1. Union of India has filed this petition to challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 1020 of 1999, dated 8-2-2001 wherein the Tribunal has quashed the appointment of Sri R.K. Raghavan, (respondent 7) as the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, the CUD, at the instance of Sri C. Dinakar, IPS, respondent 1, herein on the ground that the petitioner had acted against the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vineet Narain and Another v Union of India and Others, regarding the procedure to be followed for the selection and appointment of Director of CBI.

2. Facts.--The basic premise laid down by respondent 1 in the O.A. before the Tribunal is that both he and respondent 7 were appointed to the Indian Police Service (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPS') in the year 1963. On the date of appointment of Director of CBI on 31-12-1998 the inter se seniority positions of the first four officers in the All India IPS seniority list were as follows:

(i) R.K. Sharma(1962);

(ii) H.P. Kumar (1962);

(iii) R.K. Raghavan (1963) - respondent 7;

(iv) C. Diriakar (1963) - applicant.

As on the date of selection which led to the issuance of the order impugned, the IPS Officers at SI. Nos. (i) and (ii) above, namely, R.K. Sharma and H.P. Kumar were reportedly facing enquiries on some allegations and hence were not considered for the said selection.

3. It was averred that the post of Director of CBI was one of the two senior most posts in the IPS in the country and is under the Government of India. It is a selection post in the IPS. IPS being an All India Service, the IPS Officers are governed by the All India Services Act, 1951. The conditions of service of IPS Officers are regulated by the IPS Pay Rules, 1954, made under Section 3(1) of the All India Services Act (for short, 'the 1954 Rules'). That the post of CBI Director is one of the "posts carrying pay above the timescale of pay" as mentioned in Schedule III-C to the IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954 with fixed pay of Rs. 26.000/- per month as revised with effect from 1-1-1996, and hence appointment to this post should be in accordance with Rule 3(2-A) of these Rules. Rule 3(2-A) reads:

"Appointment to the selection grade and posts carrying pay above the timescale of pay in the Indian Police Service shall be made by selection on merit with due regard to seniority".

4. Specific case pleaded by respondent 1 in his application was that the post of the Director of CBI is a post under the Government of India and only the IPS Officers of various cadres who are found fit and put on the panel of Government of India are eligible for consideration. It was further stated therein that IPS Officers of and above the grade of DIG of Police are put on such panel by selection on merit with due regard to seniority according to the prescribed procedure once in every year. Empanelling of DIGP and Inspectors General of Police ('IGF, for short) is done by the Central Police Establishment Board under the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, and that of Director General of Police CDGP', for short) and the Additional DGP is done by the Cabinet Secretariat. IPS Officers are selected from these panels and appointed to various posts under the Government of India as and when vacancies arise.

5. It was further averred that respondent 1 had learnt and which he believed to be true that he had been selected as per prescribed procedure and put in the panel of DGP (Central), respondent 7 was not put in the panel of DGP (Central) in the year 1997. In the month of February 1997, respondent 1 was asked by the then Prime Minister of India Sri H.D. Devegowda, whether he was willing to go on deputation to the Government of India to serve as Director, CBI as there was a proposal to change the then Director, Sri Joginder Singh. Respondent 1 was DGP, Corps of Detectives, Training, Special Units and Economic Offences in Ban galore at that time. On expressin