- (1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of the view that no case for interference in the just and proper order dated 28.03.2012 as passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the CAT') in Original Application ('OA') No. 288/2009 is made out; and this writ petition does not merit admission.
(2.) THE facts of the case are more or less indisputable and could be noticed in brief as follows: On 24.07.2006, the petitioners related with North Western Railway, Bikaner circulated the names of the persons likely to be considered for selection to the post of Chief Inspector of Tickets ('CIT') wherein, as per seniority, the name of the applicant Shri Bhagirath Bhat (respondent No. 2 herein), who was working on the post of Junior Inspector of Tickets, figured at serial number 2. The list so circulated by the petitioners came to be questioned in an OA (No. 172/2006) by three incumbents namely S/Shri Bhushan Lal Taneja, Poonam Chand Bhati, and Ashok Kumar Bhatnagar, who were shown at serial numbers 11, 14, and 13 respectively, essentially on their claim of seniority over two other incumbents S/Shri Tara Singh and Shokat Beg, who were shown at serial numbers 8 and 9 respectively. Noteworthy it is that in the said OA (No. 172/2006), the applicants neither challenged the selection process as such nor the seniority position of the present respondent No. 2 Shri Bhagirath Bhat; and their claim had only been against the aforesaid two incumbents shown at serial numbers 8 and 9. The present respondent No. 2 was not even impleaded as a party to that OA for the reason that his position was comparatively higher (at serial number 2) and the applicants had no lis with him. However, by way of interim relief in the said OA (No.172/2006), the CAT, even while permitting the present petitioners to go ahead with the selection process, prohibited them from publishing the result until the next date. Thereafter, due to non-constitution of Division Bench for a substantial length of time, the case could not be taken up by the CAT though the present respondent No. 2 did move an application for modification of the interim order. As the things would have it, before his application for modification of the interim order could be considered by the CAT, the present respondent No. 2 retired on 31.05.2007. Nevertheless, the application so filed him was considered and allowed by the CAT on 19.09.2007 and the interim order was modified to the extent that the present petitioners were left free to declare the result of selection process of all candidates except the private respondents of the aforesaid OA No.172/2006.
(3.) IT is also noticed that much prior to the passing of the aforesaid order dated 19.09.2007, the present petitioners had declared the panel on the basis of selection conducted on 21.11.2006 wherein the name of the present respondent No. 2 figured at serial number 2. This order, however, contained a rider that the empanelment for the post of CIT in the grade of Rs.6500- 10500 would depend on completion of the rest of the selection process as per the directions of CAT in OA No.172/2006; and that final result of selection would be declared after decision of the said OA.;