JUDGMENT

I. M. QUDDUSI, J. : This writ application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.1.2005 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in Original Appli¬cation No.1676(C) of 2004 dismissing the O.A. filed by the in¬stant petitioners.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners and opposite party Nos.3 and 4, namely, Nalin Kanta Pradhan and Pradeep Chandra Sahu were selected by the Orissa Public Service Commission (for short, “the OPSC”) for the posts of Assistant Engineer in the year 1982. A merit list was prepared by the OPSC in which opposite parties 3 and 4 were shown below the petition¬ers and as such they were shown juniors to the petitioners in the inter se seniority. On the basis of the merit list determined by the OPSC, the petitioners and opposite parties 3 and 4 were pro¬moted to the posts of the Assistant Executive Engineer and their inter se seniority remained undisturbed till the year 1999. In the year 1999 when the promotion to the post of Executive Engi¬neer on ad hoc basis was considered by the D.P.C., opposite party No.3 was shown above the petitioners in the merit list, and ac¬cordingly recommendation was made by D.P.C. to the OPSC for promotion of opposite party No.3 on out of turn basis. However, the OPSC did not agree with the same and sent its opinion to the State Government separately in which opposite party No.3 was shown below in merit to the petitioners. The State Government according to its Rules of Business referred the matter to the Chief Minister who directed the same to be placed before the Cabinet Meeting. The same was accordingly placed and opposite party No.3 was found to be of exceptional merit. Opposite party No.4 was also given the benefit of out of turn promotion. Conse¬quently, opposite parties 3 and 4 both were promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer. Thereafter while considering the promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer Level-II, opposite parties 3 and 4 were considered treating them to be senior to the peti¬tioners and consequently were given promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineer Level-II.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Tribu¬nal by filing the above mentioned O.A., inter alia, alleging therein that the promotion to the rank of Superintending Engi¬neer, Level-I was being considered ignoring the names of the petitioners, that in order to favour opposite parties 3 and 4 the recommendation of the OPSC was not followed, that without suffi¬cient materials the recommendation was negatived in the Cabinet meeting and that though recommendation of the OPSC was not ac¬cepted the same was not placed before the Assembly in its next session for which the action of the State Government was arbi¬trary and mala fide.

4. In O.A. the petitioners had prayed for declaring them senior to opposite parties 3 and 4 and for directing the official opposite parties not to implement the D.P.C. recommendation for promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineer, Level-I until disposal of the O.A. and further prayed that all the orders declaring opposite parties 3 and 4 as Executive Engineer & Super¬intending Engineer Level-II may be quashed and promotion may be given according to the merit list prepared by the OPSC.

5. The stand of the State Government in the counter affidavit before the Tribunal was that though the petitioners were senior to opposite parties 3 and 4, but at the time of consideration of the C.C.Rs., the C.C.Rs. of opposite parties 3 and 4 were found to be outstanding. Therefore, they were recom¬mended by the D.P.C. for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer superseding the petitioners and thereafter the D.P.C. again found opposite party Nos.3 and 4 suitable for promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineer Level-II, maintaining the seniority on the basis of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and placing them at a level higher than the petitioners, recommended for their promotion to the ra