K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The essential controversy in the above cases is with respect to the fixation of seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineers coming within the Telecom Junior Engineering Services (Group B Posts). All the parties in the above cases were promoted from the cadre of Junior Engineers redesignated as Junior Telecom Officers and were recruited to the post of Assistant Engineers as per the Telecom Junior Engineering Services (Group B posts) Recruitment Rules, 1981, as amended in 1986 and 1987. The Central Recruitment Rules along with the amendments are produced as Ext.P1 in OP (CAT) 3019/2011; which is taken as the leading case; the documents in which are referred to by us in this judgment.

2. The promotions were through two streams, from one source, as per Ext.P1. One, based on seniority and the other on merit. As per Ext.P1, a combined examination consisting of two parts viz: qualifying and competitive examinations for promotion is to be held in every calendar year. 662/3 %(2/3rd) promotions are to be made by a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC) from the officials who have qualified in the Departmental Qualifying Examinations(DQE) and the balance 33%() based on relative merit in the limited departmental competitive examination(LDCE). Petitioners in O.P (CAT) Nos. 3019/2011 and 2941/2011 are among the 147 officers who were selected on the basis of merit in the LDCE conducted in the year 2003; pursuant to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cochin Bench and interim orders passed by this Court in the writ petition filed against the said order. Respondents are the Union of India, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and the officers who had cleared the DQE and were promoted on the basis of the same even prior to the conduct of the aforementioned examination in 2003.

3. WP(C) No.5406 of 2010 is filed by two persons, who, are included in the 147 officers who were meritorious in the LDCE; challenging the original order of the CAT in O.A No. 86 of 2009. W.P(C) No. 26226/2010 is filed by the BSNL, also, against the original order in O.A No. 86 of 2009. The petitioners in the Original Petitions (CAT)are the LDCE promotees, and are aggrieved by the rejection of their review applications filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which overturned the seniority determined by the BSNL.

4. For better understanding, a brief history of the litigation is necessary. There were certain disputes pending with respect to the inter-se seniority of the officers, promoted as per Ext.P1 when the telecommunication Engineering Service(Group B posts) Recruitment Rules, 1996 was promulgated; which effectively abolished the qualifying test for such promotion. The new rules were published on 27.7.1996 and the Special Leave Petition pending before the Supreme Court was disposed of, on the submission of the Union of India, that the vacancies which were existing till the new rules came into force would be filled, in accordance with the rules which were in force prior to the new Rules, i.e. in accordance with Ext.P1. The said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is produced as Ext.P2. As per Ext.P1, DQE and LDCE were to be conducted in a consolidated manner, every calendar year, and those qualified in DQE were, according to their seniority, promoted in the 1/3rd quota reserved in that respect. Those officers who cleared the DQE and also became successful in the LDCE were promoted in accordance with their merit to the vacancies set apart to them being 1/3rd of the total vacancies. The inter-se seniority was also fixed in the ratio of 2:1 with the officers in the 2/3rd quota being accommodated in the first two vacancies and then, one officer from the merit quota and so on and so forth.

5. An issue arose with respect to the seniority in the years 1983, 1984 and 1985 when a combined examination was held in 1986 to fill up the vacancies for the said years. The essence of the dispute was that the