JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Sanjay Karol, J. By common judgment dated 27th September, 2016, rendered in W.P.(C) No.251 of 2015, titled as Dr. Prasun Chakraborty & others Vs. The Union of India & Others and other connected matters, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the bunch of writ petitions, issuing the following directions which is subject matter of limited challenge in these appeals : “***36. In the considered opinion of this court, since an extant right was not acknowledged, the state action in this regard cannot be held constitutionally valid in view of caprice, arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the said action. The respondents have failed to show any fault of the petitioners for such non-consideration. It is the admitted position that all the petitioners filed applications within due time and their applications were considered and all the petitioners before this court in this batch of writ petitions were found to be eligible for consideration for movement/promotion to the post of Professor in the NIT, Agartala under the said scheme by a selection committee, which is same as the selection committee for the direct recruitment. But no selection committee was constituted for that purpose and the respondents played dirge on the petitioners' right. This action cannot be absolved. Even the embargo as created by the MHRD, if at all, is declared unsustainable. 37. Having due regard to the ratio as laid down in Smt. Tara Sen (supra), this court is of the view that the respondents shall be directed to constitute a Selection Committee to consider the cases of the petitioners whether they are suitable to move to the post of Professor on or before 30.04.2013 under the CAS following the 5th CPC norms, within a period of 3(three) months from the date when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order to the respondents, having due regard to the observations made hereinabove. Accordingly, it is ordered. If the petitioners are found eligible to move to the post of Professors under the CAS following the 5th CPC norms, they shall be released all financial and service benefits from the day when they would be so moved to the post of Professors under the NIT Agartala in the respective branches. It is made clear that the embargo as put by the MHRD will have no impact in the cases of the petitioners.***” 2. It is made clear that the embargo as put by the MHRD will have no impact in the cases of the petitioners.***” 2. Here, the challenge laid by NIT is three fold : (a) On retrospective basis no direction could have been issued for consideration of the petitioners’ cases under the 5th CPC norms. (b) Supplementing the same, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunaina Sharma and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 413 ; State of Bihar and others Vs. Akhouri Sachindra Nath and others, reported in 1991 Supp(1) SCC 334 and the State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Others, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1990 , there cannot be any direction for promotion on retrospective basis. (c) During the pendency of the present appeal, petitioners have now exercised their option for being considered for promotion to the post of Professor by issuing ‘No Objection’. 3. Certain facts are not in dispute. Writ petitioners are employees of the National Institute of Technology, Agartala. Prior to 30th April, 2013 they had completed 8(eight) years of service in the grade of Associate Professor. The NIT promoted a scheme under the 5th CPC norms, which is commonly termed as the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), in terms whereof, cases of all the writ petitioners were processed. However, before final decision thereon could be taken, the Management of NIT took a decision making such scheme inapplicable to the employees of the institutes w.e.f. 30th April, 2013. The purpose of CAS was to provide benefits to faculty of the NITs Who had no promotional avenues. The appellants recognized the said scheme as an integral part of a rigid staff structure where the number of posts at any given level was restricted and limited. The scheme provided an avenue through which a qualified employee climbs to the higher rung of the career ladder, even where there is no vacancy. It stood clarified that the object and purpose of the scheme was development of merit and that it was not to be considered as eligibility based promotions. As such, any person desiring of gaining advancement under the said scheme was obliged to fulfill the criteria termed as three front heads in terms thereof. 4. It stood clarified that the object and purpose of the scheme was development of merit and that it was not to be considered as eligibility based promotions. As such, any person desiring of gaining advancement under the said scheme was obliged to fulfill the criteria termed as three front heads in terms thereof. 4. Noticeably, vide communication dated 18th March, 2013, it stood clarified that the Council of NIT’s had permitted CAS only as a one-time measure and that no permission for grant of selection under CAS in any one of its institutions was to be granted with effect from 30th April, 2013, as the institutions had adopted implementation of 4-tier faculty cadre structure. It is not in dispute that this 4-tier cadre structure could not uphold judicial sanctity and, as such, prior to the amendment of the Rules so notified on 21st July, 2017 it was only CAS which was prevalent and applicable. 5. It is also a matter of record that with the introduction of this new avenue of promotion under the 2017 notification, the writ petitioners had exercised their option and issued ‘No Objection’ in the following terms : “ ‘No Objection’ by Associate Professors of NIT, Agartala who filed some cases in the High Court of Tripura. Date: 23-02-18 The undersigned has applied for the post of Professor at NIT, Agartala (NITA), agai9nst “Recruitment Advertisement” issued by NITA on 12.09.2017. Based on one WP(c) filed by me for my promotion/up-gradation from Associate Professor to professor to Professor under CAS, one Writ Appeal (WA) is pending before Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura. I hereby declare that I have “No Objection”, if my application submitted for the post of Professor at NIT, Agartala (NITA) against “Recruitment Advertisement” issued by NITA on 12.09/2017, is considered as per Recruitment Rules/NIT Statutes/relevant guidelines/process. (Signature of Faculty Member) Name: Dr. Aparna Nath Dept: physics.” We have noticed that the learned Single Judge has elaborately discussed the relevant rules and the various actions of the NIT holding the writ petitioners’ right and entitlement for consideration of their cases under CAS. Well, before us, there is no serious dispute about such facts. 6. (Signature of Faculty Member) Name: Dr. Aparna Nath Dept: physics.” We have noticed that the learned Single Judge has elaborately discussed the relevant rules and the various actions of the NIT holding the writ petitioners’ right and entitlement for consideration of their cases under CAS. Well, before us, there is no serious dispute about such facts. 6. Here we take note of the fact that prior to issuance of their ‘No objection’ cases of the writ petitioners, on merits stood processed, considered and recommended but no benefits accorded for decisions only with respect to their category, and none else, stood deferred. Also in the no objection writ petitioners have not given up their right of consideration under CAS or agreed to withdraw their claims in terms thereof, or the cases pending before this Court. 7. Learned Single Judge after appreciating all the relevant rules framed the following two issues for consideration : “(i) Whether the petitioners were eligible for consideration under the CAS following the 5th CPC norms for movement/promotion to the post of Professor under the NIT Agartala, or not? (ii) Whether by not considering the petitioners for movement/promotion to the post of Professor in the NIT Agartala under the CAS following the 5th CPC norms, the respondents have acted arbitrarily or not?” While answering Issue No.1, this Court took note of the directions issued in the earlier round of litigation, being writ petition being W.P.(C) No.251 of 2015, titled as Dr. Prasun Chakraborty & others Vs. The Union of India & Others, wherein the respondents were directed to consider the cases of the writ petitioners under CAS following the 5th CPC norms. The learned Single Judge also noted that each one of the writ petitioners, including such of those candidates who had not approached the Court, had also filed their applications much prior to the due date stipulated under CAS i.e. 22nd April, 2013, and such applications, of each one of the candidates, were considered and scrutinized by the competent committee. In fact, such committee was authorized to submit a report with regard to the eligibility and entitlement of each one of the applicants. Obviously, this was to be so done considering the norms contained under the scheme commonly termed as 5th CPC norms. 8. In fact, such committee was authorized to submit a report with regard to the eligibility and entitlement of each one of the applicants. Obviously, this was to be so done considering the norms contained under the scheme commonly termed as 5th CPC norms. 8. In fact, as the record reveals, the Director, NIT, Agartala had decided to call for interview candidates of all category, save and except one category i.e. of Professor to which the writ petitioners belong to. To this effect minutes dated 22nd April, 2013 of the NIT, Agartala are on record and names of all the candidates including the writ petitioners whose cases were to be considered find mentioned in the note dated 22nd April, 2013, but, however, no final decision could be taken with respect to the category of Professors in view of Note. No.20 of the same date, which reads as under : “Director: Pl. call for interview to the eligible candidate recommended by the committee other than Professor. Interview for Professor, decision in this regard will be intimated at the earliest. Interview dates are on 27th and 28th April, 2013 as discussed.***” It is in this backdrop, we find the writ petitioners who are professors to have been discriminated and the learned Single Judge, rightly up holding their right for consideration under the CAS, following the 5th CPC norms for movement/promotion to the post of Professor under the NIT, Agartala. 9. Further, in our considered view, learned Single Judge rightly held that in the absence of any cloud regarding the eligibility of the writ petitioners for consideration of their cases under CAS, the Management could not have withheld the benefits to which each one of the writ petitioners were otherwise entitled to, under the prevalent scheme. At least, their cases had to be processed after initial scrutiny. Till the stage of scrutiny, none raised any objection with regard to the petitioners’ entitlement for consideration under the relevant scheme/norms. It is in this background, we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that action of the appellant herein smacks of arbitrariness and discrimination. 10. We are of the considered view that the issue for consideration before the Apex Court in all the three judgments cited by the learned counsel was totally different. The ratio laid down therein is inapplicable to the prevalent facts. 10. We are of the considered view that the issue for consideration before the Apex Court in all the three judgments cited by the learned counsel was totally different. The ratio laid down therein is inapplicable to the prevalent facts. Here, there is no question of retrospective application of the norms, for as on the date the writ petitioners’ applications were required to be, in fact processed, they were eligible and entitled for consideration and in furtherance of such right, almost called for interview. Their right emanates from the present scheme, postulating eventualities, lacking avenues of promotion. 11. Further, it is brought to our notice that the 4-tier system was no-longer in existence as on the date when the learned Single Judge delivered the judgment. Also, no new promotional avenues were in existence till the year 2017, hence, we find no reason to interfere with the operative portion of the impugned judgment. 12. It is true that the writ petitioners have issued “no objection certificate”, but then, such fact in no manner extinguishes their right for consideration under CAS. We have already noted that the impact of such no objection. Whether cases of the writ petitioners under the new rules would be considered at all or not is not certain and in any case is a matter, open for the authorities to consider while processing such applications, accounting the fact that, petitioners’ cases stand considered and benefits under CAS disbursed. Which, obviously has to be as per the rules prevalent and applicable at the time of consideration of such applications. 13. In view of the same, the present writ appeals and the connected applications stand disposed of.