ORDER
Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
1. The short point involved in this case is whether the UPSC while convening the DPC for the post of Deputy Director General (ISS) could have taken into consideration the criteria of selection subject to unfit, as laid down in instructions dated 8.2.2002 when the procedure laid down in recruitment rules notified on 9.9.1994 was selection by merit and they were still in existence when the DPC met.
2. It is submitted by the applicant that he joined Indian Supply Service in the year 1973 as Assistant Director (Supplies) Group -A. The next post for promotion is that of Deputy Director General and as per the recruitment rules dated 23.9.1994, the selection was required to be made on merit, which means that the officers who were found to be `outstanding’ should have been placed above those, who had lesser merit as per the recommendations of the DPC whereas the DPC, which was held sometimes in May, 2002 for filling up the vacancies of 2000-01, 2001-02/2002-03, for promotion to the post of DDG (S) did not follow the criteria, which is evident from the fact that applicant was not promoted even though he was having all `outstanding’ ACRs. This was presumably done because as per DOP&T OM dated 08.2.2002 no supersession was to be done as such no preference was given to the applicant in spite of having `outstanding’ ACRs. It is submitted by the applicant that the recruitment rules were amended only on 21.6.2004 and they were also prospective in nature, therefore, the DPC, which was held for the vacancies, which arose prior to 21.6.2004 ought to have been held in accordance with the pre-amended recruitment rules.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for applicant that administrative instructions could not have superseded the statutory rules. In OM dated 8.2.2002, it was clarified by DOP&T that there should be no supersession but in the same OM, Ministries and Departments were requested to take immediate steps to amend the service/recruitment rules appropriately to incorporate the mode of promotion as selection in accordance with the instructions issued on 8.2.2002 in place of selection by merit. He, therefore, submitted that till RRs were amended, OM dated 8.2.2002 could not have been followed. Moreover, vacancies could not have been clubbed.
4. Counsel for the applicant also invited our attention to the order dated 25.10.2005 passed by the Tribunal whereby any decision taken by the DPC was held to abide by the result of this application. He relied on the following judgments:
Y.V. Rangaiah and Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors. ;
Union of India and Ors. v. Somasundaram Viswanath and Ors. ;
P.D. Aggarwal and Ors. v. State of UP and Ors. SLR 1987 (4) 134;
N.T. Devin Katti and Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. .
5. Reply has been filed by the official respondents, the private respondents as well as UPSC, who were issued notice subsequently during the pendency of the OA and given chance to file their reply.
6. Counsel for the official respondents has submitted that the seniority list of Deputy Directors had undergone changes as per the directions given by this Tribunal in OA 1631/1996 and OA 690/1997, resultantly all promotions to the posts of Director in the Indian Supply Service given from 1981 to 1998-99 had also been reviewed and revised promotion order with reassigned seniority was issued on 8.11.2001. Director is the feeder grade for the post of Deputy Director General in the Indian Supply Service. The staff strength of Indian Supply Service was re-fixed after restructuring only on 24.5.2002.
7. In the year 2000-01, there occurred 2 vacancies in the grade of DDG (ISS). However, following the restructuring of DGS&D organization on recommendations of Group of Secretaries as well as ERC recommendations, a decision was taken to surrender the aforesaid 2 posts of DDG. Hence, no proposal for preparation of any panel for the said year was necessary.
8. In the year 2001-02, there occurred 1 vacancy in the grade of DDG (ISS) and 5 vacancies occurred in the year 2002-03, out of which only 4 were to be filled up in the grade of DDG (ISS) as 1 vacancy was utilized to accommodate repatriation of a Central Deputation, namely, Shri Om Prakash, DDG. Accordingly, proposal for preparation of panel for 4 vacancies for the year 2002-03 along with 1 vacancy for the year 2001-02 was forwarded to UPSC on 21.02.2002 with the recommendation that as per Recruitment Rules dated 23.9.1994, the selection for officers for promotion to the grade of Senior Administrative Grade (Deputy Director General) was required to be made on merit which meant those officers who were found to be outstanding were required to be placed above very good.
9. They have submitted that DPC met on 28.5.2002, which recommended a panel of 5 officers pertaining to 1 vacancy of 2001-02 and 4 vacancies of 2002-03 and admitted that the said DPC took cognizance of DOP&T OM dated 8.2.2002 in carrying out the selection of the officers.
10. They have further submitted that even if DPC would have prepared separate panels for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03, applicant’s name would not in any case have been considered for the vacancy of 2001-02 as his name did not figure in the zone of consideration. As per DPC recommendations and with the approval of the competent authority, the order appointing 3 Directors, namely, Shri R.P. Singh, Shri A.K. Saxena and Shri S. Farooq Hamid was issued on 12.8.2002 to the post of DDG keeping the panel still alive for the other 2 anticipated vacancies. In the year 2003-04, there were 4 anticipated vacancies for which a proposal was sent to UPSC on 3.1.2003 for preparation of a panel but before DPC could meet, the Government, on a fresh review following the process of restructuring of the organization of DGS&D, took a decision on 18.3.2003 not to abolish the said 2 posts of DDGs which fell vacant on 1.11.2000 and 1.1.2001, respectively as already mentioned above. It was proposed to fill up these 2 vacancies treating them as pertaining to the recruitment year 2002-03. The panel already prepared in respect of other vacancies pertaining to the year 2002-03 were let out of the purview of any review and DPC was proposed for a fresh panel of 2 officers for these 2 revived vacancies pertaining to 2003-04. Accordingly, DPC met in April, 2003 and recommended suitably. The DPC was again further reviewed. Based on the recommendations of the review DPC which met on 12.1.2004, only 4 vacancies pertaining to the recruitment year 2003-04 were filled up by promoting 4 ISS officers, including the applicant w.e.f. 20.5.2004. The appointment of all the above cited officers to the post of DDG (S) is further subject to outcome of CWP No. 4670/2000 filed by Shri G.V. Rajan and others before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. They have thus submitted that applicant is already working as DDG (S) belonging to Senior Administrative Grade of Indian Supply Service (Group `A’) in the Ministry of Defence w.e.f. 19.5.2004 and since DPC has a right to device his own procedure, it is not open to the court to interfere in this matter, therefore, the OA may be dismissed.
11. Counsel for the private respondents submitted that it is the duty of the respondents to hold DPC for the vacancies year wise by taking into consideration only such number of persons, who come within the zone of consideration for the relevant year keeping in view the vacancies of that relevant year. Therefore, clubbing of vacancies could not have been done. Therefore, in case Court is inclined to direct the respondents to hold review DPC, direction should also be given to the respondents to hold review DPC for all the vacancies starting from the year 2000-01 by making it clear that it should be held for the vacancies year wise and separate panels should be prepared for that purpose and it should not be restricted only to the grievance of applicant alone otherwise their rights would be affected.
12. UPSC in their reply, have submitted that earlier as per DOP&T OM dated 10.4.1989 and 27.3.1997, it was clarified that in respect of posts which are in the level of Rs. 3700-5000 (now Rs. 12000-16500) and above, the benchmark should be very good. However, officers who are graded as outstanding would rank en block senior to those who are graded as very good and placed in the select panel accordingly upto the number of vacancies, of course, with same grading maintaining their inter-se seniority in the feeder post. However, above DPC guidelines which permitted supersession in selection posts were revised by the DOP&T vide their OM dated 8.2.2002 wherein it was clarified that DPC shall determine the merit of those being assessed for promotion with reference to the prescribed bench-mark and accordingly grade the officers as fit or unfit only. Only those who are graded fit by the DPC shall be included and arranged in the select panel in order of their inter-se seniority in the feeder grade. Those officers, who are graded unfit by the DPC shall not be included in the select panel. Thus, there shall be no supersession in promotion among those who are graded fit by the DPC. They also submitted that DPCs enjoy full discretion to devise their own methods and procedures for objective assessment of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by them. They have thus submitted that in following the OM dated 8.2.2002, they have not committed any illegality. They have also admitted that DPC did take into consideration the OM dated 8.2.2002 while considering the officers to the posts of DDG but in view of OM dated 8.2.2002, though applicant was included in the zone of consideration at Sl. No. 12 for the vacancy of 2002-03 but assessment of officers at Sl. No. 9 to 12 in the zone of consideration were not undertaken by the DPC, as sufficient number of officers senior to the applicant with the prescribed bench mark of very good had become available in accordance with the revised instructions as contained in DOPT OM dated 8.2.2002. They have relied on Para 5 of the letter dated 8.2.2002 to state that the said instructions had come into force from the date of its issue, therefore, the DPC rightly followed the instructions dated 8.2.2002. They have submitted that the OM dated 8.2.2002 is an administrative instruction and is not a part of the recruitment rules, therefore, it is wrong to suggest that administrative instructions were in contradiction to the recruitment rules. They have also submitted that UPSC has been adopting OM dated 8.2.2002 in all the DPCs held on or after 8.2.2002, therefore, the OA may be dismissed.
13. In rejoinder, counsel for the applicant relied on Office Memorandum dated 16.5.2005 to state that this letter makes it absolutely clear that unless the recruitment rules were amended, the OM dated 8.2.2002 could not have been applied He thus prayed that the OA may be allowed by directing the respondents to hold review DPC for promotion to the post of DDG for the vacancies from 2001-2002 till March, 2004, in accordance with the RRs in vogue at that time and to grant him all consequential benefits, including revision of seniority, arrears, etc.
14. I have heard all the counsel, perused the pleadings, relied upon judgments as well as original records.
15. Admittedly, the vacancies in question relate to 2000-2001 to 2003-2004. The applicant has already been promoted w.e.f. 20.5.2004, against the vacancies of 2003-04. If the contention of applicant is accepted, at best there might be some changes in the placement of officers, that too if he is found to be more meritorious than others by the DPC. It is also relevant to note that promotions were made subject to the outcome of OA and all the parties who are likely to be affected are made parties in the O.A.
16. In this backdrop, if the facts as stated above are examined, we find there were 2 vacancies of 2000-01 as ultimately it was decided not to surrender them, 1 vacancy for 2001-02, 4 vacancies for 2002-03 to be filled as 5th was to be adjusted by the officer who was to come back from deputation. DPC met on 28.5.2002 and April, 2003 and January, 2004 and admittedly in all these DPCs OM dated 8.2.2002 was taken into consideration, meaning thereby that only such of the candidates who fulfilled the basic criteria of very good bench mark as per their seniority have been recommended by the DPC without looking into the comparative merit of the candidates. It is also an admitted fact that even though applicant came within the zone of consideration for the vacancies of 2002-03 at Serial No. 12 but he was not even considered because persons above him in the seniority had attained the bench mark of very good. It is also an admitted position that separate panels were not prepared for the vacancies year wise. It is settled position in law that vacancies have to be calculated year wise and only such number of candidates have to be considered who fall within the zone of consideration for vacancies of that particular year. Clubbing of vacancies is not permissible. Government’s instructions on this point are absolutely clear. Therefore, the first illegality committed by the respondents is, that DPC was not conducted for year wise vacancies nor separate panels were prepared for 2001-02 and 2002-03 as is required in the instructions issued by Govt. of India. The 2 vacancies, which had occurred for the year 2000-01 were initially not filled up as Government had decided to surrender those vacancies but subsequently it was decided not to abolish those posts, therefore, those 2 vacancies would have to be counted in the year 2000-01. Accordingly, review DPC ought to have been held and panel should have been prepared by treating those vacancies for the year 2000-01 and taken into consideration the officers, who would have come within the zone of consideration as per the changed No. of vacancies whereas admittedly, those 2 vacancies were considered separately by the DPC in the year 2003 and review DPC was not held for this purpose nor these 2 vacancies were taken to be the vacancies of 2000-01. Similarly, even for vacancies of 2001-02 and 2002-03, the DPC, which met on 28.5.2002, had recommended the combined panel of 5 officers, meaning thereby that even at that stage, separate panels were not prepared. This is also contrary to the instructions issued by the Government of India, therefore, it is concluded that the DPC for vacancies of above years have not been carried out in accordance with rules correctly. Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that applicant would not have come within the zone of consideration for 2001-02, therefore, that DPC need not be interfered with. We are not inclined to accept this contention because once illegality has been found out, it must be corrected by holding review DPC so that other officers also do not have any grievance. We have to protect the interest of all the parties who are present before us, therefore, we are satisfied that review DPCs need to be carried out for the vacancies from 2000-01 to 2003-04.
17. It is seen that as per Para 7 (4) of the Indian Supply Service (Group `A’) Rules, 1994, selection of officers for promotion was required to be made by selection on merit (page 35 at 36). When the DPC was convened for the vacancies in question, these recruitment rules were very much in operation. These RRs were amended only on 21.6.2004 and in the Notification, it was made clear that they shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette meaning thereby they were prospective in nature. The only amendment carried out in the amended recruitment rules was as follows (page 41 at 42):
(4) The selection of officers for promotion to various grades of the Service shall be regulated in the following manner, namely:
(a), (b) and (c) x x x x x
(d) Promotion of officers from the Senior Time Scale Non-Functional Second Grade to the Junior Administrative Grade, from the Junior Administrative Grade to the Senior Administrative Grade and from the Senior Administrative Grade to the Higher Administrative Grade, of the Service, shall be on the basis of selection.
It is thus clear that the only amendment carried out in the RRs was to incorporate the method as suggested in OM dated 8.2.2002 but since it was prospective in nature, naturally the amendment in the RRs could not have been given effect to retrospectively.
18. The difference between merit-cum-seniority and seniority-cum-merit was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. etc. v. K. Addanki Babu and Ors. wherein it was held that the principle of merit-cum-seniority lays greater emphasis on merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role. Seniority is to be given weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal whereas in the criterion of seniority-cum-merit greater emphasis is laid on seniority, meaning thereby given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration the senior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. It is thus clear from above judgment that where selection was to be done on the basis of merit, it is the merit, which has to play the main role. It is also to be kept in mind that till the RRs were amended on 21.6.2004, the requirement of the rules was to carry out promotion on the basis of selection by merit. Therefore, by implication, it was necessary that the persons who came within the zone of consideration should have been considered on the basis of their merit and not on the basis of selection subject to fitness as has been followed by DPC. At this stage, it would be further relevant to refer from the instructions issued by the DOP&T dated 10.4.1989, as amended on 27.3.1997 wherein it was clearly indicated that the officers who are graded as outstanding would rank en-block senior to those, who are graded as very good and would be placed in the select panel accordingly upto the number of vacancies. Admittedly, this procedure was not followed by the DPC convened by UPSC in this case. On the contrary, DPC followed the instructions dated 8.2.2002 whereunder DPC was required to determine the merit of those being assessed for promotion with reference to the prescribed bench mark and accordingly grade the officers as fit or unfit only. Only those who are graded fit by the DPC were to be included and arranged in the select panel in order of their inter-se seniority in the feeder grade, meaning thereby that selection by merit was replaced by selection only, by ignoring merit.
19. The moot question that arises in this case is, whether DPC could have adopted the instructions dated 8.2.2002 when the RRs which are statutory in nature stipulated a different mode of selection or whether by the administrative instructions the RRs could have been diluted or watered down by the DPC.
20. Though in para 5 of the said OM, it was stated that the instructions contained in Office Memorandum shall come into force from the date of its issue but in the succeeding paragraph of the said OM, Ministries/Departments were also requested to give wide circulation to these revised instructions for general guidance in the matter so that immediate steps are taken to amend the Service Rules/Recruitment Rules of various services/posts/grades so as to appropriately incorporate the mode of promotion as selection (in accordance with these instructions) in place of selection by merit and selection-cum-seniority as was hitherto prescribed by the aforesaid OM dated 27.3.1997, as the case may be. The powers to amend Service Rules/Recruitment Rules in this regard were also delegated to the Ministries/Departments and it was further stated DOP&T need not be consulted to carry out the required amendments.
21. A bare reading of the above paragraph makes it clear that by the same OM dated 8.2.2002, a mandate was issued to the Ministries/Departments to amend the recruitment rules in consonance with the instructions issued on 8.2.2002. Admittedly, in the instant case, the recruitment rules were amended only in 2004 when the criteria of selection by merit was changed to selection, therefore, it is clear that upto 21.6.2004, the mode as stipulated in the RRs continued to be selection by merit.
22. At this juncture, it would be relevant to quote from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Mahendran and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , wherein it was clarified that every statute or statutory rule is prospective, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the rules showing the intention to affect existing rights, the rule must be held to be prospective. If a rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only. Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.T. Devin Katti’s case (supra). As we have just noted above, in the RRs which were amended on 21.6.2004, in para 2 it was made clear that the Indian Supply Service (Group A) Amendment Rules, 2004 shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. It is clear that the amendment was to be carried out prospectively.
23. It is also settled position that if any administrative order is not in consonance with the statutory rules or is in conflict with the rules, the statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution shall prevail on the executive instructions. This preposition is well settled in the case of Union of India v. Somasundaram Vishwanath and Ors. wherein it was held s under:
The norms regarding recruitment and promotion of officers belonging to the Civil Services can be laid down either by a law made by the appropriate legislature or by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 or by means of executive instructions issued under Article 73 in the case of Civil Services under the Union of India and under Article 162 in the case of Civil Services under the State Governments. If there is a conflict between the executive instructions and the rules made under the proviso to Article 309, the rules made under proviso to Article 309 prevail
24. The next question then arises, whether O.M. dated 8.2.2002 can be said to be in conflict with the statutory rules or is merely supplementing the rules. We have applied our mind on this question. If in the RRs, the method would not have been mentioned as selection by merit and it had been mentioned only as selection, in that case probably we would have agreed with the respondents that by the instructions, they could have supplemented the rules but in this case method of promotion is clearly mentioned in the RRs as selection by merit, meaning thereby merit had to be given greater emphasis. By adopting OM dated 8.2.2002 DPC, in fact, diluted or watered down the specific method, which was laid down in the statutory rules, which, according to us, is not sustainable in law. No body can dispute the preposition that DPC can devise their own method in assessing the suitability of officers but that does not give any right to the DPC to ignore the criteria as laid down in the statutory rules specially when the Ministry had also proposed to follow the method of selection by merit, meaning thereby that DPC ought to have placed such officers, who were graded as outstanding en-block senior to those who were graded as very good and then prepared the select panel accordingly upto the number of vacancies.
26. It is relevant to note that while issuing OM dated 8.2.2002 DOP&T was fully aware of this situation that is why not only it had insisted that RRs be amended accordingly but now they have issued latest OM dated 15.9.2005 (page 158) which, for ready reference, reads as under:
The undersigned is directed to invite attention to the provisions of DoPT O.M. of even number dated 16th February, 2005 (copy enclosed) on the above noted subject and to say that the status report sought by 31st May, 2005 regarding review of the existing Service Rules/Recruitment Rules to bring them in conformity with the provisions of DoPT O.M. of even number dated 8th February, 2002 has not been received from most of the Ministries/Departments. Therefore, possibility of some of the Service Rules/Recruitment Rules not being reviewed as required persists.
2. Lok Sabha Sectt have separately informed DoPT that scrutiny of some of the Recruitment/Service Rules notified in 2003 and 2004, reveals that old entries viz. `selection by merit’ and `selection-cum-seniority’ have been used ignoring the provisions of DoPT O.M. dated 8th February, 2002. Lok Sabha Sectt have pointed out that non-observance of the guidelines of DoPT on the subject will lead to lack of uniformity in framing of Service Rules/Recruitment Rules and provide scope of different interpretations of the Rules. In this regard, some of the Recruitment Rules referred to by them are:
The Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Department of Shipping, Accountant (Group `B’) Non-Gazetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2004 (GSR 354 of 2004);
The Indian Air Force Group `C’ & `D’ Industrial Posts Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2003 (SRO 50 of 2003);
The National Cadet Corps Directorate Packers Recruitment Rules, 2003 (SRO 64 of 2003);
Army Ordnance Corps (Group `B’ Gazetted) Ordnance Officer Civilian (Stores) Recruitment Rules, 2003 (SRO 71 of 2003);
The Navy Group `C’ (Instructional Staff) Posts Recruitment Rules, 2003 (SRO 62 of 2003);
The Ministry of Labour, Directorate General of Employment and Training (Group `C’ and `D’) Recruitment Rules, 2004 (GSR 344 of 2004).
3. It is, therefore, observed that the Rules notified by certain Ministries/Departments after issue of OM dated 8.2.2002 are not fully in conformity with the provisions of the said Office Memorandum.
4. All Ministries/Departments are again requested to immediately review the existing Service Rules/Recruitment Rules, including those notified after 8th February, 2002, in respect of all Posts/Services in the Ministry/Department, and their attached and subordinate offices, to bring the provisions of the relevant rules in conformity with the provisions of DoPT O.M. dated 8.2.2002.
5. A certificate to the effect that all the Service Rules/Recruitment Rules in respect of all Services/posts in the Ministry/Department concerned, including in the attached/subordinate offices, have been reviewed and action has been initiated/completed to bring the provisions of the relevant Service Rules/Recruitment Rules in conformity with the requirements of DoPT O.M. dated 8.2.2002, may please be furnished to DoPT latest by 31st December, 2005.
Sd/-
(Alok Saxena)
Director
To
All Ministries/Departments of Govt. of India
Equally more important and relevant is O.M. dated 16.2.2005 (page 156) issued by DoPT which, for ready reference, reads as under:
Subject : DPC Guidelines – No supersession in promotions – regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to DoPT OM No. 35034/7/97-Estt (D) dated 8.2.2002 on the above noted subject and to say that in accordance with the decision of the Government not to permit supersessions in promotions, all Ministries/Departments were requested to take immediate steps to amend the Service/Recruitment Rules of various services/posts/grades so as to appropriately incorporate the mode of promotion as `selection’ in place of `selection by merit’ and `selection-cum-seniority’, as the case may be, to bring them in conformity with the above decision of the Government and to make promotions accordingly. To facilitate the amendments to the relevant Service Rules/Recruitment Rules, consultation with DoPT before carrying out the required amendments was dispensed with.
2. It has been brought to the notice of this Department by the UPSC that the Ministries/Departments have not initiated action to amend the Service/Recruitment Rules and the Commission is being requested to hold DPCs in accordance with existing Service Rules/Recruitment Rules which provide for supersessions. Accordingly, the Commission has decided that any proposal for DPC, which is received and is found to be against the revised policy instructions, will be returned to the Ministries/Departments. A proposal would be considered only when the relevant Service Rules/Recruitment Rules were amended as envisaged in the DoPT OM dated 8.2.2002.
3. As orders in the matter were issued almost 3 years back, a situation where the Rules have still not been amended in conformity with the above decision of the Government cannot be justified or allowed to continue. All Ministries/Departments are, accordingly, requested to ensure that they review all Rrecruitment/Service Rules and carry out amendments in conformity with the decision contained in DOPT OM dated 8.2.2002 through a time bound exercise.
25. Reading of above O.Ms leave absolutely no scope of doubt now because these O.Ms make it crystal clear that O.M. of 8.2.2002 can be followed only if RRs are amended in accordance with O.M. dated 8.2.2002. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that for the vacancies which occurred prior to 21.6.2004, DPC could not have followed the method as laid down in O.M. dated 8.2.2002 and those vacancies have to be filled by adopting the method of selection by merit meaning thereby that the officers who are graded outstanding would rank en bloc senior to those who are graded as very good and would be required to be placed en bloc senior to those who are graded as very good in the panel to the extent of vacancies in a year subject to being within zone of consideration.
26. In view of above discussion, O.A. is allowed with the following directions:
Respondents shall hold review DPC for all the vacancies from the year 2000 till May, 2004 by following the criteria of selection by merit;
Calculate the vacancies yearwise and consider only such of the officers who were eligible for those vacancies and fell within the zone of consideration;
Prepare a panel yearwise;
To decide the seniority of such officers according to the new panel and issue corrected seniority list of Dy. D.G. within a reasonable period;
(i) It is, however, clarified that in case applicant/other officers become entitled to be promoted from an earlier date in view of recommendations to be made by review DPC, they would be entitled to only notional pay fixation from that date in view of State of UP and Ors. v. Raj Kishore Yadav and Anr.;
(ii) No recovery shall be made from those officers, who were already promoted but have to be adjusted in view of review DPC. 27. With the above directions, O.A. is allowed. No order as to costs.