( 1 ) THE judgment of the Central administrative Tribunal. Ahmedabad Bench (cat for short) in O. A. Nos. 92 of 2003 and 123 of 2003 is under challenge in both the petitions. The first-mentioned petition is filed by the Union of India through the chairman. Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Secretary of Ministry of Finance and the chief Commissioner of Income-tax, ahmedabad; whereas the second petition is filed by five direct recruit inspectors working in the income-tax department. The matters have been finally heard at great length at the admission stage itself at the behest of the parties.

( 2 ) BY the impugned judgment, the cat has, in the applications made by a direct recruit Income-Tax Inspector (iti for short) and several promotee ITIs. quashed the seniority list dated 25. 3. 2003 of ITIs of gujarat Region and directed the department not to disturb the seniority already assigned to the ITIs in the seniority lists published in 1996 and 2000, In short, in this triangular lis among the direct recruits (DRs ). the departmental prorcotees (DPs) and the Income-Tax Department, the central issue is whether, complying with the quota and rota rules, seniority of the DRs should be reckoned on the basis of the year in which the vacancies arose, or the year in which the selection process was initiated, or the year in which the candidates were selected. or the year in which they were actually appointed.

( 3 ) IT appears that the very sane issue was agitated before the Principal bench of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 2307 of 1999 and others in which, by the decision dated 23. 2. 2000, it was held by the Tribunal that direct "recruits are entitled to seniority from the date of their selection by the Staff selection Commission (SSC) and not from the date of their appointment. When that decision was challenged before the Delhi high Court in C. M. P. No. 4604 of 2000 and others, it was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in view of the advice and clarification issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT ). It was stated at the Bar that the original application so remanded was subsequently withdrawn.

( 4 ) IT clearly appears from the record and there was a broad consensus that there are recruitment rules called "the Incometax (Inspector) Recruitment Rules providing for quota in the ratio of 33. 33% for direct recruits and 66. 67% for departmental promoters and that, there are Office memoranda and Circular dated 22. 12. 1959, 7. 2. 1986 and 3. 7. 1986 which govern the seniority of DRs and DPs and resolution of the dispute depends upon their correct interpretation and proper application. On the factual aspect, it is the stand of the department that in making the latest seniority list of 2003, seniority of promotees was fixed according to the vacancy year for which the D. P. C. was conducted and seniority of DRs was fixed according to the vacancy year for which intimation was sent to the BSC and the dossier was received ronsequently. And, no person is promoted to the post of ITI in excess of the quota for promotees, according to the Department. 4. 1 The Ministry of Home Affairs circular dated 22. 12. 1959 laid down the general principles for determining seniority in the Central Services and provided in para 6 for relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees in the following terms:"6, Relative seniority of Direct recruits and Promotees- the relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between, direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion, respectively in the Recruitment Rules. "an explanatory memorandum was also enclosed with the said circular and the general principle thereof reads as under:"general Principle 6.- A roster should be maintained based on the reservation for direct recruitment and promotion in the Recruitme