Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
B. Prabhakar And Ors. vs Secretary, M/O Defence And Ors. on 23 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(2)SLJ179(CAT)
ORDER
K.R. Prasada Rao, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. Since common question of fact and law arises in all these O.As., they are being disposed of by a common order by the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both sides.
2. The applicants in all these O.As. have challenged the amended recruitment rules issued under SRO 50 dated 12.2.2002 and SRO 147 dated 28.6.2002 with subsequent corrigendum prescribing that one should have Degree in Science with one year diploma in Library Science for the post of Senior Technical Assistant-A and sought for setting aside the said condition of amended educational qualification by declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to permit them to appear for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Senior Technical Assistant-A on the basis of pre-amended recruitment rules with all consequential benefits. The above relief claimed is common to all the applicants in these O.As. The applicants in O.A. No. 1123/2003 and 1124/2003 also sought for quashing the letter dated 23.8.2002 issued by the 3rd respondent declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
3. The applicant in O.A. No. 1116/2003 was initially appointed as Fireman Grade-11 on 3.9.1990 under the control of the 3rd respondent and was subsequently promoted to the post of Fireman Grade-I which is re-designated as Fireman and was further promoted to Senior Fireman-A. While in service, the applicant improved his qualification by graduating himself in 1994 and further obtaining Bachelor's Degree in Library and Information Science in the year 1998.
4. The applicant in O.A. No. 1123/2003 was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1988 in the office of the 3rd respondent and she was promoted to the grade of Administrative Assistant -B in the year 1996 on the basis of selection. She also has the qualification of Bachelor's Degree in Commerce at the time of entry into service. As per the Recruitment Rules prescribed for the post of Senior Technical Assistant-A in Defence Research & Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2000, Bachelors Degree in Library Science was prescribed as essential qualification for appointment to the post of Senior Technical Assistant-A in the Library of the Organisation. Since the applicant was interested in the said Scientific line and to work as Senior Technical Assistant-A in Library, she desired to study Bachelor's degree in Library Science. Accordingly, she sought permission vide representation dated 21.7.2000 from the 3rd respondent to study BLISC. through Dr. B .R. Ambedkar Open University under correspondence Scheme. The applicant was granted permission to study BLISC vide letter dated 4.8.2000. Accordingly, she completed her study successfully and obtained Bachelor's Degree in Library Science from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University.
5. The applicant in O.A. No. 1124/2003 joined service as Lower Division Clerk on 17.6.1991 in the office of the 3rd respondent pursuant to his selection on regular appointment. Thereafter he was selected and promoted to the post of Personal Assistant-A with effect from 11.1.2002 through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. At the time of joining the post of Lower Division Clerk, he was holding the Bachelor's Degree in Commerce with the technical qualification of Typewriting English Higher Grade. This applicant also sought for permission vide representation dated 17.1.2000 from the 3rd respondent to study BLISC., through Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University under correspondence Scheme. Accordingly, he was granted permission to study the said course vide letter dated 3.2.2000 and he completed his study successfully and obtained Bachelor's Degree in Library Science from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University.
6. The 1st applicant in O.A. No. 1129/2003 was initially appointed as LDC with effect from 6.9.1990 in the 3rd respondent organisation. The post of LDC was redesignated as Admn. Assistant-A and he was promoted to the post of Admn. Assistant-B with effect from 15.10.2000 and presently continuing in the post of Admn. Assistant-B. At the time of joining service, he possessed the qualification of B.Com and while in service he completed Bachelor's Degree in Library Science in the year 2001. The second applicant was also initially appointed as LDC on 14.9.99 and the post was redesignated as Admn. Assistant-A and he was promoted to Admn. Assistant-B with effect from 15.10.1999. At the time of his joining service, he possessed qualification of B.A. Degree and while in service he acquired Bachelor of Library Science in the year 2001.
7. All the applicants submitted that according to the pre-amended Defence Research & Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2000, they were all qualified to appear for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Technical Assistant-A, since according to the said rules, minimum qualification prescribed is :
(a) Bachelor's Degree in Science or Bachelor's Degree in Library Science or 3 years Diploma in Engineering or Technology or Computer Science, or allied subjects in the required discipline;
(b) 3 years regular service in DRDL/DRDO as on 31st August;
(c) No age limit.
8. The avenue of promotion to the employees working in Administrative and other categories is open to the categories of Technical Assistants-A to the extent of 25% of the vacancies through LDCE and remaining 75% of the vacancies are reserved for direct recruitment quota. All the applicants had appeared for the said examination against the notification during the years July 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 but they could not be selected during the relevant years. It is the further case of the applicants that an Advertisement was issued on 19.7.2002 inviting applications for filling up the said posts. The qualification for the said posts mentioned in the said Advertisement was altered by Daily Order dated 29.7.2002 omitting Bachelor Degree in Library Science and in its place Bachelor's Degree in Library Science with minimum one year diploma in Library Science was prescribed on the basis of the amendment to the recruitment rules issued, vide notification dated 28.7.2002. Aggrieved by the said amended educational qualification prescribed for the said post of Technical Assistant-A which post is re-designated as Senior Technical Assistant-A, the applicants have approached this Tribunal in the present O.A. seeking for the above reliefs after submitting their individual representations to the authorities to consider their candidature according to the educational qualification prescribed under the pre-amended rules for promotion to the said post by permitting them to appear for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and when the said representations were rejected, the applicants approached this Tribunal for the above reliefs in the preset O.A.
9. The respondents filed their reply statements in all these O.As. with the following common contentions:
The Defence Research and Development Organisation was set up in the year 1958. It is a Science oriented organisation and is engaged in the research and development of Arms, Ammunition, Weapon Systems and Technologies to meet the needs of the Armed Forces. The real work of research and development is undertaken by various labs located all over the country. The labs undertake various projects to develop the Arms, Ammunition and Weapon System depending over the Qualitative Requirements projected by Armed Forces. The completion of project and allotment of new projects is an unceasing activity. The manpower of DRDO is divided among various categories viz., Scientists, Technical Assistants, Administrative and allied categories. Scientists forming the core group are engaged in the actual research and development work. The Technical Assistants are responsible to provide assistance in the matter of research and development. The Administrative and allied categories of staff, as the name indicates, provide administrative support and perform other duties like Security, Fire Fighting etc. In the matter of recruitment, the scientists are recruited through open competition by advertising the vacancies, through talent search scheme and some vacancies are earmarked for departmental employees who possess the educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment and have rendered service mentioned in the Rules. Similarly, the Technical staff is recruited through open competition by advertising the posts and certain percentage of vacancies are earmarked for Departmental candidates who possess the prescribed educational qualification and length of service. The quota of vacancies for departmental candidates is aimed at picking up the qualified manpower from within the department who also have the knowledge of working in the organisation. But keeping in view the nature of work of the organisation, as per Government policy, no relaxation is granted in the educational qualification. In a nutshell, an employee of the organisation, regardless of the category to which he belongs, has the chances to improve his career prospects through the channel of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) provided he is educationally qualified and has rendered the requisite service. The applicants belong to Admin/Allied categories and are contesting for entry into Technical category through LDCE. This category of staff is governed by Defence Research Technical Cadre Rules, 2000 (DRTC Rules, 2000) as amended from time to time. The Defence Research Development Organisation Technical Cadre Rules were initially promulgated on 26.8.1995 vide SRO No. 117/95. Keeping in view the policy of the Government on revision of RRS, various amendments to SRO 177/ 95 were made vide SRO 296 dated 5.12.2000. Till now these rules have been amended twice for the following reasons:
(a) 1st Amendment: There is a provision in Rule 6(1) of DRTC Rules, 2000 to give 3 months relaxation, in minimum qualifying service of 5 years for eligibility for assessment to next higher posts to direct recruits/promotees who join after 1st September (the appointed day for computing the qualifying service) for reasons beyond their control. The Committee on subordinate Legislation of Lok Sabha observed that before granting such relaxation reasons should be recorded in writing so as to avoid misuse of the discretionary power. Accordingly, 1st amendment was notified vide SRO 50 dated 12.2.2000 in accordance with the suggestion of the Committee of Subordinate Legislation of Lok Sabha.
(b) 2nd Amendment : A Standing Committee was appointed by the Organisation on the DRTC. One of the recommendations of this Committee was that the educational qualification required for the post of Senior Technical Assistant 'A' (erstwhile Technical Assistant-A) in the Library Science or Information and Documentation stream should be "Degree in Science with one year Diploma in Library Science" instead of existing mere "Bachelor's Degree in Library Science". The justification for recommended amendments are the DRDO is essentially a Science Oriented Organisation. It is necessary that personnel manning the post of Senior Technical Assistant-A; in Libraries, have Science background at Degree level to enable them to function effectively.
10. The Technical Information Centres/Knowledge Centres in the Labs of this Organisation are not akin to general Libraries providing books on general subjects to the public. Here books, periodicals and other literature on highly technical and scientific matters, dealt with by that lab, are stocked. In order to effectively work in such libraries, a Degree in Science is considered essential. As per DRTC Rules, 2000, the Posts of Technical Assistant, Technical Assistant-C and Senior Technical Assistant-C were redesignated as Senior Technician-A, Senior Technician-B and Senior Technician-C respectively. This change in designation was not accepted by staff and lot of representations were received. The matter was raised in the JCM Screening Committing and the following re-designations were decided:
Category--A From To Senior Technician 'A' Technical Assistant 'A' Senior Technician 'B' Technical Assistant 'B' Senior Technician 'C' Technical Assistant 'C' Category -- B From To Technical Assistant 'A' Senior Technical Assistant 'A' Technical Assistant 'B' Senior Technical Assistant 'B' Technical Assistant 'C' Senior Technical Assistant 'C'
11. The above changes were also notified in SRO 147/2002 on 28.6.2002 and published in the Gazette on 13.7.2002. Besides these two changes notified by this SRO, it will be seen that in the same SRO, the persons with higher educational qualification like M.Sc. Ph.D., B.Tech, B.E. Degrees etc., have been precluded from entry into DRTC due to the administrative, behavioural and social problems faced by the organisation because of entry of such highly qualified persons at lower level in DRTC. There are a few other cases where the organisation has revised the educational qualification both for direct entrants and departmental employees to meet the changing organisational needs. It can be summed up that the rules have been amended in accordance with the policy of Government. The amendments are based on cogent reasons and have been incorporated to meet the changing organisational needs and to ensure equitable treatment to all. An archaic provisions in the service rules, which has outlived its utility, can not be allowed to be used by the Departmental employees as a corridor to walk into higher echelons of employee welfare measure but will provide disastrous for the efficiency of the organisation which it can ill afford. After the amendment of the recruitment rules by SRO 147 dated 28.6.2002 the earlier post of Technical Assistant-A is no more available and the said post was re-designated as Senior Technical Assistant-A with amended recruitment rules to fill up the same. Hence the contention of the applicants that the recruitment rules for the earlier posts have to be continued even after re-designation is unsustainable in law and as such liable to be rejected. As the applicants are not fulfilling the required qualification as per the recruitment, the rejection of their case for the said LDCE is legal and valid. The Libraries in the Labs of the Organisation are not akin to the general libraries which provide books of general interest to the public. Rather these are termed as Technical Information Centers/ Knowledge Centers which contain books, periodicals and other literature on highly scientific and technical matters dealt with by that particular lab. As such, the said amendment in the recruitment rules is required to meet the organisational needs. It is the policy of the Government to review the recruitment rules after an interval of 5 years so that they can meet the changing needs of the organisation. This process cannot be stopped just to ensure that some departmental employees who acquired any of qualification to become eligible for appearing in LDCE for some post get duly appointed on the basis of such qualifications. Such a step will be a retrograde step and will negate the object behind the policy to constantly review and revise the recruitment rules to address the organisational needs. It is apparent that the amendments have been issued in consonance with policy of the Government on the subject with a definite element of public interest. The averment of the applicants that the said amendments are arbitrary and have been issued to deprive them of the chances of a career advancement through LDCE are baseless and unfounded. The tenets of state policy are announced after observing all the legalities and its observance cannot be said to be violative of principles of natural justice. This averment of the applicants is indicative of the ignorance of the significance of the term used by them. The DRDO is a project based organisation. The manpower requirement varies as and when a new project is sanctioned or an existing project is completed. In order to meet the man power requirement, the organisation has been given an upper limit upto which the posts can be filled up. In case of any increase, the required number of posts are activated within this ceiling. Similarly, the deficiencies are also apportioned to this ceiling. In the matter of promotion of technical cadre, this organisation is following flexible complementing system of promotion. In this system, the promotion is not linked to availability of vacancy in the grade to which an officer is to be promoted. Rather, the post held by the officer automatically stands upgraded once he is assessed fit for promotion by the Selection Board. Similarly, on retirement of an officer, the vacancy arises in the lowest grade and not in grade in which he retires. As such, year-wise vacancy system is strictly not applicable in this organisation. Consequently, the judgment quoted by the applicants can not be invoked in this case, as the vacancies in the re-designated posts arose on after 13.7.2002. LDCE does not guarantee promotion to the departmental employees. It just provides an opportunity to appear in the LDCE provided he is eligible and the lab has a requirement of a person from the particular discipline and this eligibility has to be determined in accordance with the current provision of the rules. As such, the contention of the applicants is misconceived. It is true that the recruitment rules provide some vacancies to be filled by eligible departmental employees who qualify in LDCE. But this provision is not absolute. It is circumcised by other provision of the recruitment rules relating to educational qualification, number of overall vacancies etc. Even these Recruitment Rules are liable to revision as per the slate policy. Such revisions do not preclude revision of educational qualifications. It therefore implies that it is competent for the department to revise the rules and once the eligibility criteria is revised, the departmental employees have also to be assessed as per revised criteria. The respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of these O.As.
12. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants in O.A. Nos. 1123/2003 and 1124/2003 Mr. V. Venkateswara Rao; the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants in O.A. Nos. 1116/2003 and 1129/2003 Mr. S. Ramakrishna Rao and the learned standing Counsel for the respondents Mr. G. Jai Prakash Babu.
13. The learned Counsel for the applicants in all these O.As. mainly contended that the amended rules cannot be made applicable in respect of the vacancies existing in the cadre of Technical Assistant-A prior to the date on which the amended rules came into existence and all the applicants are entitled to be considered for promotion to the redesigned post of Technical Assistant-A as per the unamended rules governing the said post. The amended rules which came into force with effect from 13.7.2002 cannot be made applicable in respect of the applicants for promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant-A since the said posts were lying vacant from August 2001. They further contended that the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination is to be conducted in respect of all of them on the basis of their eligibility according to the educational qualifications prescribed under the pre-amended rules which were in vogue for several years. In support of their contentions, the learned Counsel for the applicants have relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1983(1) SLR 789 in the case of "Y.V. Rangaiah and Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors." wherein it was held that, "Andhra Pradesh Registration and Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 4(a)(1)(i)-Appointment/Promotion to the grade of Sub-Registrars - Panel required to be prepared on 1st September of every year - Amendment of Rule in 1977 taking away rights of promotion of Lower Division Clerks - Vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rule would be governed by the old rules and not by amended rules -Amended rules will be applicable to the vacancies which arose after amendment."
14. They also relied upon another decision of the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, 2002(2) ATJ 420 in the case of "C.B. Narnauli and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors." wherein it was held that, "Promotion from the post of Dy. Director to the post of Director - Five vacancies occurred in 1999 - No DPC meeting to fill these posts on the ground that 20 posts out of 49 posts have been upgraded as Joint Director and new recruitment rules are yet to be finalised in terms of 5th C.P.C. - Held candidates who have been eligible for further promotions as per existing recruitment rules cannot be made to wait indefinitely so that Govt. can make changes in the recruitment rules and then convene DPC meetings for new intermediate posts i.e., Joint Director's post -
Recruitment Rules which have not come into existence will have prospective effect - Vacancies occurred in 1999 have to be filled in accordance with the then existing rules - Direction given to convene DPC for considering the eligibility of candidates including applicants for promotion - Applicants if found fit entitled to notional promotion from the date they became eligible and actual monetary benefits be given from the date of filing of the present O.A."
15. Placing reliance on the above decision, the learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that in the instant cases also the amended recruitment rules for filling up the post of Senior Technical Assistant-A which came into effect from 13.7.2002 have to be applied only in respect of the vacancies of the said post which arose after the said date i.e., after 13.7.2002 and the vacancies existing prior to the said date are to be filled according to the eligibility criteria prescribed under the pre-amended rules. The learned Counsel for the applicants further contended that in respect of the carry forward vacancies of the previous year, notification dated 19.7.2002 was issued for conducting Limited Department Competitive Examination in respect of 25% vacancies for the departmental candidates. In reply to the above submission, the learned standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the post of Technical Assistant-A has been re-designated as Senior Technical Assistant-A with effect from 28.6.2002 as notified in SRO 147/2002 and published in the Gazette on 13.7.2002. After amendment of the recruitment rules by SRO 147/2002 dated 28.6.2002, the earlier post of Technical Assistant-A is no more available and the said post was redesignated as Senior Technical Assistant-A with the amended recruitment rules to fill up the same. He, therefore submitted that the contention of the applicants that the recruitment rules for the earlier posts have to be continued even after re-designation of the posts, is unsustainable in law and as the applicants are not fulfilling the required qualifications as per the amended rules, the rejection of their cases for the said Limited Departmental Competitive Examination was legal and valid. He further submitted that as per rules, there is no provision to carry forward the unfilled vacancies of LDCE quota and such unfilled vacancies are required to be filled up by direct recruitment. He further submitted that in the matter of promotion of the Technical cadre, the organisation is following the flexible complementing system of promotion. In this system, the promotion is not linked to availability of vacancies in the grade to which an officer is to be promoted. Rather, the post held by the officer automatically stands upgraded once he is assessed fit for promotion by the Selection Board. Similarly, on retirement of an officer, the vacancy arises in the lowest grade and not in grade in which he retires. As such, year-wise vacancy system is strictly not applicable in this organisation. He, therefore, submitted that the above decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants cannot be invoked in these cases as the vacancies in the redesignated post arose only after 13.7.2002. It is further contended by him that the recruitment rules have been amended in accordance with the policy of the Government. The amendments are based on cogent reasons and have been incorporated to meet the changing organisational needs and to ensure equitable treatment to all. He further submitted that all the amendments have been issued in consonance with the policy of the Government on the subject with a definite element of public interest. According to him, the recruitment rules are liable to revision as per the state policy and such revisions do not preclude revision of educational qualifications. It therefore implies that it is competent for the Department to revise the rules and once the eligibility criteria is revised, the departmental employees have also to be assessed as per the revised criteria. In support of these contentions, he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1986(4) SLR 155=1990(1) SLJ 61 (SC) in the case of "T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana and Ors.", wherein it was held in Para 16 as follows:
"It is well settled that the power to frame rules to regulate the conditions of service under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution carries with it the power to amend or alter the rules with a retrospective effect. It is equally well settled that any rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotion is a condition of service although mere chances of promotion may not be. It may further be stated that an authority competent to lay down qualifications for promotion, is also competent to change the qualifications. The rules defining qualifications and suitability for promotion are conditions of service and they can be charged retrospectively. This rule is however subject to a well-recognised principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309 which effect or impairs vested rights. Therefore, unless it is specifically provided in the rules, the employees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules, can not be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled. In other words, such rules laying down qualifications for promotion made with retrospective effect must necessarily satisfy the test of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution."
16. He also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1997) 1 SCC 253 in the case of "Commissioner, Corporation of Madras v. Madras Corporation Teachers' Mandram and Ors.". wherein it was held that, "Creation of, and prescription of qualifications for- Scope of judicial interference with - Direction to create a post or to prescribe the minimum qualifications for the post, cannot be given by the Court or the Administrative Tribunal as the matter is one of legal or executive policy of the Government."
17. He also brought to our notice another latest decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1999(3) SCC 653=1999(3) SLJ 315 (SC) in the case of "State of J&K v. Shiv Ram Sharma and Ors.", wherein it was held that, "It is permissible to the Government to prescribe appropriate qualifications in the matter of appointment or promotion to different posts. There is no indefeasible right in the respondents to claim promotion to a higher grade to which qualification could be prescribed. There is no guarantee that rules framed by the Government in that behalf would also be favourable to them. The principle of avoiding stagnation in a particular post will not be with reference to a particular individual employee but with reference to the conditions of service as such. As long as the rules provide for avenues of promotion to higher grades, the observations made in "T.R. Kothandaraman's case (reported in (1994) 6 SCC 282, in the case of "T.R. Kothandaraman v. T.N. Water Supply and Drainage Board" stand fulfilled."
18. In Para 6 of the same decision, the earlier case in "Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India" reported in AIR 1967 SC 1889, was referred wherein it was held that, "Once appointed, an employee has no vested right in regard to the terms of service but acquires a status and, therefore, the rights and obligations thereto are no longer determined by the consent of the parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government."
19. Thus, it is clear from the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred cases that the applicants have no vested or indefeasible right to claim promotion to the higher post on the basis of the educational qualification prescribed under the old rules when the recruitment rules have been amended in the year 2002, before issuing the notification dated 10.9.2003 for filling up the post of Sr. Technical Assistant-A through DRTC-LDCE for the year 2003. Since the amended rules came into effect from the date of their publication in the Gazette of India i.e., on 13.7.2002 and the notification has been issued subsequently to fill up the post on 10.9.2003, the authorities are entitled to consider only those in service candidates who possess the said higher educational qualification prescribed permitting them to appear for the LDCE in respect of 25% quota of the posts reserved and the applicants who do not possess the said higher educational qualification are not eligible for consideration for the said promotional post under LDCE quota. We also agree with the submission made by the respondents that the post of Senior Technical Assistant-A being in the restructured cadre, it cannot be said that the said posts notified are to be considered as carry forward vacancies of the previous years. Apart from this fact, it is not the case of the applicants in all these O.As. that in respect of the vacancies which arose prior to the amended rules in respect of the posts of Technical Assistant-A they have not been provided opportunity to appear for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held in the previous years. On the other hand, the applicant in O.A. No. 1116/2003 has admitted in Para 4 Clause (3) that he had appeared for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination against the notification during the years July, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001, but he could not be selected during the relevant years. According to him, in the year 2002 when he was contemplating to appear for the said examination, the respondents have amended the rules by changing the Technical Assistant- A and thereafter the 3rd respondent issued notification dated 10.9.2003 proposing to fill the post of Senior Technical Assistant - A through LDCE for the year 2003. It cannot, therefore, be said that in respect of carry forward vacancies of previous years, the amended rules are sought to be applied. Further, the applicants are not entitled to contend that merely because they were not selected for the same post in the previous years, the unfilled vacancies of the previous years are to be filled only according to the un-amended rules, so far as they are concerned, irrespective of the fact that they may take restructured as Senior Technical Assistant - A prescribing qualifications required for the said restructured post under the amended rules, it cannot be said that the vacancies were notified in respect of the carry forward vacancies of previous years which remained unfilled in the previous selections held. We, therefore, find that the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants reported in, 1983(1) SLR 789 (SC) and 2002 (2) ATJ 420, are not applicable to the facts of the instant cases. The facts in those cases are also quite different from the facts of the instant cases. In the decision reported in, 1983( 1) SLR 789, it was found that the panel required to be prepared for promotion to the grade of Sub-Registrar on 1st September of every year has not been prepared as on 1st September 1976 in respect of the vacancies that existed at that time and only after the amendment of Rules in 1997 the said post is sought to be filled up taking away the right of promotion of Lower Division Clerks. It is on these facts it was held that in respect of vacancies existed prior to the date of amendment of the rules, the posts are to be filled up as per un-amended rules. In the other decision reported in, 2002 (2) ATJ 420, of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in respect of 5 vacancies of the posts of Director, occurred in 1999, no DPC was held to fill these posts on the ground that 20 posts out of 49 posts have been upgraded as Joint Director and new recruitment rules are yet to be finalised in terms of 5th C.P.C. It is on these facts it was held that the candidates who have been eligible for further promotion as per the existing recruitment rules cannot be made to wait indefinitely so that Government can make changes in the recruitment rules and then convene DPC meetings for new intermediate posts i.e. Joint Director's post and the recruitment rules which have not come into existence will have prospective effect. But in the instant cases, in respect of vacancies which arose in the previous years, selections were held providing opportunity to the applicants to appear for the written test during the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 for the post of Technical Assistant-A under LDCE quota of 25%. The applicants who could not be selected during the relevant years are, therefore, not entitled to contend that even under the notification issued in the year 2003 after the recruitment rules were amended, they must be permitted to appear for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, according to the qualification prescribed under the old rules though they are not eligible to appear for the said selection under the amended rules on account of their not possessing degree in Science. Further, the Language in the amended Rules of 2002 clearly indicates that the amended rules are meant to apply to the existing personnel already holding the lower feeder posts. Since the educational qualification prescribed under the amended rules for the post of Senior Technical Assistant - A is by way of substitution of old rules, we find that the applicants are not entitled to contend that the said amended rules cannot be made applicable to them. Further this Tribunal is not entitled to interfere with the policy decision taken by Government by way of introducing necessary educational qualifications under the amended rules to meet organisational needs with definite element of public interest. We, therefore, find that the applicants in all these O.As are not entitled to the reliefs sought for by them.
20. All these O.As. are, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.