S.K.Krishnan, J.: Aggrieved by the order, dated 28.4.2000 passed in O.A.No.180 of 1999 by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, the petitioner, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited., Chennai, filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the said order and quash the same. 2. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition, are as follows: (a) The first respondent was appointed as Technician at Madras Fort Radio under A.E.Wireless, Madras, on 19.5.1976. After the completion of the training at Chennai; he was promoted as Transmission Assistant and allotted to Kancheepuram Division on 6.5.1983. Since the technicians alone are eligible to pursue part time B.E.degree course, at the request of the first respondent, he was permitted to continue as Technician for completing his B.E. part time course. The first respondent did not inform the department about the completion of his B.E.degree course. Meanwhile, the department has taken a policy decision treating the Transmission Assistant/Telephone Inspector cadres as ‘dying cadres/ and has stopped the recruitment to the above said posts. The Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department in the Memo.No.9/23/71-Estt(D), dated 6.6.1978 prescribes that the offer of appointment once made will lapse after a maximum period of nine months. However, in the case of the first respondent, though he claimed appointment on promotion after 12 years, his request was considered and he was promoted as Transmission Assistant and was posted at Madras and thereafter, he was transferred to Madurai. In 1992, when the Telecommunications Consultants of India Limited (hereinafter called as T.C.I.L.) called for deputation of officials in the cadre of Technician, the first respondent was deputed to T.C.I.L. for assignment in Saudi Arabia. After the completion of deputation, the first respondent sought for posting in the cadre of Transmission Assistant. The Transmission Assistants, who possess B.Sc.Degree in first class or B.E.Degree were exempted from appearing the screening test and their names were included in the list of eligible candidates fit for promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Officer (hereinafter called as J.T.O.). The plea of the first respondent for inclusion of his name in the above said list was rejected in 1996 as the persons having experience of five years in the post of Transmission Assistants alone are eligible. The plea of the first respondent for inclusion of his name in the above said list was rejected in 1996 as the persons having experience of five years in the post of Transmission Assistants alone are eligible. Suppressing the above facts, the first respondent filed an application in O.A.No.180 of 1999 before the Tribunal, which gave certain directions by its order dated 28.4.2000 to the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that though the first respondent was promoted as Transmission Assistant, since he wanted to complete his B.E.degree course, he opted to retain in the same post and after the completion of B.E.degree course, he has not informed the same to the department and therefore, the question of denial of promotion does not arise. 5. Further, since the promotion given by the department was not accepted by the first respondent within a period of nine months, he cannot claim promotion. 6. It is further contended that even the name of the first respondent cannot be included as he has not completed five years service in the cadre of Transmission Assistant and therefore, his plea was rejected by the department and in the above circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent was not given promotion as Transmission Assistant though he informed the authorities that he had completed his B.E.Degree Course and sought for posting orders as Transmission Assistant by his letter dated 19.3.1986. However, the first respondent was not given promotion till 1992. In the year 1992, he was deputed to Saudi Arabia to complete the assignment of T.C.I.L. After the completion of deputation, he joined duty on 9.11.1995 as Technician. Only on 13.5.1996, he was promoted as Transmission Assistant. 8. However, the first respondent was not given promotion till 1992. In the year 1992, he was deputed to Saudi Arabia to complete the assignment of T.C.I.L. After the completion of deputation, he joined duty on 9.11.1995 as Technician. Only on 13.5.1996, he was promoted as Transmission Assistant. 8. Based on the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that though the first respondent was allowed as a special case to continue as Technician in wireless station, Meenambedu, Madras till he completes his part time B.E.degree course and his seniority in the cadre of Transmission Assistant would be fixed along with the recruits of the year in which he takes the promotion, yet he was not given promotion till 13.5.1996 even after the claim of the first respondent. 9. Further, the learned counsel would contend that not only the first respondent was denied promotion till 13.5.1996 even though he informed the fact that he had completed his B.E.degree course and sought for posting orders as Transmission Assistant, but also his juniors were promoted as Transmission Assistant. 10. That apart, the learned counsel would contend that, while preparing the combined seniority list for the promotion of J.T.O. from the cadres of Transmission Assistant, Phone Inspectors and Wireless Operators, the request of the first, respondent for inclusion of his name was not considered by the department on the ground that he has not completed five years of service in the cadre of Transmission Assistant. When especially for the purpose of getting promotion as J.T.O., the first respondent completed his B.E.degree even by postponing his promotion as Transmission Assistant, the non inclusion of his name in the said list, while the names of his juniors were included, is a clear case of violation of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, after considering the above discriminatory and violative acts of the department, the Tribunal gave certain directions to the department and in such circumstances, the interference of this Court is uncalled for. 11. It is a fact that the first respondent was promoted to the cadre of Transmission Assistant from the cadre of Wireless Technician. 11. It is a fact that the first respondent was promoted to the cadre of Transmission Assistant from the cadre of Wireless Technician. However, at the request of the first respondent, he was permitted to complete his part time B.E.degree course and after completion of the said course he can take his promotion and his seniority would be fixed along with the recruits of the year in which he takes the promotion. In this connection, it is pertinent to extract the contents of the letter, dated 14.7.1983, of the General Manager, Telecom, Madras-2. The said letter reads as follows: “In partial modification of this office memo referred. To above Shri.N.Thangarajan Tech. (SI.No.17) who was posted as Transmission Asst. Kancheepuram Division is allowed as a special case to continue as Technician in wireless station, Meenambedu, Madras till he completes his part time B.E.course. His seniority as Transmission Assistant will be fixed along with the recruits of the year in which he takes the promotion.” 12. After the completion of his degree course, the first respondent, requested posting orders as Transmission Assistant and allot him to Madras Engineering Division by his letter dated 19.3.1986. 13. On perusal of the records, it is seen that there was no reply from the department to the letter of the first respondent dated 19.3.1986. While so, it is also not in dispute that the first respondent was deputed to T.C.I.L, Delhi, by an order of the first respondent, dated 7.10.1992 and he was sent to Saudi Arabia by the T.N.C.S.C. Corporation. After the completion of his deputation he joined duty on 9.11.1995 and thereafter, he was promoted as Transmission Assistant on 13.5.1996. 14. Meanwhile, the juniors to the first respondent were sent for training for appointment to the post of Transmission Assistant. It is evident from the letter of the General Manager, Telecommunications, dated 16.12.1987. 15. In the above background of facts, the connection of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent has not informed the completion of his degree and therefore, he was not given promotion, cannot be accepted in view of the letter of the first respondent, dated 19.3.1986. 16. 15. In the above background of facts, the connection of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent has not informed the completion of his degree and therefore, he was not given promotion, cannot be accepted in view of the letter of the first respondent, dated 19.3.1986. 16. Further, the contention of the learned senior counsel that once the promotion is given, that should be accepted within nine months, otherwise, after the lapse of nine months, the first respondent cannot claim promotion, cannot also be accepted, since the department itself allowed the first respondent as a special case to take his promotion after the completion of his degree course and therefore, the question of period of lapse does not arise. 17. At this juncture, we have to say that when the first respondent was allowed to postpone his promotion to complete his B.E.degree course, on the condition that he can continue as Technician till he completes his degree course and his seniority as Transmission Assistant would be fixed along with the recruits of the year in which he takes the promotion, he should have been given promotion as Transmission Assistant on receipt of his letter dated 19.3.1986, since taking of promotion was left open to the option of the first respondent. However, the Court cannot understand, as to why the first respondent was not given promotion till 1996, while his juniors were promoted to the cadre of Transmission Assistant. Therefore, it is a clear case of violation of the Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 18. Further, in the absence of any valid reasons for not giving promotion to the first respondent from 1986 to 1996 and for giving promotions to the juniors of the first respondent, we cannot accept the contention that since the first respondent has not completed five years of service in the cadre of Transmission Assistant, his plea for inclusion of his name in the combined seniority list for the promotion of J.T.O., was rejected. 19. In our opinion, in this case, the condition of the first respondent, who joined service in 1976 and got promotion only in 1996, i.e., after two decades, in spite of his qualifications and experience, is really pathetic. 19. In our opinion, in this case, the condition of the first respondent, who joined service in 1976 and got promotion only in 1996, i.e., after two decades, in spite of his qualifications and experience, is really pathetic. The first respondent joined in service in the year 1976 and was promoted in the year 1983 and that promotion was allowed to postpone by the first respondent to pursue his higher studies to get a promotion as J.T.O. ‘Though the department allowed the first respondent to pursue his further studies, it did not allow him to occupy the position, namely, J.T.O., for which he studied at the expense of immediate next promotion. At this juncture, while we appreciate and encourage the department for allowing the individual to continue his studies, at the same time, we discourage the attitude followed by the department in denying promotion without any reason either valid or invalid, which kind of attitude will only help to prevent the employees not only from raising their qualifications but also from updating their knowledge and skill, without which the development and better service in any field is unthinkable. 20. After considering all the above aspects, the Tribunal passed a well reasoned order, with which were not inclined to interfere. However, there are reasons to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in favour of the first respondent. Since the first respondent is satisfied with the order of the Tribunal the Court is disinclined to interfere with the same. 21. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. However, since the petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition, it is necessary for this Court to grant further time to comply with the directions of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to complete the exercise as stated in the order of the Tribunal, dated 28.4.2000 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 22. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Connected W.M.P. is also dismissed.