Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1551 (RAJ)

Avinash Kant v. Central Administrative Tribunal

2000-12-21

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, RAJESH BALIA

body2000
Honble BAILIA, J.–A short point is raised in this petition. The petitioner was initially appointed as Khalasi in Northern Railway, Jodhpur in the year 1981. Vide Advertisement No. 1/84, applications were invited by the Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer for a number of posts which included the posts of Clerks Gr. I and Senior Clerks. The petitioner submitted an application for selection to the post of Clerk Gr. I as well as Senior Clerk. He was called for selection and after undergoing the entire process of selection, a panel was issued on 27.8.1985 which contained the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 27. Vide letter dated 13.9.1985, the petitioner was intimated that he has been selected for appointment to the post of Clerk Gr. I and has been allotted the office of the Divisional Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, Jodhpur and the appointment will be given to him by that office. This letter is Annx. 2 which is reproduced hereinbelow:- RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD 41/32, Majo College Road Ajmer 305 001. No. RRB/RECT/84-85 (1/84) Employment Notice No. 1184 Roll No. 108275 108092 To, Avinash Kant Gaur s/o Shri Krishna Kant Gaur, 14, Sangidas Thanvi Building, Inside Pole, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital Road, Jodhpur. With reference to your application for the post of Clerk Gr. I notified in Employment Notice No. 1184 Category No. 3 you are informed that:- You have qualified in the written Examination/Interview, but your final appointment will be made by the office of the Divisional Accounts Office, Northern Railway, who will in due course send you an offer of appointment provided you are otherwise suitable. NOTE ; NO FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE WILL BE ENTERTAINED Sd/- for Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer. (2). In pursuance of this letter, the petitioner was given appointment vide order dated 4.8.1987. Subsequent to that, the petitioner was transferred from the office of Accounts Officer, Traffic Accounts, Northern Railway to office of Divisional Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, Jodhpur on 24.05.1988. The petitioner in due course passed the Appendix II-A Test and was consequently promoted to the post of Accounts Assistant. In the year 1990, Appendix III-A Test was held for appointment/promotion to the post of Section Officer (Accounts) in which the petitioner was declared successful on 31.07.1991 and a panel was prepared on 11.5.92. In this panel Annx. The petitioner in due course passed the Appendix II-A Test and was consequently promoted to the post of Accounts Assistant. In the year 1990, Appendix III-A Test was held for appointment/promotion to the post of Section Officer (Accounts) in which the petitioner was declared successful on 31.07.1991 and a panel was prepared on 11.5.92. In this panel Annx. 6, the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 17 on the basis of the placement of his name in the panel for clerks Gr. I dated 27.8.1985. This panel was subsequently changed vide communication dated 2.12.1992. In the panels dated 2.12.1992 and 15.2.1993 the petitioner has been assigned the position on the basis of his name in the panel of Clerks Gr. I issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer on 27.5.87. The petitioner made representations to the superior authorities and ultimately filed Original Application No. 56/93 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners case was that as per Paragraph 306 regulating seniority of non-gazetted railway servants, a candidate for appointment at an earlier selection shall be senior to those selected later irrespective of the date of posting. The petitioner having been selected for appointment on the grade of Clerk Grade I and informed of such selection for appointment vide Annx. 2 dated 13.9.1985, his date of selection remains 27.8.1985 and it could not have been changed to the date of panel issued in year 1987 when actual posting orders were issued to him. The placement in the panel of selection for Accounts Assistant dated 19.5.92 was rightly made on the basis of his empanelment dated 27.8.1985. Therefore, his placement ought to have been made in the panel of 2.12.92 also as per his name in the panel of Clerks Gr. I dated 27.8.1985 and placement as disclosed in the panel dated 19.5.92 could not have been altered in the panel dated 2.12.92 and panels prepared subsequent thereto. (3). The Original Application was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 21.5.1997. Aggrieved with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, this writ petition has been filed. (4). The petitioners case is that the petitioner underwent the regular selection process in pursuance of advertisement No. 1/1984 in the year 1985 and result of his submission to such test was also declared on 27.8.85 by declaring him successful. Aggrieved with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, this writ petition has been filed. (4). The petitioners case is that the petitioner underwent the regular selection process in pursuance of advertisement No. 1/1984 in the year 1985 and result of his submission to such test was also declared on 27.8.85 by declaring him successful. He was informed vide letter dated 13.9.1985 that he has been selected for appointment as a result of the aforesaid selection held in pursuance of aforesaid advertisement issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer. Said information to the petitioner dated 13.9.1985 has never been withdrawn. Thus, the petitioner was duly selected and informed of his selection for appointment as Clerk Gr. I in the year 1985. Thereafter, when the appointment/posting orders are issued, it is the act of the respondents on which the petitioner has no control. As per Paragraph 306, the petitioners seniority inter se between the persons selected in 1985 and later selected has to be as per the date of selection and not as per the date of appointment. It was also contended by the learned counsel that notwithstanding delay in issuing appointment orders and notwithstanding holding of an enquiry in the alleged irregularities in the selection process of 1985, the selection of the petitioner made in 1985 was never cancelled. The fact that certain persons who were earlier left out to be called for selection but ought to have been called were also interviewed later on and as per their result their names were also included in the panel of selected candidates in order of their merit, it would not detract from the fact that the petitioner was in fact selected as per result of selection test taken by him on 27.5.85 and his result as a successful candidate was never recalled and was not selected for appointment on a later date. Mere alteration in order of merit in empanelment will not result in shifting the date of selection for appointment from 27.5.85 to 1987. Mere alteration in order of merit in empanelment will not result in shifting the date of selection for appointment from 27.5.85 to 1987. It can at best be said that who were not called for selection due to fault of the respondents who ought to have been called for selection, when such error was brought to the notice of the recruiting authority they corrected the error by calling those persons only who were left out for interview, and were also successfully selected for appointment, they too became part of the existing panel. Since because of their inclusion, there was change in merit position, the select list was issued to reflect their placement amongst the selected candidates, prepared the result and according to their result made the placement in the existing select list. Those persons, who had been subjected to selection process of the very same year later than the petitioner because of the fault of the administration, can claim to be the members of class of persons selected for appointment as per selection held in 1985 but on that account the year of selection of the petitioner cannot be shifted from 1985 to that of 1987 when actual posting orders were issued. Merely departmental communication by the Chairman, Recruitment Board, without subjecting the persons who had underwent selection process in the year 1985 and empanelled for appointment on 27.8.85 which remained unaffected, could not be altered without holding a fresh selection on by cancelling the earlier selections in accordance with law. The mere alternation in the select list as a result of supplemental selections made in 1987 would not make any difference. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at any rate the respondents have acted in breach of principles of natural justice in affecting the rights of the petitioner adversely, he has been informed of his selection in the year 1985, that information was never withdrawn and he has been given appointment only in pursuance of that selection. Thereafter in the panel prepared on 19.5.92, for appointment on the post of Accounts Asstt. also he was assigned his place as per his empanelment dt. 27.8.85. Thereafter in the panel prepared on 19.5.92, for appointment on the post of Accounts Asstt. also he was assigned his place as per his empanelment dt. 27.8.85. The respondents cannot change the year of selection of appointment made in 1985 to 1987 without affording an opportunity of hearing and to explain the rules in proper perspective to the authorities, the Tribunal has patently erred in not considering the aforesaid position of law. (5). The respondents, while do not dispute that Paragraph 306 governs the case of inter se seniority of those persons who have been selected earlier in past of time to be considered senior to those who have been selected later but has urged that because of some error crept in the selection made in 1985, the panel prepared in 1985 was never given effect to and the fresh panel was prepared by the recruitment Board in 1987 and the petitioner was given appointment only in the panel sent by the Recruitment Board in the 1987, therefore, his year of appointment and year of selection remains the same and therefore, he has rightly been placed in the panel of 12th Feb., 1992 as the person selected for appointment in the year 1987. (6). A perusal of the rules regulating seniority of non-gazetted railway servants reveal that seniority of an incumbent is required to be considered in multifold aspects. Chapter III governs the principle of which seniority of an incumbent of non- gazetted cadre is to be determined. Paragraph 302 envisages that unless specifically stated otherwise, the seniority among the incumbents of a post in a grade is governed by the date of appointment to the grade. It further reveals that it also lays down the criterion for fixing seniority inter-se amongst the promotees and direct recruits where the posts are partially filled by direct recruitment and partially by promotion. While laying the principle operating roster system for determining seniority inter-se between the direct recruits and promotees, it further envisages that in each group promotee shall maintain their inter- se seniority which is already existing. Obviously, this rule lays down the general criterion for fixing individual seniority as well as the date from which the seniority of the incumbent is to be computed which ordinarily shall be the date of the appointment to the grade. Obviously, this rule lays down the general criterion for fixing individual seniority as well as the date from which the seniority of the incumbent is to be computed which ordinarily shall be the date of the appointment to the grade. However, this principle is not absolute in term and is subject to other provisions of the rules. That is to say if other specific provisions are there to determine the seniority of an incumbent in given circumstances rule under Paragraph 302 gives way to special provision in other Regulations. Paragraphs following paragraph 302 contain such specific rules. (7). Paragraph 303 operates on the field where the recruitment is by Railway Recruitment Board or by any other recruitment authority. It provides that in case candidates who are sent for initial training to a training school, their inter-se seniority shall be determined in order of merit obtained in the examination held at the end of the relevant training period before being posted against working post and where a candidates is not required to undergo training to the training schools, his inter- se seniority is required to be determined in order of merit assigned at selection by the recruiting authority. Paragraph 304 is in the form of explanation to Paragraph 303 by providing that when two or more persons share the same place in merit at one and the same examination, their inter-se seniority is to be determined by the date of birth, the older candidate being the senior. Paragraph 305 is rider to Paragraphs 303 and 304. It provides that where a person whose seniority is to be governed under Paragraphs 303 and 304, is unable to join his duty within a reasonable time, he looses his seniority in accordance with merit and is placed at the bottom below all the candidates selected at the same examination who have joined within the time allowed for reporting duty or even below candidates of later selection who have joined earlier than him. (8). Before examining Paragraph 306, the focal point of the contentions raised in this case, the salient character of the scheme of determining seniority under the regulations may be noticed in the context of plea. (8). Before examining Paragraph 306, the focal point of the contentions raised in this case, the salient character of the scheme of determining seniority under the regulations may be noticed in the context of plea. While Paragraph 302 provides for starting date for assignment of seniority of any individual, Paragraph 303 and 304 refer to the principle giving inter-se seniority that amongst candidates selected at the very same examination/selection for appointment and offered appointments simultaneously. Such inter-se seniority is to be computed on the basis of merit at the same examination/selection, the older candidate being the senior subject to that a person who fails to join within the time allowed for joining as per the appointment order, he looses his seniority in order of merit but relegated to the assignment of seniority with effect from the date of joining only. It may further be noticed that Paragraph 302 is not absolute in terms but is subject to specific provisions of other paragraphs. In contract with the aforesaid Paragraphs 302 to 305, Paragraph 306 refers to seniority of number of persons as a class and not seniority of an individual. Paragraph 306 speaks of seniority of persons selected for appointment at one and the same selection vis a vis persons so selected at a later selection. Paragraph 306 reads as under:- ``306. Candidates selected for appointment at an earlier selection shall be senior to those selected later irrespective of the dates of posting except in the case covered by paragraph 305 above. (9). It is abundantly clear that this talks of seniority of a group of persons in plural and lays down the principle that candidates selected for appointment at an earlier selection shall as a class be senior to those selected later irrespective of the date of posting except in the case governed by Paragraph 305. As explained above, Paragraph 305 operates where a person fails to join within a reasonable time after receipt of the orders of appointment. Paragraph 305 does not come in operation where the appointment orders itself has been issued after lapse of long time. As explained above, Paragraph 305 operates where a person fails to join within a reasonable time after receipt of the orders of appointment. Paragraph 305 does not come in operation where the appointment orders itself has been issued after lapse of long time. Therefore, where a person fails to join within a reasonable time or the time allowed for joining under the orders of appointment, he looses his seniority in terms of Paragraph 303/304 and relegated to determination of seniority under Paragraph 302 with reference to date of actual joining and that principle remains unaffected under Paragraph 306. However, where Paragraph 305 does not operate while inter-se seniority of individual amongst the persons, selected for appointment at the same examination/selection, is determined in order of merit, those candidates as a class with their inter-se seniority rank senior to persons selected at a later selection/examination. Paragraph 306 has nothing to do with inter-se seniority of the persons appointed at the same examination/selection. The same principle applies even in a case of determining seniority of persons selected for promotional vacancies by dint of Paragraph 309. (10). From the aforesaid scheme of the relevant paragraphs for the present purposes, it must be held that the date of appointment is not the exclusive criterion for determining seniority of an incumbent in the non-gazetted service. Paragraph 302 in its abstract form applies only where Paragraphs 303, 304, 305 or 306 cannot operate whether for determining the inter-se seniority amongst the candidates of the same selection or whether determining the inter-se seniority amongst one group of selected candidates at the one examination vis a vis another group of selected candidates at a subsequent examination. While considering the case of 306 vis a vis two different selection, the inter-se seniority amongst the same selection looses importance. Another important feature of Paragraph 306 is that it renders the date of posting, except in the case covered by Paragraph 305, irrelevant for the purpose of considering inter-se seniority of the two classes of persons. It envisages that if for any reason a person selected at an earlier examination who is given appointment and joins within a reasonable time fixed for joining at any time later, it would not alter his seniority vis a vis a person selected at a later examination/selection held for appointment, notwithstanding the candidates selected at later selection joins the post earlier. (11). (11). It is in the aforesaid scenario, if one looks at the facts of the present case, the undisputable position emerges is that the petitioner was subjected to the examination/selection in pursuance of Advertisement No.1/84 in the year 1985, the result of that examination was declared in 1985, and the candidates who were selected were also informed about their selection for appointment in the year 1985. That information given to those selectees was never withdrawn or cancelled. In the absence of any letter informing cancellation of the selections made in the year 1985, subsequent alteration in the order of merit because of amendment carried out on account of an enquiry into alleged irregularities committed in the selection and that irregularity having been rectified by a supplementary selection proceedings held for the persons kept out of selection process completed in 1985, would render those persons who have been included in the list of selected candidates for appointment as the candidates selected for appointment at the examinations 1985 and they will be assigned their due place in order of merit as per marks obtained by them but that would not alter the date of selection of the candidates who were subjected to the selection process in 1985 and result was also notified to the successful candidates that they have been selected for appointment. It was a consequential act that after the merit list was slightly changed on account of five persons subjected to the supplementary selection proceedings held in 1987, who on being found suitable were assigned their due place in the merit list and a consolidated merit list was again issued, and the information about candidates selection for appointment transmitted to the petitioner was never withdrawn. As noti- ced above, the inter-se merit of persons included in list of 1985 and later because of a supplementary process undergone in 1987, in accordance with marks obtained, their inter-se seniority shall be as per Paragraph 303/304 but as a group they will rank senior to persons selected for appointment on a later date after 27.8.85. As noti- ced above, the inter-se merit of persons included in list of 1985 and later because of a supplementary process undergone in 1987, in accordance with marks obtained, their inter-se seniority shall be as per Paragraph 303/304 but as a group they will rank senior to persons selected for appointment on a later date after 27.8.85. The further conclusion is irresistible that all those persons selected and appointed in pursuance of the selection held in 1985 including the persons selected through the supplementary process undertaken in 1987 amongst the persons selected at the examination/selection of 1985 would not alter their claim to placement in seniority on the basis of the date of selection in 1985 vis a vis selections made by other Recruitment Boards on the basis of respective date of result declared by them. This is so obviously because merely appointment of any person out of persons selected after 22.5.85 before any person selected as on 27.8.85 would as per regulations make no difference on the inter-se seniority of two persons selected at different selections, as the same would be determined as the basis of date of selection for appointment and not on the basis of date of joining. The position would have been different, had a new selection would have taken place after cancelling the selection held in 1985. In that event, the slate would have been cleared for new selection which would have taken place at a later date. (12). In view of aforesaid, the claim of the petitioner that he was a candidate selected for appointment vide Advertisement No. 1/84 as per result declared on 27.08.1985 and informed of such selection for appointment vide letter dated 13.9.85 has substance, and he is entitled to claim the seniority amongst selections held after 27.8.85 by the same or other Recruitment Boards. While the question of determining inter-se seniority between persons as a group selected by two different Recruitment Boards would arise, Paragraph 306 would be relevant for the purpose of fixing their seniority as a class, according to which obviously the persons who were selected under the selection held in pursuance of advertisement No. 1/84 and declared successful for appointment as per result dt. 27.8.85 with altered merit order due to supplementary selections for some wrongfully left out candidates due to mistake of the respondents vide, amended in 1987, shall rank senior to the persons selected for appointment by any other Recruitment Board or recruitment authority after 27.8.1985 as a class while the inter-se seniority of the same class of persons under the same selections would be determined in order of merit under Paragraph 304 or 305, as the case may be. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this petition merits acceptance on this ground alone. (13). Apart from above, it is also apparent that in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/84, the selections were held in 1985 for the post of Clerk Gr. I as well as Senior Clerk. The panel for both cadres were simultaneously issued on 27.8.85 and both the panels were modified in 1987. The petitioner has been offered appointment on the post of Clerk Gr. I. Notwithstanding the two selections by the same Recruitment Board under the same advertisement, for both of which the petitioner was applicant, so far as the panel of Senior Clerk is concerned, all the candidates were assigned seniority vis a vis other candidates selected by different Recruitment Boards from their respective year of selection i.e. in the year 1985 but in the very same circumstances, so far as the panel of Clerk Gr. I is concerned to which the petitioner belongs, under the very same selection/examination, they have been assigned seniority with effect from 1987 only vis a vis candidates selected through other Recruitment Boards prior to that date but later than their empanelment in 1985. That obviously spells out a clear case of hostile and irrational discrimination. There has been specific averment in ground (g) of the writ petition to the effect that while the seniority has been assigned to the persons empanelled for Senior Clerks in pursuance of selections of 1985 and seniority has been so assigned on that basis but empanelled under the very same selection process as Clerk Gr. I in 1985 have been assigned seniority on the basis of revised merit list issued in 1987 whereas both the panels had undergone same changes due to supplementary selection that has taken place in 1987. I in 1985 have been assigned seniority on the basis of revised merit list issued in 1987 whereas both the panels had undergone same changes due to supplementary selection that has taken place in 1987. We see no discernible reason on the basis of which the candidates empanelled in pursuance of recruitment process conducted by the Recruitment Board, Ajmer in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/84, for both of which the petitioner was an applicant, could be treated differently in the manner of assigning seniority on principle on the basis of which this differential treatment could be sustained. (14). It may be pertinent to notice, and these facts are borne out from the fact that in the first instance the respondents have taken the stand before the Central Administrative Tribunal that altogether fresh selections had taken after cancelling the panel prepared in 1985 and the petitioner was also subjected to the selection test once again and he has been selected in pursuance of the selection of 1987. When the petitioner challenged this assertion and moved petitioner challenged this assertion and moved an application for taking appropriate proceedings in that regard and for production of the record a supplementary affidavit was filed retracing the assertions that the petitioner was subjected to selection test again after the cancellation of 1985 panel. In fact, no new selection had taken place. Only those persons, who according to respondents were wrongly left out of selection process in 1985 but who ought to have been called for such selection in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/84, but not recalling the result already declared. Only after the result of supplementary selection was also known, the merit list of successful candidates was sent to the appointing authority including some new names in order of merit. It is only while issuing such revised list that the Chairman of the Recruitment Board stated that the panel sent earlier is cancelled. This further reflects that the name of the petitioner and of other persons like him who had been selected in 1985 was also sent to appointing authority and about selection the successful candidates were also informed and required to await appointment in due course. The petitioner, who was one such candidate, was never informed of any cancellation of panel, but was given posting in 1987 only and he joined duty in pursuance thereof. The petitioner, who was one such candidate, was never informed of any cancellation of panel, but was given posting in 1987 only and he joined duty in pursuance thereof. It is apparent that selection of petitioner for appointment made in 1985 was never cancelled. Only the panel prepared giving order of merit, on the basis of which their inter-se seniority could be determined, was revised. The determination of inter-se seniority on the basis of merit could not alter dates of selection for appointment. Principle under Paragraph 306 is clear it speaks of `SELECTION FOR APPOINTMENT as the basis of inter-se seniority of the candidates selected at two different selections and does not speak of `date of empanelment after selection for appointment. The Tribunal has apparently erred in not noticing this distinction. (15). It is further apparent that in the panel prepared on 11.05.1992 after the petitioner was selected for appointment/promotion on clearing Appendix III-A Test for the post of Section Officer (Accounts), his name was shown at Serial No. 17 on the basis of his placement in the panel for Clerk Gr. I dated 27.8.85. This position was subsequently changed vide panel dated 2.12.92. This alteration did affect the petitioner adversely as it seriously affected his seniority and chances of future promotions in the cadre. Such an order could not be made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which has not been so offered to him. (16). Learned counsel for the respondent has urged that assuming that the petitioner was selected for appointment in the year 1985, still it did not give him any right for appointment and therefore he cannot claim any right to seniority on the basis of said selection which has taken place vide empanelment dated 27.8.85, until appointment is actually made no right is created, and therefore, he is not entitled to claim seniority on the basis of inclusion in the select list. He has placed reliance on two decisions of Supreme Court reported in State of Haryana vs. Subhash Chandra Marwaha & Ors. (1), and Jatinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2). We do not find any substance in this contention also. The petitioner is not seeking appointment on the basis of inclusion of his name in the select list. In fact, the petitioner has been offered appointment and he accepted the same in pursuance of the selection held. (1), and Jatinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2). We do not find any substance in this contention also. The petitioner is not seeking appointment on the basis of inclusion of his name in the select list. In fact, the petitioner has been offered appointment and he accepted the same in pursuance of the selection held. We are not called upon to deal with situation where a person whose name has been included in the select list but he has not been offered appointment and a mandamus is sought for issuing direction to give him an appointment. We are concerned with a question where a person has been given appointment after due selection. How his seniority is to be fixed? It needs no argument that generally the seniority in the absence of any rules is to be determined with effect from the date of appointment. But where there are specific rules governing the determination of seniority, the seniority has to be assigned in accordance with those rules alone. In the present case, the claim of the petitioner is only to determination of his seniority in accordance with the rules framed by the respondents themselves. In the matter of determining this question, principle that `inclusion in the select list gives no right to appointment has no application. (17). The object of scheme appears to be that no one should be affected merely because of administrative delays in offering appointments once a candidate is selected for appointment, because of fortuitous circumstance, when in fact the administration decides to offer appointment. It is trite to say that when a person is selected for appointment, mere that fact does not give him a right of appointment. Therefore, in such event, no right to determine seniority arise. It is also trite that when appointments are in fact made such appointments must ordinarily take place in order of merit at selection if otherwise no ineligibility or disqualification is attached to the incumbent. This explains Paragraph 302 when it says, `the date of posting is the foundation for determining seniority. Therefore, once after selection is made, appointments are made, they rank in inter-se seniority also in order of merit, if they join their posting within time allowed. This is reflected in the scheme of regulations under Para 303 to 305. This explains Paragraph 302 when it says, `the date of posting is the foundation for determining seniority. Therefore, once after selection is made, appointments are made, they rank in inter-se seniority also in order of merit, if they join their posting within time allowed. This is reflected in the scheme of regulations under Para 303 to 305. Paragraph 306 further makes clear that while those who are appointed after selection, and their inter-se seniority is to be fixed in order of merit at the time of training or selection, as the case may, be irrespective of date of joining the post except when the candidates join after expiry of time allowed for joining under Paragraph 305, as a group those who have been selected for appointment and offered appointments also, they as group rank get seniority not on the basis of posting but on the basis of date of selection which has fructified in appointment orders than those who have been selected later and appointed. It is also well settled that seniority has to be determined in accordance with rules that govern such determination. (18). The petitioner was selected for appointment in 1985 and he was informed about it on 27.8.85. No other selection for the petitioner has taken place. He was also never informed about cancellation of his selection dated 27.8.85. Then it is not discernible that if petitioner is not appointed in pursuance of selection for appointment vide letter dated 27.8.85, then in pursuance of which other selection he could have been appointed. If the selection of 1985 is deemed to be cancelled as contended by the respondents, the petitioner or for that matter any person declared successful in 1985 alongwith petitioner could at all have been appointed. No body could have been appointed in pursuance of a selection that has been cancelled. Therefore, if the petitioner has been appointed, he could have been and has been so appointed only in pursuance of selection made in 1985 as intimated vide letter dated 27.8.85. Empanelment had dual purpose, one to enlist selected candidates, second to disclose their merit so as to determine their inter-se seniority. Therefore, if the petitioner has been appointed, he could have been and has been so appointed only in pursuance of selection made in 1985 as intimated vide letter dated 27.8.85. Empanelment had dual purpose, one to enlist selected candidates, second to disclose their merit so as to determine their inter-se seniority. In the circumstances, when the petitioner was given appointment in pursuance of selection made in 1985 but in order of merit as per empanelment in 1987, the cancellation of empanelment of 1985 while issuing fresh empanelment of 1985 while issuing fresh empanelment with altered merit list, such cancellation of empanelment cannot be equated with cancellation of selection, but only altering the order of merit and order of issuing posting order. Under Para 306, posting orders are irrelevant as seen above. The cancellation of 1st empanelment was obviously necessitated because two panels with different merit order could not operate simultaneously. Had the petitioner been posted in pursuance of result informed to him in 1985, and because of default of respondents selecting Authority, those persons who had been wrongly left out were subjected to a separate selection test for rectifying the mistake, the result would have been the same viz. the candidates so selected at subsequent but selection was sequal to 1985 selection would take their place amongst 1985 selectees in order of their merit, for their inter-se merit notwithstanding earlier appointment of petitioner. That is the clear out-come of Paragraphs 306 and 303 read together. Paragraph 306 speaks about date of selection for appointment under same selection and clearly excludes the consideration of date of posting and Paragraph 303 provides criterion of merit for determining inter-se seniority. If any other view is taken, it would have resulted in anomalous situation that while as per inter-se seniority person selected at supplementary or squeal examination would have ranked senior to the petitioner, but as per date of appointment very same person will rank junior. This justifies the conclusion that empanelling and posting are not the relevant criterion but of relevance is of which selection process they are party. (19). As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this petition succeeds. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 21.5.97 is set aside and the original application No. 56/1993 filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal is allowed. (19). As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this petition succeeds. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 21.5.97 is set aside and the original application No. 56/1993 filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal is allowed. The assignment of the seniority to the petitioner in the orders passed by the respondents dated 2.12.92 and 15.2.93 on the basis of empanelment in 1987 vis a vis persons selected after 27.8.85 is held to be invalid and the respondents are directed to fix the seniority of the petitioner in the panel of candidates for promotion to the post of Section Officer (Accounts) on the basis of his selection for appointment to the post of Clerk Gr. I published on 27.8.85. Effect to this order shall be given within a period of three months. (20). There shall be no orders as to costs.