JUDGMENT

R.M. SAHAI, J. :- Seniority in services is usually irksome. But the nature of dispute amongst officers in Class A of Indian Defence Estates Service, who were promoted from Class B of Military and Cantonment service where they were working as Assistant Military Estates Officers (AMEO) and Assistant Military Estates Officers (Technical) (AMEOT), is slightly, unusual. That is why apart from correctness or otherwise of directions issued by the Tribunal (Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi) for redetermining seniority one of the issues debated was if this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India should interfere with orders of Tribunal if substantial justice has been done between parties. To this may be added, yet, another, namely, if the Union of India should have approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition not for sake of justice or injustice. Legality or illegality of any provision but because it may have to pay few thousands, may be few lakhs more.

2. But, first, manner of appointment of two groups of officers and rules by which they were governed from time to time may he noticed as even though initially posts of both AMEO and AMEOT were sanctioned and created by the President in 1962 and they were governed for some time by different set of rules but were brought in common stream in 1976 and were promoted in Class A before fresh rules were enforced in 1983 and 1985, yet entire thrust of attack to justify differential treatment to AMEOT was founded on difference in method of their selection. AMEOS were included in Class II of Military Land and Cantonment Service (Class I and II) Rules, 1951 for the first time in 1964. Relevant amendment by notification issued in 1964 was incorporated in 1951 Rules when it was Amended in 1968. Amended Rule 4(v)(c) read as under:-

"Class II of the Service shall consist of Executive Officers Class II, Assistant Military Estates Officers And such other posts, as may, by order of the Government be declared to be included in Class II cadre of the Service."

Manner of appointment to this class. was provided by Rule 5(b) which is extracted below:

"(b) Appointment to Class II cader of the Service shall be made in the following manner, namely:

(1) up to 20% of vacancies in Class II, by promotion from among the serving Class Ill staff of the Military Lands and Cantonments Service having service and educational qualifications specified in sub-rules (c) and (e);

(2) up to 20% of vacancies by direct recruitment made by a selection from among serving employees of Cantonment Boards having service and educational qualifications specified in sub-rules (d) and (e);

(3) the remaining vacancies from among the candidates who qualify at the Examination and are recommended by the Commission but who fail to secure Class I appointment in any of the Central Services.

Provided that (i) for a period of five years commencing from the 29th January, 1966, 30 per cent of the permanent vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment in any year shall be reserved for being filled in by the Emergency Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the Union who were commissioned on or after the 1st November, 1962, and who were released at any time thereafter."

In 1981 service known as, Military Lands and Cantonment Service (Group A) was constituted. 75% of the substantive vacancies, in this group A, junior scale, were to be filled by. direct competition and 25% by promotion from a panel prepared on the basis of selection on merit in ratio 1 : 1 from amongst Cantonment Executive Officer Group B and Assistant Military Estates Officer Service (Group B) who had not rendered less than 3 years regular service.

3. AMEO (Technical) on the other hand were officers who were released from Engineering Service of Army after 1962. Since there was increase in work load and they were to be absorbed as well they were appointed on recommendation of UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) in 1964 and 19