S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. This common judgment disposes of two writ petitions one - preferred by promotee officers to the Delhi-Andaman & Nicobar Islands Police Service (hereafter “DANIPS”)- being W.P.(C) 5973/2003 and the other, W.P.(C) 598/2004, by the Union of India. Both petitions impugn the correctness of two orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 1418/2002, dated 26-02-2003 and the order dated 01-04-2003, rejecting the review petition (RA 87/2003). The earlier petition was listed today. When it was taken up, parties mentioned about W.P.(C) 598/2004. With consent of parties, that matter too was directed to be listed, and was finally heard along with W.P.(C) 5973/2003.

2. The Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5973/2003 (hereafter called “the promotees”) belong to DANIPS. Appointment to that service is through two channels, spelt out in Rule 5 of the Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service Recruitment Rules, 1971; it is in the ratio of 1: 1 as between promotees and direct recruits, which can, for reasons to be recorded, be varied in the exigencies of public service. The Petitioners were appointed by promotion, after their selection through the procedure of selection set out in Rule 24. They were not appointed under Rule 16. They were appointed to the promotional post of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), in terms of Rule 25. Rule 4 of the DANIPS Rules determines the strength of the service; Rule 14 prescribes the conditions of eligibility and procedure for selection; it is through a committee which has to consider eligible officers under Rule 5 (1) (b) “who have served in the respective cadre or posts, as the case may be, for not less than two years and prepare a list of officers recommended for appointment after taking into account the actual vacancies at the time of selection and those likely to occur during a year.” The selection is based on merit and suitability. Rule 14 (2) provided that seniority of eligible officers had to be determined by the Central Government having due regard to the dates of their appointments on a regular basis to the respective cadre or posts, the pay scales of the posts etc. Rule 15 requires consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Rule 16 provides that appointment to the Service “shall be made in order of merit in the list referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 with due regard to the proportion specified in Rule 5.”

3. A seniority list determined inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees. This led to a round of litigation, whereby the CAT was approached; by its order dated 31-03-1992, the application was disposed of. Aggrieved parties approached the Supreme Court. The Court disposed of the appeals in its judgment reported as Union of India v H.C. Bhatia 1995 (2) SCC 48; the Central Government was directed to prepare a fresh seniority list in the light of the Court’s observations. The Supreme Court held pertinently, that:

“…but the facts of the present case would show that though the appointments were stated to be officiating these continued for a very long period, which in the case of Respondent 1 was of about 12 years as he came to be appointed under Rule 25 on 6-11- 1972 and was fixed permanently in the slot meant for promotees on 28-7-1984. An officiating appointment for over a decade cannot be treated as fleeting appointment with no service benefits to be given. Any other view would very seriously prejudice such a service-holder who, even after having rendered service equal to those of permanent appointees for a long period, and that too for proper functioning of the Service, would be denied the benefit of the same for no cogent reasons. Any other view is bound to have a demoralising effect in the Service as a whole. As the appointments under Rule 25 are also to duty posts, which may form part of the strength of Service because what has been stated in Rule 4(3), we are of the view that justice of the case and the need to pre