By Judgment dated 6th September, 1989, this Court came to the companyclusion that, since the two appellants before this Court, who are respondents 7 and 8 in the present proceedings, had been promoted to the post of statistical Assistants after going through a process of selection by a Departmental Promotion Committee, then question of re consideration of their case by another departmental Promotion Committee was number justified.
The appellants joined the organisation as Assistant Compiler in May June, 1970 whereas respondents 5, 6 and 7 were also appointed as Assistant Compiler on 2.6.1970 and respondent No.8 had been appointed on 22.7.1970.
Needless to mention that either in the earlier proceedings when respondents 7 and 8 challenged the order of reversion as well as in the subsequent proceedings before the Tribunal, when respondents 5 and 6 claimed seniority in the gradation list, the present appellants had number been arrayed as parties.
These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, before whom the appellants had claimed seniority over respondents 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the cadre of Statistical Assistant under the Census Organisation.
As a result of such steps taken by the Government and as a result of the process of selection held by the Departmental Promotion Committee, respondents 7 and 8 were reverted from the post of Statistical Assistant to the post of Computer.
In the gradation list of Statistical Assistants, which was published on 1.1.1986, only appellant No.l had been shown and respondents 5 to 8 had number been shown, though they had been recruited by that date.
It may be stated that in the gradation list which had been published prior to the Rules came into force as well as even after the Rules companying into force, the appellants had been shown senior to the respondents.
In the Census organisation, the hierarchy of posts start from Assistant Compiler and then Computer, Statistical Assistant, Tabulation Officer and then Investigator.
The Recruitment Rules came into force in the year 1973.
The reversion order of the second respondent as aforesaid was challenged before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal rejected their claim.
After the Recruitment Rules came into force, the Government took the task or companysidering the cases of all adhoc promotees in different ranks by companystituting a Departmental Promotion Committee and on the basis of the recommendation of the said Departmental Promotion Committee, regularised the services of different employees in different ranks.
There was numberrecruitment Rules then in force, and persons were promoted on adhoc basis to the posts of Computers and then also to Statistical Assistants.
The matter was then carried to this Court in Civil Appeal No.
Hence the present appeals.
3819 of 1989.
