JUDGMENT B. D. Agarwal, J. - These connected petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution are directed against the decision of the Public Services Tribunal (1), Lucknow dated December 19, 1977, and the order made by the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Varauasi, dated December 23, 1977. 2. The Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, had to recruit 16 Revenue Inspectors on its staff. A Selection Committee was constituted as provided under the proviso to Section 107 (4) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. The Committee consisted of the Mukh Nagar Adhikari as the Chairman and his two nominees the Executive Committee Nagar Mahapalika being superseded. The Selection Committee gave its report on the basis thereof the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika passed an order dated June 26, 1976 for the appointment. Therein Ravi Prakash Singh. Kharm Deo Singh, Divakar Surya Narain Canadey and Sita Ram Singh were specified as direct recruits besides Lok Nath and seven others from the category of schedule castes. Further, G. D. Pandey was taken in by promotion from the category of Second grade clerk ; Jai Nath Singh and Harihar Prasad Singh were specified as pertaining to the category of tax collectors. One Sheo Nath Pathak was also taken in the category of the second grade clerk. Against the recruitment thus made, Syed Mohd. Nazim, Prem Prakash and Tej Narain Tandon filed Claim Petition No. 807 of 1976 before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow ; claim petition No. 922 of 1976 was filed by Anwarul Haq, Balram Dass Gupta and Dood Nath Singh under Section 4 (1) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976. The petitions were decided together by the Tribunal on December, 19, 1977. The Tribunal came to the finding that the recruitment made by promotion was vitiated since the Selection Committee had proceeded on the criteria of merit, instead of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. In regard to the candidates taken from the scheduled castes, it was held that the same was justified and within the prescribed limits. The operative portion of the decision given by the Tribunal reads ; "Both the references Nos. 807 and 922 of 1976 are partly allowed. In regard to the candidates taken from the scheduled castes, it was held that the same was justified and within the prescribed limits. The operative portion of the decision given by the Tribunal reads ; "Both the references Nos. 807 and 922 of 1976 are partly allowed. The order dated 26-6-1976 is quashed to this extent only that respondent No. 1 shall consider the case of each of the petitioners in the two references along with other departmental candidates of different categories in the light of observations made in this judgment. The references are dismissed in so far as respondents no. 2 to 9 are concerned." 3. Subsequent to this decision of the Tribunal the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, made the order dated December 23, 1977, whereby be terminated the services of Ravi Prakash Singh, Dharam Deo Singh, Divakar Surya Narain Canadey and Sita Ram Singh and directed that G.D. Pandey, Jai Nath Singh, Harihar Prasad and Singh Som Nath Pathak be reverted to their substantive pests. It was directed also that the services of Lok Nath (Scheduled Caste) had been terminated earlier, another scheduled caste candidate, namely, Sada Phal Singh had not joined and that the rest of the six scheduled caste candidates, namely, Badri Prasad Sonkar, Jhanna Lal, Panna Lal, Ram Jeet Prasad, Panna Lal Shastri and Lal Ji were to be retained. 4. Aggrieved against the decision of the Tribunal and the order of the Administrator dated 23-12-1977 above mentioned, Devakar Surya Narain Canadey and Sita Ram Singh have filed Writ Petition No. 8 of 1978. Writ Petition No. 130 of 1978 was filed by Ravi Prakash Singh and Dharam Deo Singh. In Writ Petition No. 140 of 1978, the petitioners are Jai Nath Singh and Harihar Prasad Singh. Writ Petition No. 146 of 1978 has been filed by G. D. Pandey. Besides the Public Services Tribunal and the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, the other respondents in these petitions are Syed Mohd, Nazim and Om Prakash, Tej Narain Tandon, Anwarul Haq, Balram Das Gupta and Doodh Nath Singh. Since the petitioners give rise to common questions of fact and law, they were heard together. 5. Besides the Public Services Tribunal and the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, the other respondents in these petitions are Syed Mohd, Nazim and Om Prakash, Tej Narain Tandon, Anwarul Haq, Balram Das Gupta and Doodh Nath Singh. Since the petitioners give rise to common questions of fact and law, they were heard together. 5. Under the proviso to Section 107 (4) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 the Selection Committee for the purpose of recruitment of Revenue Inspectors the servants immediately subordinate to the Mukh Nagar Adhikari - has to comprise of the Mukh, Nagar Adhikari and Chairman and two nominees of the Executive Committee. Since the Executive Committee stands superseded, the nomination was made by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari himself. The U P. Nagar Mahapalika Services (Designations, Scales of Pay, Qualifications, Conveyance Allowance and Method of Recruitments). Order, 1963 contains details for the recruitment, among others to the post of Revenue Inspector in the Nagar Mahapalika. Clause 9 which is material reads : "The method of recruitment of each class of posts in a service shall be as given against it in the last column of the schedule. Provided that in case suitable candidates are not available for the posts to be filled up by promotion, the post may be tilled up by direct recruitment." 6. Item 3 of the Schedule appended to the said Order 1963 provides that the method of recruitment for Revenue Inspectors shall be : (i) Direct recruitment..................25% (ii) Promotion : (a) From among Amins and Ziledars - 25% (b) From among second Grade Clerk - 25% (c) From among Tax Collectors/Tax Moharrirs....................25%. 7. Of the petitioners in these petitions, Ravi Prakash Singh, Dharam Deo Singh Divakar Surya Narain Canadey and Sita Ram Singh were taken in a direct recruits. Divakar Surya Narain Canadey has since taken to another service and resigned from the Nagar Mahapalika ; Dharam Deo Singh has also taken to another service and resigned. Counsel for these petitioners stated that they were no longer interested in pursuing their claim, An affidavit to this effect has also been put in. We are, therefore, left with two persons, namely, Ravi Prakash Singh and Sita Ram Singh only in so far as the petitioners from the category of direct recruits are concerned. Counsel for these petitioners stated that they were no longer interested in pursuing their claim, An affidavit to this effect has also been put in. We are, therefore, left with two persons, namely, Ravi Prakash Singh and Sita Ram Singh only in so far as the petitioners from the category of direct recruits are concerned. The contention of learned counsel is that the decision of the Tribunal dated 19-12-1977 does not affect them adversely in any manner and that the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, has misinterpreted the same in directing on 23rd December 1977 that their services were being terminated. As I mentioned above, clause 9 of the relevant Order of 1963 provides for recruitment to the extent of 25% by direct recruitment to the posts of Revenue Inspectors. The posts to be filled in were 16. The order of appointment dated June 26, 1976 made by the Administrator Nagar Mahapalika, subsequent to the recommendation of the Selection Committee was in respect of the above mentioned 4 persons as direct recruits besides 8 others from the category of schedule caste. I will take up the case relating the schedule castes candidates hereinafter. In so far as the direct recruits of non-scheduled castes category are concerned, a perusal of the decision given by the Tribunal leaves no room for doubt that it does not affect them, in any manner. The infirmity found by the Tribunal was that the Selection Committee proceeded on the criteria of merit instead of seniority-cum-merit. This evidently pertains to those only who were being considered from the category of promotees and not the direct recruits. The contention dealt with by the Tribunal is specified as being "the Selection Committee did not apply the correct principle in the matter of promotion of petitioners deserves to be accepted." At another place it says, the seniority of persons required to be promoted from different categories shall be given due consideration and a senior person could be rejected only on the ground that he was unfit for promotion and further it says that there was no material put before the Tribunal to prove that the petitioners, though the senior to the promoted respondents, were found unfit for promotion and on this ground alone the petition deserved to be allowed. In the operative portion, as I noticed above, the direction was that the order dated 26-6-1976 was quashed to this extent "only" that the Nagar Mahapalika Varanasi shall consider the case of each of the petitioners in the two categories along with "other departmental candidates of different categories": This consideration along with departmental candidates can only be in relation to those seeking recruitment by promotion. It is also worthy of note in this connection that of the claimants before the tribunal, Syed Mohd. Nazim, Om Prakash and Balram Das Gupta are tax collectors, Tej Narain Tandon and Anwarul Haq are second grade clerks and Doodh Nath Singh is an Amin. All of them are, therefore, departmental candidates and the claim raised by them was that their seniority had not been given due consideration by the Selection Committee which recommended other persons instead for recruitment against the promotion quota. Since, therefore, the Tribunal's decision does not in any manner require reconsideration with respect to the direct recruits, there was no basis absolutely for the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, to have provided in the order dated 23-12-1977 that the services of those direct recruits be terminated. Ravi Prakash Singh and Sita Ram Singh are accordingly entitled to maintain that their case does not require to be reconsidered nor can their services be terminated. 8. Learned counsel for Syed Mohd. Nazim and others-respondents, contended that, in view of the proviso to clause 9, quoted above, the Selection Committee/Administrator were right in having taken in 8 persons from the category of Scheduled castes since suitable candidates were not available for the post to be filled in by promotion and hence there was no room for persons other than those of scheduled castes being taken in as direct recruits. With this contention I am unable to agree. None of the parties before this Court disputes the appointment given to the scheduled castes candidates as direct recruits. The Government Order dated April 18, 1975 referred to for the petitioners, makes provision for reservation in favour of scheduled caste/schedule tribes candidates. The earlier Government Order dated December 20, 1973 makes mention of direct recruitment only for the purpose of reservation ; but this is not so confined in so far as the subsequent Government Order dated 18th April, 1975 is concerned. The earlier Government Order dated December 20, 1973 makes mention of direct recruitment only for the purpose of reservation ; but this is not so confined in so far as the subsequent Government Order dated 18th April, 1975 is concerned. On the other hand, this subsequent Government Order makes provision for recruitment to the extent of 18% in service from the category of scheduled castes candidates. It says that for so long as percentage does not reach 9%, the reservation shall be to the extent of 4% on 9% being achieved, the reservation shall be to the extent of 25% and this shall continue for so long as the target of 18% is not reached. As mentioned above, Loknath, scheduled caste, was terminated earlier. Sada Phal Singh, who was also a scheduled caste candidate, did not join. The Tribunal found that there were 18 Revenue Inspectors from before and 16 more vacancies were to be filled in. It also found that the recruitment given to the scheduled caste candidates was within the reserved quota, in view thereof that does not affect adversely the recruitment directed of candidates other than scheduled caste to the extent of 25%. The scheduled caste candidates were included. It would appear, in view of the proviso to clause 9 of the Order, 1963, above mentioned and the Government order dated 18th April, 1975. This apart, it cannot be overlooked that Syed Mohd. Nazim or for that matter any of the other five respondents, namely, Om Prakash, Tej Narain Tandon, Anwarul Haq, Balram Dass Gupta, Doodh Nath Singh have not challenged the decision given by the Tribunal. None of them has come in writ against the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as discussed above, does not decide against the direct recruits either. It is not open, therefore, to Syed Mohd. Nazim and other respondents to go behind the decision of the Tribunal and contend in the course of arguments that the recruitment made of Ravi Prakash Singh and Sita Ram Singh as direct recruits be nullified. 9. This takes me to the case of the other petitioners, who recommended from different categories pertaining to the promotion quota. Of these G.D. Pandey and one Shobha Nath Pathak (who has not come in writ) are from the category of second grade clerks ; Jai Nath Singh Harihar Prasad Singh belong to the category of tax Collector. 9. This takes me to the case of the other petitioners, who recommended from different categories pertaining to the promotion quota. Of these G.D. Pandey and one Shobha Nath Pathak (who has not come in writ) are from the category of second grade clerks ; Jai Nath Singh Harihar Prasad Singh belong to the category of tax Collector. The quota in relation to each of those categories is 25%. The grievance of the claimants before the Tribunal against these persons was that the seniority of the claimants had not been given due consideration. Rule 22 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapaiika Sewa Nyarawali, 1962 says that appointment by promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit, from among all eligible servants of the Mahapalika. The Tribunal upheld this contention and, therefore, it directed reconsideration of the case of the claimants before it along with the other persons in different categories from among the promotees. There is no grievance on that, account arising in this petition before me. The grievance is directed against the order which the Administrator made later on 23-12-1977 purporting to be for the purpose of implementation of the Tribunal's decision. That order is clearly misdirected in so far as it says that the Services of G.D. Pandey, Jai Nath Singh, Hanhar Prasad Singh - the petitioners - and Som Nath Pathak also for that matter are to be terminated. The Tribunal does not require termination of their services pending reconsideration of recruitment as Revenue Inspectors by promotion. The reconsideration may go on while these petitioners continue in service, in their respective categories. To put this in other words, G.D. Pandey, the petitioner, would need be reconsidered along with others in the category of second grade clerks, Jai Nath Singh and Harihar Prasad Singh would need be considered along with others in the category of Bill Collectors. 10. In the category of Amins and Ziledars the only candidate considered as eligible, it would appear, was Doodhnath Singh respondent. For the petitioners it was urged that Doodhnath Singh is temporary having been taken in as Amin since December 1970 and that he has not held the post substantively and, therefore, he could not be eligible for consideration. The Tribunal has found Doodhnath Singh also eligible. For the petitioners it was urged that Doodhnath Singh is temporary having been taken in as Amin since December 1970 and that he has not held the post substantively and, therefore, he could not be eligible for consideration. The Tribunal has found Doodhnath Singh also eligible. It does not appear necessary to may mind to probe into this question for the obvious reason that none of the petitioners before me lays his claim in the category of Amins/Ziledars. G.D. Pandey, Jai Singh and Harihar Prasad Singh seek recruitment from different categories of promotion instead. Therefore, there is no competition as between any of these petitioners on the one hand and Doodhnath Singh on the other. Nor does Doodhnath Singh have to compete with any of those found eligible on direct recruitment basis from among the petitioners, namely, Ravi Prakash Singh and Sita Ram Singh. 11. Consideration being had to the above, those petitioners, succeed in part and are allowed accordingly. The case of G.D. Pandey, Jai Singh and Harihar Prasad Singh petitioners shall be reconsidered by the Nagar Mahapaiika, Varanasi, according to law on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit for recruitment as Revenue Inspectors by promotion. The case of Ravi Prakash Singh and Sita Ram Singh petitioners are not required to be reconsidered by the Nagar Mahapaiika for recruitment as Revenue Inspectors. The order of the Administrator, Nagar Mahapaiika dated December 23, 1977 directing termination of the services, of G. D. Pandey, Jai Nath Singh, Harihar Prasad Singh, Ravi Prakash Singh and Sita Ram Singh petitioners is quashed. The petitioners are dismissed in so far as Devakar Surya Narain Canadey and Dharam Deo Singh are concerned. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.