JUDGMENT 1. - Central Administrative Tribunal (here in after referred to as the CAT) vide its impugned judgment dated 12.2.1998 had directed the present appellant to hold a review DPC/Board meeting in order to consider the cases of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Sarvashri Dr. M.N. Khan and I.K. Sharma for promotion to the post of Scientist-C and if found suitable for grant of promotion w.e.f. the date when other persons mentioned in the eligibility list dated 25.10.1995 had been granted such promotion with necessary consequential benefits. The above said direction in the impugned judgment Annexure-3 has been challenged by the Union of India in the present writ petition. 2. The admitted facts are that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had made a grievance before the CAT for not including the names of the applicants in the eligibility list of 25.10.1995 for appointment to the post of Scientist-C with a further prayer for issuing necessary orders correlating the order of promotion 30.6.1995 to the post of Scientist-B to the years to which the vacancies - list which promotions they had not been assigned the seniority date. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were initially appointed on the post of Assistant Hydro geologist in the Scale of Rs. 2000-3500 by direct recruitment through the Union Public Service Commission on 30.11.1983 and 15.6.1984 respectively. It was stated that they had become eligible for promotion to the post of Scientist-B (Junior Hydro geologist) in the grade of Rs. 2200-4000 on completion of three years service, but for the reason that the DPC for the promotion to the post of Scientist-B had met only in the year 1987 and had made recommendations for promotions against the vacancies of Scientist-B for the year upto 1985 only and thereafter for the reason that no DPC had met, the concerned respondents applicants had to wait for years together for consideration to the appointment as Scientist `B'. Representations were made but without any result. Ultimately the DPC had met in the year 1993 and recommendations were made. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted on 30.6.1995 on the post of Scientist-B but without indicating the year allocated against the post of Scientist-B. 3. An eligibility list was published for promotion to the post of Scientist-C, but their names were not included in the eligibility list apparently on the ground that the respondent Nos. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted on 30.6.1995 on the post of Scientist-B but without indicating the year allocated against the post of Scientist-B. 3. An eligibility list was published for promotion to the post of Scientist-C, but their names were not included in the eligibility list apparently on the ground that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had not completed five years of service in the grade of Scientist-8 which was the requirement of law/rules. Aggrieved on this count as well, representations were made with the prayer to treat the applicants eligible for promotion to the post of Scientist-C on the ground that had the names of the respondents be considered for Scientist `B' for the vacancies of the years 1987, 1988 or 1989, when they had also become eligible for promotion to the post of Scientist-C. 4. The CAT in the Judgment impugned had held that the regular service which is to be considered for the purpose of promotion would include not only the service actually rendered on the lower post, but also the period of service treated as having been rendered on account of the grant of seniority. It was held that in the seniority list published by the respondents on 1.1.1997, copy of which had been annexed before the CAT, the respondents had been treated senior to the persons who were appointed on the post of Scientist-B on 4.10.1990 (Shri Rana Chatterjee at Sr. No. 23) and, therefore, when the eligibility list was published on 25.10.1995, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would have completed five years service on the post of Scientist-B as per the rules and, therefore, it was held by the CAT that the applicants would have been eligible for being considered for the post of Scientist-B. It was further held that as per Schedule attached to the aforesaid recruitment rules, the officers who had rendered total service of 8 years in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 were also eligible for promotion to the post of Scientist-C. For the reasons that the respondent Nos. 2000-3500 were also eligible for promotion to the post of Scientist-C. For the reasons that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had joined service in the years 1983 and 1984 and continued in the post till their promotion as Scientist-B in the year 1995, they had completed 8 years of service by the time and had become eligible for promotion as Scientist-C as per notification dated 15.8.1995 and, therefore, it was held by the Tribunal that viewing from either angle the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were eligible for consideration for the post as If Scientist-C. 5. Aggrieved against such directions, the Union of India has filed the resent writ petition for quashing the order dated 12.2.1998 of the CAT. It is fated by the appellant Union of India that the Central Ground Water Board (Scientific Group `A' posts) Recruitment Rules notified in the year 1987 and 1995 provide different criteria for promotion of the officers of Hydrogeologv and Hydrology disciplines and further the Hydrogeology discipline cone'- posts of Asstt. Hydrologist, (now designated as Assistant Hydro `B' Rs. 2000-3500, Scientist-C (Group A Rs. 3000-4500), Scientist-D (Group `A' Rs. 3700-5000). According to the appellant, Hydrology Discipline consists of Junior Hydrologist (now designated as Asstt. Hydrologist) (Group-B Rs. 2000-3500), Scientist-C (Group `A' Rs. 3000-4500) and Scientist-D (Group `A' Rs. 3700-5000). 6. It is stated the promotions in the disciplines are made with three years of regular service; i.e. promotions to Scientist-B are made with three years regular service and the Scientist-B become eligible for promotion to the Grade of Scientist-C after completion of five years of service and then again to Scientist-D after completion of five years service. It was further submitted that in the Hydrogeologist discipline, Junior Hydrogeologist with 8 years of regular service in the grade becomes eligible to promotion to Scientist-C. 7. For determining the controversy, it is necessary to refer to the rules applicable. In the rules of 1987 published in the gazette of India rules of June is 6, 1987, the regular service had riot been defined. In rule 5 of 1987, the Junior Hydrogeologist, Junior Geographysics and Chemists and Hydrometerologist in the scale of Rs. For determining the controversy, it is necessary to refer to the rules applicable. In the rules of 1987 published in the gazette of India rules of June is 6, 1987, the regular service had riot been defined. In rule 5 of 1987, the Junior Hydrogeologist, Junior Geographysics and Chemists and Hydrometerologist in the scale of Rs. 2200- 4000 were redesignated as Scientist-B. Under the said rules for the promotion to the post of Scientist-C under Column 11, Scientist-B with live years regular service in the grade or equivalent or with 8 years regular service in the post in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 or equivalent were entitled to the promotion to the post of Scientist `C'. 8. Vide notification dated 28.6.1995 the Central Ground Water Board (Scientific Group `A' posts) Recruitment Rules were promulgated and earlier rules of 1987 were repealed. For the first time in the rules `regular service' was defined which means : "2(f). `Regular service' in relation to any grade means the period or periods of service in that grade rendered after selection and appointment thereto under these rules and includes any period ; or (i) taken into account for the purpose of seniority in the case of those appointed at the initial constitution of the service; (ii) during which an officer would have held a duty post in that grade but for being on leave or otherwise not being available for holding such post." 9. Under Rule 5 Junior Hydrogeologits were designated as Scientist-B. Rule 7 prescribes that the Board shall meet at least once a year and shall consider the cases of all departmental officers, who have rendered the requisite qualifying service in the respective grade on the 1st January of the year. Rule 7(2) provides the system of flexible complementing and `in situ' promotions shall be followed in the matter of promotion of departmental officers in the grade of Scientist-B, Scientist-C and Scientist-D to the respective higher grades, namely Scientist-C and Scientist-D. Rule 7(2)(b) provides that the departmental officers who have rendered in the respective grade the requisite regular service specified in Column (12) of the Schedule may be recommended by the Board of Assessment comprising the officers specified in Column (13). The relevant rule 7 for the purpose of present case is reproduced as under - 7. The relevant rule 7 for the purpose of present case is reproduced as under - 7. Future maintenance - (1) The Assessment Board as specified in the Schedule to the various posts shall meet at least once a year and shall consider the cases of all departmental officers, who have rendered the requisite qualifying service in the respective grade in the 1st January of the year following the year to which the departmental officers have become eligible for `in situ' promotion wherever applicable, to assess their suitability for promotion to the next higher grade. (2) The system of flexible complementing and in `situ' promotions shall be followed in the matter of promotion of departmental officers in the grades of Scientist `B', Scientist `C' and Scientist `D' to the respective higher grades. namely, Scientist `C' and Scientist `D' subject to the following conditions, namely : (a) the total number of officers taken together shall not exceed the total number of posts in the grades of Scientist `B'. Scientist `C' and Scientist `D' at any given point of time but there shall be complete flexibility in the number of posts in relation to the respective grades. (b) The departmental officers who have rendered in the respective grade the requisite regular service specified in column (12) of the Schedule may be recommended by the Board of Assessment comprising the officers specified in column (13) of the Schedule for promotion to the next higher grade. While evaluating the suitability of the officers for promotion, the Assessment Board shall take into consideration their qualifications, performance, merit and seniority. The selection shall be on basis of confidential reports and interview. However, the Assessment Board, may at their discretion, consider in absentia the candidature of such officer who is unable to present himself for the interview. The Assessment Board shall draw up a list of officers who are assessed as fit for promotion to the next higher grade. In so far as persons undergoing training in India or abroad (under F.R. 51) are concerned, they shall be promoted to the next higher grade with effect from the date they would have been so promoted had they not proceeded on training subject to the following conditions being fulfilled." 10. The remaining part of the rule relates to number of vacancies to be determined. 11. The remaining part of the rule relates to number of vacancies to be determined. 11. In Schedule attached with the said rules for direct recruitment and promoted officers for Scientist `C', five years regular service in the grade or 8 years regular service in the post in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 or equivalent was essential. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the applicants had rightly approached before the CAT for removal of the grievances and it cannot be said that the CAT had misled itself in awarding the relief of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Under Rule 7 it was mandatory for the respondents to have held the DPC meeting and to consider the names of such respondents along with others in due time. The appellant failed to convene the meeting. It was not so done for number of years and ultimately in the year 1993 the meeting was held. From the order of promotion as Scientist-B, it has not been mentioned as to from which year they had being promoted. The respondents were entitled to be allocated the year of promotion as was being done in the case of other employees similarly situated. Had the appellant held the meeting of the DPC and acted in accordance with rules, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would have been allotted the year of promotion as Scientist B in accordance with the rules. On both counts. the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were entitled to the relief sought for. They had completed more than 8 years of service for being considered to be eligible to be included in the eligibility list of the candidates for Scientist-C after completion of 8 years so of service. The Tribunal had also gone into the fact that even the junior person to that of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were included in the eligibility list for consideration to the post of Scientist-C. 12. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that in case the Government fails to hold examination for several years, persons who had exhausted the chances cannot be denied the seniority and it is unreasonable and arbitrary to penalise such person for default of the Government to hold examination every year. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that in case the Government fails to hold examination for several years, persons who had exhausted the chances cannot be denied the seniority and it is unreasonable and arbitrary to penalise such person for default of the Government to hold examination every year. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Jagan Nath Achyut Karandikar, AIR 1989 SC 1133 , it was observed as under : "The person who has not exhausted the available chances to appear in the examination could not be denied of his seniority. It would be unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary to penalise a person for the default of the Government to hold the examination every year. If the examination was riot held in any year, the person who has not exhausted all the permissible chances has a right to have his case considered for promotion even if he has completed 9 years service. The Government instead of promoting such persons in their turn made them to wait till they passed the examination. They were the persons falling into the category of `Late Passing'. To remove the hardship caused to them the Government restored their legitimate seniority in the promotional cadre. Therefore, there was nothing improper or illegal in the action of the State Government." 13. Similarly in Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and others v. Union of India and others- (1996)8 SCC 637 , it was held that if the appointment was delayed due to laches on the part of the department, the official is entitled to appointment according to rules and the plea to treat him not having the requisite length of service for proration, by computing the same from the date of joining was rejected. 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons as discussed above, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and the direction given by the CAT which is in conformity with the service rules and, therefore, dismiss the writ petition. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall be entitled to a cost of Rs. 2000/-.Writ Petition dismissed. *******