Tamilnadu Govt. Statistics Subordinate Officers' Association vs State of Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioners in all the four writ petitions is the service association representing the Subordinate Officers in the Statistics

Department of the State Government represented by its Secretary. They filed four OAs before the Tribunal.

This matter came to be grouped together and posted before this Court by an order of the Hon''ble the Chief Justice, dated 12.9.2009.

Heard the arguments of Mr. D. Bharatha Chakravarthy representing Mr. Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan appearing for petitioners in W.P. Nos.

35548 and 37290 of 2006, Mr. R. Rengaramanujam, the counsel for petitioner in W.P. Nos. 43968 of 2006 and 336 of 2007 and also Mr.

Veeraraghavan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned Government Advocate for respondent State and

Mr. M. Baskar, counsel for TNPSC and perused the records.

The first OA filed by them is OA No. 3593 of 1998. The prayer in the said OA is a challenge to the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 155,

Planning and Development (Statistics) Department, dated 22.10.1991 as well as the notification issued by the third respondent TNPSC, dated

10.3.1998.

By the impugned order in G.O.Ms. No. 155, the State Government amended the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Statistics Service. By the

said amendment, the existing sub Rule (b) was substituted and it reads as follows:

(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 6 in Part II of General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the

proportion of all vacancies in category 3 to be filled or reserved to be filled by recruitment by transfer and direct recruitment shall be in the order of

rotation specified below:

(1) Recruitment by Transfer

(2) Recruitment by Transfer

(3) Direct Recruitment

(4) Recruitment by Transfer

(5) Recruitment by Transfer

The said amendment had come into effect from the date of the order passed by the Government, dated 22.10.1991. The amendments were

made in exercise of power made under Article 309 of the Constitution. The reasons for bringing the amendments were set out in the order and it

reads as follows:

As per Sub-rule (b) of Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Statistics Service, the proportion of substantive vacancies in the category of

Assistant Director of Statistics to be filled or reserved to be filled by recruitment by transfer and direct recruitment shall be in the order of rotation

specified below:

(1) Recruitment by transfer

(2) Recruitment by transfer

(3) Direct Recruitment

(4) Recruitment by transfer

(5) Recruitment by transfer

In the Department of Statistics, there are 99 posts of Assistant Director of Statistics at present. Out of these posts, 36 posts are permanent in

nature. However, 63 posts are temporary in nature. These temporary posts of Assistant Director of Statistics include the posts borne on foreign

service and posts of Assistant Director of Statistics on other duty in other Government Departments. As per the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu

Statistics Service mentioned in para 1 above, the temporary posts cannot be taken into account for making appointment by direct recruits. The

present procedure of recruiting of direct recruits only against the substantive vacancies has resulted in the situation that the department of Statistics

is at present having only 9 direct recruit Assistant Director of Statistics in the service against 99 posts (both permanent and temporary) of Assistant

Director of Statistics in the Department. It was felt that the Statistics Department should be staffed by men of high calibre with adequate

educational qualifications, besides appropriate experience. It was, therefore, suggested that the direct recruits shall be appointed against all

vacancies i.e. substantive and non-substantive vacancies, in the department. In the light of the above position, the Government accept the proposal

and accordingly amend the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Statistics Service suitably.

After amendments were made, the petitioners did not challenge the said amendment. They were making representations during the said period.

It is only when the third respondent TNPSC issued a notification, dated 10.3.1998, calling for applications to the post of Assistant Director of

Statistics in the Tamil Nadu Statistics service, inviting applications for six posts by direct recruitment, they chose to challenge the same.

The Tribunal admitting the OA, by an order, dated 4.5.1998, granted an interim order stating that any appointments made pursuant to the G.O.

will be subject to the result of the OA. Pending the OA, the respondent State has filed a reply affidavit, dated 25.2.1999 and the TNPSC has filed

an adoption reply affidavit, dated 10.06.1999, adopting the stand of the State. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred

to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 35548 of 2006. When the matter was posted before this Court, the official respondents filed M.P.

No. 1 of 2008 for vacating the interim order, dated 4.5.1998.

The said association filed an another OA being OA No. 9504 of 1998 once again challenging the notification issued by the TNPSC in

notification No. 24/98, dated 2.9.98, calling for applications to the post of Assistant Director of Statistics with reference to five posts based upon

communal roster. Pending the OA, the Tribunal once again, by an interim order, dated 18.11.1998, stated that any appointment made will be

subject to the result of the OA and the respondents were directed to incorporate the interim order in each appointment order.

In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 37290 of 2006. The

respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated 2.2.2007 adopting the earlier counter affidavit filed in the previous OA.

The petitioner Association once again filed OA No. 3880 of 2000 before the Tribunal, seeking to challenge the notification issued by the

TNPSC, dated 7.2.2000, calling for applications to the post of Assistant Director of Statistics in respect of seven vacancies by giving due

representation to communal roster.

The Tribunal issued notice of motion on 13.6.2000 on this OA and granted an injunction not to publish the result until further orders. But,

however the third respondent was directed to proceed with the recruitment process. Though the respondents filed M.A. No. 6568 of 2001,

seeking to vacate the interim order, for the reasons best known, the same was not taken up for consideration. Thereafter, the respondents have

filed a detailed reply affidavit, dated 2.5.2001 together with supporting documents. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood

transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 43968 of 2006.

The Association also filed OA No. 7142 of 2001 before the Tribunal once again challenging the notification issued by the TNPSC in

Advertisement No. 020, dated 6.10.2001, calling for applications for the post of Assistant Director in respect of six vacancies provided for

communal roster.

Pending the OA, the Tribunal granted an interim stay for a period of two weeks, by an order, dated 8.11.2001 and subsequently, by a further

order, dated 23.11.2001 extended the interim stay until further orders. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this

Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 336 of 2007.

In view of the interconnectivity among the four writ petitions, the matters were grouped together and a common order is passed.

The case of the petitioner was that the members of the petitioner''s Association were working in the Statistical Department as Assistant

Statistical Investigators, Statistical Inspectors and Statistical Officers. They are eligible to be promoted to the posts of Assistant Directors of

Statistics by recruitment by transfer. As per the Special Rules framed for the Tamil Nadu Statistical Services, the post of Assistant Director of

Statistics is filled up by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer from among the holders of posts of Statistical Officers in the department of

Statistics or from the members of any other services other than the Superintendent in the department of Statistics.

The method of recruitment for the said post is as follows:

Posts

Method of

Appontment

Qualifications

Assistant Director of Statistics

Direct recruitment

Must not have completed 30 years of age on the first day of July of the year in which the selection for appointment to the post is made;

Must hold a degree of M.A., or M.Sc., or a first class degree of B.A., or B.Sc., with Statistics, Mathematics, Economics or Mathematical

Economics as the main subject; and

Must have experience in the Statistical Investigation for a period of not less than three years in the case of persons holding a Master degree and

five years in the case of persons holding a Bachelor degree.

Recruitment by transfer from any other service.

(W.e.f. 27.10.87 as per G.O.Ms. No. 162, P&D (ST) Dept., dt.24.11.88.

Must not have completed 57 years of age on the first day of July of the year in which the selection for appointment to the post is made ((vide

G.O.Ms. No. 200, P&D(ST) Dept., dt.22.12.93.

Must hold a degree of M.A., or M.Sc., or a first class degree of B.A., or B.Sc., with Statistics, Mathematics, Economics or Mathematical

Economics as the main subject; and

Must have experience in Statistical Investigation for a period of not less than three years in the case of persons holding a Master degree and 5

years in the case of persons holding a Bachelor degree.

4.""Must have passed the Account Test for Executive Officers"" provided that a person who has passed the Account Test for Subordinate Officers

Part I need not pass the Account Test for Executive Offices. Provided that the first class degree of B.A., B.Sc., with Statistics, Mathematics,

Economics or Mathematical Economics as main subject referred to in item (2) above shall not be insisted upon in the case of Statistical Officers of

the Statistics Department who have put in a total service of not less than two years of Statistical Officer, either in the Statistics Department or in the

borrowing Department, if the person is on other duty, on deputation or on Foreign

(W.e.f.29.5.89 as per G.O.Ms. No. 88, P&D(ST) Dept., dt.29.5.89)

Service from the Statistics Department and are holding a degree of B.A., or B.Sc., with Statistics, Mathematics, Economics or Mathematical

Economics as the main subject.

5.""Provided further that field experience for a period of not less than one year on duty in the post of Statistical Officer in any of the Revenue

Division in the District Statistical units shall be insisted.

Provided also that such field experience shall not be insisted in respect of recruitment by transfer from any other service to be made, for a period of

two years from the 29th May 1989. (G.O.Ms. No. 88, P&D(ST) Dept., dt.29.5.89.)

The ratio has also been fixed between the departmental appointees appointed by the method of transfer from the other service and by direct

recruitment in the following manner:

Assistant Director 1. Direct Recruitment, or of Statistics 2. Recruitment by transfer from among the holders of the posts of Statistical Officers in the

Department of Statistics or from Members of any other service other than the Superintendents and Statistical Inspectors in the Department of

Statistics.

b) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 6 in Part II of General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the proportion

of all vacancies in category 3 to be filled or reserved to be filled by recruitment by transfer and direct recruitment shall be in the order of Rotation

specified below:

1) Recruitment by Transfer

2) Recruitment by Transfer

3) Direct Recruitment

4) Recruitment by Transfer

5) Recruitment by Transfer .

According to the petitioner, originally, vacancies were filled up and the ratio was followed in respect of permanent vacancies alone, but by

virtue of amendment, even temporary vacancies were added for recruiting both streams. This created problem to the departmental candidates,

since direct recruits were allowed to occupy permanent posts. When there is temporary vacancy arising out of the post created in this department

or in the other department, than departmental appointees were reverted for want of vacancies. This had resulted in an anomaly in filling up the post.

Therefore, the ratio prescribed in the rules should be as per Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, wherein it has been

stipulated as follows:

Method of Recruitment- Where the normal method of recruitment to any service, class or category is neither solely by direct recruitment nor

solely by transfer but is both by direct recruitment and by transfer.-

(a) the proportion or order in which the Special Rules concerned may require vacancies to be filled by persons recruited direct and by those

recruited by transfer shall be applicable only to substantive vacancies in the permanent cadre;

(b) a person shall be recruited direct only against substantive vacancy in such permanent cadre, and only if the vacancy is one which should be

filled by a direct recruit under the special Rules referred to in Clause (a); and

(c) recruitment to all other vacancies shall be made by transfer:

Provided that nothing in this rule shall adversely affect any person who on the date of issue of the Special Rules referred to in Clause (a) was a

probationer in such service, class or category, as the case may be.

While general rule was about the permanent vacancies, the amendment had calculated entire vacancies (both temporary and permanent).

Therefore, the amendment is advantageous to the direct recruits and there is no rational behind making such an amendment. What the respondents

could not have done directly, they had done it indirectly. The amendment is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The

reason set out for making the amendment was that the direct recruits are more efficient was not borne out by records. Once a rule is framed and

departmental candidates were made eligible to the post based upon the same educational qualifications, it is not open to the respondent State to

mention that direct recruits are more efficient than the promotees. This is an insult to the existing departmental promotees.

The petitioner had also produced statistics to show the representations given to departmental promotees in the higher posts and it was stated

that the ratio had never been followed. It is also stated that their case had also been recommended favourably by the Director vide her letter to the

Development Commissioner, dated 22.10.2008. Therefore, the impugned rule should be held to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of

the Constitution.

Per contra, Mr. S. Veeraraghavan, learned Additional Advocate General stated that the contentions raised by the petitioners were extraneous

and at no point of time, the respondents have violated either the quota and rota rule prescribed in terms of Rule 2(b) of the Special Rules. It may

be possible that the departmental promotees may get promotion at the tail end of their career and may get retired from service. Since rotational

appointments were made wherein the departmental promotees have 80% of the share, they have no cause for complaint. Further, it would be open

to the respondent State even to alter the ratio for promotion and it cannot be held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

In the present case, in order to give effect to the ratio, the State Government decided to accommodate both temporary and permanent

vacancies for the purpose of ratio. The petitioner having accepted the ratio cannot contend that temporary vacancy cannot be included while filling

up the vacancies. On the contrary, it is the policy of the State to infuse new hands through direct recruitment and there will be no constitutional

violation in making direct recruits to any post. The State Government has taken a policy decision to include temporary vacancies also for the

purpose of recruitment. It is not open to the petitioner to contend that Rule 6 of the General Rule will still apply. In fact, it is in order to overcome

the restrictions placed in Rule 6, the Special Rules were amended. When once Special Rules cover the services, then naturally it is the Special Rule

which will prevail.

In the present case, the amendments have not altered the ratio or the promotional chances of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the right of the

members of the petitioner''s association is only a right to be considered for higher post, but not to have certain percentage in any promotion. The

courts have consistently held that mere alteration of the ratio will not violate the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Since the claim of the petitioner Association is that the chances of promotions of their members will get affected by the impugned amendment it

is necessary to refer to certain decisions of the Supreme Court which will have a bearing on the issues raised in the present case:

The Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Dutta and another, held in paragraphs 14, 17 and 18 as follows:

In connection with the question as to whether the conditions of service of respondent 1 could be said to be adversely affected by the change in

the promotional policy, our attention was drawn by learned Additional Solicitor General to the decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra and

another Vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and others, . There it was held by a bench comprising three learned Judges of this Court that mere

chances of promotion are not conditions of service, and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to a

change in the conditions of service. A right to be considered for promotion is a term of service, chances of promotion are not. (See SCC p. 141,

para 16.) Reference was also made to the decision of this Court in K. Jagadeesan Vs. Union of India and others, where the decision of this Court

in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni was followed.

...

...We are not able to accept this contention. In our opinion, what was affected by the change of policy were merely the chances of promotion

of the Air Vice-Marshals in the Navigation Stream. As far as the posts of Air Marshals open to the Air Vice-Marshals in the said stream were

concerned, their right or eligibility to be considered for promotion still remained and hence, there was no change in their conditions of service.

...These are matters regarding which judges and the lawyers of courts can hardly be expected to have much knowledge by reasons of their

training and experience. In the present case there is no question of arbitrary departure from the policy duly adopted because before the decision

not to promote respondent 1 was taken, the policy had already been changed. The question is, therefore, whether this change can be said to be

arbitrary or mala fide. As we have already pointed out, we are not in a position to hold that this change of policy was not warranted by the

circumstances prevailing....

27.2. Further, the Supreme Court in Syed Khalid Rizvi and Others and Ramesh Prasad Singh and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,

has held in paragraph 31 which is as follows:

No employee has a right to promotion but he has only the right to be considered for promotion according to rules. Chances of promotion are

not conditions of service and are defeasible.

The Supreme Court once again in Union of India and Others Vs. N.Y. Apte and Others, held in paragraph 8 as follows:

Further, what all has been done in the Rules is only to include such persons in the field of consideration and give an opportunity to them to be

considered for promotion. ..... It is too well settled that chance of promotion is not a right, nor a condition of service.

The Supreme Court in one of its earlier decision while dealing with the service conditions of Government servants held that even promotion will

come within the ambit of Article 16 of the Constitution, vide its decision in S.G. Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . In that decision,

the Supreme Court had also suggested that to avoid the controversy between two sources of recruitment to posts had suggested adoption of a

roster system prescribing quota for the different sources. The following passages found in paragraphs 9 and 15 can be usefully reproduced below:

9.The relevant law on the subject is well-settled. Under Article 16 of the Constitution, there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in

matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State or to promotion from one office to a higher office there under. Article

16 of the Constitution is only an incident of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 thereof. It gives effect to the doctrine

of equality in the matter of appointment and promotion. It follows that there can be reasonable classification of the employees for the purpose of

appointment or promotion. The concept of equality in the matter of promotion can be predicated only when the promotees are drawn from the

same source. If the preferential treatment of one source in relation to the other is based on the differences between the said two sources, and the

said differences have a reasonable relation to the nature of the office or offices to which recruitment is made, the said recruitment can legitimately

be sustained on the basis of a valid classification....

...

We should also like to suggest to the Government that for future years the roster system should be adopted by framing an appropriate rule for

working out the quota between the direct recruits and the promotees and that a roster should be maintained indicating the order in which

appointments are made by direct recruitment and by promotion in accordance with the percentages fixed under the statutory rule for each method

of recruitment.

In the present case, the Special Rules not only provides a quota but also rotation by which appointments will have to be effected by the

respondents.

The Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, has held that in the absence of any allegation of mala

fide or arbitrariness, a rule cannot be challenged. Further, it was also stated that in such matters there is no promissory estoppal involved. It is

therefore necessary to refer to the following passages found in paragraphs 47, 58 and 60 from the judgment which are as follows:

It is, therefore, evident that whereas the selectee as such has no legal right, the superior court in exercise of its judicial review would not

ordinarily direct issuance of any writ in absence of any pleading and proof of mala fide or arbitrariness on its part. Each case, therefore, must be

considered on its own merit.

...

Application of doctrine of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel must also be considered from the aforementioned viewpoint. A

legitimate expectation is not the same thing as an anticipation. It is distinct and different from a desire and hope. It is based on a right. [See

Chanchal Goyal (Dr.) v. State of Rajasthan and Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn.] It is grounded in the rule of law as requiring

regularity, predictability and certainty in the Government''s dealings with the public. We have no doubt that the doctrine of legitimate expectation

operates both in procedural and substantive matters.

...

We also fail to see any reason as to why the doctrine of promissory estoppel will apply in the instant case.

In view of the above, the contention that there was a recommendation from the Director and hence the rule must be struck down cannot be

accepted.

The Supreme Court in Prasad Kurien and Others Vs. K.J. Augustin and Others, in more or less in similar circumstances dealt with the case of

a rule framed by the Kerala Government. In that case, there was a general rule framed by the Government for all services as to how the vacancies

are to be filled up. It was held that the general rule which was made subsequently will apply to all services covered by Special Rules. The

Government has specifically stated that the term vacancy will mean only the cadre strength. It is therefore necessary to refer to the following

passages found in paragraphs 24, 27 and 28 which are as follows:

By virtue of this amendment which has been brought out under the Rules of 1958 it clearly transpires that this Note (3) was not framed under

the exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. In fact, learned Senior Counsel gave us an impression during the course of

argument that this Note (3) has been framed in exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution but that impression is now

removed after perusing the notification which has been issued under the Act of 1968. Had that not been the position, then perhaps the argument of

learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would have survived but after going through the notification it becomes absolutely clear that Note (3)

which was inserted in the Rules of 1958 in 1992 was subsequent to the Rules of 1974 and this notification is of 1992 i.e. subsequent in point of

time and this having been issued under the Act of 1968, therefore, the Rules of 1958 which have already been deemed to have been made under

the Act of 1968 and the amendment which has been brought out by appending Note (3) is also under the Act of 1968. As such, the argument of

learned Senior Counsel cannot now survive. The Rules of 1958 are of general nature which clearly stipulates that cadre strength has to be taken

into consideration for maintaining the ratio in the Special Rules, meaning thereby that these Rules which have come into being at subsequent point

of time under the Act of 1968, will hold the field and these Rules are not repugnant to the Rules of 1974. The Rules of 1974 only laid down that

every fourth substantive vacancy shall be filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment and now on reading of this Note (3) along with the

Rules of 1974 harmoniously then it comes to, at the time of determination of fourth substantive vacancy one has to maintain the ratio or percentage

of the cadre strength of the posts to which the recruitment is made and not to the existing vacancies at that time. If we construe the whole thing in

this light and read the Service Rules in a harmonious manner, then the desired result can be achieved.

...

This Court in S. Prakash1 referring to various Acts on the subject with relation to this service has observed as follows: (SCC pp.633-34, para

14)

From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that if the intention of the rule-making authority was to establish a rule of universal application to all the

services in the State of Kerala for which the Special Rules are made, then the Special Rules will give way to the General Rules enacted for that

purpose. This has to be found out from the language used in the rules which may be express or by implication. If the language is clear and

unqualified, the subsequent General Rules would prevail despite repugnancy. If the intention of the rule-making authority is to sweep away all the

Special Rules and to establish a uniform pattern for computation of the ratio or percentage of direct recruits and by transfer, in such a case, the

Special Rules will give way. On the basis of the aforesaid settled principles, let us interpret Rule 5 as well as Note (3) and the method of

recruitment prescribed under the Special Rules. Rule 5 quoted above provides the method of recruitment to any service, class or category where

the method of recruitment is neither solely by direct recruitment nor by transfer but is both by direct recruitment and by transfer. It is made

specifically applicable to the ''Special Rules''. Clause (a) provides that the proportion or order will be applicable only to substantive vacancies in

permanent cadre; Clause (b) provides that direct recruitment shall be only against substantive vacancy in permanent cadre; and recruitment to all

other vacancies shall be made by transfer. Notes (1) and (2) provide that all permanent vacancies and temporary vacancies except those of short

duration shall be treated as substantive vacancies. Note (3) specifically provides that ''whenever'' a ratio or percentage is fixed (in the Special

Rules) for different methods of recruitment to a post, the number of vacancies to be filled up by candidates from each method is to be decided by

applying a fixed ratio or percentage to the cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment is made and ''not to the vacancies existing at that

time''. Therefore, the entire Rule 5 deals with the Special Rules which provide for filling up of the vacancies to any service, class or category by

direct recruitment and by transfer. The language of Note (3) is crystal clear and is for removal of any ambiguity by using positive and negative

terms. It applies to all the Special Rules whenever a ratio or percentage is prescribed in the rules. It also emphatically states that it has to be

computed on the cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment is to be made and not on the basis of the vacancies existing at that time.

Learned Counsel for the appellant tried to distinguish the decision in S. Prakash1 and submitted that in fact this case related to the recruitment

to the post of Sales Tax Officer in the Income Tax and Sales Tax Departments and there a provision was that proportion of 20% of successive

substantive vacancies shall be filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining shall be filled or reserved to be filled by transfer

of Assistant Sales Tax Officers. The attempt on the part of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants to distinguish this case is futile. The

percentage may vary. Here it is 25%, there it may be 20% of the successive vacancies. But the principle which has been laid down by this Court in

S. Prakash1 clearly governs this case also as we have already dealt with in detail that the principle, generaliabus specialia derogant will not be

applicable in the present case but what is applicable is generalia specialibus non derogant which means general things do not derogate from special

things. In this case, the General Rules which have come at the later point of time and which govern all service rules and not derogant to the Special

Rules will prevail and not the Special Rules. In fact both could be read harmoniously as the intention of both the Rules, if read together is that the

ratio of 75%:25% is to be maintained in the whole of the cadre and was accordingly reflected in the subsequent amendment which was brought

about in the Rules of 1958 in purported exercise of the power under the Act of 1958 (sic 1968). Therefore, this General Rule which is not

repugnant with the Rules of 1974 will prevail and the ratio of 75% promotion and 25% direct recruits is to be maintained on the basis of the cadre

strength.

But, in the present case, the Government has consciously after taking note of Rule 6 of the General rules amended the Special rules by the

impugned amendment and had stated that the vacancies will include both permanent and temporary. When once the intention of the State is to

override the General rule and frame a Special rule, as was done in the present case the Special Rule will prevail over the earlier General rule. The

contention that in other services of the Government there is no such rule, will not help the case of the petitioner. Each service is a Constituted

service and has its own peculiarities. Therefore, when once the Government takes a policy decision to provide ratio by taking into account the total

cadre strength of the department as well as deputation vacancies, such a stand cannot be found fault with only because the members of the

petitioner Association are likely to get reduced number of promotions/appointments. Such claims are not based upon rights flowing from Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution.

In the light of the above, all the petitions must fail and accordingly, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as

to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. The interim orders granted by the Tribunal shall stand vacated.