By the Court.—Heard the learned Standing Counsel and Sri Shirish Kumar, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1.

2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions, we dispose of the same by a common judgment and order.

3. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.4.2007 by which the claim petition preferred by opposite party No. 1 under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 was allowed, have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 1 as initially appointed as Junior Chemical Assistant in the Forensic Science Laboratory in the year 1968. The nomenclature of the said post of Junior Chemical Assistant was subsequently changed as Scientific Assistant. The opposite party No. 1 was promoted to the post of Senior Chemical Assistant in the year 1973 and he was further promoted as Scientific Officer on 16.9.1985 and in compliance of the promotion order, the opposite party No. 1 joined on the post of Scientific Officer on 20.9.1985. The said promotion order was only for a period of one year or till the Service Rules were published. The State Government thereafter published the U.P. Forensic Science Laboratories Technical Officers’ Service Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 5 of the said Rules provides that 75% posts to be filled through direct recruitment and 25% posts to be filled by promotion from amongst the Scientific Officers having experience of five years.

5. The proviso to the said Rule 5 provides that where permanent Scientific Officers are not available, such temporary and officiating personnel may also be considered for promotion to the said post as may be permanent on the next lower post. In the department, there were 15 posts of Assistant Directors sanctioned by the State Government and when the aforesaid U.P. Forensic Science Laboratories Technical Officers’ Service Rules, 1987 came into force. The Rules of 1987 were subsequently amended in the year 1990 by U.P. Forensic Science Laboratories Technical Officers’ Service (First Amendment) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1990). The said Rule dated 15.9.1990 were published on 20.10.1990. In pursuance of the Rules of 1990, the State Government notified 11 vacancies by direct recruitment through a notification published in the Employment News dated 5.1.1995. Since the promotion was not granted to the opposite party No. 1 after five years of service on the post of Assistant Director, against four vacancies, which were available for promotion before the amendment under promottees quota, the opposite party No. 1 filed claim petition before the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, which was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. The Tribunal after hearing the Counsel for the parties and considering the entire material on record allowed the claim petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 10.5.2007.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amended Rules of 1990 came into force on 15.9.1990 and on that date the opposite party No. 1 had not completed five years of service as Scientific Officer and as such he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director. He further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the amended Rules of 1990 came into force on 20.10.1990 when they were published in the Government Gazette. He further submits that in a most arbitrary and illegal manner the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition preferred by the opposite party No. 1.

7. The learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Housing Board v. Devinder Singh and another, 2007 AIR SCW 2724 and on the basis of the aforesaid judgment he submits that the Court would not take recourse to any other principle of interpretation when it is not necessary and since the