1. - Subhash Chand Sharma-respondent No. 1 herein approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. In his application, he prayed that down gradation of the remarks in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports of the applicant for the year 1996-97 be declared illegal and that the authorities be directed to completely ignore the down gradation of such remarks and to treat the applicant as 'outstanding' or 'very good' in the year 1996-97. He also prayed that the authorities (respondents therein) be directed to reconvene the meeting of the screening committee for appointment to Indian Forest Service and by reconvening such screening committee, the vacancies of each year may kindly be directed to be redetermined separately and after redetermination of year-wise vacancies, a further direction may be issued to convene meeting of the screening committee for each year separately. He further prayed that the authorities may be directed to give future promotions to him considering him in the category of 'outstanding' or 'very good'.

2. The respondent No. 1 initially joined Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests in October, 1979. Thereafter he was promoted in the senior scale of Rajasthan Forest Service on 16.8.1991. On the date he filed the original application before the Tribunal, he was holding the post of Technical Assistant to the Conservator of Forest.

3. According to the respondent No. 1, that being appointed in the State Forest Service in the year 1979, he became eligible to be considered for promotion to Indian Forest Service in the year 1988 as provided in Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966. The respondent No. 1 has alleged that for the purpose of appointment by promotion from the State Forest Service to Indian Forest Service, as per Regulation 5 of Regulations of 1966, it was incumbent upon the authorities to prepare the list of officers found eligible to be considered for promotion to Indian Forest Service. He alleged that in the year 1995-96, there was one vacancy for appointment to Indian Forest Service while in the years 1996-97 and 1997- 98, there were five vacancies for each of those years for appointment to Indian Forest Service. He alleged that though it was not permissible to club these vacancies, all vacancies were clubbed together and the eligibility list was prepared.

4. The present respondent No. 1 who was the original applicant before the Tribunal impleaded Union of India as respondent No. 2 and Union Public Service Commission as respondent No. 3. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Personnel and the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Forest was impleaded as respondent No. 4.

5. The Union of India did not chose to file any reply while the Union Public Service Commission and the Government of Rajasthan filed separate replies.

6. In the reply filed by the Government of Rajasthan, a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the original application was raised. While contesting the application on merits, the Government of Rajasthan set up the stand that in the meeting held on 28.7.1998, the selection committee under the Regulations of 1966 as amended vide the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Amendment Regulations, 1997 considered cases of 42 officers including the case of the original applicant in respect of 11 vacancies and the list of suitable officers in accord with the provisions of Regulation 5(1) was prepared. It was stated that since the meeting was held on 28.7.1998, the number of vacancies that existed on 1.1.1998 were considered. On consideration of the over all record and on fair assessment of the over all performance as reflected under the various columns of the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports, the merit was considered and then the select list was prepared which di