ORDER

1. This is an appeal, preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, rejecting the OA preferred by the appellant, challenging the promotion given to Respondents 7 to 10, who according to the appellant, were junior to him and did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. So far as Respondents 4 to 6 are concerned, though junior, were eligible for consideration but they were a promoted superseding the appellant. During the course of the argument, grievance was also made about the promotion of two other officers, namely, A.K. Bhatnagar and D.S. Sachdeva, on the ground that they were not found fit for ad hoc promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer but later, on the same material, they were regularly selected and placed above the appellant. However, we find that so far as these two officers, namely, b Bhatnagar and Sachdeva are concerned, they are not impleaded as parties in this appeal. Hence, their matter stood closed. We may have to consider the question of selection and seniority of Respondents 4 to 10.

2. The promotion in question relates to the post of Superintending Engineer from the post of Exec