MITHILESH PRASAD & AMRENDRA KUMAR SINHA v. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

been challenged through the present writ application. That order contained in Annexure- 1, in our view, has correctly decided the issue that the respondents committed no mistake in calling the candidates three times the number of total vacancies which was ten. There was no requirement of excluding the vacancies of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of deciding the zone of consideration. - 4 - So far as issue of seniority is concerned, in paragraph 4 of the impugned order, which is rather a long paragraph, the Tribunal has held that placement of private respondent at serial no.1 in the select list on account of his being given outstanding grade was correct and as per prescribed rules and regulations. No rule and regulation to justify such action was however noticed by the Tribunal. Before this Court, the parties are in agreement that the relevant guidelines or regulations are contained in Annexure-11 series reflected Government India, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Office Memorandum dated 10th March, 1989 which is said to be in line with similar earlier guidelines. A perusal of the relevant paragraph bearing 2.3.1(i) of that Office Memorandum gives to us an altogether different picture. According to the said provision, for all Group- C posts the bench mark for promotion is “Good”. All officers whose over all grading is equal to or better than the bench mark should be included in the panel for promotion to the - 5 - extent of number of vacancies. They will be arranged in the order of their inter-se seniority in the lower category without reference to the overall grading obtained by each of them provided that each one of them has the bench mark of “Good”. The later guidelines relate to posts of other groups. No rule or regulation or even a guideline has been produced before us by the private respondent or the Union of India to justify the action of the Departmental Promotion Committee in placing the private respondent above the applicants only on the basis of “Excellent” grading granted to the private respondent. This “Excellent” grading misread Tribunal “Outstanding”, which is approved grading as per Office Memorandum. Such arrangement successful candidates only on account of their overall grading and disregarding their inter-se seniority in the lower category is clearly against the provisions in Annexure-11, the Office Memorandum dated 10th March, 1989. Thus, we find no rules or regulations to justify action respondent authorities in disregarding inter-se seniority between the applicants and the private - 6 - respondent on the promotional post of Junior Supervisor. As noticed above, the provision in the prescribed procedure to be observed by the Departmental Promotion Committee, in the Office Memorandum noted above, is to the contrary. We are in agreement with the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners that even where promotions are required to be made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, the promoted candidates are usually permitted to maintain their inter- se seniority if they are promoted in the same transaction. We find no contrary rule in the present case to permit disregard of general rule of maintaining inter-se seniority of lower category even on the promoted posts. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the seniority granted to the private respondent applicants in the post of Junior supervisor is held to be against law. The gradation list which was challenged by the applicants before the Tribunal is quashed only to that extent with a direction to correct the gradation list so as to show the applicants senior to the private respondent on the post of Junior - 7 - supervisor. We clarify here that in the present writ petition we have not been called upon to decide the validity of any future promotion etc, granted to any party. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Pradeep/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (J. N. Singh, J.)