JUDGMENT

MOHAN, J.:- Leave granted.

2. In these cases the questions that arise for our consideration are, (1) whether it is open to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (hereinafter referred to as the ACC) to differ from the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the DPC) and (2) if so whether reasons must be given for so differing.

3. We shall advert to the facts in C.A. No. 1794/88 which will be enough to answer the above questions.

4. The respondent joined the post and Telegraphs Department in September, 1963 in Indian Telecommunication Service (here-inafter referred to as ITS) on the basis of All- India Selection held by the Union Public service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the UPSC). He was initially appointed as Assistant Divisional Engineer Telegraph. Thereafter he was promoted to the rank of Divisional Engineer Telegraph in September, 1966. In August, 1974 he was promoted to Junior Administrative Grade of the ITS pursuant to the selections made on All-India basis by a duly constituted DPC under the Chairmanship of a Member of UPSC. Lastly, he was given selection grade of Rs. 2000-2250/- in the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from 1-12-1982.

5. On 9-12-1985, a meeting of DPC was convened to prepare a select list of officers for promotion to the Level II of Senior Administrative Grade of the ITS. The Senior Grade Group A carried pay scale of Rs. 2250-2500/-. The meeting was convened pursuant to the requisition sent by the Ministry of Communication to the UPSC for preparing a year-wise panel for 1984, 1985 and 1986, the vacancies being 5, 24 and 25 respectively, in all, 54 vacancies.

6. The Annual Confidential Report dossiers of 104 officers of Junior Administrative Grade Service were forwarded along with the requisition on an assessment made by the DPC. The Committee prepared year-wise select panels as also consolidated panel for officiating promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade Level II of the ITS Group A. The Committee recommended 5 officers for empanelment for the year 1984, 24 officers for the year 1985 and 30 officers for the year 1986. It requires to be stated, at this stage, that the records show the performance of all officers including that of the respondent was rated "very good". None of the officers possessed "outstanding" merit. The respondent retained his original seniority at Serial No. 13 in the Junior Administrative Grade for empanelment of the Senior Administrative Grade. The panel was approved by the concerned Minister in toto. It was forwarded to the Department of Personnel for obtaining the approval of the ACC. The ACC on a perusal of the records directed by its communication dated 14-1-1986 that the panel should be returned to the UPSC for a more rigorous review. Accordingly, the Minister for Communication returned the select panel along with the ACR dossiers of all the 59 officers. The ACC made it clear that it was not happy with the grading of "very good" given to all officers and that the Committee expected more selectivity.

7. The UPSC by its letter dated 7-2-1986 informed that the panel had been prepared strictly in accordance with the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and there was no scope for the review. Accordingly the UPSC had no further advice to offer in the matter. The panel was again approved by the concerned Minister and the same was resubmitted to the ACC. There was some correspondence concerning the adoption of rigorous review. On 9-12-1986 the ACC approved a penal of 54 officers for appointment to the Senior Administrative Grade A Level Post of the ITS. The remaining 5 out of the select panel of 59 officers including the respondent was dropped.

8. It appears the respondent having gained knowledge about his not being included filed O.A. No. 1191 of 1986 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. An interim injunction restraining from excluding him from the panel was also sought. The Tribunal, by it