JUDGMENT

Punchhi, J.-This is another manifestation of the never-ending dispute between direct recruits and promotees, arising in this batch of 5 appeals, directed against the judgment and order dated 28.5.1987 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

2. A representative petition, representing the interests of the promotee officers, belonging to the Customs Appraisers Service Class II, was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, challenging Circular No.A.23011/86-AD.II(A) dated the 2nd May, 1986 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India, containing principles regarding "Promotion of Appraisers of Customs to the India Customs and Central Excise Service, Group A", for quashing of the pursuant "All India Combined List of Appraisers" circulated therewith, and for a direction to the Government of India to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with law, on the basis of length of service, quashing promotions of some of the respondents therein to the post of Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise as also for a corresponding direction to promote the promotee-applicants to such posts, giving them the benefit of revised seniority with retrospective effect.

3. A glimpse of the service related history would be useful for a thorough grasp of the problem. There existed Customs Houses in the metropolitan cities of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta at a given point of time, established by the Government of India, and manned by members of the Customs Appraisers Service. As far back in 1936, the Central Board of Revenue, by order, had established the manner of recruitment to the Customs Appraisers Service to be done from two sources, i.e., 50 per cent by departmental promotion, 25 per cent directly from experts and 25 per cent by means of a competitive examination or selection by the Public Service Commission. It was also provided in the said order that the percentages laid down denoted the maximum and the Collector of Customs would not be bound to recruit uptill the maximum is reached, particularly in the case of recruitment by promotion. In actual practice, however, this order had been acted upon as if providing 50 per cent posts for promotees and 50 per cent for direct recruits, whether they be experts or coming by competitive examination or selection by the Public Service Commission.

4. In 1940, the Government of India issued a General Circular for determination of relative seniority of candidates appointed by direct recruitment and by promotion. In that Circular, it was demonstrated that "Where in a department two permanent or quasi-permanent vacancies occur, even simultaneously, and the first vacancy in accordance with the rotation is for direct recruit, the direct recuit will rank in seniority above the promotee, even though he joined his post after the promotee who had been promoted and confirmed." On December 12, 1959, the Government of India issued another Circular containing amongst others, some general principles for determining the seniority of various categories of persons employed in Central Services. Those were effective from the date of their issue and not retrospectively. One of the principles projected in this Circular of 1959 was with respect to relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees providing that relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of the vacancies between direct recruits and promotees, which shall be based respecitively on the quota of reservation for each given in the recruitment rules. It was further explained that a roster shall be maintained based on the reservation for direct recruits and promotees for promotion in the recruitment rules. Where, for example, the reservation for each is 50 per cent, the roster will run as i) promotion, ii) direct recruitment, iii) promotion, (iv) direct recruitment and so on. Appointments were thus requ