Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. The controversy in this case revolves around the appointment to the post of Tax Assistant, in the services of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (hereinafter referred to as ‘Customs’, for short).

2. The constitutive facts in this case, show that the 3rd respondent has been selected and chosen to the post; whereas, the petitioner has not even been considered for the same.

3. The polemic projected herein, has its genesis in the fact that the Note to Annexure-A4 notification (“Note”) provides as under:

                   “Note: Where juniors who have completed their qualifying or eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors shall also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying or eligibility service by more than half of such qualifying or eligibility service or two years whichever is less and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade alongwith their juniors who have already completed such qualifying or eligibility service.”

4. On account of the operation of the “Note”, the petitioner and two others were also included in the zone of consideration by the competent Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). However, the said Committee settled Annexure-A2 list, recording that the petitioner and another similarly situated person, were “not considered” (sic); and this led them to approach the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kochi Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Tribunal’, for short), through the Original Application involved herein.

5. The specific argument of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that, since he was included in the field of consideration on account of the “Note”, he was entitled to be considered by the DPC; and that their refusal to do so has rendered the entire process illegal and unlawful.

6. The learned Tribunal, however, found against the petitioner and dismissed the Original Application; aggrieved by which, he has approached this Court by filing this Original Petition.

7. Sri.M.A.Shafik - learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, when his client became validly included in the zone of consideration, the refusal of the DPC to consider him, was not merely untenable, but wholly illegal. He contended that, had his client been considered, the DPC would have been constrained to assess him as being equal to, or more than, the 3rd respondent in all respects - including qualifications and other attributes; and consequently, to recommend his appointment, rather than that of the said respondent. He alleged that the learned Tribunal did not assess the issue in its proper perspective; and consequently arrived at an adverse finding against his client. He prayed that this Original Petition be consequently, allowed.

8. Sri.K.P.S.Suresh, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, countered the aforesaid arguments, submitting that, since it is admitted that the petitioner entered the field of consideration only on account of the “Note”, he cannot claim to be equal, or superior, to his client in terms of credentials or qualifications. He argued that, since the inclusion of the petitioner in the zone of consideration was itself fortuitous, the DPC was well within its competence to have refused to consider him. He prayed that this Original Petition be hence dismissed; asserting that the learned Tribunal had correctly evaluated the factual and legal situation.

9. Sri.V.Girishkumar, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, affirmed that the petitioner was brought within the field of consideration on account of the “Note”; and then argued that the DPC was hence justified in not considering him, since his eligibility for consideration depended upon the 3rd respondent - whose eligibility was higher; further contending that since the petitioner would not have come within the zone, but for the 3rd respondent, the grant of appointment to him in lieu of the latter would be iniquitous and illegal. He adopted the contentions of Sri.K.P.S.Suresh, in requesting that this Original Petition be dismissed.

10. We are unable to find favour with the aforesaid submissions of the respondents, or with the views of the learned Tribunal, since the “Note” makes it unambiguously clear that, once a junior is included in the field of consideration, a senior is also liable to be so included, provided that he or she satisfies the specific conditions therein - namely, that such person possesses not less than half of the requisite qualification, or is not short of the requisite qualifying or eligibility service by more than half of the mandated period, or two years, whichever is less.

11. In other words, once a senior enters the field of consideration on account of the “Note”, then he, along with the other eligible candidates, become equally entitled to be considered, assessed and evaluated. Otherwise, the very purpose of the “Note” would become otiose; because, if, even after a senior gets included in the field of consideration because of its effect, he is refused to be “considered” by the DPC, there would no purpose for such inclusion.

12. To paraphrase, true, the petitioner was able to enter the field of consideration - perhaps fortuitously, as is now asserted by Sri.K.P.S.Suresh – solely on account of the operation of the “Note”; but once so, the DPC could not have refused to evaluate him, or to hold that he was not eligible. His eligibility flows from the mandate of the “Note” and thereafter, his evaluation ought to be on his qualifications and credentials.

13. There is yet another reason why we find it necessary to intervene. Pertinently, the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the DPC is required to assess all candidates on the principle of seniority-cum-merit. In fact, this is evident from the Office Memorandum dated 10.04.1989, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Obviously, therefore, once persons come within the field of choice, their evaluation cannot be done comparatively, but solely to verify whether they obtain the necessary minimum benchmark, after which inter se seniority assumes primacy.

14. As far as this case is concerned, as already noticed above in Annexure-A2, the endorsement of the DPC against the name of the petitioner is ‘not considered’ (sic). We fail to understand how this could have been done.

15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has erred in its judgment.

16. Resultantly, we allow this Original Petition and set aside the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, as also Annexures-A1, A2 and Ext.P12; with a consequential direction to the DPC to reconsider the entire matter, adverting to the observations made hereinabove; and issue appropriate orders without any further delay.