JUDGMENT B. PANIGRAHI, J. — These three writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 456 of 1990 and O.A. No.131 and 132 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to convene a Review Departmental Proceeding Committee to consider the cases of the opp.party No.1 in all the writ petitions afresh. On the basis of the recommendation of the Review D.P.C., the promotion and/or their seniority/regularisation of their services shall be maintained. 2. The skeletal picture of the facts emerged in these writ petitions are as follows : The opp party No.1 in the above writ petitions had chal¬lenged their supersession by their juniors even after the Depart¬mental Promotion Committee found them suitable for the purpose of holding the promotional post. The Departmental Promotion Commit¬tee in its meeting held that opp.party Nos. 2 and 3 were suitable to hold the promotional post. Therefore, the applicants who are O.P. No.1 in the above cases, challenged before the Tribunal about the propriety of the resolution of the Departmental Promo¬tion Committee. Opp.party No.1 Dharinidhar Dixit in O.J.C. No. 6160/99 was holding a post of Head Clerk in the Regional Office of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bhubaneswar. A prayer was made by opposite party No.1 for directing the peti¬tioner to convene a Review D.P.C. to consider his case for regu¬lar promotion as Head Clerk w.e.f. 1986 and for fixation of his seniority in the cadre of Head Clerk above Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and for regularisation of his service as Head Clerk from 12.8.1982, when he was given ad hoc promotion in the post of Head Clerk. The Central Administrative Tribunal after considering the respective contention raised before it, held that the opposite party No.1 was illegally and unlawfully superseded by opposite party Nos.2 and 3 as a reason whereof they directed the petitioner to convene a Review Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has filed these case. It may be stated here that the parties who are directly affected by such order have not challenged the order of the Tribunal. The opp.party No.1, Dharanidhar Dixit joined on 20th of April 1971 as L.D.C. in the Corporation. It is found that in course of his service, he being found suitable, was promoted to the rank of U.D.C. with effect from 1st February 1977. The opp.party No.1, Dharanidhar Dixit joined on 20th of April 1971 as L.D.C. in the Corporation. It is found that in course of his service, he being found suitable, was promoted to the rank of U.D.C. with effect from 1st February 1977. He was confirmed in the post of Upper Division Clerk on and from 16.3.1983 but was given ad hoc promotion to the rank of Head Clerk from 12.8.1982. 3. Similarly, the opp.party No.1 Saroj Kumar Routray in O.J.C. No. 6161 of 1999 joined as a L.D.C. in the petitioner Corporation on 14.1.1972 against a regular vacancy. He was pro¬moted as U.D.C. on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 1.2.1977. His appointment was regularised on and from 17.7.1981. His services U.D.C was continuous and uninterrupted from 1.2.1977 till 17.7.1981. He was promoted to the post of Head Clerk/Assistant on 25.8.1982 on ad hoc basis and has been continuing from that date. 4. The opp.party No.1, A.B. Ghose in O.J.C. No. 6162 of 1999 joined as a lower Division Clerk against a regular vacancy on and from 10.5.1971. He was promoted to the rank of Upper Divi¬sion Clerk on adn from 1.2.1977 and he was subsequently regula¬rised on 17.7.1981. He rendered continuous and uninterrupted service as Senior Division Clerk from 17.7.1981. His ad hoc services as Upper Division Clerk from 1.02.1977 to 17.7.1981 was continuous and uninterrupted. The opp.party No.1 was promoted as Head Clerk/Assistant/Manager Grade-III on 20.8.1982 and regularised as such w.e.f 15.5.1989. The opp.party No.2, R.K. Nayak joined the Corporation on 3.4.1976 as L.D. Clerk much after opp.party No.1 joined as such. He was also given promotion after opp.party No.1 got promotion in the rank of U.D.C. The opp.party No.2 similarly was allowed to officiate in the rank of Head Clerk-cum-Assistant w.e.f. 15.5.1989 which was after the promotion given to opp.party No.1. 5. The petitioner’s case is that the recruitment/ promo¬tion to various posts under the Corporation is being regulated under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Recruitment) Regulations, 1965. As per Clause 28 of the 1965 regulation, promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Assistant is to be made in the following manner. 5. The petitioner’s case is that the recruitment/ promo¬tion to various posts under the Corporation is being regulated under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Recruitment) Regulations, 1965. As per Clause 28 of the 1965 regulation, promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Assistant is to be made in the following manner. (a) 50 percent of the vacancies are to be filled up by promotion on the basis of selection on merit with due regard to seniority, and (b) The remaining 50 per cent vacancies are to be filled up on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. 6. The promotion to the post of Head Clerk was usually being given on the basis of all India seniority. But the promo¬tion system was decentralised by virtue of the order dated 15.11.1990 and the Regional Directors were authorised to fill up the posts of Head Clerk. After such decentralisation, the Region¬al Director time and again used to covene a Departmental Promo¬tion Committee for filling up of the posts of Head Clerk. The D.P.C. used to follow the rules and instructions scrupulously which were in force at the relevant time. The stand taken by the petitioner is that while considering the promotion of opp.party No.1, the D.P.C. could not have taken into consideration about the ad hoc promotion of opp.party No.1. The Department of Person¬nel and Training has issued a circular on 10.4.1989 which reads as follows : “(i) Having regard to the levels of the posts to which promotions are to be made, the nature and importance of duties attached to the posts a bench mark grade would be determined for each category of posts for which promotions are to be made by selection method. For all Group ‘’C’’, Group ‘’B’’ and Group ‘’A’’ posts upto (and excluding) the level of Rs.3700-5000/- excepting promotions for induction to Group -A posts or services from lower groups, the bench mark would be ‘’good. All officers whose over all grading is equal to or better than the bench mark should be included in the panel for promotion to the extent of the number of vacancies. They will be arranged in the order of their inter-seniority in the lower category without reference to the overall grading obtained by each of them provided that each one of them has an overall grading equal to or better than the bench mark of ‘’good’’. They will be arranged in the order of their inter-seniority in the lower category without reference to the overall grading obtained by each of them provided that each one of them has an overall grading equal to or better than the bench mark of ‘’good’’. 7. On perusal of the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee. It appears that they have over-looked the Circular dated 10.4.1989 and recommended promotion of opp.party Nos.2 and 3 ignoring the claim of opp.party No.1. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner could not have over-looked such an important circular and recommended the cases of opp.party Nos.2 and 3 for their promotion. The sitting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was undisputedly convened on 4.5.1989. The important guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Public Grievance is quoted herein below :- Preparation of Year-wise panels by D.P.C. where they have not met for a number of years. “6.4.1 where for reasons beyond control, the D.P.C. could not held in an years (s), even though the vacancies arose during that year (or years), the first D.P.C. that meets thereafter should follow the following procedures :- (i) Determine the actual number of regular vacancies that arose in each of the previous year (s) immediately preceding and the actual number of regular vacancies proposed to be filled in the current year separetely. (ii) Consider in respect of each of the years those officers only who would be within the field of choice with reference to the vacancies of each year starting with the earliest year onwards. (iii) Prepare a Select List by placing the select list of the earlier year above the one for the next year and so on. “ 8. In our view that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in directing the petitioners to convene a Review D.P.C. Since the petitioner did not take into consideration the guidelines issued by the Government of India while the Departmental Promotion Committee took up for the promotion of different categories of employees. It has been indicated in the guidelines as (1) out¬standing. (2) very good, (3) Good. (4) average and (5) unfit. 9. Mr. Ramdas, learned counsel appearing for opp.party No.1 submits that on a comparative perusal of the C.C.Rs, it his found that his client possesses a better C.C.R. than opp.party Nos.2 and 3. We, therefore, feel it unnecessary to go into such details. (2) very good, (3) Good. (4) average and (5) unfit. 9. Mr. Ramdas, learned counsel appearing for opp.party No.1 submits that on a comparative perusal of the C.C.Rs, it his found that his client possesses a better C.C.R. than opp.party Nos.2 and 3. We, therefore, feel it unnecessary to go into such details. It will amount to usurping the function of Departmental Promotion Committee while considering the case of the opposite parties. It is, therefore, left to the discretion of the authori¬ties to take a decision in terms of the circular dated 10.4.1989. 10. Accordingly, in the light of the above discussions, the writ petitions are dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. B. P. DAS, J. I agree. Petitions dismissed.