LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 11. 11. 98 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5540/98 filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As the order under appeal is a short one. We reproduce the translated version of the said order as under:- 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the order of R. C. S. A. T. Jaipur dated 8. 6. 98 has argued that seniority list cannot be issued in accordance with the judgment dated 3. 10. 96 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 14985/95 read with S. L. P. (C) No. 21784/96 and the order passed by Tribunal is in conformity with the order passed by the Apex Court. I considered the arguments of the learned counsel in the light of order dated 8. 6. 98. Sec. 5 of the R. C. S. A. T. Act, 1976 (which will be referred to as Tribunal) is as follows:- "5 (1) subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the tribunal shall follow such procedure as it may think. " A perusal of the section shows that tribunal has powers to prescribe procedure deemed fit by it for disposal of appeal. In rule 28 of the rules power of review of Ex-party orders has been given but if rule 28 is read with Sec. 5 the jurisdiction of the tribunal gets expanded. Under Sec. 6 powers have been given which are available to civil court for disposal of civil suits. It includes powers under Order 47. In such a situation the tribunal has powers to review it's earlier orders. Sec. 6 (1) is as given below:- "6 (1) The Tribunal shall, for the purpose of the disposal of the appeal under this Act, have the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. " Although powers under Sec. 6 have been limited but if it is read with Sec. 5 it can be inferred that the tribunal is free to adopt such procedure as deemed fit. I am of the definite view that the tribunal has not properly applied the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment and this can be brought to notice of tribunal and all those arguments put forth before be in the writ petition can be included in the review petition to be filed before the tribunal. 3. In all those cases, where ex-party order/judgment is passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal or where any error is apparent of the face of record, in the interest of justice, the tribunal can review its order. 4. THIS writ petition is disposed of with these directions. "
(2.) THE correctness of the above judgment is questioned in this appeal. Before proceeding to deal with the case on merits it is beneficial to study the some relevant facts. The appellant was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Junior Engineer in the year 1967 and was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer on 5. 8. 67. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department issued a provisional Seniority List of Engineering Subordinate (Mechanical) on 16. 5. 70 and the appellant was placed in the seniority list at Serial No. 27 and his qualification was shown as B. E. Mechanical. It is stated that the appellant was confirmed by the Chief Engineer w. e. f. 1. 9. 1969 and was appointed as Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis on 18. 9. 79 and was regularly selected for the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the order to this effect was issued on 15. 2. 82 by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Public Health Engineering Department. The appellant was also selected on the basis of seniority cum merit and his order of allotment is of 1979. According to the appellant he became eligible to the pot of Executive Engineer in the year 1984 on the basis of his year of allotment i. e. 1979 allotted in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in view of Rule 25 (11- A) of the Rajasthan Services of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Rules. 1968. In view of the Departmental Promotion Committee having not been convened, the respondent-State appointed ad hoc temporary basis several Assistant Engineers on the post of Executive Engineer after 1. 4. 87 but the appellant was not appointed to the post of Executive Engineer. Aggrieved by this, he filed an appeal No. 67/94 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan on 28. 3. 1994. During the pendency of the appeal the Tribunal in Appeal No. 508/1987 vide its order dated 26. 3. 1997 directed the respondent-State to prepare and finally publish the inter-se seniority list in the Public Health Engineering Department in the light of the directions given by the Apex Court in the judgment i. e. Vijay Singh Devra etc. vs. State (1 ). The Tribunal keeping in view its earlier judgment allowed the appeal of the appellant partially vide its order dated 8. 6. 98 with the directions to the respondent-State that the case of the appellant may also be considered on the basis of the fresh seniority list to be prepared by the State and in case the appellant is found suitable then he may be given all consequential benefits from the date the same were allowed to his juniors.
(3.) THE State aggrieved against the said order preferred the writ petition No. 5804/98 before this court which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with the directions that the tribunal can review its order since according to be learned Single Judge, the Tribunal has not properly applied the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment which can also be brought to the notice of the Tribunal and all those arguments put forth before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition can also be included in the review petition to be filed before the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said decision the present appeal has been filed by the respondent in the writ petition. We have perused the entire pleadings and the order impugned in this writ petition. It is the grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant herein, the respondent in the writ petition that the learned single Judge has decided the law point behind the back of the appellant at the admission stage and without even issuing notice the learned Judge decided a law point that under Sec. 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976, the Tribunal is empowered to review its earlier judgment/order. The learned Judge was also of the opinion that the Tribunal has not followed correctly the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Singh Devra vs. State decided on 3. 10. 1996 (supra ). ;