THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO.13357 OF 2000 13th November 2009 Between: P.Suryanarayana. …PETITIONER AND Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Information & Boradcasting, Sastry Bhavan, New Delhi and five others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO.13357 OF 2000 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioner, who is the unsuccessful applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, files this Writ Petition, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 29.10.1999 in O.A.No.651 of 1998 dismissing his application wherein he sought to assail the correctness and validity of clause (b) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Indian Broad Casting (Engineering) Service Rules, 1981, as substituted by the Indian Broad Casting Engineering Service (Amendment) Rules, 1989, dated 23.03.1989. The entire crux of the argument made by the petitioner, both in the original application as well as in this Writ Petition, is in regard to the correctness of the fixation of the criteria of qualifications as a basis for promotions, whereas after taking into consideration the merits and the respective contentions of both the sides, the Tribunal rejected the same especially relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa[1]. Even now, the said principles are reaffirmed by the Supreme, Court as reiterated in M.Rathinaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu[2]. In view of the same and as the questions raised are squarely covered by those decisions, there is no warrant to interfere with the order impugned. Hence, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is needless to mention that the questions involved are squarely well within the policy, which has to be decided by the Government itself. In this connection, we leave it open for the petitioner to make representation, if he is so advised and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ___________________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J) 13th November 2009 RRB [1] (1974) 1 SCC 19 = 1974 SCC (L & S) 49 [2] (2009) 5 SCC 625