Courts Cannot Direct Executive Authorities to Amend Recruitment Rules or Create Promotional Avenues

The 44 applicants were originally appointed as Work Assistants in the Public Works Department (PWD), Puducherry.

They sought to challenge an order dated 15.07.2016 and claimed that despite over two decades of service, they were denied career progression, pay scale revisions, and status improvements comparable to Overseers and Draftsmen.

The applicants alleged that the Department failed to frame necessary service rules despite prior judicial directions and sought preferential consideration for promotion.

The respondents contended that the issue had already been conclusively settled by the Madras High Court in a previous round of litigation involving the same subject matter.

1. Whether the present application is maintainable in light of the principle of res judicata and the finality of earlier litigation on the same subject matter

2. Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to direct the executive to frame or amend recruitment rules to provide specific avenues of promotion

The Court applied the principle of Res Judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, emphasizing that litigation must attain finality and "dead claims" cannot be revived.

It relied on Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, which held that even decisions allegedly violating Article 14 are binding between parties.

Regarding administrative policy, the court applied the doctrine from State of Jammu and Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki, stating that a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to compel the legislature or executive to enact specific legislation or rules.

It further cited P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, establishing that the creation of posts and prescription of qualifications/promotion avenues fall within the exclusive discretion of the State and are not subject to directions by Statutory Tribunals.

The Tribunal found that the grievances raised by the applicants—specifically regarding inclusion in feeder categories for the post of Junior Engineer and the framing of recruitment rules—had already been litigated in OA No. 614/2012 and OA No. 725/2014.

While the Tribunal had previously given positive directions to the administration, those orders were set aside by the Madras High Court in Union of India v. Puducherry State PWD Work Assistant Association (WP Nos. 5637 & 5638 of 2017).

The High Court had ruled that a "second round of litigation" with cosmetic changes to the prayer is barred by constructive res judicata.

Following the High Court’s reasoning, the Tribunal noted that matters of cadre restructuring and promotion criteria are "exclusive preserves of the employer" and judicial review is restricted unless the action is patently arbitrary or mala fide.

Since the Apex Court had already dismissed the SLP against the High Court's judgment, the Tribunal determined the issue was res integra (already settled).

It held that the issues raised regarding career progression and rule amendment were already conclusively settled by the Madras High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held it cannot sit in appeal over the employer's judgment or ordain specific recruitment methodologies.

No order was made as to costs.