JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:- In these appeals by special leave, the legality of the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 7th July 1987 quashing the promotions made to the cadre of Professors in law colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu has been called into question.

2. The appeals arise in the following circumstances : During the period from 1971 to 1982 the Government appointed temporary junior professors in different law colleges in the State. The appointments were made under R. 10(a)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 (viz. The Preliminary and The General Rules) (hereinafter called the Rules). In 1979 the State Public Service Commission invited applications for regular appointment of junior professors. The temporary junior professors and others applied for the posts. The Public Service Commission selected 25 candidates out of whom 21 were already working as temporary junior professors. The selected candidates were arranged in the list called "approved list" in the order of merit. The list was prepared by the Public Service Commission on 16 August 1983. It was approved by the Government on 9 December, 1983. On 27th June 1985 the State Government made an order regularising the services of those 21 junior professors. Their services were regularised with effect from the dates of original appointments as temporary junior professors.

3. On 10 September 1986 some of the junior professors were promoted and appointed as professors in the law colleges. That promotion was challenged before the Madras High Court on the ground that the claim of the seniors has been overlooked. It was urged before the High Court that once the temporary services have been regularised retrospectively with effect from the date of entry in the service, the seniority should be reckoned by giving the benefit of regularised service notwithstanding the ranking in the approved list prepared by the Public Service Commission. The High Court accepted that plea and quashed the promotion of Professors and directed the Government to make a proper order of promotion in the light of the views expressed in the judgment.

4. The correctness of the judgment of the High Court has been assailed in these appeals. We must first outline the necessary statutory provisions bearing on the question raised.

5. Section 10(a)(i)(l)provides as follows:

"10. Temporary appointments

(a)(i)(1) Where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category and there would be undue delay in making such appointment in accordance with these rules and the Special Rules, the appointing authority may temporarily appoint a person, otherwise than in accordance with the said rules.

6. Rule 22 so far as relevant reads:

"Reservation of Appointments -Where the Special Rules lay down that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to any service, classes category, selection for appointment thereto shall, with effect on and from the 7th June 1971, in cases such selection is made by the Commission, and 8th November 1971, in other cases, be made on the following basis -

(a) The unit of selection for appointment, for the purpose of this rule, shall be one hundred, of which eighteen shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and thirty-one shall be reserved for the Backward Classes and the remaining fifty-one shall be filled on the basis of merit.

(b) The claims of members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Classes shall also be considered for the fifty-one appointments, which shall be filled on the basis of merit; and where a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class is selected on the basis of merit, the number of posts reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes or for the Backward Classes, as the case may be, shall not in any way be affected.

xxxxx xxx