ORDER

JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA, JM:

Heard all concerned at this admission stage itself.

2. This OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) To direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the applicant along with other/juniors to face the Assessment Board of the Union Public Service Commission under Flexible Complementing Scheme for the post of Dy. Director (Ballistics) by relaxing the residency period of one year six months the deficit of which occurred due to the latches of the respondents without any fault of the applicant as such who was a candidate of the vacancy year 2008;

(b) To direct the respondent authorities to consider the appointment for FC Scheme for the post of Director of FC Scheme for the post of Director under FC Scheme by treating him a candidate of 2008 in compliance of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the Country in citation of (TC (E) No. 91 of 2006 Pritpal Singh & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors) and in violation of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the Country and DOP&T guidelines;

(c) To consider the representation dated 07.10.2015 in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the country and DOP&T Guidelines and allow the applicant to appear provisionally before the Assessment Board in UPSC for the post of Director, CFSL under F.C. Scheme which is to be held shortly and for which the process is going on during pendency of this matter before this Hon'ble Tribunal;

(d) To pass further order or orders, direction or directions as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper for securing the ends of justice."

(extracted as such)

3. The learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance on the records would put forth his argument, the gist and kernel of the same would run thus:

The Applicant was functioning as Assistant Director in CFSL While so he applied for the post of Deputy Director under the Direct Recruitment Quota in respect of the Recruitment Year 2008. However, he was offered employment as Deputy Director in the year 2013; for no fault of him. The fact was that the UPSC issued offer to a person who was already in the post of Deputy Director on regular promotion, and subsequently it was revoked and once again offer of appointment was given to the same person and it was revoked and thereafter only, the offer of appointment was issued to the applicant. In that process alone the delay occurred. Hence recognizing those facts, the authority concerned reckoned the applicant's seniority as Deputy Director with effect from 2008 even before his actual joining in the post of Deputy Director in the year 2013.

During the year 2009 and 2010 several others were given appointment as Deputy Directors. However, the applicant's seniority with effect from the year 2008 was recognised. Now, there is a proposal for conferring up gradation to the level of Director on eligible Deputy Directors who have put in four years of service. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the applicant would place reliance on the guidelines issued by the DoP&T in their circular dated 25.3.1996 and an excerpt from it is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

"Where juniors who have completed their qualifying/eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying/eligibility service by more than half of such qualifying/eligibility service or two years, whichever is less, and have successfully completed probation period for promotion to the next higher grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying/eligibility service."

According to the above provision, when a junior is considered for being given nonfunctional promotion or promotion, the senior who might not have put in the requisite number of years of service for being eligible for such promotion also should be considered. Here the learned counsel for the applicant would admit that in the recruitment rules there is no incorporatio