JUDGMENT

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. Leave granted.

2. The controversy in this appeal pertains to the appointment to the post of Director in National Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property (N.R.L.C.) on transfer on deputation basis. The said post was in the scale of Rs 4500-5700 with effect from January 1, 1986.

3. On June 26, 1989 the Deputy Education Advisor to the Government of India in Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Culture) addressed a letter to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments and Union Territories and all Universities and Heads of recognised research institutions intimating them that the services of a suitable officer are urgently required on transfer on deputation basis on the post of Director (N.R.L.C.). It was requested that the said vacancy be circulated in all the departments and offices under the State Governments/Union Territories and the bio-data of suitable candidates fulfilling the requisite eligibility conditions as mentioned in Annexure (I) to the said letter be sent to the Ministry. Accordingly, six names were received including the appellant, Dr M.V. Nair and respondent 3 in the appeal, Dr I. K. Bhatnagar. Only two persons were found to be eligible by the Union Public Service Commission viz., the appellant, Dr Nair and another person, Dr Tandon. Inasmuch as the service records of Dr Tandon were not sent, he was not called for interview with the result that only Dr Nair remained in the field. He was interviewed and selected. His selection was questioned by Dr Bhatnagar (respondent 3 in this appeal) by way of an original application (O.A. No. 1363 of 1990) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The relief sought for in the OA - in the words of the Tribunal - was for issuance of a "direction to the respondents to declare him entitled to be granted relaxation like Dr Nair, in the requirement of five years service as Project Officer so as to make him eligible to be called for interview to the post of Director, N.R.L.C., to interview him and if selected, appoint him to the said post with all consequential benefits". It is evident from the very prayer in the OA that respondent 3, on his own showing, was not eligible for the said post and, therefore, he sought for a relaxation to make him eligible therefore. He, however, assumed that a relaxation was granted in favour of Dr Nair to make him eligible for consideration for the said post. On that basis he prayed that he may be similarly granted a relaxation.

4. Before the Tribunal it was contended by the respondent, Union of India, that no relaxation was granted in favour of Dr Nair since he satisfied the eligibility criteria. The Tribunal recorded the contentions of the petitioner before them (respondent 3 in this appeal) and those of the respondents before them but did not record any finding on any of those contentions. At the same time, they expressed an opinion that Dr Bhatnagar should also have been interviewed by the UPSC since in their opinion he too was equally qualified and eligible for the said post like Dr Nair. Having so found, a direction was given to the respondents before the Tribunal to hold a fresh selection for the said post. It would be appropriate to set out the terms in which the relief was granted:

"In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to hold a fresh selection for the post of Director, N.R.L.C. as the applicant has by now become eligible in all respects under the recruitment rules. His suitability should be considered along with other eligible candidates. In case he is found suitable for appointment, he should be appointed to the post of Director, N.R.L.C. The respondents shall comply with the above directions as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order."

5. It was, however, directed