The Departmental Promotion Committee graded the appellant, the 2nd respondent and a third candidate equally, as being very good, but, having regard to the duties assigned to the post of Livestock Supervisor and the nature and length of his service in that line, preferred to recommend the appellant, who was the Stockman, for the post of Livestock Supervisor.
The 2nd respondent, who was the Field Assistant, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Central Administrative Tribunal upheld his claim and directed the D.P.C. to companysider the matter over again.
Special leave granted.
It suggests the work the Livestock Supervisor would have to do.
We are here companycerned with two claimants for promotion from the rival feeder cadres, namely, Stockman and Field Assistant.
The 2nd respondent approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the D.P.C, at which stage the appellant filed the Special Leave Petition.
The 2nd respondent went again to the Tribunal the Tribunal remanded the matter to the D.P.C the D.P.C. reconsidered the matter and recommended the appellant the third time round.
The D.P.C, having regard to the fact that the Stockman and the Field Assistant were equally graded, took into account the factor that the appellant having worked as a Stockman, had greater acquaintance with the work that he would have to do as Livestock Supervisor than the Field Assistant.
The D.P.C. did so, and again recommended the name of the appellant.
