ORDER ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated 12.7.2001 made in O.A. No. 161 of 2001, wherein the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Writ Petitioners dated 16.1.2001, de-regularizing the services of respondents 1 and 2, whose services have been regularized with effect from 11.4.1997 as per the DPC recommendation against the Government memos issued by the Government from time to time. 2. The case of the applicants before the Tribunal is that they are Engineering Graduates and on the basis of the results of the competitive examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission for Engineering Service in the years 1977 and 1978, they were appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), which is a Group ‘B‘ post, in the first respondent-department. The first applicant; has been working as Assistant Engineer (Civil) from 1981 onwards. Likewise, the second applicant has been working as Assistant Engineer (Civil) from March 1980 onwards. Both of them were direct recruits. The next avenue of promotion to both of them is Executive Engineer (Civil). The eligibility for getting the said promotion is eight years regular service as Assistant Engineer (Civil). Further, the said promotion is on the basis of selection on merit. Both the applicants have completed the required eight years regular service as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the years 1988 and 1989. They were under the fond hope that they would be promoted as Executive Engineer (Civil). As they were not promoted, they made several representations, but the same were not considered. 3. It is the further case of the applicants that pursuant to the order passed by the Principal Bench, the applicant were promoted as Executive Engineer (Civil) on an ad hoc basis in the year 1993. Several other representations were made and finally, the first respondent therein constituted a Departmental Promotion committee (DPC) in accordance with the recruitment rules and considered the case of the applicants along with other eligible candidates for giving them regular promotion in the post of Executive Engineer (Civil). The DPC recommended the names of both the applicants and both of them were promoted as Executive Engineer (Civil) by the order dated 11.4.1997. The DPC recommended the names of both the applicants and both of them were promoted as Executive Engineer (Civil) by the order dated 11.4.1997. The grievance of the applicants is that they ought to have been promoted regularly from 1989 onwards and in order to get the said promotion from the due date, the applicants made several representatives to the respondents therein. But, instead of considering their request, the first respondent therein passed an order on 16.1.2001, under which, the applicants were informed that their regular service as Executive Engineer (Civil) was de-regularised with effect from 20.3.1997 and their promotion as Executive Engineer (Civil) was only on an ad hoc basis with effect form 20.3.1997. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2001, the appellants filed O.A.No. 161 of 2001 challenging the said order on various grounds. 4. The main ground of attack is that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and they were not given any opportunity before passing the aforesaid order. When they were promoted on a regular basis as per the decision of the DPC dated 11.4.1997, they had not been deprived of their right of regular promotion from 11.4.1997. Their services should not have been de-regularised by the impugned order, dated 16.1.2010 without issuing notice to them. The other ground is that the impugned order came to be passed at the instance of the representations made by the applicants themselves. Since the retired Officers, who were available for consideration for promotion during the relevant time when the vacancies arose but had retired subsequently, have also been included in the panel, the seniority of the applicants was affected. Hence, on that ground also, the impugned order is liable to be get aside. 5. The Union Public Service Commission has passed the order dated 11.6.1999 stating as follows : “The department's proposal for reviewing the recommendations of DPC held in February 1997 for promotion to the grade of Executive Engineer for vacancies pertaining to the years 1976 to 1993-1994 after considering the Officers, who have already retired, has been carefully considered by the Commission in the light of the clarifications/instructions issued by DOPT vide their OM dated 12.10.1998. The Commission observe that clarification, instructions issued by the DOPT vide their OM dated 12.10.1998 can only have prospective effect and do not provide for re-opening old cases. The Commission observe that clarification, instructions issued by the DOPT vide their OM dated 12.10.1998 can only have prospective effect and do not provide for re-opening old cases. Accordingly the Commission do not consider that any review of the recommendations of the DPC which met on 10th February 1997 is called for.” In view of the above clarifications issued by the U.P.S.C. the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. The Tribunal, after appreciating evidence relied on by the applicants and following the authorities relied on by the parties, set aside the impugned order passed by the Department, observing that as per the opinion of the U.P.S.C. the old cases are not to be re-opened and the OM dated 12.10.1998 can only have the prospective effect. It is further observed that when a person is allowed a particular rank in the seniority list and he has been allowed to stand in that serial number for years together and when his rank is to be lowered down after many years, he has to be given notice, which is a settled principle of law. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department has filed the present Writ Petition, contending that the Tribunal has failed to note that, the applicants have not challenged the O.M. dated 12.10.1998, in and by which, the person who had retired but who were fully qualified to be promoted during the relevant time, when the vacancies arose, but for the non-convening of the DPC meetings, should be considered for promotion. It is further contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the interest of the retired employees and the department has taken the decision to review the DPC. As per the recommendation, the impugned order was passed. By virtue of this order, no prejudice would be caused to the applicants. 8. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that there is no question of negation of the applicants‘ right to be promoted and to be in the promotional post, but the only question is as to for which of the years the applicants promotion should be related to. Therefore, it is only a question of postponement of the regular promotion and certainly not denial of promotion. Hence the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside. Therefore, it is only a question of postponement of the regular promotion and certainly not denial of promotion. Hence the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside. It is further contended that on the basis of the Office memorandum, only to be safeguard the interest of retired employee during that the year, the decision was taken to review the DPC's recommendation in the year 1997. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid contention learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the writ petitioners contended that in the decision reported in the case of P. A. Chandran v. Board of Revenue (Excise), 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 159, which relates to educational qualification, the Supreme Court has held that the chance of promotion of non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards can get only deferred and not denied. It is a settled law that promotion cannot be claimed with the aid of Article 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as no incumbent has a right to be promoted and it is because of this a chance of promotion has not been regarded as encompassed within the right visualized by Article 16. The educational qualification could not from the basis of classification in the service. 10. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the writ petitioners also relied on the decision reported in the case of Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U. P. (2006) 2 SCC 315 , which related to appointment of Urdu teacher in various districts of Uttar Pradesh wherein it is held that the qualification for appointing the teachers was fixed. The issue for consideration before the Court was that the appointments were cancelled without issuing any prior notice or opportunity of being heard, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. When the Teachers were appointed as per the Notification and when the qualification was in dispute, there was a direction given by the Urdu Advisory Director of Education to the fourth respondent therein regarding the cancellation of appointment of the appellants on the ground that they did not possess the Basic Teachers Certificate (BTC). The respondent No.4 therein by letter dated 9.8.1985 cancelled the appointment and directed them to contact the appointing Authority along with BTC and Intermediate (Urdu Certificate) for the purpose of verification if these documents were in their possession. The respondent No.4 therein by letter dated 9.8.1985 cancelled the appointment and directed them to contact the appointing Authority along with BTC and Intermediate (Urdu Certificate) for the purpose of verification if these documents were in their possession. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which stayed the operation of the order cancelling their appointments. In those circumstances the above finding was given by the Supreme Court. 11. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the writ petitioners also relied on the decision reported in the case of Abraham Jacob v. Union of India , AIR 1998 SCC 1011, (1998) 4 SCC 65 : 1998-II-LLJ-30. 12. After going through the aforesaid decisions relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the writ petitioners, we are of the view that the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. Insofar as the decision reported in the case of Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U. P. (2006) 2 SCC 315 , concerned the appointment of Urdu Teachers were cancelled, since they have not possessed any basic qualifications and directed them to contact the appointing Authority with the documents. Those who were not having documents to prove their qualifications, their appointments were cancelled. Therefore, the above decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the and circumstances of case. 14. The applicants were appointed as Executive Engineer (Civil) in the years 1980 and 1981 respectively. They had completed the required eight years of service for promotion. Accordingly, they were given promotion as Executive Engineer (Civil) as per the recommendation of DPC dated 11.4.1997. When they submitted their representations to consider their case for promotion on regular basis with effect from 1988-89, instead of passing order and considering their representations to consider their case for promotion on regular basis with effect from 1988-89, they were informed that their regular service as Executive Engineer (Civil) was de-regularized with effect from 20.3.1997. On the basis of some representations made by the Officers, lot of correspondences were made between the department and UPSC and the UPSC has made it clear that the Commission do not consider any review of the recommendations of the DPC decision on the basis of which promotions were effected. On the basis of some representations made by the Officers, lot of correspondences were made between the department and UPSC and the UPSC has made it clear that the Commission do not consider any review of the recommendations of the DPC decision on the basis of which promotions were effected. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it was to give benefit to the retired employees, who were within the zone of consideration during the relevant years but are not actually in service when the DPC is being held and are not considered while preparing year wise zone of consideration/panel and consequently their juniors are considered for promotion. The retired employees were not before the department or before the Tribunal. Therefore the writ petitioners committed illegality in reviewing the decision of the DPC in the year 1997. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal is right in setting aside the order passed by the writ petitioners. As per the clarification issued by UPSC as extracted above, the clarifications issued by the UPSC under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, further submitted that no provision of law is shown enabling to review the decision of DPC. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable in law. Therefore no interference is called for. 15. We have heard both the learned counsel and considered their respective submissions. As stated above, the claim of the applicants/respondents 1 and 2 is that they have become eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on regular basis from 1988-1989 onwards, as they have completed 8 years of qualified service. But the respondents, on the ground that the persons, who had retired but who were fully qualified to be promoted during the relevant time when the vacancies arose but could not be considered due to non-convening of the DPC, should also be considered, have de-regualrised the promotion of the applicants. However, as per the O.M.No.33-2/94-CWG dated 11.1.1999, the names of Assistant Engineers, who were available for consideration for promotion during the relevant time when the vacancies arose but had retired subsequently have also been included subject to their selection in the select panel to be prepared in the review DPC. In fact the UPSC has stated that the O.M. dated 12.10.1998 can only have prospective effect. Further, the retired Officers have no right for actual promotion. 16. In fact the UPSC has stated that the O.M. dated 12.10.1998 can only have prospective effect. Further, the retired Officers have no right for actual promotion. 16. Therefore, on the basis of material placed on record we are satisfied with the order impugned in O.A.No. 161 of 2001, which has given cogent reasons. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps. are also dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.