K. S. Gupta ( 1 ) IN this petition challenge is to the order dated 2/04/1997,passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi,dismissing O. A. No. 2520/96 filed by the petitioner. ( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this petition lie in a narrow compass. On 1/01/1987, petitioner was appointed on monthly wage basis in CGHS and by an orderdated 28/06/1987, he was appointed as Medical Officer (Unani) on the strengthof CGHS, Delhi, on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000. Pursuant to theadvertisement No. 1 dated 13/01/1996, inviting applications for the post ofmedical Officer (Unani) in CGHS, the petitioner applied for that post by makingapplication dated 23/01/1996which was duly acknowledged in the respondent soffice vide receipt No. 448161 dated 23/01/1996. Subsequently, petitioner wasallotted roll No. 326 vide letter dated 12/04/1996 by the respondent. It is allegedthat on 3/12/1996 when the petitioner visited the office of the respondentto enquire about the recruitment to the post of Medical Officer (Unani) pursuant tothe aforesaid advertisement No. 1, he was orally informed that interviews are to beconducted on 9/12/1996 and call letters have already been despatched toshort-listed candidates. Petitioner was not called for interview. Aggrieved by thearbitrary action of the respondent, the petitioner filed O. A. on 5/12/1996 outof which the present petition arises. By way of interim direction respondent wasordered to interview the petitioner but his result was directed to be kept in a sealedcover. It was stated that the petitioner has a right to be considered to the post ofmedical Officer (Unani ). Relief claimed by the petitioner was that the respondentbe directed to declare the outcome of the interview held on 9/12/1996 andin case the petitioner is selected he may be issued offer of appointment to theaforesaid post. ( 3 ) IN the reply it is not denied that the petitioner appled in response to therespondent s advertisement for three posts of Medical Officer (Unani) and he wasallotted roll No. 326, as alleged. It is further not denied that the petitioner fulfilledall the essential and minimum qualificationsprescribed under recruitment rules forappointment to the said post bydirect recruitment. However, it is alleged that 445applications were received for the post. The petitioner was not called for interviewas he did not meet the short-listing criteria adopted by the respondent for callinggeneral candidates for interview. It is further not denied that the petitioner fulfilledall the essential and minimum qualificationsprescribed under recruitment rules forappointment to the said post bydirect recruitment. However, it is alleged that 445applications were received for the post. The petitioner was not called for interviewas he did not meet the short-listing criteria adopted by the respondent for callinggeneral candidates for interview. As per the interim order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6/12/1996, the petitioner was interviewed provisionallyon 9/12/1996. It is stated that the respondent s right to short-list thecandidates for interview has been upheld in many judgments passed by thetribunal /courts. ( 4 ) IT is urged by Mr. S. S. Tewari for the petitioner that on identical facts byan order passed on 2/04/1997 in O. A. No. 19/1997 by another Bench of the Centraladministrative Tribunal one Dr. Ali Murtaza has been directed to be considered bythe respondent to the post of Medical Officer (Unani) against the vacancies availablealongwith others and on the parity of the reasoning of the said order, respondentdeserves to be directed to declare the outcome of the interview held on 9/12/1996 in respect of the petitioner and in case he is selected, direction may be issuedto offer appointment to the petitioner against the aforesaid post. Copy of the orderpassed on 2/04/1997 by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 19/1997,dr. Ali Murtaza v. Director General, CGHS and Ors. , has been placed on record. Para6 of this order which is relevant reads thus : "in our opinion, whatever be the criteria adopted by the respondents forshort-listing, since the petitioner has been holding the post for more thanseven years, to the satisfaction of the respondents, and when a situationcomes when a regular incumbent is selected by UPSC and the petitioner islikely to be replaced by a regular incumbent in accordance with the rules,and the petitioner s application for candidature for the said post and insteadof being considered alongwith others for the said vacant post, were wronglyexcluded by the respondents by adopting undisclosed criteria of short-listing. The petitioner may not have any right for regular appointment/promotion and the petitioner s case is not that he may be considered forregularisation on account of his seven and a half years ad. hoc service either. The petitioner may not have any right for regular appointment/promotion and the petitioner s case is not that he may be considered forregularisation on account of his seven and a half years ad. hoc service either. His only request was that he may be considered alongwith others when thevacancy available is being filled up by the respondents, which will have aneffect of replacing him and his adhoc service. " ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent states as per her instructions, theabove order has not been challenged either in writ petition or in appeal beforesupreme Court by the respondent. Reasoning recorded aforementioned in para 6of the order is the basis for allowing O. A. No. 19/1997 by the Tribunal. ( 6 ) INDISPUTABLY the petitioner has been working as Medical Officer (Unani)on ad hoc basis for the last about 10 years and he possesses all the essential andminimum qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules for appointment tothe said post by drrect recruitment. Obviously, the service rendered on ad hoc basisby the petitioner has neither been taken into consideration while short-listing thegeneral candidates for interview by the respondent, nor by the Tribunal whilepassing the order under challenge. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we areof the view that on the same reasoning as recorded in aforementioned para 6 of theorder dated 2/04/1997, relief deserved to be granted to the petitioner. Since thepetitioner s case is akin to Dr. Ali Murtaza, he is entitled to the relief claimed for. Impugned order, thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed and the order dated 2/04/1997 isset aside. Respondent is directed to declare the petitioner s result of interview heldon 9/12/1996 which has been kept in a sealed cover. In case he is selectedhe will be offered appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Unani) within a periodof two months of the declaration of the result. No order as to costs.