ORDER : Doraiswamy Raju, J. Leave granted in SLPs (C) Nos. 4839 and 4841 of 2000. 2. These appeals are dealt with together since the issues involved as also the subject-matter of controversy centres around one and the same fact situation as well as the principles of law, though, coming before this Court from the orders of more than one Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunals. One such order under challenge has been passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and the others by the Chandigarh Bench. 3. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side, we are of the view that dehors the niceties of the legal issues involved as also the interpretation of the relevant rules, substantial justice seems to have been rendered by attempting to solve an unprecedented and one-time problem which seems to have cropped up on account of delay in holding the examination relating to 33 ? per cent quota known as Limited Departmental Competitive Examination under Rule 2(iii) of the relevant rules and declaration of results after selection. Though so far as the other category pertaining to 66 ? per cent is concerned, the departmental examination was held on time, as scheduled and the results were declared and vacancies pertaining to them were filled up on 11-5-1981. Due to delay in the commencement of the very examination for the other category and intervention of court proceedings which seem to have reached even up to this Court, the results of the examination came to be declared and final results after assessment of ACRs came to have been published somewhere in May 1985 and actual promotions were effected in June 1985. It is to resolve any heartburn among this class of promotees in the matter of computing the required minimum period of service for further promotion as Senior Assistant Engineer, the Tribunal Bench at Madras has chosen to adopt a device of giving due leverage for completing the process of examination which was held in March 1982 and processing of the ACRs, of six months' time and fixed their notional date of promotion as 12-9-1982. The Tribunal, in our view, has rightly taken care to ensure that by virtue of such notional date of promotion, the Department was also not put to any monetary loss and the promotees concerned will not be entitled to any arrears of salary from that date, though for other purposes, including seniority, it was ordered to be counted. The solution adopted appears to be just, reasonable and necessary to ensure that the said class of persons are not made to suffer for no fault of theirs. At the same time, we find, in contrast, the Tribunal Bench at Chandigarh has chosen to assign the notional date of promotion as 11-5-1981 on a par with the date of promotions effected in respect of the other category falling within 66 ? per cent of candidates selected for promotion. 4. On a careful consideration of the material on record and the submission of the learned counsel on either side, we are of the view that the notional date adopted by the Tribunal Bench at Chandigarh does not conform to any relevant, rational or reasonable principle and we are unable to accord our approval of the same. Per contra, the reasons which weighed with the Tribunal Bench at Madras and the manner of assigning the notional date as 12-9-1982 appears to be not only sound but just and reasonable and, therefore, we do not find any infirmity whatsoever in the same, to call for any interference in our hands. Consequently, based on the orders of the Tribunal Bench at Madras the orders of the Tribunal Bench at Chandigarh require to be modified by altering the notional date of promotion fixed by it as 11-5-1981 into 12-9-1982. We allow the appeals filed against the orders of the Tribunal Bench at Chandigarh to that extent and modify the order of the said Tribunal to bring it in conformity with the other notional date i.e. 12-9-1982 adopted and assigned by the Tribunal Bench at Madras which found favour of approval in our hands. 5. Consequently, except clarifying the position that all promotees as against 33 ? per cent of quota will be assigned the notional date of promotion as 12-9-1982, which date shall also be the date for counting their experience for further promotions, we do not see any justification to grant any further relief in these appeals. 6. 5. Consequently, except clarifying the position that all promotees as against 33 ? per cent of quota will be assigned the notional date of promotion as 12-9-1982, which date shall also be the date for counting their experience for further promotions, we do not see any justification to grant any further relief in these appeals. 6. Accordingly, the above appeals shall stand finally disposed of. No costs.