The central legal point established is that the DASS Rules, particularly Rule 6 (I) (1) (b), prevail over executive instructions or directions from other authorities.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, Govt. of National Capital Territory of delhi s had filed the present writ; petition for quashing the order dated 7th March 2001 promoting the respondents to the post of Senior Personal Assistant and have further sought a direction to the respondents/appellant to consider their names for promotion to Delhi Administration Subordinate service (hereinafter referred to as DASS) Grade I. The petitioner/respondents case before the Central administrative Tribunal had been based under Rule 6 (1) (1) (a) of the Delhi Subordinate Service Rules ,1967 (hereinafter called the DASS Rules ).

( 2 ) THE impugned order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 27th Februry 2002 in OA No. 1195 of 2001 quashed the order dated 7th March 2001 purporting to promote the two respondents herein to the post of Senior PA and directed the petitioner herein to reconsider the claim of the respondents for DASS Grade I by holding a review DPC in the light of the options submitted by the respondent.

( 3 ) THE vacancies in Grade I of DASS are to be filled in by promotion of officers of Grade II having 5 years regular service in the grade, on the basis of merit-cum-seniority on DPC s recomendations. However, rule 6 (I) (1) (b) of the dass Rules postulates that notwithstanding anything contained in sub rule (a) stenographers in the scale of pay rs. 1400-2300 who were appointed in a regular manner and having 5 years regular service in the grade shall also be considered for two promotions to grade I on the basis of method of selection prescribed in notification dated 4th december 1980. The petitioner, Govt. of National Capital territory of Delhi, before us had invited options by its memo dated 23rd March 1999 and both the respondents had given their options for being considered for promotion to the post of DASS Grade I and in the order dated 5th december 2000 their names have been mentioned at serial nos. 50 and 53 for consideration for promotion to DASS grade I against the vacancies during the year 2000, Even in the order dated 8th January 2001 the names of the respondents figured at serial nos. 50 and 53 for consideration for Grade I DASS against vacancies during the year 2000. The minutes of the DPC dated 13th December 2000 were perused by the Tribunal which revealed that inspite of mandate of Rule 6 (I) (1) (b) of DASS Rules the DPC after observing that the stenographer cadre is a skilled cadre for which there cannot be a lateral entry from other cadres, decided that officials of stenographic cadre need to be given promotion as far as commensurate with similar cadre in Government and consequently the DPC did not recommend the respondents" names for appointment to DASS grade I and considered them for promotion only to the post of Steno Grade I in spite of the options exercised by then for DASS Grade I.

( 4 ) BEFORE the Tribunal the respondents claim was resisted by the petitioner in the background of UPSC s letter dated 2nd November 1999 regarding dual promotional system for stenographers which letter further stated as under:

". . . . . THE proposed feeder posts of Steno grade II has double avenues of promotion in as much as It acts as the feeder posts to the post of Sr. PA as well as to Grade I dass which is not permissible under the rules. "it was also urged that the applicants/respondents did not automatically qualify for promotion to Grade I DASS post. The Tribunal had further found that Rule 6 (I) (1) (b) of DASS Rules fully applied to the applicants/respondents and that the petitioner itself asked the respondents for options for being considered for the post of DASS Grade I and even placed them in the panel for succesive years. It was further found by the Tribunal that the DPC s stand that there cannot be a lateral entry from other cadres/grades is arbitrary and violative of the DASS Rules framed under article 309 of the Constitution of India, and the Rule 6 (I) (1) (b) would thus clearly prevail over any executive instructio