JUDGMENT

Kurian Joseph, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Equality before law and equal protection of laws is the quintessence of Right to Equality, a Fundamental Right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Equals cannot be treated unequally, nay, they are to be treated equally. Right to such equality cannot be arbitrarily denied to the equals in the absence of a valid classification. Had the first Respondent borne in mind these elementary principles of one of the most sacred fundamental rights as indicated above, a long drawn three tier litigation of the Appellant employee could have been averted.

3. Andaman and Nicobar Administration (represented by its various officers, Respondent Nos. 2 to 5) has been requesting the first Respondent-Union of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs for encadrement of the post of Information Officer, Tourist Information Officer and Deputy Resident Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as IO, TIO and DRC, respectively) in the National Capital Territory of Delhi; Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli Civil Services (hereinafter referred to as DANICS). In Andaman and Nicobar Islands, there are three posts of DRC, two posts of TIO and two posts of IO. The Appellant belongs to the IO cadre. The Cadre Review Committee recommended encadrement only of three posts of DRCs and, accordingly, the Government vide notification dated 01.10.2009, encadred three posts of DRCs. The Appellant approached the Central Appellant Tribunal, which, by order dated 31.01.2012, held as follows:

13....The decision of Respondents not to include the post of Information Officer cannot therefore be sustained. The UOI is directed to reconsider the matter relating to their encadrement from the date of notification....

14.... The Respondents UOI are directed to reconsider the matter relating to non-inclusion of the post of Information Officer in the Schedule I. In case they are included they will be included w.e.f. the date of notification of revised Schedule I....

(Emphasis supplied)

4. The Appellant, finding that the directions are not sufficient enough to protect his interest, moved the High Court of Calcutta on the Appellate Side leading to the impugned order dated 14.03.2012. It was held by the High Court as follows:

...We are of the considered view that the Tribunal has sufficiently protected the interest of the Petitioner. The contention of Mr. Samanta that the Petitioner is an officer senior to the proforma Respondents and if the selection process for induction of the Deputy Resident Commissioners in DANICS is not stayed, he may have to work as junior to them, does not impress us, in view of the fact the Tribunal has directed that in the event the post of Information Officer is included in Schedule-I of DANICS, the same shall have effect from the date of notification of the revised Schedule-I dated 1st October, 2009. Importantly, while entertaining the original application the Tribunal had not stayed the selection process and directed that it would be subject to result of the original application.

Therefore, we find no justification to restrain the official Respondents from proceeding further with induction of the Deputy Resident Commissioners in DANICS in accordance with law, but make it clear that any action taken hereafter in this behalf shall abide by the decision to be taken in terms of the Tribunal's order.

We may, however, record that Mr. Das appearing for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted before this Court that the process of reconsideration as directed by the Tribunal would be completed within a period of three months. We hope and trust that the submission made before this Court shall be honoured in letter and spirit....

(Emphasis supplied)

5. Still not satisfied, the Appellant approached this Court.

6. On 11.09.2013, this Court passed the following Order:

At the time of hearing of this petition, the learned ASG appearing for Respondent No. 1-Union of India has submitted that the matter