- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE appeals by special leave are directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 22nd July, 2003. The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by the respondent herein set aside the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal dated 7th january, 1999. The order reads as under :- "in the result these two O. As succeed and are allowed to the extent that following the Supreme Court's Judgment in Shri Mohanty's case (supra) the promotions made of those SC/st candidates under Rule 13 (unamended), IES rules, 1961 without considering the case of the applicants in the two O. As before us, is held by us to be legally unsustainable. Furthermore, the retrospective operation of the amendment to Rule 13, IES Rules to the extent that the same takes away the vested rights of the applicants and other general category candidates is also unreasonable, arbitrary and as such violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is, therefore, struck down. In the light of the above, respondents are directed to review the impugned promotions and consider the cases of the applicants for promotions from the date the impugned promotions were made, with all consequential benefits. While doing so the respondents should make all efforts to protest the promotions of reserved category candidates to the extent possible, but if it becomes absolutely necessary to revert them from the higher posts to which they have been promoted under the unamended or amended Rules, that may be done. While doing so, however, any financial benefits given to them while working in the higher posts should not be withdrawn and should be protected as personal to them. " Aggrieved against this order, the writ petition was filed by the respondents herein and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside the aforesaid direction and held that : "we have, therefore, no other alternative but to set aside the judgments of the Tribunal and remit the matter back to it for consideration of the matter afresh. " So far as CWP No. 223 of 2001 is concerned, the Division Bench held that it is not maintainable and directed the petitioners to approach the Central administrative Tribunal. CM No. 5066 of 2001 an application made by Mr. Gyan prakash in this writ petition is concerned, Court decline to implead applicant as party.
(3.) WE may at outset mention that we are not concerned with the facts relating to the CWP No. 223 of 2001. We have been informed that the matter is pending before the Tribunal pertaining to this subject. Therefore, we are not going into the facts pertaining to CWP No. 223/2001. The present appeals were filed by two persons namely Nagesh Singh and B. S. Bhandari who filed the O. A. before the Tribunal praying the following reliefs : i) "the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare the applicants having been promoted to Grade III as per Rule 8 (1) (b) (i) for his juniors have been promoted before them. ii) That out of turn promotion from Grade IV to Grade III of the IES to junior officers belonging to SC/st in supersession of claims of seniors belonging to the general category be struck down as violative of the statutory rules of the IES, 1971 and a 14, 16 (1) and 335 of the Constitution of India, iii)This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned amendment dated 22. 9. 1989 (Annexure C) amending Rule 13 as being void, iv) That the applicants be deemed to be promoted to Grade III of the ies from the date their juniors have been promoted, which were granted by the Tribunal and that have been set aside by the Division Bench. Therefore, we are concerned with the grievance of these two appellants before us vis-a-vis the respondents who are party before us. We are not touching the rights of other parties in any manner. " ;