The judgment established the principle that a decision of the court or tribunal can be applicable to all similarly placed persons, and an order passed by a statutory authority must be supported by the reasons stated therein or on the grounds available in the record.

The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in Public Works Department in 1973 and he was promoted as Assistant on 6. 1983. He passed District Office Manual Test in November, 1975 and passed other tests for P.W.D Officers in November, 1980, the pre-requisite qualifications as per Rule 30(b) of the Tamilnadu Subordinate Ministerial Services and thus he was qualified to be included in the panel for promotion as Assistant in the year 1980. But his name was not included in the said panel. There is a provision under Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules which provides that panel should be prepared every year. Though he was qualified for promotion as Assistant, immediately after passing the departmental tests, he was promoted as Assistant only on 6. 1983 and joined the post on 8. 1983. The seniority list in the post of Assistant made in the year 1988 was communicated to him. The petitioner and his colleague Mr. Amurudeen made representations, dated 20.8.1988 for revision of seniority for placing them over and above their immediate juniors. A further representation was also made on 13. 1989 in this regard. In the said representation, the petitioner brought to the notice of respondents, a decision of the Supreme Court in Ganga Ram vs. Union of India and others reported in (AIR 1970 Supreme Court 2179).

2. The petitioner has further submitted that his colleague Mr. Amurudeen in his representation had pointed out that in Secretariat service, the seniority of certain Assistant Section Officers who were overlooked due to non-passing of certain departmental tests were restored their seniority in appropriate places, though they had passed the departmental test belatedly. The representation of the said Mr. Amurdeen made in the month of May 1993, was forwarded by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, on 25. 1993 to the Chief Engineer General, P.W.D. for restoration of seniority. He also made another representation, dated 211. 1984 in which he had questioned the validity of fixing the seniority and sought for its revision according to Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission seniority. By circular memo dated 24. 1994, a committee was constituted to look into the issue of seniority in the case of Junior Assistants and Typists in Public Works Department. The Committee furnished a report and the findings were circulated in proceedings dated 29. 1995. The authority in his findings has specifically stated that in G.O.Ms.No.586 PWD dated 23. 1972, the Government have issued orders for implementation of single unit system in P.W.D. for appointment and promotion.

.3. The petitioner has further stated that though TNPSC had been allotting the candidates based on single unit system from 1973 onwards, vide Gazette Notifications dated 23. 1973 and 8. 1973, the authority has failed and neglected to implement the single unit system, but started implementing the system only from 1979 onwards. Therefore, the seniority of the petitioner and the said Mr. Amurudeen could not be fixed properly and in the meanwhile their juniors were promoted. Although there were deliberations on the report of the committee and inspite of the fact that the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by a common order, in a batch of Original Applications in O.A.Nos.320 of 1989 etc. batch dated 211. 1991, clarified that promotions should be made with reference to the seniority in the feeder category of Junior Assistants, who were qualified on the date prescribed for consideration, in respect of each year, promotions were made indiscriminately without following the seniority. It was further observed in the said order that the question of fixing seniority with reference to date of passing of the tests does not arise. The seniority of the petitioner and his colleague was not restored as per TNPSC ranking and therefore both of them made representations to the authorities to refer the seniority.

4. The petitioner has