Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

This batch of Writ Petitions is filed by the Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, and the unofficial respondents in the O.As, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), in allowing the O.As and in setting aside the action of the Railways in including candidates, belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, in the select panel for different posts, and in directing the Railways to finalise promotion/selection only after collecting necessary data in compliance with the pre-conditions laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 212).

The respondents herein, i.e., applicants in the O.As, are all employees of the Railways working in different cadres. They invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal aggrieved by the action of the Railways in promoting members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, who were juniors to them in service, on the basis of reservation. They contended before the Tribunal that such reservation was in violation of the law declared by the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj (supra); Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan ((2011) 1 SCC 467), and Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited v. Rajesh Kumar ((2012 (7) SCC 1). They sought a direction that the select list, which included candidates belonging to the reserved category, be set aside; the select list be revised by following seniority in the feeder category; and the applicants (other than those who belong to the reserved category) be promoted with all consequential benefits.

By its order in O.A.No.203 of 2013 and O.A.Nos.1417 and 1433 of 2012 dated 12.07.2013 (which is under challenge in W.P. No.39158 of 2013), the Tribunal held that post-2006 the question of reservation in promotion, and consequential benefits etc., would be governed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj (supra); the Supreme Court in Suraj Bhan Meena (supra) and in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited had followed the earlier judgment of the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj (supra); the Railways was not able to demonstrate that they had undertaken the exercise to collect quantifiable data as envisaged in M. Nagaraj (supra); the applicants had rightly urged that the Railways, if they had to continue with reservation in promotion with consequential benefits, had to collect quantifiable data, and satisfy the parameters laid down in M. Nagaraj and, if they had not done so, their action would be illegal; the Railways had merely stated, in their reply, that they were following the Railway Board’s Circulars and DOP&T instructions; the judgment of the Supreme Court, in M. Nagaraj (supra),was categorical; and, in the light of the said judgment, the O.As should be allowed.

In its order in O.A. No.125 of 2014 dated 15.01.2015 (which is under challenge in W.P.No.775 of 2015) the Tribunal rejected the preliminary objection of the petitioners herein that the O.A. was barred by limitation. After referring extensively to the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj, the Tribunal held that the applicants had contended that the Railway authorities did not comply with the directions of the Supreme Court, in M. Nagaraj (supra), for providing reservation in promotion; they had further contended that the Railways was bound to collect data to show that the reserved candidates were inadequately represented in the services, and they had overall administrative efficiency; no exercise had been carried out by the authorities to collect such data; the main objection raised by the applicants was that the authorities did not undertake any exercise before providing reservation in promotion; the mandatory exercise, stipulated by the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj (supra), required the State to collect quantifiable data showing (i) backwardness of the class, (ii) inadequacy of r