Judgment :- The petitioners seek for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent dated 3.1.1997 and to quash the same. 2. All the petitioners were appointed as Packers during March 1992. For the purpose of promotion to the post of Bill Clerk, a panel was prepared in and by proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 5.3.1993, and their names had been included in the said panel. Subsequently they were promoted as Bill Clerks by proceedings dated 5.6.1993. They were discharging their functions in the cadre of Bill Clerk. All of a sudden in and by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 3.1.1997, respondents 3 to 9 who were not empanelled earlier were included in the panel of Bill Clerks for the year 1992 and they were placed above the petitioners herein in the seniority list of bill clerks. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The petitioners contend that no prior notice had been issued before the impugned order was passed,and that there was no justification for issuing the impugned order dated 3.1.1997 after nearly 5 years. It is further contended that the claims of respondents 3 to 9 were in fact considered by the competent authority at the time of preparation of the panel and their names have been specifically over-ruled for certain reasons such as disciplinary proceedings being pending against, them, etc,. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent/Corporation, it is, contended that the corporation in the proceedings dated 22.5.1990 ordered for the provisional selection of the apprentice trainees for appointment as Packers and accordingly, the petitioners and respondents 3 to 9 were promoted as Acting Bill clerks by order dated 5.3.1992. However a regular panel was drawn by proceedings dated 5.5.1993 and names of the respondents 3 to 6 and 8 were dropped and reverted as packers for the punishments inflicted on them. As against the said punishment they had filed appeals to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director. In the meanwhile the Head Office in their reference dated 16.6.1994 has issued instructions that the services of such acting Bill Clerks should be regularised as Bill Clerks from the date of joining as acting Bill Clerks. The Head Office disposed of the appeal preferred by the respondents 3, 6 and 8 and ordered for review of the panel dated 5.5.1993. The Head Office disposed of the appeal preferred by the respondents 3, 6 and 8 and ordered for review of the panel dated 5.5.1993. It was held that respondents 3,6 and 8 having been promoted as Bill Clerks they cannot be reverted as packers for the punishment awarded to them at a later date. The Corporation rightly followed the abovesaid orders and instructions and had ordered inclusion of the respondents 3 to 9 in the seniority list of Bill Clerks vide impugned order dated 3.1.1997. Therefore the action of the respondents was valid. It is further contended that the petitioners are entitled to file an appeal before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director within 30 days. Instead of doing so, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226, of the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternative remedy. 5. In the counter filed by the contesting respondents also, the same stand has been taken and it is contended that when the original panel was prepared, the fact that they were already working as Acting Bill Clerks had not been taken into account and that in the disciplinary proceedings, punishments have been inflicted only subsequent to the preparation of panel. Hence the impugned action of reviewing the panel has rightly been done. There is no basis for the contention that the impugned proceedings are motivated and not bonafide. The impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity. The aggrieved persons/respondents 3 to 9 have been making repeated representations through the Trade Unions and repeatedly demanding review of the action done in 1992 and that the illegality meted out to the respondents should be corrected. The authorities after considering appeals of the petitioners, had issued direction to the second respondent to review the panel drawn in the year 1992 and to take further action and that the respondents ought not to have been reverted as packers in view of the fact that the penalty of cut increments was imposed only on later date,after promotion of the petitioners as Acting Bill Clerks. 6. Mr.V.Sanjeevi learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the names of certain individuals including that of the contesting respondents were considered for promotion and the contesting respondents were found to be unfit. Opportunity was given to them to file their objections/appeal and the regulations provide for limitation of 30 days. 6. Mr.V.Sanjeevi learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the names of certain individuals including that of the contesting respondents were considered for promotion and the contesting respondents were found to be unfit. Opportunity was given to them to file their objections/appeal and the regulations provide for limitation of 30 days. The respondents did not file any appeal and the contention that they had filed an appeal, is false. Therefore the Corporation has no right to set aside or ignore the panel/seniority list which had already become final and had been given effect to. The said panel cannot be disturbed after five years that too without notice to the aggrieved persons. 7. As a controversy arose in the context of whether any appeal was really filed by any of the contesting respondents, the hearing was adjourned for clarification and it is fairly admitted by the respondents that no proper appeals had been filed in terms of the regulations and that it was only on the basis of certain representations, the impugned order has been issued. 8. Mr. R.Balasubramaniam appearing for the Corporation contended that the defects in the seniority list had to be set right by invoking the review power. Learned counsel fairly agreed that no appeals had been filed by contesting respondents and that only representations had been given by them very much later. Learned counsel further contended that some of the respondents were erroneously overlooked for some reason or other. As regards the non consideration of the claim of the contesting respondents and others in the seniority list, learned counsel gave a tabulated statement it is claimed that at least in respect of 3 out of 10 individuals whose names were rejected, the very charge memo in the disciplinary proceedings against them were issued only after the crucial date, namely 1.4.1992. Therefore it was only in the larger interest and to undo injustice done to them, the Corporation had ventured to restore the benefits alone. Learned counsel very strongly contended that the Law of limitation cannot stand in the way of rectifying the defects thus noticed at a later point of time. Mr.D.Bharatha chakravarthy appearing for the contesting respondents contended that apart from the grounds raised by Mr.R.Balasubramanian, it is also seen that the individuals who were overlooked were not considered ignoring that they were already as Acting Bill Clerks. Mr.D.Bharatha chakravarthy appearing for the contesting respondents contended that apart from the grounds raised by Mr.R.Balasubramanian, it is also seen that the individuals who were overlooked were not considered ignoring that they were already as Acting Bill Clerks. The said mistake came to the notice by the respondents only at a later stage after giving representations through the Unions. Therefore there was no error in setting right, the defects in the earlier panel. 9. I have considered the submissions of both sides. The main issue which is involved is whether the panel/ seniority list of 1992, could be interfered with nearly after 5 years. Preparation of the promotion panels are subject to the right of affected individuals to file their objections/ appeal. Before promotions are given effect to, the aggrieved persons are given opportunity to file their objections. After the said stage is over, and promotions are given effect to and certain vested rights are accrued in favour of the promoted individuals. It is settled proposition of service law that parties will not be entitled to agitate the issue at a later point of time which would result in unsettling the settled rights, the benefits of promotion, and affecting the service cadre, which will not be in the interest of the institution. Persons claiming that they should have been promoted earlier have to assert their rights at the relevant period and cannot complain later and claim that they should be promoted with seniority in the promoted post with retrospective effect, without even having worked during the said period in the promoted post. The consequences of giving such promotion will have serious repercussions on the service conditions of persons who would be consequently affected and also give rise to further disputes. It is only in view of the said reasons, two vital conditions are imposed while preparing the panel, namely, a prescribed period of limitation to object and notice to be given to the affected parties. Admittedly in this case, both the said vital requirements have been violated. No appeal has been filed muchless, within the period of limitation. No notice had been given to the affected parties. 10. Promotion and preparation of the promotion panel are dealt with under chapter II of the TNCSC Employees Regulations 1989. Clause Nos. 4 to 7 as follows, deal with the preparation of the panel and objections to be filed thereon. 4. No notice had been given to the affected parties. 10. Promotion and preparation of the promotion panel are dealt with under chapter II of the TNCSC Employees Regulations 1989. Clause Nos. 4 to 7 as follows, deal with the preparation of the panel and objections to be filed thereon. 4. "The Appointing Authorities shall draw annual panels of approved candidates by 30th April with reference to anticipated vacancies for one year, on the basis of qualification as on 1st of April of that year. 5. Such approved Lists shall be effective for one year from the date of approval of the list and lapse thereafter. 6. The list of approved candidates shall be published in the Notice Board of the Head Office of the Corporation and all the Regional Offices concerned, as soon as possible. 7. An appeal against such approved list shall lie before the Appellate Authority namely the Authority to whom the panel drawing Authority is immediate subordinate within 30 days from the date of publication of the approved lists." 11. Therefore any objections to the panel should be filed within 30 days. Admittedly no such appeal was ever filed much less within the period of limitation. Even the present impugned action had been taken not on the basis of any belated appeal but only on the basis of some representations given only just prior to the passing of impugned order. Though a stand has been taken in the counter-affidavit filed by both the respondents that appeals had been filed, as a fact it is conceded that no appeals in terms of the regulations have been filed by the contesting respondents. The representation had been given by the party respondents only at a much later date and the impugned order does not even disclose the date of representation. 12. Consequently, on the two short and admitted grounds that no appeal had been filed as provided under Clause 7 and that no notice to the aggrieved persons have been given, this Writ Petition is bound to be allowed setting aside the impugned order. 13. Even so I will consider as to whether there are merits in the other submissions made on behalf of the respondents. 14. 13. Even so I will consider as to whether there are merits in the other submissions made on behalf of the respondents. 14. Mr.R.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Corporation was unable to support the order on the basis of any of the regulations after having fairly admitted that no appeals have been filed as contemplated under Clause VII. No review power is also available under chapter II. Review power is available only under Chapter V, dealing with disciplinary proceedings, penalties and appeals and a power of suo-motu review is also provided. Such power is available only to proceedings under that Chapter. The said power under chapter V is understandable as it relates only to the case of individuals with reference to whom disciplinary proceedings are taken and not a case of promotion affecting the entire cadre or category as would result under chapter II which deals with promotion and preparation of panel for promotion. Any delay, in finalising the panel and promotion would adversely affect many individuals as well as the administration of the institution itself. 15. The decisions relied upon by Mr.R.Balasubramanian in support of his contention that limitation should be ignored in public interest and that the illegality committed in the preparation of panel cannot be perpetrated, cannot apply to the facts of the present case. 16. In VENKATESWARA RAO v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ( AIR 1966 S.C 828 ,) the Supreme Court was dealing with the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of location or Primary Health Centre. The High Court refused exercise its power even though the impugned decision was found to be violative of the statutory provisions. The Supreme Court upheld of the decision of the High Court and held that the circumstances did not warrant interference. The issue which was dealt with was an issue of public interest. There were two illegal situations and by allowing the Writ, one illegality of not giving notice to the villagers may be set right but the second illegality will be revived and upheld. In that background the Supreme Court felt that there was no need to exercise the discretion and the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. There were two illegal situations and by allowing the Writ, one illegality of not giving notice to the villagers may be set right but the second illegality will be revived and upheld. In that background the Supreme Court felt that there was no need to exercise the discretion and the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present case before us the illegality is not only in failing to give notice to the aggrieved persons which violates principles of natural justice and the period of limitation as provided under Regulations but also total lack of power in the authority to review the panel which has become final, valid and binding on all the parties. 17. The judgment in BANK OF INDIA v. DEGALA SURYANARAYANA (AIR 1999 S.C.2407) is a case of erroneous application of the sealed cover procedure. The issues of non-filing of the Appeal, limitation, and lack of power of review did not arise for consideration. 18. The contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents is also without substance. The contention that the claim of some of the persons were ignored not realising that they were already working as Acting Bill clerks, is without any basis. It is not as though the names of the said individuals were not considered while framing the panel. Their names were considered and found unfit for certain other reasons such as pendency of the disciplinary proceedings etc. A perusal of the panel itself discloses that their names were taken up for consideration but were rejected. They have also been given opportunity to file an appeal which admittedly had not been availed by them. This contention is therefore without any basis. 19. The contention that the petitioners ought to have filed on appeal cannot also be sustained. Firstly, the impugned order is not one of preparation of the panel in terms of Regulations 5 and 6. Secondly, filing of any appeal would be a futile exercise considering that impugned orders have been passed only on the direction of the Government as well as by the first respondent. 20. Therefore,the impugned order is liable to be quashed. However the benefit of this order has to be restricted only to the Writ Petitioners and cannot be extended to any other individual who is also likely to be affected by the impugned order. 20. Therefore,the impugned order is liable to be quashed. However the benefit of this order has to be restricted only to the Writ Petitioners and cannot be extended to any other individual who is also likely to be affected by the impugned order. Such of those persons having chosen to be satisfied with the impugned order,cannot claim the benefits of this order. 21. In the result the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order shall stand set aside only in so far as it affects the petitioners who are actually before this Court. No costs.