(Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari by: (a) Calling for the record relating to and connected with order and judgment rendered in OA.No.6477 of 2004 dated 30-11-2004 and quash or set aside by holding the same as erroneous and unsustainable; (b) consequently, direct the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer based on the existing seniority list prevailing in the department, and pass such order.)

Common Order: (Ramesh Ranganathan, J.)

In these batch of writ petitions the orders of the Tribunal under challenge are those where O.As filed by the respondent-applicants were allowed at the admission stage without notice to the government or to the other respondents in the O.As. Aggrieved by these orders the State Government and other employees, who have sought leave to file writ petitions against the order of the Tribunal, have approached this Court.

While several contentions have been raised in these writ petitions, the main ground of challenge is to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to allow the O.A. at the stage of admission. Since examination, of the other contentions raised, would depend on a decision on this question, we considered it appropriate to decide this question first. Elaborate arguments were advanced in this regard by Sri K. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the respondent-applicants. Sri P. Balakrishnamurthy, Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, Sri M. Ratna Reddy, Sri Abinand Kumar Shavli and the learned Government Pleader for Services I, were heard on behalf of the petitioners.

Sri K. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-applicants, would submit that the question, as to whether the Tribunal could have allowed the O.A. at the stage of admission without notice to the parties, is a question of law and, since such questions of law are also required to be pleaded, and facts based on which they arise proved, in the absence of any such plea in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, this Court would not take upon itself the task of examining this contention. Learned Counsel places reliance on Bharat Singh Vs. State of Haryana (AIR 1998 SC 2181) and M/s Larsen and Toubro Ltd Vs. State of Gujarat 9AIR 1998 SC 1608) in this regard. Learned Counsel would refer to the plea taken by the Government in W.P. No. 13350 of 2005 that the petitioners were not heard. Learned Counsel would submit that the Tribunal, in its order, had specifically noted that the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Government Pleader were heard. Learned Counsel would submit that statements of facts as to what transpired during the hearing, as recorded in the judgment of the Tribunal, are conclusive of the facts so stated and that no one could contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. Learned Counsel would place reliance on State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak (AIR 1982 SC 1249), Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Mehta Opticians ((2001) 9 SCC 309) and Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M/s Bureau Veritas (2005 (2) Supreme 82) in this regard.

Learned Counsel would rely on Sonachalam Pillai Vs. Kumaravelu Chettiar (AIR 1928 Madras 77) to submit that there is a presumption that the mandatory provisions of procedural law, and the rules and legal formalities, are complied with by the Tribunal while disposing of the Original Application filed before it and, in the absence of a specific plea of such violations, if any, no interference is called for.

Learned Counsel would submit that, since the petitioners herein had neither filed any application before the Tribunal nor has any plea be taken in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions before this Court that they had not give