- (1.) These appeals arise out of the order of the central Administrative tribunal, ernakulam bench dated 11/2/1992 whereby the tribunal gave certain directions in regard to the Fixation of seniority of those promoted to the next higher post by virtue of seniority-cum-fitness and those promoted out of turn by virtue of their having passed a prescribed examination. A quota of 75 : 25 was prescribed; 75% for the former and 25% for the latter. The tribunal came to the conclusion that both those categories must be treated as belonging to one single class of promotees and, therefore, they must be promoted to the next higher post by first satisfying the 75% quota of those entitled to promotion by virtue of the seniority-cum-fitness rule and the 25% quota of those who become entitled to promotion by virtue of having passed the prescribed examination must take their position below the said 75%. Mr Mahajan, the learned counsel for the appellants, however, drew our attention to the observations of this court in regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Ashok Mehta arising out of thejudgment of the central Administrative tribunal, New Delhi, wherein this court while dismissing the special leave petition to the following effect stated: "We see no reason to entertain this special leave petition. One ground in support of this petition was that there is a contrary decision by one of the benches of the Administrative tribunal. That difficulty will not continue by refusing to grant leave. We are of the view that the appropriate rule for determining the seniority of the officers is the total length of service in the promotional posts which would depend upon the actual date when they were promoted. " Mr Mahajan submitted that in the instant case the tribunal has departed from this rule which was approved by this court and has, therefore, fallen into an error. We do not think so. What the tribunal has said is virtually the same thing in different words. It is stated that both the category of employees shall belong to the single class of promotees and will be promoted to the next higher post in the order of their inter se seniority in the lower cadre. That would naturally take care of the length of service of those incumbents. The tribunal has also pointed out that the recruitment rules or the promotion policy do not provide that the examinees will be given seniority over normal promotees. Ordinarily, the examinees would rank below those who would be entitled to promotion on seniority-cum-fitness principle because of their placement in the seniority list in the lower cadre. In order to get accelerated promotion they may appear at the prescribed examination and pass it. The basic idea of providing this incentive is to strengthen the upper cadre by induction of young meritorious persons. Mr mahajan, however, submitted that there could be a case wherein an incumbent has passed the examination but by the time the promotion opens for him he becomes eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness test but the tribunal's order would slide him down below the 75%. We do not think that the apprehension of Mr Mahajan is well-founded. If he becomes entitled to promotion by virtue of mere seniority-cum-fitness test, he will become entitled to be promoted in normal course in the 75% of quota and merely because he has the additional qualification of having passed the examination, he will not be slided down in seniority. We are, therefore, not impressed by the apprehension of Mr Mahajan assuming such freak cases do present themselves. On the whole, therefore, we think that the view taken by the tribunal is just and fair and does not call for interference at our hands. The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.;