JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J. 1. The petitioners, the Police Officers, having aggrieved over the promotion of their juniors to I.P.S Cadre overlooking their seniority, have filed these two writ petitions praying for quashing of the order dated 19.9.2006 passed in O.A Nos. 560/04 and 146/05 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal). 2. The petitioners, filed O.A Nos. 560/04 and 146/05 before Tribunal for quashing the select list dated 7.7.2004 prepared by the Selection Committee and for quashing the consequent notification dated 16.8.2004, whereby three Officers of the Jharkhand State Police Service, the juniors to the petitioners, were recommended for appointment on promotion to the cadre of Indian Police Service from the State of Jharkhand by-passing their seniority. They also prayed for directing the authorities for constituting a review D.P.C to consider their cases for the purpose of appointment by promotion to IPS cadre and to put their names in the selection list. 3. Both these O. As have been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that there is no illegality in the selection list dated 7.7.2004 prepared by the Selection Committee as well as in the notification dated 16.8.2004. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed these two separate writ petitions. 4. The short facts are as follows: The petitioners were selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1979. On 15.11.2000, State of Bihar was bifurcated into two States and the new State, namely, State of Jharkhand, was created. The State of Bihar was given the cadre strength of 163 IPS and the State of Jharkhand was given the cadre strength of 87 IPS. Out of 87, 26 were allocated to promotee quota of IPS. Again out of promotion quota of 26, 25 promotee IPS were in position in State of Jharkhand. As on 1.1.2001, one vacancy was available. One B.P. Sinha, promotee IPS, died on 6.6.2001. Therefore, due to his sad demise, one more vacancy was created. The first vacancy fell on 1.1.2001 by way of cadre transfer. One O.P. Khare from Bihar was appointed in IPS cadre in Jharkhand cadre on 31.10.2001. For the select list of 2003 against the promotion quota of 26, 23 promotee IPS Officers were in position as on 1.1.2003. During the year 2003, three vacancies had become available due to retirement of D.N. Singh, Rakhen Prasad Singh and R.B. Barno. One O.P. Khare from Bihar was appointed in IPS cadre in Jharkhand cadre on 31.10.2001. For the select list of 2003 against the promotion quota of 26, 23 promotee IPS Officers were in position as on 1.1.2003. During the year 2003, three vacancies had become available due to retirement of D.N. Singh, Rakhen Prasad Singh and R.B. Barno. As such, three vacancies were available for preparing the select list of 2003. Totally, four vacancies were determined for preparing the select list of 2001 and 2003 through letter dated 16.9.2003. In the meantime, one Vinoy Kumar Pandey from Bihar was allocated Jharkhand cadre. Then the Selection Committee was constituted under regulation 3 of the I.P.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. The Selection Committee selected three persons, respondents herein, who were juniors to the petitioners. Thereafter notifications had been issued promoting those respondents. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed separate O.As, i.e. O.A Nos. 560/04 and 146/05, before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid O.As on the following two grounds: (A) As laid down in various judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, the assessment of the Selection Committee cannot be interfered with especially when decision for selection has been made on the basis of ranking of the respective Officers referred to in A.C.R. In this case, the assessment has been made by the Selection Committee only on the basis of the said ranking contained in A.C.R. This cannot be said to be biased or suffering from any mala fide. (B) The petitioners contention that there were 5 vacancies on the date of Selection Committee meeting and they can also be accommodated along with 3 other juniors in the remaining 2 vacancies as the 2 vacancies, which have been filled up earlier, cannot be said to be in accordance with law, cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that the appointments of those persons in Jharkhand, i.e. O.P. Khare and V.K. Pandey, have never been challenged. Therefore, the issue relating to validity of filling up of those posts, i.e. two of the vacancies caused earlier, cannot be dealt with by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal is not competent to go into the said relief, which was not sought for. These findings have been challenged in these writ petitions before this Court. 6. The gist of the submissions made by Mr. These findings have been challenged in these writ petitions before this Court. 6. The gist of the submissions made by Mr. Y.V. Giri, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, seeking for quashing of the selection list and process and consequent notifications, is as follows: (I) The Selection Committee meeting dated 7.7.2004 did not consider the various relevant materials which ought to have been considered for proper selection process. When both the petitioners were given outstanding ACR in their respective entries, the Selection Committee should not have down-graded their ranking without assigning any reason. The finding of the Tribunal that the Selection Committee has correctly down-graded the ACR, despite that no reason had been assigned by the Officers under whom the petitioners were working, is perverse. The Tribunal has given a wrong finding that it has no jurisdiction to mould the relief, in view of Rule 10. The Officers of the Jharkhand State in the Selection Committee expressed their views which has adversely affected the correct decision and their views are biased in absence of the participation by the Central Government nominee. As such, the selection process is bad according to Wednesbury principles of reasonings. (II) The Selection Committee, which met on 7.7.2004, should have gone through and made verification to find out as to the actual number of vacancies available on that date. If a proper verification had been made, the Selection Committee would have come to the conclusion on the date of the meeting that there were 5 vacancies available. The Union of India has been wrongly claiming to have filled up 2 vacancies - one by posting an IPS Officer, O.P. Khare, from Bihar cadre by notification dated 31.10.2001 in place of B.P. Sinha, who died on 6.6.2001, though the same (vacancy) would have arisen on 1.1.2002 and the other vacancy, said to be vacant on 1.1.2001, was filled up by the order dated 6.5.2004 by posting Vinay Kumar Pandey from Bihar cadre. Filling up of those vacancies by posting Bihar cadre Officers is not permissible under law. The petitioners are entitled to the benefits of their own vacancies which accrued on 1.1.2001 and the second vacancy which accrued on 1.1.2002. Therefore, the 2 Officers, who were said to have been adjusted against the vacancies arisen on 1.1.2001 and 1.1.2002, should not have been counted in the promotee quota of IPS of Jharkhand State cadre. The petitioners are entitled to the benefits of their own vacancies which accrued on 1.1.2001 and the second vacancy which accrued on 1.1.2002. Therefore, the 2 Officers, who were said to have been adjusted against the vacancies arisen on 1.1.2001 and 1.1.2002, should not have been counted in the promotee quota of IPS of Jharkhand State cadre. The Union of India has made an artificial classification against those vacancies as referred to above while filling up from outside. Posting of Officers - O.P. Khare and Vinay Kumar Pandey, in Jharkhand from Bihar is contrary to the provisions of Section 71 and 72 of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, and they cannot be shifted to Jharkhand State after expiry of one year after bifurcation of the State on 15.11.2000. Therefore, the petitioners, who were entitled to the said promotion, shall be accommodated against those two seats. 7. The gist of the reply made by the learned Counsel appearing for Union of India and other respondents is as follows: (a) The Tribunal has gone into all the aspects of the matter and has given detailed reasonings to confirm the decision taken by the Selection Committee. In absence of any material to show that it is biased or mala fide, it cannot be said that the findings of the Tribunal are perverse. The Supreme Court in various judgments would specifically hold that the Tribunal would not normally interfere with the Selection Committee process in absence of any valid reasons. Therefore, the Tribunals finding is justified. (b) On the date of Selection Committee meeting, only 3 vacancies were available. By claiming that 5 vacancies were available, the petitioners virtually seek for a declaration from this Court to the effect that the alleged 2 vacancies, which were filled up earlier, shall be deemed to have been continuing to be vacant, as the filling of those 2 vacancies is not valid in law. This prayer is not legally sustainable because the notification notifying the available vacancy position announced earlier had not been challenged in separate writ petition immediately after notification. The Selection Committee is called upon to select persons who are eligible for promotion for the available vacancies only. Admittedly those 2 posts were already filled up and occupied by 2 Officers. This prayer is not legally sustainable because the notification notifying the available vacancy position announced earlier had not been challenged in separate writ petition immediately after notification. The Selection Committee is called upon to select persons who are eligible for promotion for the available vacancies only. Admittedly those 2 posts were already filled up and occupied by 2 Officers. Therefore, the Selection Committee cannot be called upon to fill up all the 5 posts including the 2 other posts which had been filled up earlier. That was not the issue raised before the Selection Committee, nor the process of Selection Committee to select and fill up 3 notified vacancies had been challenged before the appropriate forum; hence these petitions are liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions. 9. In regard to the first point, it has to be stated that as laid down by the Supreme Court in case of C. Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu and in the case of K. Rajaiah in UPSC v. K. Rajaiah reported in 2005 SCC (L & S) 738, the Courts will not normally interfere with the assessments made by Departmental Promotion Committees unless the aggrieved Officer establishes that non-promotion was bad according to Wednesbury principles or it was mala fide. The selection process made by the high-level committees cannot be reassessed and re-appreciated by the Tribunal, unless the selection process was held to be against the record. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal would reveal that the Tribunal has meticulously gone through the ACRs of the petitioners and respondents and categorically found that the selection process was proper. Let us refer to the relevant findings given by the Tribunal, which are reproduced below: ...We have also gone through the ACRs of the applicants and private respondents. We find that the while "excellent" has been recorded against various attribute without assigning any reason in the case of applicants, in the case of selected officers reporting officers etc. have taken care to refer to specific instances to justify the "excellent" attributes and the "outstanding" ACRs. The private respondent has worked in field for long periods before his posting as SP (Security). The applicant No. 1 got the police medal in 1999. have taken care to refer to specific instances to justify the "excellent" attributes and the "outstanding" ACRs. The private respondent has worked in field for long periods before his posting as SP (Security). The applicant No. 1 got the police medal in 1999. Even in earlier Selection Committee for vacancy of the year 2000 the applicant No. 1 was noted as "very good". That finding is not challenged.... 36. The finding of UPSC cannot accordingly be interfered with. 37. It has also been suggested that one of the private respondent was working as SP (Security) to CM and that the representatives of State of Jharkhand may have influenced the decision. The DPC minutes shows a unanimous recommendation. Mala fide is not specifically alleged. In any case the offices of State of Jharkhand have not been joined as E.O. nominee. The decision in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma refers. We have stated above that we find no reasons to interfere with recommendations of DPC. On going through these reasons, we feel that the finding of the Tribunal is perfectly justified. 10. When we expressed that we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in respect of the first point, learned Senior Counsel, having felt difficulty in convincing the Court as regards the above point, has ultimately confined himself to the second point and canvassed and pressed the same. 11. In regard to too second point, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that on thy date of Selection Committee meeting, 5 vacancies were available, on the other hand, the Selection Committee, instead of selecting 5 persons for promotion including the petitioners, selected only 3 persons who were juniors to the petitioners as if only 3 vacancies were available and on this ground, the selection process in respect of only 3 persons is wrong. 12. In support of this contention of the petitioners, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 & 7, who were the selectees, would also submit that on the date of meeting of Selection Committee, there were more than 3 vacancies available. 12. In support of this contention of the petitioners, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 & 7, who were the selectees, would also submit that on the date of meeting of Selection Committee, there were more than 3 vacancies available. In view of the above stand taken by both the parties, we directed the learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India to give the actual fact situation with reference to the number of vacancies available on the date of the Selection Committee meeting. Thus, this Court gave the following orders on 9.8.2007: 9.8.2007 Ultimately the question has now arisen as to whether vacancies of more than three seats were available at the time of consideration before the Selection Committee. According to the counsel for the petitioners, at the time of selection, even though they were juniors to the petitioners, more than five vacancies were available and in those vacancies the petitioners could be accommodated. It is admitted by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 also that more than three vacancies were available at the time of selection. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of the copy of the counter-affidavit on behalf of the Union of India, served on them, which has not been filed before the Court, that the Union of India has taken a specific stand that there were no vacancies except three. Now, the Union of India is directed to give categorical statements, by giving the required particulars to establish their stand. Counsel for the Union of India seeks time to file counter affidavit and to request the Assistant Solicitor General to appear in this case. This Court feels that it would be appropriate that Assistant Solicitor General should appear in this case and assist the Court effectively in reference to the said question. Accordingly, they are directed to give a detailed counter affidavit with reference to that aspect. After passing the order, the matter was adjourned giving sufficient time to the learned Counsel appearing for Union of India. Later learned Counsel appearing for Union of India has filed detailed counter-affidavit and also written submissions, categorically mentioning that only three vacancies were available and not five as claimed by the petitioners and respondent Nos. 6 & 7. 13. After passing the order, the matter was adjourned giving sufficient time to the learned Counsel appearing for Union of India. Later learned Counsel appearing for Union of India has filed detailed counter-affidavit and also written submissions, categorically mentioning that only three vacancies were available and not five as claimed by the petitioners and respondent Nos. 6 & 7. 13. On going through the counter-affidavit and written submissions filed by the Union of India, we feel that the statement made on behalf of Union of India is correct and as such, we are unable to hold that there were 5 vacancies available on the date of the Selection Committee meeting. As a matter of fact, this point was specifically raised by the counsel for the petitioners before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also discussed this point in detail and held that the Tribunal cannot be asked to go into the question as to whether 5 vacancies were available on the date of Selection Committee meeting merely on the basis that filling up of 2 posts earlier to the date of Selection Committee meeting was not valid in law. The relevant observations made by the Tribunal are as follows: 15. It is the case of the applicant that one vacancy existed on the date of bifurcation of cadre another vacancy became available in 2001, due to death of B.P. Sinha and 03 vacancies became available in 2003 due to superannuation of three officers. 16. It is clear that three transactions have taken place to fill up these 05 posts. (i) The decision taken by respondents to fill up sole existing vacancy in the State of Jharkhand on the date of bifurcation by filling up the post on the basis of promotion of officers of undivided Bihar cadre and to allot one such officer to the State of Jharkhand. The Selection Committee meeting took place in December 2003. Shri V.K. Pandey has been allotted pursuant to this exercise. It further appears from the UPSC reply that the applicant No. 1 was also considered in this exercise. He was adjusted as "very good". He could not be placed on the Select List low down in the merit list. (ii) The inter cadre transfer of Shri O.P. Khare to the State of Jharkhand in the year 2001 in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 5(2) of IPS (Cadre) Rules. He was adjusted as "very good". He could not be placed on the Select List low down in the merit list. (ii) The inter cadre transfer of Shri O.P. Khare to the State of Jharkhand in the year 2001 in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 5(2) of IPS (Cadre) Rules. (iii) The present transaction for filling up three posts in which the private respondents have been selected and the applicants claim that they have been wrongly bypassed. The applicants have challenged only lost selection. 24. It would be clear from the discussion in paras 17 to 23 above that the vacancy existing on date of bifurcation and that arising on account of death of B.P. Sinha have been filled up in accordance with provisions contained in State Reorganization Act and IPS (Cadre) rules. The remaining three vacancies have been filled up in accordance with IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations. They are thus three distinct causes of action. Rule 10 of CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987 permit consequential relief only and not multiple relief. 25. In any case the applicants have not sought for the relief of quashing of the two earlier actions. May be they were conscious of the legal impediments. 14. The above paragraphs would indicate that these aspects have been canvassed and the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that those aspects cannot be gone into by the Tribunal, as those were not the issues before the Tribunal and as the challenge by the petitioners was made before the Tribunal only against last selection. 15. In the light of the above findings, let us now deal with the said aspects. The following details are given in the counter-affidavit as well as in the written submissions filed by Union of India. (A) After creation of State of Jharkhand, 26 seats were allocated for promotees IPS quota as on 1.1.2001. After bifurcation, 25 IPS Officers were in position in IPS cadre. One vacancy was available for preparing the select list of 2001. One more vacancy was created because of death of B.P. Sinha, a promotee IPS, on 6.6.2001. As such, one more vacancy was available. Thereafter by way of cadre transfer, O.P. Khare from Bihar was posted at Jharkhand on 31.10.2001 through the notification. The said notification dated 31.10.2001 was issued after getting it recommended by the Committee constituted by the Government of India. As such, one more vacancy was available. Thereafter by way of cadre transfer, O.P. Khare from Bihar was posted at Jharkhand on 31.10.2001 through the notification. The said notification dated 31.10.2001 was issued after getting it recommended by the Committee constituted by the Government of India. The Committee recommended for acceptance of O.P. Khares representation and his cadre allocation in Bihar was cancelled and he was allocated Jharkhand cadre. Therefore, while determining the vacancy for the year 2002, O.P. Khare was taken into account as on 1.1.2002 in IPS promoteee quota. (B) In the year 2002, 3 Officers, namely, Sri D.N. Singh, Rakesh Prasad Singh and R.D. Subarno, retired. As such, 3 vacancies were available for preparing the list of 2003. Those 3 vacancies were determined by the Government of India for preparing year-wise select list of 2001 and 2003 through letter dated 16.9.2003, declaring those 3 vacancies. Provision for appointment for the select list of 2000 of undivided Bihar against 4 vacancies was made. That was notified on 6.5.2004. Thereafter it was decided to allot one Officer out of 4 Officers of select list of 2000 to the State of Jharkhand after applying the policy unilaterally adopted in the case of bifurcation. The name of Vinay Kumar Pandey, which figured at Sl. No. 2 of the select list, was finally allocated to Jharkhand cadre. By making such allocation, all the 26 promoteee IPS quota was filled up and in respect of Vinay Kumar Pandey, separate notification was issued on 6.5.2004. (C) The bifurcation of cadre of Jharkhand and Bihar State Police Service took place on 26.4.2003. The vacancy for the select lists for the year 2002 and 2003 remained unchanged. So far preparing the select list of 2003 of S.P.S. Officers of Jharkhand for promotion to IPS cadre is concerned, the vacancy was only for 3 posts and relating to this, notification was issued on 25.5.2004. Finally, Selection Committee convened its meeting on 7.7.2004 to prepare select list of 2003 against those 3 vacancies. The Selection Committee selected only eligible persons in terms of regulation 5(2) of I.P.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation and the petitioners were not selected. On 9.8.2004, U.P.S.C. approved the select list of 2003 and thereafter the final decision was issued on 16.8.2004. 16. The Selection Committee selected only eligible persons in terms of regulation 5(2) of I.P.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation and the petitioners were not selected. On 9.8.2004, U.P.S.C. approved the select list of 2003 and thereafter the final decision was issued on 16.8.2004. 16. As correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for Union of India, the petitioners cannot now claim that the notification dated 31.10.2001 whereby O.P. Khare was allocated Jharkhand cadre and the notification dated 6.5.2004 whereby Vinay Kumar Pandey was allocated to Jharkhnad cadre are invalid because the petitioners have not chosen to challenge the said notifications earlier. Similarly, the notification dated 25.5.2004 declaring only 3 vacancy position was also never challenged by the petitioners. Admittedly the petitioners have challenged the list of last selection only, which was issued by the Selection Committee after its meeting, which was held on 7.7.2004. Since the earlier selection made by the authorities concerned for filling up IPS promoteee quota for the years 2000-2002 and the earlier notification declaring the vacancy position has not been challenged by the petitioners, the validity of the same cannot be challenged by the petitioners either before the Tribunal or before this Court. 17. Further, as correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, the petitioners cannot seek for a declaration that the appointment of O.P. Khare and Vinay Kumar Pandey in Jharkhand IPS cadre is not valid, when those persons were not impleaded as parties either in the Original Applications which were filed before the Tribunal or in the Writ Petitions which have been filed before this Court. 18. Therefore, we do not find any merit in these petitions. Consequently, the writ petition are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Amareshwar Sahay, J. 19. I agree.