- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated December 22, 1994 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in O. A. No. 1796 of 1989.
(3.) We had issued notice to the respondents to show to this Court whether the consideration for promotion was on merit and ability or seniority-cum-merit and what was the principle that was followed in grading the Officers by the DPC, Pursuant to the said notice, learned counsel for the Union of India has brought to our notice the instructions issued by the Government of India and was in vogue prior to May 12, 1988. The Administrative Instructions contained in Memorandum of the Government dated 17th May, 1957 which was approved by this Court in Union of India etc., v. Majji Jangamayya etc. [(1977) 2 SCR 28} . This Court had accepted the criteria laid down in those instructions which were as under: "1. Greater emphasis should be laid on merit as a criterion. 2. The Departmental Promotion Committee should first decide the field of choice, namely, the number of eligible officers awaiting promotion who should be considered for inclusion in the selection list. An officer of outstanding merit may be included in the list even if he is outside the normal field of choice. 3. The field of choice wherever possible should extend to 5 to 6 times the number of vacancies expected. 4. From among such officers those who are considered unfit for promotion should be excluded and the remaining should be classified as 'outstanding ' very good' and 'good' on the basis of merit as determined by their respective records of service. The selection list should then be prepared by placing the names of the order of these three categories without disturbing the seniority inter se within each category. 5. Promotion should strictly be made from such selection list in the order in which the names are finally arranged. The selection list should be periodically reviewed removing from the list names of persons who have been promoted and including fresh names." On consideration of the above instructions, this Court had held thus: "The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted by counsel for both the parties that henceforth promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade II will be according to the new rules on the zonal basis and not on the State wide basis and, therefore, there was no question of challenging the new rules. But the question is filling the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules." ;