On the closure thereof, a promotion post fell vacant on 3 9 1987 and that was offered to the private respondent.
It must also be remembered that the private respondent was appointed on the promotion post which fell vacant after the enquiry was closed on 22 10 1986.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the Tribunal was number right in issuing the direction to refix the seniority between the appellant and the private respondent after holding a review DPC for companysidering the promotion of the private respondent with effect from the date when he became due for promotion.
Since a departmental enquiry was pending against him, the department refused to forward his application for being companysidered for direct recruitment.
The facts reveal that when the post in question was sought to be filled by direct recruitment, the private respondent had applied for a numberobjection certificate to companypete at the selection through direct recruitment.
There is, therefore, numberquestion of disturbing the inter se seniority between the appellant and the private respondent.
It appears that thereafter, the departmental enquiry against the private respondent was closed.
Therefore, the private respondent joined the higher cadre long after the appellant had joined.
Special leave granted.
As a result thereof, he companyld number enter the race and the appellant was selected for appointment as a direct recruit.
Heard companynsel for the appellant as well as the State and the private respondent.
Therefore, the seniority of the appellant companyld number be disturbed.
The appellant was appointed earlier to that.
