Judgment :- Common Order: (R. Balasubramanian, J.) In this batch of writ petitions, the Union of India is challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench passed in various O.A.s The contesting respondent/respondents in each writ petition, who was/were the applicant/applicants in their respective O.As before the Central Administrative Tribunal was/were working as Group “C” employee(s) in the Postal Department. The next promotional post is the Lower Selection Grade. To fill up the vacancy in the Lower Selection Grade, two modes are prescribed namely, one-third of the vacancies to be recruited by conducting qualifying examination and the remaining two-third on seniority-cum-fitness basis from the lower category namely Group “C”. There is no dispute that the contesting respondents were Group “C” employees; all of them participated in the examination held on 10.12.1978 for the vacancies that arose in the year 1977-78 and in the examination held on 15.2.1981 for the vacancies that arose in the year 1980-81; all of them came out successful and a total number of 267 Group “C” employees representing the one-third quota were empanelled for promotion to the Lower Selection Grade. On and with effect from 30.11.1983, the Union of India brought a new scheme called Time-Bound One Promotion Scheme under which any Government Servant, who had put in 16 years of service would be promoted. The contesting respondents went before the Tribunal contending that once they are empanelled, pursuant to the qualifying examinations held in 1978 and 1981 for promotion to the Lower Selection Grade, till such time, the entire list is exhausted, the list must be maintained and since, posting orders are not being issued, necessary direction must be given to the department concerned. The Tribunal agreed with their submission and granted the relief as prayed for. 2. Mr.R.Santhanam, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, challenging the order of the Tribunal, would submit that the Government of India has a right to take a policy decision on the issue of promotion and since, they have taken such a decision by introducing a scheme with effect from 30.11.1983 (Time-Bound One Promotion Scheme), those who have been empanelled, consequent to the qualifying examinations referred to earlier, would have no subsisting legal right to have that list maintained, till all the 267 persons enlisted in the panel get posting orders. In other words, the submission is that they have no legal right to insist upon posting orders based on their success in the qualifying examinations. 3. Contending contra, Mr.Ramasamy Rajarajan, a learned member of the bar and Mr. Antony, a party appearing in person would submit the following: “The interpretation of Rule 272-A of P&T Manual, Volume IV came up before the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and it was held that whoever took the qualifying examinations first and came out successful should be appointed in priority to those, who took the examinations at a later point of time and came out successful. Therefore, the panel of 267 candidates, who came out successful in the qualifying examinations should be maintained. On the same principle, several others, who had taken the qualifying examinations, went before the Kerala High Court initially in writ jurisdiction; on constitution of the Administrative Tribunal, those applications were transferred to the Tribunal; the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kerala Bench granted the relief as prayed for following the Full Bench judgment and when that judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court, the Apex Court rejected it at the admission stage itself. Some others went before various Central Administrative Tribunals seeking the relief as granted by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and they were all rejected on the ground of delay and when those aggrieved persons approached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in the judgment in K.C. Sharma and Others V. Union of India and Others reported in 1998 SCC (L&S) 226 held that on the given facts of the case, the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and granted the relief as given by the Full Bench.” Therefore, the sum and substance of the argument is the interpretation of Rule 272-A of P&T Manual, Volume IV by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal; the rejection order passed by the Supreme Court at the admission stage confirming the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kerala Bench and the judgment of the Supreme Court directing the Tribunal to condone the delay; take up the applications on file and then consider granting the relief based on the Full Bench judgment in Udai Shanker Meena V. Union of India and Others reported in 1997 (35) Administrative Tribunal Cases 22 would enable them to have the order of the Tribunal sustained. 4. 4. We applied our mind to the various materials placed brought to our notice. The issued raised before this Court and before the Tribunal namely, once the Time-Bound One Promotion Scheme is introduced, whatever rights the contesting respondents had, pursuant to their success in the qualifying examinations, would be lost, was not the issue in any of the cases relied on by the respondents. What legal right would a Government Servant, whose name is included in the panel for promotion, have is also not the subject matter of all those decisions. It is a well-settled position in law that a Government Servant, whose name is included in the panel for promotion, would not have an indefeasible right to get posting orders based on such empanelment. When that is the position in law, we have no doubt at all that mere empanelment of the contesting respondents for promotion, based on the qualifying examinations held in the year 1978 and 1981 to the post of Lower Selection Grade, would not clothe them with any legal right to compel the appointing authority to issue posting orders to them. It cannot also be disputed that Union of India has an unassailed right to take any policy decision in the matter of promotion. Only in that context, the time-bound scheme came into existence from 30.11.1983. This Court is informed that the Time-Bound One Promotion Scheme is signed by the Management and the staff on 30.11.1983 and that the benefit of the said scheme have been given to all the contesting respondents and they have accepted it. It is an admitted fact that the vacancies that arose in the category of Lower Selection Grade, upto the year 1983, have been filled up, from and out of the panel of 267 candidates referred to above and the rest could not be accommodated for want of vacancies. As already stated, once the time-bound scheme is introduced, we have no doubt all that the contesting respondents will have no legal right to stick to the panel referred to above and insist on posting orders to be issued to them. Consequently, finding that the order of the Tribunal in the above batch of cases is erroneous, it is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps and W.V.M.Ps are closed. 5. Consequently, finding that the order of the Tribunal in the above batch of cases is erroneous, it is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps and W.V.M.Ps are closed. 5. However, with reference to W.P.No.7288 of 2001, we are inclined to give the following directions: “The first respondent in this writ petition did not even go before the Tribunal claiming any relief. However, based on his empanelment, the appointing authority passed an order on 6.12.99 giving monetary benefits. Mr.Jayesh Dolia, learned counsel for the first respondent in this writ petition would submit that when the department itself gave the benefit on their own without any request for the same, his client should not be forced to return the monetary benefits, which he had received. In other words, his submission is the monetary benefits received by the first respondent working in the promotional post, consequent to the unilateral act on the part of the writ petitioners under their letter dated 6.12.1999 should not be recovered. We find reasonableness in this submission. Therefore, we are inclined to direct that no recovery shall be made from the first respondent by the appointing authority in respect of the monetary benefits which he received pursuant to the order dated 6.12.99.”