Judgement

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:- This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 11 November 1988 in O. A. No. 1677 of 1988. The events leading to the appeal are these:

2. On 20 February 1958, Bal Kishan, the appellant, was enrolled as a Constable in Delhi Police. On 1 February 1964, he was promoted to officiate as Head Constable. His confirmation as Head Constable was delayed on account of certain adverse remarks against him. That adverse remarks were later expunged and he was confirmed in 1969. This has delayed his promotion as Sub-Inspector ,(SI). Complaining bout the belated confirmation" and seeking further promotion, he filed a writ petition in Delhi High Court. The High Court by judgment dated 25 September 1984 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to confirm the appellant w.e.f. 1 February 1966 with all consequential benefits. The operative portion of the order of the High Court is as under:

"It is apparent that the petitioner is to be considered as a permanent head constable with effect from February 1, 1966. In that view of the matter, on re-fixation of his seniority in that rank, he is to be considered for promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector from the date his next junior was promoted as such. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been promoted as an Assistant Sub Inspector with effect from February 25, 1970. This is not disputed by the respondents. But in view of my findings that the petitioner is deemed to be permanent from February 1, 1966,. his seniority as an Assistant Sub Inspector from the date his next junior was promoted is to be re-fixed. If on re-fixation of his seniority as an Assistant Sub Inspector his next junior or juniors have been considered for promotion as a Sub-Inspector the petitioner be also considered for promotion from that date. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above."

3. There was no immediate compliance with this order and the appellant had to move the High Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. To avoid action 101 in the contempt proceedings, the respondents made, perhaps hurriedly, several orders giving the benefit of promotion to the appellant. The appellant was confirmed as directed w.e.f. 1-2-1966 and also promoted as ASI (Min) w.e.f. 24 July 1967 instead of 25 February 1970. Again he was promoted as SI (Min) w.e.f. 1 May 1980 and confirmed as such w.e.f. 5 July 1983. Further he was admitted to promotion list F (Min) w.e.f. 18 February 1988 and further promoted as Officiating Inspector (Min) w.e.f. 19 April, 1988.

4. As a result of these promotions, the appellant practically jumped over several of his seniors. The seniors however, were not given corresponding promotions. They made representations complaining of injustice done to them. There then the respondents realised that they had committed a serious error in giving successive promotions to the appellant overlooking the case of seniors. On 26 May, 1988, the appellant was called upon to show cause by his promotions may not be cancelled and his seniority be refixed ranking him below his confirmed seniors. The show cause notice has also stated that upon further examination of his case in the light of numerous representations from his seniors, promotions given to the appellant were fundamentally incorrect and illegal. The relevant portion of the notice reads as follows:

"2. The case has further been examined on receipt of numerous representations from your counterparts for giving them due seniority. It is found that while your confirmation as Head Constable (Min) retrospectively as mentioned in para 1(i) above was correct, the remaining action at paras 1(ii) to 1(iv) above are not fundamentally right. P.P.R. 13.18 lays down the procedure of confirmation and not regarding seniority. The seniority of lower subordinates was to be reckoned from the date of appointment under the mandatory provision of P.P.R. 12.2.(3). It does no