ORDER : 1. By way of common order dated 06.12.2018, Original Application Nos.20/567/2013, 20/967/2013, 20/1067/2013, 20/1068/2013 and 20/451/2014, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, filed by the unofficial respondents herein, came to be allowed. 2. In Writ Petition (SR) No.8871 of 2019, the said common order passed in various Original Applications is challenged. An objection has been taken by the Registry saying that one Writ Petition against all the Original Applications cannot be maintained. Therefore, the said Writ Petition is coming up in S.R. stage. During the course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Solicitor General that the present Writ Petition can be restricted only to the extent of order passed in Original - Application No.20/567/2013. Therefore, this Writ Petition is being entertained only against the order passed in Original Application No.20/567/2013, and to the extent of other Original Applications, this Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with a liberty to question the orders passed in other Original Applications by way of separate Writ Petitions. 3. Since the issue in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same and as the contentions advanced are also the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Writ Petitions by way of this common order. 4. The only issue which arises for consideration of this Court in the present Writ Petitions is: "Whether the promotion to the category of Construction Supervisor needs to be made on the basis of trade or grade? 5. It is contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition (SR) No.8871 of 2019 and Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for writ petitioners in Writ Petition No.930 of 2020, that in the event of treating 'grade' as criterion, there cannot be any promotions to the qualified and eligible persons in the feeder category, and the unqualified candidates, who do not have the requisite qualification in the trade concerned, will get promotions. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.930 of 2020 that settled seniority cannot be permitted to be unsettled at the instance of the respondents/applicants. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that as long back as in the year 2007, seniority was assigned and the same cannot be permitted to be altered. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that as long back as in the year 2007, seniority was assigned and the same cannot be permitted to be altered. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that as per column No.3 of the Schedule annexed to the Department of Defence Research and Development, Ministry of Defence (ATVP Technical Cadre Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1999, as amended vide 2002 Rules, one must have requisite qualification in the relevant trade to get promotion to the category of Construction Supervisor. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents / applicants contends vehemently that the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners herein are contrary to the Rules, and according to which, grade alone is the criteria but not trade. 7. In order to examine and evaluate the respective contentions al1d the issue involved in these cases, it may be appropriate to refer to the relevant Rules. Posts on hand are governed by the Department of Defence Research and Development, Ministry of Defence (ATVP Technical Cadre Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1999, as amended vide 2002 Rules. According to the said Rules, the post of Construction Supervisor needs to be fil1ed up by promotion from the category of Construction Assistant-C. The post of Construction Supervisor falls under category 6 of the said Rules. It is very much obvious from a reading of the Rules that the said Rules do not stipulate that on the basis of trade promotion to the category of Construction Supervisor needs to be taken up. When the language employed in the Rules is very clear and lucid, the meaning other than the one stipulated cannot be given and such course of action is impermissible. 8. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.930 of 2020 that one must have the requisite qualification in the trade concerned, it is to be noted that a reading of the abovesaid Rules clearly reveals that the said contingency is applicable only to the extent of direct recruitments and not to the promotions. Therefore, the contention contra advanced by the learned counsel is liable to be rejected. 9. Yet another submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.930 of 2020 is that settled seniority cannot be unsettled. Therefore, the contention contra advanced by the learned counsel is liable to be rejected. 9. Yet another submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.930 of 2020 is that settled seniority cannot be unsettled. Learned counsel invites the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Commander, Manager (HRD) for Project Director, dated 30.06.2007, and while referring to the same, he submits that since the respondents/applicants allowed the same to become final, the said seniority cannot be permitted to be unsettled now. A perusal of the said proceedings reveals that the same is only a publication of panel for promotion, but not seniority list, as contended by the learned counsel. It is significant to note in this context that on behalf of the Union of India, a reply was filed before the Tribunal in Original Application No.1067 of 2013. In the said reply, at paragraph No.8, it was stated as follows: "It is submitted that it is true that all promotions of tradesmen and supervisors had taken place in terms of their grade-wise seniority but taking into view by the DPC that there was an uneven distribution in the MSTS workers to supervisors ratio among the various trades since the figures varied from 1:98 to 0:1 such a vast variation in workers to supervisors ratio is detrimental to the functioning of the Yard. Accordingly, the DPC has taken total number of sanctioned posts and worked out a methodology to evenly distribute the posts in all trades and has brought the workers to Supervisors ratio to 1:3 in all trades. This even distribution is essential keeping in view the future requirements of the Unit and industrial relations in Unit." Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be concluded that the applicants in the Original Application are attempting to unsettle the seniority. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.930 of 2020 also places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in T.R.Kapoor & others v. State of Haryana & others, (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 71 and Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana & others, (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 604, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically ruled that the settled seniority cannot be permitted to be unsettled. In the considered opinion of this Court, the principle laid down in the said judgments would not render any assistance to the learned counsel in view of the reality that there is no seniority list at all in the case on hand. Therefore, the question of disturbing the same also would not arise. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petitions. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petitions. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petitions shall stand closed.