7. On the other hand, Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, contended that the consequential relief sought for to accommodate the applicants in the posts available in the year 20002001 cannot be granted because these posts have been notified in terms of J.T.O.Recruitment Rules, 1999. Admittedly, as per the J.T.O. Recruitment Rules, 1999 and 2001, some of the applicants were not qualified and therefore, in the absence of availability of 35% quota of J.T.Os from 1996 to 1999, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside because even assuming for a moment that the names of the applicants were found in the waiting list having passed the written test conducted by the department, still they have no right to ask for appointment as J.T.Os. Learned senior counsel is right in contending that they have no right to ask for promotion for the post of J.T.Os, but at the same time, they have got a right to be considered for promotion if they are otherwise fully qualified and eligible. If the principle laid down in Y.V. Rangaiah’s case (1 supra) is taken into consideration by the Tribunal, a categorical and clear finding ought to have been given by the Tribunal about the availability of the vacancies under 35% quota from 1996 to 31.8.1999. No such finding is given. The direction to absorb the applicants for the posts available in the year 2000-2001 ought not to have been given by Tribunal applying the ratio laid down in Y.V.Rangaiah’s case because for the vacancies of 2000 and 2001, the department ought to have conducted the test in terms of J.T.O. Recruitment Rules, 1999, but not under J.T.O. Recruitment Rules, 2001. These are some of the aspects where the Tribunal has not applied its judicial mind and decided the issues. In view of the fact that the direction given by the Tribunal to absorb the applicants in the vacancies that arose in the years 2000 and 2001 is
