JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petitions preferred against an order dated 24.3.2000 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur in OA No. 24/97, wherein the petitioner sought relief for directing the respondents (a) to work out zone of consideration for the vacancies on the post of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Gr. 1) (for short APFC) for the year 1982 onwards and then to hold a Review DPC for the year 1983 & 1986 and thereby promote him as APFC (Gr 1) retrospectively; (b) to recast the seniority list of APFC (Gr 1) for the year 1982 placing him at proper place; and (c) to promote him as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Gr. II) as per recast seniority. 2. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Provident Fund Inspector Gr. I upon his selection made by Union Public Service Commission in September 1979. He was also promoted as APFC Gr. I w.e.f. 14.1.85. The petitioner remained suspended in two phases (1) from 2.3.87 to 30.4.89 and then (2) from 19.1.90 to 23.1.90 and that apart departmental inquiry was also pending against him, wherein he was exonerated by order dated 20.7.94. However, the petitioner was promoted as APFC (Gr. I) on regular basis w.e.f 29.1.91 by order 17.8.1996 (Ann. 6). 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was eligible for promotion on the post of APFC (I) after completion of 3 years' service as per the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (Commissioners) Recruitment Rules, 1966 (for brevity Rules, 1966) inasmuch as he had not earned any adverse entry, but the respondent department did not consider his case for regular promotion against vacancies of year 1984 despite there having been vacancies of the years 1981 to 1986. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Having considered the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the impugned order of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that since the petitioner was not within zone of consideration, he was not considered against vacancies of 1983 by the DPC met on 6.6.94, and for the vacancy of 1983-84 the DPC met on 21/22.8.86 though the petitioner was considered for promotion but the DPC did not consider him fit because better graded officers from feeder cader were available; and even review DPC convened on 8.7.94 considered his case for promotion but again did not recommended him. Similarly, the DPCs convened in June 1989 and on 14.1.91 for vacancies of the years 1985 and 1989 had also considered the case for promotion but since departmental inquiry was pending again him, sealed cover procedure was adopted by the DPC and after exoneration, the sealed cover was opened but the petitioner was found to have been not recommended for being promoted for those years 1985 and 1989. The DPC convened for vacancies of years subsequent to 1989, again considered the petitioner's case for promotion and recommended him for being promoted on regular basis w.e.f. 29.1.1991, by order dated 19.8.94 (Ann. 6). 5. Thus it can be held that the petitioner was duly considered for the vacancies of the years 1984, 1986 and 1989 but was not recommended by the DPC for being promoted for those years. Secondly, as per Schedule of the aforesaid Rules, 1966, the post of APFC (I) is a selection post. Hence, once the petitioner was considered for selection post but not recommended and selected feeder cadre having more merit than the petitioner were available, we do not find any illegality or perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned order of the Tribunal or the order of promotion passed for the vacancies of the years in question. 6. As a result of the above discussion, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******