Provisions of the Rules not followed meticulously in the case of petitioner.

P.Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench dated 29.09.2000 made in O.A.No.565 of 1997, rejecting their request to grant regular promotion as Senior Inspectors with effect from December, 1990 with all attendant benefits and further promotion as Co-operative Officers as per the Rules with due seniority over respondents 3 to 20, the petitioners numbering 16 have preferred the above writ petition.

2. The brief facts are as follows:

(a) The petitioners were appointed as Junior Inspectors in the year 1981-82, pursuant to written test and interview as per the Recruitment Rules of the Government of Pondicherry, Cooperative Department Group-C Posts (non-gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1978. Under the Rules, the post of Junior Inspector was to be filled up by direct recruitment, through a Recruitment Committee and the candidates should be graduates. After recruitment, the Junior Inspector has to pass departmental test in Cooperation, auditing, banking, account test, etc., if they were not qualified already in those subjects. The petitioners are graduates and also qualified in departmental tests. Their appointment as Junior Inspectors was fully in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. However, after selection as per the Recruitment Rules, appointment orders issued to them on ad hoc basis as Junior Inspector in Co-operative Department. They continued as such almost for a decade on ad hoc basis. However, they discharged their duties as regular Junior Inspectors without any interruption.

(b) In the year 1990, the Government, belatedly regularised their services as Junior Inspectors. At the same time all of them were promoted as Senior Inspectors with effect from 31.12.1990. As per Recruitment Rules, Junior Inspectors with five years of service are entitled to be promoted as Senior Inspectors. 75% of the posts of Senior Inspectors have to be filled up on promotion basis and 25% has to be filled up by direct recruitment. The petitioners were selected by a Regular Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 1990. As per the Government Order, ad hoc promotion can be made only if the vacancy is a short term vacancy. After their promotion, the Cooperative Department made direct recruitment also and appointed 18 persons, which would go to show the availability of vacancies in the posts of Senior Inspectors. They approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by filing OA.No.565 of 1997 for a direction to the Pondicherry Government to regularise their services as Senior Inspectors from the date of their promotion with all attendant benefits. During the pendency of the said OA., on 05.11.1998, the Department issued a tentative seniority list of Junior Inspectors. On 04.12.1998, the Department issued a final seniority list of Junior Inspectors without considering their objections. The said list ignored their entire ad hoc service from 1981-82, but counted their service only from the dates of regularisation as Junior Inceptors in 1990. By order dated 28.04.1999, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Pondicherry, second respondent herein, treated the petitioners as Senior Inspectors only from 1995 instead of 1990. Hence they amended OA.No.565 of 1997 challenging order dated 28.04.1999 to the extent it denied their regularisation as Senior Inspectors from the date of their initial promotion in 1990. The petitioners also questioned two other memorandums promoting respondents 3 to 5, 8 and 14 as Cooperative Officers as illegal and unconstitutional. They sought for a consequential direction to the Department to grant them regular promotion as Senior Inspectors with effect from December, 1990.

3. The Cooperative Department filed a reply statement stating that the petitioners could not be treated as regularly appointed Juniors Inspectors though their appointment was made as per the Rules, because they were in excess to the sanctioned posts. According to the Department, regular vacancies of