ORDER :

P.NAVEEN RAO, J.

Heard learned counsel representing the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners in both the cases and learned counsel Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju representing Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the respondents in both the cases. The parties are referred to as arrayed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The issue being common to both the writ petitions, we dispose of the writ petitions by this common order.

3. The facts leading to institution of O.A.Nos.363 of 2002, before the Tribunal against which W.P.No.15006 of 2005 is filed, are as under:

i. The applicant was appointed as a Postal Assistant in the year 1963. He was promoted to LSG Cadre on 30.11.1983 and further promoted to BCR Cadre w.e.f., 01.10.1991. From out of the BCR Cadre, the department upgraded 10% of the posts to HSG Grade-I. In the year 2000, the applicant was considered for promotion to HSG Grade- I, but he was ignored on the ground that he suffered punishment of censure by an order dated 29.09.1999 in departmental proceedings. By proceedings dated 04.01.2002 two juniors to him namely Sri Bhojanna (SC) and Sri Rahman (OC) were promoted to HSG Grade-I. Aggrieved thereby applicant filed O.A.No.363 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. He would urge that promotion to HSG Grade-I being based on seniority, senior could not have been ignored, while granting promotion to his juniors. According to him he had already undergone punishment of censure and was not under currency of punishment by the time those promotions were affected.

ii. According to the respondent, promotion to HSG Grade - I is based on selection-cum-seniority. The applicant’s merit was assessed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and on due assessment of his service record, the DPC has not recommended him for promotion. Therefore, ignoring him for promotion while promoting others is not illegal. Reliance was also placed on the administrative instructions issued from time to time on how to make an assessment of suitability of a candidate by the DPC.

iii. The Hon’ble Tribunal by order dated 29.12.2004, allowed O.A.No.363 of 2002. The Tribunal opined that the effect of punishment of censure was only for one year and therefore, based on the said punishment, he could not have been ignored for consideration for promotion and directed the respondent therein to hold a Review DPC to consider the applicant’s case for promotion to the post of HSG Grade-I from the date of granting promotion to his juniors, if he is found otherwise suitable. Challenging the said decision, the respondent preferred this writ petition.

4. The facts leading to institution of O.A.No.461 of 2002, against which W.P.No.15551 of 2005 is filed, are as under :

i. Applicant joined service as Clerk in the Postal Department on 24.01.1963. He earned promotions as Sub-Postmaster, Treasurer, Office Assistant, Assistant Postmaster and Head Postmaster. He was also granted B.C.R. Cadre promotion on 01.10.1991. After carving out 10% of posts in B.C.R. Cadre to HSG Grade-I, applicant was entitled to be granted promotion and his name was included at Sl.No.36 in B.C.R. gradation list dated 30.03.2001. According to the applicant, on 04.01.2002, 91 HSG Grade-II officials were promoted to HSG Grade - I (General Line) including his juniors, ignoring the applicant.

ii. According to respondents, promotion to HSG Grade - I is based on selection on seniority. The applicant’s merit was assessed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and on due assessment of his service record, the DPC has not recommended him for promotion, therefore, ignored the applicant for promotion while promoting others is not illegal. Reliance was also placed on the administrative instructions issued from time to time on how to make an assessment of suitability of a candidate by the DPC.

iii. O.A.No.461 of 2002 was allowed by order dated 14.02.2005, direct