Judgment :- Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the 1st Respondent dated 27. 2003 in No.PU/Estt/NT9/A14/2003-04/177 and direct Respondents to consider the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and promote him with all consequential benefits. 2. Briefly stated case of the Petitioner is as follows:- (i) Petitioner holds M.E. Degree in Structural Engineering. He has started his career as Jr. Engineer in Public Works Department of Government of Pondicherry and later became Asst. Engineer. After serving in the department, Petitioner was appointed as Asst. Engineer in the 1st Respondent University where Petitioner has rendered service for about 15 years. Petitioner is presently working as Executive Engineer in 1st Respondent University, Pondicherry. (ii) Case of the Petitioner is that he has rendered 10 years service in P.W.D. and 15 years service in the 1st Respondent University and he is fully qualified for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. Petitioner was stagnating in the post of Executive Engineer from 10. 1988. (iii) Engineering Wing of the 1st Respondent University has a cadre strength of two Draughtsman, two Jr. Engineers, two Asst. Engineers, one Executive Engineer and one Superintending Engineer. (iv) Grievance of the Petitioner is that post of Superintending Engineer has not been filled up for about 12 years which resulted in stagnation of the Petitioner and at the level Asst. Engineer. Petitioner has averred that 1st Respondent University has failed to fill up the post of Superintending Engineer which has had two adverse effects (i) stagnation of the Petitioner in the present cadre for the past 15 years; (ii) obstructing Petitioners career advancement. Petitioner has made several representations to the Respondents seeking promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. (v) Earlier, Petitioner has filed W.P.No.17883/2003 wherein, Court has directed the 1st Respondent University to consider Petitioners representation and pass orders on merit. First Respondent University by the impugned order dated 27. 2003 had taken a stand that high-level Manpower Committee constituted had observed that there was no need for the post of Superintending Engineer and based upon the recommendation, the said post was abolished. According to the Petitioner, it is false to state that post of Superintending Engineer was already abolished and Petitioner challenges the impugned order on that ground. 3. 2003 had taken a stand that high-level Manpower Committee constituted had observed that there was no need for the post of Superintending Engineer and based upon the recommendation, the said post was abolished. According to the Petitioner, it is false to state that post of Superintending Engineer was already abolished and Petitioner challenges the impugned order on that ground. 3. First Respondent University has filed counter inter alia stating that construction works in respect of new buildings of the University are being carried out by CPWD and the high-level Manpower Committee has observed that number of posts in the Engineering Wing are too many and there is no need of the post of Superintending Engineer. 1st Respondent has further averred that when the post of Superintending Engineer is not in existence, the prayer for promotion to such non-existence post cannot be countenanced. 4. Drawing attention of Court to the Budget estimate, Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that if the post of Superintending Engineer had already been abolished and is not in existence, expenditure could not have been found a place in the revised estimate. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that post of Superintending Engineer is very much available and once the post is available, eligibility candidate viz., the Petitioner has a right to be considered for promotion. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the impugned order proceeds on erroneous footing that Superintending Engineer post has been abolished and is not in existence and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. 5. Pointing out that Petitioner has been stagnated in the same post for more than 10 years, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner has got all requisite qualification and therefore, it is incumbent upon the 1st Respondent University to consider the Petitioner for promotion. 6. Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent University has submitted that high-level Manpower Committee has recommended abolition of post and inclusion made in the Budgetary estimate would not confer any right upon the Petitioner. Insofar as, the advertisement issued on 11. 2005, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has submitted that the advertisement was issued on need based only to over-see the project of the Estate Office and the same would not confer any right upon the Petitioner to be considered for the post of promotion. 7. Insofar as, the advertisement issued on 11. 2005, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has submitted that the advertisement was issued on need based only to over-see the project of the Estate Office and the same would not confer any right upon the Petitioner to be considered for the post of promotion. 7. Alleging that his various representations were not considered, earlier Petitioner has filed W.P.No.17883/2003 which was disposed of with a direction to the 1st Respondent University to consider Petitioners representation. Pursuant to that direction, 1st Respondent has sent the impugned order dated 27. 2003. The stand of 1st Respondent University is that high-level Manpower Committee constituted for assessing the total non-teaching staff requirement of the University had observed that there was no need for the post of Superintending Engineer and that based upon the recommendation, the said post was abolished. In short, first Respondent has taken a stand that post of Superintending Engineer does not exist in the University. 8. As pointed out earlier, the impugned order proceeds on the footing that post of Superintending Engineer is not in existence and that based upon the high-level Manpower Committee, the post was abolished. In the light of the above, the point falling for consideration is whether the post of Superintending Engineer is not in existence and whether Petitioner is entitled to seek for a direction to consider his name for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. 9. In the letter No.F.8-1/86 (CUP) dated 03. 1986, University Grants Commission (UGC) has agreed to provide assistance to the 1st Respondent University for appointment of the following staff in Estate Office:- V. Estate Office: 1. Superintending Engineer for project from CPWD/PWD.2 on Deputation. 2. Junior Engineer – 2. 3. Draftsman. 4. P.A. to Superintending Engineer. Supporting staff already appointed may be sufficient. 10. By the Proceedings dated 17. 1986 one R.A. Arumugam, Superintending Engineer, Union Territory of Lakshadweep has assumed charge as Superintending Engineer of 1st Respondent University on 17. 1986 on deputation for a period of 2 years. The said R.A. Arumugam, Superintending Engineer was relieved of his responsibilities as Superintending Engineer of 1st Respondent University w.e.f. 30.4.1990. The said R.A. Arumugam was requested to hand over the charge of his post to R. Dwaraganathan, Asst. Engineer of the University who was then holding charge of post of Superintending Engineer. The said R.A. Arumugam, Superintending Engineer was relieved of his responsibilities as Superintending Engineer of 1st Respondent University w.e.f. 30.4.1990. The said R.A. Arumugam was requested to hand over the charge of his post to R. Dwaraganathan, Asst. Engineer of the University who was then holding charge of post of Superintending Engineer. High-level Manpower Committee has felt that Superintending Engineer post should be abolished as and when it is vacated by the present incumbent. The report of high-level Manpower Committee reads as under:- "13.2: The construction work of the University is being done by CPWD. Keeping this in view, it is felt that the number of posts in Engineering Wing are rather too many. There seems to be no need of the post of Superintending Engineer and his P.A. although these have been sanctioned by the UGC. The Committee was given to understand that the incumbent of the post of Superintending Engineer was on deputation from CPWD and would be completing his term shortly. It is recommended that this post should be abolished as soon as it is vacated by the present incumbent. One post of Junior Engineer and 2 posts of Draftsman which have been created without the approval of U.G.C. may also be abolished." 11. Though, high-level Manpower Committee has recommended abolition of post, the post does not appear to have been abolished. In the financial estimate of 1st Respondent University for the year 2000-01; 2001-02 and 2002-03, post of Superintending Engineer has been included in the financial estimate. 12. The stand of 1st Respondent University is that inadvertently the post of Superintending Engineer was included in the Budget along with other posts in the Engineering Wing in the Budget Estimates of the year 2000-01; 2001-02 and 2002-03. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that post of Superintending Engineer was not operative even though the post of Superintending Engineer was shown in the first column of the financial estimate and no amount has been sanctioned by UGC, since estimates submitted by the University are only a reference guideline. 13. Second Respondent collects Data towards payment of pay and allowance with reference to the actual expenditure incurred during the previous financial year and sanction is accorded based on the actuals with an incremental addition. 13. Second Respondent collects Data towards payment of pay and allowance with reference to the actual expenditure incurred during the previous financial year and sanction is accorded based on the actuals with an incremental addition. The stand of the 1st Respondent University is that no amount has been sanctioned by the 2nd Respondent towards payment of pay and allowance to Superintending Engineer. 14. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent University repeatedly harped upon the point that inclusion made by 1st Respondent University in the Budget estimate was only inadvertent and the same cannot confer any right upon the Petitioner to take advantage. 15. The fact that post of Superintending Engineer is shown in the financial estimates is to be reckoned with. When the post of Superintending Engineer had been shown as incurring expenditure in the financial estimates, 1st Respondent University is not justified in saying that the post of Superintending Engineer is not in operation. 16. It may be that the demand was made for the post of Superintending Engineer in the Budget allocation and it might not have been sanctioned by UGC. The fact that demand was made in the Budge estimate towards pay and allowance for the post of Superintending Engineer would clearly indicate that the post is in existence. Of course, for the years 2003-04; 2004-05 and 2005-06, the Budget estimate does not contain the post of Superintending Engineer. In the absence of any indication from the UGC, non-inclusion of post of Superintending Engineer in the Budget estimate for the subsequent years would not be sufficient to conclude that the post was abolished. 17. It is relevant to note that the pay slips issued to the Petitioner for the year 2007 contains the caption Superintending Engineer – Office. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has produced certain pay slips of the Petitioner showing that office of Superintending Engineer is not mentioned in those pay slips. If really, the post so abolished, 1st Respondent University could have produced the relevant documents like Minutes of Executive Council accepting the report of high-level Manpower Committee to abolish the post of Superintending Engineer or correspondence from UGC. But that was not to be so. 18. All indications are that the post of Superintending Engineer could not have been abolished. Prior to the filing of the present Writ Petition, in the meeting held on 212. But that was not to be so. 18. All indications are that the post of Superintending Engineer could not have been abolished. Prior to the filing of the present Writ Petition, in the meeting held on 212. 2004, Executive Council has resolved to approving the suggestion of appointing retired eligible Engineering person as Superintending Engineer with consolidated salary of Rs.20,000/- from the University development fund for a period of 2 to 3 years. Pursuant to the resolution of Executive Council, on 11. 2005 University has issued paper publication proposing to hire Superintending Engineer on re-employment or on contract basis for a period of 2 years. 19. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent University has submitted that Notification for appointment of Superintending Engineer on consolidated pay was need based. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent would further submit that 1st Respondent University had sought to operate the post of Superintending Engineer temporarily on contract basis and only for the limited purpose in view of exigency. It was further argued that if the post of Superintending Engineer had been available with the University, there would not have been need for the Executive Council of the University to pass a resolution appointing retired eligible person as Superintending Engineer for carrying out certain specific works under X Plan scheme. 20. In the absence of any document showing abolition of post of Superintending Engineer, it must be held that the post is available. When the post of Superintending Engineer is available, 1st Respondent University is not justified in issuing advertisement to appoint Superintending Engineer from retired persons or re-employment on contract basis. 21. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Petitioner had been stagnated in the same post for more than 15 years. Observing that any Public or Private organisations opportunity of advancement has to be given and that person is appointed not just for job but for whole career, in AIR 1989 SC 1972 [Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and another v. K.G.S. Bhatt and another], the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "Respondent is not a lay-man. He is a highly qualified engineer. Although joined service with a diploma in Engineering, he later passed Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) and also acquired M.Tech. degree and one more diploma (D.P.M.). He was, however, left without opportunity for promotion for about twenty years. He is a highly qualified engineer. Although joined service with a diploma in Engineering, he later passed Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) and also acquired M.Tech. degree and one more diploma (D.P.M.). He was, however, left without opportunity for promotion for about twenty years. This is indeed a sad commentary on the appellants management. It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organization public or private does not hire a hand but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organization not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organization. It is an incentive for personnel development as well." 22. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent made a feeble attempt contending that as per UGC guidelines, post of Superintending Engineer is to be filled only on deputation from CPWD/PWD and UGC guidelines do not stipulate for promotion of the existing staff in the Estate Office. This contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that in the impugned order, 1st Respondent University has not stated that the post is to be filled only on deputation from CPWD/PWD. The impugned order proceeds on the footing that post of Superintending Engineer has been abolished pursuant to the report of high-level Manpower Committee. It is not open to the 1st Respondent University to bring additional ground for considering the case of the Petitioner. 23. In AIR 1978 SC 851 [Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others], the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:- "When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out." 24. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out." 24. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent University forcibly contended that questions relating to constitution, creation/abolition of post, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertaining to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State and the Respondent University and exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226, High Court may not interfere with the exclusive discretion of the 1st Respondent University. 25. Undoubtedly, the High Court would be loath to interfere with the internal administration and Management of the University. So long as, the public body comes within the limit under Art.226 of Constitution of India, High Court would hardly interfere with the administration of the University. Once the public body like 1st Respondent University functions from the frame work of its rules, Court can certainly interfere. 26. It may be that high-level Manpower Committee has recommended for abolition for the post of Superintending Engineer. But so long as, abolition of post has not been given effect to. First Respondent University is not right in contending that the post is abolished. If really, post of Superintending Engineer is abolished, it passes ones comprehension as to why applications are to be called for from the retired employees for appointing as Superintending Engineer on contract basis. The stand of 1st Respondent University is perverse and unsustainable. 27. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27. 2003 is set aside. 1st Respondent University is directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for promoting him as Superintending Engineer, if he is otherwise eligible.