ORDER: As the subject matter of all the above writ petitions is common in nature, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P. Nos.21224 and 21225 of 1994 are filed to call for the records relating to the proceedings in ACW/PL-1/94, dated 8.7.1994 of the third respondent and quash the order passed therein and consequently direct respondents 1 to 4 to fill up the post of Personnel Executive by calling for applications from among all internal candidates who are possessing the statutory qualifications meant for the post of Welfare Officer by the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus. 3. W.P. No.21226 of 1994 is filed to call for the records relating to the proceedings in 3844/PL-1/92, dated 11.7.1994 of the fourth respondent and quash the order passed therein and consequently direct respondents 1 to 4 to fill up the post of Personnel Executive by calling for applications from among all internal candidates who are possessing the statutory qualifications meant for the post of Welfare Officer by the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus. 4. W.P. No.17443 of 1994 is filed for issue of a declaration declaring the appointment/ promotions of respondents 2, 3 and 4 as Personnel Executive in July, 1994 as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to call for applications from among the eligible employees for five posts of Personnel Executive and select persons by following reservation for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe employees. 5. W.P. No.13229 of 1996 is filed for issue of a declaration declaring the appointment/ promotions of respondents 2 to 4 as Personnel Executive in July, 1984 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the first respondent to call for applications from among the eligible employees for three posts of personnel executive and select persons by following reservation for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe employees. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Kannadasan submitted as follows: Petitioners in all the writ petitions are employees of the Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited which was established in the year 1976. The Corporation consists of five units. The petitioner in W.P. Nos.21224 to 21226 of 1994 entered into the service of the Corporation as Junior Assistant on 24.11.1977. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Kannadasan submitted as follows: Petitioners in all the writ petitions are employees of the Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited which was established in the year 1976. The Corporation consists of five units. The petitioner in W.P. Nos.21224 to 21226 of 1994 entered into the service of the Corporation as Junior Assistant on 24.11.1977. From the year 1976 to 1992, 13 persons were recruited/ promoted as Assistant Personnel Executive or Assistant Personnel Officers out of which two persons did not satisfy the requisite qualification. The duties and functions of the Assistant Personnel Officers/ Assistant Personnel Executives are sensitive in nature and whenever vacancy arose for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer/ Personnel Executive, the Corporation has been consistently inviting applications from eligible employees working within the Corporation provided they satisfy the requisite educational qualification viz., degree with diploma in Personnel Management, Industrial Relations and Labour Welfare or P.G. degree or diploma in Social work or the qualifications prescribed for the Welfare Officer as per the Factories Act, 1948. In a circular dated 27.2.1986 issued by the third respondent/ the General Manager, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation, the above mentioned qualifications were prescribed. Even in the recent circular dated 30.8.1994 of the same respondent calling for applications to fill up the vacancy in the post of Personnel Executive in the office of the Tamil Nadu Asbestors, Alangulam also prescribes the same qualification. The petitioner- Muthuswami has applied to the above post pursuant to the circular dated 30.8.1994. Written test and interview were scheduled to be held on 10.10.1994, but, they were postponed without any definite date. The said post can be filled up only by selection and not by promotion which is evident that one P.K. Sagar, the then Superintendent who was promoted and appointed as Assistant Personnel Officer only by the method of selection as per the circular of the year 1986. Thee persons viz., V.Ganesan, Mrs.V. Chandra and N.Mohandas belonging to the category of Superintendent were promoted as Administrative Executive without following the normal procedure. The respondents H.Ramachandran, G.Ramar and L.Paramasivam were promoted on 8.7.1994, 8.7.1994 and 11.7.1994 respectively as Personnel Executive by merely following the rule of seniority, but, they did not possess the requisite qualification. Hence, W.P. Nos.21224 to 21226 of 1994 were filed challenging the order of promotion of H.Ramachandran, G.Ramar and L.Paramasivam. 7. The respondents H.Ramachandran, G.Ramar and L.Paramasivam were promoted on 8.7.1994, 8.7.1994 and 11.7.1994 respectively as Personnel Executive by merely following the rule of seniority, but, they did not possess the requisite qualification. Hence, W.P. Nos.21224 to 21226 of 1994 were filed challenging the order of promotion of H.Ramachandran, G.Ramar and L.Paramasivam. 7. Mr.Kannadasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. Nos.21224 to 21226 of 1994 relies on the below mentioned provisions: Clause 1.4 of the Services Rules of TANCEM as follows: "These rules can be amended by way of addition, alteration or deletion under the authority of a resolution of the Board of Directors. In case of any difference in the interpretation of the rules, the decision of the management shall be final and binding. Any law enacted by the legislature to cover any or all the staff/ officers covered by these rules will be prevailing over these rules. The Board, Chairman, Managing Director, or Executive Committee of Directors, will be competent to issue such instructions or directions to any or all staff/ officers as may be necessary to give effect to, and carry out the provisions of these rules and in order to secure efficient control over the staff/ officers employed in the corporation and to achieve the corporate aims of the corporations." Clause 2.6 reads thus: "Recruitment of staff/ officers shall be made as per the recruitment rules laid down by the management from time to time as per annexure 1. No person shall be deemed to be in the employment of the corporation unless and until he is in receipt of a formal letter of appointment issued by the competent authority." Clause 2.18 reads thus: "(a) Broadly speaking for all categories of posts, the basic criteria for promotion will be merit, suitability, efficiency and past performance and seniority being taken into consideration only if other factors are equal. (b) The management may lay down suitable criteria to determine merit, suitably and efficiency by assessing the regular work of the staff member/ officer and by means of written/ oral tests, performance appraisals interview, etc." Clause 3(vi) to Annexure I reads thus: "In regard to the rest of the categories above the level of superintendents and also for officers whenever direct recruitments is contemplated the Employment Exchange will initially be consulted and if suitable candidates are not available in the list recommended by the Employment Exchange; recruitment by open advertisement will be resorted to after getting clearance from Government;" Clause 5 of Annexure I reads thus: "In respect of all the categories of staff drawing above the pay scale of Rs.750-1350 the recruitment will be done by a Committee consisting of the chairman and Managing Director and one other member of the Board." Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Factories (Welfare Officers) Rules, 1953 reads thus: "Qualifications: No person shall be eligible for appointment as Welfare Officer, unless he possesses the following qualifications, namely: (a) A degree of Master of Labour Management or Bachelor of Labour Management awarded by the Tamil Nadu Institute of Labour Studies, Madras; or a degree of any University or Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission for the purpose of its grant; (b) Post graduate diploma in Labour Administrative (sic) awarded by the Tamil Nadu Institute of Labour Studies, Madras; or Post graduate diploma in Labour Laws and Administrative Laws conducted by Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Madras; orPost graduate diploma in Personnel Management, Industrial Relations and Labour Welfare awarded by Productivity Councils in Tamil Nadu or any other institutions recognised by the State Government for this purpose; or Diploma in Social Work or Social Science or Labour Relations or Social Welfare with Labour Laws on Industrial Relations as a main subject of any University or Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission for the purpose of its grants; or A diploma in Labour Laws awarded by the Indian Law Institute, New Delhi. (c) Adequate Knowledge of the language spoken by the majority of the workers in the factory to which he is to be attached; Provided that these qualifications shall not apply to any person who is a Government servant and is deputed to a factory to work as Welfare Officer; Provided further that in the case of a person who is acting as a Welfare Officer at the time of coming into force of the rules prescribing the qualification, the State Government may, subject to such conditions as it may specify relax all or any of the aforesaid qualifications." Rules 5 reads thus: "Recruitment of Welfare Officers: (1) Vacancies in the post of Welfare Officers shall be advertised in two newspapers having wide circulation in the State, one of which shall be in Tamil and the other in English: Provided that the vacancies in the Government establishments, Quasi-Government establishments, Public Undertakings and Private establishments financially assisted by the Government shall be filled up through the Employment Exchange. Vacancies in the said establishments shall be advertised in the Newspapers only after obtaining non-availability certificate from the Employment Exchange. (2) Selection for appointment to the post of Welfare Officer shall be made from among the candidates applying for the post by a committee appointed by the Occupier of a factory. (3) The appointment when made shall be notified by the Occupier to the State Government or such other authority as the State Government may specify for the purpose, giving the details of the qualifications, age, pay, previous experience and other relevant particulars of the officer appointed and the terms and conditions of his service." 8. Mr.Kannadasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. Nos.21224 to 21226 of 1994 relied on the decision in B.Krishna Bhat v. State of Karnataka, (2001)4 S.C.C. 227 , wherein the Apex Court, in para 5, has held that, "The above said observations of this Court in the said Delhi Laws case have been consistently followed by this Court in all the later cases. Applying the said principles to the facts of this case, we must hold that the delegation in question has been made to a statutory body which is entrusted with the duty of development of the city of Bangalore and the areas adjacent thereto. Applying the said principles to the facts of this case, we must hold that the delegation in question has been made to a statutory body which is entrusted with the duty of development of the city of Bangalore and the areas adjacent thereto. The process of development is statutorily controlled and in the said process certain developmental activities under Secs.29 and 30 of forming layout, maintaining roads, bridges, sewers etc., are also contemplated. Therefore, BDA as such cannot be treated as a stranger for the purpose of being delegated the authority to levy property tax on property which is situated within its jurisdiction. These levies and collections are not left to the arbitrary wisdom/ discretion of the delegated authority but are governed by the procedure to be adopted under the Corporation Act which itself has provided an elaborate machinery for determining such levy and collection thereof. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be contended that this delegation is either beyond the scope of the legislative power or is in excess of the same. It cannot also be argued that the said delegation is unguided or arbitrary." The said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In the said judgment, it was dealt with the delegation of powers to a non-elected Body. In the case one hand, the power or functions are not delegated as alleged. Hence, the judgment relied on by the counsel Mr.Kannadasan is not applicable to the present case at all. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Chandrasekaran submitted as follows: W.P. No.17443 of 1994 is filed by M.Ulaganathan seeking declaration that the promotion of H.Ramachandran, G.Ramar and L.Paramasivam as illegal and to direct the respondent to call for applications from eligible employees for five posts of Personnel Executive and select the persons by following reservation. The said Ulaganathan filed W.P. No.13229 of 1996 seeking declaration to declare the promotion of D.Robert Thomas, A.Sakthivel and Jayapal on 7.1.1996, 7.1.1996 and in July, 1996 respectively as illegal and to direct the first respondent to call for applications from among the eligible employees for the three posts of Personnel Executive and select the persons by following reservation. The petitioner in W.P. Nos.17443 of 1994 and 13229 of 1996 entered into the service of the Corporation as clerk in the year 1982. The petitioner in W.P. Nos.17443 of 1994 and 13229 of 1996 entered into the service of the Corporation as clerk in the year 1982. The post of Personnel Executive can be filled either by promotion or from the cadre of Superintendent or by direct recruitment from the existing employees who possess the requisite qualification. The respondent had called for application for a vacancy in the post of Personnel Executive by circular dated 3.9.1994. Pursuant to the circular, the petitioner M.Ulaganathan applied for the post on 5.9.1994. The respondent has not proceeded further, but, deliberately gave promotion to the unqualified persons viz., respondents 2 to 4 in W.P. No.17433 of 1994. The petitioner had made several representations, the last one being dated 7.5.1996 requesting the respondent to consider him for appointment to the post of Personnel Executive, but, no reply was sent. W.M.P. No.26513 of 1994 in W.P. No.17433 of 1994 was filed and this Court by order dated 7.10.1994 directed the respondent to interview the said Ulaganathan in the interview to be held on 10.10.1994 along with other candidates. When the said writ petition was pending, the first respondent again promoted D.Robet Thomas, A.Sakthivel and Jayapal with effect from 1.10.1996 as Personnel Executives. The said three persons have not satisfied the requisite qualification. Hence, the petitioner M.Ulaganathan was constrained to file another writ petition in W.P. No.13229 of 1996. In March 1996, this Court granted injunction restaining any promotion made by the respondent- Corporation, but, disobeying the order of this Court, two persons were promoted on 7.1.1996, one person was promoted in July, 1996. The promotion given in July, 1996 is totally disobeying the order of this Court though it was resolved by the Board on 14.12.1993 that the future vacancies of Personnel Executive have to be filled up in the ratio of 2:1, and they have filled up two vacancies by promoting from the feeder category and the third vacancy earmarked for direct recruits was erroneously filled by promotion from the feeder category under the pretext of ad hoc promotion. The Corporation has also promoted D.Robert Thomas, A.Sakthivel and Jayapal contrary to the decision made on 14.12.1993 and also flouting the Service Rules. The Corporation has also promoted D.Robert Thomas, A.Sakthivel and Jayapal contrary to the decision made on 14.12.1993 and also flouting the Service Rules. Mr.C.K. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. Nos.17443 of 1994 and 13229 of 1996 relied on the following decisions: (i) State of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union, (1994)1 S.C.C. 126 , wherein the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 9 that, "We are, therefore, of the opinion that the directions given by the High Court for appointment of the empanelled candidates according to their position in the merit list against the vacancies till 1991 were not proper and cannot be sustained. Since, no examination has been held since 1987, persons who became eligible to compete for appointments were denied the opportunity to take the examination and the direction of the High Court would prejudicially affect them for no fault of theirs. At the same time, the callousness of the State in holding the examination in 1987 for the vacancies advertised in 1985 and declaring the result almost three years later in 1990 has caused great hardship to the successful candidates. The State was expected not to act in such a leisurely manner and treat the matter of selection for appointment to services in such a casual manner. We must record our unhappiness on this state of affairs. There is no justification for holding the examination two years after the publication of advertisement and declaring the result almost three years after the holding of the examination and not issuing any fresh advertisement between 1985 and 1991 or holding examination for making selections. We expect the State Government to act in a better manner, at least, hereinafter and since Mr.Rao, the learned senior counsel has shared our concern and assured us of advising the State Government accordingly, we say no more on that aspect at this stage.“ In this case, the Patna High Court has directed the Government to appoint the empanelled candidates according to the position in the merit list against the vacancies till 1991. The Honourable Supreme Court held that since 1987, persons who became eligible to compete for promotions were denied opportunity to take the examination and the direction of the High Court would prejudicially affect them for no fault of theirs. The Honourable Supreme Court held that since 1987, persons who became eligible to compete for promotions were denied opportunity to take the examination and the direction of the High Court would prejudicially affect them for no fault of theirs. At the same time, the callousness of the State in holding the examination in 1987 for the vacancies advertised in 1985 and declaring the result almost three years later in 1990 has caused great hardship to the successful candidates. The Honourable Supreme Court has modified the judgment of the High Court by setting aside the part of the judgment which directed for filing of vacancies of 1989, 1990 and 1991 from out of the list of the candidates who had appeared in the examination held in 1987. The rest of the judgment was upheld. The Honourable Supreme Court, with a view to do justice between the parties and balance the equities, directed the State Government to issue advertisement inviting applications for the post of Assistants vacant and likely to fall vacant till December, 1993. The age bar prescribed was relaxed in favour of the candidates of the 1987 examination who had secured 40% or above marks in that examination to enable them to appear in the fresh examination if they so choose. (ii) Union of India v. T.G.Abraham, (1997)11 S.C.C. 85 , wherein the Apex Court has held in para 6 that, ”In these circumstances, the directions issued in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. It may also be noted that though second selection did take place pursuant to which interviews were also held on 6.2.1990, respondent 1 cannot be estopped from challenging the earlier circular because he did not think it fit to appear at the interview at the second stage. The reason is obvious. If he was not permitted to contest pursuant to the circular dated 23.2.1988 for re-employment and was wrongly kept out and even if he did get selected pursuant to the second circular, an irreparable injury would have been caused to him by making him junior to those with whom he would have otherwise effectively completed. Consequently, no estopped could be urged against respondent 1 on this ground.“ This judgment is relating to re-employment which is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 10. Consequently, no estopped could be urged against respondent 1 on this ground.“ This judgment is relating to re-employment which is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 10. Learned senior counsel Mr.K.Chandru appearing for the fifth respondent in W.P. No.21225 of 1994 submitted that the promotions were given in view of the exigencies of services and hence, it cannot be treated as a temporary one and the promotees are entitled to the seniority from the date they were promoted. It is also canvassed by the learned senior counsel that settled things cannot be unsettled at this stage and moreover, the promotee G.Ramar is in the verge of retirement as such, he need not be disturbed. The learned senior counsel relied on the decision in Shyam Vinyls Limited v. T.Prasad and others, (1993)2 L.L.J. 650 , wherein at para 8 The Supreme Court has held that, ”After considering the respective contentions of the parties, it appears to us that Sri Prasad was appointed as an Assistant Personnel Officer of the Company and not as a Welfare Officer. Simply because as a Personnel Officer he was also looking after the problems of the labourers and for that matter the welfare of the labourers, it cannot be held that he was in fact appointed as a Labour Welfare Officer. Admittedly, the number of labourers in the concerned factory was less than 100 and there was no statutory requirement to appoint a Labour Welfare Officer. Even if it is assumed that the company on its own could appoint a Labour Welfare Officer, it does not appear in the facts and circumstances of the case that Sri Prasad was appointed as a Labour Welfare Officer. Rule 76-B of the Andhra Pradesh Factory Rules were required to be followed and it is nobody’s case that he was appointed by following such Rules. In the aforesaid circumstances, the High Court has clearly erred in holding that Sri Prasad was in fact appointed as a Labour Welfare Officer and the termination of service having been effected without following the statutory provisions for termination of services of a Labour Welfare Officer, the order of termination is liable to be quashed. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed in the writ petition and also in the writ appeal. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed in the writ petition and also in the writ appeal. It is not necessary for the disposal of this appeal to express any opinion as to justification of termination of the service of Sri Prasad and such question therefore has not been taken into consideration. In the facts of the case, there will be, however, no order as to costs. The sum of Rs.2,000 directed to be paid to the respondent towards meeting the expenses for stay in Delhi under the order of this Court dated February 26, 1993, shall be retained by him." In this case, the person who was appointed as Assistant Personnel Officer of the Company and not as a Welfare Officer. The Honourable Supreme Court has held that though the said person as a Personnel Officer was looking after the problems of the labourers, it cannot be held that he was in fact appointed as a Labour Welfare Officer. While setting aside the order of the High Court, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the High Court has clearly erred in holding that the said person, in fact, was appointed as Labour Welfare Officer and the termination of his services having been effected without following the statutory procedure for termination of services of a Labour Welfare Officer. This judgment was relied on by the senior counsel to say that when a Labour Welfare Officer is appointed, his services cannot be terminated without following the procedure. 11. Learned counsel Mr.Viduthalai appearing for the respondent- Corporation submitted as follows: If the corporation wishes to recruit candidates from outside, it invites applications from eligible candidates as per statute but, with regard to promotion of feeder cadre employees, such qualifications are not necessary. Kandasami and Easwaran were elevated as Assistant Personnel Officer based on merit cum seniority in September, 1981 and June, 1986 respectively. Kandasami and Easwaran were elevated as Assistant Personnel Officer based on merit cum seniority in September, 1981 and June, 1986 respectively. Whenever there are eligible employees in the feeder cadre, they are given preference for elevation to the next higher post and when suitable persons are not available in the feeder cadre, the vacancies were filled up from the eligible employees who possess the minimum qualification prescribed viz., degree with diploma in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations or Post Graduation in Labour Law or the qualifications prescribed for the post of Welfare Officer as per the Factories Act with reference to the actual requirements of the management. It is also customary practice of the management that such qualification will be relaxed in the case of feeder cadre employees. The petitioner Muthusami who satisfied the prescribed qualification has applied for the post. In the meantime, another petitioner M.Ulaganathan who is working as Assistant in Alangulam Cement Works filed W.P. No.17443 and W.M.P. No.26513 of 1994 praying for direction to interview him, but, he was not qualified for the said vacancy. However, the management did not proceed with the above said recruitment and postponed the interview pending disposal of the writ petition, hence, the petitioner Muthusami, who is possessing the prescribed qualification was not considered. It is also admitted by the management that the said Muthusami obtained interim injunction in W.M.P. No.2232 of 1996 dated 18.3.1996 restraining (1) The Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Anna Salai, Madras, (2) The General Manager, (Personnel and Administration), Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Anna Salai, Madras, (3) The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Ariyalur, and (4) The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Alangulam Cement Works from appointing anybody for the post of Personnel Executive except in accordance with the circular dated 30.8.1994. In view of the above said order, the first respondent deferred the filling of the post of Personnel Executive. During the last quarter of 1993, there were three vacancies in the post of Personnel Executive and repeated representations were received from the employees working in the feeder cadre to consider them for the promotion. The matter was discussed on 14.12.1993 and it was decided that the vacancies available have to be filled in the ratio of 2:1 from feeder cadre and selection from the qualified persons within the organisation respectively. The matter was discussed on 14.12.1993 and it was decided that the vacancies available have to be filled in the ratio of 2:1 from feeder cadre and selection from the qualified persons within the organisation respectively. Accordingly, the first two vacancies were filled up by promoting L.Paramasivam and G.Ramar based on merit cum seniority as approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee and it was proposed to fill up the third vacancy by issuing necessary circular dated 30.8.1994. Subsequently, another vacancy in the post of Personnel Executive arose during July, 1994 when promotion was given to M.Eswaran at Tamil Nadu Asbestos, alangulam against a vacancy in the post of Assistant Manager (Personnel) available at Alangulam Cement Works. The consequential vacancy at Tamil Nadu Asbestos, Alangulam was transferred to Ariyalur Cement Works and another person H.Ramachandran who is the senior most person working in the feeder category was given promotion as Administrative Executive on merit cum seniority basis which was duly approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The petitioner Muthusami is working in Ariyalur Cement Works at Senior Assistant and it is not a feeder category for considering for promotion as Personnel Executive. Hence, he is not eligible to claim promotion. Since he was not in the feeder category, he has no locus standi to file the writ petition against the promotion made in favour of H.Ramachandran, G.Ramar and L.Paramasivam. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation relied on the decision in Mohan Lal v. State of J. & K., A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1088, wherein, the Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 8 and 9 that, "It is now time for us to deal with the contentions canvassed by the learned senior counsel in support of the petition. We shall deal with these contentions seriatim. Contention No.1: Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. Thus, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. Thus, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, that they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1043, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. 9. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit at a Court of appeal and try to re-assess the relative merit of the concerned candidates who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to Judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to Judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a Court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee." In this case, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the candidates who took part in the oral interview and later declared as unsuccessful cannot challenge the interview as unfair. This judgment is in the way relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 12. Prior to 14.12.1993, the recruitment to the post of Personnel/ Administrative/ Welfare Executive was (1) by promotion from the feeder category, and (2) by direct recruitment. Till that time, no quota was prescribed. The respondent Corporation has taken a decision on 14.12.1993 to follow the ratio of 2:1 from the feeder category and selection from qualified persons from the open market/ organisation. The principal issue which requires to be considered in these writ petitions is whether the promotion of promotees excess of quota is valid or not and if it is invalid, to what relief the petitioners are entitled to. Both the sides advanced arguments relating to the promotions made after the Board decision dated 14.12.1993 which has fixed the ratio of 2:1. The contention of the promotees is that they were required to be appointed in view of the exigencies of service, hence their promotion cannot be termed as temporary and they are entitled to earn seniority from the date they were so promoted. It is further alleged by them that their promotions were also approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The contention of the petitioners was that the promotees were promoted in the vacancies falling in the quota of direct recruits as such the same is to be quashed. After the said decision of the Board, three vacancies arose in which G.Ramar and L.Paramasivam were accommodated from the feeder category, remaining one vacancy reserved for direct recruitment from open market/ Corporation. After the said decision of the Board, three vacancies arose in which G.Ramar and L.Paramasivam were accommodated from the feeder category, remaining one vacancy reserved for direct recruitment from open market/ Corporation. The Corporation consciously issued circular on 30.8.1994 inviting applications to fill up one vacancy by way of direct recruitment from the open market/ qualified persons from the Corporation. Incidentally, this Court by order dated 7.10.1994 in W.M.P. No.26513 of 1994 directed the respondent Corporation to consider the petitioner viz., M.Ulaganathan along with other candidates for recruitment from open market. Despite the fact the Board had taken a decision on 14.12.1993, and pursuant to that a circular was also issued on 30.8.1994 and further this Court has directed to consider the petitioner M.Ulaganathan along with other candidates for direct recruitment, the Corporation deliberately failed to continue the recruitment process. Not content with the Corporation has appointed H.Ramachandran a person from the feeder category as Personnel/ Administrative/ Welfare Executive by order dated 5.7.1994 with effect from 8.7.1994 i.e., even prior to the circular dated 30.8.1994. Hence, I am of the view that the approval accorded by the Departmental Promotion Committee is also invalid. 13. The above said act of the Corporation appears to me to be motivated for the purpose of blocking the quota of the direct recruits and giving a part of it to promotees. Again, the corporation has upgraded D.Robert Thomas, A.Sakthivel and Jayapal on 7.1.1996, 7.1.1996 and in July, 1996 respectively as Personnel Executive. Despite the injunction was granted by this Court in W.M.P. No.2232 of 1996 on 18.3.1996 restraining the Corporation from filling up the vacancy, the upgradation of Jayapal was made disobeying the injunction order of this Court. 14. In this case, two entry points for the category of Personnel/ Administrative/ Welfare Executives were provided. As per the Board Resolution dated 14.12.1993 ratio was fixed as 2:1 viz., promotion from the feeder category and direct recruitment. The said ratio is not disputed by the parties. Promotion of the promotees in excess of quota is to be treated as invalid. No valid reason is assigned by the Corporation for not proceeding for direct recruitment despite the directions issued by this Court. Promotions made from the feeder category against a vacancy reserved for direct recruitment are contrary according to the resolution or not within the quota. 15. Promotion of the promotees in excess of quota is to be treated as invalid. No valid reason is assigned by the Corporation for not proceeding for direct recruitment despite the directions issued by this Court. Promotions made from the feeder category against a vacancy reserved for direct recruitment are contrary according to the resolution or not within the quota. 15. The learned counsel Mr.Viduthalai appearing for the Corporation submitted that some of the promotees put in service for many years, a few of them are at the verge of retirement and if they are disturbed, it will cause great hardship to them. I am unable to subscribe to this contention because if there is patent violation of quota rule, the result must follow and the promotees remained in the office for all these years cannot take advantage of the situation. Hence, the said submission is devoid of any substance. No doubt, the direct recruitees have to be treated from the date on which they actually joined services though vacancies did exist prior to that date. Likewise, the promotees are also required to be fitted in the services from the date when they are entitled to fitment in accordance with quota prescribed. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Vikrikar Karachari Sangathan v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 622 has held in para 26 that, “Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that some of the appellants have put in more than 17 years of service when few of the direct recruits were either schooling and/or not born in the cadre. If the appellants were to be pushed down, it will cause a great hardship to them. We are unable to subscribe to this contention because if there is patent violation of the quota rule, the result must follow and the appellants who remained in the office for all these years cannot take the advantage of this situation. This submission is, therefore, devoid of any substance.” The Honourable Supreme Court quashed the seniority list on the ground that the promotees were promoted in violation of the quota rule. An argument was advanced by the promotees that they were remained in office for 17 years, as such, they should not be pushed down. This submission is, therefore, devoid of any substance.” The Honourable Supreme Court quashed the seniority list on the ground that the promotees were promoted in violation of the quota rule. An argument was advanced by the promotees that they were remained in office for 17 years, as such, they should not be pushed down. The said argument was held as untenable as the persons remained in the office in the quota of direct recruits all these years cannot take advantage of that situation. The ratio laid down in the above said judgment can be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, I have no hesitation to set aside the promotion of H.Ramachandran as well as upgradation of D.Robert Thomas, A.Sakthivel and Jayapal. The respondent- Corporation is directed to earmark the vacancies of promotees and direct recruits in conformity with the quota and year-wise adjustment of quota as per the board decision dated 14.12.1993 within the period of 30 days from today. The Corporation is directed to issue notification inviting application from the qualified persons from the Corporation/open market and complete the recruitment process and simultaneously fill up the vacancies reserved for promotees following the communal reservation within a period of three months thereafter. 16. Apart from the above specific directions, I feel it is necessary to issue certain general directions to the Corporation that it shall ensure that no promotee is put in the direct recruitment quota temporarily or as stop-gap arrangement or on ad hoc basis. Vacancies that would arise in future have to be filled expeditiously as per the ratio. 17. In the result, W.P. No.21224 of 1994 is allowed to the extent indicated above. W.P. No.21225 and 21226 of 1994 are dismissed. W.P. No.17443 of 1994 is allowed to the extent of quashing the order of promotion of the fourth respondent is concerned. W.P. No.13229 of 1996 is allowed. No costs. The connected pending W.M.Ps. are closed.