By the Court.—We have heard Shri A.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Arvind Kumar Mishra for the petitioners. Shri Ajai Bhanot appears for the respondents. Shri Pushpraj Singh appears for respondent Nos. 5 and 8.

2. The ‘Nehru Yuva Kendra’ was launched as a part of Silver Jubilee celebrations of India in 1972. The scheme was initially implemented by the Ministry of Education. In 1987 ‘Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan’, was launched as an autonomous body and was brought under Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports in 1999. The Sangathan is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act in 1987. It is wholly controlled and funded by the Central Government and thus falls within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, amenable to a writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

3. The petitioners were appointed as District Youth Coordinators. By this writ petition they have sought for quashing the ad hoc promotions of 44 persons on 18.6.1999, on the post of Regional Coordinators recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 9-12th October, 1998 based on seniority list of 1996, which was allegedly substituted/replaced by fresh draft seniority list dated 3.11.2000 on the basis of initial appointment in terms of the recruitment rules dated 5.3.1998. They have also prayed for treating them to be promoted on the post of Regional Coordinators w.e.f. 18.6.1999 when their juniors were given ad hoc promotions and all consequential benefits. The writ petition was amended by the order of the Court dated 25.11.2008, for quashing the Office Order dated 26.8.2008 by which consequent to the sanction of 18 more Zonal Offices in addition to the existing Zonal Offices on 25.8.2008 (to be established in each State capital), the restructuring was made by doubling the existing Deputy Directors, who were relieved by the responsibilities as the Regional Coordinators with the abolition of regional offices and supporting staff was provided to them.

4. The petitioners have challenged the promotions on the ground that prior to the recruitment rules dated 5.3.1998, the regular service of the existing employees were deemed to be reckoned from the date of their initial appointment. The qualifying service for promotion was to be regular continuous service. The provisional tentative seniority of 1996 was prepared on the basis of the date of joining. The seniority was re-fixed on 9.5.2000, after a large number of objections were received and a draft seniority list was circulated. The final seniority list dated 3.11.2000 was published on the basis of the date of initial appointment. The Departmental Promotion Committee (In short DPC) in the meantime in the year 1998 was illegally constituted. It recommended purely ad hoc promotions, which were held so by the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2496 of 1999, Sukha Ram Bishnoi v. Nehru Yuvak Kendra Sangathan, decided on 2.12.2005. A Sub Committee for review of the promotions made in 1999 was constituted but that on 29.6.2007, three persons from the waiting list prepared by the DPC in 1998, who were under age, were also granted promotions.

5. Shri A.N. Tripathi submits that the recruitment rules dated 5.3.1998 contemplated that the incumbents, who were appointed 5.3.1998, will be treated to be appointed under the recruitment rules of 1998. Their seniority will be reckoned from the date of initial appointment. The DPC could be proposed only after finalisation of the seniority list. The ad hoc promotions based on tentative seniority list, were illegally finalised. He submits that apart from the incorrect seniority list relied upon by the DPC, the criteria of selection was also wrongly made. The criteria being seniority-cum-merit, was wrongly interpreted to devise a method in which the merit was taken as the only criteria for promotion. The DPC devised its own method of determining merit completely ignoring the seniority, and thus violating fundamental righ