- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner's O.A. No. 260 of 2010 was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi vide order dated 12th January, 2011 on the ground that the petitioner earlier preferred O.A. No.101 of 2009, which was dismissed by the same Bench vide order dated 9th March, 2010 and therefore, petitioner's second O.A. is barred by Principle of res judicata as well as on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioner in O.A. No. 101 of 2009 prayed that his case may be considered for promotion to the Indian Police Service and the petitioner did not challenge the promotions of other persons who were given promotion in Indian Police Service. It is also submitted that those selected candidates were not party in O.A. No.101 of 2009 and that the Principle of res judicata as provided under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it applies in case where earlier decision is between the same parties.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also submitted that it is true that the Tribunal has made certain observations in Para 24 of the order but subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the respondents suppressed the important material facts from the Tribunal and misrepresented that the petitioner's case was considered and the petitioner was not found to be suitable candidate for promotion. The petitioner when got relevant document, then the petitioner found that in fact his case was recommended for promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 12th January, 2011 deserves to be set aside.;