JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, petitioners Union of India, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Director, Central Sheep & Wool Research Institute are challenging the judgment dated 08.11.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.210/1999 filed by respondent-original applicant Data Ram, whereby, the learned Tribunal allowed the original application and petitioners were directed to treat the original applicant as having been placed in Category II with effect from 01.01.1995 in terms of Council's circular No. 14(3)/94-Estt IV dated 01.02.1995 and grant him consequential benefits. 2. As per facts of the case, applicant-respondent No.2 was selected and offered appointment on the post of Live Stock Assistant (T-2) vide memo dated 30.12.1976 and, admittedly, he joined the services on the post of Live Assistant (T-2) on 21.02.1977. Respondent No.2 was in employment in the Animal Husbandry Department, State of Haryana prior to his appointment as Live Stock Assistant (T-2) in the Central Sheep & Wool Research Institute; and, after appointment, he was promoted as T-1-3 in the year 1983. In the original application filed by him, following reliefs were prayed for : "7.1 That by quashing Annexure A/2 and A/2 respondents may be directed to extend the benefit of relaxed alternative qualification treating him to be in service on the date of initial date of formation of technical services. 7.2 That by calling the record pertaining to cadre of T-11-3 category respondent may be directed to consider applicant against 33⅓% quota for the post in the Category T II-3. 7.3. Any other appropriate order or direction, which may be considered just and proper in the light of above, may kindly be issued in favour of the applicant. 7.4 Costs of the application may kindly be awarded in favour of the applicant." 3. As per the respondent-original applicant, in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), technical services are grouped in three categories viz., Category I, Category II and Category III and all these three categories have different grades. A decision was, however, taken vide order dated 01.01.1995 by the governing body of the ICAR to remove the category bar between Category I and Category II and, accordingly, procedure for removal of the category-bar between the two categories was set out in the said order. 4. A decision was, however, taken vide order dated 01.01.1995 by the governing body of the ICAR to remove the category bar between Category I and Category II and, accordingly, procedure for removal of the category-bar between the two categories was set out in the said order. 4. As per procedure, existing employees at Category T-1-3 level, who possess qualifications prescribed for entry into Category II by direct recruitment, will be placed in Grade T-11-3 of Category II with effect from 01.01.1995. Further, vide letter dated 08.08.1996, it was decided that the Council employees in service as on 01.01.1997 and who possess alternate qualifications in terms of letters dated 27.01.1979 and 06.04.1994 will also be eligible for category jump from Category I to Category 11 with effect from 01.01.1995. The original applicant-respondent was denied the benefit of the same on the ground that he was not in service as on 01.01.1977. 5. Before the learned Tribunal, it was pleaded by the respondent-original applicant that he was offered appointment vide letter dated 30.12.1976, by which, he was asked to join or before 15.01.1977 and the respondent- original applicant accepted the appointment; but, sought permission for extending the time for joining up to 22.02.1977 and that permission was granted and, ultimately he joined on 21.02.1977. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondent-original applicant assailed the validity of the cut-off date 01.01.1977 on the ground that fixing this date was totally arbitrary because it does not provide any reason as to why this particular date has been chosen for granting benefit to the employees who were already in service. 6. The Tribunal rejected the plea taken by the original applicant but, at the same time, in para 11 of the judgment, held that the offer of appointment to the respondent-applicant was already made on 30.12.1976 and this appointment was accepted by the applicant who also joined within the period allowed, therefore, in these circumstances, it is only just and proper that the applicant is deemed to be in treated in service of the ICAR from the date of initial constitution of the technical service. Further, it is observed that in view of the clear position that he had already been offered appointment prior to 01.01.1977, the date of constitution of technical service, the time lapse of joining of appointment which is within the period allowed by the respondents (before the Tribunal) cannot deprive the applicant of the benefit of the scheme. On the basis of above finding, the learned Tribunal allowed the original application. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. 8. After perusing the impugned judgment, we find that the learned Tribunal has held in para 10 of the judgment that in service matters there could always be a cut-off date for certain requirements like determining the age for appointment, acquiring any particular qualification in a given situation, revising the pay scales or pensionary benefits and upgradation or restructuring of the posts, etc., but, in all such cases the cut-off date so decided has a nexus with the objective which is, in the instant case, to place the existing employees at level T-I-3, who possess qualifications prescribed for entry to Category II by direct recruitment, to Grade T-Il-3 of Category II with effect from 01.01.1995. Obviously, as per finding of the Tribunal, it is nowhere held that the date prescribed for consideration was illegal or arbitrary. 9. In para 11 of the impugned judgment, however, while considering the fact that respondent-original applicant was provided appointment on 30.12.1976 and he was allowed to join duties in pursuance of that order on 21.02.1977, therefore, it would be just and proper that applicant is deemed to be in the service of ICAR from the date of initial constitution of technical service. In our view, such finding is not proper because once the Department has prescribed a particular date for consideration and, admittedly, the petitioner was not in service on that date, then, no relief can be granted by way of interpretation of ancillary facts. The primary precondition for getting the benefit was that the employee must be in service as on 01.01.1977 and, admittedly, the respondent-original applicant was not in service as on 01.01.1977 because he had joined duties in the ICAR with effect from 21.02.1977. The primary precondition for getting the benefit was that the employee must be in service as on 01.01.1977 and, admittedly, the respondent-original applicant was not in service as on 01.01.1977 because he had joined duties in the ICAR with effect from 21.02.1977. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has committed error while allowing the original application and arriving at the finding that the applicant shall be deemed to be in service as on 01.01.1977 though, in pursuance of his appointment, he had joined duties on 21.02.1977. It is strange that the person who was not borne on the cadre on the relevant date has been allowed the benefit while observing that the respondents (before the Tribunal) shall treat him in service on 01.01.1977 irrespective of the fact that he was not in employment on that date. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is not sustainable in the eye of law. 10. Consequently, this writ petition is hereby allowed. Order impugned dated 08.11.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.210/1999 is quashed and set aside. 11. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent-original applicant submits that during pendency of this writ petition certain decisions were taken by the petitioner department, by which, this benefit has been extended ignoring the cut-off date to so many other employees but there is no material on record to substantiate the said submission. Therefore, the respondent-original applicant is hereby granted liberty to raise his grievance before the department authorities by way of filing representation. Upon filing such representation, it is expected of the department authorities that they will consider and decide the same in accordance with law.Writ Petition Allowed. *******