JUDGMENT

K. Venkataswami, J.-Special leave granted.

Both the appeals arise out of the judgment dated 23.10.98 of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 4264/98. Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17043/98 was preferred by the Government of Karnataka while the other appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17842/98 was preferred by the fourth respondent in the first mentioned appeal.

2. The reference to the parties hereinafter will be as in the appeal filed by the Government of Karnataka. The first respondent in the appeal challenged the promotion and appointment of fourth respondent as DG and IGP by a Notification dated 6.3.97 by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal by preferring O.A. No. 200/97. The Tribunal by its order dated 15.1.98 dismissed the O.A. 200/97. Aggrieved by that, the first respondent preferred W.P. No. 4264/ 98. A Division Bench of the High Court accepted the appeal and quashed the impugned Notification promoting and appointing the fourth respondent as DG and IGP.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, both the Government of Karnataka and the fourth respondent have preferred these appeals.

4. The learned Advocate General for Karnataka extensively argued the matter to sustain the Notification impugned before the Tribunal and also before the High Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant (fourth respondent in the appeal filed by the Government) adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General. Hence, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

5. After carefully perusing the judgment under appeal and after hearing learned arguments of the counsel appearing in both the appeals and also the first respondent, who is appearing in-person, we are of the view that on the admitted facts as found by the High Court, no case is made out for interference with the judgment under appeal. We shall immediately give our reasons for the above conclusion.

6. Let us set out the undisputed facts. The first respondent is an IPS Officer of 1964 batch. The fourth respondent is junior to the first respondent is an admitted fact. It is stated that there are in all four posts of Director General of Police in the State of Karnataka, which are designated as under :-

(i) Director General and Inspector General of Police

(ii) Director General of Police, Commandant General, Home Guards and Director of Civil Defence and Fire Services.

(iii) Director General of Police, COD, Training Special Units and Economic Offence.

(iv) Chairman and Managing Director of Police Housing Corporation.

7. It is also stated that except the post of Director General of Police, Commandant General, Home Guards and Director of Civil Defence and Fire Services, which post the first respondent was holding at the relevant time, the other two posts were amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the DG and IGP. To sustain the promotion and appointment of fourth respondent, the stand taken by the appellant before the Tribunal was that inasmuch as the appointment is by selection the Officers eligible have only a right to be considered and have no right to appointment. It is further stated by the appellant before the Tribunal that while exercising the discretion of selection the Appointing Authority has had due regard to the seniority of all the eligible candidates. It was further claimed by the appellant before the Tribunal that the appointment to the post of DG and IGP has been done on very objective criteria and after a comparative assessment of the service records of all the eligible officers. While so, before the High Court a different stand was taken contending that the appointment of respondent No. 4 as DG and IGP was an order of simpliciter assignment of duties of DG and IGP to the fourth respondent in his capacity as DGP. This vital deviation in the stand was taken note of by the High Court and it came to the conclusion that the contentio