Holding

The term "Vishesagya" does not necessarily require a technical engineering specialist; the Chairman’s administrative expertise qualified him as an expert, making the 1989 Selection Committee valid and entitling Gupta to promotion with seniority as determined by the Court.

Summary

The case concerned the constitution of the Selection Committee for the post of Additional Chief Engineer (Level‑II) in U.P. Jal Nigam. The petitioner, G. Gupta, claimed that the 1989 Committee was invalid because the Chairman of the Jal Nigam was nominated as the "expert" instead of a technical engineering specialist, and therefore he should be appointed based on his 1985 selection. The High Court agreed and set aside the 1989 selections. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the meaning of the Hindi term "Vishesagya" and held that it need not denote a technical expert; the Chairman’s extensive administrative experience qualified him as an expert, rendering the 1989 Committee valid. Consequently, the 1985 panel ceased to exist, and Gupta was entitled to promotion along with the 1989 selectees, Tripathi and Rizvi, with seniority determined accordingly. The Court also directed that appointments made during the pendency of the appeals be governed by its decision.

Issues considered

The validity of the Selection Committee when the Chairman of U.P. Jal Nigam was nominated as the "expert" member.
Whether the term "Vishesagya" must be interpreted as a technical engineering specialist or can include administrative expertise.
Whether the 1985 selection panel remained operative after the 1989 selection and whether Gupta is entitled to appointment.
Whether appointments made during the pendency of the appeals are valid.
Determination of inter se seniority among Gupta, Tripathi and Rizvi.

Subjects

service lawselection committeeexpert qualificationappointmentpromotionseniorityadministrative lawinterpretation of statutory termspublic service

Judgment

A A. TRIPATHI AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
v.
J.P. GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. -·-~
JANUARY 7, 1993

B (KULDIP SINGH AND G.N.. RAY, JJ.]

Service Law-Constitution of Selection Committee-U.P. Joi Nigam-
Superintendent Engineers-Selection for Additional Chief Engineer-Govern- .-.
men/ Order requiring nomination of expert in Selection Committee-Nomina-
c tion of Chairman Joi Nigam on Selection Committee instead of nomination
of an Expert-Validity of-Held in the .abse11ce of any indication or order
requiring that the expert nominated must be expert:ffl the field of Engineering-
Appointment of Chairman Jal Nigam, h~ ~ciol knowledge in ad-
ministrative set up of Joi Nigam, as expert on Selection Committee was valid..
-,....·
D Words and Phrases : 'Vishesagya'-Meaning of

A Government Order dated December 14, 1979 provided that the
Selection Committee for the post or Chief Engineer In the U.P. Jal Nigam
shall, inter alia, consists of an Expert. G, working as· Superintendent
Engineer in the Jal Nlgam was selected as Additional Chief Engineer,
E Level·II by the Selection Committee in 1985 but was not offered appoint-
ment. In 1989 fresh selections were held by the Selection Committee in
which T and R, working as Superintendent Engineers in the Jal Nigam,
were selected and promoted to the post or Additional Chier Engineers. G
was not found lit by the Selection Committee.
F
G tiled a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the
selections made in 1989 on the ground that the Selection Committee was
not properly constituted because instead or nominating an expert, the
Chairman U.P. Jal Nigam was nominated as a member or the Committee.
During the pendency or the Writ Petition the High Court passed an
G interim order pursuant to which T and R were reverted from the posts or
Additional Chier Engineer. High Court allowed the petition and set aside
the selection made in 1989, and directed that G be appointed on the basis
of his selection made in 1985. Against the judgment of the High Court, T, ,-
Rand U.P. Jal Nigam tiled appeals in this Court. During the peodency of '
H the proceedings before this Court fresh selectious were made in 1992 in
20
A TRIPAIBI v. J.P. GUPTA 21

which T was selected but R was not selected and ·consequential appoint- A
-~- ments were also made.

In appeal to this Court It was contended on behalf or T & R that the
Selection Committee was properly constituted because BS a long standing
practlc:e the chairman or the Jal Nigam ·was ali.ays
Included as an Expert
Member or the Committee; besides the Chairman the Managing Director B
or the Jal Nlgam, who was a technical expert In the field or engineering,
. I. was also one or the members of the committee; (2) mere inclusion or a
candidate's name In the panel does not confer on him a right to appoint-
ment; selection of G made in 1985 came to an end with the lapse of time

- and (3) both T and R should first he appointed pursuant to the selection
malle In 1989 and thereafter selections made In 1992 should he given effect
to.
c

..,. On behalf of G It was contended (1) that in the context In which the
selection or Additional Chief Engineer Is to he made the expression
'Expert' must mean technical expert In the field concerning the Jal Nlgam D
and accordingly the High Court was right In holding that the Chairman
U.P. Jal Nlgwii cannot he held to he an expert; (2) since the Selection
Committee of 1989 was not properly constituted G, by virtue of his In-
clusion In the 1985 panel was entitled to appointment before other eligible
..... officers were considered in 1989. E
On behalf of the State it was contended that the pendency of the
proceedings before this Court did not stand in the way of making selec·
tions in 1992 as also the consequential appointments; (2) in view of altered
position In 1992 because of the selection and consequential appointments
no further directions should he given by this Court. F
I
Disposing the appeals, tllls court

HELD : 1. In the absence of any indication or any Government Order
indicating that in the context ofexercise to he made by the Selection Commit·
tee to prepare a panel of officers lit to he promoted to the post of Additional
G
Chief Engineer Level-II of the Jal Nigam, the expert to he nominated by the
Chief Secretary to the Selection Committee should be an expert in the field of
-) Engineering or for that matter In the particular speciality of Engineering
namely irrigation and waterways, it cannot be held that appointment or
Chairman Jal Nigam BS a 'Vishesagya' was•per se illegal and as such the H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 1 S.C.R.

A constitution or the Selection Committee was Invalid and selection made by
such committee is liable to be a.nnulled. [28E-F)

2. Literally the expression 'Vlsbesagya' In Hindi means a person
having special knowledge. Such expression bas not been explained either
B explicitly or by nece!i!fary implication. In the circumstances of the case it
does not appear that the Vishesagya to be nominated In the. Selection
Committee must necessarily be a 'Vlshesagya' in a particular field of
speciality. The Chairman of the Jal Nlgam was a person with wide ex-
perience in administration over the years and by virtue of bis position as
Chairman or Jal Nigam, be bad also special knowledge in the admlnlstra-
C . tive set up or Jal Nlgam. He is, therefore, a 'Vlshesagya' particularly from
the point of view of administration. [28C-DJ

3.• Since the selection made by the Committee constituted In 1989 is
--
legal and valid the panel prepared by Selection Committee In 1985 came to an
D end. Consequently it will not be proper to cancel the selection of T and R
made by the Selection Committee constltnted In 1989. Fnrther, in view of the
fact that the selection made by the Committee of1985 was not challenged and
It Is otherwise not illegal and Invalid the life of the panel formed in 1985 had
continued till new selection was made by the Selection Committee in 1989.
Consequently, it will be unjust and unfair to deny promotion to G also
E against the available vacancy existing In 1989. [29E, 30A-B]

4. The Administration should not have acted with undue baste In
appointing persons included in the panel or 1992 befono the disposal or the
pending appeals before this Court or atleast without taking leave from
F this Court .to fill up such posts. Suda appoiatments having been made
during the peudency of these appeals mat aliide by the result of these
appeals. [29F)

4.1. Accordingly, it is directed that against all the available posts of
Additional Chief Engineer, Level II prior to selection made by the Selec·
G tion Committee constituted in 1992, G, T and R should be considettd first
for appointment by promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer,
Level II ·and thereafter on the basis of the respective merit position in the .,
panel recommended by the Selection Committee or 1992, selected can- \
didates should be cwldered for appointment against the ma•hilnc
H vaamdes. [30C·DJ
A TRIPATIII v. J.P. GUPTA [RAY, J.) 23

4.2. Iii the matter of inter se seniority amongst G, T and R, G having A
been included in the panel of 1985 and also being the senior most, should
get seniority and thereafter on the basis ·or. merit position in the list
preP.ared by the Selection Committee of 1989, the inter se seniority or T and
R should be fll<ed. T and R should be seniors to other persons to be
appointed in terms or selection made in 1992. [30E-F) ·
B
State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Mar.Vaha & Ors., (1974) 1 S.C.R.
165; Jatinder Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Haryana, (1985] 1 S.C.R.
899 and State Bank of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Mynuddin, A.I.R. 1987 S.C.
1889, cited.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 940 of
c
1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 1.5.1991 of the Allahabad High
"--( Court in W.P. No.9066 of 1989.
D
WITH

Civil Appeal No. 941 of 1992.

Harish N. Salve, S.C. Manchanda, Sunil K. Jain, Vijay Hansaria, Ms.
Sandhya Goswami, l.M. Quddusi and P.S. Tomar for the Appellants. E
Manoj Swarup and Ms. Lalita Kohli for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.N. RAY, J. Gupta, Tripathi and Rizvi are working as .superinten- F
dent Engineers in. the service of U.P. Jal Nigam. Gupta was selected for
the post of Additional Chief Engineer, Level II by the Selection Committee
in 1985 and his name was brought on the merit list. Unfortunately, he was
not offered the appointment and in 1989 fresh selections were held by the
Sele<:tion Committee. Tripathi and Rizvi were selected by the Selection G
Committee in the year 1989 whereas Gupta was not found fit by the
Selection Committee on the basis of his service record. Tripathi and Rizvi
were promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer as a result of their
selection in the year 1989.

Gupta challenged the selection made in the year 1989 before the .H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1993] 1 S.C.R.

A Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court by way of a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The main ground of attack
was that the Selection Committee was not validly constituted. Gupta also
contended that before the fresh selection could be made in the year 1989
he was entitled to be appointed as Additional Chief Engineer on the basis
B of the merit list prepared in the year 1985 which was operating even in the
year 1989. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the selection
made in the year 1989 and further directed that Gupta be given appoint-
ment on the basis of his selection made in the year 1985. It may be
mentioned that Tripathi and Rizvi were reverted from the posts of Addi-
tional Chief Engineer by the interim order of the High Court during the
C pendency of the writ petition. These appeals by Tripathi, Rizvi and U.P.
Jal Nigam are against the judgment of the High Court.

It is not disputed that under the Government order dated December
14, 1979 the Selection Committee for the post of Chief Engineer was to
consist of the following persons:
D
(i) A Secretary nominated by the Chief Secretary

(ii) An Expert nominated by the Chief Secretary

(iii) Secretary Appointment Department
E
(iv) Director General Bureau of Public Enterprises

(v) Secretary of the Department concerned.

The contention before the High Court was that instead of nominating
F an expert on the Selection Committee the Chairman of the Jal Nigam was
nominated as a member of the Committee. The High Court accepted the
contention and set aside the selection on the ground that there was no
expert on the Selection Committee. The High Court rejected the conten-
tion that the Chairman Jal Nigam, having vast experience in the field of
G selection to various offices of Jal Nigam, was an expert and in his presence
no other expert was necessary.

Mr. Salve, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants in
Civil Appeal No. 940 of 1992 namely Shri A. Tripathi and Shri MA. Rizvi
has contended that the High Court on a very flimsy ground has held that
H the Selection Committee was not properly constituted because no expert
A TRIPATHI v. J.P. GUPTA [RAY, J.] 25

was nominated in the Selection Committee and the Chairman, U .P. Jal A
Nigam Shri Venkataramani, could not be held to be an expert. He has
submitted that nowhere it has been mentioned that any member not having
expertise in any particular field can not be treated as an expert. There is
no manner of doubt that the then Chairman U.P. Jal Nigam, Shri
Venkataramani, being a very senior I.A.S. Officer had wide experience in B
the administration of Jal Nigam and by virtue of his vast experience in the
administrative set up he was entitled to be treated as an expert. He has
further submitted that it was stated in ihe counter affidavits of the State
Government and also of the Jal Nigam that as a long standing practice, the
Chairman of the Jal Nigam was always included as an expert member of
the Committee and besides the said Chairman, the Managing Director of c
Jal Nigam who had technical expertise in the field of engineering was also
one of the members of the committee. Mr. Salve bas contended that even
assuming for argument's sake that expert as contemplated under the
Government Order in question should be a technical expert and not an
expert in the administrative set up, the Managing Director being a technical D
Expert was already there in the Committee. Mr. Salve bas contended that
the selection to the post of Chief Engineer which is one of the very top
posts in the hierarchy, was essentially a selection on merit and not on the
basis of seniority. For the purpose of being selected, the candidate must
have an outstanding record all through. It has been very specifically stated E
in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government and also
on behalf of the U .P. Jal Nigam that Shri Gupta, had no outstanding record
and he bad suffered adverse remarks in 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 and
even prior to that be was warned. Adverse remark for 1985-86 was however
expunged on his representation but the other adverse entries in the service
record remained in force. Coming to the question of his selection made in F
1985, Mr. Salve has contended that such selection even if any came to an
end with the lapse of time. He bas stated that it has been persistently
followed that the selection list will remain in force for about a year. He has
further contended that in any event, such question becomes academic
because though he was included in the panei of selected candidates, the G
Writ Petitioner, Sri. Gupta, could not be given appointment in view of his
lower position in the merit list against the available vacancies. As sub-
sequently a new selection list was made in November 1989 before he could
be absorbed, the said list of 1985 had came to an end. Mr. Salve has
contended that it was really unfortunate that the appellants had to be H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 1 S.C.R.

A reverted from the post of Additional Chief Engineer Level II because of
--~
the interim order passed by the High Court in the said Writ Petition. Mr.
Salve has also stated that in 1992 when the Special Leave Petitions was
pending in this Court, a fresh selection was made and seven persons have
been selected. The appeUant, Shri Tripathi, has been included in the said
B selection list but, unfortunately, Shri Rizvi has not been included in this
selection list. He has submitted that if the Writ Petition is dismissed and
the selection made in 1989 is upheld, the subsequent selection made in 1992
cannot operate against the appeUants in Civil Appeal No. 940 of 1992,
particularly the appellant Shri Rizvi. He has submitted that both Shri .
Tripathi and Shri Rizvi should first of all be appointed pursuant to the valid
C selection made in 1989 and thereafter against any other available vacancy
the effect of the subsequent selection made in 1992 should be given. Mr.
Salve has further submitted that the Selection Committee of 1989 was
c;onstituted by the Bureau of Public Enterprise. Such Selection Committee
was quite legal and no Interference is called for against the selection made
D by the said Selection Committee. He has also submitted that even assuming
for the sake of argument that the Writ Petitioner, Sri Gupta, was entitled
to get the advantage of his inclusion in the said list of 1985 because such
list remained in force until subsequent valid selection was made, the High
Court clearly erred in directing to give the appointment to Sri Gupta to
the post of Additional Chief Engineer Level II. Mr. Salve has contended
E that merely because a candidate's name has been included in the panel
such candidate has no right to claim appointment by way of mandamus. In
this connection, reliance has been placed on the decisions made by this
Court in the cases of State of Hatyt11111 v. Subuh Chlllllkr MINWflho fllld
others, reported in (1974) 1 SCR 165 and ladndu Kumllr fllld others v. Stlllll
F. of Punjab and othetB reported in (1985) 1 SCR p.89'J. Mr. Salve has
contended that the direction of the High Court to appoint Sri Gupta is
contrary to the decision of this Court made in the case ol. Stole Bank tif
India and others v. Mohd. Mynuddin reported in AIR 1987 SC 1889.

G The learned counsel for the State of U.P. has, however, stated dial
since the Chairman was not a tedmical expert, the constitution of Seledloa
Committee has been held illcpl by the High Court ud it has also beea
held that the inclusion of the Managing Director in the Committee could
not cure the defect of nominating an ClpCrl in the Committee inasmuch u
such Managing Director was not appointed qua expert. As the adJninistta.
H tion was suffering for not filling up the vacant posts of Additjonal Chief
A. TRIPAlHI v. J.P. GUPTA [RAY, J.)

Engineer Lewi ll the Selection Committee was again constituted in 1992 A
and pursuant to the selection made by the Selection Committee, appoint-
ments have been made. The learned counsel has submitted that pendency
I of the proceectinp before this Court did not stand in the way of making
selection in· 1992 and giving appointments purs\Jallt to such selection. He
bas, therefore, submitted that in view of the altered position in 1992 B
because of the selection and consequential appointments in 1992 no further
direction should be given by this Court. He has also submitted that al-
though there were adverse remarks in the service record of Sri Gupta but
in the selection made in 1985 he was included in the ·panel of selected
Officers. The learned counsel has made it clear that the State Government
or Jal Nigam has no objection if the Writ Petitioner, Sri Gupta, is con- C
sidered for promotion because of his earlier selection made in 1985.

The learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner, Sri Gupta has
contended that the plea of long standing practice should not be accepted
because! the rules clearly indicate how the Selection Committee is to be D
constituted. He has also stated that under the existing rules and the
Government orders, the penal of the selected candidates should remain in
· force until the same is exhausted or a new selection is made. Since the
Selection Committee of 1989 was ·not properly constituted, the petitioner
remained in the panel by virtue of· his inclusion in 1985 and admittedly
·there was existing vacancy when the new Selection Committee was sought E
to be constituted in 1989. It was therefore a bolinden duty of the authorities
of the Jal Nigam and the State of U.P. to give appointment to the Writ
Petitioner, Sri Gupta, to the post of Additional Chief Engineer, Level II
beforemmag exercise of considering the cases of other eligible officers
against available vacancies by constituting a Selection Committee. The F
learned counsel has submitted that a just claim of Sri Gupta, should not
be frustrated by any technical approach. He has submitted that the selec-
tioil to the post of Additional Chief Engineer Level II in the Jal Nigam was
· meant to scled proper persons having sufficient technical expertise to man
a 1sigh post in the hierarchy. In such circumstances, the expert to be
nominated in the Selection Committee must be a person having technical G
CllJICrlisc and not expertise in any other field or in the field of administra-
tion. In the context in which the selection of Additional Chief Engineer
Level II is to.be made, the expression 'expert' must mean technical expert
in the field concerning the Jal Nigam. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
High Court has correctly read the expression 'expert' and has held that the H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 1 S.C.R.

A Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam cannot be held to be an expert as contemplated
in the rules. The learned counsel has further contended that if the statutory
rule indicates the manner in which the Selection Committee must be
constituted, any departure from such manner must be held to be illegal and
void. The mere fact that the Managing Director was also one of the
members of the Selection Committee having technical expertise, his in-
B clusion in the Committee could not cure the defect because admittedly the
said Managing Director was not nominated by the Chief Secretary, Govern-
ment of U.P. as an 'expert member' in the Committee.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
c submissions of the learnr.d counsels appearing for the parties it does not
appear to us that 'Vishesagya' to be nominated in the Selection Committee
must necessarily be a 'Vishesagya' in a particular field of speciality. Such
expression bas not been explained either expli.citly or by necessary implica-
tion. Literally the expression 'Vishesagya' in Hindi means a person having
D special knowledge ('Vishes' means special and 'Agya' means person having
knowledge). Mr. Venkataramani was a person with wide experience in
administration over the years and by virtue of his position as Chairman of
Jal Nigam, be had also special knowledge in the administrative set up of
Jal Nigam. He is, therefore, a 'Vishesagya' particularly from the point of
view of administration. In the absence of any indication or any Government
E Order placed before us that in the context of exercise to be made._by the .. ~
Selection Committee to prepare a panel of Officers fit to be promoted to
the post of Additional Chief Engineer Level II of the Jal Nigam, the expert
to be nominated by the Chief Secretary to the Selection Committee should
be an expert in the field of Engineering or for that matter in the particular
F speciality of Engineering namely irrigation and waterways, it cannot be held
that appointment of Mr. Venktaramani as a 'Vishesagya' was per se illegal
and as such the constitution of the Selection Committee was invalid and
selection made by such committee is liable to be annulled. Since the
exercise to be made by the Selection Committee is to find out suitable
G persons to be promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer Level II,
it is reasonably expected that the Committee should be constituted in such
a manner that technical expertise of the selected candidates in the field of
operation to which their services will be required may be reasonably
assessed. It is quite likely that since the Managing Director of the Jal
Nigam having technical expertise in the field of engineering was included
H in the Committee, the Chairman who is also an expert in general ad-
A TRJPAlHI v. J.P. GUPTA [RAY, J.) 29

ministration was appointed in the committee as an expert member. The A
Additional Chief Engineer is reasonably expected to look after administra-
tive set up under its control besides the technical works involved in the
field of his activities. It has been specifically stated in the counter affidavits
of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Jal Nigam that the Chairman of the
Jal Nigam was earlier appointed as an expert member in the Selection
B
Committee. The Selection Committee of 1989 was constituted by the
Bureau of Public Enterprise. This high power committee has made all the
exercises to select officers to be included in the panel and on such selec-
tion, recommendations were made to the State Government and the State
Government has also approved the panel. No other officer coming in the
zone of consideration except the Writ Petitioner Sri Gupta, has challenged c
the constitution of the Selection Committee and the validity of the panel
· of the selected officers. Such challenge has been made just at the nick of
time when the selected officers were going to be appointed pursuant to
their merit positions in the selection list. But for the Writ proceedings, and
interim order passed therein, both Sri Tripathi and Sri Rizvi, would have D
got the appointments in the post of Additional Chief Engineer Level II,
and would have continued in such post. As a matter of fact, they had been
given appointments to the post of Additional Chief Engineer but in view
of the interim order passed in the Writ proceedings such order were
recalled and they were reverted to the post of Superintending Engineer. In E
the facts of the case, we do not think that it will be proper to cancel the
selection of Sri Tripathi and Sri Rizvi, made by Selection Committee
constituted in 1989. Since the selection made by the Committee constituted
in 1989 is legal and valid the panel prepared by Selection Committee in
1985 came to an end. It also appears to us that the Administration should
not have acted with undue haste in appointing persons included in the F
panel of selected officers on the basis of recommendations made by the
Selection Committee constituted in 1992 before the disposal of the pending
appeals before this Court or atleast without taking leave from this Court
to fill up such posts. Such appointments having been made during the
pendency of these appeals must abide by the result of these appeals. It G
however appears to us that Sri Gupta was included in the list of selected
officers in 1985 and if diligent steps had been taken t-0 fill up available
vacancies on the basis of merit positions in the select list of 1989, Sri Gupta
should have been absorbed even before exercise of selecting suitable
officers fit for promotion was made by the Selection Committee of 1989. H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 1 S.C.R.

A Admittedly there were vacancies available in 1989 when such exercise was
made. Since selection made by the Committee of 1985 was not challenged
and it is no body's case that such selection is otherwise illegal and invalid,
we are inclined to hold by accepting the contention of the learned counsel
of Sri Gupta that the life of the panel formed in 1985 bad continued till
B new selection was made by the Selection Committee in 1989.

Consequently, it appears to us that it will be unjust and unfair to deny'
promotion to Sri Gupta to the post of Additional Chief Engineer, Level II
of U.P. Jal Nigam against the available vacancy eAisting in 1989.. We
therefore, direct that against all the available posts of Additional Chief
C Engineer, Level II prior to selection made by the Selection Committee
constituted in 1992 the Writ Petitioner Sri Gupta and appellants in Civil
Appeal No. 940 of 1992 namely Sri Tripathi and Sri Rizvi should be
considered first for appointment by promotion to the post of Additional
Chief Engineer, Level II of U.P. Jal Nigam and thereafter on the basis of
the respective merit position in the panel recommended by the Selection
D Committee of 1992, selected candidates should be considered for appoint-
ment to the said post of Additional Chief Engineer against the remaining
vacancies. In the absence of any challenge about the validity of the Con-
stitution of Selection Committee of 1992 and selection made by it, we
assume that the panel prepared by such Committee and approved by the
E concerned authority is a valid panel. In the matter of inter se seniority
amongst Sri Gupta, Sri Tripathi and Sri Rizvi, Sri Gupta having been
included in the panel of 1985 and also being the senior most, should get
seniority and thereafter on the basis of merit position in the list prepared
by the Selection Committee of 1989, the inter se seniority of Sri Tripathi
and Sri Rizvi should be fixed. By way of abundant caution it is made clear
F that Sri Tripathi and Sri Rizvi should be seniors to other persons to be
appointed in terms of selection made in 1992.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of without any order as to cost.

T.NA. Appeals disposed of.