The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent was not qualified for promotion to the post of Senior Accountant under the Rules, and the authorities were right in not relaxing the condition of passing the Departmental Examination for Accountants.

C. K. THAKKER, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE present appeal is directed against the order dated May 12, 2000 passed by the central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, Camp indore ("tribunal" for short) in Original application No. 76 of 1997 and confirmed by the division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, jabalpur (Indore Bench) on August 26, 2004 in writ Petition No. 1329 of 2000.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent herein was working as Accountant in the Office of the Accountant General, Madhya pradesh, Branch Office, Bhopal. By an order dated January 1, 1990, he was mistakenly promoted as Senior Accountant (Functional ). After about four years, the Department realized that the promotion given to the respondent was erroneous and he was not eligible to be promoted. The mistake was, therefore, sought to be corrected. A notice under Rule 31-A of the Fundamental Rules, 1922 was issued to the respondent informing him that he could not have been promoted as Senior Accountant as he had not passed Departmental Examination of accountants as required by law. He was, hence, asked to show cause why the promotion given to him erroneously should not be cancelled. By a reply dated February 16, 1994, the respondent contended that he was eligible and qualified for getting promotion and accordingly he was promoted. He also asserted that he was performing his functions and discharging his duties efficiently and there was no occasion to revert him. According to him, there was no need to clear Departmental Examination for accountants and the notice was required to be discharged.

( 4 ) AFTER considering the reply submitted by the respondent, the Principal Accountant general, vide his order dated March 29, 1994, cancelled the promotion. The respondent challenged the cancellation of promotion by filing Original Application No. 275 of 1994 in the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on March 12, 1996, allowed the petition and directed the authorities to reconsider the case of the respondent.

( 5 ) IN compliance with the order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant considered the case of the respondent and rejected his prayer. Accordingly, by an order dated June 24, 1996, the promotion was cancelled.

( 6 ) THE respondent again challenged the order of reversion by approaching the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the petition. The order was confirmed by the High Court. The said decision is challenged in the present appeal by the Union of India and the Accountant General.

( 7 ) NOTICE was issued and keeping in view the fact that the respondent was due to retire shortly, the Registry was directed to place the matter for final hearing which was placed before us on December 5, 2007.

( 8 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.

( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the action taken by the appellant could not be said to be illegal, unlawful or otherwise improper. He stated that the respondent was not qualified to be promoted as Senior Accountant as he had not passed the relevant examination required by law. It was due to mistake on the part of the Department that he was promoted in spite of his ineligibility. The said mistake was, therefore, corrected after issuing notice calling upon the respondent to show cause why the mistake should not be corrected. It was submitted that as per the direction issued by the Tribunal, the case of the respondent was considered and the department rejected the prayer. The action of the appellant which was in consonance with law could not have been set aside by the Tribunal. By interfering with the said action, the tribunal had committed an error of law. The high Court confirmed that order. Both the orders, therefore, are liable to be set aside.

( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court. According to him, the respondent was not required to pas any examination. He had sufficient experience.