JUDGMENT:

S.B. SINHA, J :

1. Leave granted.

2. The Parliament of India enacted the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (for short the 1963 Act). It was preceded by several provincial Acts; one of them being the Madras Outports Landing and Shipping Fees Act, 1885. Regulations were framed under the provincial Acts. They were saved under the 1963 Act.

3. The Madras Port Trust Employees (Appointment, Promotion, etc.) Regulations, 1977 was made under Section 28 of the 1963 Act. It was amended in the year 2000 by the Madras Port Trust Employees (Appointment, Promotion, etc.) Regulation 2000. Regulation 5 read with Schedule thereof provides that insofar as the appointment to the post of Executive Engineer is concerned, possession of a degree in Civil Engineering is imperative. It was amended with the approval of the Central Government in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 124 of the 1963 Act. Regulations, therefore, have statutory force. They have been duly published in the Gazettee. Not only approval of the Central Government was obtained, they were also laid before both Houses of the Parliament.

4. Some of the employees were Diploma holders. They formed an Association known as Chennai Port Trust Diploma Engineers Association. In view of embargo placed by the Regulations on their promotional prospects as the educational qualification for holding of the post of Executive Engineers had been laid down, they made a representation.

5. A writ petition came to be filed before the Madras High Court which was marked as Writ Petition No. 11938 of 1993. A prayer was made therein for a direction upon the appropriate government/ authority to make amendments in the Regulations of the 1963 Act in terms whereof provisions were required to be made for grant of opportunities for promotion to the Diploma Engineers to the post of Executive Engineers in the ratio of 4:1, i.e., as against four posts of Executive Engineer from Graduate Engineers; one post must be reserved for the Diploma holders. Such a prayer was made relying on or on the basis of the recommendations made by the Central Government in terms of its letter dated 8.06.1991; pursuant whereto the Madras Port Trust constituted a Committee. Recommendations were also made by the said Committee for grant of such benefit in favour of the Diploma holders. A communication was again made by the Union of India to the Trust on 28.06.1994 providing that a common seniority list should be maintained for diploma holders and degree holders once the two streams merged, i.e., Diploma holders and Degree holders come on a common platform by occupying the same post.

6. The prayer made in the writ petition was amended. A learned Single Judge of the High Court opined that as Diploma holders could be promoted to the Post of Executive Engineer in terms of the recommendations of the Central Government, it was not necessary to issue a direction to amend the Regulations. However, in regard to the other prayers made in the said writ petition, as for example, for grant of promotion, an observation was made therein that an administrative representation therefor should be considered. A writ appeal preferred thereagainst was allowed directing the respondent no. 1 to promote the Diploma holders with retrospective effective on the basis of common seniority.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India before the High Court conceded to the contentions raised on behalf of the Diploma holders relying on or on the basis of the said communications of the Central Government. We may notice that the Degree holders were not made parties to the said writ proceedings. A review application was filed inter alia contending that as educational qualification for holding the post of Executive Engineers has been laid down by the Regulations, it should be clarified that no action can