JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. :— Mr. K.G.S. Bhatt - Respondent No. 1 in this appeal was a civil engineer-A in, the Central Food and Technological Research Institute, Mysore, which is one of the national institutes under Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. He was not considered for any kind of promotion for nearly two decades. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench making that grievance and asking for relief. The Tribunal by judgment dated August 7, 1987 allowed his claim which has been challenged in this appeal by leave.

2. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is appellant No. I in this appeal. The Director of Central Food and Technological Research Institute at Mysore is appellant No. 2. They are hereinafter together called as the appellant. The appellant has framed certain bye-laws for regulating promotion of technical and scientific staff. One such bye-law is bye-law 71(b)(ii) which expressly does not cover the case of civil engineers. The Tribunal, however, extended the benefit of that bye-law to respondent 1 also. It directed the appellant to consider his case for promotion in terms of the said bye-law with all consequential benefits.

3. Before turning to bye-law7l (b)(ii), it is of some importance to see the relevant facts: On April 20, 1961, respondent I was appointed as civil engineer-A in the appellants institute. He was given the pay scale of Rs. 350-900. This pay scale was equivalent to that of starting pay scale of Junior-Scientific Officers. The respondent 1 remained in the same cadre and pay scale till 1981 while junior Scientific Officers and Junior Technical Officers were given periodical promotion under bye-law 71(b)(ii). In 1981, the appellant framed a separate scheme for promoting civil engineers and other administrative officers. The scheme is called the New Recruitment and Assessment Scheme (NR and AS). Under the scheme respondent 1 was considered and promoted to higher cadre with which we are not concerned in this appeal. We are only concerned with his claim for promotion for the period from 1961 to 1981, that is, from the date of his appointment till the NR and AS were introduced.

4. Prior to 1978, there were five categories of officers and staff working under the establishments of the appellant. They were as follows:-

"(i) those engaged in research work; (ii) those engaged in scientific work other than research work; (iii) auxiliary technical; (iv) administrative ministerial and accounts; and (v) supporting staff (class IV)."

5. Subsequent to October 1978, those five categories were reclassified as under :

" (i) Scientific;(ii) technical; and (iii) administrative."

This latter classification resulted in the elimination of supporting staff (class IV) and the category of auxiliary technical. It is not disputed that the civil engineers were categories as auxiliary technical under the first classification, but under the latter classification, they were brought under the administrative category. The exclusion of their cadre from the scientific or technical category and bringing them under the administrative category led to a wave of protests and representations. The question was also raised in the Parliament about the injustice done to the civil and structural engineers. On August 3, 1979, the Governing Body of the appellant approved the proposal to classify the Civil Engineering and Architectural Personnel as Technical instead of as administrative, but it was only for the purpose of retirement at 60 years. No promotional benefits were, however, extended to them till NR and AS were approved.

6. We may now turn to bye-law 71(b)(ii) on which the Tribunal rested its conclusion. It reads as follows :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in these bye-laws:

71(b)(i) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

71(b)(ii) the merit of officers of the rank of a Junior Scientific Officer/Junior Technical Officer and Senior Sci