The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adherence to service jurisprudence by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and the correct interpretation of reservation rules in promotion decisions.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

( 1 ) PRESENT petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 8th September, 2005 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in O. A. No. 681/04, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

( 2 ) PETITIONER joined service as Carpenter in MES on 9th October, 1964. He was promoted as a Cabinet Maker on 1st September, 1979. He was further promoted to the Highly Skilled-II category on 18th October, 1984 and to the Highly Skilled-I category on 15th October, 1985. According to the petitioner as per the Recruitment Rules, he was eligible for promotion as Master craftsman in the year 1988 when he completed 10 years? continuous regular service with 3 years? service as Highly Skilled Grade-I. Petitioner states that even though he was eligible, his case was not considered while his juniors were promoted.

( 3 ) IT appears that a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held in 1999, to consider promotions, inter alia, to the post of Master craftsmen but the petitioner?s case was not even considered though he was otherwise eligible. On his representation, he was informed that a Departmental promotion Committee Meeting would be held to consider his case for promotion. However, he did not hear from the Respondents and consequently, he filed O. A. No. 3260/01 which was disposed of at the admission stage on 5th December, 2001 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. Consequently, in 2002 a review DPC meeting was held which also did not find the petitioner fit for promotion.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said decision, on the ground that relevant rules and instructions had not been followed, the petitioner again preferred an application before the Tribunal being O. A. No. 68/04, which has been dismissed by the Tribunal on 8th September, 2005 and that order is now impugned before us.

( 5 ) BEFORE the Tribunal, the stand of the respondents was that the petitioner?s case was considered by the review DPC meeting that was held for 1999 in the year 2002, but it did not find him fit for promotion on merit.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the application of the petitioner by stating that ?simply because the DPC, observed that the applicant was not found fit for promotion on merits by the original DPC, also we cannot hold the review DPC has not considered his case properly. ? The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. N. R. Banerjee and Ors. 1997 (1) SLR 751, wherein the Supreme Court had noted the legal position that mere inclusion of one's name in the select list does not confer any right on the selectee to get appointed. The state is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.

( 7 ) PETITIONER has challenged the order of the Tribunal as well as the action of the respondents on the ground that the observations of the tribunal were contradictory to the communication dated 9th August, 1999 (Annexure III to the writ petition), wherein it was admitted by the respondents that the petitioner?s case was somehow omitted from consideration by the DPC in the year 1999 and that it was requested to the Chief Engineer to consider the petitioner?s case for promotion to the post of Master Craftsman ?in order to obviate discrepancies, discrimination and further resentment?.

( 8 ) WE have considered the stand taken by respondents in their communications dated (i) 9th August, 1999, (ii) 28th January, 2002 addressed to the petitioner and (iii) 8th February, 2003 addressed to the Section Officer, national Human Rights Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. We have also considered the reply filed by the respondents before the Tribunal in this case. It is evident that the Tribunal has misdirected itself in ignoring vital and material evidence and in reaching findings contrary t