HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.19157 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioners herein who are the Union of India and the authorities concerned in the Southern Command and another Works Engineer, Visakhapatnam, filed this writ petition inter alia seeking to assail the orders in O.A.No.979 of 1998 dated 18/08/1999 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, allowing an application filed by the respondents 1 to 2 herein seeking for consideration of their case for promotion to the post of Superintendent E/M Grade II. The brief facts which gave raise to the present proceedings are that the respondents 1 and 2 herein were initially appointed as Charge Mechanic in the year 1968 and 1972 respectively and thereafter they have promoted to the post of Master Craftsman with the scale of Rs.1400-2300. The first respondent was promoted on 01/04/1986 whereas the second respondent was promoted on 01/01/1989. Hence, according to the respondents they became eligible for the post of Superintendent E/M Grade-II which carries the same scale of pay. However, their juniors are being promoted to their department. Hence, the said OA. After contest by the petitioners before the Tribunal, the application was allowed mainly placing reliance on the letter dated 11/09/1986 issued by the Chief Engineer, Visakhapatnam, which reads as follows: “PANEL FOR PROMOTION CLASS III SERVICES : DPC HELD ON 25 JUN 1986 AND SUBSEQUENT DATES 1. Refer to CWE Visakhapatnam letter No.15033/3281/EINE dated 12 Aug 86 addressed to your office and copy to this HQ and your letter No.11500/13/272/EINE dt.25 Aug 86. 2. The clarification regarding consideration of Master Craftsman to the post of Supdt. E&M Grade II was sought for from E-in- C’s Br AHO, New Delhi. It is confirmed that there is no bar for consideration of Master Craftsman to the post of Supdt.E&M Grade II.” From the above, it is quite apparent that the case of the respondents necessarily had to be considered from proper perspective and even the Tribunal has while allowing the application categorically specified that the seniority while considering for the post of Superintendent E/M Grade II is governed in accordance with the seniority of highly skilled Grade I i.e., the Charge-Refrigeration Mechanic and has qualified for the promotion for the said post of Superintendent in accordance with the recruitment rules. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submit that having regard to the rules the question of promotion to the respondents to the said post is not permissible, therefore, he contends that the letter could not have been accepted by the Tribunal. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, we are of the view that in respect of the aforesaid letter dated 11/09/1986 there is absolutely no material as to why the same should not be accepted or even in the affidavit in support of the writ petition or even any action is taken if any wrong statement is made. Having regard to the aforesaid reasons, and in view of the nature of the directions as given by the Tribunal, it is only the direction considering the respondents’ case and it is needless to say that necessarily their case has to be considered on merits and in accordance with law. We do not find any merits. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20-11-2009 SKM