(1.) THE petitioners' case in a nut -shell is that:
(2.) MR . S Sen Gupta, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the State petitioners, submitted that the contention of the petitioners is only that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, vide its order dated 18.11.2014 in Misc. application No. 040/00016/2014 and 040/00024/2014 came to the conclusion that since the suspension of the respondent from service amounts to alteration of service it needs Cabinet approval. He vehemently submitted that suspension is not alteration of service. Therefore the learned Tribunal came to a wrong conclusion, hence, this instant writ petition before this Court. The learned counsel could not place any law or authority before the Court to show that suspension is not alteration of service.
(3.) BESIDES that learned senior counsel also argued that Government cannot resort to selective suspension and give examples of two or three cases which are found mentioned at page 16 of the written argument which is on record and they are reproduced herein below: - -