- (1.) This petition seeks quashing of order dated 5.5.2006 Annexure P. 5 and order dated 18.7.2007, Annexure P. 13 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
(2.) Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an Inspector in the Central Excise Commissionerate Bombay-2, on 17.5.1983. He was transferred to Chandigarh Commissionerate on 1.9.1986. In the seniority list as on 1.1.1997 he was placed at Sr. No. 220. Vide decision dated 29.5.1997, upgradation of 134 posts of Inspectors to the level of Superintendent Group 'B' was sanctioned for Chandigarh Commissionerate. 104 posts were allocated to general category and 30 to SC/ST category. While making appointments, candidates belonging to SC/ST category promoted on their own merit were considered against the reserved vacancies in violation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney and others V/s. Union of India and others, 1993 AIR(SC) 477,R.K. Sabharwal and others V/s. State of Punjab and others, 1995 AIR(SC) 448 The petitioner challenged the order dated 17.10.2002, Annexure P.1, rejecting his representation and the CAT vide order dated 10.2.2004, Annexure P.2, allowed the claim of the petitioner in following terms : "5. Finding that the case of the applicant is fully covered at all fours by the decision of the Principal Bench of CAT (Annexure A-15) in the case of C.P. Jayant , this O.A. is allowed to the extent that Annexure A-13 is quashed and set aside. Since the order of promotion 29.8.1997 (Annexure A-2) is neither under challenge nor any promoted person has been impleaded as a party in this O.A. we refrain ourselves from quashing the same. However, official respondents are directed to reconsider the issue in terms of directions as contained in the case of C.P. Jayanat i.e., they shall count the reserved category candidates against general category posts who have been promoted on their own seniority and merit and not by virtue of any rule of reservation as per law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of RK Sabharwal and, after making such adjustments, they shall determine the number of reserved posts that should be filled up by SC/ST officers in the grade of Superintendents as per rules of reservation (in addition to the posts against which the officers of these communities were promoted on their own merit) and make offers of appointment/promotion in terms of rules and regulations on the subject. No costs." On 6.4.2005, the Review DPC was held and corrective steps were taken. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 challenged the order dated 6.5.2005. The petitioner was not impleaded as party. Claim of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was accepted by the CAT vide order dated 5.5.2006, Annexure P.5 Judgment dated 10.2.2004 which was in favour of the petitioner was held to be per incuriam. Operative part of the order is as under : "22. Be that as it may be, keeping in view the fact that other persons shown in the seniority list, since not before us, and in case the relief sought for by the applicants is allowed, they may likely to be affected. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter needs fresh consideration by the respondents, as discussed hereinabove. Thus, in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to refer the matter to the concerned authority to examine the matter afresh in the light of our observations, as detailed hereinabove, after giving opportunity of being heard to all concerned and thereafter prepare fresh seniority list accordingly. Appropriate orders, duly communicated to the applicants also, be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order."
(3.) The petitioner challenged the same by filing a writ petition in this Court, which was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition in the first instance vide order dated 5.5.2006. Accordingly, the petitioner filed review application, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.7.2007, Annexure P. 13.;