ORDER : 1. Whether DPC is justified in preparing a select list bunching the vacancies for various years is the question arising for consideration in this case. 2. The second respondent in the order dated 21.8.2006 in O.A. No. 2402 of 2003 passed by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, has filed the writ petition. The issue pertains to the promotion to the post of Senior Manager in the first respondent Corporation. There is no dispute that the selection is on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. The merit is to be assessed by the DPC. The Tribunal has taken the view that the vacancies previous in year cannot be bunched in preparing the select list and consequently a direction was issued to prepare select list qua vacancies of each year. Thus aggrieved, the writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner, the selection is based on merit-cum-seniority and on the only ground that the private respondent herein is senior, in case he is not otherwise more meritorious cannot claim the selection. There cannot be two views on that proposition. But the fact remains that the DPC has bunched the vacancies of a few years and has prepared on select list. That procedure is against the well settled position on preparation of select list by the DPC. The DPC has to first identify the vacancies of the respective years since the DPC is bound to be convened in respect of vacancies of the year concerned in the year of occurrence of vacancies. No doubt, they can also prepare the select list for anticipated vacancies as well. While preparing the select list for the year concerned, necessarily only those who are in the zone of consideration for the year concerned, shall be considered by the DPC as otherwise, the DPC will be enlarging the field of choice, which is not permissible under law. This principle is settled by the Apex Court in Vinod Kumar Sangal v. Union of India and others reported in 1995 (4) SCC 246 , and discussed in detail at Paragraph-8. To quote:- "8. This principle is settled by the Apex Court in Vinod Kumar Sangal v. Union of India and others reported in 1995 (4) SCC 246 , and discussed in detail at Paragraph-8. To quote:- "8. It is not the case of the respondents that the DPC made separate selection for the vacancies for the years 1980, 1982 and 1983 and the DPC appears to have bunched together all the vacancies for the years 1980 to 1985 and has made one selection for the 6 promotional vacancies and this has resulted in enlargement of the field of choice for the purpose of selection. The grievance of the appellant is that this mode of selection in disregard of the instructions contained in the office memorandum dated 24-12-1980 operated to his prejudice appears to be justified because if separate selection had been made for the vacancies which occurred in the years 1980, 1982 and 1983 the field of choice would have been much more restricted and the appellant would have had better chances of being selected." 4. The Tribunal has only directed the preparation of the select list in terms of the settled position, as above. 5. Be that as it may. We find that based on the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner had continued in service without any disturbance and has since retired also. The same appears to be the fate of other incumbents as well. Therefore, while implementing the directions issued by the Tribunal, we make it clear that in case the petitioner is otherwise disturbed, now that he has actually worked in the post, there shall be no consequential recovery from the petitioner. Needless to say that in case the private respondent is otherwise found suitable for promotion, all the consequential benefits shall be granted to him, as per the directions issued by the Tribunal. 6. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.