Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of certiorari, calling for the order/records of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and quash the order dated 15.3.2005 in O.A.No.595 of 2004 in so far as it has directed the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent for promotion to Group III(4) under the provisions of Paras 2.3.4 of the Revised MANAS read with letter dated 9.8.96 and to complete the exercise within three months from the date of receipt of the order.) R. Sudhakar, J. This Writ Petition is filed praying for issuance of writ of certiorari, calling for the order/records of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and to quash the order dated 15.3.2005 in O.A.No.595 of 2004 in so far as it has directed the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent for promotion to Group III(4) under the provisions of Paras 2.3.4 of the Revised MANAS read with letter dated 9.8.1996 and to complete the exercise within three months from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The brief facts in this writ petition are that the first respondent was appointed as Mechanic on 12.3.1976, which was classified as auxiliary technical without any promotional prospects under Bye-law 71(b). In view of the difficulties faced by the employees due to non-availability of promotional prospects, the Normal Recruitment and Assessment Scheme (NRAS) of CSIR was introduced with effect from 1.2.1981, which classified the entire Scientific and Technical staff into four Groups, namely, Groups-I and II (support staff), Group-III(Technical), Group IV (R & D Scientific). The categories of staff, who were not eligible for periodic Assessment Promotion under Bye-law 71(b), were brought into Grade-I and II under NRAS and the benefit of internal Assessment Promotion was extended to them. The erstwhile Scientific and technical staff under the Bye-law 71(b), who were entitled for promotion under the said Bye-law, were given option to come over to the new scheme, i.e., NRAS and they were placed in Group-IV and Group-III under the NRAS scheme as per their qualification. The auxiliary technical staff under the erstwhile Bye-law, who had no promotional avenues were brought under the NRAS Scheme and were placed in Group-II or Group-I as per their qualification and they were entitled for periodic Assessment promotion under the new scheme. The auxiliary technical staff under the erstwhile Bye-law, who had no promotional avenues were brought under the NRAS Scheme and were placed in Group-II or Group-I as per their qualification and they were entitled for periodic Assessment promotion under the new scheme. The Normal Recruitment Assessment Scheme was superseded by Merit and Normal Assessment Scheme (MANAS) with effect from 1.4.1988. The Merit and Normal Assessment Scheme was revised (revised MANAS) with effect from 1.4.1992. The first respondent employee was assessed and promoted from time to time under the scheme, which was prevailing at that particular time. The first respondent was placed in Group-II(1) on 1.2.1981 under Normal Recruitment and Assessment Scheme and on his completion of 7 years from the date of appointment, he was assessed and promoted to Group-II(2) on 12.3.1983. He was again assessed and promoted to Group-II(3) on 12.3.1990 after completion of 7 years under MANAS. On 1.1.1996, Fifth Pay Commission merged the scales of pay of Group-II(3) and II(4) and hence the first respondent was brought under Group-II(4) from 1.1.1996. Meanwhile the first respondent passed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with Second Class in the year 1995. Therefore, he became eligible for promotion earlier by 2 years as per para 2.3.4 of Revised MANAS, which states as follows:- "Those employees who were in position as on 31.12.81 and have acquired entry level qualification of the next Group may be assessed to the next Higher Grade in the same Group two years earlier than the normal prescribed period of assessment, provided they attain the prescribed threshold. If an assessee is not recommended for promotion the first time, this will be treated as the first chance due on completion of five years and he/she will get his/her chance in subsequent years as per the table for Group-III. The condition of first class M.Sc./B.E. as laid down for Group-IV will not apply in such assessments. The above decision came into force with effect from 25.9.1990. However, scientific and technical employees due for assessments on earlier dates will be allowed notional benefit from the date of assessment with actual monetary benefit with effect from 25.9.90. This benefit will be allowed only under Normal Assessment and not under Merit Assessment." (emphasis supplied) The said provision was modified vide letter dated 9.8.1996 to the extent that it was made applicable to Group-I and II employees also. This benefit will be allowed only under Normal Assessment and not under Merit Assessment." (emphasis supplied) The said provision was modified vide letter dated 9.8.1996 to the extent that it was made applicable to Group-I and II employees also. It was further modified vide letter dated 28.1.1997 to the extent that if the assessee is not recommended for promotion, the chance of two year earlier assessment will not be adjusted against the chance available for normal assessment under Revised MANAS. As per the said provision 2.3.4, if an employee in Group-II acquires entry level qualification of the next group, then he may be assessed in the same Group two years earlier than the normal prescribed period and the first respondent had availed benefits under 2.3.4. Having reached the Group-II(5) post, viz., Senior Technical Assistant and having put 28 years of service in C.L.R.I. and having passed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in the year 1995, the first respondent was the senior most candidate with necessary qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer Group III(4), which he claimed as eligible on completion of 7 years of service. Such promotion was denied on the ground that the first respondent did not possess the first class diploma and he has only second class diploma. His claim was not considered by the authority. Therefore, he submitted his grievance to the Grievance Committee in the Institute and the Grievance Committee has opined as follows:- "Grievance Sl.No.34(Sri S.G.Vedanayagam, Gr.II(5))/21(125)/2002-E.II/ Date on which decision taken by the Grievance Committee 11.4.2003 Decision Sri S.G.Vedanayagam is requested to submit an application to the Administration with all details of individuals holding II Class Diploma in Engineering subjects having got promotion/change over from Gr.II to Gr.III in various CSIR labs by attaching copies of OM issued in such cases. Administration is requested to take up the matter with CSIR for considering similar benefits given to such promotees in other labs to be extended to Sri Vedanayagam also." In respect of the above recommendation of the Grievance Committee, on 10.6.2003, the Controller of Administration issued an Office Memorandum, which reads as follows:- OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub: Grievance application No.34 filed by Shri SG Vedanayagam, Gr.II(5) With reference to his grievance application and the recommendations of the Local Grievance Committee, Shri SG Vedanayagam, Gr.II(5) is informed that a reference is being made to CSIR for seeking the factual position obtaining at CMERI, Durgapur, where Group change was effected to similarly placed Gr.II staff cited by him, under para 2.3.5 of Revised MANAS. This issues with the approval of Director, CLRI" Thereafter another Office Memorandum dated 28.11.2003 was issued by the Senior Controller of Administration, which reads as follows:- OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub: Grievance filed by Shri S.G.Vedanayagam Gr.II(5) for considering Movement to Gr.III as per 2.3.5 of Revised MANAS. With reference to the subject cited, CSIR vide letter number 17/66/5/94-PPS dated 11.11.2003 has stated that since Shri Vedanayagam does not possess the qualification of Gr.III in terms of division and hence not eligible for consideration for movement to Gr.III under the guidelines. The case of Shri Manickavasagam, CMERI, Durgapur cited in his representation is being taken up separately, by CSIR." Aggrieved by the rejection of his claim as above, the first respondent approached the Tribunal for appropriate relief to direct the authorities to consider his promotion to Group III(4) from Group II(5) having passed Diploma in Engineering in 1995 with II Class, and without discrimination. The Tribunal while rejecting the claim of the first respondent directed the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent employee for promotion to Group III(4) under the provisions of Para 2.3.4 of the revised MANAS read with letter dated 9.8.1996. 3. Aggrieved by such direction of the Tribunal, the present petitioners have filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal stating that the reasoning of the Tribunal is not correct and it is contrary to the Revised MANAS and that the first respondent cannot be given benefit of promotion from Grade-II to Group-III as per para 2.3.5 or under para 2.3.4 of the Revised MANAS. According to the petitioners, the Tribunal erred in granting the relief to the first respondent by misconstruing the provisions of the Revised MANAS. It is specifically contended that under para 2.3.4 of the Revised MANAS promotion to one group to another cannot be granted. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed challenging that portion of the order of the Tribunal granting the relief to the first respondent in terms of para 2.3.4 of the Revised MANAS. 4. The contesting first respondent/employee has stated in the counter that as stated in the writ petition, the first respondent has been promoted to the post of Group II(5) and is working as such. It is stated that he has successfully completed the course in Diploma of Mechanical Engineering and passed in Second Class, he is eligible for promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer which is Group III(4) post. Four other persons, by name, Manivasakam, Kumarasamy alias Benjamin Franklin, Jayaraman and Ragunathan, who were in possession of DMI, Second Class, were given promotion to the post of Group-III(4). Since the first respondent belongs to schedule caste, he was denied promotion. It is further stated that he has given a representation to the Grievance Committee, which committee has directed the first respondent to submit an application to the Administration with all details of individuals holding II Class Diploma in Engineering subjects having got promotion/change over from Grade-II to Grade-III in various CSIR labs by attaching copies of OM issued in such cases and the Administration was directed to take up the matter with CSIR for considering similar benefits given to such promotees in other labs to be extended to the first respondent also. But inspite of that, the claim of the first respondent was rejected by the petitioners illegally and against the rules and violation of principles of natural justice. It is intended that the attitude of the authorities amounts to clear discrimination and violation of the Constitutional safeguards available to a scheduled caste employee. It is further stated that as against the rejection of his claim, the first respondent filed O.A.No.595 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and the Tribunal allowed the Original Petition and directed the petitioners in this writ petition/respondents in the O.A. to consider first respondent's promotion under the normal merit promotion provided in the revised MANAS but with specific reference to para 2.3.4. As per the direction of the Tribunal, the writ petitioners ought to consider the promotion to the post of Group-III(4). Hence, the first respondent sought the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The short question that is required to be considered is whether the benefit under para 2.3.4 is applicable to the first respondent employee or whether he is disentitled to any promotion in view of para 2.3.5 of the Revised MANAS. 6. The Tribunal has clearly come to the conclusion that the first respondent is not entitled to the benefit under para 2.3.5 of the Revised MANAS. However, since the first respondent claim is for promotion according to the Rules and Regulations in force, the Tribunal went into the claim of the first respondent and his right to get promotion in terms of para 2.3.4. The Tribunal while analysing the above said provision has held in paragraphs 23 to 28 as follows:- "23. What emerges from the reading of the above two provisions is that para 2.3.5 assessments are based on a fast track method and the assessment under para 2.3.4 relates to normal assessment after an employee completes the prescribed years of service. While the applicant may not be eligible for the fast track promotion envisaged under para 2.3.5 because of not possessing the first division in the Engg. course, he has to be considered still for normal merit promotions under para 2.3.4 once he completes 5 years, 6, 7 and 9 years under the same grade. In such normal promotions, the condition of having first class as laid down for direct recruits at entry level do not seem to apply as seen from the specific provisions of paras 2.2.3.1 and in 2.3.4 itself regarding assessment for Group- IV. (emphasis supplied) 24. The same has been further clarified in a letter No.17/66/94 VPS dated 9.8.1996 addressed to the Directors of all the National Laboratories by the CSIR. A specific point of doubt raised and clarified was as under: Doubt: Whether condition of percentage of marks or first class B.Sc. as laid down for Group-II and III respectively will apply in such assessment to be done under the said provisions. Clarification: The benefits under the said provision will be admissible only to the employees who acquired qualification of the next higher group as prescribed under the revised MANAS. However, condition of minimum 50% marks and first class B.Sc. as laid down for Group-II and III respectively will apply in such assessment to be done under the said provisions. Clarification: The benefits under the said provision will be admissible only to the employees who acquired qualification of the next higher group as prescribed under the revised MANAS. However, condition of minimum 50% marks and first class B.Sc. prescribed for Group-II and III respectively will not apply. 25. Therefore, it becomes very clear that for assessment under para 2.3.4 of the revised MANAS a first division is not to be insisted upon. This para provides for consideration of assessment two years earlier than the normal period of assessment. The normal period of assessment for the relevant category of Group-III(4) being 5, 6, 7 and 9 years respectively an employee become eligible for the first and second assessment after 5 and 6 years. He can be considered two years earlier than this prescribed period which would amount to two years and three years. 26. The applicant in this case is working in Group-II(5) from 1.1.2001 and has acquired the qualification for higher group in 1995. Therefore, for all purposes he has become eligible for his normal assessment under para 2.3.4 without the condition of a first class diploma. 27. In the light of the above facts and circumstances the applicant is not found to qualify for the fast track promotion under para 2.3.5 of the revised MANAS as claimed by him to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer Group-III(4). His contention of having been discriminated as against one Sri Manickavasagam, an employee of a sister institute CMERI also is not legally tenable as the respondents have stated that the case of Shri Manickavasagam itself is being reexamined having been found to be irregular. However, the applicant's prayer is in general terms to promote him to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in Group-III(4). Therefore, we are of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the respondents are directed to consider him under the normal merit promotion provided in the revised MANAS but with specific reference to para 2.3.4 which enables consideration 2 years earlier than the prescribed period of assessment. 28. Therefore, we are of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the respondents are directed to consider him under the normal merit promotion provided in the revised MANAS but with specific reference to para 2.3.4 which enables consideration 2 years earlier than the prescribed period of assessment. 28. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to Group-III(4) under the provision of para 2.3.4 of the Revised MANAS r/w letter dated 9.8.1996 and to complete the exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order." We have perused the reasoning of the Tribunal. It is not disputed that the first respondent is entitled to the benefit of the revised MANAS. The first respondent has put more than 28 years of service. The provision of revised MANAS para 2.3.5 as has been observed by the Tribunal is for accelerated promotion, whereas the provision of para 2.3.4 relates to normal assessment on completion of certain prescribed years of service. The Tribunal has clearly come to the conclusion that the first respondent is not entitled to the accelerated promotion. However, the first respondent is entitled to normal merit promotion under para 2.3.4. To such promotion, the condition that the employee should have obtained first class diploma does not apply. The Tribunal has referred to para 2.2.3.1 which entitles the persons like first respondent to get promotion through normal merit promotion. The clarification dated 9.8.1996 set out in para 24 of the order of the Tribunal clearly clinches the issue. Such clarification is binding on the authorities. Therefore, the reasoning of the Tribunal that the first respondent is entitled to the normal promotion interpreting the provision of para 2.3.4 of the MANAS appears to be correct. In para 2.3.4 of the revised MANAS it is specifically stated that the condition of first class M.Sc./B.E. as laid down to group-IV will not apply to such assessment, comes in aid of the first respondent. The requirement of first class for promotion to another group does not apply in a case of promotion in terms of para 2.3.4 of the revised MANAS and that is the reason why the Tribunal interprets para 2.3.4 of the revised MANAS giving the benefits to the first respondent. Therefore, the interpretation of the Tribunal is in accordance with the provisions of the revised MANAS. Therefore, the interpretation of the Tribunal is in accordance with the provisions of the revised MANAS. The first respondent was claiming promotion under the Revised MANAS. If he is not entitled to claim the benefit of 2.3.5 under the accelerated promotion, the Department cannot deny the benefits under the normal route. The first respondent being the senior person is entitled to such benefit. 7. The other grievance of the first respondent is that there has been gross discrimination in so far as the first respondent is concerned while similarly placed persons have been given the benefit. Inspite of a specific plea having been raised by the first respondent from the inception that he is being discriminated, the Department is not able to come forward with a clear stand as to how similarly placed persons were given promotion. The specific plea of the first respondent is that several other similarly placed employees have been given the benefit of promotion from one group to another. If, 2.3.5 of the revised MANAS is not applicable to any one of them, then by implication para 2.3.4 will be made applicable in respect of other similarly placed employees for promotion. Therefore, there is no justification for the Department to deny the claim of the first respondent alone, in the light of the reasoning given by the Tribunal that para 2.3.4 is a promotional avenue without reference to para 2.3.5. Such finding of the Tribunal seems to be logical and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. It therefore, stands to reason that the claim of the first respondent that the authorities are discriminating between employees with regard to promotional opportunities is justified. Even at the time of final hearing in this year, no material was placed to show that the promotion given to other similarly placed employees were corrected. The only conclusion, therefore, would be that the interpretation given by the Tribunal is correct and the employees who have put sufficient number of years service are entitled to the benefit of normal promotional avenues, as per to the revised MANAS. 8. In such view of the matter, we find no error in the order of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition W.P.M.P.No.32026 of 2005 is closed.