K.M. Joseph, J.

Petitioner was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Original Application No. 467 of 2008. He sought the following reliefs before the Tribunal:

“(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Orders dated 06.07.2007, 30.11.2007 & 10.03.2006 passed by the respondent no. 3 herein (Annexure No. A-1, A-2 & A-3 to the Compilation No. ‘I’ of the Original Application).

(b) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein to relieve the respondent no. 5 treating him to have been relieved of his duties w.e.f. 24.12.2005 (A/N) and to constitute Review Departmental Promotion Committee and to consider the case of promotion to the post of Section Master (Group “A” Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- of all eligible Masters including the petitioner and to promote the petitioner on the said post of Section Master in case he is duly recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the such promotion, within a period as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

(c) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein to give effect to such promotion to the petitioner from the date when the respondent no. 5 has been allowed promotion to the said post i.e. 06.07.2007 with all consequential benefits including back wages, seniority, etc. within a period as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.”

2. The Tribunal has dismissed the Application. Hence, the writ petition.

3. We have heard Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Shashank Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5; and Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the official respondents.

4. The case, as set up by the petitioner before the Tribunal, in brief, was as follows:

i. Petitioner was appointed as Master in History on the strength of the recommendation by the Union Public Service Commission (in short “UPSC”). He was recommended by the UPSC on 24.02.2000 and he joined with the fourth respondent on 11.09.2000. The fifth respondent was appointed as a Master in Biology on the basis of the recommendation by the UPSC dated 24.03.2000 and, pursuant to the appointment order, he joined with the fourth respondent w.e.f. 02.09.2000. The petitioner and the fifth respondent are alleged to have appeared in the same examination conducted by the UPSC and the petitioner was ranked above in the merit list and, thus, recommended for appointment by letter dated 24.02.2000; whereas, the fifth respondent was recommended subsequently vide letter dated 24.03.2000. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner is senior as a Master in all respects. In this connection, reference is made to Annexure No. A-5 in the Original Application before the Tribunal to contend that the combined subject-wise seniority list of Masters is prepared reckoning the seniority of Masters from the date of recommendation, irrespective of the date of joining. There is a case that the relative seniority of all direct recruits is determined in the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment on the recommendation of the UPSC or other selecting authority; persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection being senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection.

ii. The next higher post is the post of Section Master, which is only one post. DPC conducts the selection. The benchmark fixed is “very good”, it is stated. In the year 2004, a vacant post of Section Master necessitated constitution of a DPC. Respondent No. 3, it is alleged, directed the fourth respondent to forward the seniority list and also the eligibility list to the DPC. It is further alleged that a Master should have completed two years of requisite eligibility service as Master from the date of joining to become eligible an