( 1 ). The Union of India and its officers have brought in challenge the order of the central Administrative tribunal, bench at Cuttack, Cuttack passed in favour of Respondent 1 herein. By the said order, the tribunal has taken the view that the appellants while issuing memo dated 23/2/1988 calling for eligible persons to claim re-employment to the post of JTO-I (Electrical) had introduced an additional requirement that the applicant should hold the rank of Junior Warrant Officer (JWO) in addition to the requirement of 10 years experience in Electrical Trade on Air Force Aircraft and ground installation. respondent 1 had the requisite experience, but he was not holding the rank of JWO. Consequently, he could not put forward his claim for being considered for re-employment. Respondents 2 to 5, on the other hand, were his juniors in the lower grade, but they could apply and were selected for re-employment. It is this grievance which was canvassed by respondent 1 before the tribunal. It also transpired that subsequently, the authorities themselves realised the error in the earlier memo and consequently they issued a fresh circular dated 31/1/1989 by which it was mentioned that it was proposed to fill up a few vacancies in the rank of jtos-I in various trades from amongst the JTOs-II working in ARC. So far as re-employment in the cadre of JTO-I (Electrical) is concerned, it was mentioned in the said circular that Ex-IAF persons with Electrical Trade having 10 years experience on Air Force Aircraft and ground installation would be considered. The said circular obviously ran parallel to the viewpoint canvassed by respondent 1 and on the basis of which he had submitted that the earlier memo was defective. It is also not disputed that respondent 1 did apply pursuant to the second circular of 31/1/1989, but thereafter did not appear at the interviews which were held somewhere in february 1990 pursuant to the said second circular. In the meantime, he approached the tribunal. The tribunal after hearing the parties concerned took the view that when the basic requirement of the Rules for re- employment for the cadre of JTO-I (Electrical) was only 10 years experience and there was no further requirement of the applicant being entitled to hold the rank of JWO, the first memo dated 23/2/1988 was contrary to the Rules. The result was that respondent 1 was wrongly denied a chance to compete for being re-employed on the said post of JTO-I (Electrical ). This would have resulted then in voiding the appointments given to Respondents 2 to 5 pursuant to the said memo. However, their appointments were saved and were not quashed. The tribunal considering the equities of the case passed the impugned order and issued directions as under:

"however, we feel that quashing the selection at this late stage may do more harm than good. Therefore, in the interest of equity and justice, we direct that the respondents will consider the case of the applicant for 87 promotion to the post of JTO Grade-1 and if found suitable he would be given promotion from the date his juniors were promoted even by creating a supernumerary post, if necessary. The process of selection should be completed within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. "

( 2 ). It is this order of the tribunal which has been seriously brought in challenge by the Union of India and its officers in this appeal by special leave.

( 3 ). The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr Iyer, submitted that respondent 1 was not entitled to any relief for two obvious reasons. Firstly, he was already given a chance to be considered for re- employment pursuant to the second circular of January 1989. He did apply pursuant thereto, but did not think it fit to appear at the interview. Consequently, he cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold and to again contest on the basis that he was wrongly denied an opportunity to get re- employment pursuant to the earlier memo. Secondly, it w