(Per Ramesh Ranganathan, J.)

Seeking to have the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 358 of 2005, on its being renumbered as O.A No. 1954 of 2005 dated 31-10-2005 before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, quashed, W.P. No. 25511 of 2005 is filed.

2. Sri N. Janardhan Rao and 25 others, (Applicants in O.A No. 330 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was renumbered as O.A. No. 1959 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi), have filed W.P. No. 26712 of 2005 questioning the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1959 .of 2005 and batch dated 31-10-2005 and the absorption process of ITS Group-A officers, as contemplated in proceedings dated 24-03-2005, as arbitrary and illegal.

3. Sri G. Parameswar Reddy, (General Manager, West, Hyderabad Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), has filed W.P. No. 12161 of 2006 before this Court to quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1954 of 2005 and batch and for a consequential direction to declare that the absorption process of ITS Group-A officers, as contemplated in proceedings dated 24-03-2005, is illegal and arbitrary.

4. Sri R.N. Jyothirlingam, Deputy General Manager (Billing) BSNL Telecom Bhavan, Hyderabad, along with 70 others, has filed W.P. No. 25531 of 2005 to quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1959 of 2005 dated 31-1 0-2005, and the circular letter dated 24-03-2005, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners herein were repatriated, to their parent Department of Telecommunications, vide order dated 18-10-2005. Aggrieved thereby, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and filed OA No. 858 of 2005 and the Tribunal, by order dated 24-10-2005, directed that the order dated 18-10-2005 be kept in abeyance and gave liberty to the respondents to approach the Principal Bench seeking transfer of the case. Even before the transfer application came up for hearing, the Principal Bench had passed final orders, in O.A. No. 1963 of 2005 and batch, on 31-1 0-2005. Consequent thereto, BSNL issued letter dated 11-11-2005 extending the date for submission of options upto 30-11-2005. On the ground that O.A. No. 858 of 2005 could not be disposed of, before the last date for submission of options on 30-11-2005, the petitioners herein have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

5. The Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.M.P. No. 32832 of 2005 in W.P. No. 25531 of 2005 dated 30-11-2005, granted interim suspension of the impugned proceedings dated 24-03-2005 read with the consolidated general terms and conditions circulated vide letter dated 04-10-2005 and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1959 of 2005 dated 31-10-2005. Contending that the interim order of this Court was an order in rem, and not in personem, and alleging violation of the said orders, the petitioners in W.P. No. 25531 of 2005 have filed C.C. No. 331 of 2006. The petitioners contend that O.A. No. 858 of 2005 filed by them, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, was transferred to the Principal Bench, New Delhi without even putting them on notice, that it was renumbered as O.A. No. 299 of 2006 and disposed of along with similar transfer applications on 28-02-2006, despite the fact that W.P. No. 25531 of 2005 was pending before this Court and that the Principal Bench at New Delhi had passed orders on 28-02-2006 disposing of all the transfer petitions reiterating their earlier orders in O.A No. 1963 of 2005 & batch dated 31-10-2005, with the further addition that those, amongst the applicants, who had not exercised their option so far, were allowed a further time often days, from 28-02-2006, to exercise their opt