IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.03.2026 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI W.P.No.907 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.1107 & 1112 of 2026

1. Union of India Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi – 110001. 2. Air Chief Marshal, Air Head Quarters, Vayu Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 106.

3. Air Officer Commanding, HQ Maintenance Command, IAF, OI/C PC, Vayusena Nagar, Nagpur 440 007.

4. The Commanding Officer, 8, Base Repair Depot, Air Force Station, Avadi, Chennai – 6000 055. ... Petitioners Vs.

D.Dorai Chargeman (FMT) P/A, No.31416T 8 Base Repair Depot, AF, Avadi, Chennai – 600 055. ... Respondent Prayer: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Original Application No.1095 of 2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.R. Sakthivel For Respondent : Mr.D.Muthukumar for M/s. Paul & Paul ******* ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)

This Writ Petition has been filed by the Union of India against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in O.A.No.1095 of 2015 dated 20.09.2024, whereby, the writ petitioners were directed to promote the respondent notionally to the post of Foreman from the date of vacancy i.e. 01.045.2013 with all consequential benefits, including retiral benefits and the petitioners were granted time of three months to complete such exercise.

2 Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Tribunal has passed the order granting the prayer sought for by the respondent, which is contravenes the express provisions of the Recruitment Rules but also fundamentally alters the statutory structure of recruitment without jurisdiction.

2.1 The learned counsel contended that the dispute pertains to the filling of a Foreman post at 8 Base Repair Depot, Air force Station, Avadi, which became vacant on 01.05.2013. The Recruitment Rules governing this post mandate that 66.66% of Foreman vacancies be filled by promotion and 33.34% by deputation. At the time of vacancy, two Foreman posts had already been filled through promotion, leaving the third and final post to be filled strictly by deputation.

2.2 Despite sincere efforts to fill the vacancy via deputation, no suitable candidate was available. Based on the continuing shortage of manpower in the supervisor cadre, the fourth petitioner submitted a proposal to divert the deputation vacancy to promotion mode, which was transmitted to Air Headquarters, which in turn acknowledged the situation, but, advised that diversion of quota required formal approval from the Ministry of Defence and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Hence a draft amendment to the Recruitment Rules proposing 100% promotion mode was also forwarded for consideration, however the UPSC did not accept this and instead approved a revised ratio of 70% promotion and 30% deputation.

2.3 In this backdrop, the respondent’s case could not be considered and the same has been put forth by petitioners, which was not considered by Tribunal. The statutory Recruitment Rules prescribe the quota with reference to total sanctioned strength of posts, not by simple sequential count or turn-based roster, which are not independently determinative of mode of recruitment unless mapped against total establishment and calculated in a manner that satisfies and prescribed quota ratio. Hence interpreting the fourth vacancy as promotional, without correlating to overall composition, misapprehends the framework of the Recruitment Rules. Therefore the Tribunal went in wrong in treating the historical non-utilizatin of deputation quota as legal justification for promotion, which is liable to be set aside.

3 Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that t