JUDGMENT :- (Per GM, J) 1. This writ petition is filed challenging order dated 07.11.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) allowing O.A.No.668 of 2007 filed by fifth respondent herein. 2. O.A.No.668 of 2007 was filed by fifth respondent herein seeking the following reliefs:- (a) to call for the records leading upto and including the order ANo.C-4866/PF (PVSD GK Murthy) dated 11.12.2006 together with letter No.SM/04/016/88, dated 19.06.1992 and to quash the same by declaring them as wholly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; (b) direct restoration of the seniority of the applicant in the gradation list as originally fixed in the ratio of 3:1 by rotation of vacancies as per 25% quota reserved for LDCE promotees; (c) direct conducting of review DPCs for the year 2004, 2005 and 2006 for considering the case of the applicant for promotion to the grade of Assistant/Head Clerk after recasting the gradation list duly restoring the applicant’s original position with all consequential and attendant benefits; and pass such other order or orders as the case may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. The case of the petitioner Nos.1 to 10 is that they were initially appointed as LDCs on 29.12.1982, 03.01.1983, 27.05.1985, 29.05.1985, 19.07.1985, 30.07.1985, 01.11.1985, 09.12.1985, 10.02.1986 and 14.05.1986 respectively, by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission (SSC). As per the recruitment Rules, next promotions to the posts of UDCs and Assistants etc., have to be filled by 75% of the employees on seniority-cum-suitability by holding DPCs and 25% by holding Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCEs). In other words, the promotions to the posts of UDCs and Assistants etc., have to be filled in the ratio of 3:1 by the employees on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability by holding DPCs and by holding LDCEs respectively. That fifth respondent was appointed as LDC on 12.01.1989 and thus, he is much junior to the petitioners in the cadre of LDC. When 154 posts of UDCs have arisen due to the orders of cadre restructure issued by the Government of India, out of which, 115 posts were earmarked for DPC quota of 75% and 39 for LDCE quota of 25%, the petitioners were promoted to the posts of UDCs in September, 1996. When 154 posts of UDCs have arisen due to the orders of cadre restructure issued by the Government of India, out of which, 115 posts were earmarked for DPC quota of 75% and 39 for LDCE quota of 25%, the petitioners were promoted to the posts of UDCs in September, 1996. LDCE notification was issued on 16.08.1996 and the results of the said exam were declared on 14.03.1997. Fifth respondent was promoted on 07.04.1997 as against the said LDCE 25% quota and therefore, he is junior to the petitioners. Thereafter the seniority list of UDCs as on 01.01.1999 was issued fixing the inter se seniority in the ratio of 3:1. Subsequently the said seniority list had been corrected and revised seniority list was issued as on 01.01.2002. In the said seniority list, all the UDCs promoted in 1996 on seniority-cum-suitability shown above UDCs promoted in 1997 through LDCE, except fifth respondent, which was only a clerical error. In the seniority list issued as on 01.01.2004, this error was also rectified. The recruitment rules prescribe only 3:1 ratio for promotion on seniority-cum-suitability and through LDCE respectively. Rotation of vacancies for the purpose of fixation of seniority among them was not prescribed. In the absence of rules governing fixation of seniority, the general principles of seniority alone have to be followed and accordingly, the guidelines were issued in first respondent’s letter dated 19.06.1992. As per the said guidelines, the seniority list of 2004 was prepared. Fifth respondent filed O.A.No.929 of 2004 aggrieved by his position in the seniority list issued on 09.08.2004. The said O.A. was disposed of directing first respondent to take expeditious decision in the matter since the issue was pending with it. Thereafter first respondent clarified that the guidelines issued in its letter dated 19.06.1992 only have to be followed in the matter of fixation of seniority among DPC promotees and LDCE promotees, vide its letter dated 04.03.2005. Aggrieved by the said letter and also the seniority list of 2004, fifth respondent again filed O.A.No.935 of 2005, which was disposed of on 10.10.2006, but the reliefs prayed by fifth respondent was not granted. The judgment became final as he did not challenge the said finding of the Tribunal in any higher forum. Apart from that, in both the O.As. The judgment became final as he did not challenge the said finding of the Tribunal in any higher forum. Apart from that, in both the O.As. filed by him earlier, he did not challenge first respondent’s letter dated 19.06.1992, which was upheld by the Tribunal in O.A.No.935 of 2005. In the absence of statutory rules, the seniority has to be fixed on the basis of the regular date of promotions and continuous length of service in the cadre. Fifth respondent again filed the present O.A.No.668 of 2007 challenging the letter dated 11.12.2006 which did not give him cause of action or right to question the seniority list dated 01.01.2004 which had already become final after the disposal of O.A.No.935 of 2005 on 10.10.2006. He has also included the letter dated 19.06.1992 in the challenge which was also upheld in earlier O.A.No.935 of 2005. Therefore, the O.A.No.668 of 2007 ought to have been dismissed as it is not maintainable. However, the Tribunal went into the issues already decided earlier and allowed the O.A., vide its order dated 07.11.2008 illegally and arbitrarily. The main issue in the O.A. is the validity of the seniority list dated 01.01.2004, but the same was not challenged. In the absence of challenge to the said seniority list of UDCs and also due to non-joinder of necessary parties, the O.A. was liable to be dismissed in limini. It was open to fifth respondent to challenge the letter dated 19.06.1992 in his earlier O.As.Nos.929 of 2004 and 935 of 2005, but he remained silent. The seniority which was settled long ago i.e., in 2002 itself cannot be unsettled at the instance of fifth respondent only. The Tribunal erred in setting aside the letter dated 19.06.1992 issued by first respondent which was issued in conformity with the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court rendered in V.T. Rajendran vs. Union of India [W.P.No.165 of 1979]. The said judgment was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the S.L.P. filed was dismissed. That it is not open to the Tribunal to declare the letter dated 19.06.1992 as illegal in view of the aforestated circumstances and the law governing the field. Even otherwise, the order of the Tribunal setting aside the letter dated 19.06.1992 will have prospective effect unless it is specifically declared as illegal and set aside with retrospective effect. That it is not open to the Tribunal to declare the letter dated 19.06.1992 as illegal in view of the aforestated circumstances and the law governing the field. Even otherwise, the order of the Tribunal setting aside the letter dated 19.06.1992 will have prospective effect unless it is specifically declared as illegal and set aside with retrospective effect. As such, the fact that seniority of UDCs has become cannot be unsettled. It is relevant to note that the seniority list of 2004 was not set aside. The petitioner Nos.1 to 10 have been promoted as Assistants on different dates. Fifth respondent was also promoted as Assistant on 07.10.2008 and was posted to Jarkhand GDC, Ranchi. But, he declined the said promotion for his own reasons and as such he will not be entitled to claim the said promotion for a period of one year from 07.11.2008 when he declined it. As such, even as per the directions of the CAT if his seniority is revised also, he cannot be promoted as Assistant till 07.11.2009. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the O.A.No.668 of 2007 was liable to be dismissed. The findings of the Tribunal are perverse and it is not open to fifth respondent to challenge the orders impugned in the O.A.No.668 of 2007 once the issue of seniority of UDCs had already been settled and upheld in the earlier legal proceedings. The Tribunal ought to have noticed that non-joinder of necessary parties is deliberate and intentional and on that ground alone, the O.A.No.668 of 2007 ought not to have been dismissed. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioners suppressed O.M. dated 10.06.2009 issued by first respondent in implementing the judgment dated 07.11.2008 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.668 of 2007. The petitioners have also suppressed another order on the same subject passed by the Tribunal dated 04.12.2008 in O.A.No.4 of 2008 (filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein) answering the points relating to objections regarding non-joinder of the employees, who are going to be affected in case the seniority list is revised. Fifth respondent filed the present O.A. seeking restoration of his seniority originally fixed in the ratio of 3:1 by restoration of vacancies as per 25% quota reserved for LDCE promotees and consequently sought a direction to consider his case for promotion with all consequential benefits. Fifth respondent filed the present O.A. seeking restoration of his seniority originally fixed in the ratio of 3:1 by restoration of vacancies as per 25% quota reserved for LDCE promotees and consequently sought a direction to consider his case for promotion with all consequential benefits. Therefore, question of impleading necessary parties does not arise at all. The Tribunal accepted the contentions of the applicant and allowed the O.A. and quashed letter dated 19.02.1992 issued by the Department of Science & Technology letter following the decision of the Apex Court in A.K. Subraman’s case. It is stated that the Government implemented the above said judgment dated 07.11.2008 by issuing reasoned order in official memorandum dated 10.06.2009 in not only revising the seniority of fifth respondent as directed by the Tribunal but also taken a decision to revise the seniority list of UDCs of 1997 batch by following the quota rule of 3:1 amongst DPC and LDCE promotees and conducting review DPCs for relevant recruitment years. It is submitted that the petitioners in the present petition indirectly attempted restoration of Department of Science & Technology’s letter dated 19.06.1992 which stands superseded with the issue of official memorandum dated 10.06.2009. The petitioners have also not challenged Department of Science & Technology’s letter dated 15.06.2009 issued towards implementation of similar order dated 04.12.2008 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.4 of 2006 filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7. It is stated that as per Survey of India Circular Order (CO) No.437 (Administrative), the method of promotion from LDC to UDC in Survey of India is only by way of promotion to an extent of 75% on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness by way of DPC and the remaining 25% by way of conducting LDCE. In 1996, there were 115 vacancies of UDCs to be filled through DPC and 39 vacancies to be filled through LDCE. That DPC meeting and the LDCE for these vacancies were conducted in the same year 1996. However, the result of LDCE was declared in 1997. The seniority of DPC and LDCE promotees against the vacancies of 1996 was fixed by rotation of vacancies in the ratio of 3:1. The petitioners were considered for promotion by DPC and fifth respondent was considered for promotion by LDCE. In 1999, a gradation list was prepared by following the rotation of vacancies in the ratio of 3:1 i.e., three DPC promotees and one LDCE promotee. The petitioners were considered for promotion by DPC and fifth respondent was considered for promotion by LDCE. In 1999, a gradation list was prepared by following the rotation of vacancies in the ratio of 3:1 i.e., three DPC promotees and one LDCE promotee. Thereafter, further DPC and the LDCE were held in respect of vacancies of subsequent years and gradation lists were prepared as on 01.01.2000 and 01.01.2001 following the rotation of vacancies in the ratio of 3:1. It is submitted that one Venugopal Nair, a DPC promotee of 1996 batch challenged the Gradation List by filing O.A.No.1651 of 2001 contending that the preparation of gradation list adopting the ratio of 3:1 on rotation basis is not correct and that all the DPC promotees of 1996 batch who were promoted and appointed in 1996 itself shall en bloc be placed above LDCE promotee of 1996 batch who were promoted and appointed in April, 1997 and that the gradation lists are to be revised accordingly. That in the year 2002, the said gradation list was revised and all the DPC promotees of each batch were placed en bloc above the LDCE promotees of each year. While revising the gradation list, fifth respondent was not disturbed. When the seniority of UDCs of 1996 batch was altered by bringing all the LDCE promotees of 1996 en bloc down below the last DPC promotees of 1996, the above said O.A.No.1651 of 2001 was pending. The revised seniority list of UDCs placing all the DPC promotees en bloc above LDCE promotee was contrary to the stand taken in reply filed in O.A.No.1651 of 2001. It is submitted that the Tribunal dismissed O.A.No.1651 of 2001 upholding seniority list of UDCs as on 01.01.1999 wherein seniority of DPC and LDCE promotees was fixed in ratio of 3:1. The R.A.No.36 of 2004 filed by Venugopal Nair was also dismissed on 09.06.2004. The said judgment was not given effect to and the seniority of the LDCE promotees continued to be placed down below the DPC promotees. Later on, another revised gradation list as on 01.01.2004 was issued under SOI letter dated 09.08.2004 and fifth respondent was brought down below all the DPC promotees of that year. The said judgment was not given effect to and the seniority of the LDCE promotees continued to be placed down below the DPC promotees. Later on, another revised gradation list as on 01.01.2004 was issued under SOI letter dated 09.08.2004 and fifth respondent was brought down below all the DPC promotees of that year. Fifth respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.929 of 2004 challenging the revised gradation list as on 01.01.2004 issued under letter dated 09.08.2004 and seeking to quash the same and to restore the seniority list prepared in the year 1999 by following the rotation of vacancies in the ratio of 3:1. The Tribunal without going into the merits of rival contentions, considered it appropriate to dispose of the O.A.No.929 of 2004 on 16.12.2004 with a direction to Department of Science & Technology to take expeditious decision in the matter and issue necessary clarification. The Department of Science and Technology issued a clarification letter dated 04.03.2005 clarifying that seniority of UDCs cannot be fixed in the ratio of 3:1 and that the seniority of UDCs shall continue to be fixed as per guidelines issued, vide office letter dated 19.06.1992. Thereafter fifth respondent filed O.A.No.935 of 2005 and sought to quash the said clarification letter dated 04.03.2005 and for a direction to restore his seniority as originally fixed in the ratio of 3:1 by rotation of vacancies as per 25% quota reserved for LDCE promotees. Fifth respondent applied to DoPT for information under Right to Information Act regarding rules/guidelines for fixation of inter-se seniority of UDCs in the Central Government offices promoted from LDC to UDC against the vacancies of a year by DPC and LDCE by letter dated 29.03.2006 and the DoPT gave reply on 18.04.2006 informing that where different methods of promotion have been prescribed in the recruitment rules specified quotas for each such method, the relative seniority of such promotees viz. DPC promotees and LDCE promotees is to be determined by applying the principle of rotation of quota of vacancies earmarked in the recruitment rules of each method. The Tribunal by order dated 10.10.2006 disposed of O.A.No.935 of 2005 to consider the observations in para 9 and to inform fifth respondent within three months. In compliance of the same, Government passed an order dated 11.12.2006 reiterating its stand that seniority fixed, vide letter dated 09.08.2004, is in order. The Tribunal by order dated 10.10.2006 disposed of O.A.No.935 of 2005 to consider the observations in para 9 and to inform fifth respondent within three months. In compliance of the same, Government passed an order dated 11.12.2006 reiterating its stand that seniority fixed, vide letter dated 09.08.2004, is in order. Rule 6 of O.M. dated 22.12.1999 cannot be made applicable to fifth respondent. Aggrieved by the same, fifth respondent filed O.A.No.668 of 2007 to quash letters dated 11.12.2006 and 19.06.1992. The Tribunal by judgment dated 07.11.2008 allowed the O.A. quashing the letter dated 19.06.1992 following the Apex Court judgment in A.K. Subraman’s case and directing restoration of the seniority of fifth respondent in the gradation list as originally fixed in the ratio of 3:1 by rotation of vacancies as per 25% quota reserved for. In 1979, one V.T. Rajendran, a DPC promotee of 1966, filed W.P.No.165 of 1979 before the Single Judge of High Court of Karnataka. The said writ petition was contested contending that the quota rule is being followed not only at the time of initial appointment but also at the time of confirmation. The High Court of Karnataka by judgment dated 20.11.1981 in W.P.No.165 of 1979 issued a writ of Mandamus to the respondents therein to re-examine the claims of petitioner and other eligible officers for confirmation strictly on the basis of seniority from the date of their appointments and make confirmation on that basis and redraw a fresh gradation list in accordance with law. Mr. V.T. Rajendran had no grievance regarding following the roster for filling up the vacancies at the ratio of 3:1 among DPC promotees and LDCE promotees. In other words, he had no grievance for applying quota rule at the time of initial appointment and his grievance was only about the following the quota rule even at the time of confirmation. He contended that the relative seniority in the cadre of UDC should have been the only guiding principle followed while making confirmations and it was impermissible to apply the quota rule at the time of confirmation. That controversy concerned and decided vide order dated 20.11.1981 in W.P.No.165 of 1979 (V.T. Rajendran) by the Karnataka High Court was only whether Government was justified in not making its orders that quota rule cannot be applied at the stage of confirmation, retrospective. That controversy concerned and decided vide order dated 20.11.1981 in W.P.No.165 of 1979 (V.T. Rajendran) by the Karnataka High Court was only whether Government was justified in not making its orders that quota rule cannot be applied at the stage of confirmation, retrospective. The point whether quota rule can be applied at the stage of initial appointment by following the roster and fix the seniority of the promotees from both the sources of that particular year batch on the basis of that roster did not fall for consideration in that writ petition, as the writ petitioner therein had no grievance regarding the said point and his grievance was only limited to applying the quota rule at the stage of confirmation. Said orders of the learned Single Judge directing Union of India to apply its orders filed along with the reply therein to past cases also and to redraw the seniority list prepared on the basis of applying quota rule at both stages, initial appointment and at the time of confirmation, was challenged by the Union of India before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.P.No.1210 of 1982 stating that the learned Single Judge impliedly referred to a memorandum, dated 24.02.1981 and in the said memorandum it was categorically stated that those instructions will not, however, apply to posts/services where specific quotas have been prescribed for substantive appointment of promotees/direct recruits/departmental candidates etc. Sri V.T. Rajendran was made first respondent in that the writ appeal and he filed statement of objections. In those objections it was stated that the department wants to apply the quota not only at the time of promotion as well as at the time of confirmation. So, in the writ appeal also, the point that arose for consideration was only whether quota rule cannot be made applicable while making the confirmation in respect of the cases already decided prior to 24.02.1981. That the above decision of the Single Judge challenged by Union of India and others in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore vide W.A.No.1210 of 1982 was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, vide judgment dated 13.09.1984. The Karnataka High Court only decided that the confirmation of LDCE promotees is to be reckoned from date of appointment in grade of UDC. The Karnataka High Court only decided that the confirmation of LDCE promotees is to be reckoned from date of appointment in grade of UDC. In V.T. Rajendran’s case, the quota of rotation rules were applied irrespective of the fact whether the persons were available to fill up the LDCE quota at the time of initial appointment and they have applied quota rule at the time of confirmation and such action of the respondents is against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in A.K. Subraman’s case which position was reiterated in P.S.Mahal vs. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 1291 . Therefore, the legal opinion was very clear that the Karnataka High Court did not direct the official respondents not to apply quota rule even at the stage of initial appointment by way of promotion and it only directed not to apply the quota rule again at the stage of confirmation. The issue involved in W.P.No.165 of 1979 filed by V.T. Rajendran’s case decided by the Karnataka High Court which was upheld by the Apex Court was only whether Government was justified in not making its orders that quota rule cannot be applied at the stage of confirmation, retrospective. The point whether quota rule can be applied at the stage of initial appointment by following the roster and fix the seniority of the promotees from both the sources of that particular year batch on the basis of that roster did not fall for consideration in that writ petition, as the writ petitioner therein had no grievance regarding the said point and his grievance was only limited to applying the quota rule at the stage of confirmation. Therefore, the judgment of the Karnataka High Court cannot be interpreted in a manner that quota rule cannot be applied while fixing inter se seniority among DPC promotees and LDCE promotees of a particular year batch even at the stage of initial appointment taking the year as a batch because such interpretation runs contra to the law laid down by the Apex Court in A.K. Subraman’s case ( AIR 1975 SC 483 ). That the facts of V.T. Rajendran’s case were not similar to facts of case in O.A.No.668 of 2007 filed by fifth respondent. That the facts of V.T. Rajendran’s case were not similar to facts of case in O.A.No.668 of 2007 filed by fifth respondent. That the judgment dated 20.11.1981 in V.T. Rajendran’s case read with legal opinion dated 17.10.1984 given by Branch Secretariat of Department of Legal Affairs at Bangalore proves that there was no direction in V.T. Rajendran’s case to scrap the quota rule of filling up of 25% vacancies through LDCE and there was no direction to the fact that ratio of 3:1 while fixing the seniority between these two channels to be waived and it was not even the subject matter in that case. That earlier, in the year 1975, two DPC promotees filed W.P.No.5515 of 1975 before this Court seeking direction to re-fix their seniority and other similarly promoted UDCs on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness vis-à-vis UDC promoted on the basis of LDCE with reference to their actual date of appointment to the category of unfilled quota from year to year and also to revise the confirmations of all UDCs. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 01.07.1977. The Survey of India continued to apply quota rule both at the time of initial appointment and also at the time of confirmation. Further, as seen from Central Secretariat Clerical Services Rules 1962 corrected up to July, 1996 members of the Lower division grade selected on the results of LDCE held by SSC shall be placed in the year of their merit and that persons of the two categories are to be included in the Select List by taking alternatively three persons from DPC promotion category and one person LDCE category and so on in that order. Further, the said rules are being followed for the purpose of fixing inter se seniority among the promotees to UDCs in the Election Commission, in the Railway Board and in the Army Headquarters. All the departments are following the quota rule at the stage of initial appointment and fixing their inter se seniority taking the year as basis, obviously in tune with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.K. Subraman’s case. All other Central Government Departments including DoP&T which is the nodal department are following the Central Rules amended upto 1996. All other Central Government Departments including DoP&T which is the nodal department are following the Central Rules amended upto 1996. In order to maintain uniformity General Rules are to be followed by respondents in the absence of specific provision in the Recruitment Rules applicable to UDCs in Survey of India. Further, admittedly SOI is following General Rules for preparation of inter se seniority among DPC promotees and LDCE promotees in support of other categories of posts in Survey of India. There is no justification to adopt different procedure in the case of UDCs. In the light of the above findings of the Tribunal, the Department of Science and Technology after careful examination found that it erroneously revised the seniority of LDCE promotees. Hence, taken a decision to implement the judgment dated 07.11.2008 in O.A.No.668 of 2007. Accordingly, issued O.M. dated 10.06.2009 and that the instructions had been given to the Survey of India, vide Department of Science and Technology letter dated 15.06.2009 that directions given by the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench vide its judgment dated 04.12.2008 in O.A.No.4 of 2006 (Sri M.N. Rajendran & Smt. P.K. Prathibha vs. Union of India and others) may be complied by them on the basis of O.M. dated 10.06.2009. The petitioners without challenging the same, by suppressing the said O.M. filed the present writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. In the facts and circumstances of the case, implementation of the Tribunal’s judgment without affecting the seniority of the petitioners is not possible. 5. Fifth respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that he was selected by SSC and was appointed as L.D.C. on 12.01.1989 in Survey of India. Thereafter, he appeared for LDCE 1996 (recruitment to UDC Grade) conducted in the year 1996 and secured first position and was promoted to the grade of UDC with effect from 07.04.1997, vide third respondent’s letter dated 31.03.1997. The rules governing the Ministerial Staff of Survey of India were issued in Circular Order No.437 (Adm.) (‘CO’ for short) and other rules as applicable to the Central Government servants. The CO provides for filling up of vacancies of UDCs of a year by promotion from LDC to UDC in the ratio of 3:1. It is stated that in the year 1996, 193 vacant posts of UDC were to be filled up. The CO provides for filling up of vacancies of UDCs of a year by promotion from LDC to UDC in the ratio of 3:1. It is stated that in the year 1996, 193 vacant posts of UDC were to be filled up. Out of these vacancies 154 vacancies were earmarked for promotion by seniority (75%) and 39 vacancies (initially 44, subsequently reduced to 39) (25%) were earmarked for LDCE (Limited Departmental Competitive Exam to UDC Grade) duly categorizing the posts for General, SC and ST categories as per third respondent’s letter dated 09.08.1996. Action was initiated by third respondent to fill up the vacancies earmarked for promotion by DPC and by LDCE simultaneously in the year 1996 itself. Accordingly, third respondent through the Director, Survey Training Institute, Survey of India, Hyderabad, got issued Notification dated 16.08.1996 for LDCE 1996. Fifth respondent stood first position in that exam and was promoted to the grade of UDC with effect from 07.04.1997, vide third respondent’s letter dated 31.03.1997. During the process of filling up of the vacancies of LDCE quota, the DPC was conducted by third respondent and promotion orders were issued to the extent of DPC promotee quota, vide third respondent’s letter dated 23.09.1996 duly following the rules of reservation. It is further submitted that the inter se seniority of the DPC promotees vis-à-vis LDCE promotees who are promoted against the vacancies of a year (in this case, the vacancies pertaining to the year 1996) is fixed by rotation of vacancies between these two channels as per quota by adopting a roster in terms of Ministry of Home Affairs (Deptt. of Personnel & Adm. Reforms) Office Memorandum dated 24.06.1978 and based on general principles of Ministry of Home Affairs O.M.No.9-11/55, RPS, dated 22.12.1959. He further submitted that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), vide its letter dated 18.04.2006 on a request under the Right to Information Act, 2005, informed fifth respondent that the relative seniority of DPC promotees and LDCE promotees is to be determined by applying the principle of rotation of quota of vacancies earmarked in the recruitment rules for each method based on the analogy of para 5(ii) of OM dated 22.12.1959. Therefore, neither the seniority in the feeder grade nor the date of promotion of UDCs, who are promoted through DPC or LDCE, is the criterion for fixation of relative seniority of the DPC and LDCE promotees. Therefore, neither the seniority in the feeder grade nor the date of promotion of UDCs, who are promoted through DPC or LDCE, is the criterion for fixation of relative seniority of the DPC and LDCE promotees. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that fifth respondent is junior to them is baseless and unsustainable. It is further submitted that fixing of the relative seniority of DPC and LDCE promotees promoted against the vacancies of a year by rotation of quota of vacancies between these two channels in the ratio of 3:1 as per quota, is the cardinal principle being followed by almost all central government departments whenever quotas are prescribed for DPC and LDCE promotees. This principle is followed in the case of UDCs of Central Secretariat Clerical Service including the office of respondent Nos.1 and 2, Election Commission of India, Railway Board Secretariat Clerical Service and Armed Forces Headquarters. In Survey of India also, this principle is followed for Officer Surveyors promoted through DPC (75%) and LDCE (25%) as per the directions of the CAT, Cuttack Bench in O.A.No.221 of 1996 by order dated 04.05.1998 and O.A.No.438 of 1998 by order dated 27.03.2000. It is also submitted that the general principle and roster method, inter se seniority of UDCs promoted against DPC and LDCE quota of vacancies of the year 1996 was fixed in the ratio of 3:1 taking the starting point of the roster as the date of DPC proceedings in terms of O.M. dated 24.06.1978 quoted supra. Accordingly, the Gradation Lists of the UDCs for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 were published by the third respondent and circulated to all the concerned including the petitioners. It is stated that the position of fifth respondent in the Gradation List of UDCs as on 01.01.2002 and 01.01.2003 as published and circulated by the third respondent was 187 and 145 respectively. Aggrieved by the fixation of the relative seniority of DPC and LDCE promotees by rotation of vacancies, several DPC promotees submitted representations to the third respondent to consider their cases for fixing of their seniority as per date of promotion. The third respondent turned down their representations. Aggrieved by the fixation of the relative seniority of DPC and LDCE promotees by rotation of vacancies, several DPC promotees submitted representations to the third respondent to consider their cases for fixing of their seniority as per date of promotion. The third respondent turned down their representations. While disposing of the representations submitted by petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5, the third respondent informed them, vide letter dated 04.02.2000 that the orders of the Department of Science and Technology dated 19.06.1992 with regard to seniority of UDCs were meant for disposal of case No.202 of 1987 filed by Mr. V.T. Rajendran only and these orders are not applicable in other cases. But, the petitioners are now relying on this letter dated 19.06.1992 for fixation of their seniority. The official respondents in the counter affidavit in O.A.No.1651 of 2001 also stated that the decision taken by the Ministry in its letter No.SM/04/016/88, dated 19.06.1992, was applicable only in the case of V.T. Rajendran and others. Thus, the letter dated 19.06.1992 which the petitioners are now relying on is only a clarification and has no force of law or authority for fixation of the seniority of DPC and LDCE promotees on their initial promotion and it cannot replace the general principles and rules issued by DoPT for fixation inter se seniority of DPC and LDCE promotee UDCs of Survey of India in the ratio of 3:1 as per their quota. Aggrieved by the third respondent’s stand on fixation of relative seniority of DPC and LDCE promotees in the ratio of 3:1, one of the DPC promotees by name Sri Venugopal Nair filed O.A.No.1651 of 2001 in the Tribunal assailing the gradation list as on 01.01.2001 seeking the relief of re-casting the seniority list. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A.No.1651 of 2001 by order dated 31.03.2004 upholding the inter se seniority between the DPC and LDCE promotees in the ratio of 3:1. However, during the pendency of the above said O.A., the third respondent altered the seniority list of UDCs bringing all the LDCE promotees of 1996 batch en bloc down below the last DPC promotee of 1996 in the year 2002 except fifth respondent in violation of Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. However, during the pendency of the above said O.A., the third respondent altered the seniority list of UDCs bringing all the LDCE promotees of 1996 batch en bloc down below the last DPC promotee of 1996 in the year 2002 except fifth respondent in violation of Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicant in O.A.No.1651 of 2001 approached the Tribunal by filing R.A.No.36 of 2004 to review the order and close the O.A. in view of the fact that the relief sought by him was granted by the third respondent. The Tribunal dismissed the R.A. by order dated 09.06.2004. None of the DPC promotees of 1996 batch including the petitioners herein appealed against the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1651 of 2001 and R.A.No.36 of 2004 therein in the higher forum. Thus, the judgment of the Tribunal upholding the inter se seniority between DPC and LDCE promotees of 1996 batch in the ratio of 3:1 attained legal finality. This legal position has not been brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioners in this writ petition. The Tribunal upheld the relative seniority of DPC promotees vis-à-vis LDCE promotees of the 1996, the third respondent illegally and arbitrarily altered fifth respondent’s seniority and brought fifth respondent below the last DPC promotee of the year 1996 batch, in the Gradation List as on 01.01.2004 (corrected upto 31.07.2004) issued under letter dated 09.08.2004 after dismissal of R.A.No.36 of 2004 in O.A.No.1651 of 2001 without giving fifth respondent any notice or any opportunity to represent thereby putting fifth respondent under enormous loss of seniority and promotion for next grade. Fifth respondent submitted representations to the third respondent, but in vain. Aggrieved by this, fifth respondent filed O.A.No.929 of 2004 for restoration of his seniority as originally fixed in the year 1999. The said O.A. was disposed of with directions to the first respondent and to take expeditious decision in the matter and to issue necessary clarifications. The first respondent issued clarifications dated 04.03.2005 and aggrieved by the same fifth respondent filed O.A.No.935 of 2005 which was disposed of by order dated 10.10.2006 by the Tribunal with a direction to the respondents therein to consider the aspect mentioned para-9 of the judgment and inform the applicant within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. In the alleged compliance of the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.935 of 2005, the third respondent passed order dated 11.12.2006 without referring the matter to the DoPt, and Department of Science and Technology. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2006 of the third respondent, fifth respondent filed O.A.No.668 of 2007 and the same was allowed by order dated 07.11.2008 which is under challenge in this writ petition. The Tribunal in this O.A. has elaborately dealt with the issue of fixation of relative seniority of DPC and LDCE promotees right from the inception of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (Recruitment of UDCs Grade) Scheme, 1961 in Survey of India and examined all the decisions of this Court, decision of Karnataka in V.T. Rajendran’s case which was appealed against and dismissed by the Supreme Court and decision of various Tribunals and allowed the O.A. The Tribunal distinguished the decision in V.T. Rajendran’s case. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 accepted the judgment in O.A.No.668 of 2007 and the first respondent issued order dated 10.06.2009 for implementation of the judgment dated 07.11.2008 in the above O.A. in supersession of DST’s letter dated 19.06.1992 on which the petitioners are now relying on in this writ petition for fixation of their seniority. Thus, the said order of the Tribunal attained legal finality and it cannot be questioned now without challenging the order dated 10.06.2009 of the DST and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The petitioners submitted representations to the first respondent requesting to appeal against the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.668 of 2007 by filing the writ petition. The representations of petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were turned down by the third respondent by order dated 17.06.2009. It is further stated that the petitioners have not brought these facts before this Court and instituted present writ petition against order dated 07.11.2008 in O.A.No.668 of 2007, which attained legal finality by the orders of the DST dated 10.06.2009. It is submitted that M.N. Rajendran and Smt. P.K. Prathibha who are also LDCE promotees of 1996 batch and similarly situated like fifth respondent, filed O.A.No.4 of 2006 before the Tribunal for restoration of seniority in the grade of UDC as originally fixed as on 01.01.1999. It is submitted that M.N. Rajendran and Smt. P.K. Prathibha who are also LDCE promotees of 1996 batch and similarly situated like fifth respondent, filed O.A.No.4 of 2006 before the Tribunal for restoration of seniority in the grade of UDC as originally fixed as on 01.01.1999. The Tribunal allowed the said O.A. as a case covered by the judgment in O.A.No.668 of 2007, by order dated 04.12.2008, directing the respondents, inter alia, to restore the seniority in the gradation list prepared as on 01.01.1999 with all consequential benefits. In the said O.A., though the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties was raised, the Tribunal rejected the same. The petitioners have not brought this point to the notice of this Court and raised the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties in this writ petition without challenging the finding of the Tribunal about non-joinder of necessary parties in O.A.No.4 of 2006. As per sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal is not bound by the strict procedural rules of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is submitted that the following points clearly show that the petitioners’ contention about non-joinder of necessary parties is incorrect and unsustainable: Originally inter se seniority at 3:1 ratio was prepared and Gradation Lists as on 01.01.1999, 01.01.2000 and 01.01.2001 and were circulated to all concerned. This was challenged in O.A.No.1651 of 2001 and the O.A. was dismissed duly upholding inter se seniority between DPC and LDCE promotees in the ratio of 3:1. The R.A.No.36 of 2004 in O.A.No.1651 of 2001 was also dismissed. Thus, the judgment, which determined inter se seniority between DPC and LDCE promotees attained legal finality. As the Tribunal already dismissed the claim of DPC promotees duly upholding the seniority of DPC promotees vis-à-vis LDCE promotees including fifth respondent, fifth respondent only sought restoration of his seniority as was originally fixed and upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioners were at the most proper parties but not necessary parties in O.A.No.668 of 2007. The relief sought in O.A.No.668 of 2007 was only restoration of seniority originally fixed as on 01.01.1999, 01.01.2000, 01.01.2001, 01.01.2002 and 01.01.2003 and upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioners were at the most proper parties but not necessary parties in O.A.No.668 of 2007. The relief sought in O.A.No.668 of 2007 was only restoration of seniority originally fixed as on 01.01.1999, 01.01.2000, 01.01.2001, 01.01.2002 and 01.01.2003 and upheld by the Tribunal. Fifth respondent also submits that the petitioners do not pass the two tests laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions reported in Benaras Bank Ltd. vs. Bhagwan Das AIR 1947 All 18 (FB), Hardeva vs. Ismail AIR 1970 Raj 167 (FB) and Deputy Commr. Hardoi vs. Rama Krishna Narain AIR 1953 SC 521 for determining the question whether a particular party is necessary to a proceeding -the tests viz., (i) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the matter involved in the proceeding in question; and (ii) it should not be possible to pass an effective decree in absence of such a party. Fifth respondent only sought restoration of his seniority as originally fixed which was upheld by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1651 of 2001. Hence, the claim of the petitioners that they were proper and necessary parties is incorrect, baseless and untenable. Fifth respondent relied on decisions of the Apex Court in GM, SC Railway vs. AVR Siddhanthi AIR 1974 SC 1755 and in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. G. Jayaprasada Rao (2007) 1 SCC 528; AIR 2007 SC 1503 . It is submitted that the O.A.No.668 of 2007 filed by fifth respondent seeking restoration of his seniority as originally fixed following the well accepted general principle of rotation of vacancies as per quota fixed for DPC and LDCE promotees as laid down in the guidelines of Dept. of Personnel and Training and roster method as per O.M. dated 24.06.1978 as followed in Central Government departments including Survey of India. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners regarding non-joinder of necessary parties is untenable. Fifth respondent is not junior to the petitioners in the cadre of UDC. The relative seniority of DPC and LDCE promotees is not determined by the dates of appointment/promotion to the grade. The seniority fixed based on the consolidated select list by rotation of vacancies between these two channels as per quota of vacancies fixed for each method i.e., DPC and LDCE in the ratio of 3:1. The relative seniority of DPC and LDCE promotees is not determined by the dates of appointment/promotion to the grade. The seniority fixed based on the consolidated select list by rotation of vacancies between these two channels as per quota of vacancies fixed for each method i.e., DPC and LDCE in the ratio of 3:1. This method was followed in fixing the seniority of this applicant vis-a-vis the petitioners herein and upheld by the Tribunal. It is stated that the relevant rules and gradation lists of other grades and UDCs in CSCS cadre clearly show that the seniority is not determined by the date of appointment but by the select list. The petitioners suppressed the facts and legal position that took place between the years 1999 and 2004. The letter dated 19.06.1992 issued by the first respondent which the petitioners are now relying on is only a clarification and has no force of law or authority for fixation of the seniority of DPC and LDCE promotee UDCs on their initial promotion and it cannot replace the General principles and rules issued by DoPT for fixation of inter se seniority of DPC and LDCE promotee UDCs of Survey of India in the ratio of 3:1 as per their quota. The guidelines and the general principles and rules prescribed by the DoPT, which is the nodal department and authority which frames the rules and policy guidelines on all the subjects governing the service conditions of central government servants are to be followed for determination of seniority. The letter dated 19.06.1992 has been superseded by the first respondent’s O.M. dated 10.06.2009 which has not been challenged in this writ petition. It is also submitted that despite the fact that the Tribunal upheld the relative seniority of DPC and LDCE promotee UDCs of the year 1996 by orders dated 31.03.2004 and 09.06.2004 in O.A.No.1651 of 2001 and R.A.No.36 of 2004 respectively, the third respondent abruptly altered fifth respondent’s seniority illegally in the gradation list published on 09.08.2004 after the Tribunal’s orders, without giving notice or opportunity to fifth respondent to represent the matter. Therefore, the seniority list published on 09.08.2004, so far as fifth respondent’s position is concerned has no legal validity. Therefore, the seniority list published on 09.08.2004, so far as fifth respondent’s position is concerned has no legal validity. The third respondent did a sudden volte face and switched to different stand in O.A.Nos.929 of 2004 and 935 of 2005 that the letter dated 19.06.1992 is the basis for determining the seniority of UDCs. Fifth respondent was estopped from making such statements contradicting their sworn affidavit made in O.A.No.1651 of 2001. The Tribunal without observing the volte face of the third respondent disposed of the O.A.No.935 of 2005 by order dated 10.10.2006 with a direction to the respondents therein to consider the aspect mentioned at para-9 of the judgment. Thus the Tribunal referred the issue back to the respondents therein. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 initially held that the letter dated 19.06.1992 is not the basis for fixing seniority and reversed the stand in O.A.No.935 of 2005 and their letter dated 11.12.2006 in alleged compliance with the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.939 of 2005 and fifth respondent challenged the letter dated 11.12.2006 and 19.06.1992 in O.A.No.668 of 2007 which was allowed. The main issue in O.A.No.668 of 2007 and earlier O.As. was the general principle that should be followed for determination of relative seniority of DPC and LDCE promotee UDCs. The third respondent initially maintained that the letter dated 19.06.1992 is not rule for seniority and in a sudden volte face changed the stand subsequently in O.A.No.935 of 2005. Therefore, the letter dated 11.12.2006 read with letter dated 19.06.1992 was challenged in O.A.No.668 of 2007 which was allowed. Fifth respondent consistently pleaded in all the O.As. filed by him that the letter dated 19.06.1992 is not the rule for determination of the seniority and the rules, general principles and orders issued by the DoPT are to be followed. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that constructive res judicata would apply in the matter is incorrect. The official respondents accepted the judgment in O.A.No.668 of 2007 and the first respondent issued order dated 10.06.2009 for implementation of the order dated 07.11.2008 in O.A.No.668 of 2007 in supersession of letter dated 19.06.1992. In other words, by the time the petitioners filed this writ petition on 17.07.2009, letter dated 19.06.1992 had stood superseded. The petitioners have not challenged the order dated 10.06.2009 which is a manifest defect in this writ petition. In other words, by the time the petitioners filed this writ petition on 17.07.2009, letter dated 19.06.1992 had stood superseded. The petitioners have not challenged the order dated 10.06.2009 which is a manifest defect in this writ petition. Fifth respondent was due for consideration for promotion in the years 2004 and 2005 itself based on the seniority as originally fixed and which is now being restored and considered for retrospective promotion by review DPC by the order dated 10.06.2009 based on judgment in O.A.No.668 of 2007. Hence, promotion offered to fifth respondent earlier based on altered seniority has no significance and it does not come in the way of fifth respondent for promotion retrospectively. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that fifth respondent cannot be promoted till 07.11.2009 even if fifth respondent’s seniority is revised is absolutely baseless. It is submitted that the petitioners concealed factual and legal position which is fatal to the writ petition. As the official respondents accepted the judgment in O.A.No.668 of 2007 and the first respondent issued orders dated 10.06.2009 for implementation of the judgment in supersession of letter dated 19.06.1992, the said judgment attained finality. The petitioners’ representations have also been turned down by the third respondent by orders dated 17.06.2009 and the petitioners ought to have challenged these orders in appropriate forum i.e., Tribunal. The persons who were promoted on the basis of LDCE in the 25% vacancies earmarked for LDCE for the year 1996 also filed O.A.No.4 of 2006 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the O.A. on the basis of the order given in O.A.No.668 of 2007. In view of the orders dated 28.07.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.19775 of 2009 in W.P.No.15053 of 2009, the Government is bound to restore seniority of fifth respondent and consider the case of fifth respondent for promotion, but no action has been taken on the ground that this Court had granted stay though it has been clearly mentioned that it will not affect fifth respondent. Judgment in O.A.No.668 of 2007 attained finality by order dated 10.06.2009 of DST and the petitioners have not challenged it. Judgment in O.A.No.668 of 2007 attained finality by order dated 10.06.2009 of DST and the petitioners have not challenged it. The petitioners’ representations for stopping of action that is in progress in third respondent’s office as per DST’s order dated 10.06.2009 without challenging it, quoting this Court’s order dated 28.07.2009 as if this Court suspended DST’s order dated 10.06.2009 is improper and an effort of using it to mislead the official respondents as it cannot be inferred from the order of this Court and it is intended to stop the operation of DST’s order dated 10.06.2009. Fifth respondent also submits that the petitioners cannot be allowed to use the order of this Court to seek greater relief than intended by this Court while passing the order and since the petitioners are trying to use this Court’s order to stop the operation of DST’s order dated 10.06.2009 that too without challenging it, they cannot be allowed to do so and as such, the order in W.P.M.P.No.19775 of 2009 in this writ petition needs to be vacated. If the relief granted in favour of fifth respondent is implemented and his original seniority is restored, the petitioners’ seniority will be one step below to the present position. 6. Sri V. Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, submitted that fifth respondent without challenging the order dated 10.10.2006 passed in O.A.No.935 of 2005, which attained finality, whereby the Tribunal rejected the challenge of fifth respondent to letter dated 04.05.2005 and seniority list of 2004, filed O.A.No.668 of 2007 against letter dated 11.12.2006, which was issued in pursuance of order dated 10.10.2006 passed in O.A.NO.935 of 2005 and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 7. Smt. C. Vani Reddy, learned standing counsel for Central Government, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, submitted that the petitioners indirectly attempted restoration of letter dated 19.06.1992 which stands superseded with the issuance of memo dated 10.06.2009, whereby the Survey of India was requested to restore seniority of fifth respondent by restoring seniority list prepared in 1999 i.e., at 3:1 ratio. 8. Fifth respondent appeared in person and argued his case reiterating the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by him. 8. Fifth respondent appeared in person and argued his case reiterating the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by him. He submitted that the official respondents accepting the judgment dated 07.11.2008 in O.A.No.668 of 2007, issued order dated 10.06.2009 for implementation of it in supersession of letter dated 19.06.1992 and therefore, the judgment in O.A.No.668 of 2007 attained finality and that even the representations of the petitioners were turned down by the third respondent by order dated 17.06.2009. 9. Sri M. Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7, submitted that as the order dated 04.12.2008 passed in O.A.No.4 of 2006 filed by them for the relief as in O.A.No.668 of 2007 and the same was allowed and since the petitioners have not chosen to challenge the order dated 04.12.2008 in O.A.No.4 of 2006, it attained finality, even the Government of India by order dated 15.06.2009 directed to implement the said order and therefore they seek such implementation. 10. In view of the controversy involved, it is relevant to extract the relevant portion of the clarification letter dated 19.06.1992 issued by the Department of Science and Technology, which reads as under: “There is only one method of recruitment i.e., by promotion and persons promoted against 75% quota on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness as well as those promoted against the 25% quota through the competitive examination are both promotees only.” 11. It is also relevant to reproduce the paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Tribunal while disposing of the O.A.No.935 of 2005 and M.A.No.207 of 2006, which read as follows: “In view of the above discussions, this Tribunal is of the view that the respondents have correctly redrawn the seniority list of UDCs strictly based on the length of service they had put in, in the feeder grade following the directives given by Karnataka High Court and upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, there is no plausible reason or scope available to this Tribunal to interfere with the impugned seniority list or the instructions of Department of Personal & Training dated 19.06.1992 (Annexure R-3 to reply) at this stage. Accordingly, the prayers made by the applicant in the Direction Petition vide M.A.No.207 of 2006 are also not granted. Hence, there is no plausible reason or scope available to this Tribunal to interfere with the impugned seniority list or the instructions of Department of Personal & Training dated 19.06.1992 (Annexure R-3 to reply) at this stage. Accordingly, the prayers made by the applicant in the Direction Petition vide M.A.No.207 of 2006 are also not granted. Since the applicant, during the pendency of this O.A., requested the respondents vide his letter dated 29.03.2006 to inform him about the general rule etc., which is enclosed along with the rejoinder and the respondents while clarifying the rule position did not touch the decision of Karnataka High Court which was upheld by the Apex Court and the instructions of 19.06.1992, it appears that applicant from such clarification got an impression that he is entitled to restore his seniority in terms of the letter dated 18.04.2006 enclosed with rejoinder and in view of the CAT order in O.A.No.1651 of 2001. We, therefore, direct the respondents to consider this aspect and inform the applicant within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. O.A. and M.A. 207 of 2006 are ordered accordingly.” 12. The Tribunal by impugned order dated 07.11.2008 in O.A.No.668 of 2007 observed at paragraphs 7, 29 and 30, the last paragraph, as under: “7. The present applicant produced before this Tribunal in that O.A. a clarification obtained by him under Right to Information Act from DOPT regarding the procedure to be followed where two methods of selections are being followed for filling up of promotional post of UDCs from among LDCs, wherein it is clarified as follows: “Where different methods of promotion have been prescribed in the Recruitment Rules with specified quotas for each such method, the relative seniority of such promotees viz., DPC promotees and LDCE promotees is to be determined by applying the principle of rotation of quota of vacancies earmarked in the RRS for each method.” 29. The trump card of respondents 1, 3 & 4 herein is the letter dated 19.06.1992 addressed by R-1 to R-3 quoted supra. According to the respondents, the said letter contained instructions relating to fixing up of seniority among UDCs and those instructions were issued on the basis of the orders passed in writ petition filed by Shri V.T. Rajendran before Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, which were confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. According to the respondents, the said letter contained instructions relating to fixing up of seniority among UDCs and those instructions were issued on the basis of the orders passed in writ petition filed by Shri V.T. Rajendran before Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, which were confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But, in the earlier O.A.165/2001, the respondents 1,3 & 4 herein who were respondents 1 to3 therein filed counter therein contending that the said letter is only confined to V.T. Rajendran and that even the seniority of V.T. Rajendran on the basis of the judgment in the writ petition No.165/1979 was also since revised. But, in the present case, the respondents have taken the stand which is quite opposite to their stand taken in the earlier OA. However, it has to be seen whether the said letter dated 19.06.1992 (Annexure-II) contained instructions to the effect that quota rule cannot be followed even at the stage of initial appointment for the purpose of fixing seniority of a particular year batch of promotees from both the sources. According to the respondents, the said letter issued in consultation with DoPT and also legal opinion after the orders passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the writ petition confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But, no material has been produced to show that Department of Personnel or Ministry of Legal Affairs was consulted and they advised the Ministry of Science & Technology not to follow quota rule even at the stage of initial appointment for the purpose of fixing the seniority of particular year batch promotees. In fact, the applicant filed as Annexure-XXXIV at page 116 the legal opinion given by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs at the request of the Director, Survey of India, Bangalore. In that legal opinion, the Additional Legal Advisor, Govt. of India opined that Supreme Court has held in more than one case that the quota rule was to be applied at the stage of initial promotion in an officiating capacity to the grade and not at the stage of confirmation. He quoted the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.K. Subraman’s case, wherein the Apex Court observed that for the purpose of applying the quota rule, the year must be taken as a unit and the quota rule must be applied in relation to the vacancies occurring in any particular year. He quoted the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.K. Subraman’s case, wherein the Apex Court observed that for the purpose of applying the quota rule, the year must be taken as a unit and the quota rule must be applied in relation to the vacancies occurring in any particular year. The Additional Legal Advisor further stated in his advice that the quota rule will be enforced at the time of initial appointment and not at the time of confirmation and further the quota rule will have an application only if there is more than one source of recruitment and that the said quota rule is to be applied only when sufficient number of candidates to fill up 25% of the vacancies in the grade of UDCs which have been filled up by competitive examination limited to the LDCs of Survey of India. He further pointed out that in V.T. Rajendran’s case, the quota of rotation rules were applied irrespective of the fact whether the persons were available to fill up the LDCE quota at the time of initial appointment and they have applied quota rule at the time of confirmation and such action of the respondents is against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in A.K. Subraman’s case which position was reiterated in P.S.Mahal Vs. Union of India, SC 1984 page 1291. Therefore, the legal opinion was very clear that the Karnataka High Court did not direct the respondents not to apply quota rule even at the stage of initial appointment by way of promotion and it only directed not to apply the quota rule again at the stage of confirmation. In fact, even after the said letter (Annexure-II), the respondents themselves followed the quota rule at the stage of initial appointment, obviously in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.K. Subraman’s case, but all of a sudden in the year 2001 or 2002, the respondents interpreted the letter Annexure-II in a different manner stating that as per the judgment in V.T. Rajendran’s case, quota rule cannot at all be applied for fixing inter se seniority among DPC promotees and LDCE promotees even in respect of the same year batch. We have already discussed supra about the issue involved in Writ Petition No.165/1979 filed by V.T. Rajendran decided by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court cannot be interpreted in a manner that quota rule cannot be applied while fixing inter se seniority among DPC promotees and LDCE promotees of a particular year batch even at the stage of initial appointment taking the year as a batch. Because such interpretation runs contra to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.K. Subraman’s case ( AIR 1975 SC 483 ). Further, the close reading of the letter (Annexure-II) dated 19.06.1992 disclose that it does not contain any instructions not to follow quota rule for the purpose of fixing the inter se seniority of a particular years batch of promotees from both the sources, one by seniority and other by merit. At any rate, the said letter if it is interpreted in a manner in which the respondents sought to interpret in the reply filed in this OA, it will be contra to law laid down by the Apex Court in A.K. Subraman’s case. Further, this letter cannot override the general rules relating to the fixing of seniority among the promotees of a particular year batch. Further, as seen from Central Secretariat Clerical Services Rules 1962 corrected upto July 1996 filed as Annexure-XVII, members of the lower division grade selected on the results of the LDCE held by Staff Selection Commission shall be placed in the year of their merit and that persons of the two categories are to be included in the Selected List by taking alternatively three persons from DPC promotion category and one person from LDCE category and so on in that order. Further, as seen from Annexure-XVIII to XX, it is clear that the said rules are being followed for the purpose of fixing inter se seniority among the promotees to UDCs in the Election Commission, in the Railway Board and in the Army Headquarters. Further, as seen from Annexure-XVIII to XX, it is clear that the said rules are being followed for the purpose of fixing inter se seniority among the promotees to UDCs in the Election Commission, in the Railway Board and in the Army Headquarters. As seen from Annexure-X, the applicant applied to the DoPT for information under RTI Act regarding rules/guidelines for fixation of inter se seniority of UDCs in the Central Government offices promoted from LDC to UDC against the vacancies of a year by DPC and LDCE by letter dated 29.03.2006 and the DoPT gave reply Annexure-XI on 18.04.2006 informing that whether different methods of promotion have been prescribed in the recruitment rules specified quotas for each such method, the relative seniority of such promotees, viz. DPC promotees and LDCE promotees is to be determined by applying the principle of rotation of quota of vacancies earmarked in the recruitment rules of each method. Therefore, it is clear that all the departments are following the quota rule at the stage of initial appointment and fixing their inter se seniority taking the year as basis, obviously in tune with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.K. Subraman’s case. Admittedly, Recruitment Rules applicable to R-1 do not contain a provision regarding the procedure to be followed for preparing inter se seniority among DPC promotees and LDCE promotees of a particular year batch. The letter dated 19.06.1992 cannot be taken as a provision or instructions given in respect of the above subject. In the absence of specific provision contained in the Recruitment Rules General Rules which are amended upto date in the year 1996 are to be followed. Though the General Rules of 1959 do not contain a specific provision regarding the manner in which inter se seniority among promotees, viz. DPC promotees and LDCE promotees, and those rules contain only the procedure to be followed for fixing seniority among direct recruits and promotees, the amended Rules upto 1996 contain provision prescribing the procedure to be adopted for fixing inter se seniority among two types of promotees, viz. DPC and LDCE promotees. All other Central Government Departments including DOP &T which is the nodal department are following the General Rules amended upto 1996. DPC and LDCE promotees. All other Central Government Departments including DOP &T which is the nodal department are following the General Rules amended upto 1996. In order to maintain uniformity General Rules are to be followed by R-1, R-3 &R-4 in the absence of specific provision in the Recruitment Rules applicable to UDCs in R-1 department. Further, admittedly R-1 is following General Rules for preparation of inter se seniority among DPC promotees and LDCE promotees in respect of other categories of posts in Survey of India. There is no justification to adopt different procedure in the case of UDCs. Therefore, in our considered view the stand taken by the respondents in this OA based on the alleged instructions given in the letter dated 19.06.1992 by the Ministry of Science & Technology is not well founded and it is arbitrary and not in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The respondents ought not to have revised the seniority list prepared in the year 1999 in respect of 1996 batch promotees from both the sources, as the seniority was rightly fixed applying the quota rule by rotation at the ratio of 3:1 and revision of the said seniority list to bring down all the LDCE promotees of that batch below the DPC promotees of the same batch, is not sustainable in law and it is liable to be set aside. The applicant has been unjustly denied consideration for the promotion of Assistant/Head Clerk on account of erroneous revision of the seniority list prepared as 01.01.1999. Therefore, review DPCs are to be conducted for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 for considering the case of the applicant for promotion to the grade of Assistant/Head Clerk after recasting the gradation list duly restoring applicant’s original position with all consequential and attendant benefits. Thus the points are found accordingly. 30. Therefore, review DPCs are to be conducted for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 for considering the case of the applicant for promotion to the grade of Assistant/Head Clerk after recasting the gradation list duly restoring applicant’s original position with all consequential and attendant benefits. Thus the points are found accordingly. 30. In the result, the O.A. is allowed quashing the letter No.SM/04/016/88 dated 19.06.1992 declaring it as illegal in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.K. Subraman’s case directing restoration of the seniority of the applicant in the gradation list as originally fixed in the ratio of 3:1 by rotation of vacancies as per 25% quota reserved for LDCE promotees and also directing the respondents 1, 3 & 4, to conduct review DPC for the years 2004, 2005 & 2006 for considering the case of the applicant for promotion to the grade of Assistant/Head Clerk after recasting the gradation list and to extend all consequential and attendant benefits to the applicant. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.” 13. In Office Memorandum dated 10.06.2009, the third respondent held as under: “The Survey of India (Headquarters), Dehradun are, therefore, requested kindly: i) To restore the seniority of the applicant, Sh. PVSD Gopal Krishna Murthy by restoring the seniority list of UDCs of 1996 batch prepared in the year 1999, i.e. restoring the gradation list as originally fixed in the ratio of 3:1 by rotation of vacancies as per 25% quota reserved for LDCE promotees and ii) To conduct review DPC for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 for considering the case of the applicant for promotion to the grade of Assistant/Head Clerk after recasting the gradation list and to extend all consequential and attendant benefits to the applicant. iii) That the seniority list of UDCs of 1997 batch and onwards shall also be revised/recast by following the above said quota rule by rotation at ratio of 3:1 amongst the DPC and the LDCE promotees and the review DPCs for relevant Recruitment Years shall be held within a reasonable time frame.” 14. In A.K. Subraman vs. Union of India (1975) 1 SCC 319 = AIR 1975 SC 483 , the Supreme Court held as under: “For the application of the quota rule, the vacancies for any particular year has to be ascertained and allotted as per the ratio of the quotas. In A.K. Subraman vs. Union of India (1975) 1 SCC 319 = AIR 1975 SC 483 , the Supreme Court held as under: “For the application of the quota rule, the vacancies for any particular year has to be ascertained and allotted as per the ratio of the quotas. The ratio is not made dependent on the fact whether any direct recruit was appointed in any particular year or not. If there are promotions in any year in excess of the quota those promotions were merely invalid for that year but they were not invalid for all time. They can be regularized by being absorbed in the quota for later years. It is already settled that when recruitment is from two or several sources it should be observed that there is no inherent invalidity in introduction of quota system and to work it out by a rule of rotation. The existence of a quota and rational rule, by itself, will not violate Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution. It is the unreasonable implementation of the same which may, in a given case attract the frown of the equality clause.” 15. In All India Judges Association vs. Union of India AIR 2002 SC 1752 , the Supreme Court held as under: “Experience has shown that there has been a constant discontentment amongst the members of the higher judicial service in regard to their seniority in service. For over three decades, large number of cases have been instituted in order to decide the relative seniority from the officers recruited from the two different sources, namely, promotees and direct recruits. As a result of the decision today, there will, in a way, be three ways of recruitment to higher judicial service. The quota for promotion which we have prescribed is 50 percent by following the principle "merit-cum-seniority" 25 percent strictly on merit by limited departmental competitive examination and 25 per cent by direct recruitment. Experience has also shown that the least amount of litigation in the country, where quota system in recruitment exists, in so far as seniority is concerned, is where a roster system is followed. For example, there is, as per the rules of the Central Government, a 40-point roster which has been prescribed which deals with the quotas for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. For example, there is, as per the rules of the Central Government, a 40-point roster which has been prescribed which deals with the quotas for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Hardly, if ever, there has been a litigation amongst the members of the service after their recruitment as per the quotas, the seniority is fixed by the roster points and irrespective of the fact as to when a person is recruited. When roster system is followed, there is no question of any dispute arising. The 40-point roster has been considered and approved by this Court in R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0259/1995 : [1995]2SCR35 . One of the methods of avoiding any litigation and bringing about certainty in this regard is by specifying quotas in relation to posts and not in relation to the vacancies. This is the basic principle on the basis of which the 40-point roster works. We direct the High Courts to suitably amend and promulgate seniority rules on the basis of the roster principle as approved by this Court in R.K. Sabharwal's case (supra) as early as possible. We hope that as a result thereof, there would be no further dispute in the fixation of seniority. It is obvious that this system can only apply prospectively except where under the relevant rules of seniority is to be determined on the basis of quota and rotational system. The existing relative seniority of the members of the higher judicial service has to be protected but the roster has to be evolved for the future. Appropriate rules and methods will be adopted by the High Courts and approved by the States, wherever necessary by 31st March, 2003.” 16. In G.S. Lamba vs. Union of India AIR 1985 SC 1019 , the Supreme Court held as under: “To illustrate, if in a given year candidates are selected for appointment to the grade by direct recruitment as also by holding the limited competitive examination and giving promotion and if all the three enter the service or the grade at or almost at the same time or within the year and within a reasonable time lag from each other, a question is bound to arise how to integrate all of them entering service from different. sources in the common seniority list. sources in the common seniority list. Rule 25(i)(ii) caters to this situation and helps in integrating appointees from the three sources to be integrated into common seniority list according to quota. Now contrast Rule 25(1)(ii) with Rule 21(4) and the meaning of Rule 25(i)(ii) reveals itself and becomes clear and understandable. A block of recruits in a given year coming from three independent sources may be integrated inter se according to quota and rota. The block in subsequent year would be always junior to the block of recruits in the earlier years. This is how Rules 21(4) and 25(i)(ii) can be harmoniously read and it is unquestionable that they operate in two different situations and both have to be given effect to. The language of Rule 13(1) appears to be mandatory in character. Where recruitment to a service or a cadre is from more than one source, the controlling authority can prescribe quota for each source. It is equally correct that where the quota is prescribed, a rule of seniority by rotating the vacancies can be a valid rule for seniority. But as pointed out earlier if the rule of seniority is inextricably intertwined with the quota rule and there is enormous deviation from the quota rule, it would be unjust inequitous and unfair to give effect to the rota rule. In fact as held in O.P. Singla's case, giving effect to the rota rule after noticing the enormous departure from the quota rule would be violative of Article 14. Therefore assuming that quota rule was mandatory in character appointed out earlier, its departure must permit rejection of rota rule as a valid principle of seniority." 17. In the instant case, the issue is settled by the decisions of the Tribunal and also the law laid down by the Courts. Admittedly, the seniority list of 2004 was prepared as per the guidelines issued by the first respondent in letter dated 19.06.1992 and as per the order of the Tribunal dated 31.03.2004 passed in O.A.No.1651 of 2001 upholding the inter se seniority between DPC and LDCE promotees of 1996 batch in the ratio of 3:1, which attained legal finality. Admittedly, the seniority list of 2004 was prepared as per the guidelines issued by the first respondent in letter dated 19.06.1992 and as per the order of the Tribunal dated 31.03.2004 passed in O.A.No.1651 of 2001 upholding the inter se seniority between DPC and LDCE promotees of 1996 batch in the ratio of 3:1, which attained legal finality. When the case of fifth respondent was not considered, the said seniority list of 2004 and the subsequent letter dated 04.03.2005 were challenged by fifth respondent in O.A.Nos.929 of 2004 and 935 of 2005 respectively, but no favourable relief was granted to fifth respondent. Further in compliance of the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.935 of 2005, the third respondent passed order dated 11.12.2006 without referring the matter to the Department of Personnel and Training and Department of Science and Technology. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2006 of the third respondent, fifth respondent filed O.A.No.668 of 2007 and the same was allowed by order dated 07.11.2008. Since it is settled law that when recruitment is from two or several sources, there is no inherent invalidity in introduction of quota system and in order to give effect to it by a rule of rotation and prescribing a quota and rational rule, by itself, is not violative of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.