( 1 ) IN this Appeal No. 14404 of 1996, the appellant, who was selected and promoted on ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineer in the Union Territory of daman and Diu, assailed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, bombay Bench, in OA No. 1053 of 1992. Respondent 1 who was also a junior Engineer along with the appellant in the said Union Territory, filed an application before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the Departmental promotion Committee did not take the appropriate criteria for adjudging the inter se seniority for promotion in question and that the Departmental promotion Committee was not duly constituted in accordance with the relevant office memorandum and as such the decision taken by the said departmental Promotion Committee is vitiated. The Tribunal relying upon the earlier decision of the said Tribunal having set aside the appointment made in favour of the appellant, the present appeal has been preferred. ( 2 ) ON the facts averred, it appears that the appellant was appointed as junior Engineer in January 1976 whereas Respondent 1, who was the applicant before the Tribunal was appointed as Junior Engineer on 6-2-1976. A post of Assistant Engineer having fallen vacant in the year 1987, the departmental Promotion Committee considered the cases of all the eligible persons and selected the appellant. On the basis of the said selection, the appellant was appointed on promotion as Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis on 18-1-1990. Respondent 1 approached the Tribunal in the year 1992 assailing the aforesaid promotion of the appellant to the post of Assistant engineer. As already stated, the Tribunal being of the opinion that the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee is vitiated, as held earlier, in OA No. 138 of 1990 and that the relevant guidelines issued by the ministry of Personnel, Government of India not having been followed, as held by the said Tribunal in OA No. 302 of 1990, set aside the appointment of the appellant to the post of Assistant Engineer and directed that fresh and proper Departmental Promotion Committee should be constituted and the process of selection may be made afresh. It is this order and direction of the tribunal which is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. It is this order and direction of the tribunal which is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. ( 3 ) MR B. N. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that the Departmental Promotion Committee committed serious error in not following the guidelines of the Ministry of Personnel, Government of India inasmuch as the said guidelines had never been adopted by the administration of Daman and Diu. At any rate, the post in question had fallen vacant prior to the issuance of the aforesaid guidelines and therefore the said guidelines could not have formed the basis for determining the criteria for promotion. On the question of invalidity of the constitution of the Departmental promotion Committee, it is contended that in the absence of any statutory rules and on the basis of a memorandum a Departmental Promotion committee having been constituted, it would be well within the power of the said Committee to take the assistance of an expert for assessing the technical abilities to adjudge the suitability for promotion and therefore even if an expert like the Superintending Engineer was assisting the Departmental promotion Committee, the ultimate decision of the Departmental Promotion committee would not be vitiated. It was also further contended that the constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee which was the subject-matter for consideration in OA No. 138 of 1990 was for the post of executive Engineer and not for Assistant Engineer. ( 4 ) MS Amareswari, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, however, vehemently urged that the very same Departmental promotion Committee was considering the case of promotion both to the post of Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer and therefore the reasons assigned by the Central Administrative Tribunal in deciding OA No. 138 of 1990 to hold that the constitution of the said Committee got vitiated because of the active participation of an outsider, like the Superintending Engineer who could influence would apply to the selection made for the post of assistant Engineer. She also further contended that in view of the relevant government order indicating the constitution of the Departmental Promotion committee, it would not be appropriate for the Committee to take the assistance of any other person than those mentioned in the notification. She also further contended that in view of the relevant government order indicating the constitution of the Departmental Promotion committee, it would not be appropriate for the Committee to take the assistance of any other person than those mentioned in the notification. The order of the Tribunal in OA No. 138 of 1990 was confirmed by the dismissal of the SLP, and thus it must be held that the decision made therein is the law of the land and would apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Ms Amareswari further contended that the Tribunal also committed no illegality in applying the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel indicating the benchmark to the criteria and since by the date the departmental Promotion Committee considered the case of promotion the relevant guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel were in force, the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee being contrary to the same, stood vitiated and thus the Tribunal did not commit any error in setting aside the impugned selection for the post of Assistant Engineer. ( 5 ) IN view of the rival submissions, two questions arise for our consideration: (I) Can the decision of the Departmental Promotion committee be said to be vitiated merely because the Superintending engineer assisted the said Departmental Promotion Committee in the matter of selection to the post of Assistant Engineer? and (II) Can the decision of the departmental Promotion Committee be said to be vitiated being contrary to the relevant guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel in the government of India? ( 6 ) SO far as the first question is concerned, it is undoubtedly true that in oa No. 138 of 1990 a decision has been taken that the participation of the superintending Engineer as an expert vitiates the ultimate decision and as stated earlier, special leave petition against the same has been dismissed. But the dismissal of the SLP has not indicated the reasons nor the dismissal tantamounts to hold that the order of the Tribunal in OA No. 138 of 1990 is the correct legal position. It is conceded that there is no statutory rule framed under proviso to Article 309 governing the service conditions of these employees. But the dismissal of the SLP has not indicated the reasons nor the dismissal tantamounts to hold that the order of the Tribunal in OA No. 138 of 1990 is the correct legal position. It is conceded that there is no statutory rule framed under proviso to Article 309 governing the service conditions of these employees. The promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer is given even on an ad hoc basis by assessing the suitability and merit of the competing Junior engineers which is the feeder cadre for filling up the post of Assistant engineer on promotion. The administrative order constituted different administrative officers as members of the Departmental Promotion committee and they could have taken the assistance of an expert like the superintending Engineer, particularly when the selection is being made for the post of an Assistant Engineer. Apart from the suitability, which is reflected in the character roll of the employee concerned, in adjudging the suitability of a technical person, it is always necessary to take the assistance of a person with knowledge in the subject so that the applicants knowledge in the subject can be testified. In this view of the matter and in the absence of any statutory rule preventing taking assistance of an expert by the departmental Promotion Committee, we are unable to hold that the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee was vitiated merely because they took the expertise of a Superintending Engineer, who must be having sufficient knowledge in the subject for adjudging the suitability of a person for being selected for the post of Assistant Engineer. In that view of the matter, the impugned selection cannot be held to be vitiated on the ground that a Superintending Engineer assisted the so-called Departmental promotion Committee constituted in accordance with the office memorandum referred to earlier. ( 7 ) SO far as the second question is concerned, it is undoubtedly true that the Ministry of Personnel in the Government of India issued a guideline but there is not an iota of material to suggest that the Government of Daman and diu adopted the same for the purpose of selecting persons to different posts in their administration. The post of Assistant Engineer had fallen vacant in 1987 and the Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted for filling up the said post. The post of Assistant Engineer had fallen vacant in 1987 and the Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted for filling up the said post. The subsequent guidelines issued by the Ministry of personnel, in the Government of India, would not be the appropriate guidelines for altering the criteria already in existence, and in accordance therewith, the selection in question had been made. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the Tribunal on that ground cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) WE, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and hold that there was no infirmity in the selection made for filling up the post of assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis and the appointment of the appellant to the said post. This appeal is accordingly allowed. Be it stated that the selection was only for the purpose of filling up the post on ad hoc basis. The regular selection in accordance with the relevant rules be made by the appropriate authority in accordance with law.