S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) INTERPRETATION and/or application of circular letters issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 14. 5. 1990 is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 14. 10. 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition no. 25155 of 2003 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents herein from a judgment and order dated 10. 10. 2002 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in OA Nos. 728 of 2000 and 782 of 2000.

( 3 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Respondents herein were working in different States. They filed an application for their transfer to the State of `kerala Charge' from `gujarat charge' on or about 14. 5. 1990. Indisputably the Board has the requisite power to regulate `inter-charge' transfers wherefor it issues guidelines from time to time. One of such circulars was issued on 14. 5. 1990, the relevant portion whereof read as under:

" (d) A person who seeks transfer, should apply to the head of the department, chief commissioner director general under whom he is working, who will, on being satisfied, take up the matter with his head of the department in the charge to which the employee seeks transfer. The latter head of the department will examine the request on merits and pass necessary orders for absorption of the person seeking transfer. Such request shall be considered and conceded only against a clear vacancy. His decision in the matter shall be final. No request for re-transfer shall be entertained under any circumstances. (e) The direct recruits coming on transfers will be shown against direct recruitment quota and promotees against the promotion quota. "

( 4 ) ON the respondents' application for transfer, it was found that there did not exist any vacancy in the cadre of UDC in direct recruit quota in kerala Charge so as to enable it to accommodate the respondents on inter-charge transfer. However, indication was given to the respondents by the chief Commissioner of Income Tax that in case they were willing for transfer to the post of LDC, they may opt therefor. Respondents agreed thereto voluntarily to their reversion from the post of UDC to the post of ldc in order to get them transferred from Gujarat Charge to Kerala Charge. They filed a specific undertaking in this behalf. Relying on or on the basis thereof, the order of transfer was issued.

( 5 ) RESPONDENTS thereafter filed representations. The request made therein was not acceded to. They filed original applications before the central Administrative Tribunal. It may be placed on record that one of the employees, Sri Nair, had filed a similar representation which was allowed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Other employees who had been transferred made similar representations. Their representations having been rejected, Original Applications were filed which by reason of various judgments were allowed.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, the Tribunal so far as the case of the respondent is concerned, directed the respondent to consider his representation dated 8. 5. 1997. The said representation was rejected by an order dated 17. 1. 2000, holding that they had voluntarily agreed for reversion and, thus, there has been no vacancy in the `kerala Charge' to accommodate them.

( 7 ) CENTRAL Administrative Tribunal was approached again by the respondents which was marked as OA No. 728 of 2000 and 782 of 2000. By reason of a judgment and order dated 10. 10. 2002, the Tribunal dismissed the said application holding that the cases of other persons who had applied for relaxation and obtained the same were clearly different from the cases of the respondents who had accepted the condition of reversion and the orders passed only on the basis of their willingness expressed in that behalf. The Tribunal furthermore noted that despite the objections raised in the Original Applications, those persons who would be adversely affe