B.D. Agarwal, J. - (1.) Vacancies arose of sixteen Revenue Inspectors in the Service of Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, in the year 1976. Revenue Inspectors were included in the group of Revenue Service. In accordance with para 3 of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Services (Designations, Scale of Pay, Qualifications, Conveyance, Allowances and Method of Recruitment) Order, 1963, read with the Schedule appended to the order these posts had to be fulled in form the following sources : (1) 25% by direct recruitment ; (2) 25% by promotion from Collection Amins and Ziledars ; (3) 25% from amongst second grade clerks ; (4) 25% from amongst Tax Collectors, Revenue Collectors and Tax Moharrirs.
(2.) Rule 22 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1982, lays down the criterion for promotion as being the seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit. The power to appoint vested in the Administrator under Section 107 (3) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1954. The appointment had to be made in accordance with the recommendations of a Selection Committee, the constitution whereof is down in sub-section (4).
(3.) Under order dated June 27, 1976, the Administrator appointed, among others, Jainath Singh, Hari Prasad Singh. G. D. Pandey and Som Nath Pathak as Revenue Inspectors. Of these, Jainath Singh and Hari Prasad Singh were drawn from the category of Tax Collectors ; the other two were promotees from the rank of the second grade clerks. Their appointment was challenged by certain persons in the form of reference made to the Public Services Tribunal. The decision by the Tribunal was given on December 19, 1977. The Tribunal found that the selection was faulty because the basis adopted has been merit and not seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit. The operative portion of the decision recorded by the Tribunal provided:- "Both the References No. 807 and 922 of 1976 are partly allowed. The order dated 26-6-1976 is quashed to this extent only that respondent No. 1 (the Administrator) shall consider the case of each of the petitioners in two references along with other departmental candidates of different categories the light of observations made in this judgment.";