1. Special leave granted.
2. The post which is the subject-matter of this appeal is that of Livestock Supervisor. It is to be filled in either by direct recruitment or by promotion. We are here concerned with two claimants for promotion from the rival feeder cadres, namely, Stockman and Field Assistant. The Departmental Promotion Committee graded the appellant, the 2nd respondent and a third candidate equally, as being very good, but, having regard to the duties assigned to the post of Livestock Supervisor and the nature and length of his service in that line, preferred to recommend the appellant, who was the Stockman, for the post of Livestock Supervisor. The 2nd respondent, who was the Field Assistant, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Central Administrative Tribunal upheld his claim and directed the D.P.C. to consider the matter over again. The D.P.C. did so, and again recommended the name of the appellant. The 2nd respondent went again to the Tribunal; the Tribunal remanded the matter to the D.P.C; the D.P.C. reconsidered the matter and recommended the appellant the third time round. The 2nd respondent approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the D.P.C, at which stage the appellant filed the Special Leave Petition.
3. The rule that regulates both direct recruitment and promotion for the post of Livestock Supervisor indicates that a direct recruit should have 2 years experience in a responsible capacity in a cattle farm, having cultivation of fodder and pasture development, or management of pedigree cattle, or artificial insemination. It suggests the work the Livestock Supervisor would have to do.
4. The D.P.C, having regard to the fact that the Stockman and the Field Assistant were equally graded, took into account the factor that the appellant having worked as a Stockman, had greater acquaintance with the work that he would have to do as Livestock Supervisor than the Field Assistant. We do not share the Tribunal's view that seniority had to prevail once the Stockman and the Field Assistant had secured an equal grading. So long as the D.P.C. functioned bona fide, its selection should not have been interfered with and there is nothing to suggest that the D.P.C. acted otherwise.
5. It is pointed out that, pursuant to the remand ordered by the Tribunal in the order under appeal, the 2nd respondent has been recommended by the D.P.C Having regard to the observations of the Tribunal, there was little else that the D.P.C. could have done; and we do not think that that factor can in any way influence the decision of this appeal.
6. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside. The Original Application filed by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal is dismissed. No effect shall be given to anything that has been done pursuant to the order of the Tribunal which has been set aside.
7. No order as to costs.