http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PRATAP NARAIN AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/04/1992

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR 1363            1992 SCR  (2) 957  1992 SCC  (3) 268        JT 1992 (3)   423  1992 SCALE  (1)979

ACT:      Civil  Services-Indian Statistical Service  Rules-Rules 8,  9C(a)-Grade IV-Seniority-Fixation  of-Interpretation  of Judgment of Supreme Court in Narender Chadha’s case [1986] 1 SCR  211-"Post"-Construction of-Whether includes cadre  post or ex-cadre post.

HEADNOTE:      This  Court  in Narender Chadha and Ors.  v.  Union  of India  and  Ors.,  [1986]  1 SCR  211  decided  the  dispute regarding  seniority between promotees and  direct  recruits belonging  to  Indian  Economics  Service  and  the   Indian Statistical  Service and directed the Union Government,  (i) to treat all persons, stated to have been promoted  contrary to Rules, having been regularly appointed to Grade IV of the Service;  (ii)  to assign them seniority form  the  date  of their  continuous officiating in Grade IV posts;  and  (iii) Even those promotees who were selected for regular promotion in  1970, 1982 and 1984 to be  assigned seniority  from  the dates  they commenced officiation continuously in  Grade  IV prior to their selection.      The  directions  of this Court were implemented  and  a seniority  list  of  Grade  IV  of  the  Indian  Statistical Service, was issued on May 8, 1986. Consequent promotions to Grade III were made vide Notification dated May 22, 1986.      The  direct  recruits  in  Grade  IV  of  the   Service challenged  the  seniority list and  promotions  before  the Tribunal  on  the  ground that the  seniority  list  was  in violation  of  the  directions of  this  Court  in  Narender Chadha’s case, contending that the promotees who  officiated against "cadre posts" in the Service, alone were entitled to the  benefit of the period towards seniority and  those  who officiated  against  "Ex-cadre posts" were not  entitled  to such benefit.      The  promotees and the Union of India contended  before the Tribunal that this Court in Narender Chadha’s case based its  conclusions  on the reasoning that the  promotees  were holding posts in the  service for about                                                        958 15  years  and as such they could not be treated as  ad  hoc appointees;  that  this Court did not make  any  distinction

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

between  the  holder of a ‘cadre’ post or ‘ex  cadre’  post; that the promotees were to be treated regular members of the Service from the date of promotion and as such whole of  the period  of their service whether against cadre or  ex  cadre post had to be counted towards seniority.      The Tribunal allowed the applications against which the persent  appeals and a writ petition were filed before  this Court  by  special leave by the promotees and the  Union  of India.      On  the question : whether the expression "posts"  used by this Court in Narender Chadha and Ors. v. Union of  India and Ors., [1986] 1 SCR 211 was "cadre posts" or it  included the  Ex-cadre  posts  held by the promotees  in  the  Indian Statistical  Service, or whether the benefit  of  continuous officiation  towards  seniority was to be  confined  to  the period spent against the cadre post, this Court allowing the appeals  filed  by  the promotees and  dismissing  the  writ petition.      HELD  :  1.01. This Court made  the  promotees  regular members   of  Grade  IV  Service  from  the  day  they   are continuously holding posts in the  said Service. This  Court did not make any distinction between a cadre post or an  ex- cadre  post.  This Court laid-down in clear terms  that  the promotees are entitled to count towards seniority the entire period  of  service in Grade IV posts whether cadre  or  ex- cadre. [960 H, 961 B-C]      1.02.  This Court intended to fix the seniority of  the promotees  on  the  basis of continuous  length  of  service irrespective  of the fact whether the length of service  was against  a  cadre post or an ex-cadre  post.  The  promotees included  in the Select List of 1970, 1982 and 1984  against their  quota  vacancies have been given  seniority  from  an earlier  date  when they started officiating in a  Grade  IV job. [968 C]      1.03. This Court has nowhere used the expression "cadre post"  or "ex-cadre post" in the judgment. Needless  to  say that these words are the alphabet of service  jurisprudence. [968 D]      1.04.  The  word ‘post’ has been used  to  indicate  an appointment,  a  job  or a position to  which  a  person  is appointed. [968 E]      Narender  Chadha  and Ors. v. Union of India  and  Ors, [1986] 1 SCR                                                        959 211 - Explained.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.  3264- 3265 of 1991      From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  8.9.1989  of  the Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  New  Delhi  in  Original Application No. 844 of 1986.                             AND      Writ Petition (c) No. 178 of 1990.      (Under Section 32 of The Constitution of India)      Ms.  Shyamla  Papu, a. Subba Rao, C.V.S.  Rao,  Ms,  A. subhashini,  Ms. C.K. Sucharita, K.T. Anantharamy  and  P.P. Tripathi for the Appellants/Petitioners.      G.D. Gupta, S.K. Gupta, J.P. Misra-in-person,  Devendra Verma-in-person, T.R. Mohanty-in-person (NP) and D.K. Joshi- in-person appeared for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KULDIP  SINGH,  J. Promotees and  direct  recruits,  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Government services, have an amazing capacity to rake-up old seniority-disputes  settled-finally  by the courts  of  law. This  is the third round of litigation between such  members of  the Indian Statistical Service. This Court  in  Narender Chadha  and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1986] 1  SCR  211 finally  decided  the dispute  regarding  seniority  between promotees and direct recruits belonging to Indian  Economics Service  and  the  Indian Statistical  Service.  This  Court directed the Union Government:          "to  treat all persons who are stated to have  been          promoted in this case to several posts in Grade  IV          in  each of the two Services contrary to the  Rules          till now as having been regularly appointed to  the          said  posts in Grade IV under rule 8(1)(a)(ii)  and          assign them seniority in the cadre with effect from          the   dates  from  which  they   are   continuously          officiating in the said posts. Even those promotees          who have been selected in 1970, 1982 and 1984 shall          be assigned seniority with effect from the date  on          which  they commenced to officiate continuously  in          the posts prior to their                                                        960          selection.  For purposes of seniority the dates  of          their  selection  shall  be  ingnored.  The  direct          recruits shall be given seniority with effect  from          the  date on which their names were recommended  by          the  Commission  for appointment to such  grade  or          post  as provided in clause (a) of Rule 9-C of  the          Rule. A seniority list of all the promotees and the          direct  recruits  shall be prepared  on  the  above          basis treating the promotees as full members of the          service with effect from the dates from which  they          are   continuously  officiating  in   the   posts."          [emphasis supplied]      The  question  for  our consideration  is  whether  the expression  "posts" used by this Court in the  above  quoted directions  means "cadre posts" or it includes the  ex-cadre posts  held  by  the promotees  in  the  Indian  statistical Service.  In other words whether the benefit  of  continuous officiation  towards  seniority  is to be  confined  to  the period  spent  against the cadre post or the total  of  such period whether against cadre or ex-cadre post.      The directions of this Court-quoted above-are  crystal- clear.  It  is  a  pity  that  the  Central   Administrative Tribunal,  New Delhi (Tribunal) viewed the above  directions in utter oblivion. This Court directed the Union of India:          (a)  To  treat  all persons, stated  to  have  been          promoted  contrary to Rules, having been  regularly          appointed to Grade IV of the Service; and          (b)  Assign them seniority from the date  of  their          continuously officiation in Grade IV posts;          (c)  Even  those promotees who  were  selected  for          regular  promotion in 1970, 1982 and 1984 shall  be          assigned  seniority from the dates  they  commenced          officiation continuously in Grade IV prior to their          selection.      a  bare look at each of the above directions  makes  it clear that this Court made the promotees regular members  of Grade IV Service from the day they are continuously  holding posts  in  the  said Service. This Court did  not  make  any distinction  between a cadre post or an ex-cadre  post.  The Court’s judicious conscious was touched by the fact that the promotees were performing the duties of the jobs (posts)  in Grade IV Service and                                                        961

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

were  drawing  salary of the posts in the said  Service  for over  fifteen years and still they were treated ad hocs  and their  appointments considered contrary to the  Rules.  This Court found it to be wholly arbitrary and directed that they be treated as regular member of the service from the day  of their  continuous appointment. Even the promotees  who  were regularly selected in the years 1970, 1982 and 1984  against their  quota  posts  were given  benefit  of  their  earlier officiation which was obviously not against the posts  meant for  the promotees: We are therefore, of the view that  this Court  laid-down  in  clear terms  that  the  promotees  are entitled  to  count towards seniority the entire  period  of service in Grade IV posts whether cadre or ex-cadre. We may, however,  dilate upon the judgment in Chadha’s  case  a  bit more to clarify the point.      A Bench of this Court consisting of O. Chinnappa  Reddy and  E.S.  Venkataramiah,  JJ.  delivered  the  judgment  in Narender  Chadha’s  case on February 11,  1986.  The  direct recruits  filed a review petition which was  dismissed.  The directions  of this Court were implemented and  a  seniority list   of  Grade  IV  of  the  Indian  Statistical   Service (hereinafter called the Service) was issued on may 8,  1986. Consequent   promotions   to  Grade  III  were   made   vide Notification  dated  May 22, 1986. The  direct  recruits  in Grade  IV of the Service challenged the seniority  list  and the  promotions before the Tribunal on the ground  that  the seniority  list was in violation of the directions  of  this Court  in  Narender Chadha’s case. It was contended  on  the interpretation  of this Court’s judgment that the  promotees who officiated against "cadre posts" in the Service,  alone, are  entitled  to  the benefit of the  said  period  towards seniority and those who officiated against "Ex-cadre  posts" are not entitled to such benefit.      The  promotees and the Union of India contended  before the Tribunal that this Court in Narender Chadha’s case based its  conclusion  on the reasoning that  the  promotees  were holding posts in the Service for about 15 years and as  such they  could not be treated as ad hoc appointees. This  Court did not make any distinction between holder of a cadre  post or  an ex cadre post. The intention of the Court is  obvious from  the  plain  language which makes  it  clear  that  the promotees  are to be treated regular members of the  Service from  the date of promotion and as such whole of the  period of their service whether against cadre or ex-cadre post  has to be counted towards seniority.                                                        962      The  Tribunal allowed the application on the  following reasoning:-          "We  have  carefully  considered  the   contentions          advanced  on both sides and have also gone  through          the  judgment  of  the Supreme  Court  in  Narender          Chadha’s case. We are required in the present  case          to  interpret the judgment of the Supreme court  in          the  light of the observations made  and  direction          given  by their Lordships, In the entire  judgment,          we  do not find the use of any expression like  ex-          cadre   posts’  or  ‘posts  outside   the   cadre’.          Appointment  to  Grade  IV  of  the  Service   were          considered  in the context of conformity  with  the          Service   rules  or  otherwise.  Neither   in   the          averments  made  in the petition filed  before  the          Supreme  Court  nor in the judgment  given  by  the          Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find any clue to reach he          conclusion  that benefit of continuous  officiation          in  ex-cadre posts not included in Grade IV of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

        Service,  was either prayed for or ordained  to  be          given   by  the  judgment.......We  do   not   find          sufficient grounds to give a finding that Grade  IV          posts  in the judgment of Narender Chadha was  used          in  a  generic sense, as contended by  the  learned          counsel  for the respondents. We are  conscious  of          the  fact  that  deprivation  of  the  benefits  of          seniority  in respect of continuous officiation  in          ex  cadre posts may not be justified on grounds  of          equity and discrimination. But in the present case,          we are bound by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme          Court  and this Tribunal is not competent to  widen          its  scope  to  extend the  benefit  of  continuous          officiation  to incumbents who are not  covered  by          the said judgment."      We are of the view that the Tribunal has fallen into  a patent  error.  A look at the judgment would show  that  the approach of the Tribunal was wholly perverse.      This   Court   examined  the  Scheme  of   the   Indian Statistical  Rules,  1961 which lay down  the  constitution, method  of  appointment and other conditions  governing  the Service. It was noticed that at the initial constitution  of the Rules on  November 1, 1961 there were 116 posts in Grade IV and total of 185 posts in the Service. All the Rules were noticed  and  after reproducing Rule 8  which  provides  for appointments to the Service, it was observed as under:-                                                        963          "Although Rule 8 provided that not less that 75 per          cent  of vacancies in Grade IV should be filled  up          by     direct    recruitment..........no     direct          recruitment  was  resorted to till about  the  year          1968. In the meanwhile a large number of persons in          the  feeder  posts were appointed to the  posts  in          Grade  IV  from  time to time from  the  year  1962          onwards  although the orders promoting them  stated          that they had been promoted only temporarily. It is          not  disputed  that all those promotees  have  been          holding  those posts continuously till now  without          being reverted to the feeder posts from which  they          had  been  promoted. Some have retired  from  those          posts on attaining the age of superannuation.      Thereafter  the Bench noticed the fact large number  of posts  meant  for  the direct recruits were  manned  by  the promotees  for  a period of more than 15  years.  The  Bench observed as under:-          "The position in the Indian Statistical Service was          more  or less the same. As against a total  of  303          vacancies  meant  for direct recruits  between  the          year  1964 and 1984 only 275 direct  recruits  were          appointed. In this department also the posts  which          remained unfilled had been held by the persons  who          were departmental candidates. It is alleged in  the          counter-af-fidavit filed on behalf of the Union  of          India  of  which the deponent is  Shri  P.G.  Lele,          Deputy Secretary in the Department of Personnel and          Administrative    Reforms   that   many   of    the          departmental   candidates had been allowed to  hold          posts including  in  Grade  IV  of  the   aforesaid          Services purely on ad hoc and ex gratia basis.  The          relevant  part of the counter-affadavit  is  to  be          found  in  paragraphs  21  to  24  thereof.  It  is          unfortunate  that  even though the  promotees  have          been discharging their duties to the best of  their          ability  and receiving salary and  allowances  from          the  Government for the services rendered by  them,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

        it  is alleged in the course of the  said  counter-          affidavit  that what was being paid to them was  by          way  of  grace.  This  statement   adds  insult  to          injury.  If the Government felt that they were  not          competent  to discharge their duties and  they  had          not been appointed permanently to the posts held by          them,  it  was open to it to revert them  to  their          posts from which                                                        964          they  had been promoted leaving it open to them  to          question  the  orders of reversion  in  Court.  The          Government  was in need of their services  and  the          petitioners  have  been  holding  these  posts  for          nearly  15  to 20 years. It is not fair to  say  at          this distance of time that the Government was  only          keeping  them in their posts as a matter of  grace.          Be that as it may, it is seen that the Departmental          Promotion  Committee met only thrice  between  1965          and  1984, i.e. 1970, 1972 and 1984 although  under          the  rules and instructions issued by  the  Central          Government  on  the  advice  of  the  Union  Public          Service  Commission,  the  Departmental   promotion          Committee had to meet annually.      It  is thus obvious that the Bench was fully  conscious of  the  total  number of posts in the  Service  during  the period  from  1964  to  1984, the  total  number  of  direct recruits  occupying the posts the fact that large number  of promoters were occupying the posts meant for direct recruits and  the  Departmental promotion Committee had not  met  for years  together to fill the posts meant for  the  promotees. The  Bench  was thus fully aware of the  provisions  of  the Rules and their actual application to the cadre and ex-cadre posts  during  the period from 1961 till 1984. It  is  clear from  the minute factual details adverted to by  the  Bench, that  this  Court gave benefit of total officiation  to  the promotees whether against a cadre post or a non cadre  post. The  problem faced by this Court in Narender  Chadha’s  case was noticed as under:-          "But we are faced in this case with the problem  of          resolving conflicts which have arisen on account of          a violent departure made by the Government from the          Rules  of  recruitment by allowing those  who  were          appointed  contrary to the Rules to hold the  posts          continuously  over  a  long  period  of  time.  The          question is whether after such a long period it  is          open  to the Government to place them in  seniority          at a place lower than the place held by persons who          were   directly  recruited  after  they  had   been          promoted, and whether it would not violate Articles          14 and 16 of the Constitution if the Government  is          allowed to do so. Promotions of officers have  been          made  in  this case deliberately and  in  vacancies          which  have  lasted  for a  long  time.......It  is          significant that neither the Government has  issued          orders  of reversion to their former posts nor  has          anybody                                                        965          so  far questioned the right of the petitioners  to          continue  in the posts which they are now  holding.          It would be unjust to hold at this distance of time          that on the facts and in the circumstances of  this          case  the petitioners are not holding the posts  in          Grade IV. The above contention is therefore without          substance.  But we, however, make it clear that  it          is not our view that whenever a person is appointed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

        in  a post without following the  Rules  prescribed          for appointment to that post, he should be  treated          as a person regularly appointed to that post.  Such          a  person may be reverted from the post. But  in  a          case of the kind before us where persons have  been          allowed  to function in higher posts for 15  to  20          year  with due deliberation it would  be  certainly          unjust  to hold that they have no sort of claim  to          such posts and could be reverted unceremoniously or          treated as persons not belonging to the Service  at          all,  particularly where the Government is  endowed          with  the power to relax the Rules to avoid  unjust          results.  In  the instant case the  Government  has          also  not expressed its unwillingness  to  continue          them  in  the  said  posts.  The  other  contesting          respondents   have   also  not   urged   that   the          petitioners  should be sent out of the said  posts.          The   only question agitated before us  relates  to          the  seniority as between the petitioners  and  the          direct recruits and such as question can arise only          where  there is no dispute regarding the  entry  of          officers  concerned  into the same  Grade.  In  the          instant case there is no impediment even under  the          Rules to treat these petitioners and others who are          similarly situated as persons duly appointed to the          posts in Grade IV because of the enabling provision          contained  in  the rule 16 thereof. Rule 16  as  it          stood at the relevant time read as follows:          "*The  Government may relax the provisions of  these          rules to such extent as may be necessary to  ensure          satisfactory   working   or   remove    inequitable          results.*" (emphasis supplied)      It is obvious from the quote above  that the Court  was primarily  concerned  with  the  question  of  granting  the promotees  the  benefit of their long period of  service  in Grade IV posts for the purposes of seniority. The  promotees were  appointed 15 year back to the cadre or ex-cadre  posts in  Grade  IV,  had been doing the same  work  as  regularly appointed  Grade  IV officers were doing, were  drawing  the same salary and were treated at per                                                        966 with  other  regularly  appointed  officers.  Is  there  any justification  to  deprive them the benefit of  15  year  of service on the ground that they were working against the ex- cadre  posts. It was  projected before this Court  that  the appointments  to  Grade  IV of  all  the  promotees  whether working  against cadre post or ex-cadre posts were  contrary to the Rules. In that situation where is the  justification, after  all the promotees are regularised by this  court,  to hold  that  only  those who are  regularised  while  working against  cadre  posts, are to be given the benefit  of  such regularisation towards seniority. Doing that would be wholly arbitrary. The Tribunal itself observed:-          "We  are conscious of the fact that deprivation  of          the benefits of seniority in respect of  continuous          officiation in ex cadre posts may not be  justified          or grounds of equity and discrimination. But in the          present  case, we are bound by the judgment of  the          Hon’ble  Supreme  Court and this  Tribunal  is  not          competent to widen its scope to extend the  benefit          of continuous officiation to incumbents who are not          covered by the said judgment."      But  on the basis of patently illogical  reasoning  the Tribunal  imputed  such  a  conclusion  which  "may  not  be justified  on grounds of equity and discrimination" to  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

Court  on  an erroneous interpretation of  the  judgment  in Narender  Chadha’s  case. The least we can say is  that  the Tribunal has acted in a wholly perverse and wayward manner.      This   Court  further  noticed  the  enormity  of   the prejudice which was likely to be caused to the promotees  in case they were denied the benefit of their ad hoc service in the following words:-          "The enormity of the prejudice that is likely to be          caused  to  the  petitioners and  others  who  were          similarly stituated can be demonstrated by  setting          out  the  effect of stiking to the quota rule  as          found in rule 8(1)(a) even though there has been  a          deliberate   deviation  from  it.  The  result   of          applying  the  quota  rule  would  be  as  follows:          Petitioner  No. 1 who was promoted to Grade  17  on          November  6,  1965  would be  junior  to  a  direct          recruit  of  1974 batch. Petitioner No. 3  who  was          promoted to Grade IV on March 22, 1966 would become          junior   to  a  direct  recruit  of   1979   batch.          Petitioner No. 6 who was promoted to Grade IV  post          in July 1, 1966 would become junior to direct                                                        967          recruits  of 1982 batch. Petitioner No. 10 who  was          promoted  to Grade IV on May 18, 1968 would  become          junior   to   direct  recruits   of   1982   batch.          Petitioners  Nos.  16  to 18 and  21  to  25  would          continue  to  be treated as ad hoc  appointees  and          will  be  junior to every body appointed  till  now          into the service as they cannot be fitted any where          even  though  they  have put in 9  to  15  year  of          service in Grade IV. These startling results  ought          to  shock  anybody’s  conscience.  The  only   just          solution   to   this  problem  is  to   treat   the          petitioners  as  persons  duly  appointed  to   the          Service with effect from the day on which they were          promoted to the Grade IV posts.          As  observed  in D.R. Nim, IPS v. Union  of  India,          [1967]  2 SCR 325 when an officer has worked for  a          long  period as in this case for nearly fifteen  to          twenty years in a post and had never been  reverted          it  cannot  be held that the  officer’s  continuous          officiation  was a mere temporary or local or  stop          gap   arrangement   even  though   the   order   of          appointment may state so. In such circumstances the          entire period of officiation has to be counted  for          seniority.  Any other view would be  arbitrary  and          violative   of  Articles  14  and  16(1)   of   the          Constitution  because the temporary service in  the          post in question is not for a short period intended          to meet some emergent or unforeseen  circumstances.          Clause (b) of rule 9C of the Rule which deals  with          the   question  of  seniority   promotees   becomes          irrelevant  in  the circumstances of this  case  as          regards  the  promotees who have been  holding  the          posts from a long time as stated above."  [emphasis          supplied]      This  Court  has, in simple language and  plain  words, expressed  its  verdict in the ‘quote’ above.  It  needs  no clarification much less any interpretation. It only needed a judicial-look which the Tribunal failed to do.      Regarding  the  promotees who were appointed  in  their quota this Court observed as under:-          "We are aware that the view we are taking may upset          the inter se seniority between those promotees  who          were included in the Select List of 1970, 1982  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

        1984  and those who were included later on  or  who          have  not  been  included  at  all  till  now.  The          existence  of this possibility should not deter  us          from adopting                                                        968          a  uniform  rule in the case of all  promotees  and          direct recruits to adjust the equities amongst them          as regards their relative seniority in the light of          the  violent departure made by the Government  both          as regards direct recruitments and promotions which          it  had  to make every year under  the  Rules.  The          prejudice  which  the  promotees  included  in  the          Select Lists might suffer is marginal and has to be          ignored."      The  above paragraph makes it further clear  that  this Court intended to fix the seniority of the promotees on  the basis  of continuous length of service irrespective  of  the fact whether the length of service was against a cadre  post or  an ex-cadre post. The promotees included in  the  Select List  of 1970, 1982 and 1984 against their  quota  vacancies have  been  given seniority from an earlier date  when  they started officiating in a Grade IV job.      This Court has nowhere used the expression "cadre post" or  "excadre  post" in the judgment. Needless  to  say  that these  words are the alphabet of Service  jurisprudence.  In Narender Chadha’s case it was legally impossible to make any distinction on the basis of cadre or ex-cadre posts. In  any case  if this Court intended to do so it would have done  it in clear terms. The word ‘post’ has been used by this  Court to  indicate an appointment, a job or a position to which  a person is appointed.      We,  therefore,  allow  the  appeals,  set  aside   the judgment of the Tribunal and dismiss the applications  filed by the respondents before the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. V.P.R.                                       Appeals allowed                                           Petition dismissed.                                                        969