JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are represented by Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India. The Union Public Service Commission and the selection committee (respondent Nos.5 and 7) are represented by the learned counsel Ms. R. Borah. The learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, Mr. D. Nath appears for respondent Nos. 3, 6 and 8. The learned Sr. counsel Mr. M.K. Choudhury together with Mr. T.N. Srinivasan, advocate, appears for the private respondent Nos. 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23 and 24. The private respondent Nos. 19, 22, 25 and 26 are represented by the learned advocate Mr. R. Singha and the respondent No.13 is represented by Mr. B.N. Gogoi, the learned counsel. 2. The deprivation of promotion of the petitioner to the IPS cadre for the 2009A and 2010 batch, is the subject matter of the present litigation. The petitioner was within the zone of consideration during those occasions but as because, she was inflicted the penalty of censure, in pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding, the UPSC found her unfit for promotion, at both juncture. 3. But the penalty of censure, when challenged through the WP(C) No.4521/2010, was quashed by the High Court on 27.04.2012 (Annexure-7). Armed with the Court’s verdict, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) for retrospective promotion from the date, when her batch mates and juniors were promoted. However the learned Tribunal rejected the O.A. No.171/2013. Accordingly the aggrieved applicant has approached the High Court to challenge the Tribunal’s order dated 20.01.2015 (page-176). 4.1 Assailing the legality of the impugned decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner contends that promotion to the Assam segment of the IPS, Assam-Meghalaya Joint Cadre, in 2009A and 2010 batch for the writ petitioner, was not considered on merit only because of the censure penalty dated 16.09.2009 (subsequently quashed by the High Court on 27.04.2012). Therefore when the penalty was obliterated, corrective measures should have been ordered by the Tribunal, to do complete justice to the deprived officer. 4.2 Mr. Therefore when the penalty was obliterated, corrective measures should have been ordered by the Tribunal, to do complete justice to the deprived officer. 4.2 Mr. U.K. Nair as the learned counsel submits that the writ petitioner was granted the promotion in the year 2011, but since she was entitled to be considered for the batch of 2009A and 2010 when her contemporaries and juniors were selected, necessary corrective consideration through review selection committee ought to be made, to ante-date her seniority in the IPS. 4.3 The petitioner’s lawyer further submits that the censure penalty, quashed by the writ court on 27.04.2012 (Annexure-7) in the WP(C) No.4521/2010, has attained finality without challenge to the Court’s verdict by anyone and therefore the counsel argues that the benefit of the obliteration of the censure order, must reach the deprived officer. 4.4 Since the writ petitioner is requesting for a consideration of her case on merit as the same was not done by the concerned DPCs in the years 2009A and 2010 on account of the suffering of the penalty by the officer, Mr. Nair submits that right to be considered for promotion being a Fundamental Right, the same must not be denied to the petitioner. 5.1 On the other hand, Ms. R. Bora, the learned counsel for the UPSC refers to the counter affidavit filed by the Under Secretary of the Commission on 26.02.2016 to project that the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Promotion Regulations”) govern the field. They require the UPSC to make selection of State police service officers for promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS). It is the responsibility of the State Government to forward proposals for consideration by the UPSC and under Regulation 5(1) of the Promotion Regulations, the number of vacancies against which selection is made for a particular selection year, is determined in consultation with the State and the Central Government. 5.2 Highlighting the procedure for consideration provided under Regulation 5(4) of the Promotion Regulations, Ms. Borah submits that classification of the eligible officers is made in the zone of consideration as ‘Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’ and ‘Unfit’ and thereafter the list is prepared from amongst the categorized group, for recommending promotion to the IPS cadre, from the shortlisted officers. 5.2 Highlighting the procedure for consideration provided under Regulation 5(4) of the Promotion Regulations, Ms. Borah submits that classification of the eligible officers is made in the zone of consideration as ‘Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’ and ‘Unfit’ and thereafter the list is prepared from amongst the categorized group, for recommending promotion to the IPS cadre, from the shortlisted officers. 5.3 In the instant case, the selection committee which met on 21.12.2010 to prepare the select list of 2009A batch and the next one which met on 27.12.2011 to prepare the select list for the 2010 batch vacancies, did not consider the candidature of the writ petitioner on merit as she was declared to be unfit on account of the censure penalty. Therefore the counsel for the UPSC submits that the selection committee committed no wrong in the process of consideration in the year 2009A and 2010. 6.1 Representing the private respondents, who stole a march over the writ petitioner in promotion to IPS, the learned Sr. counsel Mr. M.K. Choudhury projects that they were recommended on merit for the vacancies of 2009A and 2010 and since then, the recommendations of the selection committee were acted upon and the respondents are serving as IPS officers for last about 8/9 years. Therefore, the private respondents argue that consideration of the writ petitioner through review selection committee, should not result in reversion of the respondents to the State Police cadre, on account of the limited vacancies available in the concerned years. 6.2 The Sr. counsel submits that the ratio of Dharampal Arora Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board reported in (2006)13 SCC 593, was rightly not taken into account by the Tribunal to refuse relief to the applicant as the said decision was rendered in different context. 7. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel and also applied our mind to the decisions cited before us. 8. It is clear enough from the stand of the UPSC that the petitioner was declared to be unfit for promotion to the IPS cadre in the year 2009A and 2010, only because of the censure penalty, recorded against her on 16.09.2009. But what is significant in the concerned disciplinary proceeding is that the Enquiry Officer gave a negative finding that the charges have not been proved against the officer. But what is significant in the concerned disciplinary proceeding is that the Enquiry Officer gave a negative finding that the charges have not been proved against the officer. The disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer ordered for imposition of the penalty of censure without however providing any opportunity to the delinquent. This decision to arbitrarily penalize the delinquent was found to be unacceptable and accordingly both the penalty order of the disciplinary authority and also the approval order of the appellate authority, were quashed by the writ court. Thus on account of the judgment rendered in the WP(C) No.4521/2010, the penalty order was obliterated from the service record, of the writ petitioner. 9. The legal consequences of quashing of disciplinary action, was the subject matter of consideration of the Apex Court in Dharampal Arora (supra) and the Court in that context observed that- “once the final order goes, all the orders from the date of charge-sheet up to the date of the passing of the final order become a nullity and redundant”. 10. While the above ratio of the Supreme Court in Dharampal Arora (supra) was pressed home in the O.A. No.171/2013, the Tribunal declared that the case of Dharampal Arora (supra) related to crossing of the efficiency bar and is not applicable. But such understanding of the ratio of Dharampal Arora (supra) by the Tribunal, in our considered view, is incorrect as the challenge in the Supreme Court decision was to a disciplinary proceeding, which led to denial of the claim of crossing the efficiency bar, for the litigant. Hence the enunciation of law in that case must be of universal application and should not be restricted to only cases concerning crossing the efficiency bar. When the disciplinary action is quashed, the benefit to the litigant must be for all the consequences suffered by her on account of the penalization made in the disciplinary proceeding. Moreover, it cannot also be said that only prospective benefit should accrue to the delinquent on account of the positive verdict rendered in her favour. 11. It is authoritatively settled by the Apex Court in the case of Air India Cabin Crew Association Vs. Union of India reported in (2012)1 SCC 619 that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. 11. It is authoritatively settled by the Apex Court in the case of Air India Cabin Crew Association Vs. Union of India reported in (2012)1 SCC 619 that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. If we apply the principle of law highlighted by this decision to the facts in Dharampal Arora (supra), it is clear enough that the substantial challenge of the litigant was to a disciplinary proceeding and the consequential action was just an offshoot of that action. Therefore the Tribunal in our perception erred in refusing to apply the ratio of Dharampal Arora (supra) in the present matter and that is how, an incorrect decision was rendered by the learned Tribunal. 12. In so far as want of provision for a review selection committee in the Promotion Regulations, what is needed to be done here is to undo an injustice done to an officer, when she was denied consideration of promotion in the concerned years. It is well settled that consideration of promotion is a Fundamental Right as was held in Union of India Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak reported in (2007)6 SCC 704 and here it is clear enough that the writ petitioner’s case was never considered on merit, by the selection committee in the year 2009A and 2010. This was because at the relevant time, the censure order was operating against the officer. But when this Court had quashed the penalty through its judgment in the WP(C) No.4521/2010, to even then, deny the benefit of the Court’s judgment, would result in unnecessary deprivation for the person who did not receive consideration from the selection committee, in the relevant years. 13. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the writ petitioner is entitled to consideration of her claim for promotion in the 2009A and 2010 batch, as she was denied such consideration on merit, by the concerned selection committees of these two years. Of course, if she is found suitable for promotion by the selection committee, it might impact the private respondents for the concerned year, but this in our understanding does not warrant denial of consideration of promotion. 14. The interest of the private respondents should however be protected, in the event the writ petitioner is found to be eligible for ante-dating her promotion and this is possible. 14. The interest of the private respondents should however be protected, in the event the writ petitioner is found to be eligible for ante-dating her promotion and this is possible. The persons who might get affected and who are serving in the IPS cadre for last 7/8 years, need not be reverted back to the state Police Service and the impact can be limited to only correction of respective seniority positions. It cannot be overlooked that the private respondents could move ahead of the petitioner in service only because, she was not considered for promotion in the concerned years and this anomaly must be addressed. Thus, if the selection committee finds merit in the writ petitioner’s claim for promotion in the year 2009A and 2010, as she was subsequently included in the select list of IPS in the year 2011, her seniority adjustment can be made vis-à-vis the available vacancies of the earlier batch and this will have limited impact on the seniority position of the private respondents who need not suffer reversion. Such an approach is found to be justified, as a wrong done to an officer, must be rectified and it will also balance the scale of justice for both parties. Otherwise, the injustice done to her will be allowed to be perpetrated for all service consequences. Moreover she has a Fundamental Right to be considered for promotion, which was denied to her at the relevant time. 15. When the writ petitioner was never considered on merit in the year 2009A and 2010 by the selection committee, she is entitled to just consideration of her claim for promotion and the law permits exercise of such power by the Review Selection Committee. [See: Union of India Vs. Dr. M.G. Dighe - (1991)4 SCC 551 ] The judicial power must be exercised to achieve a judicious result and not addressing the injustice done to the petitioner cannot be supported in law. 16. For the foregoing discussion, we hold that the relief claimed in this case should be granted and accordingly we interfere with the rejection of the writ petitioner’s case by the learned Tribunal, by setting aside the order dated 20.01.2015 (page-176) in the O.A. No.171/2013. The Review Selection Committee is accordingly ordered to consider the writ petitioner’s claim for promotion in the year 2009A and 2010. The Review Selection Committee is accordingly ordered to consider the writ petitioner’s claim for promotion in the year 2009A and 2010. In the event, her claim is found to be justified by the Review Selection Committee by application of the norms under the Promotion Regulations, she would be entitled for ante-dating her promotion, from the relevant dates, when her colleagues and juniors were promoted. This however should not result in reversion of any of the private respondents, but only the seniority in the cadre of IPS for the concerned years, need be re-fixed. 17. In order to complete the required exercise as ordered above, the State, the Central Government and the UPSC are directed to take all necessary steps so that the Review Selection Committee can complete the consideration within the outer limit of 4(four) months. It is ordered accordingly. With this order, the writ petition stands disposed of without any order on cost. 18. Furnish this order to the parties who are required to take necessary steps to comply with our direction.