S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.) This application has been filed questioning an order dated 16.9.97 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1198 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the private respondents herein was allowed, inter alia, directing:- "Hence a direction has to be given to the respondents to regularise the ad hoc appointment of the applicants against the vacancies existing at present as per rules without any further loss of time. And to consider the case of the applicants for the purpose of promotion to the higher grade of posts of Superintending Engineer after taking into account the officiating service on ad hoc basis as per recruitment rules for the post of Superintending Engineer, if they are found otherwise eligible and fit for consideration for promotion to the post of the Superintending Engineer as per recruitment rules. Having considered the fact and circumstances of the case and the law discussed above, we allow the application with a direction and observation made above, to take steps in this respect within six months as per this order to the respondents."
(2.) In view of the admitted fact, it is not necessary for us to dwell upon the matter at great details. The appellants were directly recruited as Assistant Executive Engineer as a Class-I Direct Recruit (Degree Holder) and were later on promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on regular basis. The private respondents who were the writ-petitioners before the Tribunal below were, however, appointed as Assistant Engineer from Assistant Engineer Grade II. It now appears that in a meeting held by the Screening Committee on 5th January, 1981, 29 persons were promoted on ad hoc basis. The matter relating to the said promotion was considered by the Screening Committee instead and place of Departmental Promotion Committee. It also stands admitted that prior to grant of the said promotion Union Public Service Commission had not been consulted as was required under the recruitment rules.
(3.) A bare perusal of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal will show that whereas on one hand the tribunal below pursuant to an adverse inference draws in terms of Section 14(g) of the Evidence Act held that the promotion given to the writ-petitioners before it (private respondents herein) was regular as no records have been produced by the Central Government, it proceeded to hold - "20. Regarding approval of the Union Public Service Commission the sub-clause 2 of the Rule 21 under Part IV of the Recruitment Rules relating to recruitment by promotion says that recruitment by promotion to the grade of Executive Engineer, Gr. A., shall be made by selection from among the permanent Assistant Engineers in the Central Engineering Service Class II, after consultation with the Commission. No officer shall have any claim to such promotion as to right. Sub-clasue 4 of Rule 21 further says it shall not be necessary to consult the Commission under this Ruling the case of any person. If the Commission have been consulted in connection with the temporary promotion to the service. Rule 23 under Part VI further stipulates that where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, relax, in consultation with the U.P.S.C. any of the provisions of this Rule with respect to any clause cadre or person. 21. On a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid provision, it is found before making final selection, consultation with the Commission is imperative. But neither the respondents nor the applicants could enlighten us as to whether consultation as required under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 21 has been done before appointment of the applicants on ad hoc basis. In absence of any records we may hold that the case of the applicants may be taken up with the U.P.S.C. for the purpose of regularisation of the applicants treating them that they have been duly selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the purpose of appointment in the cadre of Executive Engineer, Gr. A, if not done earlier." Having held so, the Tribunal below issued the aforementioned direction as stated hereinbefore.;