Tribunal cannot rewrite valid promotion rules; promotions based on unauthorized qualifications were set aside, with fresh exercise directed.

Employees whose service interests were directly affected by an earlier Tribunal order, though not impleaded in the first proceeding, were held entitled to seek reconsideration under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, so the later challenge was maintainable. The Tribunal also could not substitute its own recruitment qualifications for valid statutory promotion rules, because its role was to test legality, not rewrite the rule. Promotions made on the basis of that unauthorized alteration were therefore invalid. All such promotions were set aside, a fresh promotion exercise was directed under the governing rules, and recovery of salary and allowances already paid was barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether employees not impleaded in the earlier proceeding had locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's earlier order by moving a subsequent application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act; (ii) Whether the Tribunal could alter the recruitment rules by prescribing its own qualifications for promotion and whether the promotions made on that basis were valid; (iii) Whether all promotions made pursuant to the Tribunal's interference with the rules had to be set aside and a fresh exercise undertaken, with protection against recovery of amounts already paid.

Issue (i): Whether employees not impleaded in the earlier proceeding had locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's earlier order by moving a subsequent application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

Analysis: Persons whose service interests are directly affected by an earlier order, though not parties to that proceeding, are entitled to seek reconsideration before the Tribunal. An earlier decision may operate beyond the immediate parties where its effect is on the careers of others who were not heard. The proper course for such affected persons is to approach the Tribunal and raise the grievance against the earlier order.

Conclusion: The challenge through the subsequent application was maintainable, and the objection to locus standi failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could alter the recruitment rules by prescribing its own qualifications for promotion and whether the promotions made on that basis were valid.

Analysis: A tribunal exercising judicial power cannot re-enact or substitute a recruitment rule merely because it considers the prescribed qualification undesirable. The power is to test validity, not to legislate a new standard. Since the original promotional rules were not shown to be invalid, the Tribunal's intervention in prescribing different qualifications was beyond jurisdiction, and promotions founded on that interference could not stand.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's modification of the rules was unsustainable, and the promotions made on that basis were invalid.

Issue (iii): Whether all promotions made pursuant to the Tribunal's interference with the rules had to be set aside and a fresh exercise undertaken, with protection against recovery of amounts already paid.

Analysis: Once the Tribunal's interference with the rules was held impermissible, the correct basis for promotion was the unaltered rules applicable to both feeder streams. Partial validation of promotions could not survive after the foundational defect was found. At the same time, equity required that employees who had served in promoted posts should not be compelled to refund the higher pay already received.

Conclusion: All such promotions were to be set aside, a fresh promotion exercise was directed, and no recovery of salary and allowances already paid was permitted.

Final Conclusion: The decision upheld the validity of the original rules, rejected the challenge to maintainability, annulled the promotions granted on an unauthorized alteration of those rules, and required a fresh consideration of promotions in accordance with the governing rules, without any recovery from the affected employees.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal cannot substitute its own recruitment criteria for valid statutory rules, and promotions made on the basis of such unauthorized substitution are liable to be set aside, while persons directly affected though not impleaded earlier may seek reconsideration of the order affecting them.

---