' CH. A. RAHMAN KHAN (MEMBER).--S. Zahid Hasan, the appellant, presently working as Director (Training), Central Board of Revenue, Lahore, has preferred an appeal against the impugned order dated 29-10-1986 whereby his junior Mr. MA. Majeed, respondent No, 5 an officer of the Income-tax Group was promoted to B-21. The appellant first represented on 31-7-1986 in which he had requested for formal reappraisal of his case because he had come to know through Newspaper cuttings that certain promotions, which included the name of respondent No, 5, his junior, but not that of the appellant were likely to be made to B-21 in the Income-tax Group. This may have been a bit premature but seemingly no reply was received. Since there was a complete silence on the subject on the part of the respondents and the appellant had waited long enough, he made a formal representation on 24-2-1987 which is, in fact, within 120 days from the date of publication of the Gazette Notification, dated 29th October, 1986 of the promotion of respondent No,
5. He, however, received no reply to this representation but all along he continued pursuing his case most diligently.
2. It was strongly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since he was not making any headway the appellant submitted a review application to the Prime Minister of Pakistan in which he had requested that his case may be reviewed in view of the admitted facts:--
(a) The implied deferment of the appellant on account of his not having attended the training course in spite of the clear recommendation for promotion by the Central Selection Board in November, 1983.
(b) The rejection of the appellant's name for promotion by the Central Selection Board in May, 1986 because of the wrong quantification of his A.C.Rs, ' It was further submitted that the prescribed period of 30 days for preferring appeal before the Tribunal be counted w,e,f, the receipt of the Central Board of Revenue's letter No, 103(7)/71-AIT-I, dated the 14th November, 1988, informing the appellant about the decision of the President on his review application. In such a case the plea of the time bar by the respondents shall not be applicable. The appellant's present appeal in this case would have been well before time.
3. The facts about the delay in the case are that immediately on the publication of the Notification dated 29th actober, 1986 the appellant met the Secretary, Establishment Division on his own request to enquire as to the reasons for his supersession. During the interview the appellant was informed that his name had been dropped because the quantification of his A.C.Rs, fell short by 1 mark i,e, it was calculated that the appellant had 69 marks as against the minimum threshold of 70 marks. It was strongly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that this piece of information about the quantification of his A.C.Rs, was a great shock to the appellant. The appellant, therefore, requested the respondents to have the quantification re-calculated. It was contended that on his request the Establishment Division took up the matter with the Central Board of Revenue, so as to find out the correct calculations leading to the final quantification of the A.C.Rs, of the appellant vide their U.O. No, 12(B)/1/83- CP-3, dated 23-9-1986. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in response to this query, Central Board of Revenue admitted vide their U.O. No, 2(4)/82-AIT.1, dated 6th November, 1986 that in the final scrutiny, quantification of the appellant in the column of 'overall grading' comes to 69.89 instead of 68.89 as calculated previously. Therefore, while rounding off the figure 69.89 the 'overall grading' would be 70 marks. It was contended that this information was confirmed in another interview with the Secretary, Establishment Division. Since the appellant was being penalized for no fault of his, it was requested by the appellant in the same interview that his case for reconsideration by the Central Selection Board may be moved in the interest of fair play and justice, Since it was a genuinely wrong calculation, the mistake could be rectified by circulating the file to all members of Central Selection Board rather than wait for a formal meeting. It was requested by the appellant that if such a step was not taken the appellant would continue to suffer and eventually would be superseded permanently. This was considered necessary by the appellant, because in view of his age and service group if his case was not considered at this stage, there was very remote chance of his further promotion and he may well retire without ever having a chance of further promotion in his career. It was strongly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the end of this interview the appellant came out very hopeful in having the wrong put right which had been done to him for no fault of his. All this took a fairly long time and the appellant was forced to wait for a favorable response to his request based on undisputed facts. This interview took place in mid-July, 1987. It is true that the appellant was not given anything in writing but the U.O. Letters quoted above are not challenged by respondents. The contents of the letters speak for themselves.
4. Since the appellant received no response to his request from the Establishment Division, he preferred an appeal before this Tribunal on 9th August, 1987. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was true that the appellant could have come in appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit after the publication of the Gazette Notification dated 29- 10-1986 but the developments that took place in this regard which have been narrated in the preceding paragraphs forced him to wait till he received a reply to his request. It was, therefore, strongly contended that the appeal before the Tribunal is well within the prescribed period of 30 days of the last interview in mid July, 1987 and may not be termed as time-barred in view of the fact that the appellant had been all along diligently following his case without ever giving any impression of complacency. It was indeed a matter of life and death for him.
5. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant competed for the Central Superior Services in 1957 and was allocated the Income-tax Group. All along he has had a brilliant career and was promoted to B-20 in January, 1977 on regular basis. He attended a Master's Course in Public Administration from the University of California, U.S.A., which he completed with distinction in about half the time prescribed for the course. At the time of the first consideration in November, 1983 for promotion to B-21, the quantification of the A.C.Rs, of the appellant was, in the final analysis, adjudged to be 76 marks. This by itself shows the outstanding service record of the appellant.
However, by this time successful completion of a regular course at the Staff College or in any other equivalent institution, had been made a prerequisite for promotion to B-21. The Central Selection Board, therefore, while clearing the appellant and others for promotion to B-21 made some observations. The relevant extracts are reproduced below in respect of the appellant: "His score under overall assessm ent The Chairman, Central Board of Revenue informed that this officer enjoys a good reputation in the Department. In view of his good overall record, the Board cleared him for promotion subject to his successful participation in a regular course at the Staff College."
' In this category, the following officers were bracketed together:--
(a) Sajjad Hasan
(b) S. Zahid Hasan, the Appellant.
(c) M.A. Majid, Respondent No, 5.
6.It was further submitted that there was another category of officers who were at that time attending the course at the Staff College. Extracts of the remarks against their names are appended below:--
(a) Mr. Manzurul Haq:--"The Officer is attending the current regular course at the Administrative Staff College. In view of his outstanding record, the Board cleared this Officer for promotion subject to successful completion of this course."
(b) Mr. Ghulam Sadiq:--"The Officer is attending the current regular course at the Administrative Staff College. In view of his very good record the Board cleared this officer for promotion subject to successful completion of this course."
7. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the light of the above recommendations of the C.S.B., the following developments took place:
(a) On completion of the course by the two officers at the Administrative Staff College i,e, Mr. Manzurul Haq and Mr. Ghulam Sadiq were promoted strictly in accordance with the observations of the C.S.B.
(b) All the three officers who also were required to attend the course at the Administrative Staff College were nominated to attend the first available course commencing from November, 1984 which they completed successfully by April, 1985. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the appellant was posted as Director (Finance), Oil and Gas Development Corporation before proceeding on the course at the Administrative Staff College and therefore, on completion of the course he came and joined this Organization.
8. The post of Director (Finance) is placed in M-II cadre, which is equivalent to B-21. Therefore, the Acting Chairman, OGDC, vide his letter No,9410, dated 30-9-1985, requested the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources to process the case of the promotion of the appellant to B-21. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources under their letter dated 8th October, 1985 wrote to the Establishment Division on the subject to have the case of promotion of the appellant finalised. On this the Establishment Division vide their U.O. No, 12(B)/1/83-CP-3, dated 17-10-1985 directed the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources to have the case moved through the Central Board of Revenue. The extracts of this U.O. Note are reproduced below:-- "Subject:--Promotion of Mr. Zahid Hasan, Director (Finance) Oil and Gas Development Corporation in Pay Scale 21.
' Reference Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources' O.M. No, OGDC-6(9)/84, dated 8th October, 1985, on the above subject.
2. Mr. Zahid Hasan is a member of the Income-tax Group which is controlled by the C.B.R. It is, therefore, suggested that the Ministry may kindly take up the case with the Central Board of Revenue so that they may process it further .With this Division.
Sd/- (Fazal Nabi)
Section Officer".
9. It was strongly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is abundantly clear from the contents of the Establishment Division's U.O. Cited above that the appellant was undoubtedly being considered as having been approved for promotion. Further that there was absolutely no indication, whatsoever, at any stage that the appellant had been defered permanently for further consideration by the Central Selection Board. Also that if there was any doubt, the Establishment Division could have informed the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources about any implied deferment of the appellant while the directions given by the Establishment Division on the processing of the case of promotion of the appellant were unconditional. Further that even otherwise, there had been no other meeting of the Central Selection Board since the last meeting held in November, 1983 and the deferment could only be valid till the successful completion of the course and once that condition was met, the appellant stood clearly qualified for promotion to BPS-21 and therefore, his case should have been processed for promotion without any delay.
10. It was, therefore, strongly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the assertions made in the preceding paragraphs, the appellant stood approved for promotion to B-21 after having successfully completed the training course. It was' further submitted that the reasons why the Central Board of Revenue did not submit the case to the Establishment Division for processing of the case as directed in their U.O. Dated 17th October, 1985 quoted above, have never been conveyed either to the appellant or to the Establishment Division. There was also no reason for the appellant to assume that he could be taken out of the approved list without assigning any reason. In all fairness, the other two incumbents i,e, Mr. Sajjad Hasan and Mr. M.A. Majid, respondent No, 5, should have also been considered as approved for promotion to BPS-21. It was brought out by the learned counsel for the appellant that at this stage there was no move to hold another meeting of the Central Selection Board in the near future. Also, as stated earlier the appellant was already working against an M-H post which was equivalent to B-21. Obviously, therefore, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, that it can be safely presumed that for one reason or the other, the appellant did not receive a fair deal from the Central Board of Revenue.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that without even having an inkling the appellant came to know about his name being put up for reconsideration before the Central Selection Board in the meeting scheduled to be held in May, 1986. Since there was nothing apparently against the appellant and he was not informed officially regarding the reconsideration of his name in the forthcoming meeting of the Central Selection Board, the appellant kept waiting for his orders of promotion. However, when the result of the meeting of Central Selection Board came to the notice of the appellant through Newspapers, he was shocked to see that his name did not appear among those who were likely to be promoted to BPS-21. At this stage, the appellant sought his first interview with the Establishment Secretary when he was told that the quantification of his A.C.Rs, fell short by 1 mark as stated earlier. Once the mistake had been detected and subsequently confirmed by the Central Board of Revenue, vide their U.O. No, 2(4)/82-AIT-1, dated 6- 11-1986, the right course open to the competent authority was to have the mistake rectified and not allow the appellant to suffer and be penalized for no fault of his. Since the mistake had been detected well before the order of commotion of respondent No, 5, his junior, it would have been in the interest of flay and justice that an appropriate action was initiated in this regard but this was not done and promotion order of respondent No, 5 was issued. Also that respondent No, 4, Mr. Muhammad Tariq, who had been superseded in the earlier meeting of the Central Selection Board of November, 1983 was also promoted. This action further shows that the Central Board of Revenue did not take any interest in having the wrong put right. Further that after all to err is human and apparently there was no reason to conceal the facts from the competent authority.
12. It was strongly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is more than clear that for reasons totally unknown to the appellant, he had been made to suffer on two counts:--
(a) whereas according to the 1983 meeting of the Central Selection Board, the appellant stood approved for promotion to B-21 after having met the only condition of successful completion of the course at the Staff College, he was denied his right of promotion to B-21. Instead he was taken off the approved list which is ultra vires and void under the rules. The appellant suffered unnecessarily.
(b) whereas after the meeting of the Central Selection Board in May, 1986, when the mistake of wrong quantification of his A.C.Rs, was pointed out and later confirmed both by the Establishment Division and the Central Board of Revenue to be a genuine mistake, no action was taken to redress the wrong.
13. It was strongly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that undoubtedly this was a tragic story of continued wrong being done to the appellant in the face of admitted facts.
Therefore, it would be in the interest of fairplay and justice that the appellant was declared approved for promotion to B-21 as a result of the consideration of his name by the Central Selection Board in the year 1983. In addition, the appellant should be declared senior to respondent No, 4, Mr. Muhammad Tariq, who was superseded as a result of the consideration during the meeting of Central Selection Board in November, 1983 and Mr. M.A. Majid, being junior to him in seniority otherwise. Furthermore, in the context of the wrong done to him as a result of mis- calculation of quantification of his A.C.Rs, for the consideration of his name in the meeting of the Central Selection Board in May, 1986, the name of the appellant should have been considered by the Central Selection Board as a special case. Since on both counts, the mistakes are purely technical, it was strongly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to redress the wrong done to the appellant and direct for issue of order for his promotion as a result of the Central Selection Board meeting held in 1983 in which the appellant was cleared for promotion to B-21.
14. The learned State counsel and the representatives of the respondents submitted that this appeal is primarily barred by proviso (b) of subsection (1) of section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
It was urged that the appellant was indeed recommended by the Central Selection Board in May, 1983 for promotion to B-21 but this was subject to his successful completion of a training course at the Staff College or any other equivalent institution. Therefore, the competent authority deferred the promotion of the appellant along with the other two officers who were also bracketed in that category i,e, Mr. Sajjad Hassan and Mr. M.A. Majid, respondent No,
5. However, in the case of another category of other two officers who were at that time attending the course at the Staff College, their names were deferred till completion of the course. Since the name of the appellant was not approved by the competent authority, he could not claim his promotion on completion of the course which he attended later on. Since the appellant was deferred for promotion, his name was not recommended to be processed by the Central Board of Revenue for promotion to B-21. This was also the case with the other two officers in the same category which included respondent No,
5. It was, therefore, strongly contended that the appellant could not prefer an appeal before the Tribunal for his promotion to B-21.
15. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the State that this appeal was badly time- barred because the appellant failed to submit his appeal within 30 days of the impugned Gazette Notification No, 182-ITE, dated 29th October, 1986. It was further submitted that the appellant also did not challenge the order of promotion of his junior i,e, Mr. Mazharul Haq Siddiqui who was promoted as a result of the first meeting of the Central Selection Board held on 14-11-1983. It was argued that the delay in filing the appeal is not justifiable on the ground that he was constantly in touch with the Establishment Division on the subject. In these circumstances the time so spent beyond the prescribed period to prefer an appeal cannot be excluded from period of limitation as held by Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No, 307(R)/84 reported in 1987 SCMR 92. This view was also upheld by honorable Tribunal in appeal No,154(R)/84 Syed Hasnain v. Establishment Division. It was, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed as hopelessly time-barred.
16. On merits, it was submitted by the learned State counsel that the Officers in B-20 become eligible for consideration for promotion to B-21 after having put in requisite length of service and having successfully completed the training course as prescribed in promotion policy (page 167 (g)
ESTACODE). Therefore, it was contended that the appointing authority was competent to defer the case of the appellant for promotion and order its reconsideration as and when the appellant becomes eligible. It was further submitted that on rechecking it was indeed found that there was an inadvertent error in the calculation of quantification of the A.C.Rs, of the appellant. However, fulfilling of the minimum threshold of promotion does not confer any right for promotion which is made by selection of the best from amongst all the eligible civil servants on the panel. The appellant's case for promotion to B-21 was considered afresh along with others by the Central Selection Board in May, 1986 but Board did not recommend him for promotion to B-21. It was contended that no departmental appeal lies in this case. The appellant could only file an appeal before the Tribunal against the original orders of promotion of his juniors, whereas in, this case the appellant has preferred his representation and appeal only on the point of wrong quantification of his A.C.Rs, It was, therefore, strongly contended by the learned State counsel that even on merit the appeal may be dismissed because the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is barred by proviso (I) subsection (1) of section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
17. In view of the above arguments, we are of the considered view that primarily the learned counsel for the State has raised two basic issues: (a) that the appeal is time-barred, and (b) that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is excluded in this appeal because it is hit by proviso (b) subsection
(1) of section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
18. On the face of it, the appeal does appear to be time-barred but the circumstances leading to the delay are very clearly explained in the preceding paragraphs. In our considered view, the appellant has been very diligently following his case. As a matter of fact, he did not even wait till the formal promotion orders were issued. The first review petition by the appellant was submitted immediately when he learnt the news through the Newspapers. It may be termed as a premature effort, but the fact remains that the appellant was seriously concerned about his career and, therefore, did not waste any time to bring the relevant facts on the subject to the notice of the authorities concerned. We also feel that although one could form a view that in the first place, his apprehensions were not well-founded but on the publication of the Gazette Notification dated 29- 10-1986 regarding the promotion of his junior i,e, respondent No, 5, as a result of the consideration that took place in May, 1986 his fears indeed proved well-founded. The appellant, in his first interview, with the Establishment Secretary was informed about the possible miscalculation of the quantification of his A.C.Rs, The action taken by the appellant on this information led to a proper recalculation of the quantification of his A.C.Rs, on the directions of the Establishment Division. This fact has not been challenged by the respondents. It was also confirmed that this miscalculation of the quantification of the A.C.Rs, of the appellant was the basic fact that made the Central Selection Board to ignore him for promotion. In our considered view, his representation on the subject dated 24-2-1987 is a proper appeal against the promotion of his junior i,e, respondent No, 5 and, therefore, it had met the requirement of departmental appeal as provided in proviso (b) subsection (1) of section'4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973. In our view there was no need for the appellant to submit any representation when his junior was promoted as a result of the November, 1983 Central Selection Board meeting. The appellant at that stage had still to attend a training course to meet the condition of approval in his case. We also feel that the appellant being constantly in touch with the Establishment Division and also the Central Board of Revenue, had to wait for the outcomes of the efforts being made by the Establishment Division to get the Central Board of Revenue to recalculate the quantification of his A.C.Rs, When this part of the exercise was over and the appellant realised that he was not being treated fairly he, in our opinion, did not waste any time whatsoever to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. The genuine efforts of the appellant to move all possible quarters to have the wrong put right cannot be overlooked. Furthermore, when the Establishment Division advised the Ministry of Petroleum to forward the case of the appellant for promotion through Central Board of Revenue, it is more than evident that the thinking in the Establishment Division at that stage was not that the appellant had been deferred permanently.
We have given our anxious thoughts to this proposition and we feel that any delay that had taken place in preferring an appeal before the Tribunal by the appellant, was not intentional in any way.
We are also of the view that the representation, dated 1-6-1988 by the appellant to the President of Pakistan and reply to it cannot have any bearing on the question of limitation. We, however, have no hesitation in condoning this delay. There is an application of condo nation of delay on record which is considered as a genuine request and so the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned in the interest of fair play and justice.
19. We have gone through the relevant record produced by the respondents concerning the consideration of the appellant and others both in the meetings of Central Selection Board in November, 1983 and May, 1986. In our considered view, the remarks of the Central Selection Board against the two categories of Officers who did not stand qualified at the time of the consideration i,e, first category of those two officers who were attending the course at that time and the other three who were still to attend a course did not differ in any form. Whereas the first group of officers who were attending the course at the Staff College were still to complete the course successfully and at that stage it was not in the knowledge of the Central Selection Board or any other agency whether these officers would complete the course successfully at all, make the second group of officers stand on the same footing, even if they were not attending the course at that time. The approval of the final authority in both the categories depended on successful completion of the course. The emphasis, therefore, was not on the deferment of the officers but on tl-e successful completion of the course. The other fact which cannot be overlooked easily is that all the three officers in the second category i,e, Mr. Sajjad Hassan, Mr. S. Zahid Hasan, the appellant and Mr. M.A.
Majid, the respondent No, 5 were nominated to attend the first available course at the Staff College, which they completed successfully. This happened much before the next meeting of the Central Selection Board which took place in May, 1986. Therefore, the deferment of these three officers by the competent authority cannot mean to have been a permanent deferment. The wording of the summary submitted by the Establishment Division certainly does not convey this sense of permanent deferment. It only says that these officers are to be deferred and their names are to be processed later on. This fact is also further clarified from Promotion Policy dated 31st October, 1982.
The extracts of this Promotion Policy are reproduced below:-- "Guidelines for Departmental Promotion Committees/Central Selection Boards:
1. General--
(1) The DPC/CSB shall consider the cases of eligible civil servants strictly in order of seniority and either:--
(a) recommend a civil servant for promotion to the next higher grade; or
(b) recommend a civil servant for supersession; or
(c) defer consideration of promotion of a civil servant, provided that consideration of a civil servant's promotion will be deferred only if:--
(i) the C.R. Dossier is incomplete or any other document/information required by the DPC/CSB for determining a civil servant's suitability for promotion is not available; or
(ii) disciplinary or departmental proceedings are pending against the civil servants whose promotion case comes up for consideration before the DPC/CSB; or
(iii) the civil servant is on deputation abroad to a foreign government, private organization or international agency.
(2) In order to ensure that the selection for promotion by the CSB does not amount to a mere elimination of the unfit the Establishment Division shall place a panel of eligible officers before the Board. Depending on the availability of eligible officers in a cadre, the number of Officers to be included in the panel shall he as follows:--
(a) for promotion to Grade-19. A minimum of 2 Officers for every vacancy.
(b) for promotion to Grades 20 and 21.A minimum of 3 Officers for every vacancy.
20. It is abundantly clear from the extract of the Promotion Policy which was in vogue in 1983 that there was no condition whereby a civil servant could be deferred for promotion on account of not having attended the training course. The deferment of a civil servant could only be ordered on account of three conditions stated in para. 1(c)(i) to (iii). Therefore, in our considered view, the deferment of the three Officers, who were not attending the course at the time of consideration by the Central Selection Board in May 1983, by the competent authority was merely a technical reason in not considering them for promotion till they had successfully attended the course. As soon as this condition was met by them, they stood fully qualified for processing their names for promotion to B-21 as stated in the summary of the Establishment Division to the competent authority.
21. The upshot of the above discussion is that, in our considered view, the appellant was fully qualified for promotion immediately after he had completed successfully the training course and that his name could not be removed from the approved list. Any deferment in this case was only till this condition was met by the appellant. Therefore, there was no need to submit his name for reconsideration in the meeting of the Central Selection Board in May, 1986. The appellant should have been promoted to B-21 on the strength of having been on the approved list, as a result of his consideration in November, 1983.
22. On the directions of the. Tribunal the respondents have also submitted the recalculated quantification of the A.C.Rs, of the appellant. Therefore, in our view, the error in quantification of the A.C.Rs, of the appellant has been established beyond any shadow of doubt. The only way out in this case, in our considered view, is that the respondents should have taken measures to have this wrong put right without delay The error which had been located stood in the way of recommending his name for promotion by the Central Selection Board to B-21. In our view, in fact, such an action would have gone a long way to assure the civil servants to have more confidence in the official institutions, which are there to look after their interest. We are also at a loss to understand as to why respondent No, 2 who was directed by the Establishment Division under their U.O.No, 12(B)/83- CP-3, dated 17-10-1985 to process the name of the appellant for promotion, failed to forward his case for processing for promotion to B-21. There is no reason on record to support this and nothing additional was brought to our notice in this regard by the respondents later on. We are of the view that on merits even, as a result of the recalculation of the appellant's A.C.Rs, he should have been considered by the Central Selection Board as a special case because the only ground which stood in his way had been more than adequately met i,e, he had met the minimum threshold of 70 marks which was required in this case
23. In the final analysis and in the interest of fair play and justice we hold that the appellant should be deemed to have been duly recommended for promotion to B-21 by the Central Selection Board on both the occasions:--
(a) Immediately on the successful completion of the training course at the Administrative Staff College which the appellant attended in pursuance of the recommendations of the Central Selection Board in November, 1983.
(b) As a result of the recalculation of the quantification of the A.C.Rs, of the appellant when he fulfilled the condition of 70 marks as minimum threshold for consideration by the Central Selection Board in May, 1986.
24. In view of the above facts we are of the considered view that since the Central Selection Board in its deliberations of May, 1986 did not recommend the appellant for promotion to B-21 only because he had not met the minimum threshold of 70 marks, he shall now he deemed to have been duly recommended by Central Selection Board for promotion. We, therefore, allow the appeal and direct that the appellant be considered for promotion with effect from 29-10-1986 when respondent No, 5, his junior was promoted. Ordered accordingly.
25. We further direct that the question of the seniority of the appellant in relation to respondent No, 4 may he decided by respondent No, 3 under the existing rules after the implementation of this order.
26. Ordered accordingly.
27. Parties are informed.