SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. There is a plethora of case law relating to seniority disputes between direct recruits and promotees. The present litigation exposits another facet of conflict relating to the stage of induction, i.e. the appointment of direct recruits and promotion of in service officers.

2. The unusual feature of the present litigation is that the Union Public Services Commission and the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Department of Personnel & Training (Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions) have taken divergent positions. The Union Public Service Commission (for short ‘Commission’) though statedly neutral, to some extent supports the petitioners who had applied for selection and appointment to the post of Deputy Legal Advisor (DLA) in the open category, whereas the Ministry of Law and Justice (also referred to as the Ministry) and the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) support the promotees and are opposing the petition.

3. The post of DLA is the second post in the hierarchy, above the post of Assistant Legal Advisor (ALA) in the Indian Legal Service. Recruitments and appointments to the Indian Legal Service are governed by the Indian Legal Service Rules 1957 (for short ‘Rules’) framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As per Rule 6(2) of the Rules, posts in the cadre of DLA have to be filled up alternatively by direct recruitment and by promotion from the cadre of ALA.

4. Pursuant to the advertisement published in the employment news and leading newspapers on 3rd September, 2011, the six petitioners had applied for selection and appointment to the post of DLA. The petitioners had appeared in the written examination conducted on 27th November, 2011. They were declared successful along with others in the results declared by the Commission on 3rd February, 2012. The Commission had thereafter conducted interviews between 28th May, 2012 to 30th May, 2012. On 13th June, 2012, the Commission declared the final results and eleven candidates, including the six petitioners were declared successful. On 13th March, 2013, the Commission issued notice cancelling the entire recruitment for eleven vacancies. This prompted petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 before us to file OA No. 1925/2013 and petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 to file OA No. 1165/2013. The common impugned order dated 29th August, 2014 dismisses the aforesaid OAs along with OA Nos. 3602/2013, 1165/2013 and 3816/2013.

5. Earlier, on 14-20.7.2007, the Ministry of Law and Justice had initiated the process of filling up six posts of DLA, then known as Deputy Government Counsel, under 50% direct recruitment quota. This selection process was struck down by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 24th February, 2011 in OA No. 86/2010, filed by O.P. Bagri and others and OA No 150/2010 filed by G.K. Chakraborty. The order dated 24th February, 2011 records that out of 516 applications received, 63 candidates were short-listed at the first instance for interview. Thereafter, the Ministry of Law and Justice had sent names of six candidates who were working as ALAs to the Commission. These candidates were interviewed between 8th and 12th June, 2009. Another 280 candidates were added and interviewed between 11th to 15th January, 2010 by the Board that was different from the earlier Board, which had met in June 2009. The Tribunal observed that there was no justification to include six ALAs as suggested by the Ministry of Law and Justice especially when these candidates did not meet the eligibility criteria, on the pretext that some ALAs, who were working in the said Ministry had represented that they were senior to the candidates, who were short-listed earlier. Ultimately, none of the 63 first short-listed candidates were declared successful. Setting aside the selection, it was directed that the whole selection process shou