ORDER 1. Application for impleadment is allowed. 2. The dispute in these appeals relates to the service conditions of the employees in the Posts and Telegraphs Department, Telecommunications Branch. The service conditions are governed by rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution in 1979 known as "the Posts and Telegraphs Department, Telecommunication Branch (Selection Grade Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1979" (hereinafter referred to as the 1979 Rules). The Rules have been made applicable to the posts specified in the Schedule to the Rules. The Schedule also specifies the scales of pay and the method of recruitment to the posts in question. On the basis of the scales of pay the posts may be classified under the four grades, namely, Grades I, II, III and IV. For our purpose we are concerned with Grade II with a pay scale of Rs 425640 and Grade III carrying a pay scale of Rs 550-750. 3. Under Grade II there are several posts which have been mentioned against Serial Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Grade I would be the feeder post from which the posts in Grade II would be filled, namely, the Upper Division Clerks as mentioned in column 12 to the Schedule of the Rules. As far as promotion to Grade II is concerned the Rules mention that it would be by way of promotion i.e. (i) 66 2/3% on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, and (ii) 33 1/3% by selection. Grade III posts are the posts carrying the pay scale of Rs 550-750 covering posts mentioned against Serial Nos. 1,4 and 5 of the same Schedule to which promotion is from Grade II. 4. The contesting respondents are employees who were promoted to Grade II from Grade and were selected for such promotion on the basis of departmental examinations held in 1981. As a consequence of this promotion, the other officers in Grade I who had not passed the departmental examination became junior to the appellants (sic respondents) irrespective of the length of their service in Grade I. The question which has arisen for decision in these appeals is whether a scheme subsequently adopted by the Department could deprive the contesting respondents of the seniority which they attained on being promoted in 1981. In order to decide this issue certain other facts need to be noted. 5. In 1983 the appellants framed the One Time-Bound Promotion Scheme (OTBP Scheme). In order to decide this issue certain other facts need to be noted. 5. In 1983 the appellants framed the One Time-Bound Promotion Scheme (OTBP Scheme). It provided inter alia that the promotion to Grade II posts on the basis of departmental examinations would be abolished. It also provided for promotion to those who had continued in regular service for 16 years in the basic grade, namely, Grade I to Grade II. The Scheme, how made it clear that these promotions by reason of the OTBP Scheme w not affect the seniority of those who had been promoted to Grade II under, 1979 Rules. As such the contesting respondents before us and other promotees were all senior to those employees who obtained the benefit of OTBP Scheme. 6. In 1990 there was a further scheme which was called the Biennial Cadre Review (BCR). Although the circular which was issued on 16-10-1 commences with a statement that the demand of the Staff Unions for second time-bound promotion on completion of 26 years of service in basic grade was not being accepted, the Scheme in fact goes on to exactly that. In short it provided that those who had continued in regular service for 26 years in the basic grade and those who were in service as on 1-1990 would be entitled to promotion. The promotion has been achieved upgradation of the posts to cater to the rights flowing from the decision grant those employees with 26 years of service, the higher grade. Although the Scheme provides for regular service in the basic grade as a precondition for grant of the benefit, the benefit was expressely made applicable to those employees who had already by virtue of the OTBP Scheme been granted promotion to Grade II with effect from 1983. As a result while completion the period of regular service was based on the basic grade ignoring promotions under the OTBP Scheme, upward fixation of scales was made the basis of the scales to which the employees became entitled by virtue the OTBP Scheme. The notional service of these employees in basic Grade was thus calculated at 26 years making them eligible for scales of pay which, according to the contesting respondents placed them in the category not only of Grade II but also of Grades III and IV. 7. The notional service of these employees in basic Grade was thus calculated at 26 years making them eligible for scales of pay which, according to the contesting respondents placed them in the category not only of Grade II but also of Grades III and IV. 7. The contesting respondents herein challenged the BCR Scheme before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) in July 1992. It w contended by the contesting respondents herein before the Tribunal that t beneficiaries of the BCR Scheme were persons who were junior to them Grade II and they had been promoted to Grade III at higher scales of pay overlooking the claims of the contesting respondents altogether. The contesting respondents prayed for a declaration that the BCR Scheme be declared void, illegal and discriminatory. An alternative prayer was made for consideration of their case for extending to them the higher scale of Grade and granting them the seniority in Grade III from the respective dates when their juniors were promoted. 8. The Tribunal upheld the submissions of the respondents and by a well reasoned order held that the BCR Scheme appears to be in violation of the, 1979 Recruitment Rules and that since it was well settled that administrative, instructions could not modify the provisions framed under Article 309, the Scheme was liable to be struck down. However, the Tribunal did not strike down the Scheme since a large number of staff had already been granted relief on that basis over a period of time. However, the Tribunal allowed the alternative prayer of the contesting respondents by directing the present appellants before us to consider the case of the contesting respondents for extending to them the higher scale of pay of Grade III with effect from the respective dates their juniors were extended the said scale of pay with all consequential benefits, including pay scales-cum-seniority, etc. The Tribunal expressely left the issue of further promotion from Grade III to Grade IV open. 9. The Tribunal expressely left the issue of further promotion from Grade III to Grade IV open. 9. The operative portion of the order of the Tribunal reads thus: "In the light of the above, we allow this application with the following directions to Respondents 1 to 3: (i) In implementing the BCR Scheme, the case of the applicants who are senior in Grade II by virtue of their promotion against 1/3rd merit quota, compared to the other officials like R-4 to R-73, promoted to Grade II under OTBP Scheme, should be considered for promotion to Grade III in scale of Rs 1600-2660 in their turn as per their seniority whenever their erstwhile juniors in Grade II are considered for promotion to Grade III by virtue of their having completed 26 years of service in the basic grade, without insisting on the applicants completing the minimum prescribed years of service in the basic grade. All other conditions of BCR Scheme except the length of service will, however, be applicable while considering their promotion to Grade III. (ii) Consequently in case the applicants are found suitable for such promotion, they shall be promoted to Grade III with effect from the date their erstwhile juniors were promoted from Grade II to Grade III with all consequential benefits including seniority and arrears of pay and allowances from such dates. They should also be put on supervisory duties depending on their seniority. (iii) The BCR Scheme should be modified suitably to protect the interest of the officials like the applicants for their promotion from Grade II to Grade III. (iv) The above directions shall be complied within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) In the conspectus and circumstances of the case the request of the applicants for grant of the interest of the arrears of payments as due as cost of application is rejected." 10. The decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal was followed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. Being aggrieved by the decisions of the Tribunals special leave petitions were filed by the administration and an interim order was passed by this Court on 17-11-1995 directing that status quo be maintained with regard to the promotion of Respondents 1 to 6 to Grade III. Being aggrieved by the decisions of the Tribunals special leave petitions were filed by the administration and an interim order was passed by this Court on 17-11-1995 directing that status quo be maintained with regard to the promotion of Respondents 1 to 6 to Grade III. After leave was granted applications for impleadment have been filed by persons supporting the case of the contesting respondents and claiming to be similarly situated. These intervenors are from Delhi and Calcutta. Their intervention applications are allowed. 11. It is contended before us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the issue had been considered in a previous decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Delhi Bench) in the case of Santosh Kapoor v. Union of India. According to the appellants the Tribunal had held that the promotions were to be determined on the basis of seniority of the employees in Grade I or the basic grade and that this decision has been affirmed by this Court when the Department had approached this Court impugning the decision in Santosh Kapoor. While dismissing the appeal, by an order dated 9-9-1993 this Court has held, according to the appellants, that completion of 26 years of service on the crucial date mentioned in the BCR Scheme along with the fact of being a regular employee on 1-1-1990 were essential requirements for obtaining any benefit under the Scheme and that the directions given by the Tribunal in Santosh Kapoor case could not be faulted. 12. It is further submitted that on the basis of the decision of this Court dated 9-9-1993, the appellants had worked out the various grades and granted seniority strictly in terms of the BCR Scheme as upheld by this Court and that there was no cause for the contesting respondents to be aggrieved. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, have on the other hand, submitted that the Scheme was not only in derogation of the said Rules but also deprived the respondents of the fruits of the examinations taken by them for being promoted from Grade I to Grade II in 1981 in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, have on the other hand, submitted that the Scheme was not only in derogation of the said Rules but also deprived the respondents of the fruits of the examinations taken by them for being promoted from Grade I to Grade II in 1981 in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner. It is further pointed out that the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, as affirmed by this Court in Santosh Kapoor case, wholly distinguishable and did not at all relate to the issues which are to be considered in the instant case. 14. Having heard the submissions of the parties, we are of the view that the appeals must be dismissed and the decision of the Tribunal be upheld. The reasoning of the Tribunal particularly its finding that the BCR Scheme in fact amounted to an amendment of the existing Rules by an administrative order is unexceptionable. Logically speaking this should lead us to strike down the Scheme altogether. However, given the fact that the Scheme has been in operation since 1990 and also that the contesting respondents are quite content with having their alternative prayer as granted by the Tribunal we do not do so. 15. In addition to the fact that the Scheme is in contravention of the existing Rules, by virtue of the BCR Scheme the contesting respondents seniority in Grade II was taken away. Those who had not been able to pass the examinations for promotion from Grade I to Grade II and who had continued to serve in Grade I were allowed to leapfrog over the contesting respondents by the BCR Scheme by being granted scales of pay in respect of posts in Grade III. As a result not only were the contesting respondents superseded without being considered for promotion to Grade III at all when their juniors were considered, but their chances of being further promoted to Grade IV were effectively forestalled as promotion from Grade III to Grade IV would be strictly on the basis of seniority presumably in the grade below. As a result not only were the contesting respondents superseded without being considered for promotion to Grade III at all when their juniors were considered, but their chances of being further promoted to Grade IV were effectively forestalled as promotion from Grade III to Grade IV would be strictly on the basis of seniority presumably in the grade below. Since the contesting respondents having not at all being promoted to Grade III they would not be in a position to be considered for promotions to Grade IV whereas the beneficiaries of the BCR Scheme would, by virtue of the Scheme be in a position to be considered for further promotion to Grade IV Indeed according to the contesting respondents the BCR Scheme has resulted in some of its beneficiaries getting Grade IV of pay already. There is also substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the Recruitment Rules as well as the BCR Scheme provide for consideration of suitability and fitness as criteria for advancement. Necessarily the consideration for promotion to the next grade should be from the grade immediately below. As a result of the BCR Scheme however the beneficiaries have been promoted from Grade I to Grade III and possibly Grade IV without any consideration of their suitability in terms of the Rules or Scheme. Nevertheless the contesting respondents do not seek the withdrawal of any benefits which may have already been granted under the BCR Scheme to these employees. What they only want is that they should be granted at least a parity with those who in Grade II were junior to them. It has to be recorded that the system of promotion by examination from Grade I to Grade II has since been abolished in 1983 therefore, the contesting respondents represent a class of employees who had been promoted on the basis of departmental examinations successfully taken by them prior to that date. 16. The decision in Santosh Kapoor case has rightly been distinguished by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. That decision was concerned with an interpretation of the Scheme vis-a-vis the beneficiaries therein. The dispute was with regard to the respective inter se seniority of the beneficiaries under the Scheme. We are on the other hand concerned with a challenge to the Scheme and its effect on persons claiming seniority under the Rules. That decision was concerned with an interpretation of the Scheme vis-a-vis the beneficiaries therein. The dispute was with regard to the respective inter se seniority of the beneficiaries under the Scheme. We are on the other hand concerned with a challenge to the Scheme and its effect on persons claiming seniority under the Rules. The decision in Santosh Kapoor of the Tribunal or of this Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal is therefore not material. 17. Incidentally clarifications have been issued from time to time by the appellants in 1992 and in 1994 by which it appears to us that the appellants have compounded the confusion. The clarifications purport to state that the seniority of those who were in Grade II by reason of their merit would be maintained in Grade II although they would not be entitled to the scales of pay which their juniors were getting in Grade III. It has also been "clarified" that the promotion of such officials, namely, merit-based Grade II employees to Grade IV; that is, in the pay scale of Rs 3200 would be governed by their seniority quite overlooking the fact that if the contesting respondents remained in Grade II they would not be in a position to be considered for promotion to Grade IV at all. The "clarification" cannot take away the rights of the contesting respondents for promotion on the basis of the seniority in Grade II as obtained in 1983. Nor can they be denied any benefit to which any of their juniors may be entitled by virtue of either of the OTBP Scheme or the BCR Scheme. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, we uphold the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) as well as the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai impugned before us in these appeals and dismiss the appeals without any order as to costs. 19. Needless to say with this decision all interim orders stand vacated. It is stated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that in fact the decision of the Tribunal has already been implemented pending disposal of the appeals but subject to the outcome of the appeals. While recording this, we make it clear that the contesting respondents must be given the relief as granted by the Tribunal if not already granted within a period of eight weeks from today. 20. While recording this, we make it clear that the contesting respondents must be given the relief as granted by the Tribunal if not already granted within a period of eight weeks from today. 20. The appeals are in the circumstances dismissed.