JUDGMENT SYAMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI, J. The present application is directed to assail the order dated 18.02.2009 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 3377 of 2007 whereby and wehreunder the Learned Tribunal has been pleased to struck down the recommendation of the Public Service Commission for promotion to the post of Joint Block Development Officers containing memo no. III/T27 PSC/1 P-95/04 dated 17.04.2007 so far as it relates to the feeder post being Inspector Progress and Evaluation under Panchayat and Rural Development Department is concerned. 2. The petitioners contend that they are all working as Joint Block Development Officers on promotion from the feeder cadre of Inspector Progress and Evaluation on the basis of recommendation of the State Public Service Commission and now joined their promotional post in terms of order of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department being notification no. 5132-RD(JT BDO)/IB-2/2004 dated 12.07.2007. It is their further submission that the promotion to the post of Jt. BDO is conducted and regulated by relevant recruitment rules containing the notification dated 23.02.1983 through Public Service Commission from out of the candidates recommended from 5 feeder posts namely, a) Extension Officer of Panchayat; b) Extension Officer Social Education (redesignated as ‘Extension Officer mass Education’); c) instructor of Gram Sevak Training Centre under Agricultural Department; d) Accountant cum Head Clerk in the office of BDO under Panchayat and Community Development Department and e) Inspector Progress and Evaluation (I.P.E.) under Panchayat and Rural Development Department. The eligibility criteria for such selection as prescribed in the said notification dated 23.02.1983 provide that 60 per cent of such appointment on promotion will be made from the aforesaid 5 feeder posts and 40 per cent by direct recruitment and that the minimum service from the feeder post on first day of the year of recruitment was prescribed as 6 years of service and selection shall be made on the basis of an interview and having certificate about the integrity of the candidate concerned and such interview shall be conducted by the Public Service Commission. In the instant case all the aforesaid departments supplied the names of all eligible candidates who fulfil the above criteria. In the instant case all the aforesaid departments supplied the names of all eligible candidates who fulfil the above criteria. According to them seniority in the respective feeder cadre have no manner of application in the matter of such promotion excepting in case where the candidates have got some marks in the selection test where inter se seniority will be treated as a criterion to place them in order of merit in the select list for promotion to the post of Jt. BDO But the Learned Tribunal has come to a finding that without gradation list being prepared by the respective feeder posts, promotion cannot be regulated and seniority is to be taken into account for the purpose of such promotion and hence the selection so far as I.P.E. is concerned made by the Public Service Commission was set aside without affecting the selection of 4 other cadres whose selection also suffered from same infirmity on the ground that such other cadres did not appear before the Learned Tribunal seeking any such redress. It is their further submission that seniority in the feeder cadre has no role to play for such promotion excepting the eligibility criteria which was fixed as 6 years service in the feeder post. At the time of forwarding the names of eligible candidates from the feeder post by the 5 departments the date of joining in the present post, date of entry in the government service etc. were all forwarded to the Public Service Commission and as per settled law those could be taken into consideration when identical marks were awarded to several candidates while their date of joining in the feeder post is to be taken into account. The Public Service Commission has made their recommendation strictly on the basis of merit of the candidates of 5 feeder posts and the said list was prepared afresh under order of the Hon’ble Writ Court. There is no common gradation list of 5 feeder posts belonging to different ministries of the state government and so when equal marks was obtained by more than one candidate the date of their appointment in the respective cadre was duly taken into account by the Public Service Commission in order to place them in the merit list according to the seniority in the feeder post. Therefore, preparation of any combined gradation list of 5 feeder posts for the purpose of such promotion by way of selection has no role to play and the relevant recruitment rule also does not provide for preparation of any such common gradation list. However, they are performing their duties for last 3 years and there is no illegality or infirmity in the selection process adopted by the State Public Service Commission which should be interfered with. During the pendency of this application the petitioners prayed for amendment to the writ petition for inclusion of all other 4 cadres which was allowed and public notice was issued in the Statesman and the Aajkal dated 23.09.2009 inviting all interested persons from the 5 cadres, if they so desire to contest this matter, but none responded. Therefore, they have prayed for a direction upon the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 to refrain from giving any effect to the order dated 18.02.2009 passed in O. A. No. 3377 of 2007 by the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal and from interfering with the service of these petitioners in the post of Joint BDO. The state of West Bengal, the respondent no. 6 herein has supported the contention of the present petitioners. In an application being C.A.N. 3260/2010, a prayer has been made for vacating interim stay order dated 18.06.2009. The said application has also been taken up for consideration along with this writ petition. 3. The respondent nos. 1 to 5 have opposed the move and claimed that in terms of the recruitment rules different departments including Panchayat and Rural Development Department sent their requisitions to the Public Service Commission for selection and recommendation of candidates for promotion to the post of Joint BDOs. The Public Service Commission has followed their prevailing practice of such selection on the basis of interview after preparation of the common gradation list for different feeder posts. But such selection on the basis of merit in each case has not been made and seniority was given preference over the merit. Thus if such promotion need be reviewed as there cannot be two sets of promotees one on the basis of seniority and another on the basis of merit by invoking same recruitment rules. But such selection on the basis of merit in each case has not been made and seniority was given preference over the merit. Thus if such promotion need be reviewed as there cannot be two sets of promotees one on the basis of seniority and another on the basis of merit by invoking same recruitment rules. Learned lawyer representing these respondents have relied upon the principles laid down in AIR 1990 SC 100 (para 10), AIR 1998 SC 2565 , 1998(6) SCC 720 (para 18 and 3), 1979(2) SCC 339 (para 7 and 8) in support of his contention. The Public Service Commission being respondent no. 8 has defended their case and contended in their affidavit-in-opposition that on receipt of the requisition they have followed the existing recruitment rule and decided at their Full Commission meeting that minimum suitability criteria for promotion will be settled on interview in the following manner, a) for general cadre candidates 60 marks out of 100 marks and b) for SC/ST cadres 55 marks out of 100 marks. The select list would be prepared with reference to number of vacancies from among the suitable officers without disturbing their intra-grade seniority position holding the feeder post. It was also decided by the Commission that for the purpose of selection from heterogeneous feeder posts a combined seniority list will be prepared taking into consideration the date of continuation, officiation of the concerned officer in their respective feeder posts without disturbing the intra-grade seniority post. 4. In accordance with such methodology the Commission prepared a select list of qualified officers and sent their recommendation to fill up the vacancy keeping such list operative till 30.04.2007. The last recommendation list comprising the names of 19 officers of Inspector P & E cadre was challenged before the Hon’ble West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 3377 of 2007. The Hon’ble Tribunal by order dated 18.02.2009 had struck down such recommendation made by the Commission in their letter no. 727 P.S.C./IP-95/04 dated 17.04.2007 so far as it relates to the cadre of Inspector P & E is concerned on the grounds of erroneous seniority list sent by the P & E Development Department, Government of West Bengal. The Hon’ble Tribunal by order dated 18.02.2009 had struck down such recommendation made by the Commission in their letter no. 727 P.S.C./IP-95/04 dated 17.04.2007 so far as it relates to the cadre of Inspector P & E is concerned on the grounds of erroneous seniority list sent by the P & E Development Department, Government of West Bengal. In compliance with such direction the Commission reconsidered the case once again and prepared a fresh gradation list submitted by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department in consequence whereof the present petitioners apprehended their reversion/ non-selection from the post of Joint BDOs. It is the positive assertion of the Public Service Commission that promotion to the post of Joint BDOs from 5 feeder posts shall have to be made through interview. Such interview is to be taken with a view to determining the eligibility of the candidates to be recommended. But such interview is not the same as that taken in connection with direct recruitment for selection from general candidates. While considering their ACRs for promotion the relative seniority of the candidates in the feeder post is not disturbed. The promotion cases are usually settled on the basis of ACRs in the feeder posts. In such cases the average merit rating of the concerned officers are determined by the Commission on the basis of last 5 years’ ACRs. The officers attaining the minimum merit rating fixed by the Commission are given promotion without disturbing their relative seniority in the feeder post. In the instant case the same principle has been followed with exception that an interview was taken to determine the eligibility of the officers in the feeder post for their consideration for promotion to higher posts. Their assessment of merit on the basis of ACRs has been substituted by the method of interview to adjudge suitability of the officers for consideration of their promotion. The officers who obtained 60 marks for general candidates and 55 marks for SC/ST candidates, that means the bench mark fixed by the Commission out of 100 marks were considered eligible for promotion. The officers who obtained 60 marks for general candidates and 55 marks for SC/ST candidates, that means the bench mark fixed by the Commission out of 100 marks were considered eligible for promotion. Those candidates were recommended for promotion on the basis of a common gradation list prepared by the Commission without disturbing their relative seniority position in the respective feeder posts as per the norms laid down in Rule 5(4) and note 2 under the Rule 5(4) of the seniority rule of 1981 published under notification no. 1882F dated 11.03.1981. According to the Commission any rule which contradicts or overrides the concept of seniority as a factor to be considered for promotion might be considered unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the officers on attaining the minimum qualifying level fixed by the Commission cannot be superseded by the juniors even if they get higher marks in interview. Learned lawyer for the Commission has relied upon the principles laid down in AIR 1989 SC 19 and 1999 SCC 209 in support of said contention. 5. The Recruitment Rule for Joint Block Development Officer is framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and notified in the Calcutta Gazette dated 23rd February, 1983. Under this Rule, 40% of the vacancies should be filled up by direct recruitment and 60% should be filled up by promotion from the candidates of different cadres including the cadre of Inspector, Progress and Evaluation. It is further provided that such selection shall be made on the basis of the interview by the Service Commission and favourable certificate about integrity. The said Recruitment Rule runs as follows :- “ Government of West Bengal Panchayats & Community Development (Community Development) Deptt. Raj Bhavan Calcutta, the 23rd February, 1983. Notification In exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of the rules published with notifications nos. 7778-ODP, dated, the 26th July, 1965 and no. 2999-ODP, the 6th April, 1982, the Governor is pleased hereby to make the following rules regarding the recruitment to the post of Joint Block Development Officer under the Panchayats and Community Development (Community Development) Department, Government of West Bengal. 7778-ODP, dated, the 26th July, 1965 and no. 2999-ODP, the 6th April, 1982, the Governor is pleased hereby to make the following rules regarding the recruitment to the post of Joint Block Development Officer under the Panchayats and Community Development (Community Development) Department, Government of West Bengal. Rules The method of, and the qualifications required for recruitment to the post of Joint Block Development Officer under the Panchayats and Community Development (Community Development) Department, Government of West Bengal:- 1. Name of the post : Joint Block Development Officer 2. Scale of Pay : Rs. 470 – 20 – 550 – 25 750 – 30 – 870 – 40 – 1230/- 3. Method of recruitment : (I) Forty percent of the posts shall be filled up by direct recruitment on the results of Group ‘C’ of the West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) and Allied Services Examination, and (II) sixty percent of the posts shall be filled up by promotion from the following posts :- (i) Extension Officer for Panchayats, (ii) Extension Officer, Social Education (Man) (iii) Instructor of the Gram Sevak Training Centres under agriculture Department in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 425-1050/-. (iv) Accountant-cum-Head Clerk of the office of the Block Development Department (Community Development) Department, and (v) Inspector, Progress and Evaluation under the Panchayats and Community Development (Community Development Department. 4. Qualifications : (A) for direct recruitment The qualifications prescribed for the West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) and Allied Services Examination (Group-C) shall apply for direct recruitment to the post of Joint Block Development Officer. (B) for recruitment on promotion Candidates for promotion to the post of Joint Block Development Officer must have completed six years of service in any of the feeder posts on the 1st January of the year of recruitment and shall be selected on the basis of an interview and favourable certificate about the integrity of the candidates concerned, and the interview shall be held by the Pubic Service Commission, West Bengal. 5. Appointing authority : Governor of the State of West Bengal” 6. The State Public Service Commission has also taken into consideration the principles. Another Government circular bearing no. 5. Appointing authority : Governor of the State of West Bengal” 6. The State Public Service Commission has also taken into consideration the principles. Another Government circular bearing no. 7119/F/FIS-25/72 dated 1st December, 1972 issued by the Finance Department contending the principles to be followed in the matter of promotion for the sake of convenience, the said circular is quoted below :- “Government of West Bengal Finance Department (Audit) No. 7119/F/FIS-25/72 Calcutta, the 1st Decm. 1972. Subject: Principles to be followed in the matter of promotion. For some time past the question of laying down a uniform principle to be followed in the matter of promotion was under consideration of Government. The matter has been carefully considered and Governor has been pleased to lay down the following principles for guidance of all concerned in supersession of previous orders: a) A Government servant should be selected for promotion on grounds of merit and suitability in all respects and not of seniority. b) Seniority should be taken into account only when it is impossible to choose between two or more persons on grounds of merit alone. 2. It is considered necessary to indicate some guidelines in determining merit. The following factors should therefore be taken into consideration in deciding merit : a) The annual confidential report of the competent officer in the prescribed form should be given due weight in considering cases of promotion taking into account reports relating to paragraphs (b) and (c) below. b) Satisfactory work based on periodical reports which in case of certain categories would involve report on maintenance of case records, diaries etc. and on out put of work according to the approved norm. 3. It is further impressed on all authorities empowered to appoint a Govt. b) Satisfactory work based on periodical reports which in case of certain categories would involve report on maintenance of case records, diaries etc. and on out put of work according to the approved norm. 3. It is further impressed on all authorities empowered to appoint a Govt. servant on promotion that : a) promotion should be regarded as being made in the interest of the public servant and not of the individuals; b) in choosing a man for promotion the criterion should be the good which the organization will stand to gain by the promotion of the particular man rather than another; c) a man should be promoted not as a reward for the good or which his record may show him to have done in the past, but in expectation to which his past record may justifiably give rise that he will do good work in future in the post to which it is proposed to promote him. S.R. Das Finance Commissioner & Secretary” 3. The Public Service Commission has taken into account the relevant Recruitment Rule as well as the guidelines contained in Finance Department’s above circular dated 1st December, 1972 in taking their decision that annual confidential report of an Officer shall also be taken into account in deciding the merit of an Officer for promotion. Therefore, the annual confidential report of all eligible officers in the field of promotion assessed in the manner decided by the Commission for a study of the relative merit of the eligible officers in the field of promotion as reflected through their annual confidential reports. The other service particulars of the eligible officers, like seniority, are also taken into account by the Commission for the purpose of assessment of suitability of the individual officers for promotion to the next higher post. 4. In order to ensure that there is a uniformity in the matter of such selection by promotion, the Commission prepares a statement of the eligible officers giving their service particulars, merit-rating arrived at by the process formulated by the Commission, adverse remarks, if any, for the last five years. Such statement is placed before the Selection Board presided over by a Member of the Commission, which considers the promotion proposal sent by a Department at a discussion with the Secretary of the Department or his representative. Such statement is placed before the Selection Board presided over by a Member of the Commission, which considers the promotion proposal sent by a Department at a discussion with the Secretary of the Department or his representative. The recommendation of the Selection Board duly approved by the Commission according to the number of existing vacancies was then forwarded with the department for their consideration and final orders. Accordingly, in their meeting held on 17th June, 1994, the Full Commission decided in supersession of all earlier decisions that the minimum average merit-rating on the basis of five years ACRs should be 2.00 in case of promotion to posts carrying a scale of pay the maximum of which does not exceed Rs. 4,750/- (excluding Special Pay or any other pay) and 2.20 in case of promotion to a post the maximum of the scale of pay of which exceeds Rs. 4,750/-(excluding Special Pay or any other pay). An officer failing to earn a merit-rating as above on the basis of five years’ ACRs could still be considered for promotion if the average merit-rating comes to 2.00 or 2.20, as the case may be, on the basis of available last three years’ ACR, which must include the latest one, provided there are no clearly adverse remarks in any of those three years’ report. The recommendation of the Commission was based on the aforesaid principles. 5. The learned Tribunal while considering the appeal had observed that no gradation list for the IPE was prepared by the department concerned and the names were sponsored to the Commission for promotion in order of date of joining of the IPE, which is not permissible in terms of the existing rules. The Commission, in turn, considered this list arranged in order of joining as the gradation list and called the candidates for interview in the same order and finally recommended the names of the selected candidates on that basis, thereby causing great injustice to the applicants. Therefore, it is observed that the department concerned i.e., respondent no. 2(a) did not sponsor the names of eligible candidates in terms of seniority and in fact, had not prepared a gradation list even though they confirmed to the Commission that the names were sent as per gradation list prepared in terms of the existing rules. Therefore, it is observed that the department concerned i.e., respondent no. 2(a) did not sponsor the names of eligible candidates in terms of seniority and in fact, had not prepared a gradation list even though they confirmed to the Commission that the names were sent as per gradation list prepared in terms of the existing rules. As such, the Commission did not consider the seniority while recommending the names of the candidates for promotion to the post of Joint BDO. It is further observed that no seniority or gradation list of IPE was prepared by the department even after a lapse of more than nine years after the recruitment and in spite of the fact that the inter-se seniority of the applicants was indicated in the letter of the Commission dated 13.8.1998. This has, according to the learned Tribunal, led to serious injustice to the applicants. So, the learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated 18.02.2009 struck down the recommendation of the Commission so far as it relates to IPE for promotion to the post of Joint BDO contained in their Memo dated 17.4.2007 and directed the respondents’ department to prepare a gradation list of IPE within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order and forward the same to the Commission, which will rectify the select list finalized on 3.1.2006 so far as the names of IPE are concerned and send fresh recommendation to the department of P & RD within a period of one month thereafter. 6. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we find that both the Public Service Commission as well as the learned Tribunal have given much emphasis on the past performance of an officer as reflected in their last five years’ ACRs as well as their inter se position in the feeder post as the two essential eligibility criteria for consideration of their promotion, which has now been challenged before us. The petitioners herein have claimed that under the existing Recruitment Rule merit is the sole criterion for the said promotion and the inter se seniority of the candidates in their feeder posts can only be taken into account when two candidates for the same department will get the same number in their interview. 7. This inevitably leads us to consider the propriety of Finance Department’s circular no. 7. This inevitably leads us to consider the propriety of Finance Department’s circular no. 7119/F/FIS-25/72 dated 1st December, 1972, which is a general circular meant for guidance of all the departments under the Government of West Bengal at the time of considering the promotion of a Government servant. Such guideline in clause (a) obviously provides that a Government servant should be selected for promotion on grounds of merit and suitability in all respects and not only on the basis of seniority and in clause (b) of such guideline, it is further provided that seniority should be taken into account only when it is impossible to choose between two or more persons on grounds of merit alone. In para-2(a) of the said guideline, it is further decided that the annual confidential report of the competent officer in the prescribed form should be given due weight in considering cases of promotion taking into account reports regarding re-expectation of the department of what good will be gained by the promotion of a particular man rather than another and whether such promotion will be made not as a reward for the good work performed by such officer in the past but in expectation to which his past record may justifiably give rise that he will do good work in the future in the post to which it is proposed to promote him. 8. On a plain reading of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Finance Department, it appears to us that here also the merit of the candidate is given much importance and his past ACRs will be taken into account only to consider how far his past performance can generate a legitimate expectation of the employer to gain from the service in future to be rendered by the officer on promotion. 9. Let us now consider how far such principle of guideline is consisted with the Recruitment Rule cited earlier. 10. In the Recruitment Rule dated 23.2.1983, the eligibility criteria for recruitment on promotion is specified as under:- “Qualifications : (A) for direct recruitment :- The qualifications prescribed for the West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) and Allied Services Examination (Group C) shall apply for direct recruitment to the post of Joint Block Development Officer for Joint Block Development Officer. 10. In the Recruitment Rule dated 23.2.1983, the eligibility criteria for recruitment on promotion is specified as under:- “Qualifications : (A) for direct recruitment :- The qualifications prescribed for the West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) and Allied Services Examination (Group C) shall apply for direct recruitment to the post of Joint Block Development Officer for Joint Block Development Officer. (B) for recruitment on promotion :- Candidates for promotion to the post of Joint Block Development Officer must have completed six years of service in any of the feeder posts on the 1st January of the year of recruitment and shall be selected on the basis of an interview and favourable certificate about the integrity of the candidates concerned, and the interview shall be held by the Public Service Commission, West Bengal.” 11. Obviously, as per Recruitment Rule the eligibility criteria of such promotion will be based on (a) completion of six years of service in any of the feeder posts on the 1st day of January of the year of recruitment; (b) an interview to be held by the Public Service Commission, West Bengal and (c) favourable certificate about the integrity of the candidates concerned. 12. Therefore, in the recruitment rule admittedly there is no whisper regarding the value of weightage of ACR for last five years of the candidates in determining his merit. Obviously, there is apparent conflict between the Recruitment Rule and the guidelines framed by the Finance Department for promotion urging for taking into account the past performance of the candidate, as reflected in the ACR as a yardstick for the legitimate expectation of gain to be made by giving such promotion. The Public Service Commission has also been inspired to take into account the ACRs in view of the principles laid down in (1999) 7 SCC 209 . The ratio in the above case is quoted below so that the said principles, the facts leading to the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. The ratio in the above case is quoted below so that the said principles, the facts leading to the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Hon’ble Apex Court held, inter alia : “Reserved candidates at Level 1 who were promoted to Level 2 at the roster points meant for such promotion whether can claim seniority at Level 3 on the basis of continuous officiation – Where statutory rules provide a single scheme for promotion based on seniority-cum-merit and then for seniority to be determined in the promotional post from the date of continuous officiation whenever promotion is as per the method prescribed in the rules, held, roster-point promotees being not promoted on seniority-cum-merit basis, their seniority cannot be determined on the basis of length of their continuous officiation on the promotion post by delinking the seniority rule from the promotion rule – Consequently, the general candidates, who were senior to the reserved candidates at Level 2 and were promoted to Level 3 before the reserved candidates reached Level 4, have to be treated as senior at Level 3 also even though they had reached Level 3 later than the reserved candidates.” 13. What we are given to understand is that in implementing the Recruitment Rule in question both the Commission and the State Government have sought for certain external aids in interpreting Clause B of Recruitment Rules for promotion though such provision is clear. Such external aid by way of binding rules of precedents as well as the principles of natural justice in terms of legitimate expectation of gain are uncalled for. The rules of interpretation, of course, are not in consonance with induction of external aid where the provisions are express, unambiguous and can be interpreted and acted upon without taking any external aid or importing any new concept or words in the Recruitment Rule. In the instant case, the Recruitment Rule is very much clear and specified three eligibility criteria. But the selecting authority has imported two more elements in their selection process and thereby in the eligibility criteria tried to import something which is not intended by the framers of the Recruitment Rule. So long as the Recruitment Rule is not amended, this type of induction of external aid is impermissible. But the selecting authority has imported two more elements in their selection process and thereby in the eligibility criteria tried to import something which is not intended by the framers of the Recruitment Rule. So long as the Recruitment Rule is not amended, this type of induction of external aid is impermissible. The Public Service Commission, in our opinion, cannot change and modify a rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution in this way by adding new eligibility criteria in such Rule. 14. In the case of B. N. Nagarajan Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1676 , which has been followed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Debi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC page 1, it has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “when rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are in force, no regularization is permissible even in exercise of executive power of the Government under Article 162 thereof in contravention of the rules.” 15. Relying upon above principle, we therefore, hold that the general guidelines for promotion contained in Finance Department’s Circular No. 7119/F/FIS-25/72 dated 1st December, 1972 also cannot override eligibility criteria mentioned in the above Recruitment Rule without amendment of the same and that said Recruitment Rule shall prevail over the above guidelines. 16. Accordingly, we further hold that the impugned order of the learned Tribunal directing the department to prepare combined gradation list of the candidates as the pre-requisite for determining their eligibility criteria as well as the method of selection adopted by the Public Service Commission taking into account the past performance of last five years as reflected in the ACR on the principle of average assessment in terms of merit-rating is neither consistent with the Recruitment Rule nor permissible under Article 309 of the Constitution. Therefore, we hold that the impugned order of the Tribunal and the subsequent action taken by the Public Service Commission cannot be sustained and therefore, the same are hereby quashed. 17. The respondents are directed (a) to prepare a fresh merit list of the candidates in the light of the observations made above. Therefore, we hold that the impugned order of the Tribunal and the subsequent action taken by the Public Service Commission cannot be sustained and therefore, the same are hereby quashed. 17. The respondents are directed (a) to prepare a fresh merit list of the candidates in the light of the observations made above. The Public Service Commission is directed to prepare a fresh merit list of the candidates based on the result of the interview and favourable certificate about their integrity and to forward the same to the department concerned for fresh appointment; (b) the department concerned is directed to issue fresh appointment to the eligible candidates on promotion strictly on the basis of such recommendation of the Commission and to regularise appointment already made showing inter se seniority of the candidates as per their existing feeder cadre. 18. The writ petition is thus disposed of and the interim order stands vacated. In view of the above, the C.A.N. 3260/2010 is also disposed of. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to all the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.