JUDGMENT AND ORDER : H. Baruah, J. The facts and the law involving the writ petitions above being identical, same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The common order dated 20-1-2010 passed in Original Application Nos. 80 and 81 of 2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short CAT), Guwahati Bench is put under challenge whereby and where under the select list of 2004, 2005 as well as 2006 including the notification dated 31-5-2007 are set aside and quashed. 3. The Union Public Service Commission (for short UPSC) and the selection committee constituted under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 for preparation of select list for the year 2004, 2005 and 2006 in respect of Assam Meghalaya Joint Cadre being aggrieved by the order dated 20-1-2010 filed the above two writ petitions challenging its legality and correctness. 4. Respondent No. 1 (in both the writ petitions) being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the constitution of the selection committee and preparation of the select list for the year 2004, 2005 and 2006 as well and notification made therefor dated 31-5-2007, as applicants filed two original applications being O.A No. 80 of 2010 and O.A No. 81 of 2010 challenging the select lists and the notification dated 31-5-2007. The pleaded case of the respective respondent in the original application may be projected as under: Respondents are direct recruitee of Assam Police Service and now members of the service. Respondent Dilip Kumar Baruah was selected in the year 1981 while respondent Guneswar Duwari in the year 1990. The manner and method in which promotions of the State Police Service Officers to the Indian Police Service are to be made is spelt out in the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 and Indian Police Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulation, 1955. Under the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 the Central Government is to determine the number of vacancies and on determination of number of vacancies for a particular year, the State Government concerned is required to forward to the selection committee the details of State Police Service Officers in order of seniority and three times the number of vacancies so determined for a particular year. In the year 2004 and 2005 there had been 05 and 03 vacancies in the Assam Segment of Assam Meghalaya Joint Cadre and the State Govt. In the year 2004 and 2005 there had been 05 and 03 vacancies in the Assam Segment of Assam Meghalaya Joint Cadre and the State Govt. therefore forwarded a list of Officers with the inclusion of the respondents for filing up the vacancies for the years as indicated. However, respondents were not selected for induction in IPS Cadre. In the original applications it was contended by the respondent No. 1 (in both the writ petition) that composition of the selection committee meeting held on 27-12-2006 was not in accordance with the mandate of Regulation 3 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and, therefore, selection made for the year 2004 and 2005 would be illegal and not tenable in law. The selection of the officers for the Assam Meghalaya Joint Cadre is always required to be made in consonance with Regulation 5 of the Regulations and while doing so, the selection committee, for promotion by appointment for the vacancies, is required to be constituted as per provisions of Regulation 3 of the Regulation, 1955 (unamended) and not by virtue of the amended Regulations, which came to be amended in the year 2005 and effective on and from 31st January 2005. Therefore, constitution of the committee was contrary to Regulations 3 of Regulations 1955 and entire proceedings were void and illegal. The second basic contention that was raised in O.A No. 81 of 2010 by respondent Guneswar Duwari is that he had been under cloud for the period from 29-07-1999 to 28-9-2001 and while forwarding his name, the State Government had clearly observed/indicated that he was facing a disciplinary proceeding which remained inconclusive. Subsequently, he was exonerated and the period of suspension from 29-07-1999 to 28-09-2001 was regularised as on duty for all purposes vide order dated 10-2-2006. Therefore, recommendation made by the State Government indicating that he was under cloud was not justified and in that case entire proceedings ought to have been reviewed and appropriate entry should have been made by the State Govt. for his recommendation b y the UPSC. Since this procedure had not been followed he could not secure appropriate grading for making him eligible for selection in the concerned year. 5. for his recommendation b y the UPSC. Since this procedure had not been followed he could not secure appropriate grading for making him eligible for selection in the concerned year. 5. Being aggrieved by non-inclusion of their names in the select list for the year 2004, 2005 and 2006 as well, they approached the CAT, Guwahati Bench, for the following reliefs: (1) To set aside and quash the selection held for preparation of the select list against the vacancies identified in the Assam segment of the IPS Assam Meghalaya Joint Cadre for the year 2004 and 2005; (2) To set aside and quash the notification dated 31-05-2007; and (3) for a direction to the respondent authorities to convene a Review Selection Committee Meeting for consideration the cases of all eligible officers including the respondent No. 1 (in both the writ petitions) for preparation of select list against vacancies identified in Assam segment of the IPS Assam Meghalaya Joint Cadre for the year 2004 and 2005. 6. Both the applications were resisted by the respondents, official as well as private, by filing reply. UPSC filed its reply contending that both the applicants/respondents were duly considered for the years 2004 and 2005 vacancies. Since applicant/respondent Dilip Kumar Baruah, crossed 54 years as on 01-01-2005 he was not considered while applicant respondent Guneswar Duwari was considered for both the years, i.e. 2004 and 2005. Since Duwari was graded "good" his name was not included in the select list. It was also the case of the UPSC that IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1995 amended vide notification of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training dated 31-01-2005 had been followed. 7. Private respondents contended that they being senior in the gradation list in comparison to applicants/respondents were rightly selected and included in the select list 2004 and 2005 and that apart they had been graded "very Good". 8. The stand taken by the UPSC had been severely attacked by the applicants/respondents contending their stand stated hereinbefore. 9. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Guwahati Bench took much pain to settle issues raised in the application. It held as follows: (1) Select List of 2004 cannot be sustained in law particularly when respondents have followed IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 as amended on 31-01-2005. Said Regulations were in applicable for the select list of 2004. 9. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Guwahati Bench took much pain to settle issues raised in the application. It held as follows: (1) Select List of 2004 cannot be sustained in law particularly when respondents have followed IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 as amended on 31-01-2005. Said Regulations were in applicable for the select list of 2004. However, said amendment would have it full and complete application for the select list of 2005. (2) Notification dated 31-05-2007 would require necessary amendment, if any, subject to out come of Review Selection Committee to be held in accordance of law disregard to aforesaid amendment, which exercise shall be carried out expeditiously as possible not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The State Government was further directed by the learned Tribunal to place complete and actual factual aspects in regard to applicant Guneswar Duwari vis-a-vis ACR before the UPSC for its proper, just and fair consideration. 10. From the pleaded facts, the stand taken by the respondents, now petitioners in the original applications and the law, the following basic issues have cropped up before us: (i) Whether the composition of the selection Committee was in accordance with the mandate of Regulation 3 of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955; (ii) Whether selection made by the committee for filling up the vacancies for the year 2004 is valid; and (iii) Whether non placement of required actual factual aspects in respect of applicant/respondent Guneswar Duwari by the State Govt. before UPSC affected the selection for the year 2004 and 2005. At this stage it would be pertinent to state that the selection committee considered the case of Dilip Kr. Baruah for the year 2005, Guneswar Duwari for the year 2004 and 2005. Selection of Dilip Kr. Baruah was turned down on account of his over age, while Duwari's selection was turned down for his grading as "good" in the ACR. 11. Before answering the aforesaid basic issues, it would be apposite for us to refer, rather place Regulation 3 of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, which came to be substituted by an amendment in the year 2005, giving effect to from 31-01-2005. Relevant excerpts of the amended Regulation 3 read as follows: "3. 11. Before answering the aforesaid basic issues, it would be apposite for us to refer, rather place Regulation 3 of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, which came to be substituted by an amendment in the year 2005, giving effect to from 31-01-2005. Relevant excerpts of the amended Regulation 3 read as follows: "3. Constitution of the Committee to make selection- (1) There shall be constituted for a State Cadre or a Joint Cadre specified in column 2 of the Schedule, a Committee consisting of the Chairman of the Commission or where the Chairman is unable to attend any other member of the Commission representing it and other members specified in the corresponding entry of column 3 of the Schedule: Provided that- (i) no member of the Committee other than the Chairman or the member of the Commission shall be a person who is not a member of an All India Service; (ii) the nominees of the Government of India shall not belong to the cadre of the State for which the meeting of the Committee is to be held; and (iii) the Central Government may after consultation with the State Government concerned, amend the Schedule. 3(2) The Chairman or the member of the Commission shall preside at all meetings of the Committee in which he is present. 3(3) The absence of a member, other than the Chairman or member of the Commission, shall not invalidate the proceedings of the Committee if more than half the members of the Committee had attended the meeting." 3. In the said regulations, after regulation 10, the following Schedule shall be added, namely:- S. No. Name of the State Cadre/Joint Cadre Other members of the Committee 1. Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram and Union Territories. (a) Chief Secretary of the constituent State for which the meeting is held and in respect of Union territory segment, the senior-most Chief Secretary amongst the Chief Secretaries to the Union Territory administrations; (b) the senior-most Chief Secretary of the remaining constituents of the Cadre; (c) DGP of the constituent state for which the meeting is held. In respect of Union territory segment, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi; (d) Head of Home Department of the constituent segment for which the meeting is held, not below the rank of Secretary to Government. In respect of Union territory segment, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi; (d) Head of Home Department of the constituent segment for which the meeting is held, not below the rank of Secretary to Government. In case of Union territory segment, the senior-most officer looking after Home Department among all Union Territories; (e) Special/Additional Secretary, Government of India, dealing with AGMUT cadre in Ministry of Home Affairs; and (f) two nominees of Government of India not below the rank of Joint Secretary. 2. Assam-Meghalaya and Manipur-Tripura Joint Cadres. (a) Chief Secretary to the Governments of the constituent States; (b) Director Generals of Police of the constituent States; and (c) two nominees of Government of India not below the rank of Joint Secretary. 3. Other Cadres (a) Chief Secretary of the State Government; (b) Secretary, Home Department or Principal Secretary (Home) of the State Government as the case may be ; (c) the Director General of Police of the State Govt.; and (d) two nominees of Government of India not below the rank of Joint Secretary." The unamended Regulation 3 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 reads as follows : "3. Constitution of the Committee to make selection :- (1) There shall be constituted for a State Cadre or a joint cadre a Committee constituting of the Chairman of the Commission or, where the Chairman is unable to attend, any other Member of the Commission representing it and the following other member namely.- (a) For State other than Joint Cadre: (i) Chief Secretary (ii) Officer not below the rank of Secretary to the Government in-charge of Home Department; (iii) Director-General and Inspector-General of Police; Where no Cadre post of Director-General and Inspector General of Police exists, then the Inspector General of Police; (iv) A nominee of the Government of India not below the rank of Joint Secretary. (b) For Joint Cadre posts other than Arunachal Pradesh Goa-Mizoram-Union Territories: (i) Chief Secretary to the Government of the Constituent States; (ii) Director-General and Inspector-General of Police of the Constituent States; OR Where no cadre posts of Director-General and Inspector-General or Police exists, then the Inspector-General of Police of the constituent States; (iii) A nominee of the Government of India not below the rank of Joint Secretary." (emphasis supplied) Thus the basic departure as can be noticed from the perusal of the Regulation 3 is in regard to the "Nominee" of the Govt. of India not below the rank of Joint Secretary. In the un-amended Regulation 3 of the Regulations, 1955, only a "nominee" was suggested while in the amended Regulation 3 of the Regulations 2005 there were two nominees. 12. Selection Committee was convened on 27-12-2006 for filing up the vacancies, by promotion, for the year 2004, 2005, and 2006 as well. Regulation 3 of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 was amended in the year 2005 giving effect to on and from 31-01-2005. Selection committee, so constituted as per amended Regulation, cannot legally consider the eligibility of the candidates for the vacancies of 2004 and even for the vacancies arising on the 1st day of 2005. Vacancies for the year 2004 and 2005 mean vacancies arising on the 1st day of January 2004 and 2005 and not thereafter. Admittedly, selection committee was constituted under amended Regulation. 13. Un-amended Regulation provided two kinds of committees namely, for State other than Joint Cadre and for State where Joint Cadre is in existence. Since we are concerned with Assam Meghalaya, which is a joint cadre, it is sub-rule 3(1)(b) of the un-amended regulation which would be relevant for our consideration. Un-amended regulation would reveal that it did not authorise nomination of more than one officer of the rank of Joint Secretary of the Govt. of India, while under amended regulation, it provided two nominees of Govt. of India not below the rank of Joint Secretary in case of Assam-Meghalaya Joint cadre. We have already indicated herein before that vacancies are for 2004, 2005 and 2006 as well. Regulation 3 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955 being amended in the year 2005, giving effect to on and from 31-1-2005, the selection committee constituted under amended regulation, therefore, cannot legally select the candidates for filling up the vacancies for the year 2004 and vacancies arising on the 1st day of January, 2005. 14. Regulation 5 of the Regulations provides provision for preparation of a list of suitable officers. It reads as follows: "5. Preparation of a List of Suitable Officers:- 5(1) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet every year and prepare a list of such members of the State Police Service as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to the Service. Regulation 5 of the Regulations provides provision for preparation of a list of suitable officers. It reads as follows: "5. Preparation of a List of Suitable Officers:- 5(1) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet every year and prepare a list of such members of the State Police Service as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to the Service. The number of members of the State Police Service to be included in the list shall be determined by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concerned, and shall not exceed the number of substantive vacancies as on the first day of January of the year in which the meeting is held, in the posts available for them under rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules. The date and venue of the meeting of the Committee to make the selection shall be determined by the Commission; Provided that no meeting of the Committee shall be held, and no list for the year in question shall be prepared when; (a) there are no substantive vacancies as on the first day of January of the year in the posts available for the members of the state Police Service under Rule 9 of the recruitment rules; or (b) the Central Government in consultation with the State Government decides that no recruitment shall be made during the year to the substantive vacancies as on the first day of January of the Year in the posts available for the members of the State Police Service under rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules; Provided further that where no meeting of the Committee could be held during a year for any reason other than that provided for in the first proviso as and when the Committee meets again, the Select List shall be prepared separately for each year during which the Committee could not meet as on the 31st December of each year. Explanation:- In case of Joint Cadres, a separate select list shall be prepared in respect of each State Police Service. 5(2) The Committee shall consider for inclusion to the said list, the cases of members of the State Police Services in the order of seniority in that service of a number which is equal to three times the number referred in sub-regulation(1). 5(2) The Committee shall consider for inclusion to the said list, the cases of members of the State Police Services in the order of seniority in that service of a number which is equal to three times the number referred in sub-regulation(1). Provided that such restriction shall not apply in respect of a State where the total number of eligible officers is less than three times the maximum permissible size of the Select List and in such a case the Committee shall consider all the eligible officers; Provided further that in computing the number for inclusion in the field of consideration, the number of officers referred to in sub-regulation (3) shall be exclude; Provided also that the Committee shall not consider the case of a member of the State Police Service unless on the first day of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared he is substantive in the State Police Service and has completed not less than eight year of continuous service (Whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government. Provided also that in respect of any released Emergency Commissioned or Short Service Commissioned officers appointed to the State Police Service, eight years of continuous service as required under the preceding proviso shall be counted from the deemed date of their appointment to that service, subject to the condition that such officers shall be eligible for consideration if they have completed not less that four yeas of actual continuous service, on the 1st day of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared, in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government. Explanation : The powers of the State Government under the third proviso to the sub-regulation shall be exercised in relation to the members of the State Police Service of the constituent State, by the Government of that State. 5(2)(A): Deleted. Explanation : The powers of the State Government under the third proviso to the sub-regulation shall be exercised in relation to the members of the State Police Service of the constituent State, by the Government of that State. 5(2)(A): Deleted. 5(3): The Committee shall not consider the cases of the member of the State Police Service who have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared: Provided that a member of the State Police Service whose name appears in the Select List in force immediately before the date of the meeting of the Committee and who has not been appointed to the service only because he was included provisionally in the Select List shall be considered for inclusion in the fresh list to be prepared by the Committee, even if he has in the meanwhile, attained the age of fifty four years. Provided further that a member of the State Police Service who has attained the age of fifty four years on the first day of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared shall be considered by the Committee, if he was eligible for consideration on the first day of "January of the year or any of the years immediately preceding the year in which such meeting is held but could not considered as no meeting of the Committee was held during such preceding year or years under item (b) of the proviso to sub-regulation(1)". 5.(3)(A) The Committee shall not consider the case of such member of the State Police Service who had been included in an earlier select list and - (a) had expressed his unwillingness for appointment to the service under regulation 9; Provided that he shall be considered for inclusion in the Select List, if before the commencement of the year, he applies in writing, to the State Government expressing his unwillingness to be considered for appointment to the service; (b) was not appointed to the service by the Central Government under regulation 9(a). 5(4) The Selection Committee shall classify the eligible officers as 'Outstanding', 'Very good', 'Good', and 'unfit' as the case may be on an overall relative assessment of their service records. 5(4) The Selection Committee shall classify the eligible officers as 'Outstanding', 'Very good', 'Good', and 'unfit' as the case may be on an overall relative assessment of their service records. 5(5) The List shall be prepared by including the required number of names first from amongst the officers finally classified as 'outstanding' then from amongst those similarly classified as 'Very Good' and thereafter from amongst those similarly classified as 'Good' and the order of names inter-se within each category shall be in the order of their seniority in the State Police Service. Provided that the name of an officer so included in the list shall be treated as provisional if the State Government withholds the integrity certificate in respect of such an officer or any proceedings, departmental or criminal are pending against him or anything adverse against him which renders him unsuitable for appointment to the service has come to the notice of the State Government. Provided further that while preparing year wise select lists for m ore than one year pursuant to the 2nd proviso to sub regulation (1), the officer included provisionally in any of the Select List so prepared shall be considered for inclusion in the Select List of Subsequent year in addition to the normal consideration zone and in case he is found fit for inclusion in the suitability list for that year on a provisional basis such inclusion shall be in addition to the normal size of the select list determined by the Central Government for such year. Explanation I: The proceedings shall be treated as pending only if a charge-sheet has actually been issued to the officer or filed in a Court as case may be. Explanation II: The adverse thing which came to the notice of the State Government rendering him unsuitable for appointment to the service shall be treated as having come to the notice of the State only if the details of the same have been communicated to the Central Government and the Central Government is satisfied that the details furnished by the State Government have a bearing on the suitability of the officer and investigation thereof is essential." 15. It therefore, postulates that substantive vacancies should exist/occur on the 1st day of January. It therefore, postulates that substantive vacancies should exist/occur on the 1st day of January. Thus, for filling up the vacancies for the year 2004, the selection committee, so constituted, cannot be said to be constituted per mandate of Regulation 3 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. 16. In the case of Y.V. Rangaiah and others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others [(1983) SCC (L & S) 382] it was held that vacancies in the post occurring prior to the amendment have to be filled up in accordance with the un-amended rules. The learned tribunal taking the above ratio held that the procedure adopted by the UPSC in adopting IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 2005 notified on 31-1-2005 certainly would not be applicable to the select list of 2004. "6. The Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that the vacancies that arose between the preparation of the panels in December, 1975 and April, 1977 were eight, and that there was no reason why panel for that period should not have been, drawn up at all. It is true that after October 18, 1975 the zones came into existence and, therefore, promotions to the grade of Sub-Registrar were required to be made on zonal basis, but after the personnel had been allocated to various zones, the task of preparing the annual panel with reference to the vacancies arising during the period 1976-77 should have been taken up on the basis of the seniority list for Zone IV. Had such a list been prepared according to the Andhra Pradesh Registration and Subordinate Service Rules, the eligibility of the candidates would naturally have been considered without reference to the amendment issued in March, 1977. On these findings the Tribunal held that the action taken by the Inspector-General of Registration and stamps to make appointments against vacancies arising during the period 1976-77 from amongst the 'left-overs' of the panels drawn up in April, 1975 and to dispense with the preparation of panel for 1976-77 was in violation of the rules and thus liable to be set aside, and it directed the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Inspector-General of Registration and Stamps to draw up a fresh panel for the year 1976-77 with reference to the vacancies that arose during that period. Strictly in accordance with the rules as they existed at the time and the vacancies pertaining to that period should be filled on the basis of such panel. Since the amendment to the rules was made in March, 1977, it follows that for vacancies relating to the panel year 1977-78 and subsequent years the panels will have to be prepared in accordance with the rules as they were amended by G.O. Ms. No. 265-Revenue (UI) dated March 22, 1977." 17. In our considered view, the above ratio squarely prevails upon the present cases at our hands. We are unable to evolve a different view than that of the view taken by the learned tribunal in regard to the vacancies occurring for the year 2004. Regulation 5 only deals with preparation of list of suitable officers. It prescribes the number of substantive vacancies in existence as on the 1st day of January of the year. Therefore, selection committee is required to be held as per regulation (5) prevalent at that time. The select list for 2004, therefore, could not have been prepared by a committee constituted as per mandate of the amended Regulation, 2005, notified on 31-1-2005. 18. As it appears to u, the case of respondent Dilip Kr. Baruah was considered for the vacancies of the year 2005. But his case was turned down due to his over age as on 1st day of January, 2005. He was found to have crossed 54 years as on 1-1-2005. It would appear to us that the selection committee was constituted for the vacancies 2004, 2005 and 2006 as well. Therefore, for the vacancies, for the year 2004, respondent Dilip kr. Baruah would have been eligible since he would not certainly have crossed 54 years as on 1-1-2004. 19. Regulation 5(3) of the Regulations provides the upper age limit. It says that the committee shall not consider the cases of members of the State Police Service who have attained the age of 54 years on the 1st day of January of the year for which the select list is prepared. Respondent Dilip Kr. Baruah was eliminated for attaining 54 years as on 1st day of January, 2005. But he could not have been eliminated for the vacancies for the year 2004, had the selection committee been constituted as per mandate of Regulation 3 of the unamended Regulation, 1955. Respondent Dilip Kr. Baruah was eliminated for attaining 54 years as on 1st day of January, 2005. But he could not have been eliminated for the vacancies for the year 2004, had the selection committee been constituted as per mandate of Regulation 3 of the unamended Regulation, 1955. By constituting a selection committee as per mandate of the amended Regulation 2005, elimination of Dilip Kr. Baruah of the vacancies for the year 2004 would be apparently illegal. Learned tribunal after meticulous consideration of the facts and the law rightly, rather validly, held that elimination of Dilip Kr. Baruah is illegal and therefore, select list for the year 2004 cannot be sustained in law when the petitioners followed IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 2005 as amended on 31-1-2005. It was therefore, rightly observed that the notification dated 31-05-2007 would require necessary amendment, if any, subject to out come of Review Selection Committee to be held in accordance with law. 20. It was brought to our notice at the time of argument by the learned counsel for the respondent that elimination of Guneswar Duwari(respondent in W.P(c) No. 5847 of 2010) would also be illegal since no complete and actual and factual aspects vis-a-vis ACRs were placed for consideration while considering his case for the year 2004 and 2005. Though Sri Duwari (respondent No. 1 in WP(C) No. 5847 of 2010) had been under cloud for period from 29-7-1999 to 28-9-2001 and was facing disciplinary proceedings, he was ultimately exonerated and period of suspension from 29-7-1999 to 28-9-2001 was regularised as on duty for all purposes vide order dated 10-2-2006, the factum of exoneration and regularisation of the period of suspension from duty for all purposes had not been communicated rather placed before the committee for consideration. Non-placement of all material aspects vis-a-vis ACR in respect of sri Duwari caused prejudice to him. Had all those matters been placed, the committee could have considered his case. His elimination on account of default on the part of the State Govt., therefore, in our considered opinion render the select list for the year 2004 and 2005 invalid. The findings of the learned tribunal in this respect and direction issued also do not, in our considered view, warrant any interference. 21. Arguments advanced by the learned CGC failed to impress us and we, therefore, reject his submissions. On the other hand arguments advanced by Sri. The findings of the learned tribunal in this respect and direction issued also do not, in our considered view, warrant any interference. 21. Arguments advanced by the learned CGC failed to impress us and we, therefore, reject his submissions. On the other hand arguments advanced by Sri. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel appear acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the cases and the law. We, therefore, are unable to record our disagreement to the impugned common judgment rendered by the learned CAT. The impugned judgment is, therefore, affirmed. 22. Writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.