(Per GM, J)

1. This writ petition is filed challenging order dated 07.11.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) allowing O.A.No.668 of 2007 filed by fifth respondent herein.

2. O.A.No.668 of 2007 was filed by fifth respondent herein seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) to call for the records leading upto and including the order ANo.C-4866/PF (PVSD GK Murthy) dated 11.12.2006 together with letter No.SM/04/016/88, dated 19.06.1992 and to quash the same by declaring them as wholly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution;

(b) direct restoration of the seniority of the applicant in the gradation list as originally fixed in the ratio of 3:1 by rotation of vacancies as per 25% quota reserved for LDCE promotees;

(c) direct conducting of review DPCs for the year 2004, 2005 and 2006 for considering the case of the applicant for promotion to the grade of Assistant/Head Clerk after recasting the gradation list duly restoring the applicant’s original position with all consequential and attendant benefits; and pass such other order or orders as the case may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3. The case of the petitioner Nos.1 to 10 is that they were initially appointed as LDCs on 29.12.1982, 03.01.1983, 27.05.1985, 29.05.1985, 19.07.1985, 30.07.1985, 01.11.1985, 09.12.1985, 10.02.1986 and 14.05.1986 respectively, by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission (SSC). As per the recruitment Rules, next promotions to the posts of UDCs and Assistants etc., have to be filled by 75% of the employees on seniority-cum-suitability by holding DPCs and 25% by holding Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCEs). In other words, the promotions to the posts of UDCs and Assistants etc., have to be filled in the ratio of 3:1 by the employees on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability by holding DPCs and by holding LDCEs respectively. That fifth respondent was appointed as LDC on 12.01.1989 and thus, he is much junior to the petitioners in the cadre of LDC. When 154 posts of UDCs have arisen due to the orders of cadre restructure issued by the Government of India, out of which, 115 posts were earmarked for DPC quota of 75% and 39 for LDCE quota of 25%, the petitioners were promoted to the posts of UDCs in September, 1996. LDCE notification was issued on 16.08.1996 and the results of the said exam were declared on 14.03.1997. Fifth respondent was promoted on 07.04.1997 as against the said LDCE 25% quota and therefore, he is junior to the petitioners. Thereafter the seniority list of UDCs as on 01.01.1999 was issued fixing the inter se seniority in the ratio of 3:1. Subsequently the said seniority list had been corrected and revised seniority list was issued as on 01.01.2002. In the said seniority list, all the UDCs promoted in 1996 on seniority-cum-suitability shown above UDCs promoted in 1997 through LDCE, except fifth respondent, which was only a clerical error. In the seniority list issued as on 01.01.2004, this error was also rectified. The recruitment rules prescribe only 3:1 ratio for promotion on seniority-cum-suitability and through LDCE respectively. Rotation of vacancies for the purpose of fixation of seniority among them was not prescribed. In the absence of rules governing fixation of seniority, the general principles of seniority alone have to be followed and accordingly, the guidelines were issued in first respondent’s letter dated 19.06.1992. As per the said guidelines, the seniority list of 2004 was prepared. Fifth respondent filed O.A.No.929 of 2004 aggrieved by his position in the seniority list issued on 09.08.2004. The said O.A. was disposed of directing first respondent to take expeditious decision in the matter since the issue was pending with it. Thereafter first respondent clarified that the guidelines issued in its letter dated 19.06.1992 only have to be followed in the matter of f