V.S.Sirpurkur,J: Contempt juridiction of this Court is being excited at the instance of the petitioner, who is a Police in the I.P.S. cadre. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the three contemners, viz.Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home (SC) Department,Secretary to Union Public Service Commission and Secretary to Union of India, Ministry Affairs have committed contempt of Court in not granting the seniority of 1987 to the petitioner as per the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’), which was confirmed by this Court. There is a factual background. 3. The petitioner was directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police, who joined the police service on 4.2.1982. He was accommodated in the I.P.S. cadre from 12.12.1994 while his allotment year was fixed as 1990. He, however, made a representation to the authorities only after four years after his entry into the I.P.S. cadre that he should have been included in the I.P.S. ‘Select List’ for the year 1989-90 and his year of allotment should be fixed as 1987. This representation, which was made to the Director General of Police and forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs, was referred to the Union Public Service Commission, which rejected the same. The basis of the representation was that two other officers viz. M/s.Tagore Paul and J.Ramamoorthy, who were junior to the petitioner, were included in the select list of the year 1989-90 ultimately selected by the Union Public Commission for I.P.S. cadre and were given the allotment of the year 1988. This representation came to be rejected taking the view that he completed the requisite qualifying service of eight years as Deputy Superintendent of Police only on 4.2.1990 and, therefore, he was not eligible for for his name being included in the I.P.S. cadre the select list of 1989-90. It was further observed by the Union Public Service Commission that the petitioner was confirmed in the state police service retrospectively vide order dated 4.9.1990 and as he was not confirmed on the date of the selection committee’s meeting for the preparation of the select list for the year 1990-91, he was not considered for that year also. 4. It was further observed by the Union Public Service Commission that the petitioner was confirmed in the state police service retrospectively vide order dated 4.9.1990 and as he was not confirmed on the date of the selection committee’s meeting for the preparation of the select list for the year 1990-91, he was not considered for that year also. 4. The petitioner challenged this before the Tribunal and his prayer was as under: "(a) To call for the records relating to the fourth respondent herein Rc.No.280655/GB 1(2)/99 dated 5.10.2000 and quash the same, and (b) Consequently direct the respondents to refix the seniority of the applicant in the IPS cadre and fix the year of allotment as 1987 on par with his juniors S/Shri P.Tagore Paul and J.Ramamoorthy and also confer all the consequential benefits, including promotion; and to pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper." The Tribunal allowed this original application taking the view that the petitioner’s name was bound to be included in the select list of 1989 since his juniors were included in that select list. The Tribunal also took a view that if there was a relaxation in favour of M/s.Tagore Paul and Ramamoorthy of the requirement of the eight years’ continuous service, such relaxation should have been granted even to the petitioner. This was held because it was shown to the Tribunal that these two officers, who were juniors to the petitioner, had also not completed eight years’ continuous service, which was a condition precedent for being included in the select list. As regards the finding of the Union Public Service Commission regarding his not being, a confirmed officer till 1991 and hence not being included in the select list, the Tribunal took the view that merely because the State Government took nine long years to confirm the petitioner it did not mean that he would forego his rights. The Tribunal ultimately passed the following order: "In the light of the discussion above, we hold that the applicant has made out a case in support, of his claim seeking to fix year of allotment as 1987 and the following orders would meet the ends of justice. (a) The impugned order dated 5.10.2000 is quashed. The Tribunal ultimately passed the following order: "In the light of the discussion above, we hold that the applicant has made out a case in support, of his claim seeking to fix year of allotment as 1987 and the following orders would meet the ends of justice. (a) The impugned order dated 5.10.2000 is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for re-fixing his seniority in the I.P.S. cadre with effect from 1987 on par with his juniors S/Shri P.Tagore Paul and J.Ramamoorthy and grant him all consequential monetary and service benefits. This exercise shall be completed within three months of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondents. This OA is allowed to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs." After this, the State Government challenged this decision before this Court and the same was confirmed by the judgment dated 25.9.2002. 5. The present contempt petition came to be filed on the ground that in spite of the time-limit of three months granted by the Tribunal for complying with its’ order and further in spite of the confirmation thereof on 25.9.2002 by this Court, there was no compliance by the respondents. The contempt petition came to be filed on 20.3.2003 and it was complained therein that the order was not being complied with and the respondents were merely ignoring the orders and had simply filed a petition for extension of time by three months from 4.1.2003 and thus in reality, the specific directions of which were flouted. The petitioner states that the so-called ‘examination’ of the orders of the Tribunal as well as this Court was nothing but a subterfuge to avoid the compliance. 6. A preliminary notice was sent by us on 4.4.2003. Thereafter, the matter appeared on and on 20.6.2003, the learned Additional Central Government standing Counsel sought four weeks’ time for compliance of the orders. Ultimately, the matter has come before us today. In the meantime, however, a counter-statement has been filed before us on behalf of the third respondent, Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India wherein, it is contended that in pursuance of the Court orders, the Review Committee of the Union Public Service Commission met and held the petitioner unfit for inclusion in I.P.S. cadre in the year as claimed by the petitioner. In short, it was contended that in pursuance of the order of the petitioner was included in the ‘select list’ for the year 1989-90 as per the rules, in deference to the orders of the Tribunal and the Court, ultimately the petitioner was found unfit for his inclusion in the I.P.S. Cadre and as such he could not be given the allotment year of 1987 as claimed by him. Thus, according to the respondents, there was complete compliance of the orders of the Tribunal and this Court. 7. The Central Government was represented by the learned Additional Solicitor General, Shri V.T.Gopalan and the stand taken by him and his arguments were adopted by the Shri R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Additional Advocate General, who appeared for the first respondent. In his address, Shri Muthkumarasamy also pointed out adherence to the orders of the Tribunal and the Court, the name of the petitioner was included in the ‘select list’ for the year 1989-90 but the petitioner was found in the further the Union Public Service Commission under the relevant rules. 8. Shri R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner urges that in the first place, the respondents have shown utter disregard to the order of the Tribunal and further to the judgment of this Court, confirming the same, by not adhering to the time-limit granted. The Tribunal had given the time-limit of three months for complying with the order. However, we are told that the Tribunal’s order was stayed by this Court. Since, the order of the Tribunal was ultimately confirmed by this Court, the time-limit would ordinarily start from the date of the judgment passed by this Court, which was on 25.9.2002. According to the learned senior counsel, the exercise should have been done and completed by the end of December, 2002. However, according to the learned senior counsel, it was not done and that resulted in the filing of the contempt petition in March, 2003. The learned senior counsel further points out that even thereafter, after the petition was filed and the preliminary notice was sent, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel kept on asking for time for complying with the concerned order. Last such order seems to have been passed on 20.6.2003. The learned senior counsel further points out that even thereafter, after the petition was filed and the preliminary notice was sent, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel kept on asking for time for complying with the concerned order. Last such order seems to have been passed on 20.6.2003. Learned senior counsel says that it is only from the counter that it became apparent that the review committee of the Union Public Service Commission took a decision and found the petitioner as unfit. Learned senior counsel says that in declaring the petitioner as unfit for his inclusion in the I.P.S. cadre, the Union Public Service Commission as well as the Central Government had tried not only to by-pass the order of the Tribunal and the judgment of this Court but also tried to sit over the same. According to the learned senior counsel, there was no question of the petition being declared as unfit because there was a direction given by the to grant the seniority with effect from 1987 on par with his juniors. Learned senior counsel the order of the Tribunal is read as a whole, it is apparent that the claim of the petitioner for being included in the I.P.S. Cadre with effect from 1987 on par with his juniors was fully accepted and a direction to that effect was given and, therefore, it was no more left to the discretion of the Union Public Service Commission or as the case may be the Central Government to ‘consider’ the claim much less to find the petitioner as unfit for the inclusion. According to the learned senior counsel, this amounted not only to the gross contempt to begin with but also to the aggravation of the same. 9. As against this, as has already been stated by us, the learned Additional Solicitor General as well as the learned Additional Advocate General contended that firstly there has been complete compliance of the orders by the State Government which included the petitioner’s name in the select-list meant for the year 1989-90 and forwarded the same to the Union Public Service Commission as per the relevant rules. In so far as the Union Public Service Commission is concerned, the learned Additional Solicitor General contends that the inclusion in the I.P.S. cadre of an officer belonging to the State Police service is not automatic on his being included in the ‘select-list’. In so far as the Union Public Service Commission is concerned, the learned Additional Solicitor General contends that the inclusion in the I.P.S. cadre of an officer belonging to the State Police service is not automatic on his being included in the ‘select-list’. It is pointed out that under the rules, the whole list is required to be considered and the Union Public Service Commission, on the appraisal of the whole service record, confidential records, seniority, etc., is duty bound to select the particular officer purely on the basis of merit and it is only when the officers are categorised in different categories like ‘outstanding’, ‘very good’, ‘good’, etc. that the seniority of the officer becomes relevant horizontally as per the categorisation. For example, if an officer is given the benchmark of ‘outstanding’, he competes only against such other officers who are also given the benchmark of ‘outstanding’. However; when the appointments are made, the inter se seniority of such officers is considered and a junior officer is placed below the senior officer. Learned Additional Solicitor General is at pains to point out that in this even a junior officer steals a march over his senior officers if the senior officers are placed in the lower category of ‘very good’ or ‘good’. Learned Additional General, therefore, contends that the entry into the I.P.S. cadre is not automatic on the inclusion of the officers named in the select-list. He, therefore, points out that Union Public Service Commission had to hold a meeting to find out whether the concerned officer was fit or unfit and belong to which particular category and that in pursuance of that, the Union Public Service Commission found the officer to be unfit. The mainstay of the argument of both the learned senior counsel is that the Tribunal have and indeed did not grant the final relief to the petitioner of being included in the Cadre with effect from 1987. It only directed first to include name in the the year 1989-90 and then it directed the ‘consideration’ of that list which was in tune with, the prevailing rules. It only directed first to include name in the the year 1989-90 and then it directed the ‘consideration’ of that list which was in tune with, the prevailing rules. Both the learned counsel laid a great stress on the last operative part of the order passed by the Tribunal as also the judgment of this Court and contended that if the discretion was left of the ‘consideration’ of the petitioner’s name then, there was no question of any contempt having been committed by the Union Public Service Commission. As regards the delay, both the learned senior counsel candidly admit that there was some delay. However, considering the importance of the subject and the time required to complete the exercise, it cannot be said that the delay was contemptuous. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that initially itself the petitioner was unfit to be considered for the year 1989-90 as he had not completed the eight years’ of continuous service in the confirmed capacity and, therefore, even under the contempt jurisdiction, this could not be directed to be done as under the contempt jurisdiction an illegality cannot be directed to be perpetrated. Learned senior counsel pointed out that the mainstay of the Tribunal’s order was that the officers junior to the petitioner were considered. As regards that also, the learned senior counsel contended that that was the error committed by the State Government in including the names of the two junior officers in the select-list but that did not give any handle in the illegality being perpetuated. In short, the contention raised was that the petition was without any merit and was liable to be dismissed. 10. We are inclined to accept the above argument of the learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned Additional Advocate General and we have deliberately quoted them in detail. There can be no doubt that what was directed by the Tribunal was only the consideration of the petitioner’s name for being included in the I.P.S. cadre. In fact, if the operative part of the Tribunal’s order is looked at, it will be clear that, though the petitioner had claimed a direction to that effect from the Tribunal in his original application, that relief of a declaration and a direction were not given by the Tribunal to him. In fact, if the operative part of the Tribunal’s order is looked at, it will be clear that, though the petitioner had claimed a direction to that effect from the Tribunal in his original application, that relief of a declaration and a direction were not given by the Tribunal to him. In, the first part, the Tribunal only quashed the order passed by the Union Public Service Commission by which, the Commission had rejected the representation of the petitioner. It could have then straight away ordered the petitioner’s name to be included in the I.P.S. cadre but, it has not done it because obviously that could not have been done owing to the rules governing such inclusion. Even after the inclusion of the name of a particular officer in the select list, the rules provide for the further consideration, which consideration has been done in this case as per the counter filed on behalf of the respondents. The claim made in the counter has not been controverted by the petitioner. Once this position is clear then, the order and the direction therein become all the more clear to suggest that what was directed was only the “consideration” of the claim, which was done by the Union Public Service Commission in pursuance of the petitioner’s name having been included in the select-list for the year 1989-90. Once this view is taken of the Tribunal’s order, there will be no question of considering the further plea because there has been a total and complete compliance with the order of the Tribunal and also our order. It would be in the discretion of the Union Public Service Commission to assess the petitioner and if in that exercise the petitioner was declared to be unfit, there will be no question of any contempt. 11. It was tried to be argued before us that in the process, the officers junior to the petitioner derived a particular advantage because of the erroneous step taken by the State Government and that amounted to a total injustice. We do not agree. It is indeed true that two junior officers were included in the list and thereafter they were also selected to be included in the I.P.S. cadre. We do not agree. It is indeed true that two junior officers were included in the list and thereafter they were also selected to be included in the I.P.S. cadre. There has been the inclusion of the petitioner’s name also in the said select-list because that was a stepping-stone for the further exercise on the part of the Union Public Service Commission. In our opinion, once the petitioner’s name was included in the select-list then, it could only be left to the Union Public Service Commission to consider him as to whether he was fit enough and the Union Public Service Commission in doing that exercise and finding him unfit has not committed any illegality . 12. The contempt petition has no merits and it is dismissed.