(1.) INVOKING the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question the legal defensibility of the order dated 2nd December, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short ,,the tribunal) in OA No. 2480/2009 whereby the tribunal has acceded to the prayer made by the respondents No.1 and 2, the applicants before it, by directing the Union of India and its functionaries to accord actual promotion by giving effect to the finding of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) conducted in association with the Union Public Service Commission (for short ,,the Commission) and further to extend the consequential benefits of promotion and revised pensionary benefits along with arrears within a period of three months.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated are that the respondent No.1 got promotion to the rank of Assistant Director, Grade- II and superannuated on 30th April, 2005. The respondent No.2 was promoted to the said rank and retired on 31st January, 2005. The names of 20 eligible candidates were forwarded to the DPC for consideration against the vacancies arising in 17 posts and the names of the two respondents were included in the said list. The DPC could only be held on 27th December, 2005 and by that time the respondents No.1 and 2 along with five others had attained the age of superannuation and, therefore, their cases could not be considered for promotion.
(3.) IN order to incorporate these instructions the amendment to 1994 Rules was initiated in August, 2000 and eventually the INdian Supply Services (Amendment) Rules could be finally notified on 23rd June, 2004.