IMPORTANT POINT
When a conscious decision was taken by UPSC and Government while amending rules and equating two posts after considering pros and cons of matter and considering relevant factors, being a policy decision, Tribunal was not justified in quashing and setting aside statutory rules.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. As both these appeals arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court and are between the same parties, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 29.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition Nos. 44921 and 44922 of 2006, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions preferred by the appellants-Union of India and others and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dated 04.07.2006 in O.A. No. 218 of 2005 and O.A. No. 814 of 2005, the Union of India and others-original writ petitioners before the High Court have preferred the present appeals.

3. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:

That respondent no. 1 herein-original applicant initially joined the services in the Government of Puducherry as a Craft Instructor in the Labour Department on 03.11.1975 and was appointed as the Group Instructor on regular basis. That, thereafter he was promoted as Inspector of Factories on 27.09.1982 and as Principal, Group ‘A’ (Junior Scale) on regular basis w.e.f. 25.08.1989. That, thereafter on 26.07.2001, he was promoted as the Joint Chief Inspector of Factories (hereinafter referred to as the “JCIF”) on regular basis. The promotion of respondent No. 1-original applicant was challenged by one Sri P.S. Krishnamurthy, who was promoted as Principal, Group ‘A’ (Junior Scale) subsequent to the promotion of respondent No. 1-original applicant. On the representation made by the said Sri P.S. Krishnamurthy, the Government initiated steps to convene a review DPC, but the same was rejected by the UPSC. Thereafter, respondent no. 1-original applicant joined duty in the said post on 26.07.2001. The said promotion was challenged by Sri P.S. Krishnamurthy by way of O.A. No. 795 of 2001, but the same was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) on 29.07.2001. According to the appellants, the Government of Puducherry also sent a proposal to UPSC for amendment of the recruitment rules equating the post of Principal, ITI held by Sri P.S. Krishnamurthy with that of JCIF. It appears that pursuant to the draft recruitment rules equating the posts, respondent No. 1-original applicant was transferred from JCIF and posted as Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) on 30.09.2003. It appears that, in the meantime, in the year 1998 the Government of Puducherry decided to create one post of Principal (Senior Scale) (Rs.3000-4500/- later revised to Rs.10,000-15200/- ) in the Government ITI at Karaikal. According to the Department, the same was pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, based on the number of students at ITI, Karaikal being more than 400. The same was done in anticipation of the approval of the Government of India, by keeping one post of Principal (Junior Scale) in abeyance. That the Government of India, by order dated 19.10.2000 sanctioned the proposal for creation of the post of Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) subject to the condition that one post of Principal (Junior Scale) which was kept in abeyance, should be abolished. That, thereafter respondent No. 1 working as Principal (Junior Scale) in ITI, Puducherry was promoted to the post of JCIF vide order dated 26.07.2001. That, thereafter on 17.09.2001, pursuant to the approval received from the Government of India for the creation of one post of Principal (Senior Scale), one post of Principal (Junior Scale) was abolished. It appears that pursuant to the draft recruitment rules equating the posts of Principal, ITI and the JCIF, respondent No.1-original applicant was transferred from JCIF and posted as Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) on 30.09.2003. That the said order was challenged by respondent No. 1 herein-original applicant before the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 869 of 2003. That the said O.A. came to be a