The Tribunal also is of the view that even though respondents 3 and 4 who are promotees successfully safeguarded the interest of all promotees yet since all the promotees have number been arrayed as party respondents numberrelief can be granted to the appellants.
The appellants filed objections to the said provisional list.
The appellants put forward their grievances again on 18.9.1987.
Admittedly the appellants who are direct recruits had been appointed in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the Recruitment Rules.
The aforesaid Rule was replaced by a new set of Rules called Madhya Pradesh State Industries gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 1985 hereinafter referred to as the recruitment Rules of 1985 .
The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the application essentially on two grounds namely, in an earlier case while deciding the inter se seniority of 1974 recruits the Tribunal has decided to take ad hoc appointment of the promotees into companysideration and therefore that decision should govern the present case.
Thus the appointment of the respondents on 27.9.1980 was de hors the rules and though the said respondents being companytinued since September 1980, Mr. Rao, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Public Service Commission has number yet granted approval to the appointments of the respondents which fact is number disputed by the learned companynsel appearing for the private respondents as well as by the companynsel appearing for the State.
Under the said rules, 50 per cent posts of Assistant Director of Industries were to be filed by direct recruitment and balance 50 per cent by promotion.
1996 2 SCR 59 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.
894 of 1988.
The appellants therefore approached the Slate Administrative Tribunal.
The appellants against filed the representation and finally on 23.12.1988 the State Government brought out the final selection list wherein the appellants were again shown junior to the said ad hoc promotees.
whereas the promotee respondents had number been ap pointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed for promotion under the Recruitment Rules.
A bare look at the letter of appointments of the respondents dated 27.9.1980 clearly indicate that the appointments had been made in anticipation of the approval of the Public Service Commission and the appointments were until further orders.
The Tribunal also came to the companyclusion that since the promotion in favour of the respondents in the year 1980 cannot be challenged at this length of time, the said promotees would be entitled to companynt their entire service for the purpose of determining of seniority.
In the year 1983 a provisional seniority list of the Additional Directors was drawn up by the State Government wherein ad hoc promotees were shown senior to the regularly appointees like the appellants.
The State of Madhya Pradesh had framed a set of Rules called Madhya Pradesh State Industries gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the recruitment Rules of 1965 .
Then on 19.9.1988 another provisional list was brought out wherein the appellants were against shown junior to the ad hoc promotees some of whom are the private respondents.
The seniority list prepared in 1983 and 1986 were withdrawn.
This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 24th July, 1992 in Original Application No.
