruits for the year 1991-1994 at S.Nos.109 to 120. 3.6. The direct recruits selected in the recruitment year 1996- 1999 were shown in the seniority list in one bunch as S.Nos.281 to 472 below the temporary promotees for the year 1994-1995, who are placed at S.Nos.121-227, for the year 1996-1999, who are placed at S.Nos.228 to 272, and for the year 1999-2000, who are placed at S.Nos.273 to 280. If quota and rota is followed properly, the said direct recruits placed in S.Nos.281 to 472 should have been given higher seniority. 3.7. It is stated that the services of the temporary promotees were not regularised till date as they are only officiating. It is also stated that simply because in a year there was no direct recruitment, it does not mean that the quota and rota rule should be broken. 3.8. After knowing about the seniority list, the petitioners made objections to the third respondent in January, 2008 to revise and re-fix the seniority in accordance with the Special Rules, but https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there was no reply from the third respondent. However, the third respondent has proceeded to prepare a panel for promotion to the next post of Deputy Inspector. Therefore, the present writ petitions are filed by the direct recruits challenging the impugned seniority list dated 18.12.2007 insofar as it relates to S.Nos.109 to 280 and for a direction to re-fix the seniority in accordance with quota and rota prescribed under the Special Rules and to draw a fresh panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector of Local Fund Audit. 3.9. The challenge is on the grounds that the seniority list published is in violation of Rule 2 of the Special Rules; that it is in violation of Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules; that the seniority list does not specify the quota and rota of 4:1 prescribed under the Special Rules; that the inclusion in the seniority list of the persons who have not been regularised and placing them above the direct recruits on the basis of non recruitment for the year is a gross violation of the Rules and against the law laid down by the Apex Court; and that the respondents ought to have considered that the relevant date for fixing of seniority for the promotees in the absence of direct recruitment is the date on which they become eligible for fitment as per quota and rota prescribed in the Special Rules, apart from many other grounds. 4.1. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that the impugned seniority list dated 18.12.2007 was made in accordance with the Special Rules and the General Rules and the petitioners were recruited to the post of Assistant Inspector as per the notification of the fourth respondent dated 24.7.1998 and the estimate sent by the fourth respondent for the years 1996-2000 and they joined in the year 2001 and therefore, their request to revise and re-fix the seniority for the year 1995 is unsustainable. 4.2. It is stated that the seniority list for the post of Assistant Inspector for the years 1991-1992 to 1999-2000 issued on 18.12.2007 is only a provisional list and any modification would be made after consideration of any representation or appeal or review by the Assistant Inspectors under Rule 57 of the General Rules. The petitioners ought to have exhausted their remedy provided under Rule 57 of the General Rules by preferring review or appeal before filing the writ petition and therefore, according to the third respondent, the writ petition is premature. It is stated that any such appeal or review under Rule 57 of the General Rules can be made within two months from the date of receipt of seniority list, in this case after 18.12.2007, and the representations can be disposed of on merits within four months from the date of receipt of the review or appeal. 4.3. It is stated that the service conditions of the officers and staff of Local Fund Audit Department headed by the Director of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Local Fund Audit and the Internal Audit Department headed by the Chief Auditor and Chief Internal Auditor of Statutory Boards are composite in nature and they have a common seniority and the third respondent is the cadre controlling authority for both the Local Fund Audit and the Internal Audit Departments. 4.4. It is stated that as against the seniority list dated 18.12.2007 some of the Assistant Inspectors like the petitioners have made representations to the third respondent for redressal of their grievances and some representations were also received by the Chief Auditor and Chief Internal Auditor of Statutory Boards and forwarded to the third respondent for consideration on 15.2.2008 and all the said representations are under consideration of the third respondent for passing appropriate orders on merits. 4.5. It is stated that inasmuch as the petitioners have the right of appeal and review under Rule 57 of the General Rules, without availing the same they have rushed to this Court by filing these writ petitions and therefore, their request to re-fix the seniority for the year 1995 is devoid of merit. It is also stated that the petitioners have not impleaded the persons mentioned in the seniority list at S.Nos.110 to 280 who are necessary parties. 4.6. It is stated that while fixing the seniority list, the third respondent has taken into consideration the government order in G.O.Ms.No.1129, Finance (Funds) Department, dated 18.12.1980 which reiterates the maintenance of ratio of 4:1 between the appointees by direct recruitment and by promotion to the post of Assistant Inspector in Local Fund Audit and Internal Audit Departments, as incorporated in the Special Rules. It is also stated that Rule 2(2) of the Special Rules provides for appointment by direct recruitment and by transfer to category 2, i.e., Assistant Inspectors, in the ratio 4:1. 4.7. It is stated that Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules is applied in fixing inter-se seniority in cases where in a service or class the normal method of recruitment for that particular service or clause is by more than one method of recruitment, unless the individual is reduced to a lower rank by way of punishment. It is stated that Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules and the Special Rules were duly applied in preparing the seniority list for the years 1991-1992 to 1999-2000. 4.8. The estimated vacancies for the post of Assistant Inspector from the year 1991-1992 to 1999-2000 is as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Estimate Year Estimate of Vacancies No of Assistant Inspectors Allotted/to be allotted by TNPSC Promoted 1991-1992 50 40 10 1992-1993 31 25 6 1993-1994 36 29 7 1994-1995 Estimate of vacancies for Direct Recruitment withdrawn due to subsequent ban on recruitment 105 1995-1996 NIL ESTIMATE 1996-1997 96 77 19 1997-1998 63 50 13 1998-1999 64 51 13 1999-2000 40 32 8 Total 263 210 53 4.9. It is stated that regarding the panel for the year 1994- 1995, a tentative estimate of vacancies for direct recruitment and promotees was prepared and sent to the Government by the third respondent intimating that the number of estimated promotions to the post of Assistant Inspector is 110 and clarifications were also sought for from the Government. Likewise, the estimate for direct recruitment of Assistant Inspectors for the year 1994-1995 was 274, out of which the direct recruits were apportioned as 169 and promotees were apportioned as 105. 4.10. It is stated that since there was a ban on recruitment which was made applicable to the Local Fund Audit Department and the Internal Audit Department also, the said estimate of vacancies by direct recruits for the year 1994-1995 stood withdrawn by the third respondent on 24.7.1995 and the same was intimated to the Government. However, the promotion of 105 Assistant Inspectors was resorted to as per the estimate for the year 1994-1995 with reference to large number of vacancies that existed at that time by virtue of the powers vested with the third respondent under Rule 39 (a)(i) of the General Rules. 4.11. It is stated that from 1979-1980 onwards the ratio of 4:1 between direct recruits and promotees has been followed scrupulously. However, it is stated that in the year 1991-1992, 12 Assistant Inspectors promoted were in excess of 4:1 ratio and they were included in the seniority list from S.Nos.109-120 as per the clarification of the Government dated 8.2.1993, out of which the fifth respondent, who is placed at S.No.109, belongs to 1991-1994 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ batch and has joined as Assistant Inspector on 12.8.1993, whose regularisation date was fixed earlier as 26.8.1993 and was revised as 6.10.1995. 4.12. It is stated that the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.3823 of 2008, who were recruited for the year 1996-2000, have no right to challenge the promotion of the fifth respondent and others. It is stated that the promotees, who were placed in S.Nos.121 to 227, were appointed as Assistant Inspectors against the estimated vacancies for the year 1994-1995 and they have joined in the year 1995 itself, while the petitioners were recruited against the estimated vacancies for the year 1996-1997 to 1999-2000 and appointed as Assistant Inspectors from 5.10.2001, consequent to their allotment by the fourth respondent on 20.8.2001. 4.13. Since in the year 1994-1995 the direct recruitment was withdrawn as per the orders of the Government, the promotees of the year 1995-1996 were drawn and the above 105 Assistant Inspectors were placed in the seniority list subsequent to the promotees in S.Nos.109 to 120. It is stated that the seniority list of Assistant Inspectors from the year 1991-1992 to 1999-2000 was regulated in the following manner: 1 1991-94 promotee Assistant Inspectors : 23 (1 to 23) 2 1991-94 Direct Recruit Assistant Inspectors : 94 (85) (24 to 108) 3 Excess persons promoted during the year 1992-93 and 1993-94 restricted as per 4:1 ratio issued in G.O.Ms.No.1129/Finance (Funds) Department dt. 18.12.1980 reincorporated in Local Fund Audit Subordinate Service Rules reissued in G.O.Ms.No. 890/Finance (Local Fund Audit) dated 28.12.1993 : 12 (109 to 120) 4 1994-95 Assistant Inspectors (Promotees) : 105 (107) (121 to 227) 4.14. It was after revocation of the ban order for direct recruitment, the estimated vacancies for the years 1996-1997 to 1999-2000 was arrived at as 210, as follows: 1996-1997 : 77 1997-1998 : 50 1998-1999 : 51 1999-2000 : 32 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.15. It is stated that the eligible candidates from the feeder category, viz., Junior Assistants/Typists were promoted in the ratio of 4:1 in the respective years and such promotees numbering 53, which is within the stipulated quota, were placed behind the promotees of 1994-1995 and the said promotees were placed at S.Nos.228 to 280 as per the Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules. 4.16. All the legal grounds raised by the petitioners are also denied. 5. The fourth respondent had adopted the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent. 6. Based on certain subsequent developments, additional counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent by referring to the government order in G.O.Ms.No.261, Finance (Local Fund) Department, dated 24.6.2009 and it is stated that based on the said government order, a fresh proposal has been sent by the third respondent on 3.7.2009 to the Government to amend the Special Rules and it is stated that based on the same, the services of employees in the post of Assistant Inspectors whose names find place in the seniority list dated 18.12.2007 from S.Nos.121 to 280 have since been regularised as per the proceedings dated 20.7.2009 of the third respondent and inasmuch as the proposal for amendment of the Special Rules is sent to the Government, the writ petition is devoid of merits. 7. After filing of the said additional counter affidavit, miscellaneous petitions to amend the prayer in these writ petitions were filed and the same were ordered by this Court on 6.10.2009, by which the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.261, Finance (Local Fund) Department, dated 24.6.2009 and the consequential regularisation order issued by the third respondent dated 20.7.2009, regularising the Assistant Inspectors in S.Nos.109 to 280 with retrospective effect, have also been included within the purview of the challenge in these writ petitions. 8.1. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in these case would submit that Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules cannot be applied when the Special Rules prescribes quota of 4:1, by relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No.41427 of 2002. It is also his contention that Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules cannot be applied since the promotees are appointed only temporarily and that the said provision is applicable only in respect of regular appointment in respect of a person in service appointed in accordance with Rules and any person who is appointed under Rule 10 or 39 cannot be said to be a person in service. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.2. It is his contention that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.261, Finance (Local Fund) Department, dated 24.6.2009 passed during the pendency of the writ petitions makes appointment of Junior Assistant and Typist as Assistant Inspector awaiting amendment of Rules and therefore, their appointment should be treated as appointment under Rule 10(a)(i) and such Rule cannot be given retrospective effect from 15.3.1994 and cannot have the effect of a Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is his submission that the subsequent order dated 20.7.2009 by treating those persons as persons appointed under Rule 39(a) and provisionally regularizing their service is also not valid. He adds that Rule 23 does not contemplate provisional regularisation and therefore, the promotees cannot get better rights and as long as they are temporary employees, they cannot be placed above the direct recruits for the purpose of promotion and such retrospective regularisation has to be held invalid. Even assuming the provisional regularisation order issued by the third respondent dated 20.7.2009 is valid, it can be given effect to only from 20.7.2009. He would rely upon the judgments in K.Madalaimuthu v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2006 SC 2662 and M.P.Palanisamy and others v. A.Krishnan and others, 2009 SCCL.COM 765 : AIR 2009 SC 2809, apart from the judgment in P.Kadhirvel v. Government of Tamil Nadu, [2009] 4 MLJ 945. 8.3. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.Subba Reddy and another v. A.P.State Road Transport Corporation and others, [2004] 6 SCC 729 and U.P.Secretariat U.D.A. Association v. State of UP and Others., [1999] 1 SCC 278 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.41427 of 2002 that mere ban on recruitment is not a ground for the purpose of failure to adhere to the quota rule and that the ban order itself has not stopped any vacancies already notified and it has only directed not to notify future vacancies and thereafter, a notification of the fourth respondent notifying 169 vacancies on 15.3.1994 falls under the direct recruitment quota and that has been withdrawn by the third respondent only to help the promotees. 8.4. He would also submit placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arvinder Singh Bains v. State of Punjab and Others, [2006] 6 SCC 673 that the quota and rota rule must necessarily be reflected in the seniority list and if not the list is liable to be set aside. 8.5. He would submit that because the promotees are not impleaded, that itself cannot be a ground to uphold the seniority list which is illegal. It is stated that when one of the promotees is available, who has been represented, that is sufficient. In this regard he would rely upon the judgment in Union of India v. M.P.Singh, 1990 Suppl SCC 701 and Mohamed Ali,M.N. v. State of Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nadu, etc., 1988 Vol.5 WLR 1. 8.6. Inasmuch as the impugned order has become final order from the averment in the counter affidavit and the alternative remedy is not effective, since the counter affidavit makes it very clear that the third respondent is not going to consider the claim of the petitioners in its proper perspective, these writ petitions are maintainable. 9.1. It is the contention of Mr.R.Shanmugam, learned Senior Counsel for the fifth respondent, who is one of the promotees, that inasmuch as the respondents were promoted and placed at S.Nos.109 to 280 in the year 1994-1995 and the petitioners were recruited by the fourth respondent for the years 1996-2001 pursuant to the notification dated 24.7.1998 and they joined in October, 2001, the petitioners cannot challenge the promotions granted to the said promotees much earlier. 9.2. Further, it is his submission that the petitioners should exhaust their statutory remedy available under Rule 57 of the General Rules and the alternative remedy having not been resorted to, these writ petitions are not maintainable. 9.3. It is his further case that non impleading of persons in S.Nos.110 to