The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotions given in violation of the 1986 Rules were treated as ad-hoc and subject to the outcome of the promotional exercise conducted in accordance with the decisions of the Governing Body from 1986 to 2007.

K.M. JOSEPH, C.J.

These two appeals being connected, we dispose of the same by this common judgment.

2. These appeals relate to the service conditions of the employees of the Wild Life Institute of India (from hereinafter referred to as “the Institute”). Appellants in Special Appeal No. 348 of 2015 are respondent nos. 10, 11 and 7 respectively in the writ petition. Appellant in Special Appeal No. 338 of 2015 is respondent no. 6 in the Writ Petition. The first respondent in Special Appeal No. 348 of 2015 is the writ petitioner and will be referred to as such.

3. The writ petitioner approached this Court seeking the following two reliefs in the writ petition :

“1. Issue writ Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 8.11.2011 along with its effect and operation also after calling the entire records from the respondents and further to declare the condition provide in the service rules 2007 to treat the presently working as Hindi translator for promotion in the feeding cadre is unconstitutional and ultra virus to the Constitution of India and declare the same nonest in law.

2. Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to rectify their mistakes as indicated by the respondents in its letter dated 9.1.2004 and also not to carry out any promotional exercise or consider the promotion of the beneficiary of the earlier illegal persons during the year 1993-2000 in utter disregard to the recruitment rules of 1986 and further to direct the respondents to make promotional exercise in tune of rules of 1986 on the post and vacancies available during the period of 1993-2000 strictly in terms of the rules of 1986 and to consider the case of the petitioner for the same or in alternate to grant the benefit of promotion to the petitioner on the basis of his eligibility and seniority w.e.f. the date when the same has been given to other ineligible persons ignoring the service rules.”

4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge comprises of three pages. We deem it appropriate to extract the same as under :

“Having heard learned counsel for all the parties, it transpires that innumerable illegalities and irregularities have been done by the Directors of this Wild Life Institute (an autonomous body working under the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Union of India), the outcome whereof is the illegal appointments and promotions on the whims and caprices of Directors of this Institute, de hors all the recruitment and promotion rules, for the reasons best known to them. By such whimsical and arbitrary action on the part of directors, from time to time, respondent nos.4 to 11 were favoured in the manner of appointment or promotion. If the appointments were made on a particular post, then those were without publication of any advertisement, at any time, rendering an equal opportunity to the competent persons and likewise, the promotions were made by such officer de hors the rules favouring persons of their choice. Such an action on the part of responsible officers, inasmuch as holding the rank of Director, made the petitioner victim. So, he moved to the Government of India. Furthermore, one of the Directors Mr. S. Singsit, when noticed these irregularities and illegalities, he wrote a letter to the Government of India entailing the clause as under:

“Since the procedure for promotions made were not in confirmation to the Recruitment Rules approved by the Governing Body and because of which eligible candidates could not get opportunity to be considered for promotion, it is proposed that the promotions in question should be done afresh and all eligible candidates should be given opportunity to appear in the competitive examination as stipulated in the Recruitment Rules.”

In response to that letter, the Gov