A concluded judgment of the court cannot be recalled and reconsidered afresh after a long period of time, even if it was based on an incorrect premise, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal, Patna bench, before whom the appellants had claimed seniority over Respondents 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the cadre of Statistical assistant under the Census Organisation. In the Census Organisation, the hierarchy of posts starts from Assistant Compiler and then Computer, statistical Assistant, Tabulation Officer and then Investigator. The appellants joined the organisation as Assistant Compilers in May-June 1970; whereas respondents 5, 6 and 7 were also appointed as Assistant Compilers on 2-6-1970 and Respondent 8 had been appointed on 22/7/1970. There were no recruitment rules then in force, and persons were promoted on ad hoc basis to the posts of Computers and then also to Statistical Assistants. The recruitment rules came into force in the year 1973. After the recruitment rules came into force, the government took the task of considering the cases of all ad hoc promotees in different ranks by constituting a Departmental promotion Committee, and on the basis of the recommendation of the said departmental Promotion Committee, regularised the services of different employees in different ranks. As a result of such steps taken by the government and as a result of the process of selection held by the departmental Promotion Committee, Respondents 7 and 8 were reverted from the post of Statistical Assistant to the post of Computer. It may be stated that in the gradation list which had been published prior to the rules coming into force as well as even after the rules coming into force, the appellants had been shown senior to the respondents. In the gradation list of statistical Assistants, which was published on 1/1/1986, only Appellant 1 had been shown and Respondents 5 to 8 had not been shown, though they had been recruited by that date. The reversion order of the second respondent as aforesaid was challenged before the tribunal, but the tribunal rejected their claim. The matter was then carried to this court in Civil appeal No. 3819 of 1989. By judgment dated 6/9/1989, this court came to the conclusion that since the two appellants before this court, who are respondents 7 and 8 in the present proceedings, had been promoted to the post of Statistical Assistants after going through a process of selection by a departmental Promotion Committee, then the question of reconsideration of their case by another Departmental Promotion Committee was not justified. In this view of the matter, the order of reversion was quashed and it was directed that those appellants shall be deemed to be continuing in service in the post of Statistical Assistants. In giving effect to the aforesaid judgment, the seniority list stood altered and these Respondents 7 and 8, who were the appellants in the earlier proceedings, were shown senior to Respondents 5 and 6. The said Respondents 5 and 6 approached the central Administrative tribunal claiming that since they were senior to Respondents 7 and 8 in the previous gradation list, they must also be held to be senior to them in the altered list and the tribunal allowed their applications. Needless to mention that neither in the earlier proceedings when Respondents 7 and 8 challenged the order of reversion nor in the subsequent proceedings before the tribunal, when Respondents 5 and 6 claimed seniority in the gradation list, the present appellants had not (sic) been arrayed as parties. Being aggrieved by the gradation list that was amended on 25/2/1991, the appellants approached the tribunal claiming, inter alia, that the respondents should not have been granted seniority over them and they not being parties to the earlier proceedings, the seniority list which stood valid from 1974 should not have been altered to their detriment and therefore appropriate direction be issued. The tribunal, however, being of the opinion that the seniority list stoodaltered because of the earlier decision of this court in Civil No. 3819 of 1989, d