DEBASISH KAR GUPTA,J. - (1.) This writ application is directed against a final order dated September 3, 2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Kolkata in O.A. 350/01494/2014. The operative part of the impugned judgement to this writ application is quoted below:- "4.At this juncture, the learned counsel, Mr. A. Chakraborty would orally submit that his clients who are not parties here are intending to get themselves impleaded in this case because they are the SC candidates who got appointment in those vacancies and if any order is passed in this OA that might adversely affect them and he also presented a copy of the order in SLP No. 30621/2011, the operative portion would run thus : "Status quo existing as on today in respect of the promotional matters that are covered by the impugned judgement shall be maintained till the next date of hearing." He would state that in as much as the Hon'ble Apex Court granted the order of status quo in respect of those cases which already emerged in similar matters concering the fill up of the vacancies by SC candidates, the respondent authorities in this matter cannot take a decision. 5. In view of that, we would like to issue the following direction: After disposal of the SLP referred to supra, the respondent authority shall consider the representation of the applicant and pass a speaking order in respect of the applicant's grievance within a period of 3 months and communicate the same to them thereater immediately."
(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Surajit Samanta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Tribunal was in error in taking into consideration the fact of pendency of the matter of Jarnail Singh and Ors. v. Lachimi Narain Gupta and Ors. (In re: SLP 30621 of 2011) . According to Mr. Samanta, the above matter has no bearing on the issue involved in the original application under reference.
(3.) The second contention of Mr. Samanta is this there was no bar and/or impediment for the learned Tribunal to decide the issue involved in the original application in the light of the decision of R.K. Sabaharwal v. State of Punjab reported in 1995(2) SCC(L and S)548.;