1. The applicant by the present application is seeking for a direction to Respondents 1 to 3 to give effect to his promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Archeologist (ASA for short) with effect from 1.3.1985 i.e., the date on which respondents junior to him were promoted. He also wants a declaration that the decision of Respondent No. 2 to give effect to his promotion with effect from 1.9.86 is not just and proper particularly as on 1.3.1985. He was the senior most eligible person to be promoted as ASA. He has therefore prayed for quashing the promotion Respondents 4 to 13 and to place him above them in the order of seniority list.
2. The applicant was working as Senior Technical Assistant since July, 1977. He was offered ad hoc promotion to the post of ASA vide order dated 22.1.1981. He refused the same on account of some domestic problem as he could not move out of Nagpur. He was again offered promotion on regular basis vide letter dated 24.8.1981 to the same post. He once again declined the offer for the same reason as before.
Thus he got debarred for promotion for one year. He was again offered promotion as per letter dated 11.10.1982, that too was refused for domestic reason. So again he was debarred for promotion for one year with effect from 9.9.82 to 8.10.1982. After he became eligible for promotion, according to him he ought to have been promoted after 9.9.82. But persons junior to him i.e., Respondent 4 to 13 were promoted with effect from 1.3.1985, 5.11.1985 and 1.5.1986 on different dates. The applicant was left out. As on 1.4.1983, he was the senior most at Sl. No. 31 in the seniority list, whereas Respondents 4 to 13 were all shown junior to him. Respondent 4 to 13 were further promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent Archeology with effect from 19.5.1994, thus placing them above the applicant in the seniority list published on 28.2.1991.
3. The claim of the applicant for promotion to Assistant Superintending Archeologist was considered later on and he was granted promotion with effect from July, 1988. Thereafter vide order dated 17.1.1991 his promotion was given effect from 1.9.1986. Thus, Respondents 4 to 13 continued to be senior to him. He represented to grant him promotion from 1.3.1985, but the same was rejected.
4. According to the applicant, being the senior most on 9.9.1983 when he had become eligible after the period of one year of debarment, he ought to have been considered for promotion from the earlier date of 1.3.1985. There were no adverse entries in his ACR as he had never been communicated such a remark at any lime. According to him, there is no rationale behind to give effect from 1.9.1986 when juniors to him were promoted earlier.
5. The official respondents justified their action of granting him promotion with effect from 1.9.1986. They initially promoted the applicant from 28.6.1988. It was found that his name was not included in the zone of consideration erroneously while holding the DPC in 1985, as the concerned dealing assistant was under the impression that the applicant had already been promoted. Therefore, a review DPC was held in 1994 and he was granted promotion with effect from 1.9.1986. For selection purpose, five ACRs of those, who are under the zone of consideration immediately before the year of recruitment are considered. The DPC makes its own assessment on the basis of performance reflected in the ACR. Though the applicant was considered in the review DPC, the private respondents though junior to him, scored over him as their record was 'Very Good' compared to the 'Good' record of the applicant. So he could not be promoted from 1.3.1985. In the further review DPC of 10.10.1985 the applicant was again considered and was cleared for promotion.
6. The official respondents have also submitted that the post of ASA is a Group-B gazetted post, which is to be filled up on selection basis on seniority-cum-merit as prescribed in the recruitment rules for crossing Efficiency Bar, which is enough to consider whether the person is fit or unfit, but for selection post, merit matters. The respondents have cited guidelines prescribed by the DOP&T to be adopted for selection post. According to them, the guidelines prior to 10.4.1989 needed to be applied, because, the post was to be filled in 1984-85. According to the guidelines adopted, more meritorious were rated above the less meritorious. Therefore, the official respondents have rightly considered him for promotion with effect from 1.9.1986 and could not grant him promotion from 1.3.1985 as claimed by him.
7. The respondents have also stated that the promotion of the private respondents to further higher post of DSA is based on their seniority acquired as a result of their promotion as ASA earlier than the applicant.
8. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides. The respondents, after realising that the applicant was not included in the DPC held on 15.12.1984 and 10.10.1985, rectified the same by holding a review DPC and because of superior merit of the private respondents, the applicant could not be selected. Being a selection post, the more meritorious candidate score over those of less merit. We have perused the guidelines of the DOP&T. It has been clearly laid down therein that for selection post, the DPC should classify the persons in the zone of consideration as 'Outstanding,' 'very Good' and 'Good' on the basis of their merit as assessed by the DPC after examination of their respective records of service, irrespective of the grading that may be shown in the ACR. The panel therefore, is to be drawn up by placing the names of the 'Outstanding' officers first, followed by the officers categorised as 'Very Good,' followed by officer categorised as 'Good.' The inter se seniority of officers belonging to any one category would be same as the seniority in the lower grade. Thus, the applicant could not be cleared for promotion in the earlier DPC. We have also perused the ACRs of the applicant and are satisfied that the official respondents havecarried out the selection properly and considered the applicants's claim duly having been fair and considerate. Further, the official respondents have also gone out of the way to accommodate the applicant at Nagpur, though a post had to be transferred from Bhandara to Nagpur for doing so. That shows that the official respondents have been very considerate and sympathetic towards the applicant. Had it not been so, they would not have held a review DPC nor would have posted him at Nagpur on promotion. The applicant has approached this Tribunal in 1997. The settled seniority position cannot be unsettled after a long lapse of period. We do not find any merit in the case. The applicant himself is to be blamed for his refusal to accept the promotion earlier offered to him. Merely because he was cleared for promotion in an earlier year, will not itself entitle him for promotion subsequently. Otherwise, no need for holding DPC again to consider his case.
9. We are satisfied that the official respondents have acted fairly and in a just manner. The O.A. therefore, fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.