Inter se seniority and suitability requires comparative assessment, not automatic seniority-based appointment, with remand for reconsideration.

The criteria of "inter se seniority and suitability" for appointment to DGMS (Army) required comparative assessment of eligible officers, with seniority given due weight but not treated as decisive. The Tribunal's view that the rule operated as a simple seniority-cum-suitability standard was incorrect. Because the comparative suitability exercise had not been properly carried out, the direct appointment direction could not stand. The appointment issue was therefore remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration on the correct legal basis, with reference to the relevant service record and circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the criteria of "inter se seniority and suitability" for appointment to the post of DGMS (Army) meant seniority-cum-suitability or required assessment of comparative suitability among eligible officers. (ii) Whether the direction to straightaway appoint the respondent to the post of DGMS (Army) could be sustained.

Issue (i): The criteria in the administrative circular required the eligible Lt. Generals to be assessed not merely on seniority, but on their inter se suitability as well. The expression "inter se" could not be ignored, and the selection process was intended to identify the more suitable officer among eligible officers while giving due weight to seniority. The Tribunal's reading of the rule as making seniority decisive and suitability secondary was held to be incorrect.

Conclusion: The criterion was one of comparative inter se suitability among eligible officers, with seniority given due weight, and not a pure seniority-cum-suitability rule in the sense applied by the Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Although the appointment of the selected officer could not stand because the comparative suitability exercise had not been properly carried out, the Court did not approve the Tribunal's direction for straightaway appointing the respondent. The matter was required to be reconsidered by the competent authority on the correct legal basis and on the relevant service record and circumstances.

Conclusion: The direct appointment order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the competent authority.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of displacing the Tribunal's command of immediate appointment, while the merits-based finding against the earlier selection was retained and the appointment question was sent back for reconsideration.

---