Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Writ petitioners have filed the writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to revise and fix the inter se seniority of the petitioners and the respondents 5 to 13 in the category of Supervisors in accordance with their seniority in the category of Senior Intelcom Operators and as per the relevant rules. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the writ petitioners would submit that themselves and respondents No. 5 to 13 entered the service as Junior Checkers in the Traffic Wing of the Government of India Overseas Communication, Service during the years 1954 to 1957; that after the prescribed training, they were promoted as Senior Intelcom Operators; that they are seniors to respondents 5 to 13 as per the Gradation List published by the Department; that according to the Rules, on completion of 7 years service and on passing the efficiency bar examination, they would become eligible for promotion to the post of Supervisor on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The petitioners would further submit that the Overseas Communication Services was constituted into a Public Sector undertaking viz., Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., with effect from 1-4-1986 by the first respondent and the services of the petitioners and the respondents No. 5 to 13 were transferred to the said undertaking by a letter dated 11-12-1989; that by a memorandum dated 11-12-1989, the third respondent Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., issued a notice of observation to all the persons including the petitioners and respondents No. 5 to 13 that though the petitioners had exercised option for absorption into the regular service of the third respondent with effect from 2-1-1990, respondents No. 1 to 4 did not issue any final order of acceptance; that no service rules had also been framed by the third respondent resulting in petitioners and respondent No. 5 to 13 still continuing to be governed by the Rules of the first respondent Government.The petitioners would further submit that they are seniors to respondents 5 to 13 in the category of Senior Intelcom Operators, they having been placed at serial No. 31, 40, 45, 47, 62 and 63, whereas the respondent No. 5 to 13 have been placed at Serial Nos. 38, 58, 59, 69, 70, 71, 73, 78 and 80 in the seniority list of Senior Intelcom Operators as per the gradation list published by the department; that they were qualified and promoted as Supervisors; that however the third respondents passed orders 21-11-1989 and 8-2-1990 promoting the respondents No. 5 to 13 as Supervisors on regular basis, thus evidently overlooking the seniority of the petitioners and failing to promote them as Supervisors and that the representations made by the petitioners in this regard were of no avail. The petitioners would further contend that they joining hands with three others, filed O.A. No. 393 of 1990 in the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing the orders passed by the third respondent dated 21-11-1989 and 8-2-1990 promoting the respondents No. 5 to 13 and for directing the third respondent to promote and appoint the petitioners and others as Supervisors on regular basis and in accordance with their seniority, that the third respondent raised a preliminary objection on ground of lack of jurisdiction for the Central Administrative Tribunal contending that the petitioners and others have become regular employees of the third respondent which had not been notified to come within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985; that during the pendency of the above O.A. all the petitioners were promoted as Supervisors and placed below the respondents 5 to 13; that afterwards the Administrative Tribunal passed orders upholding the contentions of the third respondents regarding the question of the jurisdiction and dismissing the Original Application on 30-9-1991; that the representations made by the petitioners to the respondents No. 1 to 4 in this regard were also of no avail; that such kind of overlooking the seniority of the petitioners as against respondents Nos. 5 to 13 who are juniors to them amounts to undue preference and hostile discrimination besides violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; that ignoring the due seniority and overlooking their seniority amounts to imposing punishment on the petitioners who are made juniors to the respondents No. 5 to 13 in the category of Supervisors and hence it also amounts to violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India; that the Act perpetrated on the part of the respondents Nos. 1 and 4 is quite arbitrary and capricious besides being illegal and unjust; that they are bound to revise and fix the seniority of petitioners over and above the respondents 5 to 13 in accordance with the Rules and Principles enunciated by this High Court in the decision reported in 1985 2 Mad LJ 70 : (1985 Lab IC 917) (FB). With such averments the petitioners would pray to grant the relief extracted supra.At a stage when the above matter was taken up for consideration the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would not only submit that the petitioners 1, 2 and 4 were reported to have been dead and none of their legal representatives were interested in getting themselves impleaded and hence would pray for the writ petition to be ordered as abated so far as it related to petitioners 1, 2 and 4 but also would make an endorsement on the very writ petition to the said effect and hence it is hereby ordered that this writ petition so far as it is concerned with petitioners 1, 2 and 4 abates and only for the other petitioners No. 3, 5 and 6, this writ petition is heard and decided herein. On the part of the respondent no counter has been filed but the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent would only advance his arguments on instructions imparted to him by the 4th respondent would only advance his arguments on instructions imparted to him by the 4th respondent. None of the other respondents was represented during enquiry. Mr. I. Mohoboob Sheriff, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, would contend that the writ petition so far as it is concerned with petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 abated since they are dead and not replaced by their legal representatives as per the endorsement dated 7-2-2000 and hence only the writ petitioners Nos. 3, 5 and 6 are the contesting petitioners. The learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioners and respondents Nos. 5 to 13 entered the service during the years 1954-57; that all of them got promoted as the senior Intelcom Operators; that on 1-4-1986 the Government department got constituted as Public Sector Undertaking placing 4th respondent as M.D. : that it is the 4th respondent who is relevant and not even respondents Nos. 1 to 3; that respondents Nos. 5 to 13 entered the service during the years 1954-57; that all of them got promoted as the senior Intelcom Operators; that on 1-4-1986 the Government department got constituted as Public Sector Undertaking placing 4th respondent as M.D. : that it is the 4th respondent who is relevant and not even respondents Nos. 1 to 3; that respondents Nos. 5 to 13 were promoted by 4th respondent on ad hoc basis; that the petitioners were transferred on 2-1-1990 that there were no separate rules framed and it was only the Civil Service Rules pertaining to the Government of India which were followed; that the petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 were seniors to the respondents Nos. 5 to 13 in the category of Senior Intelcom Operators; that so far as the order of seniority is concerned there is no dispute; that while promoting respondents 5 to 13, the 4th respondent did not follow the seniority but placed respondents Nos. 5 to 13 above the petitioners.The learned Counsel would further submit that it was the jurisdiction that was decided before the Central Administrative Tribunal; that since the Tribunal said that it had no jurisdiction to say in the language of the Tribunal "by reason of this as well as the conditions of service as framed by the VSNL, we hold that the applicants had no lien in Government service any longer" and hence the writ petition before this Court; that the inter se seniority had not been adhered to by the 4th respondent thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India; that 4th respondent wrongly promoted the respondents Nos. 5 to 13 overlooking the seniority of the petitioners giving undue preference to the said respondents who are similarly placed; that equals are treated as unequals; that since they did not prepare the rules for themselves till the filing of the writ petition they have to follow the rules of the Government and have to refix the seniority. At this juncture the learned Counsel would cite decisions rendered already in Syed Mohideen v. Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 1985 2 Mad LJ 70 : (1985 Lab IC 917) (FB), wherein it is held (at p. 930 of Lab IC) : "Seniority is one of the important matters relating to the conditions of service, because it has a direct bearing on the question of promotion to the next higher grade. Where promotion to the next higher grade is based on the principles of seniority and merit, the seniority of an official becomes important, because where a senior official is suitable for promotion, he is entitled to get promotion on the basis of his seniority in preference to juniors. Even in cases where promotion is based on selection, seniority is also important, because where persons are selected to the next higher post on the basis of merit and suitability from among persons of equal merit, a senior is entitled to be preferred for appointment. See Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, at 1916).The general principles in our view for fixing seniority are now well established. Seniority is always counted from amongst persons holding similar posts with similar status. Persons holding permanent or substantive posts are always treated as seniors to persons holding appointments on temporary or officiating posts." With this arguments saying that his prayer is to direct the 4th respondent to refix the seniority of the petitioners and respondents Nos. 5 to 13, the learned Counsel would conclude his arguments. In reply, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent would submit that the post for Supervisors is a selection post for which it is not the seniority but the merit and therefore promotion is not an automatic one; that the feeder category is Senior Intelcom Operators and Head Checkers; that the list would be drawn up from these two categories and the Departmental Promotion Committee consisting of the General Manager and the three Deputy Managers would select candidates from these two feeder categories; that the promotion meeting was held on 27-3-1989 that serial No. 17 is the first petitioner and he has been assessed as good; next is serial No. 18, he has been assessed as very good; that then comes serial Nos. 19 and 21 who are the petitioners, who had expired; that then comes serial No. 26 who is assessed as good; that serial No. 29 also has expired; serial No. 36 is assessed is very good. Serial No. 37 is also assessed as very good. Serial No. 40 is the 5th petitioner, serial No. 40 is the 5th petitioner, serial No. 41 is the 6th petitioner and they have also been assessed very good; that serial Nos. 44, 45, 46 and 48 who are respectively Nos. Serial No. 37 is also assessed as very good. Serial No. 40 is the 5th petitioner, serial No. 40 is the 5th petitioner, serial No. 41 is the 6th petitioner and they have also been assessed very good; that serial Nos. 44, 45, 46 and 48 who are respectively Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 have been assessed very good. Serial No. 40, Serial No. 12 have also been assessed as good. Serial No. 55 is assessed as very good. Serial No. 1 retired. Serial Nos. VII and X to be considered in the event of refusal by any official belonging to S.C. Citting the above index, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would lay emphasis that the seniority was fixed on merit; that the Rule says promotion to the post of Supervisor is a selection one and the Departmental Promotion Committee would only select them; that if it is a non-selection post, automatically, the seniors get selected and if it is a selection post, it is the Departmental Promotion Committee which will select them; that the petitioners would not attribute any motive to the departmental Promotion Committee.In clarification, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the selection is arbitrary; that according to Rule 10 of the terms and conditions of permanent absorption of the staff of OCS in VSNL it is the only recruitment or transfer and in the absence of any such thing, the merit and seniority are to be considered; that no direct recruitment from open market shall be made and then it has to be done from out of the feeder category; that it is according to the Service Rules that are to be done; that there is nothing in the Rules that the Departmental Promotion Committee can overlook the seniority; that there are no norms nor guidelines so far and hence the learned Counsel for the petitioner would again lay emphasis on allowing the writ petition. Assessing the merit of the case based on the pleadings of the petitioners and having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned Counsel for both the petitioners and the respondent No. 4, what comes to be known is that the petitioners and the respondents 5 to 13 are of equal cadre and belong to the post of Head Checkers; that there is also an equal cadre viz. Senior Intelcom Operators both of which are the feeder posts for the selection posts of Supervisors; that in spite of the petitioners and respondents 5 to 13 belonging to one and the same cadre, overlooking the seniority of the petitioners, the respondents 5 to 13 have been promoted to the post of Supervisors and hence claiming to maintain the seniority directly even on promotion, the petitioners have come forward to file this writ petition seeking the relief to direct the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to revise and refix the inter se seniority of the petitioners and respondents 5 to 13 in the category of Supervisors in accordance with the category of Supervisors in accordance with the category of Senior Intelcom Operators.On the part of the 4th respondent it would be argued that the post of the supervisor is a cadre post; that for promotion for a non-cadre post, Seniority is the automatic norm thus adopted, but since the post of Supervisor being a cadre post, it is not the seniority but the merit that counts and in order to guage the merit of each and every candidate, they constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee consisting of the General Manager and the three Deputy Managers to select the candidates from the feeder categories viz., the Head Checkers and Senior Intelcom Operators and going through the entires effected in the merit chart prepared by the Department giving credence to the more merited persons, seniority had been fixed at the time of promotion to the post of Supervisor and hence the respondents 5 to 13 being more merited than the petitioners, their seniority was fixed over and above the petitioners and such fixation of seniority on promotion since being on rational basis such of the acts of respondents 1 to 4 neither be termed as arbitrary or capricious, but quite legal and rational and would thus try to justify the fixation of the seniority of the respondents 5 to 13 over and above the petitioners. It is evident that the third respondent Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited of which the 4th respondent is the General Manager does not have the Rules of its own and hence so long as such Rules are (not) framed, it should follow the Rules of the Government that existed already. It is evident that the third respondent Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited of which the 4th respondent is the General Manager does not have the Rules of its own and hence so long as such Rules are (not) framed, it should follow the Rules of the Government that existed already. There is also no denying of the fact that for sensitive posts the promotion and seniority should be given paramount consideration and in case other things being equal, it is the seniority that should be given credence to as held by the upper forums of law especially the Apex Court. Hence, it is relevant to go into the question whether such norms as propounded by the upper forums of law have been strictly adhered to while fixing the seniority on promotion of the petitioners and the respondents 5 to 13 is the main point that is to be considered.Though elaborate arguments have been advanced on the part of the 4th respondent by his learned Counsel counter to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner who asserted that it is the seniority that should be taken into account for fixing the seniority on promotion to the post of Supervisor and all other norms adopted are either arbitrary or capricious, still the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent is not able to convince the Court as to what is the basis for the appointment of the Departmental Promotion Committee thus empowering such a committee to go into the merit of the cases. It is admitted on the part of the 4th respondent that for the Management still no Rules, governing the promotion and fixation of seniority, have been framed and also the respondents have failed to show such Government Rule which is applicable in the circumstances providing for the very appointment of the Departmental Promotion Committee to go into the merit of the matter. Hence, at this juncture it has to be concluded that the very appointment of the Committee itself is bereft of any authority of law and hence the acts perpetrated on the part of such Committee cannot be taken for granted for the purpose of fixing the seniority on promotion. Hence, at this juncture it has to be concluded that the very appointment of the Committee itself is bereft of any authority of law and hence the acts perpetrated on the part of such Committee cannot be taken for granted for the purpose of fixing the seniority on promotion. Secondly, from the list of remarks, all the instances shown by the 4th respondent in general for all the candidates whether they are the petitioners or the respondents, either good or very good remarks are only offered and nothing else. There is no denying of the fact that the petitioners have been offered the remarks 'good' and none of the petitioners has been remarked to have been either bad or incompetent or slack in duty or in any manner blacklisted for having indulged in acts undersirable on their part or unbecoming to their status thus degrading the dignity of the posts held by them. No doubt, by getting the good remarks, it comes to be known that their performance is to the expectations of the Department and just for the simple reason that the respondents 5 to 13 have been offered very good remarks, it does not make a gulf of difference so as to differentiate the petitioners from the respondents 5 to 13 and place the respondents 5 to 13 overlooking the seniority of the petitioners. When there are no adverse entries effected for any of the petitioners but admittedly having obtained good reports, just for the simple reason that the respondents 5 to 13 have been offered very good report, in spite of being admittedly juniors to the petitioners, should they be given priority in promotional opportunities so as to be placed over and above the heads of their seniors overlooking their seniority for no fault committed on the part of the petitioners but for the only reason of having obtained the good report ? This is nothing short of an act perpetrated in discrimination of the seniority that already existed while they were all serving in the feeder post. This would only mean that the petitioners have been punished for having not committed anything wrong with denial of their due seniority as against their own juniors and sure such discrimination shown among equals, as it is rightly argued on the part of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. This would only mean that the petitioners have been punished for having not committed anything wrong with denial of their due seniority as against their own juniors and sure such discrimination shown among equals, as it is rightly argued on the part of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Such discriminations shown would only demoralise the entire cadre which would not be for the good of the management or a healthy atmosphere to persist among those who serve the management.One can understand if the petitioners have been effected with adverse entries in the Service Register or in the Confidential Report on account of which his seniority is overlooked. For no faults committed but for having received good entries from their higher ups, just for the simple reason the respondents 5 to 13 have been offered very good remarks, the seniority of the petitioners should not have been overlooked and the juniors placed above the seniors during promotion to the higher post. Moreover, often such remarks would depend on the temperament of the Officer effecting such entries. Differentiating the employees or Officers of the same cadre on subtle difference in the remarks offered and overlooking the senority that already existed and appointing the juniors over and above the heads of their seniors is nothing but discriminatory and offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and in all probabilities it is to be held that the grievance of the petitioners is genuine and well founded and there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondents, especially respondent No. 4, to have overlooked the seniority of the petitioners. In result, the above writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The respondents 1 to 4 are directed to revise and refix the inter se seniority of the petitioners 3, 5 and 6 and the respondents 5 to 13 in the category of Supervisors in accordance with their seniority in the category of Senior Intelcom Operators and in accordance with the relevant Rules and accord such benefits from the time of promoting the respondents 5 to 13 as Supervisors by orders dated 21-11-1989 and 8-2-1990. Since it is the long pending one, the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to expedite the process of fixation of seniority in the manner indicated above within 30 days from the date of production of this order. Since it is the long pending one, the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to expedite the process of fixation of seniority in the manner indicated above within 30 days from the date of production of this order. No costs.Consequently, W.M.P. No. 22154 of 1996 is closed.